|
|
It is observed that men in their ordinary discourse, the discourse, that is, that they employ when they are not philosophizing, use certain expressions, and philosophers fasten on to more or less radical types or classes of such expressions and raise their question about all expressions of a certain type and ask what they really mean.
Sometimes philosophers say that they are analyzing or clarifying the 'concepts' which are embodied in the 'judgments' of the plain man or of the scientist, historian, artist, or who-not. But this seems to be only gaseous way of saying that they are trying to discover what is meant by the general terms contained in the sentences which they pronounce or write. For, as we shall see, 'x is a concept' and 'y is a judgment' are themselves systematically misleading expressions.
But the whole procedure is very odd. For, if the expressions under consideration are intelligently used, their employers must already know what they mean and do not need the aid or admonition of philosophers before they can understand what they are saying. And if their hearers understand what they are being told, they too are in no such perplexity that they need to have this meaning philosophically 'analyzed' or 'clarified' for them. And, at least, the philosopher himself must know what the expressions mean, since otherwise he could not know what it was that he was analyzing.
Certainly it is often the case that expressions are not being intelligently used and to that extent their authors are just gabbling parrot-wise. But then it is obviously fruitless to ask what the expressions really mean. For there is no reason to suppose that they mean anything. It would not be mere gabbling if there was any such reason. And if the philosopher cares to ask what these expressions would mean if a rational man were using them, the only answer would be that they mean what they would then mean. Understanding them would be enough, and that could be done by any reasonable listener. Philosophizing could not help him, and, in fact, the philosopher himself would not be able to begin unless he simply understood them in the ordinary way.
Gilbert Ryle182 |
The above paragraphs express my thoughts exactly on the use of language as a means of communication.
Language played an immensely important role during my internment and the trial. It is obvious to all of us that people differ in the way they speak the same language. We may look at language as an integral part of the personality of every individual. Every person has a different set of experiences from every other person. However, in our story it is not a question of nuances in using the language.
As regards language skills, we have two diametrically different types of individuals using either French or English during my hospitalization (in communication with myself and writing the records) and in court (testimonies) -- on the one side, those generally highly educated persons who are supposed to master their own language well (psychiatrists, lawyers, judges, and some informers involved in my case) and on the opposite side, those with poor or even almost non-existent language skills (my ex-wife, the "interpreter" Majcen, my brother and me).
As for my ex-wife, her French was poor at the time she was complaining against me. Therefore, she was misunderstood at the very outset. On the day of my hospitalization, when she herself found that the psychiatrists had gone farther than she had expected, she tried to resist signing the papers for commitment and later, it is written in the records "that she has never been in agreement to intern her husband. She asked if she could let him get out. She is now sure that her husband had a good lesson ..." Accordingly, her intention was only to give me a "good lesson", to thwart me from reprimanding her for drinking and running around.
Certainly she needed an interpreter for anything important, because during her three years' stay in Quebec she did not learn French nor did she previously have any background in that language. Even after eight more years, the judge and the lawyers had a hard time understanding her in court.
The same opinion could be applied to the "interpreter" Z. Majcen. My brother's knowledge of French was nil, but in the records it appeared as if he could speak French well.
Regarding my French, in spite of my efforts to learn it well, I had not succeeded in mastering the language well enough. Considering my age (at the time I was 49 years of age), my progress in learning English was not satisfactory either.
I had insisted to my lawyers that I should not testify at all in court. Firstly, I was quite certain that the medical records and the forgeries and perjuries already made by the accused psychiatrists were enough to prove that I was tortured in mental hospitals for no reason whatsoever. Secondly, I was not able to speak either French or English fluently. However, my lawyer Mr. Wolofsky and Mr. Justice Boudreault forced me to speak first in French and later in English.
I have been able to write this book, thanks to several persons and in particular Carla Adams, L.L.B., who provided very competent editing and assistance, and also thanks to my "friendly and knowledgeable" computer and Thesaurus. Mr. Justice Boudreault, in the judgment, reproached me for my poor English during the second part of my court testimony and stated that my long responses were difficult to understand, especially when I "was more excited than usual". I wonder how anyone with a poor command of the spoken language would feel in a court of law.
Mr. Justice Boudreault was hypocritical when he credited me with speaking better French, as my French was equally limited, if not worse than my English. Did it even occur to the judge to ask my lawyers why they did not retain a translator?
For a proper medical, especially psychiatric examination, there must be a flow of unrestrained communication, as in a proper trial in court. Therefore, in a "complex matter", as my adversaries termed it, it was indispensable to have engaged an interpreter.
The psychiatrists who set out with the intention of getting statements from me knew that I had a serious language problem. Their intention was to hit me during the internment when I was far from any lawyer and would not have an interpreter handy. They used devious means of imputing things to me which had never occurred -- and were later proved in court to be unfounded. The following is an example of them taking advantage of my linguistic imbroglio.
