Stats Can bugging anyone?

[parsley]

QUOTE


AAFC: Open Letter on Marketing Choice
OTTAWA, ONTARIO--(Marketwire - Aug. 3, 2007) -

August 1st was supposed to be 'Barley Freedom Day' for Western Canadian farmers.

Unfortunately, a Federal Court ruling prevented that from happening. It's a setback for sure, but not the last word on this issue of freedom by a long shot.

After meeting with the Prime Minister in Charlottetown, PEI last week, I can tell you that our Conservative Government is preparing to move forward. One way or another, we are going to provide marketing choice for farmers.

This Government has been clear and unwavering in its commitment to choice, starting with our election campaign in December 2005.

That commitment was recognized and in the 2006 General Election, a Conservative MP was elected in the vast majority of ridings within the CWB region.

We have been clear, open and transparent in moving toward this objective. Also, the plebiscite held last winter was dramatically clear. 62% voted to end the Board's monopoly.

On the strength of this strong democratic mandate we began the regulatory process. It was logical for us to think that since barley was moved into the CWB by regulations it could be taken out the same way.

If farmers needed any further proof about the positive impact that marketing choice would have on their bottom line, they need look only at what happened to prices following the court decision.

Many barley growers were looking at record prices for their grain, but the court decision wiped millions of dollars of potential off of their balance sheets.

A monopoly may work for some farmers, but thousands of others will be sure to tell those folks in the ivory towers of Winnipeg (and the provincial governments who funded them) of the frustration and outrage at what it has cost them personally. Their disappointment is palpable, and I share it wholeheartedly.

I am pleased to learn that the Wheat Board has finally recognized that the status quo is no longer an option. As Mr. Ritter has said, it can't be "business as usual."

Farmers and governments will be watching closely to see if those changes are real and substantial, or merely window dressing.

If the Wheat Board won't take care of people, we'll do it ourselves because we are the real friends of farmers.

Farmers gave us a clear message - a mandate for change - a change to marketing choice while preserving a strong, yet voluntary, Wheat Board. This is what western farmers want. And this is what Canada's New Government is going to deliver.


CONTACT INFORMATION: Chuck Strahl
Minister for Agriculture and Agri-Food
& Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board

UNQUOTE

[lohner]

I have a 'vote' idea. Dual market and we can all vote with trucks.

[kamichel]

And loaded with enough compost not ready but quite stinky so someone takes notice.

[mb_rancher]

Has anyone thought of maybe blocking some railways like the natives were going to do when the government took notice and offered them settlement on their land claims?

[Incognito]

Has anyone thought of taking it to the World Human Rights Court?

http://www.worldservice.org/wsalstat.html

STATUTE of THE WORLD COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

WE, THE DELEGATES OF THE WORLD GOVERNMENT OF WORLD CITIZENS, IN CONVENTION ASSEMBLED, 12 JUNE, 1974, IN MULHOUSE, FRANCE, REPRESENTING MORE THAN TWO MILLION ADHERENTS, AND ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD COMMUNITY, UNANIMOUSLY

A) ESTABLISH THE WORLD COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS;
B) AFFIRM our commitment to a global order under the Rule of Law, guaranteeing human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction or dissemination;
C) AVER that humankind's human rights are interdependent and are not abstract concepts, and that public awareness of such rights is therefore a guarantee of their protection;
D) RECOGNIZE the obligation to create a world order in which humans neither have to kill nor be killed;
E) DECLARE that the WORLD COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, premised on WORLD DUE PROCESS OF LAW and PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, gives individuals and groups standing before a world tribunal;
F) ADOPT. the STATUTE OF THE WORLD COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS;
G) And DECLARE, that the WORLD COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
1) IMPLEMENTS the right to life;
2) AFFIRMS that concern for the SECURITY and FREEDOM of the INDIVIDUAL is greater than principles of JURISDICTION derived from TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY, NATIONALITY, and other technical concepts;
3) ASSERTS that everyone has the right to liberty and the security of the person and the unity of the physical, spiritual and moral creation of the earth and the equality of all human beings to be free of oppression or repression;
4) CONDEMNS militarization;
5) ESTABLISHES the remedy of WORLD HABEAS CORPUS;
6) ASSISTS regional and global formulae for implementing fundamental freedoms and human rights;
7) RECOGNIZES that the dignity of the individual is in keeping with essential moral needs, and this dignity finds expression in human rights;
8) Limits the arbitrary powers of government;

[Incognito]

My reasoning for the World Court:

1) Canadian law over grain marketing is not equal to Eastern grain farmers or farmers in Creston, B.C. with farmers in MB, SK, AB.

2) The rest of the world can see the individual rights of farmers are treated differently within Canada. Hell, the rest of Canada might see it.

3) Canadian courts with Liberal judges have not addressed that the law is applied differently in Canada - only that Government is allowed to discriminate under national liscencing - not grain marketing.

[parsley]

Incognito,

The CWB has every righy t to market organic grain.

They have NO RIGHT to discriminate when it comes to national licensing.

Licensing duties in the CWB Act applies equally to all applicants. Even Western ones.

Certainly human rights applies.

Easterners would be up in arms if they were denied licenses.

Parsley