From The Canadian Press via CBC news:
Michael Schmidt talks to a reporter during a recess in his 2011 court appearance, in Newmarket Ontario following which his landmark 2010 acquittal was overturned by Justice Tetley, on appeal from the province of Ontario. Today’s ruling upholds Justice Tetley’s decsision on the legality of raw milk.
“A farmer who has spent two decades fighting for the right to sell unpasteurized milk to willing buyers pledged to take his case to the country’s highest court Tuesday after losing an appeal against his conviction for breaking public health laws.
Speaking minutes after the Ontario Court of Appeal ruling, an unbowed Michael Schmidt said he would continue with his milk operation and legal battle.
“Nothing really changes for me,” Schmidt told The Canadian Press.
“Our plan is to move right to the Supreme Court. That’s the bottom line. We’re not stopping here.”
In its ruling, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a 2011 conviction against Schmidt that saw him fined $9,150 under provincial health-protection laws.
Ontario does not ban the consumption of raw milk and farmers are allowed to drink the milk produced by their own cows. However, the sale of unprocessed milk is banned on the grounds that it poses a significant risk to public health. Continue reading
Raw milk farmer Michael Schmidt talks to a Radio Canada reporter last month during a break in the appeal hearing at Osgoode Hall in downtown Toronto. Today the judges announced their dismissal of Mr. Schmidt’s appeal, meaning that his 2011 conviction still stands.
The panel of three judges who heard farmer Michael Schmidt’s appeal last month, of his 2011 conviction by Justice Tetley on raw milk related charges, has now announced their dismissal of Mr. Schmidt’s appeal. The full text of their decision can be found at this link: http://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions_index/new_releases.htm
The judges’ dismissal of Mr. Schmidt’s appeal means that the 2011 conviction by Justice Tetley still stands. Continue reading
From Michael Schmidt:
Tuesday March the 11th at 10.30 am the Ontario Court of Appeal will render the ruling of the three judges in the longstanding, long lasting raw milk case, which started 1994 here in Ontario.
I have reported over the years on many statistics comparing the difference in death rates of various activities.
The most striking one is smoking, which on the one hand creates an enormous amount of tax revenue but on the other hand also burdens health care dramatically.
There are approximately 2.1 million smokers in Ontario. According to the GOVERNMENT 1 in 3 will die from smoking. Continue reading
“Persons” whose status as persons is purely legal (ie corporations) on the other hand may very well be in favour of this. But we elect our representatives to represent the living, breathing and eating kind of people. Thanks to the Green Party of Canada for warning us about this bill. From their news release:
OTTAWA – The Green Party of Canada is concerned that Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act, which was debated for the first time on Monday, will actually restrict farmer’s ability to grow crops in Canada.
By forcing a stricter regime of intellectual property into the growing process in the form of Plant Breeders’ Rights, this bill will restrict the ability of farmers to engage in the age-old practices of saving, storing, cleaning, and treating their own seed.
“At a time when farmers are struggling, what this bill gives with the right hand is only a small piece of what it takes away with the left. It installs a very limited farmer’s privilege to store one year’s worth of seed only after taking away the currently implicit farmer’s privilege to store as much seed as they see fit,” explained Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada and Member of Parliament for Saanich–Gulf Islands. Continue reading
The story of Mark Baker and his supposedly feral pigs has been in the news for a while (See links at bottom). Now finally, the state has conceded. They’ve given up their attempt to force Mr. Baker to stop farming his non-standard breed of pigs. Meanwhile, the weird “law” which he was fighting supposedly remains on the books as applying to other farmers. And yet, how can Baker’s case not be precedent setting? David Gumpert spells it all out for us:
From David E. Gumpert, on the Complete Patient blog:
“The state of Michigan angrily gave in to farmer Mark Baker, telling a state judge that the farmer can continue to raise his hybrid pigs clearly forbidden by the state’s contentious Invasive Species Order. What’s unclear is how the state’s move affects other farmers.
The state made its move in a desperate effort to avoid a trial, scheduled to begin March 11, that was based on a suit brought by Baker to force clarification of the ISO and its broad prohibition of pretty much all pigs that aren’t raised by corporate producers. Continue reading