[Source]
Let's Adore Jesus-Eucharist! | Home >> Politics
[Source]
Warning! This whole document is a translation. The original is here in French.
1) Summary of Facts of the Quebec Provincial Police (QPP)
1.2) Firearms Act Provisions
1.3) Applicant's Profile
1.4) History of the administrative file
1.5) Information Sources
1.6) Police events
1.7) Verifications on the web
1.8) Telephone interviews
1.9) Telephone interview with Mr. Jetchick
1.10) Analysis
Appendices:
1.11) Annex 1: Mr. Stefan Jetchick's Revocation Letter
1.12) Annex 2: Request for referral 200-38-023712-199
1.13) Annex 3: Love Tubes
1.14) Annex 4: Invitation: Électronic Debate!
1.15) Annex 5: Excerpts from Mr. Jetchick's web site
1.16) Annex 6: Excerpts from Mr. Jetchick's web site social network
1.17) Annex 7: Mr. Jetchick's Firearms Inventory
1.18)
Annex 8 and 9: Communication transcript (parts 1 and 2)
1.18.1) Introduction
1.18.2)
QPP Lies to the Access to Information Commission
1.18.3)
Mrs. Castagna explains the interrogation process
1.18.4) Confirmation of the QPP Lies
to the Access to Information Commission
1.18.5) Why a restricted firearms license?
1.18.6) Request for permission to distribute Love Tubes
1.18.7) When and why your website?
1.18.8) Why are bishops a public menace?
1.18.9) Why the US Marines and the Canadian Army?
1.18.10) Priestly vocation?
1.18.11) Stefan finds his Vocation: Speaking the Truth!
1.18.12) Gay parade and Bill Whatcott: first part
1.18.13) Jetchick runs 4 times at the Federal Elections
1.18.14) Gay parade and Bill Whatcott: second part
1.18.15) Mrs. Castagna's ignorance about sport shooting
1.18.16) Open letter to Minister Geneviève Guilbault
1.18.17) Mrs. Castagna's Ignorance about Legitimate Defense
1.18.18) Alexandre Bissonnette
1.18.19) The CBC
1.18.20) No firearms for Atheists and Muslims?
1.18.21) Physical health, mental health, depression?
1.18.22) Defending our Country, Part 2
1.18.23) Quebec's Provincial Firearms Registry
1.18.24) S. Jetchick's web sites
1.18.25) Guilt by association
1.18.26) The mask worn at Toronto's parade
1.18.27) Retirement? Love life?
1.18.28) Conclusion of the interrogation
2) [SNOTTY VERSION] Rebuttal of S. Jetchick
2.1) Facts not in dispute
2.2) Facts moderately in dispute
2.3) Facts totally in dispute
2.4) Does "Jetchick" mean "Snow White" in Polish?
2.5) What would "WONDER-Snow White" look like?
2.6) The Lacroix Test
2.7) The Trump Test
2.8) The Castagna Test
2.9) Overview of the QPP's analysis
2.10)
Omission: all the permission requests before distribution
2.11)
Omission: the absence of any accusation after distribution
2.12)
Omission: no reference to the content of the Love Tubes
2.13)
Omission: Defense with arms, but in accordance with the Law
2.14)
Omission: Defense against the Islamic State, but in accordance with the Law
2.15)
Omission: The explicit intention of the Koran Burner
2.16)
Omission: Gay Zombies throw the QPP radar out of whack
2.17)
Omission: S. Jetchick associates himself only after checking you out,
and with reservations
2.18)
Omission: Who put deadly weapons in S. Jetchick's hands?
2.19)
Lies? the "Applicant's Profile"
2.20)
Lies? Testimony of the Giant Invisible Pink Bunny
2.21) Conclusion
4) Ruling (2020-Oct-08; French only, but of course I lost)
[Technical note: The Quebec Provincial Police sent us 5 PDF documents, themselves photographs of paper documents (therefore very difficult to put on the Internet in a compact manner). The whole thing "weighs" about 50 megabytes and totals 268 pages.]
Fig. 1: Cover page.
In this case, we are dealing with the revocation Stefan Jetchick's firearms Possession and Acquisition License (PAL).
Following an in-depth analysis of this file, we have information allowing us to believe that the applicant presents a risk of potential danger to possess, handle and acquire firearms. The whole file presents a certain level of risk which the CFO (Canada's Chief Firearms Officer) cannot assume. Consequently, it is not desirable, for his safety or that of others, that the applicant have firearms in his possession.
The grounds for the revocation of the applicant's PAL are as follows:
- At the end of Section 70 "the CFO may revoke a firearms license for any valid and sufficient reason, in particular if the holder can no longer or has never been able to hold a firearms license".
- Failure to comply with the eligibility criteria set out in section 5 of the Firearms Act, more specifically section 5 (1):
5(1) "A firearms license may not be issued where it is desirable, for the safety of the person or of others, that the applicant does not have in their possession a firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, prohibited device, prohibited ammunition or ammunition".
- Checks in police databases have enabled us to find events of police interest concerning you. Among these, police events of Public Incitement to Hatred.
- During the verifications carried out as part of the analysis of your file, reports of security concerns were received concerning you, which leads us to believe that you pose a risk for public security.
- Checks carried out on your website indicate that you are making comments which encourage defense by firearms.
Under Canadian law, possession of firearms is a privilege, not a right.
![Bottom of page 4. [These footers will not be repeated.]](../../../fig/fr/polit/artic/amour_negre/sq/bas_de_page.jpg)
Bottom of page 4. [These footers will not be repeated.]
The Office of Firearms and Explosives Control conducts a daily assessment of the firearms license eligibility of licensees or applicants who have been involved in police events of interest or subject to police observation, without exception.
The full analysis of Mr. Jetchick's file includes event reports, the reading of Mr. Jetchick's website and telephone interviews. Mr. Jetchick's file shows several observations that worry the Chief Firearms Officer. First, it emerges from the overall analysis that Mr. Jetchick engages in speech encouraging defense with firearms. Then, all of the information shows that Mr. Jetchick makes rigid remarks, which betray a possible intolerance towards Islam, homosexuality, as well as other groups. In addition, a follower of conspiracy theories, Mr. Jetchick denounces what he calls a police state and is convinced of its corruption. Finally, the entire file shows a certain level of risk that the Chief Firearms Officer cannot assume.
