Wednesday, April 11, 2018

Canadian Societal Depravity is Anchored in Medical Care

Where good will provides cover for predatory population enslavement

This article was first published on Dissident Voice (LINK).


A society of socially engineered individuals who cannot identify their own anthropological dissonance is a depraved society.

Its depravity is further established by its managers who do not experience profound discomfort in the face of the state’s domestic and foreign perpetual mass crimes.

Here, I explore the role of so-called health care in maintaining Canadian societal depravity. Canada is a satellite state of the USA, which defines itself as a jurisdiction with public medical services.

The truth is Canadian “health care” has become a system in-effect designed to keep Canadians stupid and sick. This design serves the global-elite bosses, the political class, the medical profession and the Big Pharma predators, in what is a symbiotic mesh of enslavement. So Canada defines itself by one of its main systems of social control.

I’m driven to write this by a few recent events that point to a downward spiral.

First, in 2017 the Ontario government announced its new publicly funded “pharmacare” program for people 24 years old or younger, which includes virtually every patented “behavioural enhancement” drug. This was done in a total absence of scientific impact studies and in a total absence of independent studies of hierarchical needs and drug efficacy.

Then, last month, in a further cynical move to buy votes in time for the June 2018 election, the Ontario government expanded its “pharmacare” program to seniors, the most over-mediated segment of our drugged society.1

On top of it all, I had the displeasure of reading the leading Left health-care guru’s 2017 book Better Now – Six Big Ideas To Improve Health Care for All Canadians by Dr. Danielle Martin.2

Martin’s book is superbly researched, authoritative and beautifully written. It is an essential current resource for medical care activists and managers. But it plays right into the hands of the said mesh of enslavement by recruiting Left organizers and people of good will to believe that fixing is possible — if guided by research, brave implementations and a moral desire for a fair society.

Such fixing by gradual change from within is not possible with the hydra that we are contemplating. Yet, Martin states:
In the anatomy of a system for change, clinicians are the feet that do the walking. They can also be the feet that drag. […] Making change is always about the art of the possible. Sometimes it would be great to pass a piece of legislation requiring hospitals or doctors to do something, but it just isn’t feasible. At other times it would be better to engage physicians and inspire them to drive change locally, but sometimes they’re frankly unwilling or unable to do so.
You get the drift. It’s on and on like that.

Martin’s “six big ideas” are too many: (1) return of the patient-physician relationship, (2) too much prescribing of drugs too expensive, (3) get physicians to voluntarilly “do less”, to stop harming patients and to reduce costs, (4) do more with less, (5) eliminate poverty to improve health and reduce overall government expenditures, and (6) be smart about actuating change.

A realistic campaign would have just one idea: The medical-establishment-led so-called health care system does far more harm than good and is a system of exploitation and enslavement that must be dismantled. With one application note: The reform will have to be grassroots and culturally anchored or it will easily be hijacked.

Contrary to Martin’s thesis, death by medicine is not some manageable feature that can be remedied by better procedures and more responsible practice. Rather, it is systemic and would require accountability and publicly documented enforced penalties, which exist on paper but are in reality foreign to the profession.3

In my 2015 critical review of the scientific literature, I summarized the problem of fatal medical “errors” this way:
In the words of Dr. Barbara Starfield, and many others, it is therefore incontrovertible that establishment medicine is the third leading cause of death in industrialized countries, after deaths from heart disease and cancer, which in turn are causes that medicine can do very little about. The next and fourth leading cause of death is cerebrovascular disease and its rate is far below that from medical-induced (iatrogenic) deaths, such that “medical manslaughter” is not about to give up its rank of third leading cause.
In concrete terms, I calculated that this means that between 6% and 8% of advanced Western state citizens die from medicine rather than any other cause, including both medical-error deaths and non-error medical deaths.4

In the West, medicine causes more deaths that all wars, violent crimes, car accidents… you name it. It is routinely referred to as an epidemic in the scientific literature, yet it is not on the radar of media-driven public policy concerns. The media is too busy telling us about the supposed dangers of self-administered cannabis.

You are at more risk walking into your doctor’s office or into a community clinic than from virtually every other thing you will ever do.

You have been hoodwinked. To achieve this, it is necessary to continuously engineer and maintain a cultural veil that makes one fundamental biological truth impenetrable: almost always the body heals itself, and does a remarkably good job of it if dominance power does not interfere. The human body has been doing this for more than a million years; and this self-healing capacity has sustained the most successful species of large mammals on the planet, despite the opportunism of witch doctors and fortune tellers.

The only exceptions are the inevitability of old age and accidents that are fatal in the absence of crisis intervention. Medical crisis intervention means: Stop the bleeding and repair vital organs that will not repair themselves in time to prevent death or permanent disability, without causing death by the intervention itself. Modern heart attack interventions and repairs following massive lacerations are examples.

