Local Resistance and the Curious Case of the Ostrich Farm

by Maggie Hope Braun

There’s something unsettling about the way local resistance to global agendas is being targeted.

Both KICLEI Canada and the Ostrich Farm in rural British Columbia have recently found themselves the subject of smear articles by the National Observer—a publication known to be affiliated with UN-aligned interests. It’s not hard to understand why KICLEI ruffles the feathers of the UN: we are calling out the true nature of programs like the Partners for Climate Protection and their impact on municipal governance and community autonomy. But the farm? A family-run ostrich farm in the middle of nowhere?

Why would a global media apparatus target them?

It helps to look at who the National Observer says it writes for. In a welcome email to new subscribers, the editor-in-chief proudly states:

“As a member of Canada’s most informed climate community, you’re in great company — alongside government leaders, CEOs, NGO advocates, UN delegates, academics, and activists. Together, we connect the dots on Canada’s most pressing climate issues and provide solutions for a better future.”

This is not a neutral platform—it’s part of a tightly connected globalist ecosystem. When an outlet aligned with UN delegates, federal regulators, and large NGOs takes aim at a regenerative ostrich farm in the interior of British Columbia, it raises an obvious question: whose future are they trying to protect?

The answer lies in a term that sounds innocuous—Sustainable Development.

To most people, sustainable development sounds like a good idea. Who wouldn’t want a better future, green energy, and clean air? But what hides beneath the buzzwords is a deeply centralized model of governance that redirects population growth away from rural life and small towns into high-density, high-surveillance urban zones. That’s the UN’s Habitat I land-use policy in action—and it’s been quietly influencing our country’s direction for decades.

The philosophical basis for this can be traced directly to the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements—Habitat I, held in Vancouver in 1976. Under Agenda Item 10, the UN’s official land policy was stated plainly:

“Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes... Public control of land use is therefore indispensable.”

In other words, the foundation of sustainable development policy is a worldview that treats private land ownership as a problem, not a right. The logical result? Development schemes that emphasize centralized planning, public control, and the gradual phasing out of rural independence in the name of “equity” and “efficiency.”

What we’re witnessing is the slow erosion of rural land use rights and independent food production. Once, Canada encouraged northern settlement and self-sufficient communities as a matter of national interest. Today, those same communities are under siege—not overtly, but through obscure regulatory measures, intimidation, and media gaslighting.

The ostrich farm in question is home to 400 healthy birds. The CFIA (Canadian Food Inspection Agency) has told the family their flock will be culled without warning, citing vague biosecurity threats—yet they have refused testing that might confirm the birds are, in fact, healthy. No date has been provided. No clear explanation. No public transparency. This family isn’t even allowed to know when the federal government will roll in with lethal force—so the community has posted watchers at the valley’s entrances, simply to give them a heads-up.

They’re not asking for special treatment.
They’re asking for due process—a chance to test, to respond, and to defend their animals, their livelihood, and their legacy.

This farm isn’t just raising birds. It’s researching natural immunity, regenerative practices, and alternative food systems—models that challenge the industrial-agricultural complex pushed under global "climate" initiatives. It’s beautiful land. It’s independent. It’s thriving. That alone is a threat to the preferred model of sustainable development.

This pattern of targeting isn’t new. It’s just now being noticed.

From farmers in the Netherlands to ranchers in Alberta, rural families are being squeezed out through layered regulations, cost burdens, and top-down mandates disguised as environmental concern. But the goal isn’t environmental stewardship—it’s control.

And that’s where we must draw a clear line:
There’s a critical difference between sustainable development and environmental stewardship.

• Sustainable development treats people on the land as a threat to be managed.

• Environmental stewardship recognizes that people need to be on the land to protect it.

One sees human presence as a liability.
The other sees it as a relationship.

The global model sees a problem to manage.
We see a community to protect.

I’m glad I came to the farm. I’m proud to stand with those who are protecting it. What’s happening here is emblematic of something much larger—something that needs to be seen, shared, and stopped.

This isn’t just about birds.
It’s about land.
It’s about life.
It’s about the future of rural Canada—and who gets to decide what that future looks like.