In the medical records Dr. Dorion, whose notes are replete with his own language problems, wrote twice falsely and sometimes ambiguously about my "violent behaviour". First he wrote on Nov. 16, 1971:
The patient returned to Quebec City on November 12. He went to the H�tel-Dieu to have his ulcer looked at on Saturday, November 13. On arrival at the H�tel-Dieu, Dr. Louis Dionne suggested hospitalization to him, in order that he be seen by a psychiatrist. The patient, realizing their strategy, affirmed that he had no desire to be hospitalized and that he wanted to return to Ontario to continue taking his English courses. Dr. Dufour and the patient's ex-wife were urgently sent for, in order to convince the patient to stay in hospital. The patient struck his ex-wife and left the hospital. Dr. Dufour made up the medical certificate and two police officers met him at a bus station and took him back to St-Michel Archange Hospital.
This note shows another face of Dr. Dorion and the psychiatrists who suggested this description of my apparent reaction. Let us suppose that the events, as they are described, are true. Let's ask ourselves how we and any other reasonable person would react if someone approached us and asked: "Would you like to be seen by a psychiatrist?" Surely one's typical reaction would be exactly as is written here. Only the really disoriented (mentally sick or intoxicated) person, who is not in touch with reality, would meekly accept the suggestion.
The doctor did not explain where all this information came from. Almost everything is contrary to the truth. The dates are not correct. There was no suggestion whatsoever from Dr. Dionne. Actually I did not see Dr. Dionne for at least a couple of months before my internment. After all, it does not make any sense to suggest to somebody, who is suffering from an ulcer, to see a psychiatrist.
The most embarrassing part in the note is that the doctor suggested that I had "struck" my ex-wife. He misquoted me as admitting having struck her. In fact, I had not admitted anything and my ex-wife stated in court that I had not touched her.
The second insinuation was written the next day:
"Mr. Delev entered my office calmly. With a smile and a sigh, he then informed me that it was going fairly well for him in a hospital full of crazy people. He became increasingly aggressive and talked more about his hospitalization. He was finding the whole affair more and more odious, and the doctors of H�tel-Dieu-de-Quebec less and less human for having committed him. He showed much aggression towards them and stated that he would go and spit on them. Then he re-iterated his story of what had transpired at the H�tel-Dieu, saying that he had given only a slap to him/her, not hard enough to have caused him/her any bruises."
It is unclear to whom I "had given a slap" and according the medical records Dr. Dorion did not investigate the matter. I remember that I had said that the psychiatrists had given me a slap (in figurative sense), but not enough to cause any bruises to me. There was no revelation of any physical violation in court.
Further, even the lawyers took advantage of my insufficient grasp of both French and English languages. The psychiatrists and their "witnesses" were arrogantly making all kinds of nauseous insinuations. They were helped by their lawyers and, ironically, even by the judge. I was being extensively grilled but I could not effectively answer.
The following excerpt illustrates the moral quality of the lawyers. On October 18, 1979 Mr. Pierre Cantin, lawyer for St-Michel Archange Hospital and Drs. Roy and Dorion, cross-examined me (in French) about above note:
Question: I heard you say, I think I heard you say in the presence of the court, this afternoon, that you not only had never any intention to kill your ex-wife with an axe, but that you even did not strike your ex-wife, Mr. Delev?
Answer: Did I strike my ex-wife?
Q. Have you ever struck your ex-wife?
A. No, never, never.
Q. You claim you never struck your ex-wife?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. Absolutely not. Suppose I told you, Mr. Delev, that you have already admitted this to Dr. Dorion.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. ... that you had struck her, but not very hard, not enough to cause her the bruises. Is this true or false?
A. You did not understand. When I spoke of giving the blacks, (I meant) that the physicians had done this (to me). I was disgusted at the role of my colleagues. This is the point, I think you have now understood me. I never said that I had struck my ex-wife.
Q. You claim you never struck your ex-wife?
A. No, never.
Q. And you are saying this under oath.
A. No, no.183
Q. Under any circumstances?
A. Under any, any, any whatever.
Q. You did not even threaten to strike her?
A. No.
Q. Have you had very bitter discussions with your spouse?
A. Oh, yes. Let's say, several times.
Q. Several times, several quarrels.
A. Yes, that's it. Quarrels, if you wish.
Q. And, you are claiming that you have never struck your ex-wife or even, let's say more gently, you have never even raised your hand against her?
