3. Follow all reasonable instructions from official Vegan Rising representatives.

4. Never make official statements on behalf of Vegan Rising to the media without advance permission from protest organisers.

5. If approached by members of the public you must engage in a respectful manner. Do not respond to aggressive behaviour or outbursts. If you are asked a question you do not know the answer to, please refer them to an official Vegan Rising representative.

6. If you ever feel in any way threatened or in danger you must inform an official Vegan Rising representative immediately.

7. You must refer police, security guards and/or potential industry officials/staff to communicate directly with official Vegan Rising representatives.

8. You will not discriminate against members of the public, industry officials/staff, or other Vegan Rising activists based on gender identity, sexual preference, race, appearance, or ability.

9. Refer all media to a Vegan Rising representative.

10. If you fail to abide by these guidelines or a direction by a Vegan Rising appointed representative, you may be asked to not take any further part in the demonstration.

On Friday July 1st 2022, The Livestock Management Amendment (Animal Activism) Bill came into effect. The bill, better known as Ag-Gag, was introduced by the Victorian Labor party, in an effort to silence and criminalise the brave, compassionate people who document and reveal the realities of animal use in Australia.

On the same day, Vegan Rising engaged in multiple actions across the state to prove that #LaborLies, that there is in fact no protection for farmed animals, and to make it clear that we will not be silenced by laws designed to protect those who profit from animal abuse by prosecuting those who fight for a kinder and more compassionate world. 

See the abuse these laws protect below in our recent investigations.

During the debate of the bill, Labor lied, saying that animals have adequate protection under the existing law and therefore don’t need activists to rescue them and expose their treatment. On the morning of the 1st of July, we visited four of the locations which feature in our video – places of horrific violence, suffering and exploitation that are industry standard across the entire state. We followed the advice given by the government during the debate which was to inform the RSPCA or Agriculture Victoria if we had knowledge of animal abuse.

Watch our livestream to see their response

The response was clear. Not only do these bodies not have the ability to investigate all cases of reported abuse, Agriculture Victoria admits that they rely on cruelty complaints given to them by concerned citizens and activists – the very activists who are being specifically targeted by the new laws. Agriculture Victoria also made it clear in their subsequent email response that the person who documents that abuse taking place must be named and provide a witness statement, otherwise the evidence cannot be used. Their words:

“Thank you for now providing us with the video footage that was associated with the complaint. To allow us to progress with this part of the investigation, we will require a witness statement from the appropriate individual(s) who observed the ducks depicted in the video footage so that we can confirm important details that are relevant to the investigation.Inspectors, appointed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 (POCTAA), have a range of powers relating to the investigation and enforcement of alleged cruelty to animals, however our effectiveness in conducting an investigation is reliant on the co-operation of all parties involved, including those who have provided video footage to our Department.”

So, to spell out the lunacy, Agriculture Victoria says they require witnesses to incriminate themselves under laws Agriculture Victoria’s own governing body, the Victorian Government, has introduced to ensure they receive extraordinary fines for doing so.

Additionally, as our actions that day also proved, when the video evidence is captured covertly, it can not be used as evidence anyway. The rabbit shed we visited that day is the perfect example.

Please watch the entire live stream here to see just how well we proved that farmed animals have no protection and that elected members of our parliament lied repeatedly during the Ag-Gag debate.

The RSPCA, who MP’s also claimed to be an authority that protects farmed animals from suffering, later admitted in an email (rather than admitting on the phone during the live stream) that they have no jurisdiction to investigate cruelty complaints regarding animal agriculture properties. Their words:“ These two reports have been referred to DJPR, as they investigate all matters of commercial livestock.” RSPCA Victoria

The RSPCA also failed to answer our question both during the live stream and three subsequent emails, in regards to one of the properties and whether they were under the organisations “approved” scheme, which we suspect they are. They still refuse to answer.

On the morning of July 1st, 2022, Vegan Rising took action that proved #LaborLies and that there is NO protection for farmed animals. Our live feed has been sent to every politician in the Victorian Government and to the authorities they falsely claim protect these animals.

Let us be clear, industries which use and kill animals for food and clothing are inherently cruel, there is no ‘better’ or ‘more humane’ way of confining, mutilating and killing another sentient being. Our actions on that morning were not to imply otherwise, They were to prove that the government lied and introduced these new laws to protect our morally bankrupt food and clothing system by specifically targeting animal rights activists who now face extraordinary fines for exposing what really goes on behind closed doors. But we will not be silenced.

