Dr. Fabrikant - update
I have discovered that jailers lied to me when offering by-pass surgery - they did it because they knew that I would refuse. I had recommendations for by-pass surgery from cardiologists, who were not cardiac surgeons themselves. The only cardiac surgeon, who examined me, was Dr. Pelletier from Montreal Heart Institute.
I demanded to see his report, and when I have read this report, I discovered that Dr. Pelletier did not recommend by-pass surgery.
To sum up, the situation now is as follows: there is no doctor in Quebec to perform either angioplasty or by-pass surgery. There are doctors in US and British Columbia, ready to perform angioplasty, but jailers are refusing to deliver me to any of these doctors, falsely claiming that "all the medical treatment Fabrikant needs is available in Quebec".
Jailers know that shooting at Concordia took place because I felt my life to be in danger. Now they deliberately murdering me, hoping to provoke again into violent reaction. They will not succeed: I shall not attack anyone. This time, I'll just let them kill me.
Open letter to Prime Minister Chretien.
Cowansville, May 1, 2000
Mr. J. Chretien
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
Your government expressed its outrage by recent execution of a woman in Vietnam. I suggest that you look at yourself first. Vietnam government at least acted according to the law of that country. Your government is murdering me cowardly and surreptitiously, in total disrespect of Canadian laws.
Though there is no death penalty in Canada, I was effectively placed on the death row: I had a heart attack, I need a life-saving operation, which is available in Canada, but jailers are refusing to deliver me to the doctor, who is prepared to perform it.
Your Solicitor General was informed many times and did
nothing to correct the situation. The reason why your government is
murdering me - I am a political prisoner, though you, of course, would claim
that Canada does not have political prisoners. Here is my proof. In
my Preventive Security file in jail there is a notification from Vancouver
police that they have observed that my son has posted on B.C. Internet group my
account of what happened in Concordia in 1992. Now, why would
Vancouver police spend its time, watching perfectly legal activity of my son ? Because your government does not like the ideas I disseminate. Is not this the classical definition of a political criminal?
Second, all my legal procedures designed to force jailers to bring me to the doctor, are being stopped, delayed, dismissed by your corrupt judges both in Federal and Provincial courts. Is not this classical proof of a person being political criminal?
And the last, but not least, Associate Chief Justice of
the Superior Court took on himself to oversee all my legal proceedings for the
sole purpose: to delay them as much as he could. Not only is this
illegal, it also shows quite clearly, how low your judiciary go: should not
Ass. Chief Justice do more important things than supervise judicial proceedings
of a convicted murderer? Is not it clear from above that I am more than
just a convicted murderer?
Is there really a big difference between executing a prisoner by a firing squad and murdering a prisoner by denying him the life-saving operation? The final result in both cases is the same: the prisoner is dead.
I suggest that you put your own house in order prior to expressing your outrage to another country. You place before your name the title "Honourable" or even "Right Honourable" - well, are you?
Dr. V.I. Fabrikant
prisoner #167932 D
My fathers's response to Mr. Wiertz.
Sir: Since you expressed opinion that your call to jail Warden might be "counterproductive" and make my life more difficult, my son has mailed to me his exchange of messages with you, and asked me to respond directly to you.
In your initial posting, you say all the right things, that no matter what I have done, the Law dictates that I be given the same medical care as any other Canadian citizen, that to deny me medical treatment is a crime, etc. Having said all the "right" things, you needed an excuse to do nothing, and you found two lame excuses: a) probably, I am on the waiting list and just do not want to wait, while every Canadian does; b) I am not really denied transfer to British Columbia - jail just does not have money for that.
My son responded to you that I am not on any waiting list, and that the
reason for warden's refusal to transfer did not mention lack of money.
Instead of behaving like a decent person, you effectively accused my son
of lying, called him and me paranoid, and requested an independent proof.
My son gave it to you: who is more independent than jail
warden? He gave you his telephone number,
so that you could get your independent confirmation. You were caught
red-handed, so you
needed another excuse not to call, and you found a quite hypocritical one: you are concerned with MY well-being, and you are afraid that your call may make my life more difficult. Don't worry, whatever jailers could do to make my life difficult, they have already done, and in any case, I do not give a damn, what they do to me.
On the contrary, warden, as any other crook, is most afraid that people on the outside become aware of his illegal actions, so if many people start calling him about me, he would have great difficulty refusing my transfer.
Some naive people think that jailers want me dead, because I killed four people. On the contrary, jailers are good friends with top criminals, who killed hundreds. I observed the VIP treatment these people get when they come to jail while in Donnacona, Leclerc and Cowansville jails. They get an inmate, who cooks for them, wash their clothes, brings coffee in bed etc. They have conjugal visits every couple of weeks with wife and girlfriend(s), they have direct access to warden, whenever necessary, etc. As comparison, when I asked for a family visit in January, it was scheduled for the end of May.
So, why jailers want me dead? Because I exposed their criminal activities: they create riots in jails, they steal from prisoners, they bring drugs to jail, etc. When you hear that someone was caught bringing drugs to jail, you might think that jailers are fighting drugs - not at all: they are fighting COMPETITION. When UNAUTHORIZED inmate or lawyer brings drugs to jail, they arrest him, because these drugs drive the price down, - it is the turf war. Jailers actively participate in any murder committed in jail. Each time an inmate is murdered, jailers somehow manage not to see, who did it, and the security cameras mysteriously stop recording exactly at the time of murder.
You may ask: if it is so easy to kill an inmate in jail, why would not jailers just hire an inmate to kill me? I think, the main reason is the fact that the great majority of inmates treat me with great respect. One inmate told me that if anyone tries to kill me, he would be killed himself. You might be surprised, but inmates have their own code of honor, for example, I live 8 years among thieves and robbers, and nothing was ever stolen. I wish people like you had some sense of honor.
In his last message, my son has told you that if you do not want independent confirmation - this is your business, then you have no choice but to trust that the information given to you is true, so you should apologize for calling my son liar and paranoid. You still did not have the decency to apologize, but now you try to change the subject: you ask my son, why he did not call any investigative reporter and asked to investigate. He did: W5, The Fifth Estate, ABC 20/20, CBS 60 minutes, NBC Dateline, etc. - enough? None is interested. Please, feel free to call them and to ask why.
Foreseeing your next advise - to go to court - I did this too, on several occasions. Imagine: a gravely ill prisoner comes to a Canadian judge and tells him that jailers are murdering him by denial of medical treatment, and this honourable judge Rolland refuses to intervene, declares the prisoner vexatious, just because this prisoner does not want to die quietly. Are you proud of your Canadian judiciary? Want independent confirmation of this too?
I have a great pity for you: you have no courage and no decency. Get
some and apologize at least!
Dr. V.I. Fabrikant
prisoner #167932 D
Heinz Wigges wrote:
>How much money would be saved by executing multiple murderers? Start
>with Clifford, Paul, Carla, and LeRoi.
The fact that you did not include my name in the
list, indicates to me that you understand the
difference between people who kill for pleasure, and
those who kill in self-defense. I killed four people, and
majority of inmates in any jail treat me
with great respect; Bernardo killed two, but if he ever released in
general population, he would be dead within 10 minutes. And now
to your main question: how much money would be saved.
People, like Olson, are kept in protective custody (segregation 24
hours). Since they do not work, they get $1 per day pay plus about $5 per
day food. Clothes and electricity expenses per day are almost zero, we
can take another $1 per day. The total then would be (5 +
1)x 365 + 1 x 250= $2440. This is a total saving. Now
expenses: CSC has to build an execution chamber (at least $100,000) plus to
hire an executioner at an annual salary at least $50,000. Add to this
lawyers fee: every execution involves numerous appeals, so add at
least $250,000. Add to this salaries of prosecutors, who would have to
respond to appeals, and judges to hear these appeals. Do I need to
compute the total? On the other hand, you can have people like Olson
dead for free: just
release him into a general population.
Heinz Wigges continues:
>Save some more money by having prisoners doing public works, instead of
>pumping iron in the gym.
For your information, majority of prisoners do work inside jail
from about 8 a.m till 4 p.m., with a break for lunch.
Those, who do not work, are locked-up in their cells, so they can not
pump iron during the day. (I am not talking about big criminals, who
can do whatever they please whenever). Pumping iron takes
pace after 6 p.m. or on week-end, and involves not more than 10% of population.
If you use prisoners on public works outside jail, you will see huge
demonstrations of protest from the people who would have to be fired
from their jobs, and if your father or brother was in public works, you
would not want to have him fired, would you?
Heinz Wigges continues:
>When scum biker gangs can target CSC employees for death ==>outside of
>prison<== then there is something severely wrong.
There is something wrong in your perception of events: bikers get royal treatment from CSC, and they have no reason to target CSC employees. You probably heard of two Provincial guards shot in Montreal some time ago. The yellow press announced that bikers were trying to destabilize the system. This is the stupidest propaganda, I ever heard: if you want to destabilize the system, you shoot Prime Minister or Minister of Justice, not a little guard.
There are two possible reasons, why these two were shot. One,
they participated in drug trafficking inside provincial jail, and stole large
amount of drug money. The other option: they discovered that
their colleagues were involved in drug trafficking and blew the
whistle on them, which I doubt, because only a suicidal person would
do such a thing. Just look at the photo in the newspapers of
shooting of guard Rouleau: he was shot 6 or seven times, while the
assailants did not even try to shoot the other guard on the bus - clearly,
they targeted Rouleau. If their purpose was destabilization of system, they would have shot
both. There is also no doubt that someone in the bus depot informed them
on the bus timing, its route and
Heinz Wigges continues:
>The CSC crowd are a spectrum of people just like any other large
Wrong again: majority of CSC employees are criminals, with criminal mentality, who are on the wrong side of prison bars. Here is an example: if a guard commits a heinous crime, no other guard would agree to testify against him, and if he does, he would become a "rat" (the same term criminals use), and he might be killed, beaten, etc. He certainly would not be able to keep his job. The same mentality rules police. Is this the same mentality as in any "other large organization"?
