и вньвь из зала-суда-зала-туда
Sep. 14th, 2010 03:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
babusyatanyaПока наша-кооперативная апелляционная жалоба в отношении февральского решения суда о "приостановлении и прекращении производства и упаковывания молока в пищу людей" валяется где-то под сукном, жалоба здравотдела (о том что решение суда якобы не выполняется) скорым ходом прошла по инстанциям. Нынче суд про "неповиновение решению суда". Наклейка "не употреблять в пищу" на банках с молоком - полностью удовлетворяет требованию предыдущего суда. Подобные наклейки присутствуют на всех продуктах, о которых производитель предупреждает "не употреблять в пищу", например, масло машинное, стиральный порошок, тормозная жидкость (хотя кто-то может и употребить, дело личное). И это - здравый смысл. Полностью прекратить и приостановить производство и упаковывание молока на ферме означает что Алиса не имеет права доить коров, собирать молоко в емкости и приносить даже домой своей семье.
сегодня я чуть было глазам своим не поверила, когда судья - по определению лицо нейтральное и приверженное непредвзятости - нахмурил бровки и стал натурально выговаривтаь Алисе как провинившейся школьнице про то, что она "отлично ведь знает что люди которые берут молоко будут его поедать..." возражения про то что это людей собственность и они вольны... - раздраженно проигнорировал
-я хочу предоставить дополнительные доказательства того, что решение суда было выполнено нами полностью, а сотрудники здравотдела напротив множество раз нарушали закон и предусмотренные законом процедуры выполнения своих обязанностей.
-вы можете попросить у меня разрешения на то, чтоб вы изложили это, сочту ли я это нужным, разрешу ли я это вам - это другой вопрос, но попросить вы можете.
в итоге конечно же оказалось что ни какие дополнительные доводы относительно (не)подчинения решению суда ему не нужны. Предоставил на выбор - сейчас суд продолжать (предупредил что затянется на весь день), или подчиниться требованию здравотдела и тогда можно взять таймаут для найма адвоката с последующим судебным заседанием; с чем и ушел на 10минутный перерыв.
присутствующий народ обсудил варианты и проголосовал за таймаут. лицо здравотдела подслушало содержание нашего обсуждения и по возвращении судьи в зал потребовало у лорда (к судье обращаются My Lord ... прости господи :)) добавить в судебный приказ еще одно предложение, про то, что "запрещается кому бы то ни было занимать место Алисы в производстве, упаковывании и т.д". На что судья ему ответил "ни чего не буду менять" пояснив, что достаточно и того что уже сказано.
ответственные лица из здравотдела действуют так, чтобы сузить дело до узкого кейса неповиновения решению суда.
Понятное, что система в первую очередь заинтересована в обслуживании самой себя - всем игрокам в системе судопроизводства надо хлеба с маслом, надо работу, надо получать зарплату. Каким бы ни был процесс - системе судопроизводство главное что бы он был - хоть какой-нибудь плохонький, притянутый за уши, уродливый в своих формулировках, противоречащий здравому смыслу и сфабрикованный - главное чтобы не останавливался, иначе под угрозой хлеб с маслом у всех его заинтересованных членов.
А тем временем в Онтарио Майкл Шмидт баллотируется в члены парламента (MP)
Contempt hearing for raw milk farmer
By Jeff Nagel - BC Local News
Published: September 13, 2010 3:00 PM
Updated: September 13, 2010 3:43 PM
Public health officials are still trying to stop the flow of unpasteurized raw milk from a Chilliwack dairy farm to its 450 cow-share members across the Lower Mainland.
Home On The Range dairy operator Alice Jongerden faces a contempt of court hearing this week over allegations she's violating a B.C. Supreme Court injunction issued in March banning any further distribution of raw milk.
Selling unpasteurized milk is illegal, but the cow-sharing co-op members claim they don't buy the milk – they jointly own the cows and merely collect liquid dividends.
The B.C. Supreme Court ruling in March found Jongerden was "willingly causing a health hazard" and banned distribution or packaging of milk or related products for human consumption.
Jongerden said milk continues to flow but containers are now labeled "not for human consumption" to comply with the court order.
Fraser Health Authority officials don't accept her logic.
"You can put a label on something but if the intent is still for human consumption, that's a violation of the court order," health authority spokesperson Roy Thorpe said.
Environmental health officers raided the farm July 9 to gather evidence.
"The operator continued to distribute raw milk," Thorpe said. "We believe the actions are in contempt of the court order."