#LaborLies 

Later in the day, we took our outrage to the steps of Parliament House, calling out the 121 out of 128 members of parliament who voted to single out animal rights activists and rescuers from the rest of society. Activists held the bodies of just some of the animals who were found dead within a system which cares only for the price they will fetch and nothing for their life or dignity. In the face of these repressive laws, we sent a strong message that we would not be silenced, occupying the intersection outside Parliament House to send a message to the politicians inside.

An excerpt from our speech:

“But it is these very actions – the rescues, the occupations, the documenting and the sharing of their stories and their suffering that has caused governments to fight back. They represent a system that protects industry over ethics, profits over kindness, power over justice. And for the first time in the history of the animal rights movement, of this country at least, we have challenged that. We built the foundations of an army that for the first time, turned the mainstream conversation from one of welfare, to, should we be using animals at all. Ag-Gag and anti-protest laws are the sign that it was working, that we were breaking through.

Repression only comes from a fear of change. A fear of losing power and control. And the stronger we get, the harder the push back will be. Our foundations were all but torn down by COVID, and its accompanying stresses that caused divides fed by intolerance and self-righteousness from all sides. Now its time to rebuild. With a stronger foundation that encourages and supports each other. That works together. That embraces diversity and encourages greater inclusion. That celebrates our wins, no matter how small, and learns from our losses. Let Ag-Gag be the beginnings of the fight that was always going to happen. That has to happen – before we can start to see the cracks showing into a world where all beings are respected and valued in their own right, for who they are, not what they can provide.”  

Vegan Rising – Victoria Parliament 1.7.22

Watch the full speech by Vegan Rising Spokesperson Kristin outside Parliament House here (to be published soon)

Those who voted against the bill warned of the dangerous slide towards repression it represented, with Greens member for Melbourne Ellen Sandell MP stating that the introduction of the bill could “be a step down a pretty slippery slope towards criminalising very specific forms of activism.” As well as reminding parliament that “in a democracy when we see something that we believe is cruel, that we believe is clearly and obviously wrong, that is hurting people or animals, we actually do have the right to protest and to campaign for change. It is only dictators and authoritarian regimes that try and squash that right.”

Despite these words and those of others, including Animal Justice Party representative Andy Meddick MP, the bill was passed and animal activists are now facing some of the harshest fines in the country for rescuing animals from suffering and exposing the brutal realities of their lives and deaths.. If that’s not enough, during the debate Labor politicians blatantly lied in parliament by stating there are agencies out there who protect these animals from suffering.

During the debate, senator Andy Meddick raised concerns that the new laws would prevent members of the public or organisations responding to animal suffering. In response, Labor MP Gayle Tierney (now Minister for Agriculture) stated that VicPol, Agriculture Victoria and the RSPCA should be contacted rather than concerned individuals taking action. “Inspectors, including Agriculture Victoria inspectors, Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty Animals inspectors and Victoria Police (are permitted), to enter premises to secure the welfare of animals in certain situations, and powers under this section are not affected by this bill.” 

We ask how she can hold this view, despite Agriculture Victoria themselves informing us over the phone that they rely on footage and reports from investigators and concerned citizens in order to respond to violations of animal welfare laws which, in any case, are deeply inadequate and inherently violent. 

Most often the conditions exposed by investigators are standard, industry practice, not cases of abnormal cruelty. Industries that profit off of animal’s bodies seek to hide the reality of what happens to animals in Australia because they know that the vast majority of people would be opposed to it. Without the work of these brave, tireless people who this new ag gag bill would paint as criminals, the public would have no idea what happens to animals inside ‘farms’ and slaughterhouses. 

The Truth Will Never Be Silenced

Vegan Rising is a growing movement of people who are fighting for a better, kinder and more just world. Together we stand with all the animals confined and exploited in our food and clothing systems. They need us to resist this unjust law as well as all the others that seek to stand in the way of the fight for a better world.

WHAT YOU CAN DO

1. End your support of this horrendous industry by embracing vegan living

2. Share this page

3. Vote for minor parties and independents who demonstrate logic and compassion. Not those who punish the only people willing to expose the truth.

4. Support a National Independent Office of Animal Welfare – such calls are nowhere near enough – animal agriculture must be abolished. But so long as it persists, the most egregious cruelty perpetrated must be stamped out wherever possible. This will never happen so long as the agencies beholden to animal exploiters remain responsible for animal welfare – a ludicrous conflict of interest. Sign here.

Read our summary of the Ag-Gag debate here.