Virtually everything else involves simply securing an environment that optimizes healing by ensuring security, alleviating stress and removing causal factors. Admittedly, these are difficult healing goals in a dominance hierarchy of lobotomized and exploited individuals being milked for service charges and drug dependence by a “health care” system.

The said biological truth has been replaced with a constellation of lies: That industry-recommended “medication” and interventions are required and beneficial; That pain plays no useful role and should be artificially suppressed; That drugs accelerate healing without diminishing the body’s ability to heal itself; That disconnected doctors know best; That technological tests and physical measurements are substitutes for self-knowledge; That it’s better to consult rather than try to be one’s own doctor; and so on.

In 1974, Ivan Illich put it this way and things have only gotten much worst since:
Within the last decade medical professional practice has become a major threat to health. Depression, infection, disability, dysfunction, and other specific iatrogenic diseases now cause more suffering than all accidents from traffic or industry. Beyond this, medical practice sponsors sickness by the reinforcement of a morbid society which not only industrially preserves its defectives but breeds the therapist’s client in a cybernetic way. Finally, the so-called health-professions have an indirect sickening power – a structurally health-denying effect. I want to focus on this last syndrome, which I designate as medical Nemesis. By transforming pain, illness, and death from a personal challenge into a technical problem, medical practice expropriates the potential of people to deal with their human condition in an autonomous way and becomes the source of a new kind of un-health.5
“The medical establishment has become a major threat to health” was true is 1976 and that threat has only dug itself in and widened.6 However, more is scientifically known now about the mechanistic cause of ill-health of the individual animal then was known in the 1970s.4,7,8  Therefore, then and now, in addition to hiding the truth about healing, the fundamental truth about the cause of ill-health must also be hidden from the individual and buried as deeply as possible.

Even at her most progressive, Martin in-effect plays this role admirably well. She points to the large area of health research known as “social determinants of health”. The researchers in this field avoid treating the harmful nature of establishment medicine itself and, instead, focus on the societal factors that statistically correlate with ill-health.

They find that the dominant factor that correlates to ill-health and mortality is poverty, and that this correlation is significantly modulated by a co-factor that is the magnitude of the income gap between rich and poor in the society. Martin concludes, therefore, that governments should eliminate poverty to improve public health and to reduce overall government expenditures.

Martin’s economic structural solution amounts to what doctors do best: Divert resources and attention towards suppressing the symptoms rather that addressing the cause, even though she firmly believes that she is addressing a cause. Eliminating poverty by systemic change is an honourable and just cause in itself and it should not be anchored in any ancillary goal, especially not one that relies on the medical profession for its accomplishment.

Of course, extreme poverty causing fatal nutritional and environmental deficiencies causes death. That is not controversial. However, all such extreme poverty has been structurally eliminated in Canada and the killer now is the subjective stress and self-image devaluation caused by the inherent violence of society’s dominance hierarchy, including the violence from the medical enterprise itself.4,7,8  This is true to different degrees in all social classes, from professional workers to aboriginal reserve residents to urban homeless people.

Martin in no way is contributing to a solution. Rather, she is vying for partisan influence for good-will managers and enlightened professionals. However, the problem is deeper than anything addressed by establishment forces, including the progressive ones.

Both private (USA) and public (Canada) medical systems are networks of oppression and enslavement run by collaborating corporate, government and professional bodies whose members derive disproportionate and immoral benefits. Arguing which is best is akin to arguing about whether to vote Democrat or Republican, prior to the somewhat democratizing anomaly of Trump that was enabled by the technological opportunity of a temporarily free social media.

At its heart, individuals have been infantilized and reduced to following directives under paternalistic umbrellas. On the contrary, knowledge and individual responsibility must be distributed and accompanied by individual influence and power. The structures that have neutralized us in every sphere and the forces that keep us depressed are the factors that make us sick and keep us dependent.
The way forward is to fight for fundamental rights that ensure a measure of influence and power, starting with the most fundamental rights of free expression and free association.

Furthermore, those with institutional power must be accountable, rather than shielded. The professional associations, colleges and councils that shield lawyers, doctors and judges must be defeated and made to answer to their victims.

“Whistleblower protection” cannot mean tenuous protection for the few individuals who expose egregious abuses. It must mean broad effective protections for all employees who wish to disclose and complain about government and corporate employers and procedures. It must mean actual transparency by distributed impetus.

“Freedom of the press” cannot mean shielding government and corporate media from accountability and protecting journalist shills who serve interested publishers. It must mean distributed power to individuals to publish in social media without imposed constraints, with effective protection against establishment hijacking of technological venues.

Actual education is a collective and self-organized societal process, not a method to train and indoctrinate. Optimal freedom gives enlightened and healthy individuals. Excessive domination gives the opposite. This principle is increasingly painfully obvious.9

Everything else is a surreal argument about whether the organized oppression is fair or unfair.

