I am very angry with everybody who actively or passively deliberately worked on my annihilation. Many were in a position to help me but did not. And I am attacking those whose help I had asked for but was refused.

After my discharge from St. Jean de Dieu Hospital, instead of going to Hamilton, as I was "ordered" by Dr. Juretic, I went straight to Ottawa to contact Mr. Ljubomir Djukic, second secretary of the Yugoslavian Embassy, whom I wrote and called from the hospitals, asking for his intervention. Since Mr. Djukic was "busy", I was seen by a clerk in charge of trade, who knew nothing about my problems. He promised he would transmit a message to Mr. Djukic that I would like to clarify Mr. Djukic's involvement, but the latter never gave me an explanation why he had not helped me. It was the same story with the Ombudsman, the Ministry of Emigration, Quebec Legal Aid and the College of Physicians of Quebec. Thus, for example, Mr. Dechenaux, secretary of the Ministry of Justice. was very polite the first time I spoke with him. The next time a policeman at the entry to the Ministry, as soon as he heard my name, immediately took my suitcase and in a rude manner almost threw me out by saying, "Go away and never come back."

I asked the hospitals in person and in writing the reason why I was interned and tried to obtain my medical records from them. They were playing deaf and dumb.

I was fortunate to meet Dr. Predrag Vujnovic, a compassionate and genteel physician. He and I wrote many letters to the same individuals or institutions, which I had already contacted and many others which we presumed could be of help. Most of the time our letters were just ignored or the answers were equivocal. We were very persistent in asking for clarification about my situation. Finally, we became tired and deeply disappointed, and Dr.Vujnovic gave up.

I was very grateful to Dr. Vujnovic for his patience, energy and especially for his bold letters to the legal and medical authorities. Sometimes I thought that he might get in trouble for accusing his colleagues of being "criminals", "perjurers" or "falsificators".

Although his letters did not attain our desirable objective, the fact that nobody had the courage to reprimand Dr. Vujnovic was implicit confirmation that the mafia was truly the mafia. The reader can read my friends' letters in the Appendix.

As I mentioned on many occasions, there were so many blunders and subterfuges that one did not even need to be ingenious to see that my internment had been unscrupulously handled. Nevertheless, for some reason no one was willing to protect me, or those who were willing were not powerful enough to help. Why?

Several factors contributed to magnifying that "storm in a teacup". First, I was a newcomer, a "landed immigrant", a Canadian without the ability to speak and defend myself. Even if you ask help from benevolent people who are able to help, you have to tell them about your problem in a way they could understand, otherwise you "talk" in vain.

The worst source of prejudice is the label. The mere label of mental sickness is enough for most people to believe that the person is sick. They believe that psychiatrists are physicians who can only help and never harm. This is all the more true when the psychiatrists are united in their scheming.

Dr. Pivnicki, a prominent psychiatrist, wrote, in his first communication, "It is hard to believe that conscientious psychiatrists will commit someone" without reason. Here is the catch-22 situation. Though the doctor had never checked or even seen the implicated psychiatrists, he assumes that they are "conscientious," even though he criticizes their medical records as "faulty". I was in his office several times, and as a psychiatrist he could have written further about my mental state, but if he had done that, he would have had to erase the epithet "conscientious" from the psychiatrists. What sense can we make of this? The labelled person could never get rid of the label. The effect is what ordinary people call prejudice or discrimination.

In fact, we are talking of the worst kind of prejudice. As the Law Reform Commission of Canada wrote,²⁰³ to be labelled as a "dangerous mentally sick" person, is worse than to be sick of a terminal disease or even to suffer death. People believe that the so-called patient is lost.

If I was "coloured", or a homosexual, or a woman, or a known churchgoer, or even a criminal with a long record, nobody would dare to approach me to commit me without examination and a court's verdict. If somehow, as it happened in my case, a coloured individual was committed without reason, many racial organizations, such as Black Action Defence Committee, would stand up in his defense. They would make a big brouhaha about "racial discrimination". For women, there are many committees and even a government ministry on "women's issues", too.

Furthermore, even criminals are protected by the criminal law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It is also worthwhile to read a quotation from an editorial in The Globe and Mail²⁰⁴ which shows how human rights be should protected:

The law on police interrogations is fairly straightforward. Police have right to detain someone for questioning. They may ask a person to answer questions or to accompany them to a police station, but if a person refuses they must either leave him alone or arrest him. If they arrest him they must be able to establish that they had reasonable ground to believe him guilty of an offence and if the police have no such reasonable grounds they can be sued for false arrest.

Once arrested a person can demand to see his lawyer and police cannot deprive him of that right.

Answers given to police during an interrogation can be used in a trial if they are freely and voluntarily given. However, if police used oppressive or intimidating questioning, the law says that a person's answers cannot be used against him in court. Courts can also reject statements, even though voluntarily given, if they were 'obtained by methods which make the statements untrustworthy or which offend the conscience of the court.'

Yes, but ...

But what about the person who hasn't read up on his law? Who finds himself in a police station being subjected to the Mutt and Jeff technique?

It goes without saying that the person subjected to these techniques doesn't know his rights -- otherwise he wouldn't submit.

The Canadian Committee on Corrections under Mr. Justice Roger Ouimet was so concerned with this failure of the law to protect suspects that it recommended in its 1969 report that, 'the protections guaranteed by the Canadian Bill of Rights be implemented by specific provisions contained in the Criminal Code.' This would require that an accused be informed promptly of the reason for his arrest or detention and of his rights to call a lawyer. The committee also recommended a law to make his statements inadmissible in a court if these protections were not observed.

We would go further. We would make inadmissible all²⁰⁵ evidence -- not just his statement -- acquired as a result of questioning while these protections were improperly withheld from him.

