Quebec police chief mobbed (bullied) by his own staff. (pyschological harrassment)

I have been bullied (mobbed) by George Pearson Centre since 2010 and it is still going on even after the death of  Randy.  VCH will do everything to discredit me and they have been very successful so far.  The only reason for this is that these officers were given misinformation, the police believe them because they are health professionals, and I am at a disadvantage.  Beware of Car 57 (Mental Health team). VCH uses third parties to do their dirty work.  I would really like to know who are behind the complaints. When I first was having trouble with Tanu at GPC I would write notes to the social worker and when I asked for them he said he threw them out.  No wonder he has been at GPC so long.  I remember him telling me that Randy and I were his clients. A social worker is an officer of the court.  What a joke.  I know of no incident where he tried to help us. 

This National Post article was published in the Vancouver Province recently.  If the police will do it to its own why is it that it is not conceivable that such behavior is not happening within Vancouver Coastal Health..  These past weeks I have had three visits from the VPD.  Concerns that could have been cleared up with a telephone conversation.  All it did was distance me from my neighbours in my complex.  The complaints to the police involved Vancouver Coastal Health who I suspect are doing this deliberately to unsettle me and cause embarrassment.  The Vancouver Police Department is being  used by Vancouver Coastal Health.

Court orders reinstatement of police chief harassed by his own officers

By Graeme Hamilton, National Post August 6, 2015

One day, Michel Ledoux found a fake bomb outside his office door. Another time, he arrived at work to find himself hanging in effigy.
Ledoux was chief of police in the Laurentians resort town of Mont-Tremblant, Que., but the intimidation tactics were not coming from local gangsters. His own officers were targeting him.
A Court of Quebec decision this week concludes that Ledoux was the victim of a "vicious and degrading" harassment campaign and that he was justified in resorting to secret video and audio surveillance to identify his tormentors.
Calling the facts of the case unprecedented, the three-judge panel has ordered that Ledoux be reinstated as police chief with back pay after the town fired him in 2011 for spying on his subordinates. A jury had earlier acquitted him of criminal charges related to the surveillance.
"A smear campaign like that constituted a 'particular circumstance' in labour relations at the police station justifying the surveillance measures used," the Court of Quebec wrote. "It is hard to imagine that they were members of 'law enforcement' who did that."
Ledoux, a 30-year veteran of the Montreal police, was an outsider when he took over as chief in Mont-Tremblant in 2007.
He made it his mission to ensure officers were better prepared in court and in general to tighten discipline among the roughly 30 officers. Some of the officers, led by the president of the police brotherhood, were not amused.
After Ledoux suspended two officers early in 2011 and amid contentious contract negotiations, Ledoux and his assistant responsible for investigations became the targets of personal attacks at the police station.
Crude photo montages appeared in the station depicting Ledoux with a penis in his face, as a baboon having anal sex and as a Klansman. Insult-laden tracts, associating the police chief with sexually transmitted diseases and mental illness, were also posted inside the station.
Fed up, Ledoux bought a camera hidden in an alarm clock and a microphone hidden in a key chain, purchases that were reimbursed by the town. It did not take long to establish that Sgt. Serge-Alexandre Bouchard, president of the police brotherhood, was behind the campaign, according to the judgment. Video captured him posting posters on Ledoux's office door.
Audio recordings revealed the underlings wanted to drive Ledoux out. "I hope he is smart enough to leave," one officer was heard saying. "A boss can't live with harassment like that," said another. "All organizations run by guys from Montreal are crap," said another.
In one recorded conversation, officers laugh over Bouchard's treatment of Ledoux before a charity hockey game at the local arena. Ledoux had come to give the officers a locker-room speech. "Serge-Alexandre told him to get the hell out of the room. ... He slammed the door on him."
The court concluded that Ledoux was the victim of a form of psychological harassment known as mobbing, to the point where he took his service revolver home and considered suicide.
But instead of dealing with the offending officers, the town administration fired Ledoux, saying he had broken the law with his surveillance. The town manager claimed she had been unaware of the extent of Ledoux's spying, but the court cast doubt on her testimony. A lawyer for the town concluded the harassment was part of normal union pressure tactics.
"These were not legitimate pressure tactics used in the context of the negotiation of a collective agreement," the court ruled. "They were sneaky personal attacks directed at chief Ledoux, aimed at harassing him to ultimately have his head."
Under the circumstances, the court concluded, the officers' right to privacy did not protect them from surveillance aimed at exposing their abusive behaviour.
A town spokeswoman said the municipality needs more time to study the decision, which cannot be appealed.
A message to the police brotherhood was not returned.

© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix

Euthanasia failing in the US ...

Subversive Strategies to Sell Assisted Suicide.

Dr Jacqueline Harvey

By Dr Jacqueline Harvey

The numbers don’t lie. In spite of masterful public relations campaigns to suggest otherwise, the assisted suicide movement has an abysmal record trying to legalize assisted self-destruction over the last 21 years. The suicide lobby has few victories to claim. Rather, they consistently fail at each of the strategies they employ to push their agenda. Lawmakers fail to pass assisted suicide bills 99% of the time, after lawmakers are educated of the dangers at public hearings. Ballot initiatives fail in nearly three-quarters of cases to win enough votes, even after propaganda campaigns with no public hearings. Even attempts to subvert lawmakers and voters altogether by courting judges to legislate from the bench have yielded few returns. 

Bolstered by deep pockets and a sympathetic media, we are led to believe that the assisted suicide movement is winning, when the track record shows overwhelming political failure spanning three decades.

Nowhere is it more clear how lethal education and scientific evidence are to the suicide lobby than by examining how many assisted suicide bills withstand the scrutiny of witness testimony. Since 1994, 175 bills have been introduced in 35 states and the District of Columbia and thus far, only one has prevailed. Vermont is the anomaly, the lone bill, passed in 2013 after 19 years of failed attempts to convince legislators, a success rate of .057%. Assisted suicide is an established loser with lawmakers, failing more than 99% of the time in statehouses in over 20 years. Death making does not fare well when subjected to public debate. Thus far in 2015, 25 states and the District of Columbia have introduced legislation and most bills met their demise, by either lacking support to advance, devastated by testimony and withdrawn to address concerns or simply to spare a humiliating death. A few a late-filed bills still linger after failing to launch, but are unlikely to persevere through the process or manifest as an amendment to still-viable legislation. 

A team of assisted suicide lobbyists are attempting to resurrect California’s Senate Bill SB128 through a procedural ploy that subverts the committee that rejected it and placing it on the floor for a vote, in an affront to the legislative process but in keeping with the suicide lobby’s inability to legitimately pass bills and blatant overall lack of regard for law-making and public will. They routinely circumvent lawmakers to exploit voters, and even disregard both lawmakers and voters to forcibly impose their will through the courts due to an inability to pass assisted suicide through legitimate means. Only one bill has yet prevailed at all through the legislature. A record of 1 in 175 is evidence that assisted suicide is too illegitimate an act to obtain legitimate support.

Attempts to comfort lawmakers ill-at-ease after hearing testimony about the abuses and dangers of assisted suicide are not persuasive. Rather than address the evidence from testimony which gives lawmakers reservations, the suicide lobby have decided to create lawmakers out of the uniformed voter through ballot initiatives that do not require public hearings. Assisted suicide advocates have frequently appealed to the voters who are not informed by testimony and could be swayed by emotion and deceived by sanitized language designed to manipulate their vote. 

