Farmer's Non-Compliance Exposes Government Violence

Last month, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the conviction of Durham, Ontario farmer and raw milk advocate Michael Schmidt. The court’s decision found that Schmidt’s cow-share program does not exempt him from regulations concerning the sale and distribution of unpasteurized milk. Schmidt has vowed to take his case to the Supreme Court.

Ontario farmer Michael Schmidt's peaceful non-compliance
exposes the violence inherent in government regulations.

Photo from the Bovine.

The ruling went on to state that, “lifestyle choices as to food or substances to be consumed do not attract Charter protection.” That’s right. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a document that purports to protect the most fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians, doesn’t cover a person’s freedom to choose what to eat.

Ontario’s milk law, as it is written, banning milk sales outside of the monopolized Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) quota system, is covered by a thin veil of false legitimacy which seeks to mask threats against independent dairy producers with incentives for those who will voluntarily participate in their monopoly, and to disguise a system of coercive force as voluntary and contractual.

Michael Schmidt’s case is an outstanding example of how peaceful non-compliance can help lift the veil of false legitimacy and shine light on the truly nefarious nature of government regulation. Since the early 1990s, Michael Schmidt has steadfastly refused to bow to threats of force made against him by the state, with regards to his dairy operation.

Schmidt’s peaceful non-compliance begins with his decision not to apply for a quota from the DFO. Here is where the force of the government first peeks out from beneath the thin veil. With his refusal to attain quota status; instead opting to operate independently, the government begins to claim that he is liable for thousands of dollars in fines. Of course, Schmidt never voluntarily signed a contract with the DFO or any other person or organization, which could have created such liability.

The real impact of Michael Schmidt’s non-compliance comes with his refusal to pay the government-imposed fines for violation of regulations to which he never agreed, pertaining to the private property of himself and his associates. It seems that Michael Schmidt understands that a payment of a fine resulting from non-compliance with a given government regulation would stand as a practical admission of guilt, and would grant legitimacy to a coercive regulatory system.

As his appeals are denied, and fines increased, it will be Schmidt’s continuing refusal to submit that will see him ultimately victorious in this David vs. Goliath tale. Michael Schmidt, the peaceful Ontario dairy farmer is a modern-day Hank Rearden of agriculture, refusing to grant moral sanction to those aggressing against him.

“If you fine me, you will have to seize my property to collect the fine—I will not volunteer to pay it. If you believe that you have the right to force me—use your guns openly. I will not help you to disguise the nature of your action.”
-Hank Rearden, Atlas Shrugged

If Schmidt’s battle at the Supreme Court proves legally unsuccessful, and he continues to refuse to pay the fines, he will have succeeded. 

With government imposed fines left unpaid, he could be dragged to a jail cell in handcuffs, as he has stated he is prepared to do, exposing the ultimately violent nature of the legislation in question. Conversely, the government might opt to protect its image and avoid the raw violence of kidnapping a peaceful man, dropping the fines against Schmidt, and proving unenforceable, laws that seek to inhibit voluntary interactions among free people. This would hopefully lead to a groundswell of peaceful non-compliance in food freedom and other areas of regulated life.

Ontario Farms Under Attack

Since I began writing about Frank Meyers’ ongoing battle with the Canadian military to save his farm from armed invasion and seizure by the government, and in interacting with supporters of the 85-year-old Ontario farmer, issues of food and farm freedom have come onto my radar and interested me in a way they hadn’t before.

Ontario raw milk crusader Michael Schmidt

My interest in the Frank Meyers case was mostly due to what I see as an outright assault by the government on the right of all Canadians to own property – property of any sort; not just farms, homes or land. In interacting with Frank’s supporters I learned that many were drawn to support Frank’s cause due to an affinity for family-run farms, concerns about food security, genetically modified organisms and the like.

As a result, I have recently become acquainted with the cases of two other Ontario farmers who have come under assault by the state for engaging in peaceful and voluntary farming practices deemed inappropriate by legislators and bureaucrats.

Michael Schmidt, a Durham Ontario dairy farmer, has been providing families with raw milk since 1991. Schmidt has been at the forefront of the raw milk crusade in Canada, and has been at war with the Ontario government for many years. His cow share co-op provides fresh, raw milk to 150 families (over 600 people) in Ontario.

Despite the fact that his cow share scheme does not violate Ontario’s current raw milk laws, as co-op members own a portion of his cows and are not buying the milk from Schmidt, and members have not reported a single case of illness from the milk, his farm has been raided multiple times by government agencies, equipment stolen and product destroyed.

Schmidt has been convicted and fined on raw milk offences and seen those convictions overturned, only to have courts reverse the decision once more. Tomorrow, February 5, 2014, Michael Schmidt, represented by the Canadian Constitution Foundation, will appear before the Court of Appeal of Ontario in a final appeal of his convictions.

Montana Jones says a tearful goodbye to one of her sheep as
armed police look on.
Photo credit - ShropshireSheep.org

Sadly, Michael Schmidt is not the only Ontario farmer to be subjected to farm raids and property theft and destruction by government agencies. Shepherdess Montana Jones, who raised rare Shropshire sheep, began her battle with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) after a sheep she sold in 2007 to a farm in Alberta, tested positive for scrapie.

Scrapie is a disease that affects sheep, but is not transmittable to humans. In 2011, the CFIA ordered a quarantine of Jones’ sheep and tested them for scrapie. Despite the fact that not one of Jones' sheep tested positive for scrapie, the CFIA, citing that the test is only 88% accurate, announced that it would proceed with the euthanasia of the entire flock.

It is alleged, at this point, that Jones, in conspiracy with raw milk farmer Michael Schmidt, had the flock removed from her farm, in order to evade capture and euthanasia of the sheep by the CFIA. The sheep were later discovered on a farm south of Owen Sound Ontario and subsequently euthanized.

I cannot claim to be knowledgeable about the health implications of drinking raw milk, or the genetics of Shropshire sheep, so I will leave those issues to more qualified parties. What I do see in these cases, are individuals who peacefully and voluntarily interacted with their customers to provide a product or service. As a result of their peaceful and consensual activity, they were subjected to threats, and ultimately, raids on their property by agents of the government.

If every man has a right to life, and to not have that right infringed upon by others, then by extension, does he not have the right to sustain his life (i.e. feed himself) according to his own will? Even if, as the government claims, raw milk is dangerous to the health of those who consume it, does not a right to one’s own life, like any right, also imply the ability to dispose of that right in any manner one sees fit?