🚀 go-pugleaf

Cotler is a former Professor of Law at McGill University, presently
Member of Parliament.  He claims to be an internationally renowned
fighter for human rights.  Recently, he was reported to have issued
and appeal to the members of the IOC not to award the Olympic Games to
China because of China's violation of human rights.

Officially, I am a member of his constituency, so I wrote to him a
letter, describing to him, how I was being denied medical care, which
is one of the main human rights.  I suggested in this letter that
prior to fighting for human rights outside Canada, he should start
with placing his own house in order.  About a year after the first
letter, and after numerous telephone calls to his office, he finally
wrote a letter to me.  I reproduce below some quotes from his letter,
with my comments.

MP Cotler claims that my rights were respected and he continues: "...
we have been advised that you are seen regularly by the institutional
physician; that you have had an opportunity to consult with, and be
examined by, several private doctors in Quebec; that these doctors
share the view of the CSC's physician that an angioplasty will not
assist at this time, and that even were there to be an angioplasty
procedure, the recommended quadruple by-pass would still have to be
performed".

And here is the truth.  Indeed, majority of Quebec cardiologists
recommended by-pass surgery.  The problem though was that these
cardiologists were not cardiac surgeons, and they did not do by-pass
surgeries.  I consulted 2 cardiac surgeons, and both did NOT recommend
by-pass surgery, saying that 2 out 4 coronary arteries were
non-operable.  The funny part though was that they did not agree as to
which two arteries were non-operable: those which one surgeon listed
as operable, were listed by the other as non-operable, and vice-versa.
 So much for the qualifications of Quebec doctors.

MP Cotler also knew that I had received opinions of the top
specialists from Harvard Medical School, Columbia University and New
York University, all recommending and ready to perform angioplasty. 
He does not mention this in his letter.

MP Cotler continues: "Indeed, I understand that you presently have an
application before the Supreme Court of Canada appealing the judgement
of the Quebec Court of Appeal of June 16th 2000, which upheld the
ruling of the Superior Court of February 29th 2000, which had followed
an earlier judgement of the Federal Court on September 14th 1999
denying your request".

How on earth does he know all this?  The matter before the Supreme
Court has not yet officially been accepted.  Had he spent one fifth of
the time, spent on digging out legal proceedings, on matters of real
concern, I would have received by now the health care I need.

MP Cotler writes: "Given the fact that your case is presently before
the courts - that the courts have not been prepared to intervene and
grant you the relief you seek - and that the Solicitor General is
unable to comment on these matters while they are before the courts,
there is not much more that I can do on your behalf."

MP Cotler is a Professor of Law, he knows very well, that my cases
were never decided on merit, that the case in Supreme Court is a
lawsuit in damages against former jail doctor Corbin, which has
nothing to do with my present state, and even if it did, Solicitor
General can not comment publicly, but nothing prevents him to review
my case privately and to correct the situation.

MP Cotler knows that all people now being killed in China were
convicted by Chinese courts and killed according to Chinese law, which
allows death penalty.  All this did not prevent him to issue an appeal
to IOC.  He writes: "This is Canada, not China".  Indeed, the
disrespect for law in Canada is even worse, than it is in China. 
There is no death penalty in Canada, and I am being killed illegally. 
It is corrupt Canadian judges, who declared me vexatious pleader.  A
prisoner in jail asks the court to order jailers to provide him a
medical treatment recommended by top world specialists.  Instead of
doing so, corrupt Canadian judges declare this prisoner a vexatious
pleader.  Can any judge go lower than that?

Fabrikant



OTTAWA KlA OA6
Tuesday, February 27, 2001



Dr. V.I. Fabrikant
Prisoner #167932 D
Cowansville Jail
Cowansville, Quebec J2K 3N7


Dear Dr. Fabrikant,

Shortly after my election as a Member of Parliament in a by-election
in late November 1999, I began to receive a series of letters and
phone calls from you in February and March 2000, setting forth your
medical condition; and, in particular, requesting that I intervene
with the appropriate authorities, including the Solicitor General of
Canada, to allow you to go to Victoria, B.C. to undergo an angioplasty
procedure, the whole as set forth in your letters of February 14th
2OOO, and March 24th 2000, and related attachments.