Special mention and thanks must be given to the few MP’s who not only voted against Ag-Gag, but who rose to speak out against it. Andy Meddick MP called the Bill out for all its hypocrisy and flaws. He raised the little to no biosecurity standards existing on farms, the legislation being nothing but a means to hide the systemic cruelty we inflict upon animals under the guise of unfounded biosecurity concerns, our mistreatment of animals being the cause of zoonotic diseases leading to pandemics, the non-existence of animal protection laws, how poorly this country ranks in animal welfare on the international scale, the risks activists take – peacefully and covertly due to there being no other option, and much more.

A snippet:

“I would think most Victorians—and I would hope most of my colleagues in this and the other place—would concur with Justice Michael Kirby when he said that any law that:… seeks to stamp out awareness of great wrongs about animal cruelty, not by addressing those wrongs, but by preventing their exposure … is not a rational or just way to deal with the seriously wrongful conduct that has been exposed.

The title of this ag gag bill clearly demonstrates who it intends to prosecute—not those who are cruel to animals but those who seek to inform the public of what goes on in cages and sheds and those who seek to rescue animals from pain and suffering. Former Justice Michael Kirby further warned that: Good reason needs to be shown, amounting to the inadequacy and ineffectiveness of general criminal laws before special laws are enacted that single out particular individuals or groups for criminal punishment … no such good reasons have been demonstrated in the present case.

Justice Kirby further submitted that: The starting point for … the reduction for the need for illegal trespass and covert filming of highly disturbing conduct— to animals— … is an immediate improvement with … laws on animal welfare …

Yet this bill brings on-the-spot fines and increased penalties when members of the public respond, out of mercy, to animals who are profoundly mistreated. Make no mistake, this is a bill fully intended to deliberately hide systemic animal abuse in agricultural settings by prosecuting those who expose it. It masquerades as a biosecurity measure, when on-farm biosecurity is low to non-existent. If biosecurity was the genuine concern, where is the clause in this bill that makes boot washers at every gate mandatory? Where is the clause that makes truck-wash installations at every farm mandatory? Every truck that enters a farm has usually been in an uncountable number of places and situations, ensuring that contaminants are carried in on truck tyres and bodies, moving from farm to farm to farm with no semblance of concern. Yet the small number of people planting cameras exposing cruelty are the risk?”

Samantha Ratnam – Leader of the Victorian Greens also rose to speak against the Bill and among other concerns stated:

“Obviously biosecurity is extremely important and must be taken incredibly seriously, but this bill is not actually about biosecurity; it is about singling out one particular group of activists for special penalties. Progressive change in Australia often comes from years of work from campaigners, who risk their own safety or security, and on occasion break the law to expose some truly immoral and unacceptable behaviour, whether it is communities coming together to protect our coast from gas drilling, residents protesting the destruction and sale of their public homes, volunteers who enter wetlands to rescue injured birds, workers leaking footage from live exports or whistleblowers revealing the truth of puppy farms. I am really proud to represent a party that supports our activists and has its own roots in protest. They are not the enemy, but this bill tries to paint them as one”.

Aside from the Greens and AJP, there were only ridiculous, insulting, unfounded, sensationalist and plain inaccurate statements made during the debate from the many other MP’s who spoke in support of the Bill. Too many to list. But possibly the most frustrating came from Labor’s Gayle Tierney in response to Mr Meddick’s proposed amendment that would exempt people from prosecution and fines if they were acting to save an animal from suffering, to which Ms Tierney stated:

“Mr Meddick has proposed an amendment to allow an exemption from the requirements of a biosecurity plan for any person concerned about animal welfare. The amendment is not required to protect animal welfare. An exemption is already provided in the bill for appropriate authorities to enter a premises pursuant to the powers conferred by other acts, including those authorised under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986. For example, section 23 of the act already permits inspectors, including Agriculture Victoria inspectors, Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty Animals inspectors and Victoria Police, to enter premises to secure the welfare of animals in certain situations, and powers under this section are not affected by this bill.”

Be it blatant lies or delusion on the part of Ms Tierney, such a statement is ludicrous. Anyone who knows anything about animal agriculture knows, as Andy himself pointed out, that those agencies do not and cannot act in almost all circumstances of animal abuse as the cruelty is entirely legal. Such statements reinforce the idea that there is some imaginary government funded army out there protecting animals from the systemic horrors that play out on every animal ag property, everywhere. The public loves to buy into such nonsense as it helps them sleep at night as they continue to make morally bankrupt consumer choices.

