ARE PEOPLE RESIDENTS OR INMATES?

In the following article, Mr. Dave Brown from the Ottawa Citizen, describes to us how he was thrown out of the Carlingview Manor, a long-term facility when he attempted to interview a perfectly lucid 60 year old smoker who took the leadership to fight for a smoking room for the 40 smokers in the facility.

Kudos to Mr. Brown for bringing yet another horror story to the public’s attention and shame on the legislators of the Smoke Free Ontario Act for having created such a barbaric situation for the elderly who are not only put in danger when left unattended in the cold to smoke, but whose constitutional basic rights are also violated by tyrannical house rules in these homes.

Will Mr. Delahunt, have the same fate as the other four known Canadians who, dare we say, were murdered by such an irresponsible, inhuman legislation? Is this the type of society the rest of us want for our retirement years? Where is the outrage from the relatives of these seniors? Where is the outrage from the public? Incidentally, with a little bit of luck, the Perley Veterans will get their room in February 2008 as you can read here. Let’s remember that this 80 000 $ room will be dismantled in five years as we reported here. The public's generosity is a clear sign that the citizenry does not want to punish smokers, however as generous as their gesture was, it is not the public’s responsibility or duty to finance these rooms. Anti-tobacco has created this situation, anti-tobacco should be held accountable for the suffering, deaths and dilapidation of public funds they have caused! If you are outraged and disgusted by this situation, you can tell us, but more importantly please call, write or visit your MP’s and MPP’s and let them know exactly how you feel.

Facility curbs right to meet
Order to end interview raises question: Are people residents or inmates?

Dave Brown, The Ottawa Citizen Published: Monday, January 14, 2008

The war against smoking has fallout as the vanquished discover they've lost not only the right to smoke, but in some cases, basic Charter rights -- like freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.

One week ago, I was ordered out of the lobby of Carlingview Manor, a long-term care facility on Carling Avenue. Apparently, the resident who invited me had not first sought management approval for the visit. The order came from the home's director, Bruce Peterkin.

I didn't leave quietly and, in a later telephone conversation, apologized to Mr. Peterkin for the temporary loss of my volume control. Volume doesn't show in print, but I'm still screaming.

An interview with resident Don Delahunt about his efforts to get a smoking room at Carlingview Manor took a darker turn when the long-term care facility's director intervened, and said the reporter needed permission to speak to Mr. Delahunt -- who is not of diminished capacity and has the paperwork to prove it. Don Delahunt is 60 years old, a smoker, and he's sane. He has the paperwork to prove it. It was part of his medical package when he moved in after months in hospital. He had a stroke July 27. It left him blind and in a wheelchair. He's one of 40 smokers in the place, and they want a smoking room. He took on a leadership role in the fight.

It was my use of a notebook that triggered the alarm that an interview was in progress, and Mr. Peterkin appeared. When his order to leave was refused, he said police would be called. Fine. I'll wait. But Mr. Peterkin stayed, and it became clear an interview would be impossible.

The only way it would happen, he said, would be if I left, called him, and had my acceptance of Mr. Delahunt's invitation approved. The story suddenly moved from smoking to basic rights. Perhaps if Mr. Delahunt invited me to his private quarters upstairs?

I was told to leave, call, and talk about it. My volume increased. He said he would make himself available for our talk later, but meanwhile, had more pressing matters.

On the edge of losing my temper, I left. Mr. Peterkin called later to tell me I had been approved, and gave his view on the smoking issue. He said government regulations shut down the manor's smoking room more than a year ago, and new regulations make upgrading costs prohibitive. It's the same for 630 similar long-term care homes in Ontario.

But the issue now was the right of the institution to control residents' rights to speak to whomever they want -- or to use the lobby for such conversations.

Are they residents or inmates? Is there a fear of whistleblowing or complaining?

The need to protect a person of diminished capacity is understandable, but should not equal care be taken to protect the rights of the able?

Mr. Peterkin referred the issue to head office. That's Central Care Corporation in Mississauga, with 90 seniors facilities in Canada, and the spokeswoman is Mary Nestor.

It's a confusing issue, she said, pointing to just some of the legislation that governs such homes -- The Residential Tenancies Act (2006), Landlord and Tenants Act, Nursing Homes Act, Charitable Homes Act, Municipal Homes Act and the list goes on. The Smoke Free Ontario Act is in there, too.

She supported Mr. Peterkin's handling of the situation.

Ann Dobbins didn't. A registered nurse and long-time seniors advocate, she is now a researcher and liaison officer with Alavida Lifestyles, a new player in Ottawa's retirement residence field. She called the approach "ridiculous" and a "violation of rights. They (residents) have a right to talk to anybody they want to."

It's a situation that is growing more complex as legislators grind out more legislation.

My suggestion: If management is concerned about a resident conferring, its first question should be to itself. Is there a power of attorney on file for that patient? If there is, step in immediately. If there isn't and you step in, you're out of line and don't be surprised if somebody raises a voice of objection.

I think I just withdrew my apology.

With Mr. Delahunt and myself at the lobby meeting was Howard King, 87, another resident/inmate proudly born and raised in Sydney, N.S. He said he's been smoking for 80 years. He offered something to think about: If they (anti-smoking campaigners) are worried about polluting the air, they should think again about a room with exhaust. He said he's pretty sure not every resident is, like smokers, stepping outside to pass gas. Ask him if he always does that, and he'll give you a look of great piety.

Society declared war on smoking. We won. What's happening now is the mopping-up phase, and we're giving no quarter. We've become mean. It's tantamount to shooting the wounded.

THE VICTIMS OF INTOLERANCE

Four people in Canada have tragically died since the advent of comprehensive smoking bans.

