By New York Post (World News) | Created at 2024-11-26 17:15:07 | Updated at 2024-11-26 19:59:52
2 hours ago
A notorious vegan activist who filmed herself accusing a veterinarian of “eating [her] own patients” during a business outburst has been ordered to pay almost $200,000 (AUD 300,000) in damages.
Tash Peterson entered a Perth vet clinic in September 2021 to confront its owner Dr. Kay McIntosh over what she deemed the “enslaving” of two pet birds that lived inside the business, in an encounter filmed by the campaigner’s partner Jack Higgs.
That video and a caption accompanying it were published to Peterson’s popular Facebook page, sparking a chain of events that left McIntosh and her husband Andrew, who run Bicton Veterinary Clinic, deeply distraught, the West Australian Supreme Court heard.
Peterson and Higgs were at a cafe next door to the clinic on September 23, 2021, when they saw the cockatiels and became upset.
Bruce and Gandalf are beloved long-term residents of the business and live inside a large cage measuring 60 centimeters wide and 1.3 meters tall.
McIntosh effectively inherited the pets, thought to be about 14 years old, when she acquired the business four years ago.
Bruce and Gandalf have become something of local celebrities, with people – especially children – paying visits regularly, and they are well looked after, the judgment noted.
The court heard the duo “would not be able to survive outside in the wild.”
When weather permits, the cage is wheeled outside so the birds can have fresh air, and they’re given regular opportunities to fly around inside.
The birds were outside in their cage, prompting Peterson and Higgs to confront clinic staff because “they considered that keeping the birds in a cage, for the purpose of a business, was wrong and that the birds did not have shade and that it was a warm day.”
A brief conversation ensued but was interrupted by the clinic telephone ringing. The activists left and went home.
Peterson and Higgs returned the following day, when she filmed an introduction outside the clinic describing the presence of the pets as “immoral” and akin to “slavery, before entering and confronting staff.
The activist asked McIntosh if she “eats her own patients” and accused her of “enslaving animals.”
Peterson repeated the insinuation that the vet ate animals in her care.
The couple was asked multiple times to leave but refused. Police were called but Peterson and Higgs had left by the time they arrived.
But before they did, Peterson took the phone from Higgs and filmed herself saying: “Blatant animal abusers. Disgusting. Give me the phone. I’m filming this slavery.”
She shared an edited clip titled ‘Exposing Vets for Being Hypocrites’ to her Facebook page, accusing McIntosh’s clinic of “advertising animal slavery” and condoning animals being “forcibly bred into existence and used for human pleasure.”
The clip included Peterson’s bizarre accusations that McIntosh ate her animal patients.
The post attracted “many thousands” of views and likes and was shared widely, with users from across the country adding their own damaging commentary.
In his judgment, Supreme Court Chief Justice Peter Quinlan found Peterson and her partner Jack Higgs published defamatory claims.
The video and its publication on Facebook left McIntosh “deeply affected,” with the implication she abused animals, from a hypocrite, and ate pets causing deep distress.
Peterson and Higgs were ordered to pay some $180,961 (280,000 AUD) in damages.
The judge emphasized the case was “not about the correctness of [their] views in relation to animal rights” and that “in a number of respects” their advocacy was “admirable.”
But Peterson’s video and post on Facebook were found to be defamatory and she and Higgs’ defenses had not been established.
The judgment detailed how Peterson “went through something of a Damascene conversion” – a descriptor of a kind of revelation that sparks a dramatic transformation in beliefs – in early 2017 after watching a documentary called Food Choices.
She immediately became a vegan. She met Higgs, a fellow animal rights activist, in 2019.
A few years later, she began engaging in “disruptive protests” that were often filmed and shared across various social media accounts.
She has dressed in a cow costume to protest at fast food restaurants, gone topless in supermarkets, donned bloodied clothes while brandishing a severed pug’s head, stormed stores with a lamb carcass, and worn lingerie while smeared with blood while barging into high-end retailers, among other stunts.
“Ms. Peterson and Mr. Higgs engage in what they describe as ‘disruptive protests’, which are designed to bring widespread attention to their views concerning animal exploitation,” the judgment read.
“Those disruptive protests use both confronting imagery (such as blood and a pig’s head) and overt sexuality (Ms. Peterson often protests semi-naked or wearing only lingerie). Ms. Peterson and Mr. Higgs also use strong, graphic, and anthropomorphic language to describe humans’ treatment of animals: ‘murder’, ‘slavery’, ‘rape,’ and ‘torture’.
“As a means of attracting attention to their cause, Ms. Peterson and Mr. Higgs’ disruptive protests have evidently been very successful.”
Run-ins with police had forced her out of employment as a swimming teacher and lifeguard after she lost safety and working with children clearances.
Her main source of income is now derived from two OnlyFans accounts, which the court heard totaled some $247,529 (383,000 AUD) in 2021-22.
While Higgs sometimes participates in Peterson’s disruptive protests, his primary role is to film and photograph her antics, the judgment noted.
The judgment criticized her “feigned innocence and naivety” about her intentions at the vet clinic on the day, which was “entirely disingenuous.”
“Ms. Peterson … knew perfectly well that her reputation preceded her and knew why Dr. McIntosh would think she was there to cause trouble.”
When she walked into the clinic with her camera recording, she had “every intention” that her planned social media post would cause damage.
Similarly, some of Higgs’ evidence, such as claiming to be “surprised” and “confused” about being asked multiple times to leave the vet clinic, was deemed “contrived and disingenuous.”
“Equally disingenuous, in my view, was Mr. Higgs’ evidence, which he maintained under cross-examination, that he did not regard Dr. McIntosh’s initial requests to ‘leave’ as being directed at him personally, but only to Ms. Peterson ‘because Tash was the one speaking’.”
The court heard McIntosh has practiced as a vet for more than two decades and had a clear commitment to the welfare of animals under her care.
She has run the clinic for almost five years and she employs six staff.
“Dr. McIntosh impressed me as a thoughtful and caring individual,” Quinlan said, adding she also appeared to be “a truthful and considered witness.”
The judge did make note of the fact her husband, a biosecurity expert, and former fire investigator, offered evidence “that was, in my assessment, clouded by the outrage he feels.”
“His anger towards Ms. Peterson was palpable and it is fair to say that he has become obsessed with Ms. Peterson, in general, and with the Facebook post, in particular,” the judgment read.
As a result, the judge felt McIntosh was “combative, belligerent, and refused to make even the most obvious concessions.”
But his presentation and demeanor “can be explained by the emotional impact on him” from the activists’ conduct.
