SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The BBC reports that one Canadian, Angele Grenier, is fighting back against the maple syrup monopoly granted to the Federation of Quebec Maple Syrup Producers (FPAQ), which controls 77% of the world's maple syrup supply:
The problem for Mrs Grenier, and Quebec's other so-called "maple syrup rebels", is that they cannot freely sell their syrup. Instead, since 1990 they have been legally required to hand over the bulk of what they produce to the Federation of Quebec Maple Syrup Producers (which in French-speaking Quebec is abbreviated to FPAQ).
Backed by the Canadian civil courts, the federation has the monopoly for selling Quebecois maple syrup on the wholesale market, and for exporting it outside the province. It sets the price for how much it pays producers, and it charges them a 12% fee per pound of syrup. Producers are only allowed to sell independently a very small amount of syrup, to visitors to their farm, or to their local supermarket. And then they still have to pay the 12% commission to the FPAQ.
"We don't own our syrup any more," says Mrs Grenier, who calls the federation the "mafia". Unwilling to put up with this state of affairs, Mrs Grenier and her husband have in recent years been selling their maple syrup across the border in the neighbouring Canadian province of New Brunswick. In scenes that could come from a Hollywood drugs movie, they load barrels of syrup on to a truck as quickly as possible, and then race it over the border line under the cover of darkness. The couple are breaking the law, but say they are fighting for the right to sell their syrup for a price - and to customers - of their own choosing. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the FPAQ has taken a very dim view.
[More After the Break]
FPAQ security staff and police officers have paid her a number of visits, and Mrs Grenier is facing prison if she continues to refuse to turn over her syrup. The federation has also hit her with a 500,000 Canadian dollars fine, which she is now contesting, as she says she won't back down. "We want our freedom back," says Mrs Grenier.
Paul Roullard, the FPAQ's deputy director, defends the federation's actions. He says: "People who say that our practices are totalitarian should go see what happens in China, North Korea, or Africa." Mr Roullard is also quick to point out that the FPAQ didn't unilaterally award itself its powers, rather that they were agreed by "100% of the delegates who represent Quebec's producers, when we voted them [in]". Back in 1990 when the federation got the first of its far-reaching powers, Quebec's maple syrup producers supported the move because then prices were low, at roughly $1 per pound. In return the FPAQ promised to market the syrup better, and set prices with authorised buyers. And in this it succeeded, with demand and prices starting to rise to today's $2 per pound levels.
[...] Yet the rebels continue to complain about what they see as the federation's heavy-handed tactics, such as Daniel Gaudreau, a producer from Scotstown in southern Quebec. He says that in 2014 the FPAQ accused him of selling more than his allotted quota, and so seized his entire production. This year, he says, the federation even posted private guards on his property, and is now suing him for more than 225,000 Canadian dollars. Mr Gaudreau says: "The situation is completely ridiculous. Only a few of us dare to fight the federation because it built a system based on fear, and it has much bigger financial resources than us."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by MadTinfoilHatter on Friday December 11 2015, @12:31PM
Seriously, get the law changed or move out of Quebec. Even if the law is stupid and wrong, it's the law. Until then you're just a criminal.
-1 Disagree. Civil disobedience is an important part of getting the law changed - especially if a law is stupid and wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @03:45PM
This wouldn't happen in the US. We have guns.
STOOOPID NOOCKS.
(Score: 1) by Osamabobama on Friday December 11 2015, @04:40PM
...so the situation would turn violent much sooner. The side with the law would then bring more guns than the smugglers could muster.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Friday December 11 2015, @04:39PM
That's just a clever way of justifying law breaking. If I'm a maple syrup producer and comply with the law, I'm not going to be happy at all at someone who rakes in extra profits by breaking the law, and even less happy if the authority that is imposing a monopoly on me just turns a blind eye to them. Why do I get punished for being a law abiding citizen? Now if the "civil disobedient" person would say donate all additional proceeds to a lobby organization to get the law changed, I could live with that. I'm pretty sure that's not what happens though. It's FUCK YOU, SUCKER! I'm a special snowflake and laws don't apply to me!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @05:11PM
You could do the same thing. It's your own choice.
Break the law, take a risk, make a profit.
Comply with the law. Pay the monopoly, get screwed.
I mean, you are happy to pay and fund those monopoly guys. ie losing some of your real profit. But then complain that some other guys make some extra money you don't have anything to do with?(Well one could claim they could "steal" market shares, and hypotetical future profit.)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Friday December 11 2015, @05:34PM
Why do I get punished for being a law abiding citizen?
You waive your right to fairness when you're a chump, idiot, or coward.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @02:36AM
so when I break into your house and steal your shit i'll leave a note claiming civil disobedience but that's ok buy yourself another tv chump I'm the hero of this story
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 12 2015, @05:24PM
so when I break into your house and steal your shit i'll leave a note claiming civil disobedience but that's ok buy yourself another tv chump I'm the hero of this story
Because that is equivalent to breaking really bad laws as a form of civil disobedience.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by melikamp on Friday December 11 2015, @06:50PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 13 2015, @07:17PM
"I'm not going to be happy at all at someone who rakes in extra profits by breaking the law"
What about the monopolists that rake in extra profits because they bought politicians and therefore have a monopoly? Are you going to be happy with them? Why should they be the only ones with a monopoly because they bought the politicians? That's what's not fair here.
Your anger should be rightfully directed toward them.
(Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Friday December 11 2015, @10:18PM
Part of having a society is that crying out "fiat justitia ruat caelum" and doing your own thing can't be taken lightly. To a certain extent you're stuck following other people's dumb ideas. Keep in mind they think your ideas are dumb too and the truth is you're probably both right.
It's a fairly common phenomenon for prized agricultural exports to be saddled with heavy handed policies. People disagree on how they should be managed as a cultural and economic asset for a region and the results may very well be perverse at times.
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.