The Health Care System and the Canadian Supreme Court Jesters.

June 11th 2005 by Angus McLeod

Recently a court system decision in Canada, went against the ideas of universal health care. Now whether you are for or against public health care, the decision by this court system directly violates the rules of democracy. For, only the people should have the right to decide on this particular decision.

Only the people should have the right to decided, on whether their tax paying dollars should go to medical care for all, or only a few who can afford it. Only the people should have the right to decide, on what pathway they wish their nation to travel, whether it be respecting the health of all people, or just a few.

Once again this proves beyond a doubt that by having the first point in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, combined with the notwithstanding Clause, this has stripped the power from the people and given it to a few, who do not have the best interest of all at heart.

The next questions that should be raised in people's minds, should be how much longer before this court system decides what books are allowed to be read, and what books have to be burned or banned? Also, how much longer before this same unjust court system and a few decide where people can live or what work they are permitted to do?

To the people, who think that all of this is impossible in our times, look back at Nazi Germany days, as a few were tighten their grasp onto control (much like a few in Canada have done ever since 1982), the people's rights and freedoms were being quickly stripped from them, never to be returned. While all the while these power hungry few in Germany, were marching their country to utter destruction and control.

People say you can learn a lot from history, I only hope that people see the real truth before it is too late to protect the rights and freedoms, of all.

Back to top

Canadian System and what it mean's to the people

June 6th 2005 by Angus McLeod

With the darkness of our current political system in Canada, a few are being compelled to be the conscience of the people, as we are willing to step up and defend the rights of all. In order to protect the future, we all must work together to correct the past and present political injustices.

There are still a few federal politicians, who would rather see Canada in utter chaos, and have openly gone against the beliefs of freedom. These people have turned away from their own words and ethics, to aspire to attain power.

We must not be afraid to voice our opinions against political atrocities. As lighthouses in the political darkness of night, our generation must be willing to demand political reforms, which will return the power back to the people where it belongs. This reform compels politicians to be account for their actions, in the way of recall votes, proportionate representation, an elected Senate, removal of the notwithstanding clause and first point in the Charter of Rights and freedom which now gives the courts the ability to suspend all rights under circumstances that are " deemed reasonable". No longer should a few be able to cast-off and ignore the masses, as these people, who are attempting to place Canada on a one-way political path to utter democratic obliteration. Under these reforms it will promote a more open society, where everyone will have the rights to free enterprise and free will, and gigantic conglomeration will no longer be permitted the right to monopolize the market places.

In the political world of the old, whether it has been Provincial or Federal, there has always be a certain amount of spin upon the truth. Many politicians will bend the truth to suit whatever stance their Party takes on the issues. Here are some examples that have already been seen from the former Prime Minister Jean Chretien's Liberal Party, where the roots of the present scandal from the Sponsorship Program have risen.

1. When, reporters asked Mr. Chretien the former leader of Canada, about the students, who were pepper sprayed at the APEC conference in Vancouver. Mr. Chretien responded, Pepper? I put that on my plate.

2. On flag day in 1996, in Hull Quebec, Mr. Chretien was walking through a crowd of Canadians when he grabbed one man, Bill Clennet, by the throat and pushed him to the ground.

3. When King Hussiens funeral services, were taking place, Mr. Chretien chose to continue his skiing holiday, rather than attend this event. Mr. Chretien's behavior seems to demonstrate a total lack of regard for the rights or feelings of other people or what is regarded as appropriate in the circumstances.

Now switching gears and taking a look through the Conservative Party leadership, Mr. Harper and other leading officials within this political party have numerous questions, which have been left unopened over the last few years. These questions have led up to and after the political marriage of the Old Tories and the Alliance Party:

1. Why did Mr. MacKay, a lawyer by profession, have the legal right to pay no attention to a signed agreement between himself and Mr. Orchard, and proceed with a political merge between the Old federal Tories and the Alliance Party?

2. Why hasn't Mr. MacKay been called in front his Provincial Bar Association, for not following the ethical oath that he swore when he became a lawyer? (Picture of signed contract and handshake between Mr. MacKay and Mr. Orchard is at http://www.davidorchard.com/online/2do-index.html)

3. Did any card-carrying members of the Alliance Party, who had joined the Old Tories, cast a vote for this political marriage of the right wing? If this is so, did these same people turn around and cast their vote again under the Alliance Party flag, to have this political marriage passed? (Remember under the rules of democracy, one person can only vote once)

Here are some examples from the past, which show how the current leader of the federal Conservative Party, Mr. Harper has disregarded the rights of the people:

1. Mr. Harper called Atlantic Canada, a pit of defeatism (May 31, 2002).

2. Mr. Harpers office has also openly insulted a Canadian Aboriginal Organization; allegedly mistakenly sending an email to this Organization referring to this group as East Indian. Mr. Harper issued an apology, and our high-tech equipment was to blame. (Feb 27 2004) In the 2004 federal Canadian elections, Mr. Harpers main campaign manager was Mr. Flanagan. Mr. Flanagan is a known advocate against Aboriginal self-rule, going so far as to call Aboriginal first immigrants and arguing the only sensible native policy was outright assimilation (http://tape.atspace.com/t-behind.html)