Mr. Jetchick is an American citizen who obtained Canadian citizenship
when he was a teenager.
He is currently working as a conference interpreter.
He tried to join the army, first in the US Marines, then in the Canadian
army, without success.
His attempts to integrate various religious groups (the Dominicans, the Quebec
City Seminary and the Legionaries of Christ) also ended in failure.
Finally, he says in his article Who is Stefan Jetchick? (www.jesus-eucharistie.org), having ruined his life: "(...) as my fortieth birthday approached, I told myself that I had ruined my life: no wife and children, no priesthood, no career, nothing. So I decided that, since I had nothing more to lose , I was going to at least say out loud what I considered to be the Truth!" (See Annex 5a).
The Chief Firearms Officer reserves the right to make any checks he deems necessary, at any time, and particularly when events of police interest are reported to him.
The principle of continuous eligibility applies here.
The analysis of events is carried out to ensure that the license holder meets the eligibility criteria provided for in the Firearms Act.
On January 3, 2018, the Chief Firearms Officer was informed of the three events that took place in 2017, including one event classified as "Public incitement to hatred". The file is placed in analysis in order to verify the continuous admissibility of the permit holder.
On March 19, 2018, all of the event reports concerning Mr. Jetchick were ordered from the Quebec City Police Service. Four event reports concern Mr. Jetchick.
On March 22, 2018, around 2:00 p.m., Mr. Jetchick made a call to the Chief Firearms Officer after trying to buy ammunition. Mr. Jetchick is informed that an update of his file is necessary and that a request for additional information will be sent to him. A call is made to the merchant in question to inform him that he can sell ammunition to Mr. Jetchick.
On March 26, 2018, an additional reference request was sent to Mr. Jetchick.
On March 27, 2018, Mr. Jetchick was informed that his license was validated for the purchase of ammunition.
On April 5, 2018, the reference and consent to disclosure forms are received by the Office of the Firearms Controller.
On April 6, 2018, all of the reports are received at the Office of the Firearms Controller.
On April 7, 2018, the file is assigned to Ms. Myrianna Castagna.
- The file at this time includes the additional information provided by Mr. Jetchick
and the police reports.
- Thus begins the analysis of the file of Mr. Jetchick. The event reports contain Mr.
Jetchick's websites, www.inquisition.ca and www.jesus-eucharistie.org. An in-depth
analysis of the websites is deemed necessary.
- During
verifications carried out with Mr. Jetchick's entourage, four people were
contacted. Two people were called from among the respondents and additional
references, as well as Mr. Jetchick's attending physician. The last person was
referred to us during one of the interviews.
- Finally, a telephone interview was conducted with Mr. Jetchick.
The purpose of this analysis is to establish and document the level of concern regarding the possession of a firearm in a given individual and in a given situation. It is an overall analysis based on all of the available documentation.
- Communications from citizens (4) to the Québec City Police Department
(QCPD) concerning flyers distributed by Mr. Jetchick.
- web site.
- Mr. Jetchick's (now closed) Facebook profile.
- Communications between Mr. Jetchick and the Office of Firearms Control.
- Communication with respondents, additional references from Mr. Jetchick, as well as
with the person referred.
- Communication with Mr. Jetchick's physician.
The four event reports mention citizens who contacted the QCPD following the receipt of a "Love Tube" distributed by Mr. Stefan Jetchick. The content of these love tubes is available in the appendix (see appendix 3). Two of these events were classified by the police as "public incitement to hatred".
Event of: 2017-09-04
# QUE-170904-029 - Verifications
Status: City
A citizen, owner of an apartment building, contacts the police after noting the presence of leaflets on the mailboxes of one of his buildings.
Event of: 2017-11-30
# QUE-171130-034 - Public incitement to hatred
Status: City
A citizen contacts the police after observing an individual on a bicycle depositing documents in mailboxes between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. When he opens the documents he received at his home, he finds remarks against Islam, against Atheism, against the Police-State and against abortion. Considering the events that occurred at the Quebec Mosque, he thought it useful to contact the police.
Event of: 2017-10-21
# QUE-171021-073 - Assistance
Status: City
A citizen contacts the police regarding leaflets he received in his mailbox. These are the five pages of the love tubes.
Event of: 2018-01-26
# QUE-180126-101 - Public incitement to hatred
Status: City
A citizen contacts the police after receiving a few letters denouncing the Islamic religion at the end of December. He wanted to report these leaflets to the police.
*Note: [in very small font in the original]
(1) The masculine is used to maintain the anonymity of persons and does not
indicate the gender of persons involved.
(2) No charges were laid as a result of these events.
Mr. Jetchick publishes articles on his website (www.jesus-eucharistie.org) as well as on his mirror site (www.inquisition.ca). The articles deal with a multitude of topics. Most are articles dealing with religious issues.
We will see in detail some pages of interest on Mr. Jetchick's website.
The "Love Tubes" are composed of five flyers distributed by Mr. Jetchick.
(See Annex 3,
available at www.jesus-eucharistie.org/fr/faq/appui.htm#s6)
[the original says "#s2", but it's "#s6"]
Love Muslims, Hate Islam!
Love Sodomites, Hate Sodomy!
Love Abortionists, Hate Abortion!
Love Atheists, Hate Atheism!
Love Policemen, Hate the Police State!
Mr. Jetchick is organized in his distribution and says that he took notes of the moments of the distribution and of the number of flyers distributed. He claims to have distributed 4,000 circulars in Quebec City. (See www.jesus-eucharistie.org/corr/rouleaux_damour.htm#s2. See appendix 5e)
Several passages on Mr. Jetchick's website expressly refer to the idea of wanting to defend oneself with firearms. The following passages are particularly relevant under this heading:
Castration of males
(See appendix 5c)
www.inquisition.ca/fr/polit/artic/securite_publique.htm#s1p3
To me, another indication of this castration of males is the insistence of talking about guns only in the context of hunting and sport shooting. Yes, we can hunt deer with a rifle. Yes, we can make small holes in paper targets with a pistol. But firearms are also used for defense: Defense of the family and defense of the Homeland.
