Canadian Court Case against Health Protection Branch (HPB)
Categories
This courages and precedent setting court challenge from Friends of Freedom gets to the heart of the matter on how our freedoms are usurped.
Primarily due to cost and time, most of us are unable to lobby and/or to access and courts, for our rights. Big business, with the governments and/or regulators in tow, have taken advantage of these facts to hoodwink and coerce us into accepting that they and the MD's are the only ones who have the right to practice medicine.
This is the first time we have snagged them at their own game and now its time to go on the offensive. Should we pass the hurdle of corrupt courts, and the delay tactics surely to follow from the masters at this game, this landmark effort should set the stage to deal with the pharma scourge in many other countries. See the note below.
It is truly sad that we have to take our own governments to task just to have them fulfill their mandate.
Chris Gupta
------------------------------
"- one of the purposes behind subsections 3(1) and 3(2) of the Act is to ensure that Canadians seek "proper" medical treatment for the conditions listed in Schedule A. "Proper" medical treatment means treatment by a medical doctor;
- "proper" medical treatment is not without risks. One of the leading causes of death in Canada, if not the leading cause of death, is "proper" medical treatment;
- there are numerous dietary supplements/natural health products that are effective in the safe treatment, mitigation or prevention of the conditions listed in Schedule A of the Act; See
- the right to make personal choices in the area of personal health and medical care is a right guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter;
- Canadians cannot choose to take dietary supplements/natural health products for conditions listed in Schedule A, because subsections 3(1) and 3(2) prohibit the advertising necessary to educate Canadians about the products;
- the absence of choice caused by subsections 3(1) and 3(2) forces Canadians to assume the risk of "proper" medical treatment;
- this violation of s. 7 and the harm it causes cannot be justified under s. 1 of the Charter;
- the Plaintiffs rely on sections 1, 2 and 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sections 2, 3 and 17 of the Federal Court Act, RSC 1985 c. F-7, and rules 61, 62, 63, and 64 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998.
The Plaintiffs propose that this action be tried at 701 West Georgia Street in Vancouver, British Columbia.
Dated this 21st day of June, 2004."
--------------------------------------
Canadian Court Case against Health Protection Branch (HPB)
Download the STATEMENT OF CLAIM
Hi Antoinette,
Herewith a copy of court papers served recently on the Canadian Governments Health Protection Branch (Same as MCC in SA) on the issue of their Food and Drug Act having defined 'Drugs' too broadly, leading to supplement manufacturers being victimized. (As has happened here in SA by the MCC over the last ten years.) As in the case of the MCC overly defining a 'Medicine' in their Act (Act 101 of 1965), the Canadians have exactly the same definition as ours; word for word. It is also interesting to note that their constitutional challenges (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) can be extrapolated into our Constitution (Constitution of South Africa), with similar remedies / texts available to fall on.
It is worth noting that all the arguments in this case can be used to align with a similar challenge on our Medicines Act in South Africa if the need arises. This Canadian case can set a convincing international precedent on Medicine/Drug Acts which were born out of British rule in all commonwealth countries in the early 1960's when colonies such as Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, India and Australia succeeded from the Crown.
Proving the original intent and spirit of these Acts dating back to the British rule, we can cookie-cut the argument against all these commonwealth agencies on the basis of original intent, proving a unique window opportunity to strategically co-incide with redefining 'foods' in Food Control Act's to include vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and other food components.
Any ideas or thoughts?
Regards
AnthonySee also:
HEALTH CANADA - ELEMENTS OF COERCION DEALT CRUSHING BLOW
Class action planned against Ottawa
Illegal Medical System Made Legal
Roots of Medical & Other Monopolies
posted by Chris Gupta on Friday June 25 2004
updated on Thursday December 15 2005URL of this article:
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2004/06/25/canadian_court_case_against_health_protection_branch_hpb.htm
Related ArticlesCourt Rules-No Forced Anthrax Vaccination
Finally, a judge rules with some integrity and ethics! CB ----- Original Message ----- From: NVICNews To: news@nvic.org Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 9:34 AM Subject: [NVIC] Court Rules-No Forced Anthrax Vaccination E-NEWS FROM THE NATIONAL VACCINE INFORMATION CENTER Vienna, Virginia http://www.nvic.org "Protecting the health and informed consent rights of children since 1982." ===================== BL Fisher Note: After reviewing all the evidence, ths U.S. District Court judge concluded that "Congress... [read more]
October 29, 2004 - Chris GuptaElectro Medicine and Lyme Disease
While the self righteous medical Mafia and bigoted sceptics continue to debunk electromedicine and other alternatives - time and time we see lay people do what the multi billion dollar industry does not want to do. Yet they will clamor all this is anecdotal, not been peer reviewed, trialed etc. etc. Not realizing how 'el stupid o' they look in the face of the fact that some of these results... [read more]
September 02, 2004 - Chris GuptaThe Dirty Little Secret between the FDA and Drug Industry
$1.2 billion to buy the FDA? What you say never - well read the following. This is yet again proof that the governments work for the industry under the pretense of looking after our interests. Most new drugs are produced with expediency at the expense of safety and efficacy. Frequently they are not as effective as the older one's that they may be replacing... Secrecy & Conflict of Interest Why... [read more]
August 26, 2004 - Chris Gupta