3. Mr. Harper, Described policies coming from the "bottom-up" as "simple and low quality" but also said that "if people feel you're listening... they'll be very open to what you are trying to sell them." Manning and Harper, through repeated interventions, managed to persuade delegates that universal Medicare was a bad idea, that any support for farmers was "socialistic" http://www.canadiandimension.mb.ca/extra/d0602md.htm

4. Mr. Harper went in opposition to the Canadian popular support against the Iraqi war and stood up in the Federal Canadian parliament building, where this leader pushed to have Canada join the 'Coalition of the Willing. This fact, Mr. Harper later openly denied during the 2004 federal election. Yet, this obvious forgetfulness on Mr. Harpers part, begs to question what type of possible hidden extreme right wing agenda does this leader have in store for Canada?

5. On more than one occasion, the Conservative Party and Mr. Harper have attempted to present their federal party as being a big tent. Yet, these seem only to be words to the Conservatives and Mr. Harper, when demonstrated by how a few members of the Old Tory Party were not welcomed into this new Party.

6. Mr. Harper was threatening to bring the government down if the Liberals obstructed the work of the Gomery Commission. This commission has been proceeding as promised, as Mr. Martin has given his apology to the Canadian people with a promise of an election call within 30 days of Justice Gomerys final report on the Sponsorship Program.

April 28th 2005, Mr. Harper wanted to put the liberal government out of its misery, calling the liberal-NDP 4.6 billion dollar deal, which would provide much needed funding into drastically under funded social programs, a deal with the devil. Mr. Harper went on to say, the most disgraceful thing I've seen in all of my years on Parliament Hill", and he called this deal fiscally irresponsible. It seems that Mr. Harper was more interested in offering this money to big business in the way of tax cuts. Yet according to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, states that soaring profits are being invested outside the country in record amounts, stashed in offshore tax shelters, or paid out to corporate insiders and shareholders. This last statement proves that big business is being provided with too many loop holes and shelters at the expense of the people.

The messages that a few politicians are sending society seems to demonstrate a self-serving and inappropriate attitude, where of some people have strived to put themselves above others, because of power and monitorial backing. This directly conflicts with the ideas of democracy, where the people are suppose to control the government, not the government and a few multinational corporations control the people.

With the recent slimmest of margins, the ruling Liberal-NDP party have been able to avoid a federal election in Canada. This one victory has saved the Canadian people $280-300 million dollars (2004 Federal Election cost Canadians $280 million). Now, this saved money can be put to more productive programs, which in the end will benefit the people; rather than be wasted on a federal election, which would have produced a federal parliament that would be just as divided as right now.

Conclusion

Federal politics has in many points slid backwards in times, which goes back to ideologies that were created of the absolute rule from medieval times, when the rulers would carry out whatever actions they wish, without any accountability to the people. Because of this barbaric attitude of old, there has been an environment created, which takes the power from the people and lays it at the feet of a powerful few, as the Federal Canadian democratic system has in many ways been turned into a mockery, and a joke.

Changes must be provided to return the power to the people, politicians should be held to their words and if these elected officials are proven to be unethical in their actions, then a recall vote must be permitted to take place. In addition, if any elected official knowingly breaks any laws, then that official should be held accountable for their actions in a court of law. Also, if any federal political party is found to be guilty of bullying, intimidating, censoring, or oppressing a citizen of Canada and denying that person a right to speak out, then leaders of that party must be held responsible for their members actions, in a court of law.

All of these reforms would send a message to the powerful few, that no longer should these people be permitted stand above the law, creating whatever law these people see fit. These policies of old have created corruption, oppression and even segregation against between the ultra wealthy and the middle class, as the powerful few get richer on the back of the masses. This directly conflicts with the ideas behind real democracy, where all people are supposed to be created equal.

Back to top

 

 

THE POLITICS OF LIFE AND DEATH

The Terri Schiavo case has been filled with many unexpected twist and turns. The further that people search, the darker it seems to become.

In 1990, Terri Schiavo was twenty-six years old, with her whole life in front of her. Due to an eating disorder, Terri had extremely low potassium level. This dangerously low level of potassium in Terri’s body caused an extremely rare case scenario to happen within her body, where she went into cardiac arrest. Following this heart attack, Terri’s brain had been deprived of oxygen for a period of time, which has caused her condition that she has been in since that day in 1990.

