US State Department has invited top scientists to participate in a discussion of why so many people around the world hate US. What is interesting about this "hate conference", it is proceeding behind closed doors. Why? If you knew that too many people hate you without any good reason, would not you want the whole world to know about it?
In a recent show "60 Minutes", Dan Rather reported that many Muslims believe in a big lie, namely, that Israel was behind the 9/11 attack and that the Jews working in WTC were warned not to come to work on September 11, 2001. I know that some Jews were killed during 9/11 attack, so I expected that Rather would repudiate this by a very simple argument: here is the total number of employees at WTC, here is the number of Jews among them, here is the number of employees absent on September 11, 2001, and here is the number of Jews absent on that day; and last, but not least, here is the number of Jews killed.
If these proportions are close to one another, this is a pretty convincing proof. On the other hand, if the proportion of Jews absent on September 11 is much higher than their proportion in the general number of employees or if it is much higher than proportion of Jews absent on any other day, we have a problem. Dan Rather did not use this argument. Instead, he recalled another event over 30 years ago, when crowds attacked the embassy following a rumor which was totally false. Why? He is certainly smart enough to understand what constitutes a proof and what does not.
It was reported that several employees of a moving company were observed in New Jersey acting very happy and making pictures of themselves with the burning towers in the background. They were arrested and they all were Israelis. There were allegations that the whole moving company was just a cover for Mossad to spy in US. The company owner dropped all his possessions and ran back to Israel. Now, if he were not a spy, why would he abandon a profitable company?
Ask yourself, if Mossad (Sharon) knew about the planned attack, would he warn US about it? Taking into consideration that 9/11 is the best thing that could happen to both Sharon and Bush, the answer is obvious. Almost every "big lie" has a truth component in it. In this big lie, I would not be surprised, if the truth component be the fact that Mossad knew about attack and warned some Jews (who were valuable to Israel and who they could trust) not to come to work on September 11, 2001.
About Armed Forces
Much has been said lately about poor state of Canadian Armed Forces. It boils down to "if someone attacks Canada, the Armed Forces would not be able to defend the country". No reporter though dares to ask, who except US could possibly attack Canada? Now, if US does attack Canada, no matter how much money Canada would spend on its defense, it can not stand up to US who outnumber Canada 10 to 1. On the other hand, there is nobody else to attack Canada. So, any way you look at it, Canada does not need Armed Forces in the first place. As far as peacekeeping activities go, UN should have its own Forces and should pay for them.
Bush speaks to UN
Bush in his speech reproached to Saddam starting war with 2 countries, having weapons of mass destruction and using them on civilians. Now, let us see: Saddam started his first war against Iran when Iran took US hostages, so US at that time was not displeased at all; the invasion of Kuwait benefited US greatly: US had an excuse to keep its military in Middle East; US itself has much bigger arsenal of weapons of muss destruction and it used its atomic bombs on civilian population twice in Japan, it used napalm and defoliants in Vietnam. Saddam is a repugnant guy, but his accuser is not any better.
BBC showed an interview with US soldiers in Afghanistan. They were complaining that on their arrival, the population greeted them, now the population throws stones at them. The soldiers were saying that they transformed from being liberators into occupiers and they did not like it. Nothing like that has been shown so far on US TV. US reporters find only soldiers who are proud of their mission and ready to go on. Does it mean that US reporters are more yellow than British? Not at all. British at this moment are just allowed more freedom. Had the war been waged by U.K., they would have been as yellow, as their US colleagues.
Give me a break
This is a permanent feature in ABC show "20/20". Usually, it makes a pretty good point. On September 13, 2002, the reporter told us that some US prisoners have instituted a frivolous lawsuit claiming that they were subject of cruel and unusual treatment: loaf. Here is briefly the way the reporter tells his story.
Prison guards have difficult time controlling some prisoners. These prisoners are placed in a solitary confinements, nevertheless they manage still to throw urine and feces at the guards. Desperate guards then resort to "loaf" and this helps. "Loaf" is actually bread which consists of flower, potatoes, carrots, etc., baked in one loaf. Prisoners get nothing but a pound of this loaf and water 3 times a day. Reporter tries to eat this loaf and claims that it is quite edible, contains all the necessary nutrients and therefore can not be considered cruel punishment, and the prison guard sarcastically exclaims: "Give us a break!"
I have just one question for the reporter: he tells us that prisoners often take urine and feces in their mouths and then spit these feces at the guards; now, do you sincerely believe that a person, who can take his feces into his mouth can be persuaded to change his behavior by placing a good edible loaf of bread into his mouth? Something here does not fit. Elementary logic tells us that this loaf must be worse than feces, otherwise it would not work.
It is obvious that the loaf given to the reporter is not the same loaf that is given to the prisoners. One question here is: was the reporter duped or was he just yellow? One thing is clearly missing in his report - -he talks only to the guards, he does not talk to prisoners who actually ate the "loaf". A normal reporter should have called several prisoners, presented to them the loaf, ate it in their presence and then he should have asked them, what was wrong with the loaf. This was not done, so the reporter was not duped, he was yellow.
