Entering the Raw Milk Underground

This article was also published on The Art of Not Being Governed Blog.

This week I descended, unprotected by the solicitous watch of government, into Ontario’s raw milk underground. Well … I’ve yet to be fully initiated; I haven’t even bought any milk yet.

Not yet...

Like in any subversive marketplace, aside from a few vocal advocates, most players on the raw milk scene seem intent on maintaining a high level of privacy as a means of protection against punishment by the state. On Monday afternoon I had a rendez-vous with a “mooshiner” * (someone who deals in raw milk) at a southern Ontario Tim Hortons, trepidatious though they were about the encounter.

While I’ve always been a dairy lover, I’m not much of a foodie otherwise, and therefore never took too much of an interest in issues surrounding food and farm freedom. However, my amble into the raw milk underground began when I wrote about attacks on Ontario farmers by government, mostly from a property rights perspective and stemming from my interest in the expropriation case of Trenton Ontario farmer Frank Meyers.

After writing a blog post on the subject of farmers coming up against government, in which I mentioned the case of raw milk farmer Michael Schmidt, I received a message from someone asking if I was looking for milk, and suggesting that we should connect, if so. My interest was piqued, but after a little bit of communication, my first raw milk contact was spooked by the fact that I was publicly blogging and socially networking about raw milk, among other topics – too much exposure!

Drawn in by the creamy intrigue of the illicit milk trade, I posted on social media about my contact being spooked, and made an appeal for someone willing to sell me some milk. Eventually, a mooshiner did agree to meet me at a Tim Hortons, though they were cautious about what they could tell me, for fear that I may publish some information that would reveal their identity and connection to the raw milk trade. No milk sale was made at our first meeting – trust has to be established first.

We spoke for about an hour, and I learned a lot about the inner-workings of Ontario’s raw milk market, some of which I hope to share with you as I gain a better understanding of the milk landscape.

This mooshiner’s insistence on privacy and discretion, I learned, is based on a fear of reprisal by the government – the crown, local health boards and the CFIA -, the individual farmers whom they represent, as well as the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO), the organization responsible for dispensing legal milk quotas worth hundreds of thousands, or millions of dollars to each farmer.

The mooshiner I met estimates that the majority of dairy farmers in Ontario – as many as 80% - engage in illegal “back door sales” of raw milk, and that almost all dairy farmers drink raw milk themselves. If that’s the case, then why don’t more farmers speak out in favour of raw milk legalization?

Under current legislation, most notably the Ontario Milk Act, dairy farmers are prohibited from selling milk outside of the DFO administered quota system. Quota-holding farmers are contractually bound to the DFO to produce a certain amount of milk to be pasteurized and centrally distributed for sale. Overproduction is penalized. Overproducing farmers are able to recoup some of the cost of production of the milk beyond their quota, as well as the associated penalties, by conducting back door sales. However, openly selling raw milk is a huge risk for quota-holding farmers, since being caught doing so would leave them without a quota that allows them to sell their milk to be pasteurized and distributed in the regulated marketplace, with fines and legal fees, and prohibited from selling any milk (raw or not) to provide them with a source of revenue.

I left the Tim Hortons without milk in hand, but on friendly terms with my new mooshiner acquaintance. Though more comfortable than at the outset, they were still concerned about what I might publicly divulge of our meeting, worrying that they might be identified.

It feels somewhat surreal to be operating in such a clandestine manner in order to procure something as seemingly benign as milk. I’m still learning about raw milk – so can’t speak too much to its health benefits or risks, but I’m sure that I’m not the only one who finds it ludicrous that I should have to enter into a “criminal” underground in order to voluntarily transact to buy food for myself, right?

Stay tuned for updates on my underground milk adventures!

*Try to come up with some milk and cow puns of your own for hours of fun!

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?

"Public Good" and "Economic Benefit" Justify Stealing?

The peaceful occupation of the Trenton Ontario farm of Frank Meyers has now entered into its third week. Supporters of the 85-year-old farmer have been occupying the farm since January 13, as a defensive measure, in order to prevent an armed invasion and seizure of the property by the Department of National Defence (DND). The DND is seeking to expropriate (i.e. steal) the farm in order to build a new training facility for the controversial and secretive Joint Task Force 2 (JTF2).