Word choice is critical. Polls can drop 20 points against assisted suicide by using the word suicide, so the assisted suicide movement crafted terms like “aid-in-dying” to present suicide as a helpful act, rather than what is: assisted self-destruction. Suicide lobbyists fared a bit better when trying to exploit the uninformed this way but still have an overall losing record. While the success rate is a bit higher than with the traditional route that forces legislators who vote to actually understand the issue, the lobby still has only two of seven wins to its credit since 1994. Two wins in Oregon and Washington out of seven attempts is only 28.57% success rate, 71.23% of these campaigns still failed. Even without the benefit of testimony decrying the dangers of assisted suicide, people simply do not like suicide. Regardless of how assisted suicide has been rebranded for the sole purpose of overcoming this aversion, nonetheless voters have seen right through it nearly three-quarters of the time.

When lawmakers can not be convinced nor the voting public, assisted suicide lobbyists turn to activist judges to overturn laws against their will. This is why the only other two states with assisted suicide bypassed both lawmakers and voters and imposed it by judicial decree in New Mexico and Montana. The Montana court didn't actually legalize assisted suicide, but gave doctors a "defense of consent." The New Mexico court decision is currently under appeal. Attempts to subvert all voters and legislatures through the United States Supreme Court failed twice in 1997 but still allowed for lower court activism to usurp the will of the people. This strategy has prevailed just twice. In fact, such an attempt just failed in California when the judge showed disdain for such an attempt to usurp the will of the people saying that assisted suicide is “best left to the legislature, not the courts” saying that this issue requires a “legislative fix, not a judicial nix.”  Clearly judicial activism like this failed attempt is yet another hit-or-miss strategy, as well as the fact that the assisted suicide movement still puts resources into introducing and lobbying for bills in spite of having failed 174 out of 175 times in 21 years. 

The longstanding failure of the assisted suicide lobby to sell their agenda to informed lawmakers, the inability to gain enough support with the average voter or find sympathetic judges or to supplant the law points simply to the inherent problems with assisted suicide. The persistence and market research to brand suicide as something different may have deceived some into believing they support assisted suicide, yet this has not translated into political success. Furthermore, attempts to quell public debate by bypassing the legislature has not stopped educational efforts, shown in Massachusetts in 2012 to change polling from 65% in favor and 19% opposed to the ballot measure being defeated on election night. 

With three distinct strategies and three decades and only five state laws affected (two of which were are affront to the will of the people) the assisted suicide lobby simply does not reflect the political climate of the United States, in spite of efforts to manipulate public opinion. They may be relentless in their attempts to impose suicide on society but equally relentless attempts to stop them tend to always succeed.

Jacqueline C. Harvey, a public-policy scholar with Euthanasia Prevention Coalition International, has a Ph.D. in public administration and policy and focuses on end-of-life legislation at the state level.

http://www.bioedge.org/bioethics/foreigners-do-not-understand-us/11505

http://www.bioedge.org/bioethics/foreigners-do-not-understand-us/11505

Please link to this article about  Dr. Cohen-Almagor.  It  argues what is wrong with euthanasia in Belgium.  Dr. Cohen-Almagor initially was for euthanasia but after researching it over decades he has come to the conclusion that euthanasia should not be legalized.

To my readers please send this link to your doctor.  It is the doctors in Canada who can refuse to be part of this assault on human life.

It was published August 1 2015.

California has it Right : No doctor assisted suicide (euthanasia).

Saturday, August 1, 2015

California Prohibition Against Assisted Suicide is Constitutional.

Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA

A California trial court has upheld the constitutionality of that state's criminal statute prohibiting assisted suicide, which states:

Every person who deliberately aids, or advises, or encourages another to commit suicide, is guilty of a felony.

Penal Code § 401

The court's reasoning is contained in a 19 page "Ruling on Demurrer," filed on July 24, 2015. The ruling uses the term, "Aid in Dying" to mean physician-assisted suicide.  The term also means euthanasia. The court states in part:

Since "Aid in Dying" is quicker and less expensive, there is a much greater potential for its abuse, e.g,, greedy heirs-in-waiting, cost containment strategies, ímpulse decision-making, etc. Moreover, since it can be employed earlier in the dying process, there is a substantial risk that in many cases, it may bring about a patently premature death. For example, consider that a terminally ill patient, not in pain but facing death within the next six months, may opt for “Aid in Dying”' instead of working through what might have been just a transitory period of depression. Further, "Aid in Dying" creates the possible scenario of someone taking his life based upon an erroneous diagnosis of a terminal illness illness, which was, in fact, a mis-diagnosis that could have been brought to light by the passage of time. After all, doctors are not infallible.

