New BC Draft Legislation Outlaws Phone Books, Pet Store Advertisements, and Media Coverage of Fish Farm Disease Outbreaks
Update: More stupid sections of this legislation will be gone into on Monday, plus some appaling scientific illiteracy on the part of the minister, but in the meantime, check out Sister Sage’s Musings for a section of the law which bans various — and we both quote the law here — “things.”
Geek that I am, I may not be the best person to make this recommendation, but if you want to read something truly screwy, you could do worse than checking out BC’s Animal Health Act, currently at first reading in the provincial legislature. This new piece of legislation has two objectives: to control the spread of diseases on farms and fish farms, and to control the spread of information about those diseases.
Press coverage so far has been mixed. Somewhat missing the point (which I’ll get to in a second), the Times-Colonist worries that it authorizes the province’s chief veterinarian to release “unlimited personal information.” The Province is rightly more concerned that the proposed law would outlaw anyone, including journalists and ordinary members of the public, from merely discussing a real or alleged disease outbreak on a farm. When one of my readers first sent me this article and asked that I blog about it, I assumed the paper was engaging in some little exaggeration.
This bill is so presposterously Orwellian, so unbelievably over the top, that whoever wrote it must have been on crack. Let’s do another of my patented legislative summaries, shall we?
Of course if we’re going to talk about censoring information about animal disease, you’ll want to know what an animal is, and so the Act helpfully supplies a definition: “(a) a species of the animal kingdom, and (b) any organism prescribed as an animal.” Of course if there’s enough uncertainty that you actually need a definition, I don’t think “animal kingdom” is going to be any more helpful to you than just plain “animal.” But I am intrigued by the government’s claim that it can legally define, say, a daffodil or a banana to be an animal.
It also defines “person responsible,” just so you’re clear: anyone who has “control of,” or is the “operator” of an animal. Yeah, I’m not sure about that last one either. But more to the point, the law is written broadly enough that it covers everyone from the owner of a large ranch to a kid with an ant farm or a handful of captured caterpillars. Which will become relevant in a moment.
And then, after various discussions of what inspectors and owners can and can’t do, we get to Section 16, which is the focus of the criticism, and which does indeed state that “a person must refuse, despite the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, to disclose… information that would reveal that a notifiable or reportable disease is or may be present in a specific place.”
Interestingly, a “notifiable or reportable” disease is any disease the existence of which an animal owner is legally required to disclose to the government. So if you see evidence of an animal disease which must be reported to the government, you are explicitly banned from discussing it. With anyone else and, presumably, with the government.
That’s what’s got people excited, but most of the people who are excited can’t possibly have read the act, and those who first reported on it were obviously skimming looking for interesting information, because before they got to that offensive phrase they must have read the even better ban on disclosing any:
information that would identify the person responsible for an animal or an animal product… [or] information that would identify an animal or an animal product or byproduct that is located at or in a specific place.”
So yes, the new Animal Health Act would make it a crime for a journalist to report on the existence of an outbreak of a disease on a farm. But on the other hand, it would also make it illegal for you to say that your neighbour Jim owns a beagle named Sam, or some goldfish, or a compost bin full of earthworms.
When this bill is passed, I intend to publish a list of British Columbian pet stores on this blog. It may be the last legal advertising they’ll get for a while.
But it gets worse. A perceptive reader, or simply someone with a background in biology, will no doubt have picked up on something else: this law applies to any “member of the animal kingdom.” But… we belong to the animal kingdom! From now on apparently it will be illegal to announce the specific location (or owner) of any person. I guess that rules out distributing phone books, too.
You will have guessed by now that I don’t really think the government plans to ban phone books and pet store advertising. But they have written this law so broadly that it appears to do that. Either they’re being sloppy, or they’re deliberately creating an extremely broad rule that they can selectively enforce. Either way, it’s yet another thing to remember the next time British Columbians go to the ballot box.
Update: Interestingly, the definition of animal came up in the House on May 16th, where it was the subject of an asinine back-and-forth between an NDP critic who was concerned that fish weren’t included in the Act (because he said fish weren’t animals), and the minister, who defended his newly claimed power to define animals into existence on the grounds that at some point in the future a “cultured beneficial bacteria” might be discovered and the government wanted to be able to declare it to be an animal if they needed to.
No wonder this government has been so disastrous to the province’s school system. They apparently dropped out some time before their first biology class.
Tweet
Niles
Sounds like the legislation was written by those with little actual interest in biological education and/or those that don’t believe homo sapiens sapiens is an animal species related by dna to every other biological entity on the planet.
I await with ‘bated breath the whining about how pedantic critics of this bill are. After all we’re all supposed to know what they *meant*, not what they said.
Because unthinking, generalized wording is exactly what I want to see in law written by those claiming the power to arrest and punish citizens of this country.