  1. News Release: Making Prescription Drugs Free for People 65 and Over – Expanding OHIP+ Will Make Prescription Drugs Free for Nearly One in Two Ontarians, March 20, 2018, Office of the Premier.
  2. Better Now – Six Big Ideas To Improve Health Care for All Canadians by Dr. Danielle Martin, Penguin Random House, 2017, pp. 298.
  3. Psychiatrist Louis Morissette Should Be Barred From Practice” by Denis Rancourt, Dissident Voice, April 5, 2018.
  4. Cancer Arises from Stress-induced Breakdown of Tissue Homeostasis – Part 1: Context of Cancer Research” by Denis Rancourt, Dissident Voice, December 4, 2015.
  5. “Medical Nemesis” by Ivan Illich, The Lancet, vol. 303, no. 7863, May 11, 1974, pp. 918-921, at p. 918.
  6. Limits to medicine: medical nemesis—the expropriation of health by Ivan Illich, London: Marion Boyars, 1976, pp. 294.
  7. “The Influence of Social Hierarchy on Primate Health” by Robert M. Sapolsky, Science, vol. 308, no. 5722, April 29, 2005, pp. 648-652, DOI:10.1126/science.1106477.
  8. Self-Image-Incongruence Theory of Individual Health” by Denis Rancourt, Dissident Voice, October 26, 2014.
  9. Cause of USA Meltdown and Collapse of Civil Rights” by Denis Rancourt, Dissident Voice, September 7, 2017.

Thursday, April 5, 2018

Professional Ethics: Psychiatrist Louis Morissette Should Be Barred From Practice

By Denis Rancourt, PhD

This article was first published on Dissident Voice (LINK).

The Quebec medical tribunal will decide if psychiatrist-for-hire Louis Morissette was allowed to provide a hatchet job based on hearsay.

The review committee of the medical tribunal of Quebec will decide within 90 days whether or not anyone anywhere, such as a political party or institution or individual in any province or state, can hire a Quebec expert psychiatrist to render a medical opinion about an opponent without interviewing or even informing the individual.

The said medical opinion could be made without any medical record or clinical evaluation or verification of information, and then used publicly or otherwise for political or institutional purposes.
This happened to me, with devastating consequences.

I only found out by chance, years later, thanks to an investigation into my 2008 dismissal from the University of Ottawa, which is still in litigation.1,2,3

I filed a complaint to the medical tribunal as soon as I could. I have publicly posted the entire complaint, the intake investigator’s conclusions, and my appeal of the said conclusions.4

This is what occurred, in the most neutral terms I can muster.

Dr. Louis Morissette, a psychiatrist licenced by the province of Quebec, agreed to conduct a secret medical evaluation of an individual who was critical of his employer.  The psychiatrist evidently agreed to the employer’s request that he work without informing the individual.  The psychiatrist never contacted the individual, never tried to contact him, and never even claimed that he tried to contact him.

The psychiatrist did not use any medical records whatsoever. Instead, he relied entirely on false intimate personal information provided by the employer, which he never attempted to verify, and on media reports selected by the employer.

On this basis alone, the psychiatrist wrongly labelled me a dangerous person, causing me to be exiled from my community, following his definitive recommendations to that effect.  Years later, when I found out that the psychiatrist had medically evaluated me, he refused to give me a copy of his report.
Morissette has a long documented record of evidence-based alleged and proven violations that the Collège des médecins du Québec has ignored.

These include the following that I added to my complaint, with the evidence:
  • judicially proven lying while giving expert testimony in court;
  • giving expert opinion in a criminal proceeding without consulting the relevant scientific research literature;
  • an appellate court finding of his reprehensible behaviour;
  • giving an in-court expert opinion of the harmlessness of mass-murderer Karla Homolka based on 3½ hours of interview;
  • being in conflict of interest while recommending release of double-child-murderer Guy Turcotte;
  • destroying his appraisal-session interview notes immediately and prior to termination of criminal legal proceedings and engaging in such disallowed practice since 1983;
  • requesting double payment for the same service by claiming the same accused person both as patient and legal client;
  • performing such a large amount of opinion-for-hire contracting for clients as to affect his professional independence, put him in conflict of interest, and influence the quality of his practice; and,
  • exercising his profession in a jurisdiction in which he is not a certified practitioner.
After eight months, the medical tribunal’s intake analyst, Dr. Michel Jarry, summarily dismissed my entire complaint, writing that there is no cause to bother the disciplinary committee since I am not a “patient” of Morissette. This remarkable result was handed down despite the many and repeated unambiguous violations by Morissette of the statutory rules of professional ethics.

I filed an appeal on April 2, 2018, and the review committee has 90 days to make its decision about whether this sort of thing is allowed.

It must not be allowed. Otherwise, we are no better than any totalitarian regime that mines rumours and false accusations to legitimize state actions, and psychiatrists are no better than opportunists-for-hire in such a system.