Furthermore, "Aid in Dying" increases the number and general acceptability of suicide, which could have the unintended consequence of causing people who are not terminally ill (and not, therefore, even eligible for "Aid in Dyíng") to view suicide as an option in their unhappy life. For example, imagine the scenario of a bullied transgender child, or a heartsick teenaged girl whose first boyfriend just broke up with her, questioning whether life is really worth living. These children may be more apt to commit suicide in a society where the terminally ill are routinely opting for it, The message society needs to send to children must be that suicide is not an option for them; widespread "Aid in Dying," i.e., assisted suicide, may blur that message to immature minds. ('When grandma was in pain and dying, she just committed suicide. Why shouldn't I? My life is s-o-o-o painful."). Even though suicide (as opposed to assisted suicide) ís legal in California, the State has an important interest to ensure that people are not influenced to kill themselves," (Donaldson, at p. 1623.)

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), for youth between the ages of 10 and 24, suicide is the third leading cause of death claiming almost 4,600 lives each year. A nationwide survey of youth in grades 9-12 in public and private schools in the United States found that 16% of the students had reported having seriously considered suicide. (CDC website, March 10, 2015)

Ruling on Demurrer, pp. 8-9..

audreyjlaferreire, 5976 Cambie Street, Vancouver, B.C. audreyjlaferriere@gmail.com 604-321-2276
Ccommunicate with Prime Minister Harper and tell him to veto the Euthanasia court decision. Prime Minister Harper, House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario.  K3A 086 To email in search bar type in "contact Prime Minister Harper" to use his web page.  Thank you.

Vomidtoid

 

Watch the video.  Is this happening in Canada as well. What about body parts soon to be euthanized February 6 2016.

Tuesday, August 4, 2015

5TH VIDEO RELEASED SHOWING PLANNED PARENTHOOD WILLING TO SELL INTACT ABORTED BABY BODIES

A new 5th shocking video of Planned Butcherhood Parenthood harvesting fetal parts has been released, a day after Democrats blocked a vote to defund this barbaric organization. They currently receive $500,000,000 dollars annually from the U.S. federal government. That's half a billion dollars each year that could be going to provide real prenatal health care as well as mother and newborn care and services by a legitimate life-affirming organization.

Below is the fifth video showing discussions with a very willing Planned Parenthood official about obtaining intact dead babies they call "specimens". horrendous! Absolutely horrendous! Remember the Democrat Members of Congress, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton staunchly support Planned Parenthood. Remember this during the upcoming Presidential election. Get rid of the Democrats. They are unfit to govern.

[WARNING: GRUESOME DISCUSSION AND VISUALS IN THE FOLLOWING VIDEO. For those readers who can stomach the shocking material, click on image below or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egGUEvY7CEg . The glass tray of baby parts can be seen from 14:13-14:21. If you pause the video at 14:18, you can clearly see in the collection of fresh fetal parts, a baby's left arm in the upper right of the tray and a baby's right foot inn the lower left of the tray.


http://www.humanlifematters.org/2015/08/5th-video-released-showing-planned.htm

Posted by Mark Davis Pickup at 10:04 PM

Are DNRs used inappropriately.

I still can't get over how words are used as in the Daily Advocate March 31 2015 by Hugh Scher: The new description of medical murder is "inappropriate conduct." He also states that there are abuses to DNRs and these abuses must be corrected. My Randy died on April 13 2014 and I miss him terribly. Why did they ban me from his bedside. How cruel and barbaric they are. Like all bureaucracies they do not care about patients, only process and how they can twist process to protect themselves.

The above from my Facebook page.

Why euthanasia should be illegal.