Heinz Wigges continues:
>In the July 29 Globe and Mail one of their major asswipes refused to
>let a prisoner get a subscription to Scientific American magazine.
I said that CSC employees are criminals, but they are not stupid: the "asswipe" refused subscription not because he could not understand usefulness of science: he refused subscription, because he understood perfectly well, that if a prisoner gets into science, there is a chance he would stop his criminal activity, co CSC would lose a client, and they can not possibly allow this. This is their official position from the top: to discourage higher education!
Heinz Wigges ends with:
>But when one looks at the majority of inmates they supervise, it's no
>wonder that there are problems in jails.
Translation: CSC employees are good an honest people, they are just under bad influence coming from bad, bad criminals they supervise! I have never heard such a lame excuse!
How jailers steal from prisoners.
The major item is, of course, drugs. Jailers bring
drugs to jail and make big money on selling drugs to prisoners. Yet another
item is telephone. Prisoners are allowed only to call
collect. So, prisoners' families are charged at least 5 times more than regular
dialing would cost. I tried an alternative: my wife got an 800- number,
which is much cheaper, but jailers do not allow me to dial it. They claim that
jail security would be jeopardized. I can call 800- numbers of Information
Commissioner, Correctional Investigator,
etc., jail security is not jeopardized, but if I call my
family, it would be jeopardized! I made complaints up to the
National Headquarters, to no avail: this stealing is sanctioned from above.
There is no doubt that jail warden gets kick-backs from the telephone company, otherwise, why would he do it?
Yet another telephone steal: the telephone programmed in
such a way, that it cuts off the conversation after 20 minutes and
25 seconds. Why? Because the phone company then charges the family
21 minutes. It is much easier to program the computer exactly 20 minutes
or exactly 21 minutes, but they add seconds. You may say, it is about 25
cents. Well, multiply these 25 cents by the number of prisoners times the
number of calls, and you get good sum, and somebody in jail gets kick-
backs from the telephone company, otherwise, why would they do that? The same timing is programmed in Donnacona jail and in Cowansville jail. Is this just a coincidence?
I am trying for two years by now to get the telephone contract between jail and telephone company. I got so far the contract up to 1997, but with the amounts of money deleted, under pretext of commercial secrets. There is a court case, where it was decided that when contract is finished, commercial secrets section does not apply. Jailers still have not given me the contemporary contract. I filed a complaint with the Information Commissioner, who is supposed to be a "watchdog" doing his best to provide citizens with information they requested. In reality, he does his best to deny access to information. Almost a year has passed since I filed a complaint - no result.
Yet another place stealing from prisoners - Finance Department. Prisoners are paid between $5.25 and $6.90 per day of work. One might think, there is not much to steal from! Nevertheless, jailers do steal. Majority of prisoners do not check their pay sheet, some do not have enough education to check even if they wanted, so jailers just underpay. Jailers do know that I check my pay, still they paid me for 9.5 days instead of 10. If they did this to me, can you imagine what they do to other prisoners? It is just $3, but again, multiply it by 500 prisoners, and you get $1, 500 every two weeks. Not bad as additional pay for the Head of Finance Department. I just do not know, how they manage to transform these underpayments into cash which they can put in their pockets, but one thing is clear: they would not do it, if they could not profit from this.
Jailers do not hesitate to steal just several
pennies. When I was in Donnacona, I used the Fund
Disbursement Form (it is like a personal cheque
in jail) to pay for my postal expenses. On numerous
occasions, jailers changed the amount written by me to a greater one.
Example: I sent a letter to US and wrote amount, which
at that time was $0.52, jailers changed it $0.90. One
could not argue that my letter was too heavy - the rate of
$0.90 to US just did not exist. I decided to make an experiment: the
matter is so obvious, if I file a complaint, can I win? The
answer is no. I went with this complaint
all the way to National Headquarters. Their response: "We have no power over Canada Post rates". This stealing is sanctioned at the top level. I must note that I did not see this kind of stealing in Cowansville jail, at least, not from me.
Yet another place to steal from
prisoners is the Personal Effects Department, which is in
charge of all purchases prisoners make. When a prisoner wants to buy a
computer, he has to buy from one store authorized by jailers. I made an
experiment: my wife called the store and described all the details of computer
to buy. They quoted her the price. Then I submitted my
request to buy this computer and indicated the quoted price. They refused to
sell it and gave me a price $300
greater than the one quoted to my wife. The picture is clear: the store gets monopoly price and jailers get kick-backs in exchange.
When a new prisoner wants to bring a computer from his home, he is charged $110 for "verification", yet another monopoly, which the chosen store has. Each jail has several computer specialists who, according to the rules, are supposed to do the verification, and it should be free.
Yet another trick is being used when a prisoner wants
to buy something. When I wanted to buy a walkman from Sears, the
price is in the catalog, so guard Leduc, who works in the Personal
Effects Department, did the following: he ordered a walkman of a
cheaper model and tried to charge me the amount for the one I ordered. I
noticed the fraud and returned the walkman, but another prisoner
might not notice. It would be interesting to learn, how guard Leduc can
Many items prisoners need to buy are not in the catalogue, and here Leduc is given free reign. First, he stalls the order for several months, and when prisoner becomes desperate, he offers the thing for double price. For example, when I needed to buy a new cartridge for my dot-matrix printer, Leduc tried to get me pay double price ($10). When I refused, he told me that the cartridge I needed was not available. Then I did the following: I called Club DOS in Quebec-City, they quoted me the price of $5, and I made a new order to buy specifically from Club DOS. All of a sudden, Leduc called me and told me that the cartridge was available from his store at $8. What could I do? I agreed. How much would Leduc put in his pocket from this transaction? Not more than $1, but for jailers no amount is too small to steal. Have in mind that his pay is at least $50,000 per year.
A good place to steal from prisoners is kitchen. For example, I noticed that jailers often buy cheese, which no regular customer would buy: it is either with expired date or the vacuum is broken. If jailers pay regular price for such products, guess who gets the kick-backs. I am the only one who protests: majority of prisoners are too scared to protest, and indeed, they are at the mercy of jailers: jailers decide to recommend early release or not, jailers decide to transfer to minimum security jail, jailers decide on when prisoners get their conjugal visits, etc. It is better not to rock the boat.
Quite some time ago, my son has posted my response to Wiertz,
who claimed that I was just frustrated by long wait for operation, and being
paranoidal, invented the story that jailers were murdering me by denial of
medical care. It looks like my response was so convincing to Wiertz, that
he had nothing to respond, but now we have Wiertz number 2, named Newton,
but with a new twist: there is nothing wrong with my heart - I am
just a paranoidal liar. What is his proof? A
"scientific" one: a simple explanation is always
the right one. Since all the judges and all media refused to
intervene, it is more
simple to assume that my heart is fine, than to assume that every judge is dishonest and that the media is yellow.
The problem with Newton's (please, do not confuse
him with great Isaac Newton!) "scientific" theory is that we
can measure length, mass, time, but we can not measure simplicity, and there is
no unit of simplicity. One newton is a unit of force, so if Darren Newton
wants to introduce a unit of simplicity, he should call it one
darren. But since such unit is not yet defined, to me it is
much more simple to say that Canadian politicians, including Prime
Minister, are crooks, Canadian judiciary is corrupt, and yellow media can not
possible say the truth, if this truth is politically incorrect.
I just remind the
"investigative report" published in The Gazette in 1993, where they "discovered" that I was a false scientist and knew nothing about Mechanical Engineering! And these yellow journalists got Canadian equivalent of Pulitzer Prize for their lies about me! Need I say more?
As far as my heart condition is concerned, let us look at the facts. I have several medical reports which say that I have the following blockages in my coronary arteries: Circumflex - 70%, Left Anterior Descending (LAD) - 90%, First Diagonal -95%, Marginal 100%. I suggest, that Mr. Newton go to any library, take Encyclopedia Britannica and look up Heart. He will see that Circumflex and LAD are major coronary arteries, and one can not survive if both get blocked 100%. Now if Mr. Newton thinks that those reports are product of my paranoidal mind, I am ready to mail him copies of these reports.
Using Newton's theory of simplicity, it was much
simpler to presume that Milgaard was guilty, rather than to think that police
investigation was false, that prosecutor was wrong, that 12 of his peers,
who found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, made a terrible mistake,
the Honourable judges of the Court of Appeal were too corrupt, etc. What
you think, Darren?
P.S. I made an interesting observation: all the
messages against me are posted in the groups, all messages of support are
sent directly to my son. When one such
"supporter" was asked permission to
place his support message in the group, he was too scared to
give his consent. Now, Darren, tell me that we are NOT living in a
Re: how jailers steal from prisoners
I have posted recently account of numerous way how jailers
steal from prisoners. [email protected] responded saying
that she had "friends" in many jails across Canada and in the
US. She was quiet about what she does for living, but I suspect,
she is a member of one of "societies" which
claim to help prisoners. In reality, these people are jailers
in disguise. They get paid either by
Government or by Correctional Service. I met one member
Howard Society in Leclerc jail, and he told me how he "suffered" because of his work with criminals: his office was broken into 4 time in 5 years! Later I learned that he had good insurance and was paid handsomely each time break-in took place. This scum of the earth used his criminal friends to stage break-ins in order to collect insurance!
