What exactly had the judge determined in his 217-page judgment? Why I was interned? Which illness did I suffer of? "Schizoparanoid", situational depression, depressional situation, paranoid state, paranoia, situational psychotic depression and so on? Was I dangerous and to whom?

Over 20 years ago the psychiatrists degraded me to the status of a criminally insane person. For over 20 years I have been claiming that I am not a perfect man, but certainly not mad or bad. For over 20 years I have been looking for a physician to determine whether I am mentally disturbed, and since no one has found that I am sick and need treatment, I have attempted legal means to get rid of the excruciating stigma. All my endeavours have been in vain.

I am not superstitious, but sometimes I ponder whether, like Job or Sisyphus, I had been punished or put on trial to suffer forever. Whomever I had approached -- either prejudiced, intimidated, opportunistic or corrupted individuals -- refused or declined to take part in a story which has been so time consuming, so incredible that it defies one's imagination.

For over 20 years, I have lugged around medical and legal records, letters, documents, testimonies and other voluminous material that pointed the finger at many psychiatrists, legal authorities and others responsible for my internment and mistreatment as a human being. I have hoarded the material that I have painstakingly collected, believing that someday I would expose the perpetrators in order to vindicate myself.

I've never been interested in studying law or psychiatry. Nevertheless the circumstances under which I had been confined as a "mental patient" forced me to contemplate what law and justice is all about, and the role of the courts in implementing the laws. In Chapter IX (The Legal Juggernaut following my Illegal Internment) I wrote about Judge Boudreault and the injustice done to me. It would be useful to underscore some additional points.

Although jurists try to elevate laws and justice to the pedestal of sciences, actually we cannot consider them to be like any other recognized science. Likewise, psychiatrists pretend that psychiatry is medical science. Practically, we do not have any yardstick to measure and make definitions of justice and psychiatry.

Through history we have examples, even among law professionals, of opinions so diabolic that we can only classify them as absurd. Or even worse.

While Hammurabi and Moses are lauded as the oldest promulgators of laws and Solomon as a wise judge, in reality we have in almost every country different "systems of justice". If justice were a genuine science, it would be applied everywhere similarly. Yet we can see that justice differs according to time and place. Even in different parts of the same country people apply different laws, by the same token different kinds of "justice". Moreover, we even have in the same country by the same rulers in different periods different kinds of "justice". A very illustrative example of this point is my old country Yugoslavia.

During forty years of Tito's dictatorship, besides the people who were "punished" for nothing, whoever was in disagreement with him was sentenced or convicted by the courts that were such in name only. The penalties ranged from mild punishment to the death sentence. It depended on the time and which position the individual held. The first six to seven years after the war were the worst.

Our Canadian society lauds the judges every day as virtually infallible, while we see that both justice and psychiatry are highly questionable as sciences. The simple fact that courts have for many centuries used juries as moderators of their decisions, i.e. as correctors of judges' "scientific" skill proves per se that jurisprudence is not a "science".

We know that juries include individuals from all walks of society. And we wonder how an ignorant citizen could handle the implementation of justice. It is inconceivable for a biologist, physicist, physician or any true scientist to ask for help in performing his task from an ignorant blue-collar worker, or even from a clever intellectual who is not familiar with the subject.

Here is an article which speaks for itself and underlines my opinion that public assessment is the best way to restrain man's evil impulses:

The recommendations are part of a commission study on racism in the criminal justice system.

It was commissioned after Justice Minister Kim Campbell took the unusual step in June, 1991, of asking the law body to determine if the justice system discriminates against ethnic minorities.

The February, 1992, paper might never have been made public had the Star not obtained a copy. The commission was abolished in February's budget.

In the 20-year history of the Canadian Judicial Council, which investigates allegations levied against federally appointed judges, there have only been a handful of hearings.

Judges and lawyers enjoy absolute privilege in Canada's courts -- the right to say what they will about anyone without fear of legal recourse -- or so most people assume. But absolute privilege does not excuse unfair and damaging allegations, mischievous tripping of innocent people or planting of fraudulent evidence.

Judge Boudreault, since he acquitted the deceivers, appears to have issued a conscious challenge to the principles governing Canada's courts. That challenge should not go unanswered.

Tragic mistakes have always been and will continue to be made because man is not perfect. For making a mistake during bona fide work, nobody would be accused nor punished.

The point in my case is not the mistake, but the shameless and insolent denial of "mistakes" in the face of the facts. Worse is that the facts were covered up in a conspiracy "secrecy".

The judgment in my case, as written, would lead one to believe that, although I was not mentally disturbed myself, the psychiatrists did an "honest, diligent, conscious and competent" job, which is pure poppycock or doublespeak. Competent and honest physicians do not keep healthy people in hospitals.