Police can't do everything. Too often, when seconds count, the Police is unfortunately a few minutes away.
The Army isn't magic either. If we look at all of Planet Earth right now, many armies are mostly there to oppress their own Country. Just like it's healthy to divide power into legislative, executive and judicial, it is good not to give all guns to the Army. Another way to see it is to consider the equation:
The Government = The People
If the Government really is The People, and the Government has guns, then The People also should have guns. Otherwise the equation becomes false, and the Country ceases to be democratic.
If we continue castrating our young males by repeating that self-defense and guns are inherently bad, our enemies will be able to invade us, armed only with plastic spoons! (emphasis ours) [but noted very far away from where they put that emphasis!]
In this passage, Mr. Jetchick encourages the use of firearms to defend himself.
Bureaucratic Calvary (See
annexe 5g)
www.inquisition.ca/corr/ppa_fr.htm#s2
That little song we sing before Hockey games. Leftists hate the Canadian National Anthem, especially the French lyrics:
Car ton bras sait porter l'épée,
Il sait porter la Croix!
(Your arm knows how to bear the sword,
It knows how to bear the Cross!)
Those "swords" are not because our Founding Fathers were in favor of "Ballistic Masturbation". We don't own guns primarily to pleasure ourselves on the range, but because:
Ta valeur Protégera nos foyers et nos droits!
(Your valor Will protect our families and our rights!)
In this passage, Mr. Jetchick once again encourages the use of firearms for defense.
Open Letter to Minister Guilbault (see
annexe 5c)
www.inquisition.ca/fr/polit/artic/securite_publique.htm#s4
For myself, if tomorrow morning I had to find a better mechanism to reduce the likelihood of violence with firearms, I would add this to our laws:
The hyperlinks Muslim and atheist lead to the respective flyers on Islam and Atheism.
These words reflect a marked intolerance towards Muslims and Atheists.
In July 2016, Mr. Stefan Jetchick and a few other individuals invited themselves, in costumes, to the Toronto Gay Pride Parade to distribute pamphlets condemning certain sexual practices that they associate with members of the gay community. The gesture was the initiative of Mr. Bill Whatcott, a Canadian activist denouncing homosexuality in Canada.
The group signed up for the pride parade under the name of "Gay Zombies Canabis Consumers Association". Mr. Whatcott joined the parade by registering under a false identity. The group marched in the parade while distributing leaflets denouncing homosexual acts. The group was dressed in green costumes. Mr. Jetchick distributed his own tracts, i.e. the English version of the Love Tube on homosexuality. (See appendix 5j, available at the following address www.inquisition.ca/en/polit/artic/aimons_sodomites.htm)
Mr. Whatcott and the other participants were distributing their own leaflet, folded and inserted in a plastic envelope, resembling a condom. The package contained the words "Zombie Safe Sex". Mr. Whatcott's leaflet denounced homosexuality and in particular contained an image showing an anal wart.
Like the rest of the group, Mr. Jetchick participated in the rally by hiding his identity. This initiative was not approved by the parade organizers.
Mr. Jetchick has documented his visit to the Toronto gay parade (see annex 5i, available at the following address: www.jesus-eucharistie.org/fr/polit/artic/zombie_gai.htm#s2). Several photographs confirm his involvement during this event.
Our research done on the Facebook site, demonstrated that Mr. Jetchick had a profile on this site. He was also a member of the groups "La Meute publique" and "Storm Alliance province de Québec". (See Annex 6).
During checks carried out with Mr. Jetchick's entourage, four people were contacted. Two people were called from among the respondents and additional references. The third person was referred to us during one of these interviews. Finally, a telephone conversation with the doctor was carried out.
Because of the comments made, the confidentiality of the persons is guaranteed, as permitted by section 72 (3) of the Firearms Act: "The CFO or the Director is not required to communicate information which, in his opinion, could threaten the safety of any person."
The following observations emerged from these conversations:
First person (X), contacted on April 9, 2019:
- X has very present fears when it comes to thinking that Mr. Jetchick could or has firearms.
Second person (Y), contacted on September 12, 2019:
- Y says that Mr. Jetchick wants his gun to have a sense of independence and a sense
of control. He talks about defending himself and feeding himself as the two motives
for owning a gun.
- Y affirms that Mr. Jetchick is an excessive, "a little whacky".
- Y says he doesn't know much about Mr. Jetchick, but he wouldn't want
to be responsible for something he was hiding.
Third person (Z), contacted on October 8, 2019:
- Z says that Mr. Jetchick is very radical in his religious positions and that there
are no half measures with him.
- Z is concerned that he is applying for a firearms license because Mr. Jetchick has
received threats following the Rouleaux d'Amour.
- Z states: "According to [Mr. Jetchick], he could be attacked by Muslim terrorists."
- Z says that Mr. Jetchick would believe that his life is in danger, because he dared
to attack Islam. Mr. Jetchick would feel really threatened.
- According to Z, Mr. Jetchick has no real interest in hunting or target shooting.
- Z believes that Mr. Jetchick would keep his gun at home for his own defense. Mr.
Jetchick wouldn't be "the type to walk around with it [a gun] on the street, he's
balanced enough for that, anyway."
The CFO also contacted Mr. Jetchick's doctor, Dr. Guy Bolduc on March 28, 2019. He confirms that Mr. Jetchick does not have any mental health problems, and has no addiction to drugs or alcohol. Dr. Bolduc says he has no concerns that Mr. Jetchick has firearms.
As part of the in-depth analysis of Mr. Jetchick's firearms license, it was deemed necessary to conduct a telephone interview with the applicant. The telephone interview was held on August 27, 2019.
It should be noted that the recording is not on a single file, but in two parts due to a problem that occurred during the recording.
See Appendices 8 and 9 for the transcript of the interviews.