PS: law like this is why ‘teach the godidit theory’ in science class is a theocratic joke.
kootcoot
So now it will be illegal to report a reportable disease? I simply cannot wrap my head around this.
However a similar situation exists in the fracking regions on the US. Doctors can require fracking companies to disclose the ingredients of their solution in order to treat a patient for the toxin they’ve been exposed to, but, they cannot tell anyone else, including the patient apparently what the hell is actually poisoning them……..proprietary ya know! Effing corporations have more rights than people and NO responsibility except to their shareholders, and when it comes to financial corps like JP Morgan, they don’t necessarily even owe them the truth.
Sixth Estate
The intended effect may be similar, but as written, the legislation is simply preposterous.
What’s interesting is that the animal definition clause came up for debate in the legislature a few days ago, and I’m not sure the Opposition noticed at the time that it applied to humans either.
timber
I’m confused.. and concerned .. and I don’t even live in British Columbia.. though I wish I still did.. This new legislation is distinctly about salmon.. right ?? You’re sure its not also about political animals ?
I hope common sense and a sensible proactive electorate prevails on this matter.. but I’m beginning to wonder if there is a disorder or syndrome affecting political animals and their ‘operators’ ..
Now, we all know there is a ‘product’ or ‘byproduct’ that political animals generate on a regular basis. It smells bad and does not shine up very well.. and even the animal itself, if you put lipstick on it.. its still .. a pig
We’re seeing the disorder in Ottawa and Alberta.. matter of fact its spread across the entire country.. so you should know, you’re not alone in dealing with serious outbreaks.
Sixth Estate
The new legislation applies to information regarding any member of the animal kingdom. Which would include fish. And humans.
But not, interestingly, something called “cultured beneficial bacteria,” which the relevant minister seems to think would fall under the definition if and when they are invented in the future. See my update.
kootcoot
Does this mean that if I feed some fresh meat to my dog, and he dies of poisoning, I can’t tell anyone the meat is bad or that I even used to have a dog? I hope it is still okay for me to choose to not eat any of the meat myself, as long as I don’t tell anyone why!
Sixth Estate
It’s only a problem if you think your dog suffered from a reportable disease or if he was exposed to an environmental toxin, which the Act defines — I kid you not — as “a chemical.” Yes, “a chemical.” Like oxygen, say. Or water. Does your pet drink water? Don’t tell me. I wouldn’t want to put you in an incriminating position.
P. D. Carswell
Good piece!
Everyone who lives in BC is aware that this bogus legislation is aimed at those (particularly one) who are trying to prevent the gigantic salmon farm corporations from spreading, or allowing to be spread, viruses which endanger wild salmon. These infamous farms, which should be in closed inland containers, have created damage to wild salmon runs all over the world, and BC is no exception.
Both the federal and provincial governments have interfered, stalled, muzzled, denied, and disrupted reports of proven risk to wild salmon.
Thank you for your excellent article.
Sixth Estate
You’re welcome.
The thing about targeting one person who already has a public profile is that it’s going to be a public relations catastrophe for the government. Not to say they’re not thinking about it, but it’s hard to imagine.
Picture them hauling a critic into court under a law this silly. They’d better hope it gets bounced by the judge real, real fast before the media figure out there’s a trial and the government ends up even more embarrassed.
P. D. Carswell
Agreed. I wonder, however, if being charged under this ludicrous bill would specifically prevent the critic from continuing with the activism that supposedly breaks the law. If so, the delay and costs involved in getting to court could be problematic, as it would effectively shut down the activist.
Sixth Estate
Well, that’s one possible outcome.
The other is that the resulting media circus at the courthouse becomes the new site for the activism. Which I kind of suspect would be more likely. If the government takes a public citizen to court for making verifiably factual statements, the government will lose. If the citizen in question is a well-known activist who works in an area of great public interest, then the government will lose spectacularly, in full view of the press. It will involve considerable stress and expense for whoever is charged, but it would also completely discredit the government with respect to the issue at hand.
P. D. Carswell
You realize, of course, that we are making a basic error: using rational discussion points in an irrational situation.
Holly Stick
And where are all the rightwing free speech warriors? Too many big words in the legislation?
JackBC
Here’s another day of silliness: http://www.leg.bc.ca/hansard/39th4th/D20517x.htm
Highlights (and I’ve only skimmed the discussion):
*Sather (the NDPer asking about fish) turns out to be a zoologist. I really hope he had a point about the fish, because that whole discussion looked ridiculous.
*McRae continues to broaden the definition of animal: “Things that live in the ocean, whether they are fry or they are newborn jellyfish, are members and species of the animal kingdom.”
*Viruses: are they animals? McRae says that they theoretically could be declared to be so.
*Defining “thing”.
Sixth Estate
Bizarre.
This raises an interesting quandary: is a reportable disease also an animal? Definitely possible, according to McRae. Not all things that live in the ocean are animals.
