From the Corporate Mystic on YouTube:
From the Corporate Mystic on YouTube:
Filed under News
Tagged as food freedom, Michael Schmidt, Newmarket, rally raw milk, raw milk
Reasons for Sentencing Justice Peter Tetley, Nov. 25, 2011
Reasons for Conviction on Appeal, Justice Peter Tetley, Sept 28, 2011
Reasons for Judgement in the Michael Schmidt raw milk case (January 21, 2010)
The Province of Ontario's appeal of that ruling (February 11, 2010)
Print and Sign Petition for legal raw milk in Ontario
11 responses to “New Video of Food Freedom Rally at Newmarket Court, March 16, 2016”
@ just a reader
In relation to your question about the goal being to change the law in Ontario, Micheal appears to have provided some clarity/direction/leanings in this video: “We not coming in here to ask for permission to get our raw milk. We coming here to defend our right which has been unjustly taken away by the government. Or they think they took it away. So it is more an issue for us here that we are standing our ground; to asserting our rights that we have the right to drink raw milk from our cows from our farm.”
Ya, but it seems we’ve been here before, no? Are the comments genuine, or more fodder? The latter seems the more likely.
I reflect on Michael’s previous comments, which you also highlighted, about his faith in the judiciary: “If we leave it up to the courts to decide what freedom is then we going to lose all our Rights.” Perhaps he has new found faith in the judiciary? Who knows. And yet, at the same time, it is noteworthy that he makes the comments at a political rally…
Yes, Tom you are right. And as long as the energy is focused on trying to *assert* a “right” which the Court has already ruled does not exist and is not a protected right, nothing will change. The raids will still continue, the injunctions will continue.
If people put the great dedication, energy, and incredible organizing ability that went into planning this rally into – instead – working to change the law, then there would be reason for optimism – there would be a shift, and things would start to change as we see them changing in B.C. But so far, it looks to me as though there has been nothing yet done in Ontario to try to change the law – the very first steps in the process have not yet been taken. There is not even a general consensus on whether “the law” needs to be changed, or which laws to change. Question: Are there people in the Ontario community who want the laws to change to either legalize herdshare or legalize sales? If so, then organizing provincially is the very first step.
As to a political solution for access to raw milk in Ontario, I am personally doubtful such will come about so long as Michael is on the scene. The government is just not interested with his antics. They know that Michael would take the credit for whatever political solution comes about, and it will be painted as the government caving to pressure. The government cannot be seen to embrace/endorse his ways. The government needs to be seen/appreciated as being the provider of quality services for the people; not to cave to ridicule or pressure tactics (such as those of a little kid crying for a candy – tamper tantrum/hunger strike). Unfortunately for him (and his followers/enablers), I believe his reputation precedes him.
I understand the courts have ruled that “Food Rights” don’t exist, and is thus not a protected right. And given the ambiguity of what “Food Rights” might entail, I would have to agree. “Food Rights” can be (and probably was) presented/argued as being a “right to a food” (i.e. raw milk). No one has an inherent right to a thing/item/substance. HOWEVER, that doesn’t take away from our inherent rights, including liberty.
I respectfully disagree with your interpretation that the courts have ruled against our inherent/natural/fundamental rights. But we’ve been here before. Lets just agree to disagree on that one 🙂
The various comments on this video will probably be good material for the Crown’s case against Michael.
At the 3 min mark, you have the statement “we are the farm” (as though she is trying to convince herself/the others of it). I believe this statement is supposed to speak to “ownership”, or something.
And yet, throughout, comments are made thanking the farmers; “We’re here for these cows and these farmers … so that our farmers can keep on farming.” “Grateful to our farmers they know what they’re doing …” “…so that we can raise our family but that is because we have loving farmers that take care of the animals.”
And then there was the comment from Mascha: “my [raw] dairy [products]… pose absolutely no risk to my and my family’s health.”
sawoodt (having indicated she is a ‘member’) also made comments about the milk being safe. ” I and my family have been drinking raw milk for 17 years now….unharmed!” ” Michael [wants to] provide access to SAFE and nourishing, raw/natural milk for the consumer”
Michael has made it a point on several occasions to highlight how safe his milk is.
As I see it, all of those comments could be used to undermine Michael’s legal case (which is not to be confused with his political plight…).
IMHO, as best as I can tell, the so called Farm Share program is principally no different from the previous cow lease and cow share programs. A rose by any other name is still a rose. Re branding is not new to Michael. His Cleopatra’s bath milk in BC should be a most obvious example.