But perhaps the greatest elephant in the room (or lack thereof), was Labor MP Sonja Terpstra. Ms Terpstra was extremely critical of the initial Inquiry and its recommendations – so much so that she produced an extensive minority report highlighting her many concerns. Most importantly she made the point that the Inquiry had found that animal activists have never caused and do not pose a biosecurity threat and that any steps taken to punish whistleblowers were unnecessary. Months later, when her own party went above and beyond the recommendations, to punish activists even further than that which even the Inquiry recommended, Ms Terpstra did not make a peep and was nowhere to be seen. Vegan Rising reached out to her via email and phone several times but we were ignored.

This is a clear example of career politicians putting self-interest and loyalty to their party (and perhaps their pay check) before what they know is fair and just. It is also an example of how politics operates in this country – where toeing the party line triumphs over any kind of in parliament debate, or exercising of judgement. Dissent is simply not allowed, irrelevant of how strongly an elected member may feel on an issue.

In the words of Editor for The Conversation Misha Ketchell: “Hirst pointed out the demands for such a public display of unity may ironically give such MPs greater power inside the party itself; that they are able to demand a price for the public performance of conformity. This kind of bargain might well be satisfactory to many MPs. But we should not confuse it with the more vigorous and deliberative democracy that a weaker party discipline and more open debate would bring in their wake.”

The full debate, proposed amendments to the Bill and votes commences here and is continued here.

For Ms Terpstra’s full minority report scroll to pdf page 197

How the lower house voted and comments to that here.

The Bill was supported by every single member of the lower house, except all three Greens members. That included all Labor, all Liberal and all Nationals members, along with all three lower house independents. Whilst the Labor Minister for Agriculture Mary-Anne Thomas MP went against the findings of her own party’s Inquiry as she introduced the Bill – lying to justify the amendments, Greens member for Melbourne Ellen Sandell MP rose to speak against the discriminatory legislation. These are just some excerpts taken from the many important points she raised.

“It is a bill that is supposedly about biosecurity, but when you actually look at the detail, really using that term biosecurity is just a bit of a smokescreen for the government to introduce new laws to crack down on animal activists who are trying to put a spotlight on the horrible way that we often do treat the animals that we kill and eat.”

“It is a bit disappointing that we see those three parties, Labor, Liberal and The Nationals, in lockstep on this and supporting big industry and big business over animal welfare, but that is where we are at.”

“I think also one of the concerns that we have is that it could be a step down a pretty slippery slope towards criminalising very specific forms of activism. So if we say that it is okay to single out animal activists for a new offence, who is to say that we will not then later say it is okay to single out other activist groups for very specific and additional punishment?”

“At the end of the day it is important to remember that activists are just community members who are concerned enough to go and take action, at personal risk, when they see something that they believe is gravely wrong.”

“That is how change has been made throughout history, and a lot of us in this place stand up and commend a lot of the change that has been made in history because of activists. Let us not lose sight of that.”

“It is not really surprising, unfortunately, to me that the government has introduced these new penalties. I know that a law and order approach is often the first go-to of this government where it can, but having the heaviest fines in the nation targeting activists, targeting whistleblowers, targeting community members for standing up for what they believe is right—I do not personally think that is something that Victoria should be proud of or that this Labor government should be proud of. In a democracy when we see something that we believe is cruel, that we believe is clearly and obviously wrong, that is hurting people or animals, we actually do have the right to protest and to campaign for change. It is only dictators and authoritarian regimes that try and squash that right.”

Whilst we do not support all of what is said in Ms Sandell’s full speech (available here) and we remain perplexed and disillusioned as to how the Greens can support animal agriculture of any form, we most certainly must give credit where it is due and are thankful to have these members in Parliament who not only voted for what is right, but spoke out against the authoritarian state both sides of parliament across the country are bringing to pass right before our eyes.

On February 10 2022, after much horrid lies and rhetoric was spouted by other MP’s in the chamber, 85 lower house MP’s stood behind animal abusers and voted to severely penalise those who expose them. Each and every one of them has the terrified screams of every pig trapped in the barren darkness, the excruciating pain of every chicken who tries to take a step, the cries of every mother who has her baby stolen and the blood of every single innocent animal who is forced along the slaughter line, fighting for every last breath and pleading for mercy, on their hands. Sadly it appears it will not be on their conscience as they clearly do not have one. We need a drastic and urgent shift away from the types of people who make up the majority of those who hold power at all levels of government. The status quo is a growing disaster for us all – humans, other animals and our shared planet.