Ask yourself another question: what kind of person would take feces in his mouth in order to spit it at guards? There are 2 possible answers. One, a person who was so brutalized by guards, that his hatred towards them is stronger than the "inconvenience" of taking feces in his mouth; second answer: the person must be mentally ill. In both cases, they need help rather than additional punishment.
Being in jail for 10 years, I can tell exactly what jailers must have done to make the loaf so unbearable: Most probably, they just do not cook it, leaving it half raw. Try to eat such a loaf, and you get extreme stomach cramps, diarrhea, you name it. If this is not cruel and unusual, what is?
Now about the legal side of the issue. I do not know US laws, but in Canada they are clear: food can not be used as punishment, period. Every prisoner in solitary confinement should get exactly the same food as the regular population, and any jailer breaching this would be breaking the law. According to the law, it is not relevant whether loaf is edible or not; if the food in solitary is different from the food in general population, the law is broken. So, give me a break, if you do not like the law, change it, but in the meantime, respect the law.
A year has passed since 9/11 and FBI, having arrested several THOUSAND people, has managed to charge only one - Moussaoui, and this guy did not actually do anything criminal. For an agency of 11,000 agents it is kind of poor showing, so their desperation is quite understandable. On September 13, 2002, FBI announced a "significant breakthrough": they claim to have disrupted an Al-Qaida cell and arrested 5 American citizens of Yemen descent.
What did these guys do? According to FBI, they attended the Al-Qaida training camp and listened to Bin Laden speech there. Can you imagine any Nazi be put on trial just because he attended a military training and listen to Hitler speech? Since when just being somewhere constitutes a crime? American Senators very often visited Taleban, should they be arrested? What if these 5 guys took training with the aim of going to Chechnya to fight for freedom? At the famous Nuremberg trial, it was not enough that the accused was a high-ranking Nazi, prosecution was obliged to show that the accused has actually done something criminal.
In any case, if FBI has really found an Al-Qaida cell, would not it be much
smarter to just watch them, to find their connections and arrest them when they
would actually attempt to do a crime?
How College des medecins protect its murderous doctors
Back in August of 2001, I have filed a complaint against Jail doctor McFadden. I reproached to him his failure to recommend my transfer to Victoria B.C. for angioplasty, when he knew my life to be in danger and that no Quebec doctor would agree to perform angioplasty. Complete text of my complaint is presented below in Appendix 1.
It took Syndic Gauthier almost a year to respond, and his response was: "Considering the different information available to Doctor McFadden at those precise dates, we must conclude in the absence of a breach of his deontological duties". The rest is just general phrases. Complete text of response is given in Appendix 2.
According to Sec. 123 of the Professional Code, syndic "must provide the person with a written explanation of the reasons for his decision". Syndic Gauthier failed to provide the REASONS for his decision, so I wrote to the Review Committee asking them to respect the law and to give me the reasons. The text of my letter to the Review Committee is given in Appendix 3.
I received the Review Committee response on September 20, 2002, and guess what, they also do not give any reason of their decision. I quote: "The review committee has decided that there is no cause to lodge a complaint with the committee on discipline". Complete text (just one more sentence) is given in Appendix 4.
Quebec murderous doctors are well protected.
Me C. Gauvin
College des medecins By FAX (514)-933-3112
2170 boul Rene-Levesque West
Montreal, Quebec H3H 2TB
Please, consider this letter as a new complaint against Jail doctor Jean-Guy McFadden. I reproach to him reckless disregard for the state of my health, denial of medical care, which places my life in danger. Here are the facts.
I have met jail doctor McFadden on or about June 12, 2001. I have described to him that I had a heart attack in 1998, that four major coronary arteries are blocked: Circumflex - 70%, LAD - 90%, Diagonal -95% and Marginal 100%. I explained also to him that almost all doctors have recommended revascularisation (by-pass surgery or angioplasty), that there is no doctor in Quebec to perform either by-pass surgery or angioplasty, that there is a doctor in Victoria B.C. who is prepared to perform angioplasty. I requested that Jail doctor McFadden wrote a letter to the warden recommending that I be transported to Victoria for medical treatment. He refused, without giving any reason.
In addition, I told Jail doctor McFadden that I experience severe arrhythmia, especially at night time. I requested to be placed in Infirmary for several days for observation and a Holter test. He refused this request too, without giving any reason.
Jail doctor McFadden breached the following articles of the Code of
Ethics: 2.02.01, 2.03.01, 2.03.03, 2.03.08, 2.03.09, 2.03.11, 2.03.14,
In view of the above, I request that Jail doctor McFadden's license to practice medicine be revoked.
An affidavit attesting to the truth of the foregoing is attached.
COLLEGE DES MEDECINS
Une medecine de qualite
au service du public
LC 033 460 293
May 8, 2002
Mr. V.I. Fabrikant
# 167932 D
Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines QC J0N 1H0
Re MC FADDEN, Jean-Guy (78-146)
Our file : 20498
The investigation initiated upon your request concerning Doctor Jean-Guy Mc Fadden has now been completed by the College des medecins du Quebec.