The following passages from part two are particularly relevant:
[SJ] At some point, when our Country is attacked, we have to defend our Country. Same thing with our family. If we are able to defend it other than with firearms, good, good! If the neighbor parks his car on your property, you call the police, he gets his car towed, and it ends there! (laughter) But when our Country is attacked or when our family is attacked, we have to defend it. [their emphasis]
[SJ] Me, I do not eliminate recreational and sport shooting. I just want to remind people that it is not only for recreational and sport shooting, it is also to defend our family and our homeland. [their emphasis]
S.J.
[SJ] I'm looking for it! It's informing them. But how do you reach them? I tried to reach out to all mosques in Canada, it didn't work. I tried to distribute Love Tubes, it didn't work. I tried to talk to the CBC, it didn't work. I speak out, but nothing gets through. [their emphasis]
[MC] Indeed. I want to come back to one point in your response to Ms Guilbault.
[SJ] Yes, yes.
[MC] Again, you mention that your solution to reducing the likelihood of gun violence is: "no Muslims, no Atheists".
[SJ] Yes, and I'm adamant about this, especially Atheists, among others. But it's because people, they don't think. I studied Philosophy. I can explain it to you in great detail. If God does not exist, Good and Evil do not exist. If God does not exist, you are only a temporary collection of molecules. Molecules that were randomly gathered by a purposeless evolution. There can't be Good or Evil. All there is, are human conventions. So let's suppose murder is bad. Ah? OK! Suppose killing Jews in concentration camps is OK.
[SJ] Ah? OK, we vote "In Favor"! And there, it becomes "good" to kill Jews in concentration camps. Suppose that killing babies, even at birth, is okay. Ah? OK, we vote "In Favor"! The concept of Good and Evil vanishes, disappears without God.
[MC] OK, that's it...
[SJ] This is why the Canadian Constitution (there are few people who know this), begins with the fact that Canada is founded on the Supremacy of God and the rule of law. And the words "Supremacy of God", the expression "Supremacy of God", are in the Canadian Constitution, you can search the Internet on the Government of Canada website. Because, among other things, if there is no God, there is no Good and Evil.
[MC] OK. That explains Atheists. How do you explain Muslims?
[SJ] Muslims? [First] a religion can be anything. If you decide to found a Bicycle Worshipping religion, and everyone has to prostrate themselves before their bicycle five times a day, there is nothing stopping you from doing that. A religion can teach anything. But it is true that Islam teaches things that are incompatible with Canadian laws, for example, if you read the flyer that I distributed: Love Muslims, Hate Islam, well Islam, that's what it is. Islam is the Umma, the House of Dar-al-Harb, and everyone has to convert to Islam. People who do not convert must either pay the tax of the infidels or they must be killed. And historically, since the year 600 or so when it started, Islam, well that's how it operates.
[MC] Even if you are no longer active, you were a member, or you became a member of two groups that intrigued us: La Meute and Storm Alliance.
[SJ] Yes, yes. Among other things, one of the reasons why I "flushed" all of these people is that when the time came to distribute Love Tubes, I sent them an email like: "This stuff seems to be up your alley, and I would need help." And they never answered.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] I think they were too scaredy-cat ("pissous" in French)! (laughter)
[MC] OK.
[SJ] If they are too scaredy-cat, I have no time to waste with them.
[MC] OK, but in the first place, what was the point of joining these two groups?
[SJ] Well, as I say, I don't know exactly who [the people] are behind these groups, because they don't say it. But they seemed to want to defend Canada, and Canadian identity. And I say: "It's good, that, to want to defend Canadian laws! I'm in favor of that!" But after that, we don't really know who they are. There are no names, no clear statement of their policies. Moreover, like I said, I thought maybe they could help me. We might be able to do things together... "Nawthin'". [their emphasis]
Ms. Myriana Castagna, Analyst, will come to tell the Court::
As of October 8, 2019, following the analysis of all the elements of interest presented above, the firearms license of Mr. Stefan Jetchick was revoked for reasons of public security.
- Considering the analysis of all the information available to the Office of Firearms Control, Mr. Jetchick presents a high level of concern regarding the possession of firearms that the Chief Firearms Officer cannot assume.
- Considering the four complaints filed with the Quebec City Police Service, following the distribution of "Love Tubes".
- Considering the telephone interview with Mr. Jetchick.
- Considering the reports obtained during communications with respondents and additional references, as well as with the person referred.
- Considering the analysis of the content of Mr. Jetchick's web presence.
- Considering that Mr. Jetchick is making remarks encouraging defense by firearms.
- It is essential to mention that the decision is based on all of the information collected and the overall picture, taking into account all the elements obtained during the verification process.
The Firearms Act is preventive in scope and one must not wait for the worst before acting.
Furthermore, the Firearms Act is based on the principle of continuous admissibility in which the holder of a firearms license remains eligible to possess, handle or acquire firearms as long as the latter corresponds to the eligibility criteria provided for in Articles 5 (1) of this Law.
That under section 75 (3) of the Firearms Act, "It is up to the applicant to convince the judge that the issue, revocation, refusal or decision was not justified".
That under Canadian law, possession of firearms is a privilege, not a right.
That under section 72 (3) of the Firearms Act: "The chief firearms officer or director is not required to disclose information which, in his opinion, could threaten the safety of a person."
That under the terms of art. 70 of the Firearms Act, the chief firearms officer may revoke a firearms license for any valid and sufficient reason.
The decision to revoke the firearms license is based on the objective of the Chief Firearms Officer, which is to ensure public safety. This objective can only be achieved by tightening controls on the issuance of permits for the possession and acquisition of firearms and the use of firearms.
[7 pages, of which only the first is important. The rest are photocopies of relevant passages from the Act, remedies available to the accused, etc.]
First page of the Notice of Revocation.
[Nothing interesting. 3 pages of legal boilerplate to challenge the decision before a judge.]
Page 1 of the Remand.
[Nothing interesting, except their very significant omission from my business card, included in each Tube, which clearly indicates my name, my real physical address, my real phone number, etc. Even the Quebec City police report, obtained when I went to the Access to Information Commission, mentioned that the business card was included.]