Unlike the anti-tobacco ‘’garbage in = garbage out’’ computer generated statistics, these people had names, families and probably many years ahead of them had it not been for the inhuman treatment to which the Canadian politicians and bureaucrats submitted them. All these deaths and many injuries could have been avoided if these unfortunate people had a remote indoor area where they could have smoked. Read their stories here:

Mr. Bill Leblanc
Mr. Barry Collen
Mr. Murray Miles Patterson
Mr. Eric Whitehouse

Last year, C.A.G.E. , Citizens for Civil Liberties and FORCES issued a press release calling on society to stand up for these new targets of intolerance. The mainstream media, as we have gotten used to expect, totally ignored the press release. We are publishing an updated version here inviting everyone to spread it far and wide. If society starts listening, perhaps we can avoid some future unnecessary life losses. The government must be held accountable for these lives and they must be forced to protect human lives instead of destroying them.

Attention News Editors:

A Call to Society to stand up for the new targets of intolerance

January 13, 2008 - In Canada, terminally ill patients and handicapped senior citizens in nursing homes are being left to fend for themselves out in the cold winter months. Three have died of hypothermia and one under other unfortunate circumstances, since last year.

In the U.K. a 17 year old girl with a learning disability was beaten and tortured for four hours, resulting in a burnt body, a broken nose, a perforated ear-drum and inestimable psychological
damage. Across North America, nurses and other employees are more and more easily targeted for muggings and other forms of violence while they are forced to take their work breaks outside. The important story lies not in the tragic sufferings of these individuals, but rather in the calculated media campaign that has led these victims to be categorized as acceptable targets for the cruelty of their peers and the self-righteous sadism of their caretakers and protectors, for the simple crime of having one trait in common.

What do these people have in common? They are smokers. As such, they are the natural victims and predictable casualties of a well-planned and well-financed campaign to "denormalize" smokers. This campaign was begun in the late 1980's by certain anti-smoking activists and resulted in much relatively benign and well-balanced non-smokers' rights legislation in the
1990's. Unfortunately, these groups needed to justify their continued existence and the salaries of their directors and personnel, and have since become far more radical in their portrayal of the dangers of tobacco smoke.

Unsatisfied with their success in the 1990's and benefitting from generous grants from our federal and provincial governments and from many pharmaceutical companies, anti-smoking groups are now proceeding with the final stages of their denormalization campaign and strategy for completely marginalizing the remaining smokers. They are now touting such irrational and unsubstantiated views of the relative risks of secondary smoke, that the public is led to believe ridiculous statements such as that only 30 seconds of exposure is sufficient to cause severe physical reactions, or that diluted smoke molecules may drift away from a smoker's apartment and contaminate the air space of a non-smoker's apartment.

Absurd statements like these, repeated and cited from one anti-smoking organization to another over and over again, are not only being believed but are being used to justify the expulsion of harmless, law-abiding individuals from their own homes. In an extreme case, we have an ignorant and unsubstantiated comment by a health authority who claimed that too much nicotine in the
blood of an alleged non-smoker caused her to miscarry. This irresponsible claim, when combined with over a decade of denormalization and demonization campaigns against smokers, resulted in the bereaved mother and her friends feeling justified in "punishing" by torture a completely innocent 17-year old girl because she smoked in their vicinity.

Although tobacco smoke may be an irritant and a nuisance to some, and those who are intolerant of it should be able to avoid it, it is clear that the claims of the anti-tobacco activists are grossly exaggerating the epidemiological studies upon which they are based. Studies, we may add, that are not without biases or serious flaws. This makes those who propagate these claims, guilty of hate propaganda against a specific and identifiable minority of our population. When those claims result in vigilante justice, or absurd draconian laws that expose victims of this propaganda to danger, pain and humiliation, then there is cause for both criminal and civil pursuit of those formulating and promulgating the propaganda.

C.A.G.E. (Citizens Against Government Encroachment), Citizens for Civil Liberties, and FORCES International, have adopted the plight of smokers ever since governments began embracing a one sided and completely unbalanced approach to the control of tobacco use and the sanctity of personal choice both with regard to one's health and one's business. Now that the worst-case scenarios that were predicted years ago are beginning to come to pass, our respective organizations call for the following on behalf of our membership:

- We call upon journalists to look into the billion dollar anti-tobacco
industry and reality of the propaganda campaign that it is waging;

- We call upon all concerned individuals to look at the actual science
and research that has been done on the subjects of primary and
secondary tobacco smoke, or at least engage in an open minded debate on
the topic;

- We call upon our government to recognize smokers as an identifiable
class of people;

- We call upon our society to recognize that the hatred and demonization
to which smokers are being subjected is unwarranted, unjustified, and
highly damaging;

- We call upon our legal system to recognize that unsubstantiated and/or
grossly exaggerated claims made against any class of people consists of
hate propaganda and the perpetrators should be prosecuted;

- We call upon smokers and non-smokers alike to support private and
public initiatives to restore scientific integrity and to sue for
damages those who make demonstrably false claims that result in
material and or moral damages.

We remain available for comments, questions and release of documents in our possession to substantiate our claims.

C.A.G.E. (Citizens Against Government Encroachment) is a Quebec based
national grassroots organization that represents citizens who envision a
society where the dignity, sovereignty and liberty of all individuals are
treated with the utmost respect.

Citizens for Civil Liberties is an Ontario based national grassroots
organization founded by citizens who believe that no one living in a
democratic society should be treated differently because of their personal
lifestyle choices.

FORCES Inc., with chapters worldwide, is an educational charitable status
organization, in support of human rights and - in particular, but not limited
to - in defense of those who expect from life the freedom to enjoy personal
lifestyle choices without restrictions and state interference.