The dairy had defied previous orders from public health officials to cease and desist distribution.
Advocates claim raw milk conveys probiotic and other health benefits absent from pasteurized milk.
They hope to ultimately legalize raw milk production and distribution, which is allowed in several U.S. states.
B.C. health officials maintain drinking raw milk brings a serious risk of bacterial infection and illness.
The Public Health Act defines raw milk as a health hazard.
Thorpe said there have been 27 documented outbreaks of illness related to raw milk across North America over the past nine years.
Jongerden has accused Fraser Health employees of tampering with samples of seized milk to fabricate test results showing high fecal colliform counts from Home On The Range milk.
The court hearing begins Tuesday in New Westminster.
http://www.bclocalnews.com/fraser_valley/theprogress/news/102816104.html#disqus_thread
comments:
The logic that labeling the milk "not for human consumption" as being in contempt of court is faulty. One can buy a car, but the seller of that car is not held responsible if the new owner decides to drive recklessly and get in an accident. The same goes for Home on the Range products. If one decides to buy shares from the farm, the farm is not responsible for what that person does with the product.
This is just another example of how health is becoming less of something under each individual's control. If I choose to drink raw milk because it provides a benefit to me, that shouldn't be discounted. The fact that so many people in this world grow up on farms drinking raw milk with no adverse side effects should be considered. The fact that in many countries it is legal should be considered.
Make raw milk available to those who want it.
I was born and grew up in Germany and have lived there for the first 35 years of my life. To my knowledge and experience, drinking raw milk has never been a problem in Germany. These days you can find raw milk in many health food and organic food stores in Germany, and even some "large chain" supermarkets carry it - and informed consumers are willing to pay "top dollar" to enjoy this product and its many health benefits. I personally believe that a key factor to create and maintain a healthy body is healthy food, and i believe this is why the world-wide demand for unprocessed, naturally produced food is rising constantly.
In a world that has additives in it's additive drinking raw milk is a refreshing change.
My cat turns up her nose at fresh tuna prefering canned, are we so domesticated that we don't know real,as nature intended it, food anymore?
Fear nature seems to be the message,
or do we just not want everyone to know where their food comes from?
the little i understand of the current raw milk issue in bc makes it difficult to see the logic in why this is in fact an issue.
i understand historically that raw milk had a significant risk with disease so much so that pasteurization was implemented. this is 2010 where hygiene and the ability to monitor the risk for disease has much improved. home on the range is following these practices with both hygiene and laboratory testing of the milk.
given that the milk being distributed is considered safe by the current health boards i don't understand why there is this issue.
given that there are other parts of the developed world that allow raw milk including ontario of our own country it at least raises an eye brow to wonder why ontario or parts of the u.s.a or europe but not bc.
as an observation i find it odd that we are in a period of time where it has become an effort to find unadulterated food. that is, no pesticides or herbicides, not genetically modified, no antibiotics... i find it even more odd that we as a general population have allowed the current conventional farming practices to become the norm.
basically what i am saying is i would like to have the liberty in bc to have the choice to drink raw milk that has been handled hygienically according current health safety standards.
certainly if one has given their consent knowing the small but possible health risks one would hope this drinking of raw milk would be allowed.
i am still waiting to here the logic as to why this should not be allowed.
I am saddened by this persecution of a responsibly run family farm. It is all too rare for independent farmers to be able to make a living these days; and for the consumer, it is next to impossible to find milk products from cows that are pastured in the traditional way rather than factory-farmed in cubicles and fed on antibiotics and filler.
The notion that this milk constitutes a 'health hazard' great enough to close down the farm's production is ridiculous; surely it should be up to each person involved to assess the risks and benefits for themselves, when it is clear that the risks involved (if indeed there are any) are far more minimal than those associated with a whole range of products that it is perfectly legal to buy and consume: tobacco, alcohol...
I fear that the interests of big business are behind this move by the Fraser Health Authority, and I worry that if they are successful here, we will continue to be subjected to more and more genetically-modified, factory-farmed, and profitable (for big business) food products, at the expense of livelihoods of small farmers and food that is naturally, sustainably and ethically grown.
What an absolute joke that they are claiming that this company is "willingly causing a health hazard". Wouldn't it be prudent to actually prove that they are causing a health hazard before spending crap loads of money trying to shut them down?