I’m very confused by Sather, now that you mention this. As a zoologist, he would know that the definition of “animal” as “animal kingdom” would include aquatic animals. He would also know that bacteria and viruses are not animals. It sounded like maybe he was trying to trap McRae on that rather obvious point, yet from the link you gave me, McRae wandered right into the trap, and then Sather let him go.
And of course we’re left with the rather obvious point that the definition of animal as it is in the bill includes people.
JackBC
Another bit of discussion: http://www.leg.bc.ca/hansard/39th4th/D20517y.htm
Here, section 16 is eventually discussed. McRae defends the terribly written part. Apparently those who read and interpret the law are somehow supposed to know that the word “person” in section 16 doesn’t actually refer to any person, but to a “person engaged in the administration of this Act”, as defined in section 17. Except nobody actually wrote that intention into the bill.
…yeah.
JackBC
Well, didn’t write it explicitly.
Sixth Estate
Yes, I saw that on the NDP agriculture critic’s blog.
The thing is, section 17 doesn’t define “person”; it specifically defines “person engaged…” as you quote it. So legally there is actually no implication, along the lines of what the minister is saying. At a stretch, one can read implication forwards into a law (aka if section 16 defines a “person engaged…” and section 17 just says “a person,” but the context is similar). Reading implication backwards is quite another matter. Foreshadowing is nice in literature, not so nice in law.
Popham, like Sather, completely misses the obvious problem with the definition of animal in the context of section 16, but she does point out on her blog that now that the minister is on record making the connection, it will be possible to make that defence in court: i.e. that if someone were charged under the gag rule, part of their defence would not just be freedom of speech but the argument that they interpreted these sections along the lines which the minister told them to interpret it, and, after all, it is the minister’s bill.
Popham’s blog here:
http://bcagcritic.blogspot.ca/2012/05/animal-health-act.html
All that said, it would be nice if the law actually means what it says. McRae is asking us to read into it things it doesn’t say but just as easily could. Since we’re just (according to him) talking about the clarity of the text, it would be easy enough to have a unanimous agreement to touch up the wording. The NDP are hardly going to call for division in SUPPORT of the current gag-rule-style wording. Yet McRae refused to do that.
There are those, and you can find them on this comments section (and may even include you), who will conclude from these antics that the government has a furtive intention here: they really are trying to pass a gag law. I don’t think that’s impossible. But on the other hand, the cartoonishly inept portions of the bill (defining animal to include human, and outlawing me telling my neighbour that my kid has a pet hamster) make me think that they just drew up the bill in haste and didn’t do a very good job of it.
sushi
I (snuffle) would like to confirm (belch) that I am an animal (disgusting sound).
I also believe that I am subject to the control of the state to the point that were I to speak a foreign language in an international airport I may be summarily put to death.
It would seem therefore that this bill effectively outlaws any discussion within the Legislature itself. In other words it appears to outlaw public discussion and debate and render any public discussion or debate subject to sanction. It therefore makes democratic governance illegal.
This bill also appears to be in conflict with the Criminal Code which makes it an offense for an individual suffering from AIDS to engage in sexual activity without informing the prospective partner of the risk they run.
I suspect this bill is clear evidence of the impact of Harper’s former advisors astute ability in drafting legislation.
Sixth Estate
Not quite, sushi. The new legislation only bans reporting that you have a disease which must be reported to a provincial veterinarian. If you have a disease that would be reported to a medical doctor, you can still talk about it.
Of course, in the event you have a veterinarian-reportable disease, a vet can order you to undergo various tests and procedures, and can even issue instructions regarding disposal of your body in the event it proves fatal.
kootcoot
“Does your pet drink water? Don’t tell me. I wouldn’t want to put you in an incriminating position.
SE, are you sayin’ I have a dog, or a pet? I may have to recommend charges on you!
Sixth Estate
You’re right. It’s probably best if you don’t mention that in a public forum.
disallowed
so let something see if something’s got this straight: Something is not allowed to say anything about something because something would be breaking the law. that is, something can say anything about anything anywhere as long as anything is not something, and any where is not somewhere . If this is wrong don’t nobody tell nobody nothing. Got it.
Sixth Estate
disallowed — You’re not under contract to draft legislation in BC by any chance, are you?
Kim
Thank you for sharing this rediculous piece of legislation. I am working on a blog on the same subject. I will include a link here, if I may?
Sixth Estate
By all means.
Kim
http://sistersagesmusings.ca/2012/05/27/bill-c-37-bc-animal-health-act/
The Sixth Estate » When Law Meets Scientific Illiteracy
[...] I said last week, BC’s new Animal Health Act is crystal clear — unusually clear, which is nice for [...]
gho
Seems like *any* news reporting would also be banned, as that generally identifies some person (animal) being in a specific place. just wow… :O
Sixth Estate
Yes, well, as it would pretty much ban any form of communication. You’re right.
The news now is that an amended form will be up for discussion when the legislature meets again. We’ll see.