It is also of note that the vice-president-governance of the University of Ottawa who coordinated the collection of hearsay about my intimate personal information, for use by the hired psychiatrist to render his secret “psychiatric opinion”, was Nathalie Des Rosiers.

Des Rosiers subsequently became Director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) for a time and is now an elected member (MPP) of the Ontario parliament and a minister in the government.

The university did not inform me of its actions, and vigorously opposed my access to the psychiatric report until the final hour of an appeal in litigation for access in 2017.5
  1. Academic Freedom? How Nasty Can a University Be?” by Denis Rancourt, Dissident Voice, February 17, 2018.
  2. Denis Rancourt’s letter to president Jacques Frémont, University of Ottawa”, with three attached supporting letters from Hazel Gashoka, Jean-Marie Vianney, and Cynthia McKinney, January 8, 2018.
  3. Did University of Ottawa Persecute a Professor on Its Faculty? A Petition in Support of Denis Rancourt”, March 2018.
  4. Book Of Complaint Against Psychiatrist Louis Morissette With Appeal To CdR CMQ”, by Denis Rancourt, April 2, 2018.
  5. Book: All arguments of parties and intervener in Dr. Denis Rancourt’s constitutional challenge of Section 65(6)3 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, at judicial review, in the Divisional Court for Ontario, Court File No.: 17-DC-2279”, Ontario Civil Liberties Association, March 2018.

Friday, March 2, 2018

Liberal Trudeau government Canadian federal budget 2018

Social justice is the absence of injustices against individuals in society.

But social justice is also a Liberal brand that powerfully connects citizens to the Liberal government, via superficial and institutionally manufactured "good person" self-identity.

The gravy train is back with the latest federal budget. Canned high-impact Liberal social justice programs have hit the jackpot. In particular, Blackness will be prominently (and willingly) exploited.

Maybe it will work better than the aboriginal Liberal-image flop?

So... the police, CSIS, immigration, CAS, family court, lawyers... will continue as usual but elite Liberal image providers will manage program funds.

Monday, February 19, 2018

Academic Freedom? How Nasty Can a University Be?


By Denis Rancourt

(First published at Dissident Voice.)

The present era of reactionary institutional responses to violations of political correctness is exposing the fact that “academic freedom”, of both professors and students, does not really mean much, except what it has always meant.

In the concluding paragraphs of her chapter on academic freedom in her 1986 book No Ivory Tower, Ellen W. Schrecker brilliantly states what modern academic freedom has always been and was always meant to be:
The academic world of Schaper and Cattell, Ely and Nearing, was to change considerably over the next few decades. Especially in the years following the Second World War, the American system of higher education was to expand in size and to become a more democratic and less genteel place. Yet its treatment of political dissidents changed little. The same pattern of pressures and responses that set the early precedents determined the later cases as well. There were some differences to be sure, especially in procedural matters. There was more faculty participation, for example. This was largely the result of the academic profession’s success in establishing the principle of tenure. Though its possession did not invariably protect controversial professors from being fired, by the 1940s and 1950s it did usually ensure that they got some kind of a faculty hearing.

Procedures apart, however, there were fewer differences than we might assume. Institutional loyalty was the overriding concern. In almost every situation, faculty members and administrators responded to outside pressures for the dismissal of dissenting faculty members in accord with what they believed would best protect or enhance their schools reputation. The rhetoric of academic freedom obscures those concerns, as, in many instances, it was designed to. After all, even the famous academic freedom statement that the University of Wisconsin released after the Regents reinstated Richard T. Ely in 1894 was planned in part as a piece of institutional promotion-as, in the words of the man who suggested it, “an excellent advertisement for the institution.” Stripped of its rhetoric, academic freedom thus turns out to be an essentially corporate protection. And, as we trace its development during the Cold War, we should not be surprised to find that it was invoked more often to defend the well-being of an institution than the political rights of an individual.1
Nonetheless, it is interesting to ask: Just how far can a Western university, in a so-called free and democratic society, go in violating the freedom of expression and the professional independence of a tenured professor?

My own case gives a graphic answer to this question.
First, here is the background of what was actually happening in the classroom. This letter from a parent on one of my students was published in Canada’s largest national newspaper on February 9, 2009:
“Free to Learn” by Julia Debono

Windsor, Ont. — In 2006, while shadowing my daughter, then a student at the University of Ottawa, I attended one of Denis Rancourt’s classes (Professor Makes His Mark, But It Costs Him His Job – Feb. 6). Prof. Rancourt, clearly a dedicated, principled teacher, moderated a spirited, engaging, intellectually provocative discussion in which about 50 students eagerly participated.

Other undergraduate classes that I attended consisted of the professor lecturing while students chatted, surfed the Net or took verbatim notes. Few asked questions and there were no discussions, even when the professor asked for some.

Prof. Rancourt’s class resembled classes I had at the University of Michigan’s Residential College in the mid-1970s, right down to the use of narrative summaries instead of grades to evaluate learning.

