HARRISBURG, Pa.
State Senator Mike Brubaker, who represents Pennsylvania's 36th district, wants to crack down on people who secretly videotape farms.
State Senator Mike Brubaker, who represents Pennsylvania's 36th district, wants to crack down on people who secretly videotape farms.
Animal rights activists call it the "Ag-Gag" bill. They say the real goal of this legislation is to silence whistleblowers.
12 comments:
How much money does he get from agribusiness?
Look here:
http://votesmart.org/candidate/campaign-finance/60209/michael-brubaker#.UYHBp0ow0Xc
Columbia donor: NIKOLAUS, DONALD H $900.00
Very interesting site. Thanks!
Looks like Senator Mike is squarely in the category of "Best Politician Money Can Buy."
Your title is all wrong. There is a big difference between siliencing whistle blowers and stopping people from tresspassing on someone's property to video tape things. People can't have it both ways. In town they complain about the security cameras on poles but its okay to tape others. right? in other words do it to others but not me and that okay.
Laws against trespassing already exist; therefore, no further legislation is needed in regard to this matter. Yet, Brubaker has introduced a bill making it illegal to record farm operations that might include animal cruelty. The bill also includes a provision forcing citizens who videotape to turn their recordings over to the "authorities." Why should this be so? Brubaker has not given a satisfactory explanation as to why this legislation is needed. Companies already have the right to sue if they think they've been defamed. Some even resort to SLAPP suits. So why do they need another weapon in their arsenal?
In regard to security cameras - we don't really know who's monitoring them, do we? Does their presence make you feel even the slightest bit safer? Be honest.
Cole - I'm curious as to the basis for your description of Brubaker. Especially since Agriculture ranks 7th when comparing sector contributions and is no where near the top contributors for industries. And I'd love to know how requiring alleged cases of animal abuse and neglect be reported to those who can conduct investigations, stop abuse, and press charges is supporting agribusiness.
Because these undercover investigations are not conducted by "trespassers"; they're conducted by employees who are allowed on the property. And when these activist groups put their images of alleged abuse/neglect online and call for boycotts (many times not reporting them to law enforcement at all), a farmer can lose half their revenues overnight. If the intent is to stop abuse/neglect, does it not make sense to report it to the right people?
Your point is well taken. Activists should not post videos or images willy nilly on websites simply to promote their cause. Posting these materials should be undertaken only as a last resort, as when law enforcement fails to act, or the abuse otherwise continues. The goal of undercover investigations should be to stop abuse. If there is an allegation of abuse, law enforcement should investigate. If evidence is available to help substantiate the allegation, it should be presented. The problem lies with FORCING people to turn over their images and recordings. Surrendering one's property should be voluntary in this type of situation. The state should not have the right to confiscate it. Also, an employee who is forced to turn over evidence may be jeopardizing his or her job, when they may only be trying to do what they think is morally right. It could then be easy for an employer to track down the whistleblower simply by viewing video recordings and determining who was working in what department on what shift, etc., and initiate reprisals. Such a scenario could potentially keep people from speaking out, and thus "silence the whistleblower."
As for Brubaker's connection to agribusiness, that is speculation on my part, but I wonder why he suddenly finds it necessary to push this legislation. Such action suggests he is responding to pressure from "special interests." One only has to ask who will benefit from the bill. Please see my comment below labeled "May 5, 2013 at 6:23 PM"
Brubaker…the name alone is synonymous with agriculture in Lancaster county. Beyond a doubt, he has "farm friends" at church and even in his own family. That translates into votes and funding for campaigns, as well as favors. Lancaster County (especially the plain sect) has always been tolerant of animal abuse. That's why we are a popular county for puppy mills. Brubaker wants to protect his friends and family.
Many valid points
Post a Comment