All I’m saying is: Don’t blame the court as being corrupt/unjust if Michael, et al, has failed to adhere to his strict liability obligations, and is found guilty and/or has an injunction ordered against him/his farm.
02:27 “And you are here to put a stop to the heavy-handed intervention of government.”
Question: How exactly are/were rally participants planning to achieve this specific goal?
“When asked if I would take on this challenge I said yes because, after I reviewed what was (or not) happening in B.C., I felt that the battles that were playing out across Canada and B.C. could only ever be won through negotiation, in a boardroom and not a courtroom. ” – Jacqueline Ingram, past-president of the B.C. Herdshare Association, in the BCHA newsletter, issue 2.
One more comment: at 05:42 in the video, David Gumpert talks about “JUDGE Paul Kowarsky,” and at 06:38 how in the U.S. “that would be the end of it” because “we don’t prohibit double jeopardy in Canada.”
But, the fact is that Kowarsky is not a judge. He is a justice of the peace. There is a distinct difference in Ontario.
To become a judge in Ontario, you not only need a law degree but also preferably at least ten years of bar membership.
The justice of the peace bench is a lay bench. There is no requirement that a candidate for the position have any legal training or experience in the justice system. To become a JP, all you need is 10 years of work or volunteer experience of any kind, and any university degree or college diploma course of at least 4 semesters in duration.
If Kowarsky HAD been a judge, then the appeal could not have gone to the Hon. Justice Peter Tetley as it did — it would have had to go to the higher level of the Ontario Court of Appeal.
Is Dr. Gumpert saying that in the United States, one cannot appeal to a higher level court, that the decision of a lower level court is binding on a higher court? Maybe he is unfamiliar with the role of a JP in Ontario court system. JPs are not judges, and their decisions can be appealed to a judge under clause 116(2) of the Provincial Offences Act: “(2) An appeal under subsection (1) shall be, (a) where the appeal is from the decision of a justice of the peace, to the Ontario Court of Justice presided over by a provincial judge;”
This is not “double jeopardy.” This is wanting to have the case heard before a real judge, rather than someone who is more of an administrative officer.
Stating that the Province acted unfairly in asking that this case be tried by a a full Judge only serves to stoke citizen anger against government.
BTW, to be clear about Canadian law, section 11(h) of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms prohibits double jeopardy.
Ya, thanks for pointing those things out. I noticed the same thing.
Moreover, regardless of it being a JP or not, the right to appeal anyway exists, just as it does in the US. It just doesn’t make (logical) sense why Gumpert would say it was double jeopardy. But like you say, it does stroke the citizens anger against the government (and court). Par for the course, I suppose.
a good place to start, getting up to speed on what the Campaign for REAL MILK is about, is : the Canadian Bill of Rights 1960 Revised Statutes of Canada … which categorically enshrines in law, the right to use and enjoy one’s private property … utterly antithetical to the first plank of the Communist Manifesto. Only when you grasp that – the measure of the enemy – can you prevail
what it’ll come down to, is : a challenge to the validity of the entire milk supply racket. Which was put in place by the Fabian society, implementing its “Progressive Economic Plan”, disguised as the National Recovery Act, which the Supreme Court of the United States of America, ruled was un-constitutional.
amusing to see the nay-sayers still hacking-away and quacking-away at Michael Schmidt! You guys must be gnawing on your tongues, with dismay at the fact that the REAL MILK is flowing this very hour … a quarter of a century since he started, and with hundreds of cowshares now operating across the Dominion of Canada, first and last = because of his trail-breaking efforts
I believe there may be an error in your assessment. Commentary directed at Micheal is not commentary about the existence of other operations. Not sure who would be gnawing on their tongues here. I, for one, wish such operators, all across the ‘Dominion of Canada’, all the best. But it is also my hope that they be duly informed of the actual pit falls, and not the hyperbolic fears projected.
I’ve heard it suggested that the raw milk market in Canada (especially in Ontario) is what it is despite Michael.
Raw milk is a demand driven market, and is going on in many countries around the world. Michael may be loud about his affairs. But I’m not convinced the market exists/has grown because of it. I believe the growing shift away from big pharma / conventional medicine, as well as immigration from other cultures into western societies accounts much more for its growth than does Michael publicity of court battles.
Anyway, that’s my take on it.
I congratulate Michael for making the efforts. For their own sake, however, I just hope others don’t follow his trail(s).