His class was an example of the kind of educational experience I sent my daughter to university to be a part of.2

There were hundreds of such letters to the university and to media, and a large petition. Here is my report of how my first-year (freshman) physics course had developed: “How to Not Teach Physics”.3
In addition, I was publicly critical of the university administration on my “U of O Watch” blog and I practiced reform wherever I could legally do so, given the on-paper guaranties of my academic freedom and professional independence.

Twice the university disciplined me for allegedly not following the curriculum. Both times the university was rebuffed by binding arbitration decisions and the discipline was removed. I established that in Ontario a university professor is allowed to be political in the classroom, in addition to covering the curriculum, even in a science course. This irked the reactionary administration to no end.

As a result, sometimes the political activism would spill over into students demanding their rights within the institution. There was an upsurge of student activism in the years that I taught, which I mostly attribute to reactions against oppressive policies and an influx of politically savvy international students. But, of course, the administration blamed me and scribbled network diagrams about it in their notes (I saw this in access-to-information records).

In one such “spill over”, the president — experienced trial lawyer, former Canadian Ambassador to the United Nations and former Liberal prospective candidate for Prime Minister of Canada, Allan Rock — was publicly exposed intimidating a student complainant, in the president’s office. The student’s audio recording was played on regional cable TV, and a link of it was sent to all the university’s students by email. The president never did that again.

Within a few weeks after the cable TV show aired, my many research graduate students and I were locked out of our laboratory without notice and, as I learned in 2017, the university destroyed my large collections of valuable scientific samples, and immediately made the laboratory inoperable.

The violations of my academic and constitutional rights that also occurred prior to and after the lock out are difficult to grasp, but they did occur, and many “respectable” high officials were knowingly involved. Now I want the new president to fix this and the university to be accountable. This recent letter is how I presented the case to the new president:
January 8, 2018
Jacques Frémont
President and Vice-Chancellor
University of Ottawa
550 Cumberland, Room 212
Ottawa, ON  K1N 6N5
f: 613-562-5103
e: ac.awattOu@tnediserp
By email and by fax

Re: Ending the University of Ottawa’s unrelenting punishment of me

Dear President Frémont,

I was a professor in the department of physics at the University of Ottawa from 1987 until 2009.  I occupied the highest academic rank of Full Professor beginning in 1997.

I am recognized as an expert in my profession and have taught thousands of students.  I am a much appreciated teacher and research supervisor and I have published over 100 articles in leading journals in several areas of science (my present h-index score is 35).

I taught the Senate-approved course “Science in Society”, which I created following campus-wide student demand, in the largest auditorium on campus.  It was informally known as the activism course.

I was a critic of the university and I defended students against what I saw as institutional discrimination and racism.  In so doing, I used Malcolm X’s political term, “house negro”.  I did this in the context of a struggle for justice and in good faith, as attested to by the attached letters to you from community activists: Hazel Gashoka, Jean-Marie Vianney, and Cynthia McKinney.

The university dismissed me in 2009 using the pretext of my having assigned high grades to all 23 students in one advanced physics course, and then spent over $1 million sponsoring a large defamation lawsuit against me.

You have emptied out my bank account by court order, you have repeatedly threatened to take my family’s home, and you have asserted that you will continue to enforce recovery of your legal costs in excess of $1 million.  Therefore, I am not able to pursue my work as a teacher and scholar, since you would take every penny.
You destroyed my career and took everything I have. You have done enough. I’m hoping that your sense of decency will cause you to grant this request for relief.

The university’s punishment of me has been relentless, including the following.

Destroyed scientific samples

Recently this year, as I sought to continue my scientific work, the university said that it destroyed my large and unique collection of scientific samples — when it locked me and my students out of our laboratory while I was still a full professor.

Many of the samples are irreplaceable and priceless, and I considered myself their custodian on behalf the scientific community.  The Association of Professors of the University of Ottawa (APUO) has assumed my $1.25 million grievance concerning this destruction.

The destroyed scientific samples included:
(a) The only large non-oxidized piece of the Santa Catharina meteorite, in which the meteoritic metallic phase “antitaenite” was discovered.
(b) The only large sample of remnants of the K/T boundary meteorite that may have killed the dinosaurs, collected in the field by a leading-expert collaborator, and kept in a sealed atmosphere.
(c) Unique suites of synthetic layer silicate compounds, which led to several fundamental discoveries.
(d) Suites of loess-paleosol samples (ancient soils) from two sites, in China and Eastern Europe.
(e) Preserved samples of sediments from 100 lakes in Canada, from the largest study of its kind in the boreal forest.
(f) Several suites of samples of synthetic compounds and alloys having unique electronic, magnetic, and magneto-volume properties.