To this point, in my communications regarding the attempted expropriation of the Meyers farm, I have assumed that my audience sees the situation for what it is – an armed robbery.  This week, I would like to take the opportunity to address some points made by those who favour this expropriation (and expropriation in general) as a legitimate function of government.

 

Greater Good & Economic Benefit 

Those in favour of the expropriation say that the “greater public good” that would be achieved far outweighs the trauma that would be experienced by Mr. Meyers as a result of being forcibly evicted from his farm. Local proponents of the government’s plan, including Member of Parliament Rick Norlock, Quinte West Mayor John Williams and talk radio host Lorne Brooker, point to the economic benefit to the community, and the hundreds of new jobs that the new base is supposed to bring to the region, as basis for the legitimacy of the government’s action.

Consider this scenario: An armed robber enters a convenience store in your town and forces the storeowner, at gunpoint, to hand over all of the money in the store’s safe. He exits the store with a bag full of cash, leaving behind a box of chocolates and a thank you card for the shopkeeper.

Couldn’t it be said that the robber has acted for the greater good? Maybe he’s a friend of yours, a neighbour or co-worker.  Maybe he’s someone who brings his car to your auto repair business for maintenance, and someone with whom you share a beer on a weekly basis. He’ll likely use the money he’s stolen to purchase goods and services at local businesses around town. Maybe he’ll bring his car to your shop for a tune-up that he’s been putting off for a while, or buy everyone at the local pub a round next week. Heck, he’ll even buy a beer for the shopkeeper who he’s robbed. 

You, the proprietor of the pub and other business owners around town will be glad to see the additional business, and the townsfolk will be satisfied with a free beer. Shouldn’t the whole town be glad to have such a skilled and benevolent robber among them, who, through his act of violence, has stimulated the local economy?*

Surely you wouldn’t defend this man’s act of robbery merely based on the use he makes of the stolen property. If it’s not appropriate for an individual to steal, then by what mechanism does it become okay for a group of individuals, who call themselves the government, or the Department of National Defence, or defenders of freedom, or public servants, to do just that? 

*For a better economic understanding of the impact of crime, learn about the Broken Window Fallacy.

Peaceful Occupation of the Meyers Farm a Success, For Now

The peaceful occupation of the Trenton Ontario farm of Frank Meyers has succeeded, for now, in preventing the demolition of Mr. Meyers’ barns, and the ultimate and irreversible seizure of his prime farmland by the Department of National Defence (DND).

Image by Occupy Canada

Though Mr. Meyers had been promised by the DND that he would receive written notice in advance of the demolition of his farm buildings, the first of the peaceful occupiers arrived at the Meyers farm early Monday morning to keep vigilant watch. On the morning of January 13, an OPP cruiser arrived at the Meyers home, and an officer informed Frank that the demolition would indeed be taking place that very day.

The first occupiers on scene, Phil Ostroskie, Kim Verner-Ostroskie and Rachelle Verner, of Prince Edward County Ontario, keeping watch from their motor home parked in the driveway of the farm, alerted Mr. Meyers as military police and demolition crews, led by Major Ronald Nelson of CFB Trenton, rolled through Meyers’ corn field. In response to this armed invasion of his property, Mr. Meyers crossed the railroad tracks onto the part of his farm that the DND claims as their own, and served Major Nelson, as well as members of the demolition crew employed by Parkside Landscaping and Contracting, with cease and desist orders.

In receipt of the cease and desist orders, the invaders retreated, but not before threatening Mr. Meyers and his supporters with arrest, should they remain on the wrong side of the tracks upon their return. Dozens of supporters arrived throughout the day Monday, as Meyers scrambled to remove as many of his belongings from his barns as possible, in case demolition crews were to succeed in their mission of destroying his property.

The presence of Meyers’ supporters as well as several national media outlets on the farm kept demolition crews and military police at bay Monday, and through the night until early Tuesday morning. Under the cover of darkness and a blanket of fog, a single military police vehicle approached Meyers’ barns by way of a makeshift road forged through the cornfield by demolition crews the previous morning. Vigilant occupiers, who had remained on the farm overnight, once again alerted Frank to the invasion, and the military police quickly retreated down the path, with 85-year-old Meyers following closely behind in his John Deere tractor.