[Small double-sided card that I wanted to distribute in the mailboxes at one point, but that I never distributed in the end. I found that a small insert did not allow me to say enough. I ended up using Love Tubes to do this. I do not know why this insert is mentioned here, rather than in the section called "Appendix 5: Extracts from Mr. Jetchick's website", since this insert was never distributed, unlike the Love Tubes.]
Publicity Insert: Invitation To An Electronic Debate
[I'm just putting headlines, and hyperlinks to the website. The original document simply reproduces these pages, but copied and pasted into a document (probably Microsoft Word), itself then photographed and placed as an image in a PDF.]
Annex 5a: Who is Stefan Jetchick?
Annex 5b: S. Jetchick's Personal FAQ
Annex 5c: Open Letter To The Quebec Minister Of Public Security [Warning! Only the first of the two letters on that web page, that of 2018-October-29.]
Annex 5d: Onward Canadian Soldiers! Marching As To War!
Annex 5e: Correspondence about the "Love Tubes" (French Only)
Annex 5f:
"In Canada, if you try to protect our little girls, the police
will confiscate your guns"
[Article removed from S. Jetchick's web site. He made a mistake.
Replaced by
Jetchick
Fake News: Paedophilia And The Canadian Muslim Forum]
Annex 5g:
Another Bureaucratic Calvary?
[Their version goes no further than the entry of 2019-Oct-16, inclusivement.
Also,
the French version
of that document is much longer.]
Annex 5h: Correspondence with Mr. Bill Whatcott [The English version is much longer. The QPP uses the much shorter French version.]
Annex 5i: The Gay Zombies Cannabis Consumers Association
Annex 5j:
Love
Sodomites, Hate Sodomy!
[For some reason, the original QPP document copies bothe the HTML version and the
MS-Word version, which have an identical content... And this English version is
only the translation of the French version, given above...]
Annex 5k: Why I Burned A Koran On 9/11
[Only three screenshots, two showing that S. Jetchick was once a member of the Facebook groups of "Storm Alliance" and "La Meute", and one which seems to be of his Facebook page, where he basically just plugged the "Love Tubes".]
[Three screenshots. One from the RCMP, showing S. Jetchick owns a pistol. The two others are catalog pictures showing both sides of that type of gun. For some unknown reason, they don't show the registration of S. Jetchick's hunting rifle, even though it's legally registered in the Quebec Registry.]
[See note on this transcript at #2.2]
[MC] Still in the file of Mr. Stefan Jetchick, 044-190521009, 2nd call, Mr. Stefan Jetchick just contacted me, so I returned his call.
[SJ] Yes, hello!
[MC] Yes, hello Mr. Jetchick. It's Mrs. Castagna, I'm returning your call. My office is very limited, there are a lot of people, I allowed myself to go to a slightly quieter room to speak to you.
[SJ] Yes.
[MC] Perfect. I have several questions for you regarding your firearms license application. I don't know if you remember, we talked a few months ago maybe.
[SJ] Unfortunately, I have the memory of a goldfish. I remember talking to someone, but I don't remember the name of the person at all. But I imagine if you say it's you, it must be you.
[MC] Yes, but because I had intercepted your request and we were wondering why it was done so in advance, because it was still a year and a few [in advance], your permit request.
[SJ] Yes, yes, but that is because, if you are aware of my file, you see that the QPP is doing almost everything they can to harm me. So, to avoid giving them more reasons than they need to, I had already done this in advance.
[MC] OK, perfect.
[SJ] I imagine you are aware of my request to the Access to Information Commission?
[MC] Yes. During our last conversation, you invited me to go and consult your site and all that, so at the same time, yes, indeed, I learned what happened with access to information and all that.
[Communication Transcript, Session 1, 1 of 12]
[SJ] That's it. For me, it was another example of, how can I say, the ill-will on the part of the QPP: saying that they have a reason for deactivating my license, but they didn't put it in writing, so the Access to Information Commission cannot force them to reveal this reason! (laughter)
[MC] OK.
[SJ] You've read the judge's ruling?
[MC] Yes, yes.
[SJ] So that's it. This is how a Police-State works. In a real State, the police exercise delegated authority. Parliament delegates a small portion of authority to them, and the police must be able to justify their application of this authority. It's like a policeman who stops someone on the side of the road because he was doing 100 km/h in a 30 km/h zone. He'll say: "I have been delegated to stop people who are going faster than the maximum speed. It's written here in the Law, so I'm arresting you." But the police can't arrest people by saying, "Well, I'm tempted to arrest you, and I'm not going to tell you why." Unless you're in a Police-State, or the beginning of a a Police-State... In any case, that was my point.
[MC] It didn't work?
[SJ] That can be read in the ruling, and it can be read that this is also what the Quebec Bar Association said on this topic. I do not know if you saw what the Quebec Bar Association said on this subject?
[MC] I have seen the document, but I have not fully read it.
[SJ] No, that's it [It didn't work]. Things have evolved since that time, but it's not Quebec as such, it is generally Western civilization that is like that. In the United States, it's the same thing. In Europe, it's the same thing. But that's a long philosophical debate! (laughter)
[MC] Good. But when we spoke, you pointed me on your site, and everything that was there, everything you wrote. I'm asking you, Mr. Jetchick, do you feel comfortable if I record the conversation, to facilitate note-taking?
[SJ] No problem. I on the contrary, if there's something I'd like, is that the QPP would show what they have in their files, which would allow everybody to see what's going on.
[Communication Transcript, Session 1, 2 of 12]
[MC] OK, well since we have nothing to hide, I'm going to record, and I'll remind you a little of my goal. I am not a police officer, I am a civilian.
[SJ] Yes.
[MC] And I'm studying your renewal request, and therefore, it will have an effect on your permit request.
[SJ] Yes.
[MC] Both will be analyzed at the same time.
[SJ] Yes.
[MC] I want to reassure you that this is a uniform process. So it's fair for everyone. I don't know you, so my only way to get to know you and to know who you are is precisely by talking to you, making you speak, and trying to understand a little bit what your thinking is, and who you are.