A. I have already told you (this), I have already told you.
Q. Suppose that I tell you that Dr. Dorion, in the medical records ...
A. Uh, huh.
Q. ... in the progress notes (which) you have just mentioned, Dr. Dorion stated that he184 had only given a slap, but not enough to give him/her the blacks. Do you deny what you said, what you said to Dr. Dorion?
A. I was not in the hospital on November ll.
Q. On the 16th. This is a question of ...
A. And it appears ... Is that right?
Q. Continue. You could read. starting ... And regarding what had happened at H�tel-Dieu, he only gave a slap, but not enough to give him/her the blacks.
A. If I well understand the French, it's the following: I am speaking of a physician (physicians) who had given me the blacks, not enough (rather) that they had given me a slap, but not enough to give him (me) the blacks. It was myself who prejoratively (sic)185 gave him/her, (or rather) I told him that I had received a blow.
Q. You are saying here that what you told Dr. Dorion ...
A. Uh-huh.
Q. ... was that someone had struck you, but not enough to give you the blacks. Is this what you are claiming?
A. In a prejorative (sic) sense, do you think, are you sure that I am now speaking of my ex-wife?
Q. Now you are denying that ... Excuse me, it is you who is to answer ...
A. Are you sure that I am speaking about my ex-wife or rather about the role of the physicians with me?
Q. Listen, we shall have Dr. Dorion testify on this point, if you wish. Mr. Delev, I ought to refer you to the preceding page, page ll, where at nearly the middle of the page there is mention made of an interview with Mr. Delev ...
A. Uh-huh.
Q. ... he tells me that even if he threatened his ex-wife ...
A. Yes.
Q. ... You have just denied this, you had not expressed any threats in regard to your spouse. "Even (if) he had slapped her more than a month ago, he is not mad enough at this time, in the present circumstances to threaten his spouse or to kill her, or to do anything whatever to her." Page 11. (The learned friend skipped parts of the sentence: "On the other hand, he said if he had threatened or slapped, he should not be in the hospital, but in the prison.")
A. May I, what line?
Q. Almost in the middle, a little below the middle.
A. He tells ...
Q. At a certain spot you see the word "feeling" in the middle of the page, three lines lower.
A. "He tells me that even if he threatened his ex-wife, he (told) me, if he had even struck her more than a month ago, he is not mad at this time, in the present circumstances to threaten ...
Q. "To kill her ...
A. ... his ex-wife, to kill her or to do anything whatever to her."
Q. Do you deny having said this to Dr. Dorion, Mr. Delev?
A. I have said and I will try to say what I had told.
Q. But, before ...
A. This is still ...
Q. ... to have you say that which you said. I am asking you whether that which is related ...
A. I denied ...
Q. ... by Doctor ...
A. I denied, I repeat, I denied that I had slapped or threatened anyone whatever, whether my ex-wife or someone else.
Q. Thus, you are denying this is accurate, that you admitted having struck or threatened him/her?
A. These are Dr. Dorion's insinuations or my understanding of what I want to say.
Q. Ah well, then that's false ...
A. I have never, never said that I threatened either to kill or even to strike my ex-wife.
Q. Is the rest of the text accurate?
A. I don't think so ... No, there are many confusions in the text. What I have always, always, always contested the entire time of my hospitalization are the contradictions about the threats to my family. Two or three times these are evident: the children cried or they did not cry; the axe was found or the axe was not found, but still some other axe. At the same time everyone was quiet, the police has found the axe or not. It is very clear that there was, that we are dealing with a liar, a sick lady ...
Q. In your opinion your ex-wife is a liar and a sick person, this is it?
A. She was as such already hospitalized.
Q. She was hospitalized because she was liar and sick?
A. If you are acquainted with psychiatry you would know that all hysterics are liars.
Q. I refer to you once more to the same document (sic), exhibit P-3 (medical record of St. Michel Archange Hospital), on the page 8, this time, Your Honour, if you like to paginate them, because one went of 12, one had passed to him, and is you come back, and finally I think that the medical records will be completely paginated, in order to ...
A. Which date? Excuse me, which date?
Q. One speak of 16, of 11, '71. St. Michel Archange, this is to be in "mental examination".
A. This is it.
Q. I refer to you one note which is, I think, fourteenth page from the bottom, even fifteenth page ...
A. U-hum.
Q. And this starts with the words: "He said that he had menaced his ex-wife ...
A. U-hum.
Q. ... but not with an axe."
A. Yes.
Q. Well, do you pretend once more that this is untrue, Mr. Delev?
A. Untrue, untrue.
Q. This is untrue according to you?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. This is third time on three different occasions but always untrue, this is the third time untrue?
A. Yes, yes, yes.
Q. This is it?
A. Yes. If we speak about the menaces, I said about menaces for divorce, if you want to accept menaces as very important word, I had menaced her, even before to go to Hamilton, that it will be better to divorce than to have life which was not good, in this sense we had menaced each other many times.