Now about Shelly. She states that all prisons in Canada and US use the same rule: prisoners have to call collect, and only to approved numbers, and this is done to prevent prisoners harassing their victims. I fully agree, that criminals should not be allowed to harass their victims. But what this has to do with me dialing my wife's 800- number?
Besides, contemporary technology makes it practically impossible to prevent a prisoner to call wherever he wants. He just calls his friend, and his friend can dial for him any number he pleases.
Shelly also claims that she has not heard from her
"friends" about other types of stealing. Well, majority of
prisoners do not realize they are being robbed. It is that
simple. For example, if a prisoner is told to pay $110 for
"verification" of his computer, he pays, and that is the end of it.
Re: how jailers steal from prisoners
Spragg <[email protected]> wrote his response effectively saying that it is OK to steal from thieves and robbers. Well, let us go further: since many criminals have beaten up their victims, let us introduce corporal punishment in jails. Was it a mistake to abolish it in 1972?
Spragg and others do not seem to
understand that majority of jail population are coming out
(about 90% are out within 2 years), and they are coming to YOUR
neighborhood. And many are angry. And they are not going to
beat up the jailer, who made them angry, - they are going to
beat up and rob an elderly gentleman in a park - just to get their anger
out. And jailers make them angry by design: jailers want them to
commit another crime and to come back to jail. The worst
nightmare for jailers: crime has disappeared - they all will become unemployed and unemployable, since they have no useful skills: they know how to beat up people, and they know how to steal, that's it.
Majority of jailers are criminals, who are on the wrong side of prison bars. When I first came to jail, I was told in no uncertain terms that I had a choice: to have easy time, or to serve hard time. In order to have easy time, all I had to do, was to close my eyes on what jailers were doing, which I just could not do, because in this case I would loose my respect for myself. So, I opted for hard time.
Would it be a great pleasure for you to learn that jailers have broken
my ribs? They did it on August 24, 1994, anniversary of
Concordia shooting. But if you think that this was done as a revenge for 4 professors I shot at Concordia, you would be sadly mistaken. Jailers are good friends with all big criminals, they do not give a damn about victims. They broken my ribs on the day when I was scheduled to appear in Quebec Court to press criminal charges against them, so they wanted to teach me a lesson. I did not get the lesson, I am still continuing to expose criminal jailers, and I shall do it until I die.
The latest twist in the story how jailers steal from
prisoners. My pay was reduced to 7.5 days instead of 10. When
I wrote a memo asking why, the response was that it was a mistake and I
would get credit on the next statement. Next statement came, - there is
no credit. The message from thieves is loud and clear: "We
have read your letter, we
are thieves and proud of it, we shall continue stealing as much as we want, and there is nothing you can do about it, because we are supported by yet bigger thieves from above".
Is this what the society expects from its Correctional Service?
At the end, Spragg asks me what am I
doing in my free time, except whining. Whining
and exposing crooks are two different things: I never whine.
90% of my time is devoted to my scientific research. My body is in jail,
my brain is not. While in jail, I have published
about 20 scientific papers in the best journals in US and
Europe. My scientific output is better than that of 90% of
scientists in my field, who are NOT in jail, - not bad at all.
How jailers steal from prisoners
Here is a new twist in the saga on how jailers steal from
prisoners. I have written before, that jailers wanted to show
defiance, stole 2.5 days pay (about $16) four weeks ago; then they admitted the error, promised to reimburse, but did not. The latest pay they did reimburse, but still managed to steal $1.10 (no amount is too small for these thieves!). Here is how they did it. There is a rule, that if a prisoner's pay for two weeks exceeds $69, he is charged certain percentage for "room and board". So, instead of marking the amount as a correction, they marked it as a premium and subtracted this "room and board" charge.
I would have said that jailers in general have an
intellect of gorillas, but this would be insulting to
the noble animals.
(Once, I asked permission to buy a book "To Kill All Lawyers". Jailers did not allow me, because it would endanger jail security. I explained that this was a book of jokes, and the title was the famous quote from Shakespeare, to no avail). But as far as stealing is concerned - they are all Einsteins.
One prisoner has told me recently yet another ingenious way for jailers to steal. He decided to take a correspondence course - Diesel Mechanic. He submitted his request to Unit Manager Page, she approved, and $199 were transferred to International Correspondence School. Now, his first book arrived, and jailers do not give it to him, claiming (you guessed it) that jail security would be jeopardized. Now, suppose, that they are right. Should not then Page refuse him permission to take the course, BEFORE she authorized the transfer of money? The case is clear: Page got kickback from ICS by allowing the transfer of money, and the prisoner got robbed. In addition, jailers achieved yet another goal: to prevent prisoners from getting special education. Jailers do their best in this field, because they know, that the more educated is the prisoner, the less is the chance that he would come back, and they do not like it.
Jailers also do their best to prevent prisoners getting high
school education. After 8 years of being in jail, jailers finally
allowed me to teach Mathematics to prisoners, from April 17, 2000, but if you think, I started teaching on that day, think again. Each day I was coming to school, the jailer, who was to supervise me (I can not be trusted to teach alone in the classroom), was not there. This lasted until May 29, when this jailer retired, and another jailer was appointed. They gave me 4 students, and promptly fired 3 of them, so I was left with one student. Many prisoners approach me, asking to be in
my class, but jailers refuse. Recently, they allowed one of the fired students to come back. And jailers have the nerve to reproach to me, how come I have only 2 students!
Discouragement of post-secondary
education comes from the National Headquarters.
Commissioner's Directive allows prisoners to
take correspondence courses mainly in Humanities, which is quite useless
in terms of getting a decent job on the outside.
Prisoners, who go to school in jail, get paid from $5.25 to
$6.90 per day. Prisoners, who take any correspondence course,
not only do not get paid this miserable amount, they also have to pay all
the expenses related to the courses. In addition, in order to get
paid this $6 per day, they have to take yet another full-time job, so for
their post-secondary education they only have evenings and
week-ends. It is not surprising that less than 1% of
prisoners decide to take such courses. I made a complaint requesting to repeal
this Commissioner's Directive, and of course, I lost: jailers want prisoners to
continue their criminal activities and to come back.
Shooting of Auger
I watched with amazement the news about shooting or reporter Auger. Something there did not fit. Let us review the facts. He was threatened on numerous occasions. He kept his telephone and address confidential, he took each time different route to work. He DID NOT wear a bullet-proof west. Does all this make sense?
What is the point to take different route to work, if your enemies know where you work, so that you would eventually come to the parking, open to the public? What is the point to keep your home address confidential, if your enemies can wait until you get into your car at the end of the day, and they can follow you to your home? And if you took those threats seriously, would not you, at least, wear a bullet-proof vest?
My amazement does not stop here. He was shot 5 times, yet when he arrived at the hospital, doctors immediately declared that his life was not in danger. Does all this look like somebody wanted to kill him and did not succeed? Clearly, his attackers had all the opportunities in the world, after shooting him 5 times in the back, to shoot him in the head, and they did not. Was this shooting just a warning? Media claims that the shooting was organized crime's retribution to Auger for his publications. If this was really a warning, it is the first time, that organized crime gives warnings with bullets: all the previous history mainly demonstrates that warnings are given by words or by beatings.
Let us analyze this. He did publish certain information, which is new to me, though I have been in jail for 8 years, and could have heard many things from other prisoners. Now, a good question to ask is: where did he get his information? There are two possible sources: police and other criminals. Suppose, he got his information from the police. Then organized crime would be quite happy to learn, what the police knows about them, and would have no reason to harm Auger. In order to get information from other criminals, Auger had to be "their guy", namely, to actually participate in criminal activity. Majority of inmates treat me with great respect, but since I do not participate in anything illegal, they would never tell me something really sensitive (sometimes, someone tells me something, which looks like sensitive, but I know they are just checking whether I will "rat" on them; I know this, and I never do).
One can also notice that some of the members of organized crime had agreed to give interview to Auger. One would not agree to give an interview to a reporter who is considered as a mortal enemy.
There is yet another explanation of the shooting,
which sounds quite incredible and sick: Auger has organized with his
criminal friends a fake shooting. Clearly, that after this shooting, he
will come back to his journal as a hero, he will get all
the journalistic prizes available, etc. Future will show
whether this sick idea has any sense. If Auger returns back to
his work, and stays alive, without 24 hour
police protection, then the sick idea is not so sick after all. One
thing is clear though: the shooting originates in his criminal activity
(as all shootings of prison guards), not in his work as an honest
reporter: if organized crime wanted to intimidate someone, don't you
think, they would try to intimidate a judge or a prosecutor,
not a journalist. After all, it is a judge or a prosecutor, who puts them in jail, or DO THEY?
Speaking about organized crime: the number one organized crime in Canada (as
in any other country) is Canadian Government: poor bank robbers get on average
several thousand dollars, politicians rob this country
by millions. Organized crime number two is the police. Whenever they
seize drugs, certain part of the catch they give to their
trusted dealers to sell. This was reported once in the press, but have no doubt, the captain caught was just a tip of an iceberg. Remember the top RCMP officer who shot himself about 8 years ago, when he was exposed to be on the payroll of organized crime?
Just look at the public relations exercise they displayed right after the shooting of Auger: about 400 police made a raid on certain bar. Why? What was the need? According to the reports, they arrested about 10 people, because they found some drugs in their pockets. Was this worth the effort? And what it has to do with the shooting? Government also gets into action. What do they plan to do against organized crime? They want to forbid them to wear their club jackets! This will really paralyze their activity! They consider population totally stupid.
Recently, RCMP proudly announced major seizure of drugs (70
kg.), with the street value of quarter billion. They
claimed that this seizure would save many lives, because the price
of drugs will increase. First, 70 kg of drugs is just a drop in a bucket:
drugs are imported by tons. Now, assume that this seizure
will increase the price of drugs, would this save
lives? The only way to die of drugs is overdose.