We bought some romaine lettuce from the grocery store that turned out to be poisoned with ecoli. Now THAT might be a reason to explore a company for possibly endangering the public. However, I'm sure they won't shut them down before properly investigating the situation. Why do we treat Home on the Range any differently?
The other very important thing to realize is that this company is VERY ethically giving it's customers informed choice. They allow you to come and check out their facilities, see the cows, the staff, the procedures and the environment. This local farm and the milk produced is a privilege for the locals. Until the government can actually present ANY evidence whatsoever that there are health concerns with the milk from this farm, then they should stop frivolously spending our money and stay the hell out of it!
Nowhere in the grocery stores can I find any milk that is from pastured cows, therefore one must assume that the milk sold is from factory-farmed cows fed grain - probably GMO corn. Feeding cows grain is like feeding humans a diet of exclusively chocolate bars. Cows get very sick on grain, increasing bacteria counts and necessitating antibiotics and other medications which are put in their feed. Milk from these cows is full of bacteria and hormones. Pasteurization is used to "cover up" the mess that factory farming creates. The Milk Marketing Board can then sell lots and lots of denatured, dead milk that is full of hormones to the unsuspecting public. Does it make sense that one can be healthy consuming product from unhealthy animals? Furthermore, the waste from factory farms is contaminating our streams and rivers, and the hormones from these farms is damaging the reproductive systems of fish and frogs in these waterways.
I want no part of such a system. To me it makes sense to feed cows what they are designed to eat so that they are healthy so no antibiotics are needed. My cows are NOT pumped full of hormones so I am not getting too much estrogen into my system. My cows poop in the pasture fertilizing the grass, so it does not run off into streams like the "tailings ponds" of factory farms do. My cows get to live a good cow life, outside in pasture enjoying the sun. Factory-farmed animals spend their life inside on concrete floors. Because my cows eat grass, I get more omega 3 which most of us need. And my milk is local.
So allowing this kind of arrangement makes sense for environmental, economic, animal welfare, as well as human health reasons. "Big Brother" has no right interfering with my private arrangement with my cow agister.
What a despicable thing for the "Health" "Authority" to waste taxpayers' money on.
It's personal choice whether people want to drink unprocessed milk or not.
Not only that, but this is a cow-share, meaning it's THEIR property! The right to peacefully enjoy one's property, in whatever manner one wishes (as long as no others are harmed of course) is THE most fundamental right in a free society. Of course, we're not talking about a free society here, we're talking about Canada, my bad...
If the so-called "health authorities" had their way breast milk would be pasturized, too.
Raw milk not only has the live enzymes for the uptake of calcuim but has constituents
that protect against pathogens. If there was any credibility to our current system which
caters to the revolving door between big business and regulators, real health threats like
GMOs, aspartame etc. would not be allowed.
сегодня я чуть было глазам своим не поверила, когда судья - по определению лицо нейтральное и приверженное непредвзятости - нахмурил бровки и стал натурально выговаривтаь Алисе как провинившейся школьнице про то, что она "отлично ведь знает что люди которые берут молоко будут его поедать..." возражения про то что это людей собственность и они вольны... - раздраженно проигнорировал
-я хочу предоставить дополнительные доказательства того, что решение суда было выполнено нами полностью, а сотрудники здравотдела напротив множество раз нарушали закон и предусмотренные законом процедуры выполнения своих обязанностей.
-вы можете попросить у меня разрешения на то, чтоб вы изложили это, сочту ли я это нужным, разрешу ли я это вам - это другой вопрос, но попросить вы можете.
в итоге конечно же оказалось что ни какие дополнительные доводы относительно (не)подчинения решению суда ему не нужны. Предоставил на выбор - сейчас суд продолжать (предупредил что затянется на весь день), или подчиниться требованию здравотдела и тогда можно взять таймаут для найма адвоката с последующим судебным заседанием; с чем и ушел на 10минутный перерыв.
присутствующий народ обсудил варианты и проголосовал за таймаут. лицо здравотдела подслушало содержание нашего обсуждения и по возвращении судьи в зал потребовало у лорда (к судье обращаются My Lord ... прости господи :)) добавить в судебный приказ еще одно предложение, про то, что "запрещается кому бы то ни было занимать место Алисы в производстве, упаковывании и т.д". На что судья ему ответил "ни чего не буду менять" пояснив, что достаточно и того что уже сказано.
ответственные лица из здравотдела действуют так, чтобы сузить дело до узкого кейса неповиновения решению суда.