[SJ] And on my part, obviously I know that government employees, well (laugher), there are a lot of good people in government. I know several, so I have no doubts about your good intentions. In general, the people I meet have good intentions, but I also see the system that is not perfect. So, I don't have much hope, given how it has gone so far, but it probably won't be your fault. It is not you who controls this, you only do your job, and at the end of the day you submit the report, and it goes up higher.
[MC] OK, we're going to try to get to know each other, Mr. Jetchick, to try to make the best assessment we can do, and for that I'm going to need your participation.
[SJ] Yes.
[MC] So collaborate with my questions, and if there is something ambiguous, don't hesitate to ask me what's going on. So you, basically, your firearms license in relation to deactivation and all that, it was a bit generated by, I think you noticed, by les rouleaux that you distributed in Quebec city.
[SJ] No, on the contrary, this is the first time in the whole process that anyone from the Firearms Bureau has said that.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] That's right, they always denied, if you read what I wrote.
[Communication Transcript, Session 1, 3 of 12]
[SJ] They started by saying that these were random deactivations, that it was random.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] Then they told me it was an event, but they never wanted to tell me which event.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] I even went before the Access to Information Commission. I asked, and they never wanted to say. They never wanted to tell me why, so you're the first person to say "two plus two equals four" (laughter).
[MC] Yes.
[SJ] The Love Tubes, I suspected, but this is the first time it has come out of the mouth of someone from the QPP. But I know that you are not from the QPP, but an employee who works for them.
[MC] Okay, look, I'm going to explain a little bit how it works. Of course we have the Shared Intelligence Center of Quebec, and we have the Canadian Information System.
[SJ] Yes.
[MC] So it is certain that when we have complaints or police events, it makes a match, name, date of birth, with the Canadian system, so it's automatic.
[SJ] Yes, as I say, I first obtained an unrestricted weapons license, and after that I went for a restricted weapons license, among other things to be sure that it would trigger any mechanism like the one you've just described to me.
[MC] OK, so I just want to understand: you made a request for restricted weapons, it was just for...
[SJ] It was for the limited license. I had bumped up if I may say my license, because I already had a possession and acquisition license, but only for unrestricted weapons.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] And thinking about it, I said to myself: "I'm going to get the next level, a cut above, for restricted weapons", precisely so that it triggers mechanisms like the one you have just described to me.
[MC] OK, so for you it was not recreational or sporting, or for target shooting.
[SJ] Well it's recreational and sporty too, but I could have had recreation and sport with only unrestricted weapons.
[Communication Transcript, Session 1, 4 of 12]
[SJ] But I said to myself, as long as I'm there, it's going to be as recreational and as sporty, but it's going to be even better. This is because when you want a smoke detector, you want this detector to detect smoke as quickly as possible, so the family can get out of the house. That's the purpose of a smoke detector.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] I am trying to detect the rise of the Police-State and the suppression of freedom of expression. So that's my goal, it's my thought, it's made for that, to detect if freedom of expression still exists in Canada and if the Police-State is really as advanced as some people claim.
[MC] OK, so the transition from an unrestricted weapons license to a restricted weapons license was really for the purpose of creating a reaction?
[SJ] No, no, no (laughter). I'll explain it to you another time. There are several reasons why I took a restricted firearms license. One of the reasons is obviously for sport and recreation. I like restricted weapons. But there is also the fact I'm trying to detect the rise of the Police-State and the destruction of our freedom of expression. Having a weapon and a restricted license allows them to be even more on the lookout, and they will react if I ever do something that bothers the Police-State, something that bothers the people who want to take away our freedom of expression.
[MC] OK, so for you it was to check reactivity a bit, and the checks that we do to issue such a permit?
[SJ] No, it is to prove that the government is in bad faith, and that the government is inventing regulations as it goes, and that the government wants to take away our freedom of expression. But as I said, one of the elements to prove this is, among other things, to see what reaction the government will have, if I say common sense things in public, like the ones I have say in the Love Tubes. Because, as I already told you I think, but I can repeat it to you, I am a conference interpreter. I had at one point been making a Parliamentary Committee at the National Assembly, and the lady of the Muslim Association of Canada had told Quebec parliamentarians that she wanted our laws to be changed to allow child marriage, in other words pedophilia. All the parliamentarians pretended not to have heard anything, and I was translating word for word. Everything is recorded, everything is filmed by the cameras of the National Assembly, but it was completely hushed up.
[Note: S. Jetchick had completely misunderstood what Ms. Samah Jebbari was trying to say. See S. Jetchick's public retraction in: Jetchick Fake News: Pedophilia and the Canadian Muslim Forum.]
[SJ] This is an example, but it was completely smothered because these things are super-taboo.
[Communication Transcript, Session 1, 5 of 12]
[SJ] No one can criticize Islam in a country where the Police-State is rising, and where freedom of expression is diminishing. Any criticism of Islam will be severely punished. This is what is happening in France, this is what is happening in Sweden, this is what is happening even more in England. So me, that was what I wanted to do. I wanted to see if the same thing was happening in Canada. So if you look at the Love Tubes, these are just common sense statements. Among others, the Love Tube on Islam is only quotes from the Koran. Imagine, quotes from the Koran! (laughter). We're at the point where the police go berserk when somebody quotes the Koran! This is completely crazy! And in addition, before distributing my Love Tubes (you know, you've read it), I sent some by registered mail to the mayor of Quebec City, to the Minister of Justice of Quebec, to the Minister of Justice of Canada, my MP, to all the mosques in Canada (laughter), and there are even more! I don't know if you've seen the list, but there is a long list of people who I sent them to, asking: "Is it okay if I distribute this? Do you have any objections? Is it evil? Is it illegal?"
[MC] Have you get any answers?