How many people overdose? In Donnacona jail over 90% of population
use drugs on a daily basis. I have been there for 5 years, and
during this time only one person died of overdose. On
hand, increase in price of drugs will drive more addicts into robbing banks and other people in order to satisfy their drug
habits, and there is a much greater chance that someone will die during these robberies (remember a taxi driver, who was killed just for $10?). So, should we congratulate RCMP with this seizure or should we tell them to stop this stupid loosing war on drugs?
P.Trudeau died. Media claims that the whole nation is in
mourning, that he was a creator of new Canada, kinder and gentler nation.
Let us just look at the facts. October 1970 - FLQ
crisis. A Quebec Minister is kidnapped and killed. He
has panicked and introduced War Measures Act, hundreds of innocent
people were rounded up overnight and put in jail, no accusations of any
kind. What is interesting here - police could do it
overnight. This means that police were spying
on people, who just publicly expressed opinions which government did not like, and had the list of such people ready. Kinder and gentler nation?
Too gentle: in any normal country, a Prime Minister, who orders jailing of hundreds of people, he knew to be innocent of any crime, would be treated as criminal and put in jail. Army is for protection against foreign enemies, not for shooting its own citizens. Law and order is for the police to protect, and if there is a situation where police is not enough, this means that too great part of population is too unhappy with government, so the government should either resign or satisfy the unhappy part of population. In October of 1970, after the first kidnapping, Trudeau should have announced holding of referendum on Quebec independence, and to respect whatever the result might be.
He was the one, who started unbalanced budget, borrowing and national debt. He was the one, who presided over increased unemployment, huge inflation and 20% interest rates. Remember all this?
Last, but not least: prior to his departure, he decided to go with a bang: he made hundreds of appointments, giving his cronies nice places with huge salaries for life. He even had a stupid guy Turner to do a dirty job for him, which cost Turner dearly. Remember Mulroney slamming him during their debate?
Trudeau's son, in his eulogy said that
we all should work hard to continue the great things
started by his father, and to be worthy of his father. In view of
the above, what the hell was he talking about?
Re: Trudeau/FLQ crisis
Faulkenham wrote <[email protected]>:
> Well, I agree with you on a few counts, but not all. In October crisis
> there is something you forgot to mention. There were two deaths, one
> was Cross, and the other was La Porte.
Sir, I was in Russia at that time, you were here, and you should know better than that. I suggest that you read about it again and learn at least, how many people were killed and how to spell the name Laporte.
> ... and to this day, no one is really sure, on who
exactly killed that
> person, be it Cross or La Porte.
Did not you write that both were killed?
> Another thing that Trudeau did was to convert us Canadians
over to the
> metric system, and that was a terrible mistake.
Wow, I thought that it was the only sensible thing he did. Stupid me!
> Imagine, now in Quebec, we pay on average 78 cents to
82 cents a ltr.
> for gasoline. Imagine that he left the system alone, can you imagine
> driving up to the gas pumps and paying over $4.00 for a gallon of gas,
> but that's what we are paying.
Let us do some arithmetics. In US they did leave
the system alone. I have heard they paid in Illinois US$2.18
for a gallon.
American gallon is 3.785 liters, which gives US$0.58 per liter or $0.86 Canadian per liter. Conclusion: Americans are paying more than we, and of course, it is because we are metric! Now let us check your second statement. Canadian gallon is 4.544 liters, so Canadians are paying about $3.63 per gallon, and your claim that you are paying over $4 per gallon is slightly exaggerated.
I must admit: this was the most ridiculous argument against metric system, which I have ever heard! I hate to disappoint you, Sir, but sooner or later, stubborn Americans will have no choice, but to join the rest of the world in metric system.
> One great thing that Trudeau did ... he put Canada on the map.
Are you better off, because Canada is now "on the map", and was your life really that miserable, when Canada wasn't? Is, for example, Bahrain "on the map"? Would you rather live in a country, which is not on the map, but where you pay no taxes, government pays for your house, education, wedding, etc., you have highest in the world per capita income, or would you prefer to live in Canada, as it is - on the map?
> What did Deifenbaker or
Stanfield who were both Canadian Prime
> Ministers, ever do for Canada besides line their own pockets and put
> Canada deeper in debt?
Every politician is a crook and a thief by definition: honest person would not go into politics, and if he would go, he would not survive for long. As far as debt is concerned, it was Trudeau who introduced debt to this country.
Re: Trudeau/FLQ crisis
Jonh Joice <[email protected]> wrote on October 27, 2000
> Is your head completely up your ass or are just plain stupid? this
> referendum crap is just that, plain crap!!!! here we are advocating the
> breakup of our country. This is one thing: TREASON!!!!!
I reproduced exactly spelling of the author. Treason - this is what Milosovic was shouting when Jugoslavia started disintegrating; he killed thousands of "traitors", and where is his Jugoslavia now? This is what Stalin would shout, is someone suggested to him break-up of the Soviet Union. Break-up of old Soviet Union took place anyway. Was it a treason?
I am sure, England called people, like Washington, traitors and terrorists, because they wanted to break-up British Empire - now they are heroes. Members of FLQ are terrorists for one reason only - they lost. Had they won independence of Quebec, they would be hailed as heroes, fathers of a nation.
If you have in a country two or more groups of people, speaking different languages and hating each other, they are better off living in separate countries. Of course, it would be much better, if they learned to respect and love each other, but if this is impossible, they should separate. Treason is an action harmful to your country. Separation of two hostile groups of people is beneficial to both, and therefore is not a treason.
Look at the recent history. Eritrea was part of Ethiopia
and was waging war of independence for over 20 years. After
millions dead and billions dollars of damage to the country economy,
they finally separated, still being enemies and still fighting now
and then. Would not it be better to separate amicably at the first
signs of trouble? Similar situation is in Sri Lanka, and nobody there has
the courage to say: "Let us separate
amicably", because there are too many hot-heads, like
Joice, shouting TREASON!!!! Take the situation in Spain: they have
their own Quebec in Basque region. Do you want
bombs exploding near you? Do you want to go to war and die there, in order to keep Quebec in Canada? Do you want your son to die in that stupid war? I do not.
How doctors kill patients with impunity
I have become aware of the story many months ago,
and I was hesitating whether to make it public. There is
no doubt that medical community will be outraged by this
story. There is also no doubt, that pretty soon my own survival will
be at the mercy of these doctors: my next heart attack,
if do not die right away, will bring me to one
of Quebec hospitals, and these murderous doctors will have all the opportunities
in the world to take their sweet revenge and to kill me.
I thought about this long and hard, and I have come to the conclusion that I can not keep quiet, even if I have to pay with my own life for speaking out. This is just the way I have always been and still am.
Here is the story. In August 1998, Tina Diaz died in St-Mary's Hospital. She was only 18 years old. I have learned about the story from her boyfriend, who was convicted of second degree murder and sent to Cowansville jail. He showed me the coroner's report and statements made to police by a nurse. Here are the facts, as they are described in these two documents.
From the nurse's statement. Tina Diaz was brought to St-Mary's hospital in a taxi by her boyfriend at about 4 a.m. one August night. She had a stab wound in her chest, left side, where the heart is. She declared that somebody else, person she did not know, stabbed her, not her boyfriend. She was placed in the intensive care unit, and she was conscious and stable until noon next day, when her state started to deteriorate. At certain point, nurse describes 3 doctors standing near her bed, "begging" her to give the names of relatives, so that they could be contacted. She refused, and continued to maintain that it was not her boyfriend, who stabbed her. Several hours later, she died of cardiac arrest. After her heart stopped, a surgeon opened her chest and tried to restart her heart by a direct heart massage by hand, without success. This is what the nurse told the police.
From the Coroner's report. Coroner determined that Tina Diaz was stabbed by a knife which perforated the heart ventricle, so there was an internal bleeding from the heart into the surrounding. Accumulated blood finally "suffocated" the heart. He also noticed that no X-rays were taken.
My comments and conclusions. When there is a stab wound in the heart area, such situation should be treated by any doctor as life-threatening. A detailed X-ray should be taken to determine the place and volume of internal bleeding. An emergency surgery should be performed to repair the heart ventricle and to stop the internal bleeding. None of this was done. Why? A similar medical situation was reported recently on TV: a school girl had accidentally fallen on a sharp pencil, which perforated her chest. She was delivered to a hospital, where an emergency surgery was performed, her heart repaired, and now she is alive and well. The same could be done with Tina Diaz, but was not. Why?
There are two possibilities: professional negligence (ignorance) and a cold premeditated murder. To decide, which one this was, recall the picture, described above by the nurse: 3(!) doctors, standing near her bed, "begging" her to give the names of relatives, so that they could be contacted. The doctors usually do not come even two-some, let alone three, and they would not "beg" a patient for the names of relatives, unless they know that the patient is about to die. So, if they knew that Tina was about to die, then the fact that they did nothing to save her makes their behavior fit for the crime of premeditated murder.
Doctors at St-Mary's had at least 10 hours to save Tina, and they did nothing. If someone thinks that opening up her chest and doing direct heart massage was an attempt to save her - it was not. Coroner noticed that all blood around the heart disappeared: they opened her chest not to revive her, but to eliminate incriminating evidence - to wipe out the blood around her heart, hoping that coroner would not understand that she died because this blood "suffocated" her heart.