As I was just getting immersed in Ottawa at the time - and had not yet
even organized my Parliamentary office or hired any staff - I asked my
Executive Assistant and Constituency Head at the time, Beryl Wajsmann,
himself a lawyer, to undertake all the necessary inquiries on your
behalf pursuant to my direction and instruction.  This included
inquiries with the Office of the Solicitor General of Canada, the
Director of Corrections Canada for the Quebec Region, etc.

As I was overseas, in the month of April 2000 as a Member of the Prime
Minister's Mission to the Middle East at that time, I asked Mr.
Wajsmann to report back to you on my behalf, as to the nature of the
inquiries and representations made in your case, the whole as set
forth in the letter to you of April 26th 2000.  For the reasons set
forth in that letter, we concluded that, "Dr. Fabrikant, we have made
all the representations that can be expected by a Member of
Parliament's office.  Though we naturally sympathize with your
concerns, we have taken this file as far as we can."

I realize that you have continued to make representations to me, and I
appreciate the concern that underlies your request; but I am not sure
that you appreciate the situation regarding the appropriateness of
interventions on my part while your case is before the courts - and
having regard to the decisions made by various courts in your case
before, and since, you began your representations to me.

Nevertheless, given the presumed urgency of your situation - and
wishing to ensure that all remedies were being exhausted - we once
again made inquiries with the Office of the Solicitor General Lawrence
MacAulay wherein we repeated your principal allegation that the
Correctional Service of Canada is endangering your life by refusing
you access to specialized and specific health services - including an
angioplasty - that are required by you due to your heart problems.

The response which we have received on behalf of the Solicitor General
is as follows-: that your right to essential health care in accordance
with professionally accepted standards as set forth in Section 86 of
the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA) - which you cited
to me in your letter of February 14th 2000 - has indeed been
preserved.  In a word, we have been advised that you are seen
regularly by the institutional physician; that you have had an
opportunity to consult with, and be examined by, several private
doctors in Quebec; that these doctors share the view of the CSC's
physician that an angioplasty will not assist at this time, and that
even were there to be an angioplasty procedure, the recommended
quadruple by-pass would still have to be performed.

Most important - and as you know - a series of court judgements have
affirmed the recommendations of the CSC; have denied your application
for injunctive relief; and have denied your request that the Regional
Deputy Commissioner of the Quebec Region be ordered to transfer you to
Victoria, B.C. to undergo an angioplasty operation.

Indeed, I understand that you presently have an application before the
Supreme Court of Canada appealing the judgement of the Quebec Court of
Appeal of June 16th 2000, which upheld the ruling of the Superior
Court of February 29th 2000, which had followed an earlier judgement
of the Federal Court on September 14th 1999 denying your request.

Given the fact that your case is presently before the courts - that
the courts have not been prepared to intervene and grant you the
relief you seek - and that the Solicitor General is unable to comment
on these matters while they are before the courts, there is not much
more that I can do on your behalf.

I realize that you might wish - as you implied in your letter - for me
to hold a Press Conference, to call upon the Solicitor General to act,
to disregard the judgements of the courts, and to do all this while
your case is pending before the Supreme Court of Canada; in a word, as
you put it, that I do for you in Canada what I would do for a
political prisoner in China.  But this is Canada, not China, and I am
your M.P. not your lawyer.  In particular, I do respect the series of
court judgements wherein the courts - with a full and better
appreciation of the facts and circumstances of this case than I can
possess - have rendered the judgements they did.

I regret that I cannot give you the answer or satisfaction that you
might wish.  I do hope your medical condition will improve with the
requisite medical attention.

Sincerely,



Irwin Cotler, O.C., M.P.
Mount Royal