Понятное, что система в первую очередь заинтересована в обслуживании самой себя - всем игрокам в системе судопроизводства надо хлеба с маслом, надо работу, надо получать зарплату. Каким бы ни был процесс - системе судопроизводство главное что бы он был - хоть какой-нибудь плохонький, притянутый за уши, уродливый в своих формулировках, противоречащий здравому смыслу и сфабрикованный - главное чтобы не останавливался, иначе под угрозой хлеб с маслом у всех его заинтересованных членов.
А тем временем в Онтарио Майкл Шмидт баллотируется в члены парламента (MP)
Contempt hearing for raw milk farmer
By Jeff Nagel - BC Local News
Published: September 13, 2010 3:00 PM
Updated: September 13, 2010 3:43 PM
Public health officials are still trying to stop the flow of unpasteurized raw milk from a Chilliwack dairy farm to its 450 cow-share members across the Lower Mainland.
Home On The Range dairy operator Alice Jongerden faces a contempt of court hearing this week over allegations she's violating a B.C. Supreme Court injunction issued in March banning any further distribution of raw milk.
Selling unpasteurized milk is illegal, but the cow-sharing co-op members claim they don't buy the milk – they jointly own the cows and merely collect liquid dividends.
The B.C. Supreme Court ruling in March found Jongerden was "willingly causing a health hazard" and banned distribution or packaging of milk or related products for human consumption.
Jongerden said milk continues to flow but containers are now labeled "not for human consumption" to comply with the court order.
Fraser Health Authority officials don't accept her logic.
"You can put a label on something but if the intent is still for human consumption, that's a violation of the court order," health authority spokesperson Roy Thorpe said.
Environmental health officers raided the farm July 9 to gather evidence.
"The operator continued to distribute raw milk," Thorpe said. "We believe the actions are in contempt of the court order."
The dairy had defied previous orders from public health officials to cease and desist distribution.
Advocates claim raw milk conveys probiotic and other health benefits absent from pasteurized milk.
They hope to ultimately legalize raw milk production and distribution, which is allowed in several U.S. states.
B.C. health officials maintain drinking raw milk brings a serious risk of bacterial infection and illness.
The Public Health Act defines raw milk as a health hazard.
Thorpe said there have been 27 documented outbreaks of illness related to raw milk across North America over the past nine years.
Jongerden has accused Fraser Health employees of tampering with samples of seized milk to fabricate test results showing high fecal colliform counts from Home On The Range milk.
The court hearing begins Tuesday in New Westminster.
http://www.bclocalnews.com/fraser_valley/theprogress/news/102816104.html#disqus_thread
comments:
The logic that labeling the milk "not for human consumption" as being in contempt of court is faulty. One can buy a car, but the seller of that car is not held responsible if the new owner decides to drive recklessly and get in an accident. The same goes for Home on the Range products. If one decides to buy shares from the farm, the farm is not responsible for what that person does with the product.
This is just another example of how health is becoming less of something under each individual's control. If I choose to drink raw milk because it provides a benefit to me, that shouldn't be discounted. The fact that so many people in this world grow up on farms drinking raw milk with no adverse side effects should be considered. The fact that in many countries it is legal should be considered.
Make raw milk available to those who want it.
I was born and grew up in Germany and have lived there for the first 35 years of my life. To my knowledge and experience, drinking raw milk has never been a problem in Germany. These days you can find raw milk in many health food and organic food stores in Germany, and even some "large chain" supermarkets carry it - and informed consumers are willing to pay "top dollar" to enjoy this product and its many health benefits. I personally believe that a key factor to create and maintain a healthy body is healthy food, and i believe this is why the world-wide demand for unprocessed, naturally produced food is rising constantly.
In a world that has additives in it's additive drinking raw milk is a refreshing change.
My cat turns up her nose at fresh tuna prefering canned, are we so domesticated that we don't know real,as nature intended it, food anymore?
