No law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to authorize or effect the arbitrary detention, imprisonment or exile of any person.

Canadian Bill of Rights, Passed by the Parliament of Canada and assented to 11th August, 1960.

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarious acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights of U.N..

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Canadian Bill of Rights dwell emphatically upon the protection of human rights of persons. But, was I considered as a person by the psychiatrists who were giving me "lessons" on how to "change my character", how to "forget my children", how to "live without family", and so on? I was discarded as a worthless animal before they even set their eyes upon me. And the more I demanded human treatment, the more I was brutally trampled upon.

I am bringing up the old Canadian Bill of Rights rather than the new Charter of Rights and Freedoms since the former was in force during my internment.

I do not think I have to reveal to the readers the Canadian Bill of Rights and the principles therein: freedom ... respect for moral and spiritual values ... protection of citizen's fundamental rights ...¹⁹⁰ For me being a Canadian was a wish, then a dream being fulfilled, and finally a dream which my colleagues turned into a nightmare. Yet I have not lost hope, I still believe in humanity and justice. Otherwise one's life would be hopeless.

It is unnecessary to be an expert in legal matters to recognize that almost all of the principles proclaimed in Part I of the Bill were violated. Allow me to examine its contents.

Canadian Bill of Rights

1. It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,

(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;

(b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;

I do not believe that I would have languished for six months in various mental hospitals and thereafter "waited for justice to be served", if the professionals who dealt with me had the Bill of Rights in their mind. The simple fact was that I was a "new" Canadian with an insufficient mastery of French and/or English was unfortunately exploited, and thus my most basic human rights were terribly abused during my hospitalization and at the trial as well.

The judge's interpretation that the legislators had given the superintendents a right to arrest and intern "mental" patients at their whim is in flagrant contravention of the Bill (part I, art. 2), which is clear, explicit and unequivocal:

... no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to

(a) authorize or effect the arbitrary detention, imprisonment or exile of any person;

In my case, the arbitrary detention was authorized or ordered by Dr. J. Dufour, effected by policeman J. Cliche, and then my confinement was administered by Dr. L. Roy and Dr. P. Dorion in St. Michel Archange Hospital and Dr. R. Legault and Dr. F. Juretic in St. Jean de Dieu Hospital; and finally, it was blessed by the Protector of Citizens (Ombudsman) of Quebec and the authorities of Legal Aid of Quebec; the final sanction was done by Mr. Justice Boudreault of the Superior Court, the Quebec Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada.

Furthermore, I was arbitrarily exiled (dirigé vers Hamilton) by the psychiatrists, which is in contravention of my human rights.

It is deplorable for a judge (Mr. Justice Boudreault) to "wonder" about the legislators' intentions, as if they authorized a social role -- providing for arbitrary detention, imprisonment or exile -- to psychiatrists.

Not only is Mr. Justice Boudreault's question in contradiction with the Bill, but also with the Code of Ethics of physicians and Magna Carta (Habeas Corpus). The psychiatrists are supposed to be physicians, certainly not policemen and jailors. Detention and imprisonment in countries, like Canada, where the law is respected, is put in the hands of law officers (judges, police, lawyers).

(b) ... no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to impose or authorize the imposition of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

Could there be any more cruel punishment than what the psychiatrists had done to me? Some people who are very close to me -- among them two physicians and a retired judge -- expressed their admiration for my tenacity and my moral and mental qualities, taking into consideration the conditions, with which they are acquainted. They would have "committed suicide or killed" some of the perpetrators. But I have not committed suicide or killed anybody. I have always been taught that suicide is not a solution for life's problems and that murder is not normal or moral.

(c) ... no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to deprive a person who has been arrested and detained

(i) of the right to be informed promptly of the reason for his arrest or detention.

In the medical records it is written that I asked during my hospitalization and afterwards to be given a reason for my arrest and detention (see note of 17.11.71 and letters to Dr. Dorion and Dr. Juretic). I have never received an answer. Oddly, my ignorance was considered a reason for my internment.

It is written in the records as a question to me, "How do you conceive your sickness, where is it from and how can you cure yourself (sic.)?" My lack of response to this question by the psychiatrists was "proof" of my sickness and reason for my internment. Again, I must say, Mr. Justice Boudreault did not mention this note, while he wrote in detail on irrelevant testimonies in court. This question is, in fact, inverse proof that the psychiatrist is incompetent or mentally disturbed.

... no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to deprive a person who has been arrested or detained ...

(ii) right to retain and instruct counsel without delay, or

(iii) of the remedy by way of habeas corpus for determination of the validity of his detention and for his release if the detention is not lawful.