Now a good question to ask is: why did the doctors at St-Mary's killed Tina Diaz? Having been in jail for 8 years and having observed the police and jailers in action, I can make a good educated guess. There is no doubt that doctors immediately upon Tina's arrival called the police, and police was questioning Tina as to who stabbed her. She insisted that it was not her boyfriend, but an unknown assailant. Police did not believe it. They knew that the boyfriend had a long rap sheet, and they saw this stabbing as a good opportunity to put him in jail for long time, but Tina was stubborn: she insisted that it was not her boyfriend, who stabbed her.
Should she survive, they would have no case against
the boyfriend, they needed her either dead or admitting that it was
indeed the boyfriend, who stabbed her. Having Tina dead was the best of
two options: they could charge the boyfriend with a murder (which
they did). So, police told the doctors to withhold the treatment, until
she admitted that it was the boyfriend, who stabbed
her, and they were happy to oblige. The nurse in her statement
admits that Tina was asked repeatedly, who stabbed her.
Now look once again at the picture, described by the nurse - 3 doctors, "begging" her to give the names of relatives. Does not the picture look strange or incomplete? What I think was really happening there: the doctors were "begging" her to admit that it was the boyfriend, who stabbed her, so that they could start the surgery, without which they knew she would die. Tragically, Tina stood her ground. The murderers doctors stood their ground as well: no admission - no treatment.
If one day you read in the newspapers that I have died in
a hospital of "natural causes" - do not believe it: I was
Chretien - criminal?
The media has reported that Prime Minister has made several phone calls to a
person he himself appointed in order to secure a loan of about $600,000 for his
personal friend, who also happened to have a criminal record. Day and
Clark made requests to investigate whether a criminal offense has been
committed. All the media attacked them, saying that they went too
far. Wow! Is this really too far? What is the difference
between Chretien's actions and British Columbia past Premier? He got
charged with a criminal offense, why should not Chretien be charged with the
same? Chretien claims that he did what he did,
because he was a Member of Parliament, acting on behalf of his constituency. Let us see, whether this explanation holds water. He did not act on behalf of John Doe, - it was his PERSONAL FRIEND, who in the past bough from Chretien a hotel, and now he wanted a loan for this particular hotel. Even presuming that at the time of purchase his friend did not give Chretien some amount of money against Chretien's promise to guarantee him a loan, the appearance of impropriety is so flagrant, that in any normal country Prime Minister caught with similar thing, would have at least to resign. Media also reported
that when this accusation surfaced in the past, Chretien lied, denying making any calls. Now he admits it. The impeachment proceedings in US against Clinton was not because he had sex with an intern, but because he lied about it. Now, which lie is more important? After all, with who Clinton had sex is of importance to his wife, and nobody else; and how Chretien spends taxpayer's money is of everyone's concern.
Then the media triumphantly announced that Chretien was "exonerated". How was he exonerated? A person, who Chretien himself appointed (Ethics Commissioner) ruled that there was no impropriety in Chretien's actions! For God's sake, is not all this ridiculous? A watchdog, who reports to the one, he is supposed to watch! What kind of credibility such a watchdog has? None. Ethics Commissioner's mandate is to watch over government's behavior. Is not it obvious that such a person should be independent from the government? More than that, such person should be appointed by the Parliament, and only the opposition members should be allowed to vote for such an appointment.
What should a NORMAL Ethics Commissioner have done in this case? He should have examined the Chretien's friend loan application and see whether initial refusal was justified. If yes, then it is clear that Chretien misused his power of Prime Minister in twisting hands of one of his employees, which is a criminal offense. The present Ethics Commissioner did none of this, he interviewed nobody, he requested no documents.
And now about the whole thing of a Member of Parliament acting on behalf of his constituency. Not only the Prime Minister, but also all the Ministers in his government are members of Parliament. This is abnormal from two points of view. First, each Minister is using his power to lobby for his constituency, and I am not talking about lobbying for a friend with a criminal record. Even an "honest" lobbying looks improper, because every Minister is supposed to work for the good of the whole Canada, not for a little piece of it. Second, the fact that every Minister is also a member of Parliament, breaches the important principle of separation of administrative power and the legislative one. Indeed, what we have now is as follows: government tables a piece of legislation, and then goes to the Parliament and VOTES to approve such a legislation. Every Minister is an administrator AND a legislator at the same time. This should never be allowed.
Take, for example, USA. They do not allow this kind of conflict of
interest. If a senator is appointed to a government position, he loses
his Senate seat. The same should be done in Canada. This way, we
would be able to stop the improper lobbying of various Ministers for their
friends under the cover of working for their constituency, and on the other
hand, we would avoid the ridiculous situation where an administrator is also a
legislator. Every Minister, including Prime Minister, should work for the
good of the whole Canada, not just for his constituency. And there would
be an additional bonus: right now a sitting Prime Minister has an unfair
advantage over any other candidate from any party: electors understand that
Prime Minister can do a lot for constituency, and would be inclined to vote for
him. If we really separate legislators from administrators, Prime
Minister and other Ministers would no longer be members of Parliament, and this
abomination would stop.
Fabrikant is creating headaches
I have observed a peculiar situation on or about November 24-25, 2000.
First, television station TQS played SEVERAL TIMES report stating that
Fabrikant was declared vexatious pleader by court, so he can no longer go to
court, and now
Fabrikant is creating headaches in administrative tribunals by filing complaints. What Fabrikant is complaining about? His medical appointment was cancelled. What is interesting, the reporter was not really reporting, but rather reading from a
sheet of paper, which someone gave him.
Then I have seen an article in Journal de Montreal and another one in The
Gazette. What is interesting: the TV report and both articles, though one in
English and the other in French, convey exactly the same message, as described
above. I know of yet
another article which is to appear in local press, since its reporter was present during the hearing and was making surreptitious pictures of me.
Now, what is the probability, that TQS, Journal de Montreal, The Gazette,
local newspaper (and may be some other media) would make on the same date
essentially the same report, especially taking into consideration that nothing
happened that day? Zero. I never before observed TQS repeating its reports again and again. Would it be plausible to assume that someone in position of power was directing all these media? Can I make a better proof that I am a POLITICAL
There was a three day hearing of my complaint against Jail doctor Corbin, no reports of this hearing anywhere. I was declared vexatious pleader in 1999 - I do not recall anyone reporting this. So, why all this hoopla now? After all, a complaint made by a convicted murderer against a jail nurse - Is this really so newsworthy as to play many times on TV and to mention in several newspapers?
In order to understand, why this is being done, one need to know the truth, because what the media reported is a half-truth, which worse than a lie. And here is the full truth. The essence of my complaint against Boissoneault is that she is helping jailers to murder me, together with the former jail doctor Corbin and the present Jail doctor Rainville. Denial of medical care, without which a person would die, in my books is called a murder. None of the media mentioned that.
I reproduce below the text of my complaint against Boissoneault. which speaks for itself:
Cowansville, June 27,
Committee on Discipline
Ordre des Infirmiers
4200 Dorchester, West Re: 20-2000-00227
Montreal, Quebec H3Z lV4
Please, consider this letter as a private complaint against nurse
Boissoneault. She is in charge of
Infirmary at Cowansville Jail. I reproach to her the following.
1. I was transferred to Cowansville Jail on January 7, 1999. Nurse
Boissoneault knew that I
had a heart attack in May of 1998, that I had 4 major coronary arteries blocked, 70%,
90%, 95% and 100% respectively. She also knew that I have received no treatment since
my heart attack. I showed her recommendations from top world class doctors from
Harvard Medical School, New York University, Columbia University, all recommending
and ready to perform angioplasty, without which I can die any day.
2. It was her duty, as Head of Infirmary, to find a doctor in Quebec,
sufficiently qualified to
perform an angioplasty. I asked her several times to make at least 5 copies of the
angiography film and mail it out to different specialists performing angioplasty. She
refused, thus breaching the Integrity part of the Code, Sec. 3.02.01 and 3.02.02.
3. My wife did her job and found a doctor in British Columbia who agreed to
angioplasty. At the beginning of June, she has received a copy of the letter from that
doctor (Exhibit 1), where he outlined the necessary conditions for him to perform
angioplasty. She delayed the response for over a month, and she only sent to the doctor the
reports from Quebec doctors, who did not recommend angioplasty, thus effectively
exerting on him psychological pressure to refuse to perform angioplasty. She never
provided that doctor with items he requested in paragraphs 1, 3 and 4. Thus, she breached
Sec. 3.04.01 of the Code (civil responsibility).
4. In February, 2000, a request was made to BMP Hospital for the Halter
test. On April 6, at
about 7.30 in the morning, I was told to get ready to go to BMP Hospital for the test. I was
never told whether there was any deadline. I prepared myself as fast as I could, but when I
came to the Keepers' Hall in jail, I was told that my appointment was canceled by nurse
Boissoneault, under pretext that I was late. My wife has checked with BMP Hospital and
they confirmed to her that the Hospital has not canceled the appointment. Her behavior was
malicious, even if it was hospital canceling the appointment, because she should have awaken
me early enough, so that I be on time. Thus, she breached, yet again, Sec. 3.04.01 of the
Code (civil responsibility).
5. I was expecting that she would re-schedule my appointment. This did
not happen. In mid-
May, I asked my wife to make an appointment for me, and she made an appointment for
June 20, 2000. In mid-June, my wife called the hospital to check on my appointment, and
she was told that nurse Boissoneault canceled my appointment, yet again, and re-scheduled
it for July 19. When I asked her, why she did it, she responded that security considerations
do not allow me to know the date of appointment. When I go to court, I know exactly the
date and time, and this does not breach the security. But even assuming that security
requires that I did not know the date, she could have easily re-arrange it for June 21 or 22,
without telling me, there was no need to delay for yet another month, especially taking into
consideration my irregular heartbeat, and the fact that my life is in danger. It is my
understanding that she has canceled the July appointment as well. There is no doubt that
jailers want me dead, and she is helping them to the best of her abilities, thus breaching Sec.
