The belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary; men alone are quite capable of every wickedness.²⁰⁷

Joseph Conrad

How does one man assert his power over another? ... By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing."²⁰⁸

Looking back to search for the cause of the juggernaut, to get to the bottom of the matter, we can only come to the conclusion that in essence the cause is defective human nature: a mixture of ignorance, lust, greediness, vanity, selfishness -- a mixture of human weaknesses which makes me wonder whether life is worth living.

Obviously, these writings show in some way that my personal situation was not entirely normal. Psychologically and socially I am not in a pleasant situation. I ask how anybody would feel in a similar situation?

As I have already mentioned many times, the most horrible and disturbing thing I have suffered is the alienation of my sons from me. By attempting to see some psychiatrists I had two objectives: the first and most desired was to obtain assistance in maintaining a good relationship with my children and close relatives, and the second, to get rid of the stigma. With the passing of time, my relationship with the children gradually faded to the point where we do not see each other. Last year, after a long period, I phoned Slobodan, the lawyer. His response was to just taunt me. He, like the others, apparently finds it difficult to accept the circumstances of my tale. My sisters used to say "something certainly had happened".

I expected that the psychiatrists would intervene and help in re-establishing my relationship with my children and sisters.

In spite of everything, twenty years ago I was in robust health, and people found that I possessed relative youth and an unflagging spirit.

But 20 years have taken their toll on me. With the passing of time, my physical and mental state has deteriorated. Constant emotional pressure and gruelling manual work, have had a cumulative effect on me.

I feel like a man on a broken bridge. My memory, sleep, concentration, and patience are slipping rapidly. I feel my social relationships and everyday communication are not as they used to be. I lose my temper very easily.

Recently, in addition to the many others, I solicited two psychiatrists' help.

One of them, Dr. William Laidlaw, a psychiatrist with considerable experience, knew me for a couple years as a member of the same social club. During our meetings in the club I did not talk to him about my problems. I chose to arrange an appointment through his secretary. I noticed he was remarkably surprised to see me in his office. When I finished my "history", he stopped the "examination" with the words "What was done is done. There is an English saying 'It is no use crying over spilt milk'". And that was all.

The second psychiatrist was Dr. Craig Hudson, recommended by a family physician.

Dr. Hudson, after routine psychiatric questions, interrupted me saying: "You are all right; nothing wrong with you." Since he was younger, I took the advantage to be a little pushy. I asked him:

But, doctor, do you think that the people who ask psychiatric help are all right? I think my very presence in your office is proof by itself that something is wrong with me.

No, I do not see anything wrong. You have a problem.

Exactly, I came here for the problem which, I guess you will agree, has been generated by your fellow psychiatrists. Therefore, this is a psychiatric problem which is supposed to be treated by psychiatrists.

Your problem could be solved only by yourself.

How?

I persisted, but the doctor answered by shrugging off. I shrugged off, too, for I saw the young man was in a quandary.

I have had enough experience to know that in a case like mine no one can help, unless somebody is courageous enough to touch the hornet of cads and name them with their proper name. But who could do that? How can I expect someone to support my cause when my own sons are not willing or courageous enough to disentangle the problem, which is more theirs than mine, because they will be burdened all their lives with their father's stigma?

Perhaps the most productive act is to identify who is responsible for my situation. While I do not claim to be perfect, my belief is that the responsible Quebec psychiatrists had spun the web in which I was caught.

As an author as well as "scapegoat" in the account, and a physician myself, I can say that the following highlights of the case are unacceptable blunders even by standards of common sense:

1. The psychiatrists had tortured me physically and mentally for six months, simply based on malicious allegations by my mentally disturbed ex-wife and her friends.

2. Dr. Jacques Grenier, unrestrained by professional and ethical responsibility, made the first blunder by writing a "history" (histoire rédigée) and labelling me as a "dangerous schizoparanoid" without knowing me. Professionally and legally he is the most responsible instigator of my hospitalization.

3. Dr. Jacques Dufour simply endorsed the original blunder by accepting the diagnosis without hesitation. Whatever is written in the Commitment Certificate is false. He is the actual instigator of my unlawful arrest.

4. Note Dr. Boucher's twofold responsibilities: although his finding contradicted that of Dr. Dufour, he did not allow me to leave (incompetence or a calculated cover-up of the others' blunders). Instead, he endorsed my internment; therefore, Dr. Boucher took the professional and legal responsibility for my internment.

5. The police had arrested me without a warrant and the psychiatrists kept me confined illegally for six months (without a court decision).

6. No reasonable physician would have written a medical record the way the psychiatrists had written.

7. There were about six different diagnoses (some even non-existent in psychiatric nomenclature), which were inconsistent -- and senseless, transparent even to laymen.

