PLEASE BE AWARE OF THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMER:
I am exercising my right to free expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, otherwise known as Section 2(b) of the Charter, in order to report with journalistic intent to expose the discrimination, deliberate mistreatment of, and repeated indignities visited upon me by the Direction de Protection de la Jeunesse du Quebec.
My Freedom of Expression in this case, in particular detailing both the indignities I have suffered and naming the public officials responsible for this injustice are recognized as protected speech according to the following provisions under Canadian Charter Law:
The protection of freedom of expression is premised upon fundamental principles and values that promote the search for and attainment of truth, participation in social and political decision-making and the opportunity for individual self-fulfillment through expression (Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927 at page 976; Ford v. Quebec, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712 at pages 765-766)
The Supreme Court has adopted the following three-part test for analyzing section 2(b): 1) Does the activity in question have expressive content, thereby bringing it within section 2(b) protection?; 2) Does the method or location of this expression remove that protection?; and 3) If the expression is protected by section 2(b), does the government action in question infringe that protection, either in purpose or effect? (Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 2 (“Canadian Broadcasting Corp.”); Montréal (City) v. 2952-1366 Québec Inc., [2005] 3 S.C.R. 141; Irwin Toy Ltd., supra.)
Expression protected by section 2(b) has been defined as “any activity or communication that conveys or attempts to convey meaning” (Thomson Newspapers Co., supra; Irwin Toy Ltd., supra). The courts have applied the principle of content neutrality in defining the scope of section 2(b), such that the content of expression, no matter how offensive, unpopular or disturbing, cannot deprive it of section 2(b) protection (Keegstra, supra). Being content-neutral, the Charter also protects the expression of both truths and falsehoods (Canada (Attorney General) v. JTI-Macdonald Corp., [2007] 2 S.C.R. 610 at paragraph 60; R. v. Zundel, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 731 at paragraph 36; R. v. Lucas, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 439 at paragraph 25)
It is not necessary that an expression be received and subjectively understood for it to be protected expression under section 2(b) (Weisfeld (F.C.A.), supra; R. v. A.N. Koskolos Realty Ltd., (1995), 141 N.S.R. (2d) 309 (N.S.Prov.Ct.)).
The Supreme Court has stated that the method or location of the conveyance of a message will be excluded from 2(b) protection if this method or location conflicts with the values underlying the provision, namely: self-fulfillment, democratic discourse and truth finding (Canadian Broadcasting Corp., supra at paragraph 37; Montreal (City), supra at paragraph 72). In practice, however, this test is usually just applied to an analysis of the location of expression; the method of expression is generally considered to be within section 2(b) protection unless it takes the form of violence or threats of violence.
In other respects, the form or medium used to convey a message is generally considered part and parcel of the message and included within section 2(b) protection (Weisfeld (F.C.A.), supra).
In Canadian Broadcasting Corp, supra, the court added that analysis of the second factor should focus on the essential expressive activity as opposed to the “excesses” that would be incidental to this activity. In that particular case, the essential expressive activity, a journalist’s ability to gather news at a courthouse to inform the public about court proceedings, was held to engage section 2(b), despite the incidental excesses of this expression (“…crowds, pushing and shoving, and pursuing possible subjects in order to interview, film or photograph them…”) (paragraphs 43, 45).
Where the purpose of a government action is to restrict the content of expression, to control access to a certain message, or to limit the ability of a person who attempts to convey a message to express themselves, that purpose will infringe section 2(b) (Irwin Toy Ltd., supra; Keegstra, supra).
I was hoping to wait until I had the Judge’s decision before having to post about the bullshittery that the Direction de Protection de la Jeunesse du Quebec subjects me to.
But now, well, I found out that there is quite literally no fucking end to their deliberate sabotage. As I am composing this as an autobiographical and journalistic expose on malfeasance at the DPJ, I am released from the requirement to withhold the names of the people whom I am accusing of said same malfeasance.
Subsequently the only names and absolute right to privacy that I am required to protect are those of my children, who for the sake of their protection and privacy were designated prior in this weblog by the pseudonyms “Obi-Wan,” “Leia,” and “Luke.”