Being held incommunicado I was unable to "retain and instruct counsel". Even the Protector of Citizens and legal authorities (Legal Aid) ignored my appeal "to determine the validity of my detention". Therefore, I was unable to benefit from "the remedy by way of habeas corpus".

... no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to ...

(d) authorize a court, tribunal, commission, board or other authority to compel a person to give evidence if he is denied counsel, protection against self-crimination or other constitutional safeguard.

While according to this paragraph no one has the authority to compel a person to give evidence if he is denied counsel, in my case as I had not been "self-critical" and did not "co-operate", i.e. because I did not incriminate myself. As a matter of fact, until I received the medical records through my lawyers, I did not know exactly why I was confined. Therefore I did not know how to incriminate myself even if I wanted to.

In the court the psychiatrist (Dr. R. Legault) was insolently bragged that in his ward I was forbidden to seek help from anybody, including even the Ombudsman (Protector of Citizens) or Mr. Pierre-Elliott Trudeau (at that time Prime Minister). He said that I "could not communicate even if Mr. Trudeau was happy to receive my call for help".

On the other hand, the same Dr. Legault testified in the court that he "could not find out any pathological elements" in my behaviour. Yet it seems Mr. Justice Boudreault, like Dr. Legault, considered my request for help during my hospitalization to be "pathologic element!" For both the psychiatrists and the judge my refusal to incriminate myself (no self-criticism) "was a justification for my hospitalization."

... no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to ...

(e) deprive a person of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and obligations;

Certainly, in a country like Canada, a law to "deprive a person of the right to a fair hearing" is unthinkable. We know that the psychiatrists are university-educated and are bound by the medical code of ethics. It is expected that they should know better than anyone else about fundamental human rights and their duties. But, they consciously trampled upon the principles most sacred to every Canadian.

And if we talk about a fair hearing, how can we expect fair treatment by a judge who preaches violation of the most fundamental rights -- human rights!

... no law of Canada shall be construed or applied as to ...

(f) deprive a person charged with a criminal offence of the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, or of the right to reasonable bail without just cause;

Mr. Justice Boudreault paraphrased me nicely as saying what was written in the medical records: "If I did something offensive, my place would be in a jail rather than in mental hospital." Indeed the psychiatrists did not deliver me to the police because I had not done anything offensive. In response the question as to why I had been not delivered to the police, Dr. Dorion, my first "attending" psychiatrist, replied in court that nobody but the psychiatrists could "solve" my situation!

... no law of Canada shall be construed or applied as to ...

(g) deprive a person of the right to assistance of an interpreter in any proceeding in which he is involved or in which he is a party or a witness, before a court, commission, board or other tribunal, if he does not understand or speak the language in which such proceedings are conducted.

I have already written in the preceding chapter about my difficulties with French and English. The following incident is not merely due to linguistic misunderstanding. Ironically, Mr. Justice Boudreault, in his Judgment imputes me with a "partial admission of préjorative (sic) violence", which -- "préjorative" or any -- never occurred and was never proved. I have not admitted to anything and I have never admitted committing any form of violence whatsoever! Besides, it is very, very strange for a judge to say that somebody admitted "préjorative violence"?!

Canada has been a great champion of human rights; Canada was among the first countries to sign and ratify the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations. In Canada, even the animals benefit from protection and decent treatment under the law. Yet in my case, all the principles of the Bill of Human Rights were trampled upon in a most unscrupulous way. Did it ever occur to the law professionals (lawyers, judges, Ombudsman) and the psychiatrists that "mental patients" are human beings? That is, if mental patients benefited from the protection of laws like any "normal" citizen, the lawyers and psychiatrists would be less "overburdened" and the "mental patients" happier, which should be the goal of both lawyers and psychiatrists alike.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

PREAMBLE

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarious acts which outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the people of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Members States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge.

Now, Therefore,

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

proclaims

This Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 1

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of political, jurisdictional, or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5

No one shall be subject to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunal for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligation and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11

1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all guarantees necessary for his defence.

2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed

Article 12

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Reading the Universal Declaration of Human Rights I come to the conclusion that this Declaration is more than sufficient for protection of the mental sick or any other person against any discrimination in violation of law and charters of rights and freedoms (federal and provincial) already legislated. We do not need supplementary "Principles", as Prof. Schabas suggests in the "Preface". Our psychiatrists and judges are lacking of moral principles. They should be "directed to the full development of the(ir) human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human and fundamental freedoms", as is written in the Article 26 of the Declaration.