3.05.02 (prejudice to client under influence of the third party).
6. Recently, I have requested access to my file to see the documents related
to the Halter test
appointments. She refused thus breaching See. 3.07.01 of the Code.
I hereby request that nurse Boissoneault's license to practice medicine be revoked.
An affidavit attesting to the truth of the foregoing is attached.
I request that my complaint be adjudicated on merit as soon as possible.
Yours Sincerely, (signed) Fabrikant
Presume that what I am complaining about is true - does it look like the
purpose of my
complaint is to create headache or does it look like I am trying to use all the legal ways to
save my life, to no avail so far, and the time is running out: my heart is getting worse every
I reproduce below the text of my complaint against jail doctor Corbin which
Cowansville, February 8, 2000
Committee on Discipline
College des medecins
2170 boul. Rene-Levesque W
Montreal, Quebec H3H 2T8
Please consider this as a new official private complaint against jail doctor
Corbin. I have initially
filed a complaint against him dated April 14, 1999. As a good will gesture, I had it later
withdrawn, hoping that Jail doctor Corbin would start acting in a responsible and professional
Regretfully, I was wrong: almost a year has passed, and I still have not
treatment. I feel that my
life is in danger, because my often irregular. This is why I request that the old re-activated and
joined with the new complaint.
As before, I accuse accuse Jail doctor Corbin of placing my life in danger
and maliciously by
refusing me the life-saving treatment I need urgently. Here are the facts.
1. I had a heart attack in May of 1998. Angiography have shown 4
coronary arteries blocked,
two of them 90% and 95%. There is need for intervention.
2. I have received no treatment while in Donnacona and Leclerc Jails in 1998
due to malicious
behavior of Jail doctors Verrette and Harris.
3. I was transferred to Cowansville jail in January of 1999. At the
beginning, Jail doctor
Corbin told me that he recommended by-pass surgery. Then I discovered that he lied to me,
offering by-pass surgery, because he knew I would refuse. He knew very well, that all the
cardiologists, who recommended by-pass surgery, were not surgeons themselves. The only
surgeon, who saw me, was Dr. Pelletier, and he did NOT recommend by-pass surgery.
4. When I caught jail doctor Corbin on this lie, he told me that his friend
(Sherbrooke) would consider angioplasty, if I submit to a thallium test. This was just a
maneuver to waste time, because clearly the only test needed to decide whether one can
perform angioplasty - is angiogram, and it was available. I refused to do thallium test, and
asked that my angiography film be transmitted to Dr. Gervais, so that he could decide
whether he could perform angioplasty. This was not done.
5. On October 18, 1999, jail doctor Corbin offered me another of his tricks:
Dr. Gervais was
prepared to perform angiography the next day, October 19, and depending on the results of
his own angiography, Dr. Gervais would decide whether to do angioplasty. This made little
6. I asked once again if Dr. Gervais saw my old angiogram, and the response
So, I asked once again that my old angiogram be sent to Dr. Gervais, and if viewing the old
angiogram, he would agree to do angioplasty, I was prepared to submit to yet another
angiography. This time, jail doctor Corbin agreed to send my 1998 angiogram to Dr.
7. I thought that the delay might be one week at the most. I was
wrong. I have finally met Dr.
Gervais three months later, on January 17, 2000, and he told me that he viewed my old
angiogram and that he could not do angioplasty, and he never mentioned any need for a new
angiogram, which means that I was right when I refused.
8. There is a doctor in British Columbia, who is prepared to perform
angioplasty if jailers
bring me to Victoria. Correctional Service Rules allow temporary absence from jail for
medical reasons, so all what required is recommendation of Jail doctor Corbin that I be
brought to Victoria, and he refuses to do so, claiming that he still have not received the
report from his friend Dr. Gervais.
9. One may think that there exists telephone, so jail doctor Corbin could
ask Dr. Gervais by
telephone what was his opinion. Here jail doctor Corbin lies to me again, Baying that he
could not contact Dr. Gervais because Dr. Gervais was absent from hospital. I asked my
wife to call Sherbrooke hospital, and of course, Dr. Gervais was there.
10. As low, as a human being can sink, jail doctor Corbin bombarded the
doctor in B.C. with
letters urging him to refuse to perform angioplasty. To the honor of this doctor, he is still
prepared to perform angioplasty.
11. In the meantime, the state of my health has deteriorated: I have very
heartbeat. To me this is a signal that the third heart attack is coming, and it might be the
last. What did jail doctor Corbin do when he learned about my irregular heartbeat? He sent
me to a local hospital, which has no cardiologist on staff and is not equipped to deal with a
heart attack. They offered me Halter test, which is of no use in my case.
Due to the urgency of the situation, I ask the Committee on Discipline to
revoke immediately jail
doctor Corbin's license to practice medicine. Jail will have to hire another doctor, which I hope,
will behave professionally.
I attach the following evidence:
a) Exhibit 1: letter from Dr. Gosselin (Montreal Heart Institute) dated
November 23, 1999, in
which Dr. Gosselin confirms that I have no treatment available in Quebec, neither
angioplasty, nor by-pass surgery).
b) Exhibit 2: my request of October 24, where I wrote: "Please, call me
Monday, October 25,
and let me know Dr. Gervais opinion on my angiography film: is he prepared to do
angioplasty? " The "response" reads: "Dr. Gervais wants to do an angiography". Clearly,
this is not a response to my question.
c) Exhibit 3: my request of November 3, where I wrote: "Please, let me
know Dr. Gervais
opinion on my angiography film: is he prepared to do angioplasty?" Response: "Dr. Gervais
was not able to read the film from Laval hospital as they are bad copies. He needs to do
angiography again, and according to the results the best solution for you will be discussed."
Strange response, to say the least: if he could not read a bad copy, ask to see the original.
d) Exhibit 4: my request of November 22, where I wrote: "Please,
elaborate as to why Laval
Hospital 'can not' send the original; it did send at least 6 times before." Response: "Laval
hospital will only send the film to Dr. Gervais if he requests them". Well, why would not
he "request them"? Because the purpose was to waste time.
e) Exhibit 5: my request of December 16, where I wrote: "Please, let me
Gervais' opinion on the old angiography film. Would he be prepared to do angioplasty,
presuming that my state did not change very much?" Response: "It is not available yet."
Imagine, TWO MONTHS have passed, and jail doctor Corbin still can not get his
friend's opinion on the angiography film!
f) Exhibit 6: my request of December 16, where I wrote: "I am asking
you for the last time
the same questions:
1. Did Dr. Gervais see the original angiography film? Yes______ No_____
2. If yes, is he prepared to do angioplasty, assuming that my present state is the
same? Yes______ No_____"
Response: "We are still waiting for the answer".
The dishonest purpose of Jail doctor Corbin is obvious: to waste as much
time as possible,
hoping that in the meantime I will die. Is this in agreement with the Hippocratic Oath?
An affidavit attesting to the truth of the foregoing is attached.
Yours Sincerely, (signed) Fabrikant
Imagine a situation: a prisoner comes to a Canadian judge and tells him that
a Jail doctor Corbin is helping jailers to kill him by denial of medical care,
which he needs to survive after a heart attack. And this Judge, instead
of helping prisoner, declares
him VEXATIOUS pleader - can there be a greater outrage? The word vexatious means that someone is instituting court proceedings just to annoy the other party. Did this judge really believed that my legal attempts to save my life are made just to
annoy murderous doctor Corbin or murderous Jailers?
Fabrikant about insanity
Each time I see myself on TV, they show always the same shots: I am on the
stretcher. Everyone, who sees these shots, thinks that this was the way I was
taken from the university after the shooting, because I was completely
insane. The truth is that I was taken from the university in a
"normal" way: policemen escorted me to the police car, parked in the basement,
I got inside, and off we go. While at the police station, I started
feeling chest pain, and fearing for my heart, I asked policemen to get me to a
hospital, and they were glad to oblige. Little did I know, that they
seized this opportunity to film me on a stretcher, and
then yellow media used it on and on, without telling population, what really happened and why I was on a stretcher.
Recently, I had another proof just how desperate authorities are to make me insane. This time, they are again using my heart problems, but in a much more sinister way. They know, that I have 4 major coronary arteries heavily blocked, and unless I have them opened, I will most certainly die, and probably, pretty soon. Jailers, with support of corrupt Canadian judges and doctors, are murdering me by denial of medical care I need to survive.
In this situation, they figured out that I must be pretty desperate to save
my life, and would do anything for that, but they were in for a big
disappointment. This is what happened. I got a visit from a lawyer,
named Barbant. He told me that he knew a way to save my life and provide
for me the opportunity to get angioplasty, which I need to survive. What
do you think he suggested to me? You got it - insanity. He told me
that he would arrange my transfer to Pinel, where psychiatrist Morissette
(crook, who testified at my trial, that I was so insane that even was not fit
to stand trial) would do "proper assessment", meaning would declare
me insane. After that, Barbant would be prepared to address proper court
and win a
new trial, where I would be declared not guilty by reason of insanity, and then, according to Barbant, I would be free to go anywhere I wanted, not guilty of anything and free. And Barbant would do all this free of charge, because he loved me.
I listened to all this in a quiet disbelief: how stupid does he think I am?
I guess, authorities, who sent him, (clearly, he would not undertake all this
on his own) thought that desperation to save my life would blind me so much
that I would grab any opportunity to survive. They were wrong.
Pretending to be stupid, I asked Barbant, how all this would help me to get
angioplasty done, and his response was, that when I am in Pinel, insane, and not a murderer, he was sure that some of Quebec doctors would be ready to perform angioplasty to save me. At this moment I stood up and asked Barbant whether he new the difference between a lawyer and a spermatozoa. He knew, and I left. (For those, who do not, the answer is: spermatozoa has one in ten million chance to become a human being).
