From Edible Toronto magazine:
From woolly sheep and bucolic farm life to criminal charges and gag orders.
I look around some days and wonder how I got here from there.
BY MONTANA JONES
Photo courtesy of Edible Toronto magazine
After a court date in March, I commented to my son on how the average murder trial would rarely amount to ten thousand pages of disclosure, yet the government’s sheepnapping case will be well over that number.
“This IS a murder trial,” he said. “A mass murder.”
He’s referring to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) killing my rare, very healthy heritage Shropshire sheep. They’ve murdered over a hundred Shrops in the last couple of years. Little lambs, rams, pregnant ewes, and their unborn. All were beautiful, and all were meant to live out their beautiful lives. Continue reading
From Michael Schmidt:
The preliminary hearing into the Montana Jones, Michael Schmidt, CFIA, sheep-napping case continues Monday April 27th at the Ontario Court of Justice, 150 Bond St. Oshawa.
Concerned citizens are encouraged to come out and see their civil servants at work on the nation’s business. There should be plenty of room for everyone in room 406 where the hearing will take place.
Expected proceedings include the judge announcing his ruling on the publication ban as well as further discussion about adjourning the preliminary hearing pending delivery by the Crown of the still-missing disclosure documents. Continue reading
A little off topic here. Yes we realize this is not connected to raw milk or food rights. Still we feel it’s important Canadians hear this news that’s not getting out there through the filters and the blinders of our mainstream media.
From Murray Dobbin, in CounterPunch:
“You know the old aphorism – “If a tree falls in the forest….?” Well, how about this one: if citizens win a significant victory in court against an autocratic government involving the fleecing of Canadians of billions of their hard-earned tax dollars and no one in the media actually covers it, did it really happen?
That might well be the question being asked over at the Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform (COMER) a very small and low-budget think tank. With their lawyer Rocco Galati (of Supreme Court fame in the Nadon case) they have been steadily winning court battles initiated in 2011 that would oblige the Bank of Canada to return to its pre-1974 practice of lending the government money virtually (.37%) interest free. But the mainstream media, with a single exception, has boycotted the story. Galati believes the Harper government has done some serious arm-twisting to keep the story buried. Continue reading
From David E. Gumpert, on the Biodynamics blog: “I know I’m not the only supporter of food choice who is frustrated because much of the news in the mainstream media about raw milk seems to be negative and often inaccurate. I know I’m not the only one who is tired of complaining and wants to do something about it. But do what? There is clearly a dearth of accurate information being presented by the media about raw milk. Many of the articles that are written are confusing and inaccurate. For example, in December Time Magazine reported on a CDC study that said outbreaks involving raw milk had quadrupled over the most recent six years. “This Is One Health Trend You Don’t Want to Try,” headlined the Time article. Continue reading
From John Rappoport:
“The other day, I wrote about radical changes in Australian vaccination policy. Principally, the national government has unilaterally decided that parents who receive government money will have that money taken away, if they don’t vaccinate their children. (See:Australia: refuse vaccination, lose $15,000)
Now I have learned that all families in Australia receive some form of government money. So the policy change affects everyone.
Which, of course, is what happens when citizens become beholden to big government. Government taketh, giveth back, taketh again, on their own timetable, according to their own dictates.
From Michael Schmidt:
Patrick Lyster — part of the mystery? Photo from his website.
Let me begin with the statement that many disputed facts with regard to the mysterious sheep-napping case are in front of the court and cannot be revealed according to some RULES.
Let me state as well that it appears as if the prosecution seems to know the rules but likes to enforce them only when the accused appears to have abused them and disregards the rules whenever they see fit.
But all of this seems to be part of a society dominated by complacency and conformity.
Let’s explore the many mysteries, which surround the incredible saga of the lost sheep.
Mystery number one
Did Montana’s Shropshire sheep have scrapie in the first place??
In a democratic society one should expect that a government agency first should be required to provide proof “beyond reasonable doubt” of the existence of disease, before eradicating a herd of heritage sheep. Continue reading
From Celia Farber, at “The Truth Barrier”:
“Now TED has made a very bad mistake, gone too far, as the arrogant always do.
This has caused a revolutionary fervor to seize the comments section at the marginalized Bad Children’s corner they have assigned the Sheldrake and Hancock video clips to on their site, as TED founder Chris Anderson tries to excuse himself to a distant destination where he can’t respond to Hancock’s clear questions, while holding up a Wikipedia page as an attempted shield.
What is being fought here? Who are the opponents? What do they stand for?
I’ve been immersed in this war for a long time–it spans so many fields of science, from AIDS to Vaccines to Global Warming to Nutrition, Health, to Paranormal studies, parapsychology, Quantum Physics and beyond. The bullies, calling themselves “skeptics,” have had one singular weapon which has been impossible to counter, as it is designed not to be answerable, namely pure relentless mockery. Reputation destruction. Wikipedia bullying. Charges of “pseudo-science,” and “woo,” to anything at all that doesn’t conform exactly to a fiercely reductionist, materialist, market driven and frankly misogynist approach to “Science.” Anything that slows booming global bio-tech and pharmacological progressivism is “denialism” and “woo,” and any scientist who steps out of line, no matter how esteemed, how decorated or respected, is thrown into the garbage compactor. Continue reading