Michael Schmidt sends his thoughts on recent raw milk developments:
The Hartmann ruling in the US makes it once again very clear that we all will suffer if we cannot counter vicious Government attacks with due diligence.
Our standing in court becomes a farce under the current climate of anti germ fanatics. As much as I can see the point of liberty versus regulations, we are not living in a vacuum independent from the rest of the world. Our standing in court will always be judged by our concerns, our diligence, our openness and our willingness to co-operate IF the other side is willing to work with us.
I have no patience for any Government harassment as it happened in Alberta with Judith and Eric. I even question the majority of claims made by local Health Units when raw milk is implicated. I even go so far that I suspect foul play in many cases because Government needs smoking guns to proof their point.
Let’s assume that in the Hartmann case somebody was interested to intentionally taint the milk with E coli.
The courts do not care if you cannot provide a record of due diligence.
If for whatever reason your operation looks not very appealing you will have no chance of convincing a judge to rule in your favor. Judges do not rule on liberty if we talking raw milk.
On a more positive note here in Ontario the Governments appeal hit a little roadblock.
The judge ruled in our favor that
Weinberg we in fact can expand our Constitutional argument and that we can introduce additional witnesses. That was denied two years ago but was granted by a ruling last week.
This does not mean we won the appeal.
It simply highlights the good work done by Karen Selick who argued on our behalf. It also shows once again that this judge is taking this appeal not lightly.