For years the university threatened to destroy my personal papers, too.  Since 2008, the university refused to give me access to my belongings from my personal office in the physics building.  The materials were research notes, original course content, unpublished book manuscripts, two decades of correspondence, specialized books, and much more.  Only recently, thanks to your direct intervention, was I able to recover the more than 200 cubic feet of paper materials.

Student spy

The university hired a student spy (Maureen Robinson) to covertly surveil me for more than one year while I was a professor.  Her actions were condoned by her immediate supervisors (the dean and the legal counsel of the university) and included using a false cyber identity (“Nathalie Page”) and falsely representing herself personally to third parties.  The student spy provided weekly reports about me to the university.  Her role was described by an Ontario appellate-court judge in his motion ruling in the following terms:

Maureen Robinson
[15] The circumstances of Maureen Robinson’s involvement in this entire matter is troubling at best.  Throughout the relevant portion of the Award by Arbitrator Foisy, Ms.  Robinson’s written notes were referred to [as] “the report on Professor Rancourt’s address prepared by a University of Ottawa student”.
[16] Pursuant to the Udell Affidavit, and based on evidence from the hearing, the student being Maureen Robinson was the editor of the student newspaper who had been hired by the University in what the University described as in a clerical capacity to assist Professor Rancourt in his office, without his input on her hiring.
[17] Either in consultation with her employer, the University, or on her own, she monitored the activities of Professor Rancourt both on and off campus and reported her finding back to the University.  In an email to Dean Lalonde, she admitted to having a “personal grudge” against Professor Rancourt and went so far as to liken her monitoring of Professor Rancourt as “posing as a young girl to catch a pedophile”.  Ms. Robinson was not called as a witness at the hearing and, the parties agreed that her “report” would be considered as an “aide memoire” only.
[18] The University referred to the “report” thereafter as a transcript which such description was objected to by the APUO.  Similarly, Arbitrator Foisy made certain findings which appear to be based solely on the report which was not evidence.  [Underlined sub-title in original]

Covert psychiatric report

In 2008, the university’s VP-Governance coordinated a capture of my intimate childhood information for use by a hired psychiatrist to make a written “psychiatric opinion” of me without my consent or knowledge.

The university thereby violated my constitutional privacy rights, my personal dignity and integrity, and numerous ethical codes regarding expert medical diagnoses.

The university followed this by not informing me of its actions, and by vigorously opposing my access to the psychiatric report until the final hour of an appeal in litigation for access in 2017.

You have a reputation as an advocate of human rights, and you recently took charge of the university’s case with me.

I write to you now to ask for a fair resolution that will allow me to resume my work as an educator and scientist, and to earn my living in this way. As it stands, the university would seize all of my income, just as it recently seized my bank account. The interest alone that you seek is more than $30,000.00 per year.

Please assure me that you will instruct the university lawyers that a settlement is needed that will allow me to resume my career.

Yours truly,
[original signed]
Professor Denis Rancourt
[address]
Encl.:  Letters from Hazel Gashoka, Jean-Marie Vianney, and Cynthia McKinney [three attachments in the original].4

That is how nasty a university in a free and democratic society can be. I know other public institutions behave the same way but we rarely find out. I have been dedicated to uncovering as much as I can.

I have been guided by this quote:
One knows … that the university and in a general way, all teaching systems, which appear simply to disseminate knowledge, are made to maintain a certain social class in power; and to exclude the instruments of power of another social class. … It seems to me that the real political task in a society such as ours is to criticise the workings of institutions, which appear to be both neutral and independent; to criticise and attack them in such a manner that the political violence which has always exercised itself obscurely through them will be unmasked, so that one can fight against them.
— Foucault, debating Chomsky, 1971.5
Denis G. Rancourt is a former tenured full professor of physics at the University of Ottawa, Canada. He is a researcher for the Ontario Civil Liberties Association. He has published more than 100 articles in leading scientific journals, on physics and environmental science. He is the author of the book Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism.

  1. The two last paragraphs of Chapter I: “An Excellent Advertizement for the Institution”: The Development of Academic Freedom, 1886-1918; in Ellen W. Schrecker’s No Ivory Tower – McCarthyism and the Universities, Oxford University Press, 1986.
  2. Letter to the Editor, Globe & Mail (National Edition), February 9, 2009.
  3. Rancourt, Denis. How to Not Teach PhysicsDissident Voice, January 2, 2013.
  4. “2018 01 08 Letter to end the University of Ottawa’s unrelenting punishment of Denis Rancourt”, and direct link to the document as PDF file.
  5. Human Nature: Justice versus Power”, Noam Chomsky debates with Michel Foucault, 1971.

Saturday, February 17, 2018

Denis Rancourt's letter to president Jacques Fremont of the University of Ottawa, Canada

https://archive.org/details/POST20180108DGRLetterToPresidentJacquesFremont5All

By Denis Rancourt

READ MY LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA, CANADA (Direct link to the PDF file is here)

I'm not going to stop seeking and speaking the truth as I see it, regarding science, society, and institutional malfeasance; including helping students, teachers and others who suffer the consequences of speaking out or acting to change things.