Our summary on the upper house debate available here.

On 2 April, 2022, peaceful but determined Vegan Rising activists occupied the arena at the Bendigo Rodeo, bringing the brutal display of animal abuse to a crashing halt.

Wearing Say No To Rodeo t-shirts and carrying red smoke to resemble the blood and violence perpetrated against these innocent animals, the activists sat in a circle in the centre of the arena and chained together as the show commenced.

They are calling on all state governments to make rodeos illegal. They are also calling on the public to boycott this brutal form of entertainment that supports cruelty and violence towards innocent animals and to embrace the abundance of kind and creative activities available to them.

Quotes attributable to the Vegan Rising ‘Say No To Rodeo’ activists.

“The rodeo is one of the most blatant forms of animal abuse that exists in this country today.”

“These animals are tormented, terrified and physically abused by brutal cowards whilst the crowd cheers it on.”

“Flank straps are tied tight around the animals’ sensitive underbelly. The addition of an unwanted rider on their back, often wearing spurs, forces them to buck violently out of sheer terror and pain. Horses and bulls are flight animals so a tight strap around their body resembles an attack from which they will do all they can to escape whilst experiencing absolute panic and fear.”

“Scared young steers run, pursued by a rider on horseback, before being lassoed. In Queensland, calves are captured, thrown to the ground, then bound, unable to move. Cattle prods are used to shock the bulls whilst they are trapped in the chute, their tails twisted and bent, so they emerge stressed and irritated. It is a horrific experience for the animals and a sick form of entertainment for those who derive pleasure from watching such callous abuse.”

“The message these events send to children encourages another generation to engage in brutality and cruelty to animals. We should be teaching children to protect and respect the vulnerable, not harm and exploit them.”

“It is an absolutely vile form of entertainment that must be banned by all state governments. Regional councils also need to do their part by promoting kind forms of entertainment and working to find ways to prevent such brutal displays of violence occurring in their towns”. 

“People must stop supporting acts of violence against animals and start supporting the limitless cruelty free forms of entertainment that exist. Bendigo is a creative and vibrant regional hub. It can do so much better than this, as can all of our regional towns.”

To read more on rodeos click here.

I write to provide you with evidence as to why you must vote against Labor’s amendments to the Livestock Management Bill and also to draw your attention to a petition calling on you to vote against the Bill on the grounds that the amendments are unjust, discriminatory, and go against the actual findings of the government’s own Inquiry into the ‘Impact of Animal Rights Activism on Victorian agriculture’.

Whilst the proposed on-the-spot fines under the guise of unfounded biosecurity risks are already extraordinary, the amendments go well beyond even the Inquiry’s own recommendations, as explained below. 

The petition here, signed by almost 3,700 people and counting, explains the many reasons why this legislation is entirely unjustified and is being driven by politics over evidence, science and reason. 

A few brief examples from the Inquiry:

“Superintendent Greaney advised the Committee that in his view current legislation in this area is adequate” Chapter 4 – Inquiry into the impact of animal rights activism on Victorian agriculture.

“Agriculture Victoria is not aware of a biosecurity incident directly linked to activities by activists, so we do not have data around that. What I would say is it is potentially a risk” Mr Michael Rosier, Acting Executive Director, Biosecurity and Agriculture Services.

Even a member from their own party, Sonja Terpstra, who formed part of the Inquiry’s Committee stated, in response to Finding 5 ‘animal rights activists who trespass onto agricultural facilities pose a biosecurity risk:
“Disagree. There is no evidence to support this conclusion.”

She also made the following important points in her Minority Report to the Committee findings:
“There is no justification for the introduction of a $1,000 on the spot fine for animal activists for biosecurity breaches as there is no evidence that shows activists have been responsible for spreading diseases or contributed to outbreaks of disease.”

When considering the above comment by Ms Terpstra it is important to note that not only has the Labor government ignored this finding by a member of their own party who was appointed to the Inquiry’s Committee, they have gone above and beyond the recommendation of on-the-spot fines. Amendments to the Livestock Management Bill, if passed by the upper house, will result in activists facing penalties of up to $10,904 each or $54,522 for organisations. When considering those numbers, keep in mind the Inquiry found that the average fine for an animal cruelty prosecution (which is as rare as hens’ teeth, particularly in agriculture) is $1400.