Should I be required to adopt further measures to protect my children’s identities, I will do so.
Luckily, the information I will be discussing here is tangential to my alienation from my children, and focused more on my rights as a “client” of the DPJ, though their regional mother organization, the CIUSS DU CENTRE-SUD-DE-L’ILE-DE-MONTREAL, out of their Sherbrooke Street East St. office.
Now, do you all remember back when I filed my request with Youth Protection to see my file? Well it turns out that the director of Youth Protection services for my region, Madame Helene Savard, well, her or her lackey Mariane Sylvain, elected to give me THE WRONG ADDRESS TO WHICH TO SEND MY REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO MY FILE, before waiting exactly twenty-ONE business days (One business day more than they’re legally allowed) to mail me a denial claiming that me having access to my own case file with the DPJ would somehow violate the rights of privacy of my children.
Savard knew that I intended to escalate to the Commission d’Acces a l’Information du Quebec the instant they were in noncompliance of my request, and she hoped that I would subsequently be tied up with the CAI bureaucratic machinery for another year.
But the Commission d’Acces a l’Information du Quebec, through General Secretary Nadine Jobin informed me that I had not sent the request for access properly to the DPJ to begin with, which meant they were unable to process it and subsequently closing the file. I phoned their general number here in Montreal to get clarification about why my request had been rejected. They advised me that the address I had been given, on De Louvain street, was not recognized as a legitimate place to send my initial access for my file request. I was then advised to resubmit my request to see my dossier with the DPJ to the attention of one Dr Daniel Brendon Murphy, whose name had been heretofore unknown to me. They also advised me that, despite the fact that a managerial level social worker would not mistakenly send someone the incorrect address to file a request to access their DPJ file, there was no legal action that could be taken against them, in spite of the evident malfeasance and deliberate sabotage.
IN THE INTERESTS OF READERS OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED WEBLOG POST, PLEASE NOTE THAT IF YOU WISH TO EXERCISE YOUR RIGHT TO SEE YOUR OWN FILE WITH THE DPJ, YOU MUST SEND A WRITTEN AND HAND SIGNED FORMAL REQUEST FOR INFORMATION, INCLUDING THE NAME(S) AND BIRTHDATE(S) OF THE CHILD(REN) IN QUESTION. YOU MUST INCLUDE WITH THIS WRITTEN REQUEST A FULL-COLOR COPY OF YOUR PHOTO ID
THIS INFORMATION MUST BE SENT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE AFOREMENTIONED DR. MURPHY BY MAIL, PREFERABLY REGISTERED LETTER, TO:
1500 RUE SHERBROOKE E.
PAVILLION DESCHAMPS, PORTE F-113
MONTREAL, QC, CANADA H2L 4M1.
Once again, the purpose of providing you with this address is to allow you to file your access to your DPJ file requests properly.
DO NOT send your request by email! DO NOT send your request by fax!
The Commission a l’Access de l’Information du Quebec will ONLY accept requests for appeal a DPJ refusal that was originally sent to the above address.
As I said, Madame Savard gave me an address on De Louvain Street in Montreal, which the CAI says is not valid, and therefore, I must start the process over again.
But before I do that, I wish to state that Madame Savard’s actions, whether done through her lackey Madame Sylvain or not, constitute a direct violation of Section 47 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms: “Every person has a right, in full equality, to fair and reasonable treatment by the agencies of the State and by the members of their personnel.“
The address that Mme Savard sent me by email was for a DPJ office on De Louvain street, not the correct office on Sherbrooke street. And there is no way in hell someone of her position and authority would accidentally send the incorrect address to request access to their DPJ dossier to someone who was asking for it.
Now, as to why I wanted access to my file? Well, for starters, at the very beginning of the DPJ’s interference with my family, detailed in a previous blog entry, I told them that my ex-wife had been emotionally and psychologically abusive to me, and she would turn the case workers against me. They ignored me; they believed my ex-wife, and not me.
Why are you so shocked that I behave as a monster, when all you do is treat me so monstrously?