I have always preferred to die standing up, rather then live on my knees, I still do.
Supreme Court judges are aiding and abetting jailers in murdering a prisoner
I have just received a paper from the Supreme Court signed by Gonthier, Binnie and Arbour and claiming to be their judgment on my application for leave to appeal (the application itself was posted earlier on Internet, and I post it again). I reproduce the judgment verbatim:
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
That's it, the whole judgment is just one sentence. In the accompanying letter from registry, it is written that the judgment is made "pursuant to paragraph 26(1)(b) of the Supreme Court Act". I reproduce below the paragraph 26(1)(b) of the Supreme Court Act:
A judgment of the Supreme Court may be delivered
b) by depositing with the Registrar, for each judge who has heard the case, a written opinion, a copy, signed by the judge, of the written opinion with which Judge concurs or a statement certifying the Judge's concurrence.
The article is clear: each judge should deposit either his OPINION of sign
his concurrence with another judge's OPINION. The word OPINION in every
dictionary is uniformly defined as, and I quote: "In law, a statement by a
judge of the REASONS for the decision of the court". Now, did you
find any REASONS in the judgment quoted above? None. Why?
Because there is no reason to justify murdering of a prisoner by jailers.
It is a shame, when Judges of the highest court in the country are aiding
and abetting jailers in murdering of a prisoner. As far as I know, judge
Arbour in the past was very active in Civil Liberties Union, she also was the
Prosecutor of crimes against humanity; she gave numerous interviews, denouncing
murders of prisoners in Jugoslavia. Is there really such a big difference
between killing a prisoner by a bullet or killing a prisoner by denying him a life-saving
medical care? Judge Arbour seems to have double standard: it is crime
against humanity to kill a prisoner in Jugoslavia, but it is OK to kill a
prisoner in her own country, especially a prisoner, who expresses views, which
her government does not like.
Jail informants testifying about admissions.
I hear now and then public discussion about using jail informants, testifying that such and such accused admitted commission of certain crime, especially such crimes as abduction and rape. I have been in jail by now for over 8 years, and I can assure public, that nobody in his right mind would ever confess here to anyone, especially, when he is not yet convicted. Everyone here understands that at least half of inmates are informants, so nobody would risk divulging to anyone anything, more than that, it is considered inappropriate to ask anyone, what was his crime.
Prison moral has its own table of values:
there exists very honorable crime, when someone
stands up for his rights, for
example, I am considered a very honorable criminal. Robbing banks is a "good" crime, robbing an elderly lady is not. The worst crimes are rape, abduction and murder of children. Nobody in his right mind would ever admit any such crime, because very soon after such an admission he would be killed - unless he runs into protective segregation.
I was approached at least 20 times by various informants, essentially with the same story: they express their admiration over my actions, and then they ask me why did not I hire someone to kill these people in Concordia, rather than doing it myself, to which I always respond that I did not hire anyone, because I did not plan to kill anyone in the first place. I am ashamed to admit that one of such informants was my former graduate student Karapetian. One day he told me that he could arrange a good beating of these individuals through his connections in Armenian community. To me this was like a blow over my head: my own student is an informant! Of course, I did not tell him anything, but this was the turning moment in our relationship.
There were several inmates, who approached me with the same words of admiration, and then they would tell me that they are going out soon, and if I need someone killed, they would be happy to do it for me out of great respect, to which I have always responded no, thank you, no.
I am telling all this for one reason only: public, who serves in jury, should understand, that nobody in his right mind confesses to any crime, especially to those which are considered heinous by jail standards. If prosecution wants to introduce an informant, testifying about an admission of a crime, there should be a tape-recording of such an admission, otherwise such a testimony should not be allowed.
Not long ago, there was a trial in British Columbia of a
man accused of rape and murder of a little
girl. There was a
testimony of jail informant who claimed that the accused confessed of committing the crime. The accused was lucky, he was acquitted, but he could have been convicted as well, and all on the basis of a professional informant's testimony, who had a lot to gain, due to the deal with prosecution. This kind of things should not be allowed.
How many people are still rotting in jails, convicted on the basis
of a jailhouse informant's testimony?
Fabrikant about drugs, prostitution and crime
I personally never used any drugs (with inhaling or without), I do not drink
alcohol, not even beer, never smoked tobacco (or anything else). I have
been in jail for almost 8 years, and I observed people using various kinds of
drugs. I was offered drugs on many occasions, and each time I refused. I
am telling all this for one reason: I favor decriminalization of all drugs, and
opinion may be trusted, because I am a disinterested party.
The first 52 years of my life I was the so-called law-abiding citizen, never had even a speeding ticket, and as majority of such citizens, I believed that drugs push people to commit crime, and this is why they should be banned. Only in jail I understood a very simple thing: people on drugs are either sleeping or, if not sleeping, look very happy, love everyone, and certainly not violent.
Crime starts when addicted people can not get drugs, they get so desperate, that they can, for example, kill a taxi driver for $10 just to get their next fix. I spoke to many prisoners during the years, and I have heard the same story again and again: an ordinary law-abiding citizen somehow gets hooked on drugs. Drugs are expensive, no salary is enough, so out of desperation, this law-abiding citizen starts robbing banks, houses, etc., and ends up in jail, because he was, for example, a good baker, but he is not a good robber, so he gets caught. He serves his time, gets out, his addiction is as strong as ever, he gets back into crime, and the "revolving door" is in action.
I estimate that about 60% of federal prisoners fit the above story. These people are sick, they do not belong in jail. Give them drugs free of charge, and they would harm nobody. Let us do a little arithmetics. Correctional Service spends over 1 BILLION dollars per year to keep about 14,000 prisoners, which comes to about $71,000 per prisoner. If you release 60% of prisoners, you save right away over 600 million dollars. Even if you spend $35,000 per year per released prisoner for his welfare and free drugs, you will still end up with 300 million dollars savings, and this is just in Correctional Service. Much greater amounts will be saved in the expenses on police, judges, lawyers and prosecutors. These money will be better spent on drug rehabilitation and testing.
I have lived for 5 years in a maximum security jail, where about 90% of population
consumes drugs and alcohol on a daily basis, and this does not prevent them to
get up in the morning and go to work, and perform normally. It is a myth that
drugs undermine jail security, on the contrary, drugged people feel happy and
non-aggressive. Alcohol sometimes makes people
aggressive, but not drugs. Several years ago, guards a Bordeaux jail made public demonstrations of protest, because someone was throwing tennis balls with drugs over the fence and into the jail yard, where inmates collected them. What the protest was really about - guards were fighting competition: we have seen in one Fifth Estate show, that guards are bringing drugs to jail, so if somebody else does it too, this drives prices down, and they would fight this competition as hard as they can, and they do.
All the drug related violence in jails is either turf war between different groups for the right to sell drugs, or someone gets more drugs on credit than he can pay - so he gets stabbed or killed. Decriminalization of drugs would end all this.
Let us imagine a situation: all drugs are decriminalized in the whole world and are treated in exactly the same way as tobacco and alcohol (which, by the way, kill many more people than all the other drugs combined). Huge number of prisoners will be released, and savings in judicial system, police and Corrections will be more that sufficient to accommodate all them. The price of drugs will fall dramatically. The drug producers will start paying taxes, thus increasing tax revenue. Crime rate will fall drastically, because turf war will disappear. Organized crime, which draw its power from drug trade, will disappear. Police corruption will be reduced significantly, because the organized crime will no longer have either the money or need to pay-off the police. Everybody knows well publicized cases where police was confiscating drugs, and then turn around and re-sold those drugs to their trusted dealers.
Now, what are the negative consequences of decriminalization of drugs?
People think that in this case everybody will become a drug addict. The
same reasoning was used in the time of prohibition: people were somehow duped
to believe that everybody will become an alcoholic - now we know better.
Take me as an example. I have been living in society where majority
consumes drugs on a daily basis. I was offered various drugs on numerous
occasions (even free of charge), and each time I refused. It is not that
I have some extra strong will, which allows me to resist temptation - there is
nothing to resist to: I
am not tempted at all, period. I like my state of mind, and I do not believe that any drug can make it any better - it is that simple, and I do not believe that I am unique. I am sure that if all drugs are decriminalized, the number of people trying to use them will even decrease, because the "forbidden pleasure" phenomenon will no longer be there.
Some European countries have made first steps on decriminalizing marijuana
(The Netherlands and Switzerland), and they had a dramatic reduction in crime rate of 60%. I fail to understand, why other countries do not follow suit, especially taking into consideration the beneficial effect of marijuana on terminally ill patients. England has introduced a program of free drugs distribution to drug addicts, and all countries should do the same: drug
addicts are sick people, and they should be treated as such - give them drugs, before they are forced to commit a crime. They do not belong in jail - it is waste of time and money.
Now about prostitution
It is as stupid to fight prostitution as it is stupid to fight drugs.
Both wars are lost by definition: as long as there is a strong demand for
certain thing or certain service - there always be people ready to provide
it. Making the thing or service a crime does not, and never will solve
the problem. The only result of such criminalization is that organized
crime takes over and
makes huge profits. These profits are then used to corrupt police. Introduction of any new crime enriches only jailers, judges, lawyers and prosecutors, and the ordinary people who pay taxes are the losers.