Psychiatry and law are pseudo-sciences, not sciences. Both can charitably be termed arts, but their claims to scientific respectability are dubious.

The scientific method consists of experimentation, recognition of reason in the results, organizing a theory and testing that theory.

Psychiatrists and lawyers do not operate in this manner. As a matter of fact, they operate under different systems and still quarrel as to which system is more valid. This is not science.

There are many questions one could ask regarding the medical validity of psychiatry.

What makes medicine valid -- etiology, diagnosis, evolution of diseases, therapy (treatment), prognosis and rehabilitation, all of these in psychiatry are under question.

At this point, I would comment briefly only about the etiology in medicine in general. With some exceptions, physicians could establish exactly the etiology -- the causes of diseases.

Until a century ago, physicians did not know the causes of diseases. They knew only symptoms. Hence they were applying so-called symptomatic therapy.

The goal of medical science is prevention and specific treatment of diseases. Since the physicians did not know the causes, they were alleviating only symptoms (pain, temperature, insomnia). With the accomplishment of scientific methods in all domains of human activities, especially in chemistry, physics, biology, pharmacology and anatomy, the physicians today are able to discover the cause of the disease, follow and control it. The physicians could positively prevent and cure their patients by applying the so-called causal or specific therapy to specific diseases.

Many theories exist about the etiology of mental diseases: stress (physical and mental) theory, intoxication theory (alcohol abuse, drugs), infective theory (some psychiatrists are of opinion that virus is the cause and others think that bacteria are the cause of mental diseases). Some believe that the hormones are the cause. Some support the hereditary theory. But up to now we do not have a universal theory able to explain every case. While we have a number of cases which support some of those theories, in most cases -- and those are the most serious ones, like schizophrenia and paranoia -- we do not have any explanation where the disease comes from, how it spreads or develops, or most importantly, how to cure it.

We have cases where the patients are from healthy parents, had a happy life and made no contact with any mental patient, but, in spite of this, all of a sudden they became unduly mentally disturbed. The psychiatrists did not know the cause of the illness.

Some psychiatrists, like Dr. Szasz, whom we already quoted, are "antipsychiatrists". They do not recognize the existence of mental diseases.

Thus Dr. Thomas S. Szasz writes¹⁹⁷:

Dr. E. Fuller Torrey compares psychiatrists with witch doctors and recommends a new behavioral science in the training of psychiatrists.

It is instructive and amusing to quote what the psychiatrists think about themselves.

There is no heterodoxy, only an array of fighting orthodoxies (among the various schools of psychiatry). Each group tends all too rapidly to become formula-ridden and hidebound. Each develops a tendency to outlaw the data and theories from the other schools, and to view them with angry rejection and suspicion. What all behavioral science needs. is the heterodoxy of the fully informed and erudite scholar who rebels against orthodoxy within himself and within his own camp.¹⁹⁸

Much of what now passes as mental illness is actually force and fraud -- the so-called patient trying to coerce others by pretending to be sick. Similarly, much of what now passes as psychiatry is also force and fraud -- the so-called psychiatric physician trying to coerce others by pretending to be a healer combatting a pestilential epidemic.¹⁹⁹

Psychiatry is like the platypus. This mammal is shy, furry creature with web feet and a broad duck bill that appears totally out of proportion to its body. It is an absurd animal. It is also an evolutionary dead end, unable to defend itself and headed toward extinction.²⁰⁰

The result is that, today, particularly in the affluent West, all of the difficulties and problems of living are considered psychiatric diseases, and everyone but the diagnosticians is considered mentally ill.²⁰¹

We are all murderers and prostitutes -- no matter to what culture, society, class, nation one belongs, no matter how normal, moral or mature one takes oneself to be.

Humanity is estranged from its authentic possibilities. This basic vision prevents us from taking any unequivocal view of the sanity of common sense, or of the madness of so-called madman. However, what is required is more than a passionate outcry of outrageous humanity.²⁰²

In spite of my criticisms and sarcasm here and there regarding psychiatry and justice, I am of the opinion that we need to have both types of professionals -- psychiatric and legal. I am categorically against "libertarians" who preach absolute freedom even when the mentally disturbed are starving or freezing on the street. Competent and compassionate psychiatrists would certainly alleviate those people. I am equally for the lawyers and all who are concerned with the justice system. Without them the law of the jungle would prevail among us.

My point in all that I have written is that man is not perfect, therefore inclined to sin and err. We -- including the psychiatrists and the lawyers -- must get into the habit of correcting one another's faults. This goal can only be achieved in a spirit of open and fair criticism.