At approximately 9:00 am on Tuesday morning, Mr. Meyers placed a call to CFB Trenton, demanding an audience on his farm with base commander Colonel David Lothian. Meyers asked that the Colonel attend with documentation in-hand, proving the legitimacy of the DND’s claimed ownership of his farm. Having received no response from the Colonel, Meyers and his supporters crossed the railroad tracks onto the DND-claimed portion of his farm, and set up camp next to the barns. Military police did not respond, and demonstrators remained for the duration of the day and through the night. 

Occupiers of the Meyers farm vow to remain on site around
the clock in order to protect the property against armed
military invasion.
Photo by Michael Clark

On Wednesday, a spokesperson for CFB Trenton told local media that demolition of the farm buildings would be postponed, citing a desire to “make this as easy as possible on the individual (Meyers)” and a recognition of the occupiers’ “right to protest”. There were, however, no statements made indicating that plans to demolish the buildings would be scrapped. Instead, it seems, the DND will wait for occupiers to leave to farm so that they can proceed unencumbered with the destruction of Meyers’ property. CFB Trenton spokesperson Lieutenant Colonel Danny Breton said, “We are waiting until conditions are appropriate to continue further development of the site.”

While the military waits for peaceful occupiers of the Meyers farm to disappear so they can proceed with their plans, supporters of the farmer remain on site, and vow to stay put around the clock to protect the private property against this armed invasion.

A Message to Military and Police Employees Re: Frank Meyers' Farm

This article was also published on The Art of Not Being Governed Blog.

On November 29, we learned that 85-year-old Ontario farmer Frank Meyers had finally caved to government threats, signing a contract to sell his farm to the Department of National Defence. I have spent much time, since then, considering my response to this news.

Read previous posts about the Frank Meyers' battle with the government here, here and here.

First, Frank Meyers' ultimate decision - to submit to the government's demand that he sell his farm - is not to be condemned. At the end of the day, Frank had to make the difficult decision, in order to preserve his own life, and to mitigate the harm done to himself and his family by the government through its agents; police officers, military members, court and elected officials.

Let me be clear. The contract that Frank Meyers signed with the Department of National Defence is not valid and must not be taken as a voluntary agreement. Frank Meyers signed the contract under duress, with the guns of the state pointed at him, his family and his farm. Meyers said, "They threatened me, that’s what it was. They told us if I didn’t take the money they wanted to give me they would go to court and I wouldn’t get half of what they offered me. That’s what they said."

Notwithstanding the clear lack of consent, I do not believe that the individuals responsible for the initial decision to expropriate the Meyers farm are at all likely to, in an unprecedented act of humanity, change their minds and leave Frank Meyers alone, either because they suddenly recognize and respect the need for consent or because they are moved by letters, e-mails and tweets of their "constituents".

Since I first wrote about the Meyers case, I have taken heat from other supporters of Frank for my condemnation of military members and police officers for their roles in the expropriation of the farm. Critics told me that military members, and police, both in general and those who have been involved in the Meyers eviction, probably don't agree with the government taking this action, and that they are just following orders. This is my message to government employees - police, military members, court officials, military contractors, etc. - like the ones described by many of my critics:

If it is true that you do not agree with the government's action to expropriate Frank's farm, then you must realize that it is not the government who is acting to steal Mr. Meyers property, but individuals, including yourself, whose actions make this theft possible. If, as it has been presented to me, it is not the enforcers and administrators of laws and government policies who want to carry out this theft, but a small group of immoral decision-makers, then why do not the good men and women who, I am told work for the government, refuse to carry out these immoral and criminal orders?

If you are a police officer who enforces the DND's claimed ownership of the Meyers farm, and would be prepared to arrest Frank Meyers or his guests as trespassers on his own farm, you are a party to theft.

If you are a court employee who would work to support a process that would see Frank Meyers or his guests prosecuted as trespassers on the farm, you are a party to theft.

If you are a member of the military who would work at the new Joint Task Force training facility to be built on the Meyers farm, you are a party to theft.

If you are a military contractor, or a local resident who would work to build the new facility or to service it once built, you are a party to theft, and you are guilty of profiting from the proceeds of a criminal act.

I implore those "good" government employees, if they exist, to affirm their morality by refusing to act to support the theft of Frank Meyers' farm. While it may not sit well with you to admit, if you do not refuse to follow orders that support theft, then you are not a good person, as you would claim to be, but a thief and a criminal.

Peaceful Demonstrators Gather at Meyers Farm, Police Respond En Masse

A small but dedicated group gathered at the Trenton Ontario farm of Frank Meyers on Sunday November 17 to demonstrate in opposition to the Department of National Defence's attempt to expropriate the prime farmland in order to build a military training facility.