The argument, that legalization of prostitution sends a wrong message that prostitution
is OK, does not hold water: alcohol is legal, nobody presumes that alcoholism
is OK - the same goes for prostitution. One can observe a reasonable approach
to prostitution in such countries as Austria, The Netherlands and others, which
regulate rather than criminalize prostitution. The advantage is obvious:
prostitutes pay taxes, like everybody else, they pass medical check-ups, they
force their clients to use condoms, etc. This is the way to go. Canada
claims to be a free country. Now, how anyone can justify that in a FREE
country government can dictate its citizens what they can and can not do with their bodies? It is none of the government business, if two consenting adults want to engage in sex, and it is none of government business if certain amount of money exchanges hands by mutual consent. And, by mathematical induction, we can say the same for any number of consenting individuals willing to engage in any activity, as long as nobody gets hurt - this is none of government business.
Take the crime of keeping the so-called gaming or betting house. What
is the difference between government lottery or casino and any gaming
house? None. Government is, in effect, involved in activity, which for
any citizen would be
It is about time to re-think the definition of crime. It should be accepted that any activity, no matter how repugnant it might look, can not be considered a crime where there is no victim. A good example of such an idiotic prosecution - the case of Letourneau. She was the school-teacher who had sex with her 13-year-old student. Obviously, a teacher should not behave that way, but is she a criminal? The boy stated on several occasions that he was a willing participant, so, where is the victim?
There are countries where people at 13 years of age can legally marry.
The 18 years of age accepted in Canada is an arbitrary number, which is not
justified in any shape or form. My little brain can not understand, why
having sex with
a person, who is 17 years and 364 days old is a crime, but one day later it is no longer a crime? The case of Letourneau is a very sad story where nobody had the courage to say it loudly to the prosecution: leave these two people alone! They are happy, they have by now two small children, let them be! Instead, we have two small children deprived of their mother, who is in jail. There are no winners in this story - everybody is a looser, and the society as a whole is the greatest looser.
I looked through the Canadian Criminal Code. There are so many
sections there, declaring such and such action to be a crime, which do not make
any sense to me. For example, a person exposes himself in public.
Why is this a crime?
They say: children can see him. So what? Suppose, parents take their children to a naturalist beach. They can see there huge number of totally naked people. Is this harmful to children? Naturalists say no, and nobody considers naturalist parents as criminals. A person, who exposes himself, is sick, but he is certainly not a criminal and does not belong in jail.
There are quite a number of ridiculous sections related to sexual offenses. For example, if a brother and sister (even half-brother and half-sister) decide to marry each other, it is a crime punishable by maximum of 14 years in jail. Do this people belong in jail?
Another ridiculous crime: anal intercourse between two consenting adults is OK, but when a third person is present, then it is a crime.
There is more: bestiality is a crime punishable by maximum of 10 years in jail. I would have understood it as protection of animals, but if an animal was not hurt, why should this be of government business? I know the cases where women had sex with their dogs and donkeys, and those animals seemed to like it otherwise they would not do it. As repugnant as it might look, this is not a crime.
One more victimless crime: possession. Unless I possess something
should it be government business, what I possess? Take, for example, drugs. If a person wants to swallow, inject or inhale any substance, he should be free to do so.
Now some thoughts about fight with sexual predators. There is no doubt
that we are loosing this fight: rapists and child molesters are as numerous as
ever. Sexual offenders are having a very hard time while in jail. General
jail population despises them, they are often beaten up, then they are placed
in protective segregation, which is a jail inside jail. They are confined
their cell 23 hours per day, they are allowed in a tiny yard for 1 hour, but many of them do not dare to leave their cells because of fear to be beaten again. And after all this, when they are released from jail, they are being chased from one apartment to another, because police informs citizens that a sexual predator lives nearby. Despite all this hell, they continue their sexual deviant activity, and end up in jail again.
Let us ask ourselves a question: why all this punishment has no dissuasive effect
on sexual offenders? My impression is that they are compelled to do what
they are doing, and this compulsion is so strong that they can not resist. I am
not trying to justify in any shape or form what they are doing, but we can not
fight something, which we do not understand. One case proves my point. In
January of 1995, one rapist was released from a B.C. jail. Soon after that, he
abducted a young woman (Melanie Carpenter), who was later found dead, and he committed
suicide. I do not think that he wanted to die when he was released
from jail, but when he did his crime, he realized what he has done, and decided to kill himself. Clearly, he despised himself, but his actions were beyond his control.
Now, what is the solution of the sexual offenders problem? In some Muslim
countries they are stoned to death. This solution is not acceptable for Canada.
Another solution is to keep them in jail until they die, which is also not so
easy to do. Third solution is to keep each sexual offender under 24-hour
police surveillance, which can be done, if we legalize all drugs -
many policemen will have nothing else to do.
Fourth solution came to my mind when I was watching one TV show, where
several women phoned in to say that they were fantasizing of being raped.
(By the way, this is the best proof that human being was not created by God -
why would He
make a creature so sexually deviant?) When I heard this, I thought to myself: here is the solution - we need somehow to connect rapists with those women who are fantasizing of being raped.
Of course, this is easier said than done. First, the society is not ready for this: any woman, who would dare to declare openly that she wants to be raped, would be shunned. Society needs to change its attitude towards all people who have sexuality different from mainstream. We need to reach out and try to help these individuals, BEFORE they commit any crime. I understand that what I am saying is "politically incorrect", but 50 years ago, if I would say that we need to reach out to homosexuals and to include them into normal society, I would be unanimously declared insane. Not that I equate homosexuals with criminals, but 50 years ago homosexuality was a crime, and in many countries it still is.
We have a choice: to stand on our high "moral" ground and to
prosecute every rapist and child molester AFTER the crime, or to try to do
something to prevent the crime in the first place. In order to do this
preventive work, we need that people with tendency to rape came forward before
they actually rape someone. This can only happen, if they are sure that
they will be treated with respect and that they will get help they need.
It looks like nature created humans in such a way that for every sadist there
exists a masochist. We just need to find them and get them together, so
that they can enjoy each other,
and nobody gets hurt.
The case of child molesters is more difficult: nobody would sacrifice his child
to satisfy a pedophile. So, what can be done to divert pedophiles from real
children? This subject has to be discussed with them in an open-minded way.
Probably, good quality dolls could do the job. Contemporary mechatronics can
do amazing things. May be, some kinds of child pornography could help. Oops,
possession of child pornography is a crime. Well, should it be?
There are different kinds of child pornography. We know that in real life
teenagers are often engage in sex with each other - this is a fact of life, and
not a crime. Now, is it a crime to film such a process? If a process itself is not a crime, then why filming it is a crime?
Of course, there exists a different kind of child pornography, depicting rape of children by adults, this is a filming of a crime in progress, and it is a different story. On the other hand, if a pedophile claims that such a pornography would divert him from real children, one can produce such a film for him, and it does not have to be a real rape, now anything can be simulated.
One may be indignant by my advice to try to please a pedophile, but look at the
alternative: after many beatings in jail, a pedophile finally gets out, he is
now much smarter and extremely angry, and he will strike again, and this time
he will kill a child, so that there would be no witness. Even if he gets caught
and sentenced to life in jail, it does not revive the girl he killed.
And there always is a possibility that a wrong man was convicted - police is so eager to convict someone, that they lie and cheat and fabricate evidence. Remember the case of Guy-Paul Morin, who was convicted for a rape and murder
of a little girl? Well, 10 years later we learned that he had nothing to do with this crime, and the real murderer is still walking free. When you weigh all these facts, my advice does not look that bad after all.
It happens sometimes that a child falls in love with the pedophile, and such a case can end up in a tragedy if the parents do not behave properly. Many people watched on October 31, 1997 the report of Barbara Walters about a 16-year-old boy who killed and raped an 11-year-old boy who accidentally came by selling chocolate.
Parents claimed that they did not want to take their son home, they wanted to keep him in "Center for Changing Behavior" - kind of mental institution. The media blamed the judge who let the boy out of mental institution, while I think that the blame lies squarely with his parents. Not only they placed the boy in a mental institution against his will, but also went to court to keep him there.
Why was he there in the first place? We learn that he admitted to his mother that he was gay. Then he met on Internet a man from another city and sneaked out to have an affair with him. His parents learned about it and forced the boy to cooperate with police to trap the man. Clearly, they made his life a living hell. They placed him in a psychiatric institution thinking that they could change his behavior. Can you imagine the terror and frustration of a perfectly normal child, betrayed by parents, who refuse to accept him into the family? Of course, all his friends learned that he was placed in mental institution, so he obviously lost all his friends. And all this only because he was gay, as if this was his fault.
I am sure, this is one of the "invited" crimes. The boy
should have been left alone. He wanted to have an affair with a man - let
him be. Had this happened two years later, he would have been 18 years
old, and his affair with a man would be none of anyone's business. Does
two years difference justify the behavior of his parents? Of course,
not. The parents claimed in court that the boy was so angry, that they
feared for their lives. Well, would not you be angry as hell if your parents
did to you what they have done to this boy? When a human being is abused,
sooner or later he would explode, and very often
it is an innocent bystander who gets killed.
In conclusion, we have to try some new ways in dealing with crime. One thing is clear: jail does not work. Government is too quick to send people to jail. For example: a person steals something. What is better: to put him in jail or to make him to pay back double of what he stole? Native people have a very healthy notion of restitution rather than pure punishment.
I saw in provincial jails people being incarcerated for not paying parking tickets. This is ridiculous: it costs government more to keep these people in jail than the cost of the tickets being own to the government. There are alternative ways to get tickets paid, including confiscation of personal effects.
I have heard that in one of Alberta towns police has hired a street gang to keep
the order in the streets, and it seems to pay off: street crime reduced dramatically.
I think, it is a good idea to pay off big criminals, so that they would keep
the smaller criminals in check. Anyone who is offended by the idea of
paying criminals, think about the following: don't we pay our