South Australian laws aim to restrict what youre allowed to see #aggag #animalcruelty SECRETLY filmed footage of the mistreatment of animals in Indonesian abattoirs sparked national outrage in mid-2011 and pressured politicians to suspend live animal trading. The graphic vision showed Australian-reared sheep and cattle being abused and subjected to illegal slaughter methods. Without the covert footage, the issue may never have become the subject of such public debate. However, laws being proposed by the South Australian Government threaten to prevent this kind of information from being made public in future. The Government says the Surveillance Devices Bill is intended to bring SA laws in line with new technologies and give police greater ability to track criminals. However, it also imposes restrictions on recording by ordinary citizens without permission in a bid to increase privacy protections. The laws would make it illegal to broadcast or publish — in mainstream media or on websites like YouTube — any recordings, images, audio or data which was recorded covertly, unless it was deemed by a judge to be in the public interest. However, the recordings could be given to lawyers or police. The laws would not apply to public forums such as speeches, council meetings or Parliament or situations where recording was implied. Opposition to the legislation is building among lawyers, industrial advocates, animal rights groups, unions and the media, who say it is worded too broadly and will hamper press freedom. Debate on the Bill is expected to resume in Parliament on Thursday but it is understood Liberal and crossbench MPs won’t support it without significant changes. The Government argues the Bill puts checks and balances on the power of police to record criminals without their knowledge and so the same hurdle of court approval should apply to ordinary citizens. Senior police would be able to authorise on-the-spot emergency warrants to use surveillance devices to monitor criminals — such as phone taps or GPS trackers — without seeking permission from a court. However, the warrant would have to be confirmed with a court within two working days. Attorney-General John Rau says the same requirements should apply to the media. He says the laws would protect people’s privacy by stopping the ‘bugging” of private citizens without their knowledge. But opponents say the wording of the legislation captures too many scenarios. For example, under the proposed laws, if an animal rights group covertly filmed inside a chicken farm where birds were being mistreated and took that footage to the media, it could not immediately be published. Instead, the animal rights group or media outlet would first have to apply to a court and gain a ruling from a judge that it was in the public interest to publish the material. This process would delay reporting on time sensitive issues and impose costs which could prohibit advocates or media outlets from pursuing issues in the courts. The penalty for breaching the proposed laws would be $75,000 for corporations or $15,000 for individuals and up to three years’ jail. Other scenarios in which the new laws would require court approval before publication of covertly recorded footage include: UNSAFE work practices filmed by workers; THREATENING behaviour by ex-partners, bosses or authorities; DISPUTES or confrontations between parents involved in custody battles; NEGOTIATIONS between an insurance company and client over a disputed claim; IMPROPER conduct by authorities.
Posted on: Fri, 04 Jul 2014 10:37:58 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015