This blog is set up to share news and views related to food choice rights issues. First off, our immediate focus is on Michael Schmidt, Glencolton Farms and the surrounding support community of cow share members and friends.
Should raw milk really only be for farmers (as some would interpret the current laws) or should non-farmers also have the right to drink raw milk if they choose to do so? A legal process is now underway to address this question within the Canadian justice system. We’ll be following developments on this blog. So stay tuned. And remember – you heard it through the bovine!
5 Comments
September 7, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Raw milk is the right of every citizen. The cows are created by GOD and everyone has the right to benefit from them. The cow farmers are only selling what is otherwise sold in supermarkets and other stores, which is pure MILK. They are not selling any prohibited things or items. I have the right to make my own intelligent choice of what to eat and drink. It is not the government’s business.
September 10, 2008 at 2:49 pm
It is a sad state of affairs when a government thinks its citizens are too stupid or uninformed to decide for themselves what should or should not go into their bodies.
If the Canadian government or Regional Health Units truly cared about the health of the nation, half the garbage sold in our ‘food’ stores would either not be there, or be there in far smaller quantity.
Raw milk is a safe, wholesome food when it comes from healthy, pasture-fed cows. We don’t allow ill, disease filled humans to donate blood to a blood bank. If only we felt the same way about unhealthy, factory confinement, grain-fed cows providing sustenance to humans!
People have the right to choose, the government has no business interfering with this right of the consumer, or the right of the farmer selling the food.
September 12, 2008 at 12:26 am
Contempt of Court or Act of Conscience?
If a man’s conscience and the law are in conflict, which one should he follow?
Clearly Mr. Schmidt’s intention was not to defy a court order – he had no choice but to heed his conscience when deciding on which path he must follow – no matter what the consequences. It takes courage to follow one’s conscience and to actively seek a just outcome.
Re the article in the Star entitled by TAMSYN BURGMANN on Sept 11, 2008: “Raw milk fans rally at court for dairy farmer”. There is a reference to liability by the Mr. Kuzmyk:
“Speaking outside the courthouse during a recess, Kuzmyk said the region has to ensure court orders are upheld to protect public safety.
“If someone were to get sick, like the unfortunate cases in Quebec, someone could then turn around and say to the region, `You guys knew, you knew, what was going on and you did nothing,’” he said.
“To protect our people, to protect the citizens of York Region, and to protect our own liability position, we have to do this.””
In reality, if the region believes the public is at risk by letting Mr. Schmidt provide raw milk products to the people who own the cows, they did not act responsibly. If the region deems raw milk products are unsafe, then the region did not act in the interest of public safety. It is clear they had the power and the opportunity.
Perhaps it was a trap to see if Mr. Schmidt would actually act in the manner he said he would. Mr. Schmidt set the stage for his current actions many years ago and he has consistently and publicly echoed the same ever since – to follow his conscience. An ethical man must follow his conscience above all else.
September 15, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Ralf,
Interestingly, when I spoke to Kusmyk on the phone prior to the trial (he had emailed me two days earlier, to let me know I could call him if I had any questions prior to the trial, since he had summoned me, along with a few other cow share members as witnesses), he told me in no uncertain terms that this trial was only about the contempt of court issue and not about health issues. He went further to comment that if Michael were to try to bring up health issues in the proceedings, he would object. So, I ask….why is he trying to relate these proceedings to a health issue outside court when he was so utterly set against associating the two during the trial. Perhaps inside court, the health issue would not hold up to scrutiny, but outside the court, like the government in the media, such comments are possibly used as scare tactics. I don’t think misleading the public, is working as well as they would like.
September 9, 2009 at 11:49 am
[...] Read our first post, from Sept 6, 2008 Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Speak up at the “Raw Milk Crusader: Michael Schmidt” discussion forum o…Michael Schmidt verdict on raw milk charges to be delivered Jan. 21, 2010Telling raw milk fairy tales in the mediaGot Raw Milk? Be Very Quiet [...]