|
|
Michael Schmidt’s Interview with Himself on his Thoughts about the Trial, the Consequences and the Only Possible Outcome
M.S.: Thanks, Michael, for taking the time to look at some of the events of the past. Now that the trial is over, what next?
Michael: Well, the trial might be over, but the final arguments
regarding the constitutional challenge regarding section 7 of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, which refers to the issue of
Government’s infringement on our individual liberty, have not been
made. The Judge agreed that we should have the transcripts of the trial
first, before we formulate our final arguments.
M.S.: How long do you anticipate this will take?
Michael: We have to submit our written closing arguments by June 16th.
M.S.: When can we expect a decision in this matter?
Michael: Realistically, maybe in August, maybe later.
M.S.: How do you feel about the trial?
Michael: Yes, most people want to know how I feel about the trial. My answer is always the same: I feel good, I feel inspired and I feel satisfied that the court is the right remedy to challenge those in authority. It was revealing, it was fun and it was Shakespearean drama at its best.
M.S.: Why do you say that?
Michael: We all know the term ‘court room drama’. It was a wonderful experience to see all the actors on stage in all their different capacities and authorities, either as investigators or as expert witnesses. Everyone played his or her role according to the rules and, at the end of the day, we parted not as enemies but as human beings. It is drama at its best. You have those who do their job enforcing the law and those who get paid as experts to testify how dangerous raw milk is, but admit at the same time, that the most hazardous foods are not banned, like Maple Leaf products, which apparently killed over 20 people last year, or cigarettes or alcohol. It became very clear that everything is arbitrary; it all depends on who calls the shots.
M.S.: Some people argue that it is impossible to fight the current law on raw milk because of the very powerful dairy lobby behind it.
Michael: They are absolutely right if, that is, they believe it is impossible. I believe it is possible; therefore, I see a very good chance for change to come.
M.S.: The question is at what cost and when?
Michael: Let’s look at the reality of cost. I personally believe that the cost of being compliant of unjust laws is far too high when you think of our future and our children’s future. In the so-called western world, we have lost our will, our courage to stand up against injustice. We tend to think that, if a law is passed by Parliament, it must be right and just. You will be surprised how many laws are passed with Members of Parliament having no idea what is in the package and what is finally signed into law. There are layers of bureaucracy that control these complicated proceedings and the bureaucrats involved know how to keep control.
In respect to the time, time is on our side. The longer those in power refuse to enter into a constructive dialogue, the more people wake up and join the battle.
M.S.: Are there organizational allies?
Michael: There are very committed allies in this battle. One of them is the Ontario Landowners, known for their clear position against over-regulation of property owners and small businesses. There is a wide range of groups that joined over two years ago and continue to play a vital role by networking, educating and informing more and more people. These groups are different in that they understand the fundamental principle of this fight, which is not about raw milk but about defending our God-given rights of freedom.
In the not too distant future, food will create major conflicts in society. On one hand, we have no way of knowing if we are eating GMO food because of the labelling laws that protect those in control and, on the other hand, we are not allowed to make a food choice, even when we know very well it is much better for us.
Look at the health care system, look at education, look at farming. We are, in fact , living in the most destructive decades since the beginning of time. All of which has been and is being caused by us human beings.
M.S.: Let’s slow down a little bit before we look at the big picture. You must encounter opposition that does not come from the Government. Can you talk about that?
Michael: If we are to look at opposition rationally, we need to ask first, what is real opposition, what is forced opposition and what is personal opposition. Personal opposition is based on fear, experience and principle, all of which are valid. However, one needs also to understand that I do not take the position that everyone should be forced to drink raw milk. This choice belongs to each individual. All I am asking is that they do not force their personal opposition to raw milk on others who have different experiences.
I also very often face the argument that I should not break the law because it is the law, that I should obey court orders and that the law is there for a reason. I respect these comments but, as you know, I do not agree. Let me give you two examples of the hypocrisy connected with this case.
Two years ago, we went to California to explore the raw milk situation there, which, as you know, is allowed. You can buy your raw milk in the supermarket. When I returned, I met the chief medical officer of health in Grey Bruce, Dr Hazel Lynn, and tried to paint her a picture of the situation there. As I recall, she replied: “Michael, why don’t you move to California. The only thing that bugs me is that you break the law.”
The other example was the unethical offer by the lawyer acting for York Region. Before trial last fall, he pulled me aside and offered me a deal before we went into the court room: Go south of Steeles Avenue, or anywhere else outside of York Region, and they would be willing to drop all the charges. This only highlights the fact that this whole thing has nothing to do with health.
M.S.: What other opposition do you encounter?
Michael: Well, there is the forced opposition, which has its roots in unhealthy dependency. Farm organizations like the Ecological Farmers of Ontario, the Ontario Cheese Society, as well as friends and other businesses, think they cannot take a position because of possible repercussions. But it is all a matter of principle. If they are afraid to open their mouths because they might lose funding, members or friends, they are also losing credibility. I have no expectations anymore, but I am really thankful whenever people have the courage to stand up for the principle. One group that I would like to mention in this regard is the Canadian Chefs Congress and all the chefs who continue to root for the cause in Canada.
M.S.: What is best possible outcome?
Michael: There is only one outcome.
M.S.: What do you mean with that?
Michael: Since it is a matter of principle, the only outcome can and will be that people have the right to choose to drink milk raw or pasteurized. Once we have achieved that, this 15-year-old battle will finally end. Let’s not look at this negatively. Battles are good for society, for us, for our future. They express the fact that we are alive, as long as we do not forget to love our enemy. Part of this tragedy is that so many on the so-called other side agree with us but have to do their job.
M.S.: At your trial in September, you were ordered to pay a fine and cost of $55,000. What are your plans?
Michael: The crown had an awful dilemma. They did not want to make a martyr out of me, but they did want to force me to stop providing people with their milk. The judge himself faced another dilemma. He slammed the act of civil disobedience as a self- defeating act, totally ignoring the history of the last 100 years. I do not believe that the judge truly, in his heart, believed what he was saying. I asked for the maximum penalty, not because I want to be a martyr, but to expose the fact that our legal system fails if it is not challenged on principle. We are talking about man-made law here. Man-made law can be wrong and therefore needs to be challenged.
No, I will not pay and I will not resist whatever befalls me. They created the problem by proceeding with a trial on an issue that has not yet been ruled on, i.e., did I, in fact, break the law? Does the law they are accusing me of breaking conform to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom? And, if not, it is no law at all. How then could they have obtained a court order under these circumstances? The deeper they wade into this legal jungle, the more confusing it will become for them. Why do I not stop? Because I owe it to society, I want to live in a just society and feel responsible for it to be so.
M.S.: Does jail time scare you?
Michael: No. It might be a part of the journey I have to take. In the end, the resolve could be so easy. In his fairy tale about the Green Snake, Goethe wrote a wonderful line: “What is more valuable than gold? The dialogue.” Dialogue will be the solution. Dialogue is all I am asking for.
M.S.: Thanks, Michael. Stay strong.
Michael: Thanks to all those who so tirelessly support this wonderful battle. The Milk of Human Kindness will flow until the cows come home to those who deserve it. A toast to all the fearless cow share members and their supporters!
 |
|
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form
BTW. These government officials are sworn in on the bible. If they swear on the bible, they are bound by the words contained therein. If all plants and animals are put here for the health and benefit of mankind, then they should be regarded as being created perfectly as is for health and wellness and we should have a right to consume ANY plant, or God-allowed creature without restriction by any human.
Yours Truly
Leena Gouin