[SJ] No. (laugher) There is only the Quebec government, where some poor moron [S. Jetchick adds while re-reading this transcript: "I'm terribly sorry, Council Gaétan Rancourt"], who was responsible for answering letters sent to the Minister of Justice of Quebec, sent me back a long answer that was a bit like saying: "We haven't a clue what the judges are thinking these days, so the only way to find out is to pass out Love Tubes, and we'll see!" (laughter) But he didn't say it like that. He said it in a very flowery way, like a lawyer. But they can't answer, because if they answer: "Yes, you have the right to distribute, you have the right to quote the Koran in public, you have the right to express your opinions in public", they'll be attacked by Muslims. But if they say, "No, you don't have the right to say this, you don't have the right to criticize Islam," then Canadians will say: "Where's the freedom of expression?" You know, everyone has the right to criticize Catholicism, but there, all of a sudden, Islam would have a special status in Canada? So they're screwed one way or the other. I don't know if you understand what I'm saying?
[MC] Yes, yes, absolutely.
[SJ] They can't answer unless they have courage. If they were brave, they would say: "Well yes, you have the right to express your opinions in the Public Square. This is what Canada is based on."
[MC] Okay, so let's go back to your permit request.
[Communication Transcript, Session 1, 6 of 12]
[MC] The fact that we are talking to each other today to try to assess the situation is that, the Tubes, complaints have been lodged.
[SJ] Yes. The first reaction that the police should have said to the people who complained was: "Well, go complain to the Minister of Justice of Quebec! Go complain to the Minister of Justice of Canada! Go complain to the Mayor of Quebec! Go complain to all the mosques in Canada!" They all received this, in some cases years ago, like the circular on Islam. I had sent it, I think a year and a month before the horrible massacre at the Quebec mosque [Letter sent 2016-Sept-26, massacre 2017-January-29]. I don't know if you remember the massacre at the Quebec mosque, but I had sent my circular to all the mosques in Canada more than a year before that massacre, asking them: "Is it OK if I distribute this? Do you have any objections?"
[MC] Does...
[SJ] People who complained to the police, the police should have turned them around right away and said: "Don't complain to us! Go complain to the people who didn't say anything!
[MC] The mosque, did they answer you?
[SJ] No. They did not respond directly, but they responded indirectly. For me, since I don't hide, I give out my business card inside the Love Tubes, as you have noticed. So there are people who phoned me directly. Of the lot, about half were "pure wool" French-Canadian Atheists, who whined because I speak of God, and that Atheists just can't stand this! (laughter) The other half were newly-arrived immigrants who spoke like this: (with a strong Arabic accent) "No, by Allah! It's not acceptable!" Just with their accents, it was obvious they weren't "pure wool" Quebecers. There was even one who asked me to come and meet him at the Tim Horton near my place. I said, "No problem!" And then, the very morning we were supposed to meet to talk to each other, he phoned me again and said to me: (with a strong Arabic accent) "I spoke to the lawyers at the Sainte-Foy mosque. The lawyers told me, there's nothing to do, it's freedom of expression." And I'm imitating how he spoke to me, because he was struggling, French was not his native language. I still have his name and phone number. He had told me that he had consulted the Sainte-Foy mosque and that the lawyer s, in the plural, of the Sainte-Foy mosque had told him that there was nothing to do, that it was freedom of expression.
[Communication Transcript, Session 1, 7 of 12]
[SJ] But the mosque, imagine (laughter), the mosque couldn't send me an official letter saying: "You have the right to criticize the Koran and Muhammad". (laughter) These guys would have gotten themselves killed! So they too were stuck. They couldn't say publicly what they said in private. So, I didn't get a direct response from the mosques, but I did get at least an indirect response. Even they realized that there was nothing they could do.
[MC] Okay, let's continue, to always come back to what I need to understand. I went to your site ...
[SJ] Yes.
[MC] It's very interesting and very eloquent. You say a lot on this site.
[SJ] Yes.
[MC] How long have you had your website? When did you start...
[SJ] It's all written on the website but it's since 2004.
[MC] Since 2004.
[SJ] If you go to the bottom of the "Recent additions" page, it says "Recent additions from previous years". Because, each time I touch my website, I write: "I added such an article, or I modified such an article, or I added such a picture, blah-blah." Everything is documented in the link "Recent additions from previous years".
[MC] Very clear. What prompted you to start writing everything down?
[SJ] Certainly nothing to do with guns! My website, at the beginning, was just about a disagreement with the Quebec bishops.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] At the beginning, it was essentially squabbling, a parochial turf war with the Quebec bishops. (laughter)
[MC] And what was this bickering based on?
[SJ] I can give you an example. I don't know if you remember, but a few years ago there was a financial scandal. Large companies had been accused of fraud. Well, it's pretty much the same for me.
[Communication Transcript, Session 1, 8 of 12]
[SJ] I figure that if the accountants are supposed to respect the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, and that these accountants do not respect these Principles that they claim they respect, then someone should point their finger at them and say: "Hey you! (laughter) That's not OK!" So me, it's the same for the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has official teachings, and then the bishops and priests and all these people are supposed to respect their own official teachings. But this isn't what they do. So what I do is point my finger at the official teachings of the Catholic Church, and next to it I point out what the bishops are doing, and I say, "Youhou! (laughter) Why aren't these two things the same?"
[MC] Do you have specific examples of what the bishop says, which does not correspond to the teachings...
[SJ] Yes. If you have questions, I can talk to you about theology as long as you want! But it's because it's your time. Me, it's with pleasure; if you want to listen to me...
[MC] I have all my time. As I said earlier, I am here to get to know you, to get to know who you are. So I have all my time in front of me.
[SJ] OK. Okay, so I studied Philosophy at Laval University. And if you remember your Philosophy lessons, one of the parts of Philosophy is called "Ethics" or "Morals". Morality is the basis. It's the most important science, more important than Biology or Physics or Sociology. And in Morality, there are fundamental principles. One of the fundamental principles of Morality is that we have a conscience (you have a conscience, I have a conscience) but it is not my conscience which decides what is Good and what is Bad. To prove this, imagine that it was my conscience that decided what was Good and what was Bad. In this case, I could shoot someone, and it would be "Good", as long as my conscience told me that it is "Good".