Further important points made by Sonja Terpstra:

In response to Finding 6, that Acts of trespass on agricultural facilities by animal rights activists are a risk to the health and safety of farmers, agricultural employees, livestock, emergency services, the public and activists themselves, the Labor MP stated:

“Risk posed by animal activists trespassing:
• health and safety of farmers – no direct evidence of this;
• agricultural employees – no direct evidence of this;
• livestock, • emergency services – no direct evidence of this,
• the public – no direct evidence of this;
• activists themselves – no direct evidence of this.
Disagree with finding as no evidence was provided about this citing examples where health and safety breaches were recorded or logged with WorkSafe Victoria.”

And finally, her comments in relation to statistical evidence provided by Agriculture Victoria on animal activists and any unauthorised activity:
“By any standard, the incidence of and likelihood of unauthorised farm entry due to activist activity is very low. Also, instances of protest and trespass related to activism over a 12-month period recorded 11 incidents with no reports of violence or damage to property. Additionally at page 7 of their report, Ag Vic state that there are 21,000 farms in Victoria. The statistical likelihood of unauthorised farm entry or targeting is statistically lower that the risk of a house in a suburban built up area being burgled.”

“Given the low incidence of offences recorded by authorities, there is no evidence that would justify an increase in fines, penalties or sentences in the areas of trespass, theft or biosecurity as they are adequate.”

We’d also like to draw your attention back to the original public submissions to the Inquiry where the majority were against any increased fines for activists and where no evidence of increased biosecurity or health and safety risks could be found.
Our summary:

“Upon examining the 489 submissions, we found that approximately 64% of them were in support of activist rights to expose animal abuse and against increased legislation while 31% were anti-animal activism and expressed their support for tougher legislation targeting individuals who enter farms and slaughterhouses with the intention to document or impede their operation. A further 2% were undecided on their position while 3% were confidential submissions. Interestingly, of the approximately 152 submissions which were in favour of tougher penalties for activists, 73% of these could be identified as having a strong association with the animal agriculture industry, leaving only around 27% of these type of submissions who don’t have an obvious financial motivation for being in favour of limited transparency and public accountability, a worrying statistic when you consider just how many lives are at stake. While there were a number of individuals who identified as animal farmers and were not in favour of tougher restriction of activists, it’s significant to note that of the animal agriculture businesses and industries represented in the submissions as being in favour of increased repression, many of them had facilities that had been investigated and exposed by Aussie Farms for their shocking treatment of animals. Three such facilities are Luv-a-Duk poultry, Diamond Valley Pork and Rivalea.”

And later:

“It’s interesting to note that, while many of the submissions which were in favour of tougher laws cited the safety of farmers as a primary concern, none of the submissions that we read could provide an actual instance of where the well-being of farmers or their families had been put at risk by the actions of activists. This is indicative of a pervading narrative which positions farmers as the innocent victims of ‘attacks’ by animal activists, a story that does not hold up to scrutiny. In fact, the submissions show not one reported case of an activist displaying violence, a finding which raises questions as to the very motivations of the inquiry. If the safety of farmers is demonstrably not at risk, what else but greed for increased profit would motivate tougher penalties for activists and whistleblowers?

For our full review of the submissions click here. To read Vegan Rising’s submission to the Inquiry covering what is really driving these amendments click here. 

When considering all of the above, one must ask – what is the point of having an Inquiry at all, when it’s true findings are to be ignored?

Finally, using unfounded biosecurity risks posed by activists to impose extraordinary fines entirely fails to address the actual leading cause of new and emerging infectious diseases and ironically, is working to protect that very cause. The Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation and countless infectious disease experts across the globe have made it abundantly clear that it is our exploitation of animals for food and fibre that is driving infectious diseases. Through farming animals, the wildlife trade and land clearing (predominantly driven by animal agriculture), we bring ourselves into close contact with animals and create a breeding ground for the mutation and spread of disease.

“70% (approx. 2 in 3) of the new diseases that have emerged in humans over recent decades are of animal origin and, in part, directly related to the human quest for more animal-sourced food.” UNFAO

“Zoonotic diseases are very common, both in the United States and around the world. Scientists estimate that more than 6 out of every 10 known infectious diseases in people can be spread from animals, and 3 out of every 4 new or emerging infectious diseases in people come from animals.” Centres for Disease Control and Prevention

More on the leading cause of infectious disease here.

One would think that especially when we are still in the midst of the world-changing COVID-19 pandemic and when we’ve just seen the outbreak of Japanese Encephalitis Virus (JEV) from pig farms in this state, that our government would be focused on addressing the leading cause of infectious diseases, not protecting it and punishing those who expose its disastrous reality. 