But we who resist the flow suffer consequences and I want you to know.

It is difficult to grasp everything Canada's University of Ottawa has done and continues to do to me, yet it is true, and I have been dedicated to finding it out. I know other public institutions behave the same way but we rarely find out.

The university secretly destroyed my large collection of unique and valuable scientific samples. It hired a spy to covertly surveil me, using improper methods that it fully knew. It hired a psychiatrist to use my captured intimate information to make a personality profile of me without my consent or knowledge. It fired me in 2009 from my full and tenured professorship at the top of my career, under the chosen false pretext that I incorrectly assigned high grades to 23 advanced physics students in one course. And it spent over $1 million sponsoring a large defamation lawsuit against me, which deprives me of earning money for the rest of my life.

Those are just the larger things the professors' union and I have been able to find out so far. I discovered the fate of my sample collections only recently in 2017, and then only recently was I finally able to recover over 100 boxes of my personal belongings from my office.

Read the letter itself and you will see. President Jacques Fremont, has not answered me yet.

I want the university to back down from taking any money from me that I could ever earn and to repair the injustices now. I want the university to be accountable.

Here is the text of my letter:

January 8, 2018

Jacques Frémont
President and Vice-Chancellor
University of Ottawa
550 Cumberland, Room 212
Ottawa, ON  K1N 6N5
f: 613-562-5103
e: president@uOttawa.ca
By email and by fax

Re:  Ending the University of Ottawa’s unrelenting punishment of me
Dear President Frémont,

I was a professor in the department of physics at the University of Ottawa from 1987 until 2009.  I occupied the highest academic rank of Full Professor beginning in 1997.  

I am recognized as an expert in my profession and have taught thousands of students.  I am a much appreciated teacher and research supervisor and I have published over 100 articles in leading journals in several areas of science (my present h-index score is 35). 

I taught the Senate-approved course “Science in Society”, which I created following campus-wide student demand, in the largest auditorium on campus.  It was informally known as the activism course. 

I was a critic of the university and I defended students against what I saw as institutional discrimination and racism.  In so doing, I used Malcolm X’s political term, “house negro”.  I did this in the context of a struggle for justice and in good faith, as attested to by the attached letters to you from community activists: Hazel Gashoka, Jean-Marie Vianney, and Cynthia McKinney. 

The university dismissed me in 2009 using the pretext of my having assigned high grades to all 23 students in one advanced physics course, and then spent over $1 million sponsoring a large defamation lawsuit against me. 

You have emptied out my bank account by court order, you have repeatedly threatened to take my family’s home, and you have asserted that you will continue to enforce recovery of your legal costs in excess of $1 million.  Therefore, I am not able to pursue my work as a teacher and scholar, since you would take every penny.

You destroyed my career and took everything I have. You have done enough. I’m hoping that your sense of decency will cause you to grant this request for relief.

The university’s punishment of me has been relentless, including the following.

Destroyed scientific samples

Recently this year, as I sought to continue my scientific work, the university said that it destroyed my large and unique collection of scientific samples — when it locked me and my students out of our laboratory while I was still a full professor. 

Many of the samples are irreplaceable and priceless, and I considered myself their custodian on behalf the scientific community.  The Association of Professors of the University of Ottawa (APUO) has assumed my $1.25 million grievance concerning this destruction.

The destroyed scientific samples included:
(a)    The only large non-oxidized piece of the Santa Catharina meteorite, in which the meteoritic metallic phase “antitaenite” was discovered.
(b)    The only large sample of remnants of the K/T boundary meteorite that may have killed the dinosaurs, collected in the field by a leading-expert collaborator, and kept in a sealed atmosphere.
(c)    Unique suites of synthetic layer silicate compounds, which led to several fundamental discoveries.
(d)    Suites of loess-paleosol samples (ancient soils) from two sites, in China and Eastern Europe.
(e)    Preserved samples of sediments from 100 lakes in Canada, from the largest study of its kind in the boreal forest.
(f)    Several suites of samples of synthetic compounds and alloys having unique electronic, magnetic, and magneto-volume properties.

For years the university threatened to destroy my personal papers, too.  Since 2008, the university refused to give me access to my belongings from my personal office in the physics building.  The materials were research notes, original course content, unpublished book manuscripts, two decades of correspondence, specialized books, and much more.  Only recently, thanks to your direct intervention, was I able to recover the more than 200 cubic feet of paper materials.

Student spy

The university hired a student spy (Maureen Robinson) to covertly surveil me for more than one year while I was a professor.  Her actions were condoned by her immediate supervisors (the dean and the legal counsel of the university) and included using a false cyber identity (“Nathalie Page”) and falsely representing herself personally to third parties.  The student spy provided weekly reports about me to the university.  Her role was described by an Ontario appellate-court judge in his motion ruling in the following terms: 

MAUREEN ROBINSON
[15] The circumstances of Maureen Robinson's involvement in this entire matter is troubling at best.  Throughout the relevant portion of the Award by Arbitrator Foisy, Ms.  Robinson's written notes were referred to [as] "the report on Professor Rancourt's address prepared by a University of Ottawa student".