Does a No Trespassing sign constitute
ownership?

Organizers of the event had intended for today's demonstration to mark the beginning of a peaceful occupation of the portion of Meyers' farm and outbuilding, which had been scheduled to be demolished the following day (November 18).*

The Occupation for Peace, in opposition to the military's plans for Frank's farm, has been postponed, along with the DND's demolition plans. Frank received word from the military, Saturday, that work would not begin to convert his farm into a specialized military training facility until some time in December. It would stand to reason that the postponement of the demolition is directly related to activist plans to occupy the land. In an effort to avoid interactions with protestors, I would not be surprised to see the DND attempt to begin work without warning, and at a time close to the holidays, when activists are less capable of mobilizing (maybe between Christmas and the new year?).

While the peaceful demonstrators did not occupy the "disputed" property, more than a dozen police officers including one CN Rail officer (Sabo), four military police (McCann, Long, Frost, Currie) and several OPP officers (Steele, Gibson, et al.) arrived at Meyers' farm in a show of force and intimidation. While on scene, cruisers drove onto the undisputed private property of Frank Meyers, and officers roamed the property, despite constant reminders from demonstrators that the Meyers farm is private property, and that their presence was not welcomed.

When asked by a demonstrator about the purpose of the police presence at the peaceful gathering on the farm, Quinte West OPP officer Shelley Steele responded, "We are here to just try to keep the peace for you guys." At the peak of police presence, there were eight cruisers, and twelve to fifteen armed officers on scene, compared to fifteen to twenty peaceful, unarmed demonstrators.

The dedicated group of demonstrators on hand Sunday has vowed to return to occupy the "disputed" property in order to prevent the demolition of Frank's outbuildings, and ultimately the construction of a military training facility on his land, and say that they expect a large mobilization of supporters in the coming weeks in order to ensure a substantial number of peaceful occupiers.

For updates on the Meyers farm, and the Occupation for Peace, please like the Facebook page.

Related posts:

Trenton Farm to be Occupied for Peace...
Government Steals Land to Build Murderer Training Camp

*The government, in their infinite benevolence, will allow Meyers to maintain ownership of a small piece of property consisting of his house, as well as the farm's original homestead and a few outbuilding.

Trenton Ontario Farm to Be Occupied for Peace, In Defence Against Government Aggression

This is an update on the story of Ontario farmer Frank Meyers, which I wrote about last month.

Frank Meyers has extended an open invitation to his supporters
to come to his farm and stay for an indefinite period of time
in order to prevent the military from proceeding with its plan
to steal and re-purpose his farmland.

Since that time, when a senior military official, accompanied by two (presumably) armed OPP officers visited the home of the octogenarian farmer to inform him that, going forward, he would no longer be the owner of his farm, Frank's legal battle has not proceeded in his favour. Despite his many efforts to combat the expropriation of his farm through legal means, Mr. Meyers stands to see his farm, as he knows it, scraped away to make way for a state-of-the-art 400 hectare training facility for the highly classified Joint Task Force 2, any day now.

With earth already being moved on neighbouring farms also expropriated by the Department of National Defence for the military training facility, Frank Meyers and his supporters have had to come to the sobering realization that a government cannot be effectively challenged from within a system where it acts as its own judge, jury and executioner.

A frustrated Meyers, this afternoon, told Lisa Gibson, the administrator of the Facebook page 'Save Frank & Marjorie Meyers Farm',  "Do what you have to do to save my farm!" The farmer has extended an open invitation for his supporters to come to his farm, and to stay for an indefinite period of time, in order to prevent the military from proceeding with its plan to steal and re-purpose his farmland.

I am reminded of a line from The Philosophy of Liberty, by Ken Schoolland;

You have the right to protect your own life, liberty, and justly acquired property from the forceful aggression of others. So you may rightfully ask others to help protect you.

Frank Meyers is asking for our help to protect his property, and, by extension, his life and his liberty, from the forceful aggression of the government. Occupation organizer Lisa Gibson sees a very real threat to Frank Meyers' life in the theft of his farm. She says, "I have been in the death care sector for 22 years. I have seen first hand that when you take a person Frank's age and you take away their purpose in life, their reason for getting up in the morning, they die!"