Q. But when one said that you did menace but not with an axe ...
A. This is it, I repeat, I had never menaced with the axe.
Q. You think that one made allusion at the given moment to the threat of divorce, contrary to the threat ...
A. Yes.
Q ... let's say ...
A. Yes.
Q. ... of, about a civism (sic) which you can directly give ...
A. As you like ...
Q. That is what you pretend.
A. ...if you insist on the word menace, I will repeat the same to you.
Q. I do not have other questions.
(Translated by R. Hromnysky)
This is part of the cross-examination. Most the time was spent on "searching the exhibits" and idle talk between the lawyers and the judge.
My point is that the "officer of the court", Mr. Cantin, was himself confused or tried to trick me in order to extract a confession that, at the H�tel-Dieu, I had given a slap to my ex-wife, which is contrary to Dr. Dorion's effort to impute that I had slapped one of the psychiatrists of H�tel-Dieu or somebody else. Even my wife denied that I had engaged in any physical violence.
Here we witness how the judge accepted a rather shabby note from the "mémoires" as a document, because that suited his purposes. Thus, he gave his blessing to Mr. Cantin's efforts to extort a confession from me about "violence", which had never occurred.
All in all I was abused and subjected to considerable annoyance. The judge and my lawyers appeared to enjoy watching Mr. Cantin tormenting me.
The question of understanding language was one of the stumbling blocks in my story from the beginning to the present day. But it is not a sin and definitely not madness that I was not able to learn the languages. The ability to learn a language or anything, as is known, depends upon many factors: age, talent, time spent on learning, chances to practise, and so forth.
My point in this chapter is that the question of language should not be a cause for internment. The psychiatrists should take into consideration the patient's ability to communicate with them. In my case, besides the obvious malicious insinuations and the prejudice caused by the very fact that I was interned, there were many situations of a breakdown in communication. For example: The period of my stay in St. Michel Archange is described by Dr. Dorion and the nurses in a such a contradictory and confused manner, that as Dr. Pivnicki wrote, it is not clear why I was interned, "what has really been done, who has ever made the reliable psychiatric diagnosis, why was the man treated and what was achieved through hospitalization", and so forth. Yet I was compelled in court to decipher Dr. Dorion's half-baked written records.
If we compare the description of my stay in St. Michel Archange with that in St.Jean de Dieu, we can see sharp discrepancies in the descriptions of me as a patient. The nurses' notes in St. Jean de Dieu Hospital are written in such a manner as to show that I was a perfectly healthy man.186
Dr. Juretic and I understood each other well, because we communicated in our mother tongue. Although his own French was shaky, as evident in his notes, his descriptions were adequate to show that I was healthy. His findings that I was "not psychotic" and his diagnosis "situational depression" were absolutely accurate. In the situation, in which I was in, "Surely, the only appropriate reaction is depressive state", as Dr. Divic noted in his letter. Hence, the question is why did he not let me go. Obviously, if we take into consideration all his actions -- forgeries, perjuries, cruel treatment of me, we must conclude that he is an unscrupulous person.
Among other things, he wrote in my records the following sentence:
"Thus, as far as his attitude goes, nothing needs to be changed."187
This clearly indicates that my place was not in a mental hospital. The phrase does not make any sense in the context of my internment. If there was no need to change my attitude, then why I was interned at all?
On the first day of our meeting he told me that I would have to stay for a while, not because I was sick, but "because there were many signatures in the Quebec City medical records". In other words he let me know that he had to keep me longer to cover up the psychiatrists from Quebec.
Nevertheless he explained that the "imbroglio of the status of a immigrant" was the cause of my internment. He wrote clearly that I am "not psychotic".188
On the other hand Dr. Juretic's "disciplinary measures" -- prohibition to use the phone or go out at all, despite my "voluntary" (en cure libre) status -- are inexplicable in the context of his notes as well as the psychiatric treatment, as this kind of treatment could have a noxious, antitherapeutical effect.
The Quebec psychiatrists in my case, allowed themselves a standard of French that is lower than that expected of university-trained persons; and a particular weakness is their frequent tendency to provide inadequate descriptions from a professional and legal point of view.
Even two of the very first words used in the Commitment Certificate -- "connu" and "schizo-paranoïde"189 were questioned by the psychiatrists themselves.
The word "dangerosité" used in a report of the "Mental Bureau" does not exist in the French language.
It is evident that the notes in the medical record were frequently misleading and confused to the extent that the purpose of the note is often hard to grasp. Instead of making a greater effort to establish communication, the psychiatrists fell into linguistic babble.
After their initial blunders they turned to manipulation of language, creating nonsense, and even forgeries to get out of the impasse caused by themselves.
|