To fulfil our mandate and evaluate the above-mentioned physician's implication in your evaluation and treatment plan, we went through a thorough examination of your medical record. More precisely, the information collected from March 2001 to December 2001 was considered. Also, we obtained from Doctor Mc Fadden his comments supporting the decisions taken as well on June 11, 2001 as on July 3rd, 2001, on which date you were transferred at the Emergency room of the hospital Cite de la Sante de Laval.
Considering the different information available to Doctor Mc Fadden at those precise dates, we must conclude in the absence of a breach of his deontological duties.
We wish to inform you that, in accordance with section 123 of the Professional Code, the person who requested an inquiry may also request the opinion of the Review Committee of the College des medecins du Quebec concerning our decision not to bring a complaint before the Committee on Discipline (cf. copy enclosed).
Francois Gauthier, M.D.
FG/cl - encl.
2170, boul. Rend-Levesque ouest, Montreal (Quebec) H3H 2T8
Te1. : (514) 933-4441 ou 1 888 MEDECIN Te1ec. : (514) 933-3112
Ste-Anne-des-Plaines, May 21, 2002
College des medecins
du Quebec By FAX: (514)-933-3112
2170 boul. Rene-Levesque W --------------------
Montreal, Quebec H3H 2T8
Please, consider this letter as a request to review the decision of the Syndic not to lodge a complaint against Jail doctor McFadden (file 20498).
See. 123 of Professional Code obliges Syndic to give reasons for his decision.
There are no reasons given in the letter I received from the Syndic.
Thank you in advance.
COLLEGE DES MEDECINS
Une medecine de qualite
au service du public
DECISION OF THE REVIEW COMMITTEE
SESSION OF SEPTEMBER 13, 2002
File Mr. Valery 1. Fabrikant - Doctor Jean-Guy McFadden (78-146)
The review committee has reviewed the evidence compiled by the Office of the
Syndic pertaining to Doctor Jean-Guy McFadden. The review committee has decided that there is no cause to lodge a complaint with the committee on discipline.
Danielle Boucher Hugette Belanger, md Jean-C. Maillette, md
Members of the review committee
Our file : 20498rev
2170, boul. Rene-Levesque ouest, Montreal (Quebec) H3H 2T8
Do you see what I am seeing?
I do not usually watch Fox's show "Cops", but recently I decided to sample one. This is what I saw. One of our bravest was watching a house, where he knew a drug dealer lived. He observed a woman customer entering house and exiting shortly after. Our bravest followed her car, stopped her and asked for her license. She gave him her license. Our bravest asked her what she was doing in the neighborhood. Instead of telling him that it was none of his business, woman started explaining that one of her friends lived nearby and that she was visiting her friend. Our bravest asked the woman whether she stopped somewhere else. Again, instead of telling him that this was none of his business, she denies going anywhere else.
Our bravest orders her to get out of the car and starts searching her, without asking her permission, and again, woman seems not to know her rights and does not object. Nothing is found, our bravest starts searching her car, again, without asking her permission. Finally, our bravest finds couple of pills and several syringes. The woman is arrested for possession and transported to jail.
After watching this, I have some questions. First, is it really worth the taxpayer money to pay our bravest to do what I saw them doing, namely, hunting down little poor drug addicted woman? Second, our bravest knew that a drug dealer was living in the house, so why did not he get a search warrant and arrest the dealer? The answer is very simple: our bravest is on the dealer's payroll. In addition to money, our bravest can just get every shift to that house and wait for the next customer, stop him/her and make an arrest. This way he demonstrates every day how successful he is fighting crime and gets promoted in no time.
Famous human rights fighters and torture
I have already made one posting about famous Canadian human rights "fighter" - Cotler. He had difficulty to discover that my human rights were violated when jailers were denying me medical care. On September 22, 2002, in CBS show "60 Minutes" yet another famous human rights fighters Dershowitz, Harvard Law School professor was saying that it was not against Constitution to use torture in special cases of terrorists. He even invented a way to make torture legal: just get from a judge a special permission to torture and go ahead with a torture.
Dershowitz gives an example: there is a ticking bomb and there is a terrorist who knows where the bomb is. According to Dershowitz, this is the case where torture should be applied. If I were the reporter, I would have asked him couple of questions. First, every civilized country has a provision explicitly forbidding cruel and unusual treatment. Clearly, torture is both of the above. No international convention makes exception for any "special circumstances" where such actions would be acceptable. I would ask our famous professor to explain, how he would get around that.
Next, practical example: Moussaoui. We have no idea, whether he did or
did not know anything. Suppose, we trust government and allow to torture
him. As a result of torture, he would implicate yet another innocent
person, who in turn also would be tortured and at certain point in time, we
realize that a number of people were tortured for nothing. Or it could be
worse: innocent people executed. Who would be held responsible for all
that? This is exactly what happened at the time of Inquisition or in the
USSR during Stalin's terror. Stalin used exactly the same justification:
these were "enemies of the people", they should be eliminated,
period. And they were. Stalin and Dershowitz - good company.