A 2019 study titled ‘How Central Is the Domestic Pig in the Epidemiological Cycle of Japanese Encephalitis Virus? A Review of Scientific Evidence and Implications for Disease Control’ stated:   

“In peri-urban areas, people do not traditionally rear large numbers of pigs or domestic birds. However, increasing urbanization is likely to increase pig numbers on farms, as well as the numbers of farms close to urban areas, thus bringing human and pig JEV-susceptible populations into close proximity with each other. Thus, there is a need to improve our knowledge of the JEV transmission cycle that may not be as simple as we think it is.”

The full study is available here. 

To direct biosecurity concerns at animal rights activists when the scientific evidence proves it is our trade in animals that poses the real threat is indeed a tragedy beyond comprehension. 

P​lease act in response to Inquiry’s actual findings and vote against these flawed, unjust and discriminatory amendments. 

Regards,
Vegan Rising

Upon examining the 489 submissions, we found that approximately 64% of them were in support of activist rights to expose animal abuse and against increased legislation while 31% were anti-animal activism and expressed their support for tougher legislation targeting individuals who enter farms and slaughterhouses with the intention to document or impede their operation. A further 2% were undecided on their position while 3% were confidential submissions. 

Interestingly, of the approximately 152 submissions which were in favour of tougher penalties for activists, 73% of these could be identified as having a strong association with the animal agriculture industry, leaving only around 27% of these type of submissions who don’t have an obvious financial motivation for being in favour of limited transparency and public accountability, a worrying statistic when you consider just how many lives are at stake. 

While there were a number of individuals who identified as animal farmers and were not in favour of tougher restriction of activists, it’s significant to note that of the animal agriculture businesses and industries represented in the submissions as being in favour of increased repression, many of them had facilities that had been investigated and exposed by Aussie Farms for their shocking treatment of animals. Three such facilities are Luv-a-Duk poultry,  Diamond Valley Pork and Rivalea

For our full review click here.
Also of note from the Inquiry was the following comments from Labor MP Sonja Terpstra in relation to statistical evidence provided by Agriculture Victoria on animal activists and any unauthorised activity.

“By any standard, the incidence of and likelihood of unauthorised farm entry due to activist activity is very low. Also, instances of protest and trespass related to activism over a 12 month period recorded 11 incidents with no reports of violence or damage to property. Additionally at page 7 of their report, Ag Vic state that there are 21,000 farms in Victoria. The statistical likelihood of unauthorised farm entry or targeting is statistically lower that the risk of a house in a suburban built up area being burgled.”

and later:

“Given the low incidence of offences recorded by authorities, there is no evidence that would justify an increase in fines, penalties or sentences in the areas of trespass, theft or biosecurity as they are adequate.”

Finally, section 6 of Ms Terpstra’s minority report ‘Things left unexplored’ stated:

“In my view, there were issues or themes not dealt with at all or superficially which could have also informed the deliberations of the committee. Some of these limitations arise from the narrowness of
the terms of reference for the inquiry.
There was a lack of:
• Direct evidence provided by employees who work on farms about health and safety concerns that they may have experienced as a result of unauthorised entry on farms by activist;
• Ability to receive information and/or exploration of how farmers could potentially use science, technology and innovation to reduce unnecessary production of animals to produce food;
• Information as to whether employees who work in slaughter houses are trained and could benefit by receiving proper, adequate and appropriate training in correct methods for animal slaughter/butchery;
• Consideration around mental health support for farmers and abattoir workers. As an industry, abattoir workers have high rates of PTSD, PITS and other associated disorders and behaviours arising from having to kill animals;
• Evidence about whether any losses incurred by unauthorized entry onto farms by activists were or could be covered by insurance.
In my view this presented a lost opportunity for the committee to explore these themes further“

Ms Terpstra’s full Minority Report can be viewed from page 197 of the Committee report

These arbitrary fines have clearly been driven by politics over evidence, science and reason. Any chance of a safe, liveable and kind future is only possible if both major parties lose their stronghold.

Related documents:
Our submission to the Inquiry
Our summary on the overall submissions
Committee’s Report inc. findings and recommendations .
Government response to the Report
Mary-Anne Thomas’ reading and Bill amendments
Sign the petition to stop Ag-Gag in Victoria here.