As the committee said, 'A system of law enforcement based on keeping people in ignorance of their rights could not hope to command public respect'.

Yes, but those protections are for "normal" people. It does not apply to the "crazy" ones. It is not necessary even to be really crazy. Like in my case, the label was enough. The police did not need to have reasonable grounds to believe me guilty of anything. Moreover, the evidence, i.e. the records written by psychiatrists were interpreted by the judge in two different ways. On the one hand, he dismissed the records as being not convenient for crooks. On the other hand, he gleaned from the same records some self-incriminating "statements" supposedly given by myself.

Not to be misunderstand, I would like to stress that I am not a racist, homophobe, misogynist nor am I against the followers of any religion. Nor am I male chauvinist pig. I have good black friends. I have a high opinion about homosexuals who have achieved high accomplishments in science, arts, literature. I am an agnostic, but I respect anybody who is a real believer. I would especially like to point out that have immense admiration for women who have contributed personally or through their inspiration to men for great achievements in the history of mankind. Nor do I hate animals. As to the pigs, whether they are male or female, I do not differentiate.

My point here is that we have a primary obligation of equal treatment to our human neighbours, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, and -- mental state. Similar to the principle of presumption of innocence in law, we must accept that everybody is normal unless the contrary is proven.

I have already mentioned that in my case it was not only a question of prejudice, but also an unpardonable crime right from the beginning: kidnapping, physical and mental abuse, flagrant forgeries, perjuries, contravention of the law, which are crimes beyond reasonable doubt. Dr. Vujnovic wrote about it in his letter.²⁰⁶

In addition, here, I want to expose an event, which on the surface looks like a paranoid person's chimera. Actually, a clarification of this event could positively illuminate whether I am a sick person or the people whom I accuse are real criminals, criminals who would not shrink to eliminate me physically.

During my entire hospitalization I was officially forbidden to leave the ward or to contact anybody outside. Nevertheless, thanks to some nurses on the ward in St. Michel Archange Hospital, I was able "illegally" to call or write to anybody whom I wanted to.

According to my recollection and the diary, after I was confined I wrote immediately and sent telegrams to my brother, my brother-in-law and my ex-wife's aunt, to advise them that I confined in a mental hospital. I asked them to appeal to my ex-wife to be reasonable and set me free from the hospital.

I asked my brother particularly to come without delay because at that time I was quite sure that he could to convince my ex-wife to have me discharged, or to intervene through the Yugoslavian Embassy and eventually take me to Yugoslavia with him.

Since my brother's arrival was terribly delayed, in desperation, on December 1, 1971, I sent him a telegram in our native Macedonian language with the following text: "Come immediately or I'll kill myself."

I was conscious that this kind of telegram could have had two different effects -- it could have prompted my brother to come earlier, but it could also have been stopped and used as an excuse for psychiatrists to impose on me harsher "disciplinary measures". In a desperate situation I chose the desperate option.

The cell in which I was sleeping alone was ideal for committing suicide. For three days I was surveying in order to see some change in the attitude of the staff towards me. Convinced that my brother had received the telegram, I was expecting him to signal to my psychiatrist to take precautions, eventually to be under constant supervision, but I did not see any change. Finally I confided what I did to two nurses who were most sympathetic to my predicament and asked them whether they received a particular order regarding me. On hearing my revelation they were surprised, while I felt a chill go down my spine. Somebody was willing to see me dead.

After a couple of weeks I received a bill from Telecommunications for the cost of sending three previous telegrams, but not for the telegram of December 1st. I was not notified about the fate of the telegram. I called the Telecommunications office and asked for an explanation. I gathered that no record of my telegram of December 1st existed.

Later, after I had been discharged, I was very much intrigued to know the fate of the telegram, I called again and wrote them, asking for a clear reply in writing. I received a letter of June 12, 1972, in which a director of Telecommunications named J.-Y. Boudreault (I presume no relation to Judge Boudreault) wrote the following: "As it was explained to you, all telegrams of patients of St. Michel Archange Hospital have to pass through the hospital's office, not directly from the patients. In the contrary case we cannot receive the telegram." The answer is partially right.

All four telegrams were dictated from a hospital telephone booth. I did not ask permission from the hospital authorities and the employee of the Telecommunications office did not ask me whether I was in or out of the hospital. Yet three telegrams were accepted and expedited. Only one, that of December 1st, was accepted but not transmitted. Mr. Boudreault did not give me an explanation about the double treatment of my telegrams. I believe somebody was interested in having me carry out the idea of suicide.

Since the telegram was written in a foreign language, I suppose that somebody from the Telecommunications was curious to find out the content of the telegram and most likely did some kind of investigation. In the case of a patient with a serious intention to commit suicide, the most logical reaction and, I believe, his duty would be to warn the hospital. At that time I think the psychiatrists were interested in just "teaching me a lesson". A suicide in the hospital would have been an unpleasant event for them.

With the contents of the telegram I gave to the clerk the exact address and number of my home telephone. The most plausible hypothesis is that an employee called my home and asked my ex-wife about the telegram. I believe that she advised the Telecommunications people to ignore the telegram and, since the staff of the hospital did not take any precautions, obviously she did not advise the hospital about the telegram. Was she hoping I would commit suicide?

I raised the question of the fate of my telegrams with Dr. Divic and my lawyers. I was ignored. No one tried to make an investigation or to clarify the question. It was easy to resolve the question after my discharge. Unfortunately, no one paid any attention to my claim.

In conclusion, whoever stopped the telegram obviously did so with an evil intention. Yes, this is what I call sheer crime. And, whoever defends a crime is a sheer criminal!