This demonstration will be an occupation for peace, demanding that government agents stand down with their aggressive acts of theft, and their threats of violence and imprisonment against those who dare challenge them. Not only will this demonstration demand peace at home, by speaking out against expropriation of private property, but also peace around the world, by attempting to stop the Canadian government from building a training centre for military assassins on the site of the Meyers farm.

The Occupation for Peace will begin at the Meyers farm in Trenton this Sunday Morning, November 17, 2013 at 11:00 am. The address is listed below. Organizers are currently seeking donations of supplies for the occupation including items such as portable toilets, tables, coffee, food, etc. For updates on the occupation, and to coordinate with organizers, like the Facebook page.

Meyers Farm
209 Meyers Creek Road
Trenton, Ontario

Please help to make this Occupation for Peace one powerful enough to neutralize even the Canadian Military. Share with your friends!

Government Steals Land to Build a Murderer Training Camp

Ontario farmer Frank Meyers
Photo by Cole Garside

Earlier this month, the Canadian government took the final steps in the process of what amounts to the "legal" theft of a parcel of land owned by 85-year-old Ontario farmer, Frank Meyers. The Department of National Defence, utilizing the legal doctrine of expropriation (also known as eminent domain) strongarmed the elderly farmer into unwillingly "selling" his property so that a 400 hectare training facility can be built for Joint Task Force 2, a specialized team of trained killers with the mission of "counter-terrorism".

To those of us who are soberly aware of the nature of the relationship between the state and its citizens (subjects), even the official definitions of expropriation and eminent domain - the legal power of the state to take private property for the public interest - screams THEFT! But let's take a moment to cut through the legalese to make it as clear as possible what eminent domain really means.

The word eminent has dictionary definitions including high in station, conspicuous and projecting. That is to say that something that is eminent is of greater stature, prominence, and likely power than other things surrounding it. The word domain is defined as a territory governed by a single ruler or government.

When the two words are paired, we get a term which basically means that the party of greater stature, prominence and power is the party with the right to rule over a territory in question. In other words, might makes right. And who, in the cases of Frank Meyers and countless others, is mightiest? You guessed it; the state.

In an interview with Maclean's Magazine, Meyers said, “In other countries, they’re crushing you with bullets and guns and ammunition and tanks and explosives. Not in Canada. It’s pencil and paper here, and then they’ve got control.”

It's true that throughout the legal process by which the government seized Meyers' property, not a single bullet was fired, nor did any tanks roll up his laneway. His son even told Maclean's that the Department of National Defence had been "fair" with his family. However, the entire process was made possible only by the government's ability to forcefully evict Mr. Meyers, through the use of violence, if necessary.

Who owns the land?

Had Frank Meyers' known that ignoring letters, phone calls, court summons, etc. from the government would result in no action from state agents attempting to cage him, forcefully evict him, or kill him, he surely would have felt significantly reduced pressure to comply with their requests for him to surrender his land. This is evidenced in the final show of force by the state, when a senior military officer showed up at the home of Mr. Meyers accompanied by two (presumably) armed Ontario Provincial Police officers to notify him that from that point forward, he had no right to set foot on what was once his own property.

The sentimental value of his farm, it seems, is far greater than any offer of monetary compensation presented to Mr. Meyers by the Canadian government. He has lived on the land for his entire life, and it has been in his family for generations. "It is difficult to know that you’re losing everything you’ve got," Meyers told McLeans.

There has been a lot of discussion lately in libertarian and anarchist circles surrounding the tactical implications of the defensive use of force against government agents. The question has been eloquently explored by Chris Cantwell in his article, When Should You Shoot The Mailman, and Larken Rose in his piece, When Should You Shoot a Cop.

When is it appropriate to use defensive force to defend your property against agents of the state? If you ask me, the case of Frank Meyers is a perfect example not only of a tactically justifiable, but perhaps also a morally imperative time for the use of defensive force. I consider that if I were in Meyers' position, near the end of my life, facing the prospect of having my most significant asset, my home for 85 years, and the site of some of my fondest memories and most life-enriching experiences stolen from me, there is not much I wouldn't be willing to do in order prevent such a tragedy. Top that with the knowledge that my stolen property would be used to train militarized killers to commit murder in all corners of the world against people I have never met, and who have never harmed me, and I am angry.

To those libertarians who advocate achieving change through legal means, and who advise submission to violent government aggressors in most all situations, I ask you to put yourself in the shoes of Frank Meyers.