The H5N1 virus is highly contagious among birds and kills over 50% of the humans it infects. Thankfully. the current strains are not highly contagious among humans however diseases continually mutate so bird flu remains one of the greatest concerns for infectious disease experts with Wales Online reporting “The WHO fears that although transmission is rare, in cases where it has happened it increases the chances of the virus mutating into a form that can be passed from one infected human to another, and consequently leading to a flu pandemic.”

European health officials are warning people to not touch sick or dead birds, meanwhile all authorities support business as usual with 2.7 million dead chickens and 30 million eggs being consumed daily in the UK alone! Other UK health advice includes washing hands thoroughly before and after handling raw poultry, using different utensils for raw and cooked birds and cooking dead birds and eggs thoroughly before eating them, among other band-aid recommendations 🙄  We are unaware of any official advice incorporating the encouragement of plant-based eating – the absolute least they need to be doing.

Whilst strains of bird flu viruses are passed to and from migrating birds, it is our subjugation and farming of animals that poses the greatest risk, providing the perfect environment for mutation and spread. Climate change has also been raised as a potential factor in the increase of bird flu strains and outbreaks across Europe – ironically also caused predominantly by animal agriculture.

H5N1 was first discovered in farmed geese in China in 1996 and the first outbreak resulting in human deaths occurred in a poultry farm and live animal market in Hong Kong in 1997.

It really is difficult to read these stories and not think of the words of Leonardo De Vinci “I awoke only to find that the rest of the world was still asleep.”

Recently passed pandemic legislation in Victoria has given power to authorities to kill people’s animal friends with no requirement for proof that disease is even present.

Our hearts go out to Mr Gosling and his duck friends.

Related articles
The Guardian
Live Science
Daily Mail –
The Guardian –

On 11 February 2021, VEGAN RISING activists occupied the carcass hall and the roof of the Queen Vic Market, calling it a future pandemic site and demanding the iconic location do what is urgent for humans, other animals and the planet and transition to a world leading, innovative, plant-based mecca.

Sign our petition to help make this a reality here.

70% of emerging infectious diseases come from our exploitation of other animals. Experts are warning there is much worse than COVID-19 to come if we do not drastically change our relationship with other animals and our shared planet.

34 Vegan Rising activists lined the aisles of the iconic market, each wearing a t-shirt that represents one of the many afflictions caused or predominantly caused by our use and abuse of other animals – from COVID-19, to Bird Flu, Swine Flu, SARS, HIV/AIDS, Heart Disease, Certain Cancers, Antibiotic Resistance, Climate Change, Soil, Forest and Ocean Destruction, Water Shortages, Violence, Suffering and many more.

One human body hung in the aisle as human meat among the carcasses and two other activists have occupied the roof, dropping banners calling the location a future pandemic site.

Our aim is to draw the public’s attention to the reality of what their daily indoctrinated habits have created whilst also providing a list of demands for local, state and federal governments – available here

 We are literally at crisis point. From devastating bush fires across Australia, we went straight into a global pandemic with both predicted to repeat again and again. How many more warning signs do people need for our government to take action and individuals to change their ways?

Humans encroaching further into land that has been historically reserved for free-living animals is bringing us into close contact with animals who can carry, but be unaffected by, these viruses. This is being driven by mining, logging, human population growth and most predominantly by animal agriculture which currently uses well over half of Australia’s land and 45% of land globally. Then, ironically, it is animal agriculture that acts as the diabolical petri dish for the next killer pandemic. Learn more here

Now, to really fly in the face of decency and logic, the Victorian state Labor government has just provided permits to kill almost 100,000 kangaroos, encouraging their consumption by humans, when so-called ‘bush-meat’ has caused previous pandemics and the one we currently find ourselves in.

But the problem is so much greater than all this. The overarching commonality is the way we see other animals and our planet as mere tools at our disposal is at the very root of all the major challenges we face.

The human condition that allows us to falsely convince ourselves we are somehow separate and superior to other animals and our shared planet is both entirely self-destructive and morally bankrupt.

Enormous benefits will come once we acknowledge our human superiority complex and learn to live in a way that respects and protects all life. Veganism is an essential part of that.

We want to see Melbourne’s iconic Queen Victoria Market and all other market places around the world, do what must urgently be done and transition to a world leading, innovative, delicious, violence free, plant-based mecca.

Sign our petition here

Download the below leaflet that expresses our vision for the Queen Victoria Market and encourages people to sign our petion. Print ready – A5 double sided available here.

Download the below informative leaflet on the leading cause of pandemics and take it to the streets. Print ready – A5 double sided available here.