[16] Pursuant to the Udell Affidavit, and based on evidence from the hearing, the student being Maureen Robinson was the editor of the student newspaper who had been hired by the University in what the University described as in a clerical capacity to assist Professor Rancourt in his office, without his input on her hiring.

[17] Either in consultation with her employer, the University, or on her own, she monitored the activities of Professor Rancourt both on and off campus and reported her finding back to the University.  In an email to Dean Lalonde, she admitted to having a "personal grudge" against Professor Rancourt and went so far as to liken her monitoring of Professor Rancourt as "posing as a young girl to catch a pedophile".  Ms.  Robinson was not called as a witness at the hearing and, the parties agreed that her "report" would be considered as an "aide memoire" only.

[18] The University referred to the “report” thereafter as a transcript which such description was objected to by the APUO.  Similarly, Arbitrator Foisy made certain findings which appear to be based solely on the report which was not evidence.  [Underlined sub-title in original]

Covert psychiatric report

In 2008, the university’s VP-Governance coordinated a capture of my intimate childhood information for use by a hired psychiatrist to make a written “psychiatric opinion” of me without my consent or knowledge. 

The university thereby violated my constitutional privacy rights, my personal dignity and integrity, and numerous ethical codes regarding expert medical diagnoses. 

The university followed this by not informing me of its actions, and by vigorously opposing my access to the psychiatric report until the final hour of an appeal in litigation for access in 2017. 

You have a reputation as an advocate of human rights, and you recently took charge of the university’s case with me. 

I write to you now to ask for a fair resolution that will allow me to resume my work as an educator and scientist, and to earn my living in this way. As it stands, the university would seize all of my income, just as it recently seized my bank account. The interest alone that you seek is more than $30,000.00 per year.

Please assure me that you will instruct the university lawyers that a settlement is needed that will allow me to resume my career.

Yours truly,

[original signed]
 ___________________________________
Professor Denis Rancourt

[]
Ottawa, ON  []
t: []
e: denis.rancourt@[]

Encl.:  Letters from Hazel Gashoka, Jean-Marie Vianney, and Cynthia McKinney [three attachments in the original] [Direct link to PDF of the original]

Sunday, February 4, 2018

Can the principle of freedom of expression be used in propaganda that supports censorship?

Stephen Pollard

By Denis Rancourt, PhD

Yes it can. Here is a good example.

In this article, "[a]s editor of the country’s leading Jewish newspaper, The Jewish Chronicle," Stephen Pollard, pays lip service to freedom of expression by being critical of “snowflakes”.

Snowflakes are not the state. Snowflakes do not use lethal violence to silence dissidents and political participation in the affairs of global and regional state aggressors. Rather, snowflakes are a social phenomenon that results from decades of evisceration of the state educational system by design, away from independent thought and towards emotional malleability.

The snowflake culture is nurtured by an exploitative political class, and that relation can lead the state to pass laws that degrade freedom of expression, especially when the repressive laws also prevent political challenge to the (for now) dominant correctness constituency.

In presenting snowflakes as the nexus of suppression of speech, Pollard achieves two primary propaganda goals:

1. He opens with the pervasively promoted Israel-lobby meme and political device that The Holocaust is a “unique evil”, as though this were a given law of nature. Actually, “The Holocaust” is not a unique evil and is extensively used in propaganda and extortion schemes, as conclusively established in Professor Norman Finkelstein’s landmark 2000 book “The Holocaust Industry”.

2. He covers up by omission and substitution the Israel-lobby-driven current aggressive state attacks against freedom of expression and political participation rights: criminalization of criticism of the very state of Israel, cast as anti-Semitic “hate speech”; criminalization of so-called Holocaust denial (any questioning of historical events surrounding the Nazi holocaust); and statutory civil liability for supporting the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) civil-society campaign against Israeli occupation (e.g.).

Mission accomplished.

So, while many Western states are prosecuting and jailing ordinary citizens for their beliefs and expression, as “hate speech” or as civil campaigns allegedly motivated by anti-Semitism, in Canada, France, Germany, the USA… Pollard invites us to have an emotional reaction against “snowflakes” because snowflakes are silly.  In doing so, he quotes Orwell.

Snowflakes don’t scare me. They will be offended and insulted back into reality if and when reality imposes itself. State laws and state militarism to dominate domestic and foreign populations on the other hand are precisely the instruments that lead to “unique evils”.


Sunday, January 7, 2018

Benjamin Zander on how to give an A (video)

David F. Noble has a friend.

Here is Benjamin Zander explaining his student-grading method, and harmful effects of rank ordering.