8. I was formally discharged on Feb. 17, 1971 (LIBÉRÉ DÉFINITIVEMENT²⁰⁹), but instead of being released, I was transferred ("escorted") illegally to another hospital.

9. On Feb. 23, 1972 it was written in a document that I was a voluntary patient (en cure libre). Actually I was in much harsher conditions at St. Jean de Dieu Hospital than before.

10. During the whole period of my internment I did not receive any medicines or treatment for schizophrenia or paranoia, for which I was apparently interned. On the contrary, I was actually under the punitive "disciplinary measures": I was mentally brainwashed and physically mistreated in the most inhuman manner.

12. Although I was interned as a serious patient (as a "dangerous schizoparanoid)", when I was discharged with the diagnosis "situational depression" I neither received any drug nor recommendations for post-hospitalization care or control, which is an imperative in psychiatry!

13. After my internment I had been illegally exiled (dirigé) from the Province of Quebec to Ontario.

In spite of so many blunders, duly documented in the medical records written by psychiatrists, I did not succeed in my attempts to clear myself. Why? I firmly insist that the judges added their additional blunders to the psychiatrists'.

The trial judge Mr. Pierre Boudreault permitted perjuries and forgeries as valid evidence to justify my internment. The same could be applied to the judges of the Court of Appeal. There were three judges during the trial of my case in the Court of Appeal. I did not have a chance to observe them like I had observed Mr. Justice Boudreault. Nevertheless, since I heard one of them saying that all of them "had carefully read everything regarding my case", I charge all of them equally.

Although it may seem overly bold for a layman in law (especially a layman considered unreasonable by psychiatrists) to blame judges for serious errors, it is a fact that the judges did not wisely restrict themselves to medical records and law.

Concerning the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada I can say nothing, since my lawyer had the chance only to ask for leave of appeal.

Being neither a lawyer nor a psychiatrist, and with my limited command of English and limited financial resources I could not engage in the extensive research which the case deserves. Therefore, I am prevented from writing as I would like to.

I believe a competent lawyer or psychiatrist would have written more elaborately about my case. I also hope someone would comment about this writing. I hope my sons, Dr. Gligor Delev, physician, and Slobodan Delev, lawyer, will add their own comments. Not only are they more competent than I am, but since they had been subjects in the story and eyewitnesses of some important events about which I have written, it is in their own interest to clarify everything and put everything and everyone in the right place, including their mother and myself. The sooner the better.

The reader will, I expect, find my story generally persuasive. Still, there are some unexplained questions both as to the story and documents. Why were so many "errors" constantly manifesting themselves on the part of those who are expected to be honest, competent and industrious?

Dr. Stanley Milgram, professor of psychology, in his several well documented works wrote about how many "good people", when they are not responsible to society -- "by virtue of the law, codes, customary habits, overlooked by society, et cetera", could "perform actions that were callous and severe. Men who are in everyday life responsible and decent were seduced by the trappings of authority, by the control of their perceptions, and by the uncritical acceptance the experimenter's definition of the situation, into performing harsh acts."²¹⁰

We have blatant examples of how "good people" could make "mistakes" and by the same token inflict immeasurable suffering to innocent people. We read how many "Lord Justices" in England permitted innocent men to suffer for many years (Birmingham Six and Guildford Four). In Canada, many "respectable" judges, attorneys, lawyers contributed to make Donald Marshall languish 15 years in jail for nothing. The same could be said for David Milgaard, who spent 23 years in jail thanks to our "perfect" judicial system! In those examples, laws and procedures which have apparently been created to protect the society were tragically abused.

The dimension and seriousness of my case would be clearer and also more shocking if an independent public body re-examined those circumstances which had been only touched on. This is, in fact, my primary objective and desire. An independent medico-legal body could throw more light on the whole story.

The one thing I am sure of is that by a simple declaration we cannot make healthy people sick or sick people healthy, or the innocent guilty and vice versa. I am certain an independent and objective inquiry could raise questions of paramount significance in the public interest. Its findings could be useful for the unprincipled psychiatrists and "officers of justice" (lawyers, judges) as well.

It is very cruel to chase a man like an animal for no reason; separate him from his family; interrupt his everyday activities; seclude him so as to teach him how to behave, or to change his character, or how to forgive his children; and subject him to punishment (to apply "disciplinary measures") in order to compel him to acknowledge he is "sick".

Precisely because numerous psychiatrists committed misdeeds in my case, I would suggest their actions are not merely due to honest error.

Ideally it would be best to closely read all the papers relating to the story, which is practically impossible for most readers. I believe that only my children, after all, will want to look at the 42 volumes of transcripts from the courts. Ordinary readers, however, would find it be sufficient to read my exposé with the supporting medical records and the attached comments by others.