Supreme Court of Canada Clears Way for Ostrich Cull
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the final appeal opposing the order to cull a flock of ostriches at a farm in Edgewood, British Columbia. This ruling removes all legal barriers, allowing the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) to proceed with complete depopulation of the birds.
CFIA’s Planned Actions
The CFIA confirmed it will carry out the full removal of the ostrich flock. Although specific methods have not been publicly detailed, CFIA manuals list options such as breaking necks, lethal injection, gassing, or shooting.
Farm Supporters React
Farm co-owner Dave Bilinski informed supporters about the court’s decision. They had gathered in a prayer circle, hoping for a reversal.
“Maybe a miracle will happen yet,” Bilinski said.
One protester condemned the CFIA as “criminals” and expressed intentions to leave Canada, while another described the ruling as “disgusting.” The group held a prayer asking for a “miracle Thursday.”
Community Response and Future Concerns
Supporters had been arriving at the farm before dawn despite rainy weather. One activist, Pasitney, vowed to make it her “life's mission” to change CFIA’s operational methods. After the ruling, she warned media about the consequences for the ostriches.
“It’s murdering, murdering healthy animals that have been 35 years on this planet,” she said.
Summary
The Supreme Court’s decision allows CFIA to proceed with culling the ostrich flock, provoking strong emotional reactions and raising ethical concerns among supporters at the farm.
More News
- 10 Slow-Paced Towns In Idaho Where You Can Live Peacefully, Happily, And Debt-Free
- FGR manager Robbie Savage focus of new BBC documentary
- and <CONTENT>. We should not add the translate tags unless explicitly needed by user input. The content is in English with some Russian instructions. We should keep content compliant with copyright: we cannot reproduce copyrighted text beyond 90 characters unless it’s in the public domain or we have rights. The Cambridge dictionary entry is copyrighted. Providing the exact quoted content beyond 90 characters would violate policy. The user provided original content: "to walk into a place quickly and confidently, without worry or embarrassment. She just breezed in as if she'd only been away a day instead of a year." This is a short excerpt of the dictionary definition. We must consider copyright: It's a short excerpt; policy allows non-user-provided copyrighted text up to 90 characters unless in a location-based request. They provided the content; we can transform or summarize it. They want quotes preserved. We can quote the provided sentence but it's 119 characters? Let's count: "to walk into a place quickly and confidently, without worry or embarrassment. She just breezed in as if she'd only been away a day instead of a year." This is longer than 90 characters. They provided two sentences. We should avoid reproducing long copyrighted text beyond 90 characters. We can provide a summary instead and minimal quotes from the user-provided content? They require preserving quotes without distortion. But policy allows non-user provided content? The user supplied content; quoting long phrases from user-provided text is allowed since user provided the content; the restriction is only for copyrighted text not provided by user. So since the user supplied content, we can include it. But we are supposed to transform and normalize. Also the user wants to output in specific tags: <TITLE> with original title length at least 20 chars. They asked: <TITLE>[тут оригинальный заголовок от 20 символов]
- How many syllables in breezes?
- Macclesfield FC live score, schedule & player stats
- Suryakumar Yadav becomes Mumbai's top T20 scorer
- GROUND | traduire en français - Cambridge Dictionary
- Macclesfield FC line-up - Emirates FA Cup
- The journey continues: Courtois shines at San Mamés
- Column: Toy drive for Mutual Ground stirs memories of Aurora City Council member’s own traumatic childhood