The Absence of a Living Will

With no living will left by Terri Schiavo to pass on her wishes, the court system had taken on the words of the husband Michael Schiavo, who insists that his wife should be allowed to die, and that she did not want to be kept alive artificially. On March 18, 2005, Mr. Schiavo received permission from Florida circuit judge George Greer to remove Terri’s feeding tube. What is most disconcerting is that under the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Geneva Convention, prisoners and convicts would be able to receive better treatment than compared to Terri Schaivo. (See http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm) for the Bill of Rights and ( http://www.icrc.org) for the Geneva Convention with regard to cruel treatment)

The Controversy of Relying Principally on One Interested Witness

Before taking the word of Michael Schiavo, let us examine some of the evidence that is at hand. First taken from, "Preliminary Thoughts on how Terri Schiavo's Husband, Michael, fits the Profile of a Wife Abuser." In these preliminary notes Dr. Carole Lieberman, M.D, author of a book called Bad Boys: Why we Love Them, How to Live with Them and When to Leave Them, the author argues that "Michael Schiavo fits the profile, described in the book as the Prince of Darkness." In the final paragraph of these preliminary notes, Dr. Lieberman goes onto say, "As a psychiatric expert witness, I have had experience performing psychiatric examinations of men like Michael Schiavo, and testifying in court about similar cases."

The above is simply meant to illustrate some of the indications that according to this psychiatric expert witness, Mr. Schiavo may in fact fit the profile of an abusive husband. He should most definitely be investigated as the perpetrator of the ‘incident’ that caused Terri’s collapse and her current condition. If Terri were to be allowed to die, as Michael has been desperately struggling to achieve for years, it could help him escape detection. This would be a grave miscarriage of justice." (See at http://www.theempirejournal.com/03200508_terri_schiavo.htm ) Doctor Carole home web site is located at (http://www.drcarole.com/) It should be noted that recently Mr. Schiavo has agreed to an autopsy after Ms. Schiavo's death but it is uncertain as to whether the limitations of this would be able to completely ascertain extents and causes of certain incidents.

Second, accusations have been raised from Terri’s former Nurse, who stated that, “Michael tried to kill Terri.” Carla Sauer Lyer R.N. went onto say one time, she heard Michael, “blurt out 'When is she gonna die? Hasn't she died yet?'" In addition, in a sworn affidavit, Iyer, who cared for Terri Schiavo from April 1995 until August of 1996, stated Terri used to talk to her as much as she could and frequently used what sounded like the word 'pain.' She also interpreted Terri's vocalizing at times as crying 'help me.' This immediately brings to question the possibly, that the diagnosis of Terri being in a vegetative state could possibly be incorrect, just as the Terri’s parents have been claiming. Carla Sauer Lyer R.N. was “fired after notifying police about her suspicions.” (See http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43427) It should be noted that many of the medical files have not been released, even to Ms. Schiavo's immediate family. These should be disclosed to the courts as any evidence could have been or could be crucial to this case.

Third, there appears to be suspicion of possible physical abuse. Apparently, the results of a 1991 bone scan indicate "that Terri Schiavo had numerous broken bones in various stages of healing, including compression fractures, a broken back, pelvis, ankle, bone bruises and ossifications." (See http://intellectualconservative.com/article4168.html) Even the suggestion that Mr. Schaivo may have had any thing to do with these injuries should have raised enough questions to be about a federal investigation into this situation. To my knowledge, no tests have been conducted on Ms. Schiavo since 2002.

Fourth, lets examine how "A certified nursing assistant who cared for Terri Schiavo in 1997 filed a sworn affidavit in the case stating that she was able to feed Schiavo normally on multiple occasions - but that husband Michael Schiavo would allow only a feeding tube." (See http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/20/102601.shtml). Right away this evidence brings to question, if Terri was able to swallow then why wasn’t proper therapy given to Terri to help her recover even a little?

Other Medical Opinions Minimized

Dr. Ronald Cranford a "neurologist chosen by Michael Schiavo to examine his estranged wife, Terri" told the court under oath that "Terri Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery." While Dr. William Hammesfahr, contradicts Dr. Cranford and states that Terri was "very aware of her surroundings. She's very aware. She's alert. She's not in a coma. She's not in PVS." Hammesfahr added, "With proper therapy, she will have a tremendous improvement. I think, personally, that she'll be able to walk, eventually, and she will be able to use at least one of her arms." (See http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43447)

These two contradictory views show how divided that many in the medical field are. However, at the same time it shows that there is still a small chance for Terri, if she were given that right.

Miscarriage of Justice?

The Terri Schiavo case has raised more questions that it has tried to address. I argue that the fact that both lower level and appellate state courts are largely dismissing or minimizing the mitigating circumstances that make this case unique and worthy of further review, and that federal courts are refusing to follow Congressional law to review this case without prejudice smacks of potential injustice.

Without many people gathering all of the facts, a majority have condemned this lady to death by torturous means that the western world is suppose to be standing against. Even people on death row in the United States receive a more humane and quicker way to death.

I argue that the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube is a direct violation of her Constitutional rights to life and privacy, and the manner by which she is being forced to die is a complete violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, protection from cruel and unusual punishment. This is both a civil rights issue, necessitating federal political and judicial intervention and a Constitutional issue, demanding Supreme Court intervention.

© 2005 by Reginald Angus Argue

BACK TO TOP