Read this:  It is because doctors cannot be trusted.

http://www.bioedge.org/bioethics/foreigners-do-not-understand-us/11505

Dr. Cohen-Almagor said that saving money was not the issue in Belgium to euthanize.  Research provided indicated that beneficence is often the guiding principle.  Physicians wish to ease patients' suffering and to ensure a relatively comfortable death.  Maybe this is true in Belgium as it is a liberal state but in a money oriented country such as ours it seems to be the opposite. Follow the money.

I keep remembering Dr. Ostrow's "mean management" protocol evidenced by signage on the hallways walls of VGH so even the public was able to read them.  He sure did not mean saving toilet paper.  The brightest of the bright knew exactly what he meant and the rest would accept the saving the toilet paper scenario.  Dr. Ostrow was the CEO of Vancouver Coastal Health.  He also moonlighted with organ transplants. I used to call Ostrow "Napoleon" and his girl, Josephine (the new CEO).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am very frustrated this afternoon, I have been trying to give Randy's "Owen" the little doggie terri-poo, a bath and each time I say to him let's go for a bath.  He runs and hides under heavy furniture and I have to find where he is with a flashlight and he won't come out of his space.  I had to cancel an appointment as I won't take him there, although they are dog friendly, without him being washed with his doggie soap that smells so nice.

We have been doing this doggie game for two hours now.  I will not lie to him.  As soon as I say "bath" he runs under a table, then a chair, then into his house "a large long dark willow basket" on its side top covered with an Afghan and the inside upholstered with pillows and a small fan. I need a flash light to see if he is there. I am going to have to start  to video him.  He is so cute and he has  perfect pearl white teeth. He is so healthy.  Not too long ago a male acquaintance tried to be friendly with me and Owen got in between him and I and showed his teeth.  The human decided to leave never to be seen again. 

I made an appointment with Trish, his groomer, next week and he listens to her.
 

A tale of my life.  No one listens to me.
.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mein Kampf Is One of the Bestselling Political Books of the Year

One benefit of eBooks is that you can purchase and read them anoynmously—there are no nosy clerks or shaming book covers to give away your terrible taste. This, as it turns out, is great news for Hitler's sales: the electronic version of Mein Kampf has become a surprise bestseller over the past year.

"These are things that people would be embarrassed to read otherwise," journalist Chris Faraone, who first noticed the trend, told ABC News. "Books that people would probably be a bit more embarrassed to read or display or buy in public, they are more than willing to buy on their Kindle, or iPads."

Faraone notes that eBooks led to a huge surge in sales for erotic novels like 50 Shades of Grey as well as more controversial books like Mein Kampf.

From Faraone's post on Vocativ:

For a year now, [Hitler's] magnum manifesto has loomed large over current best-sellers on iTunes, where at the time of this writing two different digital versions of Mein Kampf rank 12th and 15th on the Politics & Current Events chart alongside books by modern conservative powerhouses like Sarah Palin, Charles Krauthammer and Glenn Beck.

In fact, all seven of Beck's books trail Herr Hitler's nearly century-old tell-all, which consistently holds its own against new e-blockbusters like Game Change by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, This Town by Mark Leibovich, and Nate Silver's The Signal and the Noise.

Versions of Hitler's prison screed also currently sit in third and fourth place on iTunes' Politics and Current Events bestseller list.

Of course, it's not clear if the book's popularity is because of a resurgence of academic curiosity or something more sinister.

"While the academic study of Mein Kampf is certainly legitimate, the spike in ebook sales likely comes from neo-Nazis and skinheads idolizing the greatest monster in history," World Jewish Congress CEO Robert Singer told ABC News.

But Michael Ford, the president of Elite Minds, an electronic publisher with a popular $0.99 version of Mein Kampf, disagrees.

"The popularity of the digital Ford translation of Mein Kampf has surged due to academic interest in the subject." Ford told ABC News in an email.

Who knows! The only thing for sure is that Mein Kampf is more popular now than most contemporary political books.