-A quote usually accredited to a Roman slave on trial for murdering their master, or to demons during exorcisms. (Latin: Cur adeo stupes ut monstrum sim, cum nihil egeris quam me monstri facias?)
They ignored/discriminated against my fragile emotional state, my physical disabilities (cyclical vomiting syndrome that I mentioned from the beginning, arthrosciatica and a bum knee as my treacherous body continued to do me dirty) either disbelieving me wholeheartedly, or using the issues to put so much pressure on me that they actually triggered episodes of panic, and/or cyclical vomiting syndrome so often that eventually I broke, snapped, and was arrested for rage-texting the social worker who pressured me into a nervous breakdown.
This past summer, they advised me that they were going to petition the court to close the DPJ file and grant sole and exclusive parental rights to my ex-wife, which would mean I would most definitely never see my children before they were adults.
So, I told them that I was done; I would no longer cooperate with them in any way, shape or form. That if I had to I would seek my daughter out to tell her my truth, my side of this godforsaken story. In response they put a BOLO out on me with the very cops that have it in for me.
In parting over the news that they were deleting my rights to be a father, I also told them:
Go take a long walk off a short pier, go play in traffic, go wave a red flag in front of a Brahman bull, eat a bag of dicks, fist-fuck a hornet’s nest, French-kiss an electric light socket, stick your head in a woodchipper, eat a Tide Pod while doing the Cinnamon Challenge, bungie jump into a sarlaac pit, cover yourself in moose piss and stand in the woods naked, eat shit and die, and – and I mean this most sincerely – go fuck yourself.
Then one day later on this past summer, on a rare day that I was in a particularly good mood, feeling good about myself and life in general, when either Savard or Sylvain or for all I know some other third party angry Quebecoise phoned, and emotionally blackmailed me into cooperating with them.
Now, my day was about to be ruined as she/they/them angrily accused me of threats, harassment, crude language, and then telling me that my daughter, Leia, was upset because I had quit cooperating with the DPJ (WHY did I quit cooperating? Because of what I said above, as well as the way they kept vilifying me, to the point they even lied in a family court deposition about my mental state, by cherry-picking what my psychiatrist in his psych evaluation wrote to paint me as a monster.)
So despite their “Don’t you want to see Leia again?” deliberate emotional blackmail admonishment, I had concerns. Namely, the very question I asked that they refused to answer, which led to me requesting my file to begin with.
I asked via the email quoted below that they answer a simple question, in writing (Bold and Italic done for the purposes of this article:)
“Madam,
While I intend to discuss whether to allow you to have access to my psychiatric records with my psychiatric physician, I must ask:
You have already demonstrated – in Family Court, before a sitting Judge – your willingness to lie or lie by omission about what is in the dossier. In fact, when I accused you of it, your audible gasp only confirmed what I’d read in the court transcript.
How am I to know – indeed, why would I even believe – that you will not once again selectively edit out anything that goes against your years-long narrative that I am an uncooperative villain acting in bad faith?
What guarantees can you afford me that you will truly look at this information without bias, when there is so much bias in the DPJ files against me, already?
I expect a prompt reply detailing exactly how and why I should trust you with this information. And do not attempt obfuscation; the fact that you’re still dishonest enough to not admit the things your organization did to undermine me still gives me little to no trust in you.
Likewise, I resent the emotional blackmail you are attempting by using Leia as a carrot in this situation.
If you were crawling any deeper in the mud you’d have to be taxonomized as an earthworm.
Good day to you.
They refused to do answer the question via email, knowing the scope of the Power of the Written Word, in Quebec. They offered in reply to meet with me so that they could answer in person.
When I refused and insisted I wanted an answer to my question in writing, they decided to “answer” by quoting me the stock answer to the question Why does the DPJ want access to my psychiatric records, without even bothering to hide the fact that it was a copy-paste from a fucking brochure.
So, that’s when I asked Savard for the address to send my request to see my DPJ dossier.
And that’s when she sent me the false address.
And that’s when the Power of the Written Word finally bit her in the ass.
And here we are.