Fear nature seems to be the message,
or do we just not want everyone to know where their food comes from?
the little i understand of the current raw milk issue in bc makes it difficult to see the logic in why this is in fact an issue.
i understand historically that raw milk had a significant risk with disease so much so that pasteurization was implemented. this is 2010 where hygiene and the ability to monitor the risk for disease has much improved. home on the range is following these practices with both hygiene and laboratory testing of the milk.
given that the milk being distributed is considered safe by the current health boards i don't understand why there is this issue.
given that there are other parts of the developed world that allow raw milk including ontario of our own country it at least raises an eye brow to wonder why ontario or parts of the u.s.a or europe but not bc.
as an observation i find it odd that we are in a period of time where it has become an effort to find unadulterated food. that is, no pesticides or herbicides, not genetically modified, no antibiotics... i find it even more odd that we as a general population have allowed the current conventional farming practices to become the norm.
basically what i am saying is i would like to have the liberty in bc to have the choice to drink raw milk that has been handled hygienically according current health safety standards.
certainly if one has given their consent knowing the small but possible health risks one would hope this drinking of raw milk would be allowed.
i am still waiting to here the logic as to why this should not be allowed.
I am saddened by this persecution of a responsibly run family farm. It is all too rare for independent farmers to be able to make a living these days; and for the consumer, it is next to impossible to find milk products from cows that are pastured in the traditional way rather than factory-farmed in cubicles and fed on antibiotics and filler.
The notion that this milk constitutes a 'health hazard' great enough to close down the farm's production is ridiculous; surely it should be up to each person involved to assess the risks and benefits for themselves, when it is clear that the risks involved (if indeed there are any) are far more minimal than those associated with a whole range of products that it is perfectly legal to buy and consume: tobacco, alcohol...
I fear that the interests of big business are behind this move by the Fraser Health Authority, and I worry that if they are successful here, we will continue to be subjected to more and more genetically-modified, factory-farmed, and profitable (for big business) food products, at the expense of livelihoods of small farmers and food that is naturally, sustainably and ethically grown.
What an absolute joke that they are claiming that this company is "willingly causing a health hazard". Wouldn't it be prudent to actually prove that they are causing a health hazard before spending crap loads of money trying to shut them down?
We bought some romaine lettuce from the grocery store that turned out to be poisoned with ecoli. Now THAT might be a reason to explore a company for possibly endangering the public. However, I'm sure they won't shut them down before properly investigating the situation. Why do we treat Home on the Range any differently?
The other very important thing to realize is that this company is VERY ethically giving it's customers informed choice. They allow you to come and check out their facilities, see the cows, the staff, the procedures and the environment. This local farm and the milk produced is a privilege for the locals. Until the government can actually present ANY evidence whatsoever that there are health concerns with the milk from this farm, then they should stop frivolously spending our money and stay the hell out of it!
Nowhere in the grocery stores can I find any milk that is from pastured cows, therefore one must assume that the milk sold is from factory-farmed cows fed grain - probably GMO corn. Feeding cows grain is like feeding humans a diet of exclusively chocolate bars. Cows get very sick on grain, increasing bacteria counts and necessitating antibiotics and other medications which are put in their feed. Milk from these cows is full of bacteria and hormones. Pasteurization is used to "cover up" the mess that factory farming creates. The Milk Marketing Board can then sell lots and lots of denatured, dead milk that is full of hormones to the unsuspecting public. Does it make sense that one can be healthy consuming product from unhealthy animals? Furthermore, the waste from factory farms is contaminating our streams and rivers, and the hormones from these farms is damaging the reproductive systems of fish and frogs in these waterways.
I want no part of such a system. To me it makes sense to feed cows what they are designed to eat so that they are healthy so no antibiotics are needed. My cows are NOT pumped full of hormones so I am not getting too much estrogen into my system. My cows poop in the pasture fertilizing the grass, so it does not run off into streams like the "tailings ponds" of factory farms do. My cows get to live a good cow life, outside in pasture enjoying the sun. Factory-farmed animals spend their life inside on concrete floors. Because my cows eat grass, I get more omega 3 which most of us need. And my milk is local.
So allowing this kind of arrangement makes sense for environmental, economic, animal welfare, as well as human health reasons. "Big Brother" has no right interfering with my private arrangement with my cow agister.
What a despicable thing for the "Health" "Authority" to waste taxpayers' money on.
It's personal choice whether people want to drink unprocessed milk or not.
Not only that, but this is a cow-share, meaning it's THEIR property! The right to peacefully enjoy one's property, in whatever manner one wishes (as long as no others are harmed of course) is THE most fundamental right in a free society. Of course, we're not talking about a free society here, we're talking about Canada, my bad...
If the so-called "health authorities" had their way breast milk would be pasturized, too.
Raw milk not only has the live enzymes for the uptake of calcuim but has constituents
that protect against pathogens. If there was any credibility to our current system which
caters to the revolving door between big business and regulators, real health threats like
GMOs, aspartame etc. would not be allowed.