[Communication Transcript, Session 1, 9 of 12]
[SJ] So one of the fundamental principles of Morality is that our conscience observes the rules of Good and Evil, which exist before us. Our conscience does not create the norms of Good and Evil. Pope Francis has published an encyclical called Amoris Laetitia, in which essentially he says that if your conscience tells you that you are not committing adultery, then you are not committing adultery! It's your conscience that decides! So there are several Cardinals, including Cardinal Burke in the United States, who sent a letter to the Pope to say: "Hey there! (laughter) What you are saying is that it's our conscience that decides what is Good and what is Bad. But you are attacking the fundamental principles of Morality!" They even quoted from the Bible, because in the Bible, if you remember the story in Genesis, at the very beginning of the Bible, there's Adam and Eve eating the apple. What's "biting the apple"? [The Bible] say: "The serpent said to them: «If you eat the apple, you will be like gods, knowing Good and Evil»." How does the Catholic Church interpret this? If you read Saint John Paul II in the encyclical Veritatis Splendor, he explains: "When Satan (the serpent) says «you will be like gods, knowing Good and Evil», what he is teaching them is the fundamental moral error. He is telling them that if they bite the apple, they will decide what is Good and what is Evil. Their conscience will create the rules of Good and Evil." This is the worst moral error imaginable. Except that this error is taught by Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia. It was denounced by several Cardinals, and also denounced by me, because I studied in Philosophy, so I detected that there was something wrong with his encyclical. So it's not popular as a topic to start talking about the foundations of the Church, (laughter) to say that Pope Francis is attacking the foundations of ethics. But that’s what he does. He's saying that if you commit adultery, but your conscience says that you're not committing adultery, then it's okay, you're not committing adultery. But if it works for adultery, it works for theft, it works for murder, it works for anything. That's why several bishops said to him: "Hey there! This is wrong! It's a heresy, what you are teaching!" And I am one of the people who claims that the guy who wrote this encyclical, was wrong, based on the Philosophy courses, among others those I followed at Laval University.
[Communication Transcript, Session 1, 10 of 12]
[MC] And how did they react to you, when you confronted them?
[SJ] Ah, it's standard. Like any dishonest person when confronted: they run away and pretend that I don't exist. Think about it: what the Serpent said to Eve is what Pope Francis is saying to humanity. We can see it in his encyclical Amoris Laetitia, and there are even Cardinals who said that it was like that. There is no one there, there is not a bishop who can defend this, so they pretend that I do not exist. If you go to see the bishop of Quebec, Cardinal Gérald-Cyprien Lacroix, and ask him what he thinks of Stefan Jetchick, he'll say: "Ah Ah! Don't listen to him!" He knows me by name. But, by definition, people like us are pushed aside because we say things that are too unpleasant. As another example of an unpleasant thing, I come back to my example of the National Assembly: just the fact that the Media completely suppressed this news, that the politicians pretended that it had not happened, and that there to someone who dares to say, "Look there! It's no joke, it's in the official teachings of Islam!" You know, it's verbatim quote. It is not for nothing that Muslims from the Muslim Association of Canada came to ask the National Assembly to change our laws to allow child marriage, essentially to allow pedophilia. It's because it's in their religion, it's official. So someone who says that publicly, well he gets hit by the System. There I know that you are doing this with white gloves, but you are still the System which is coming after me.
[MC] And how do you feel when you have no reactions, or feel that you are not being listened to?
[SJ] Ah, well, I'm used to it since 2004! (laughter)
[MC] OK.
[SJ] But, anyway, when you see something wrong, you point your finger and say, "Wrong!" You don't start pointing fingers and saying "Evil!" because people are listening to you. If people listen to you, so much the better! If people don't listen to you, well you're going to try to point your finger better, to explain better why what you're pointing at is bad. But whether people listen, or don't listen, when something is bad, it's bad.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] It is like when I talk to you about one of the fundamental principles of Ethics, that our conscience does not create the standards of Good and Evil. But it is really one of the fundamental principles of Ethics!
[Communication Transcript, Session 1, 11 of 12]
[SJ] And as if by chance, the official teachings of the Catholic Church condemn...
[here, the QPP claims that its recording had technical problems. The transcription continues with Annex 9, part 2.]
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 1 of 46]
[MC] It's good. Returning to the Army, you mention that you almost joined the US Marines.
[SJ] Yes, that's it. It's a colorful anecdote! (laughter) Before joining the Canadian Army, I tried to join the Marines. My parents had been divorced for many years at the time, but for the first time, my Father and Mother agreed! My Father said to me, "No! Do not do that!" Then my Mother said to me: "No! It's out of the question, don't do that!" And I, well, when you are 18 and your parents, who have been divorced for many years, start to say the same thing, I went: "Ouch! Wow!" (laughter) So I didn't join the Marines.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] But, long story, I'm rambling, but while you're recording we might as well enjoy it. A few months later [1983-Oct-23], there was the attack on the barracks in Beirut. It's been a long time, but Muslims had filled a truck with explosives, and ran into the barracks in Beirut, and there were around 260 dead. The truck drove into the building, then it exploded and killed everyone. So I looked at the approximate date I wanted to join and I could have been there. It could have been me. To make a long story short, I don't know if that's why I'm still alive.
[MC] But what stopped you, basically? What stopped your process to join the US Marines?
[SJ] Well, that's it. It was my Father and Mother who both said, "No, don't do this!", So if they say it's a bad idea, I won't go. A few months later, when I told them I would join the Canadian Army, they said: "No problem, of course!" (laughter)
[MC] OK.
[SJ] There was no resistance from either side. It was only later, when I ended up in the Canadian Army, that I realized: "Ah! That's why they weren't worried!"
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 1 of 46]
[SJ] It's because the Canadian Army at the time was a joke. They were civil servants in uniform. It has nothing to do with my firearms license, but I'm telling you, Madam, we would run around in the fields and we'd go "Bang! Bang!" with our mouths, and the guy who had the machine gun would do: "Bang-Bang-Bang-Bang-Bang-Bang!" Because there wasn't enough money for blank rounds! (laughter) Anyway, that's it. It wasn't threatening at all.
[MC] And what was it that attracted you to the Canadian Army, and the US Marines? Was there anything in particular that...
[SJ] Well yes, serving my Country.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] We can see it. As soon as people stop taking an interest in their Country, that's it: civil liberties vanish, and the bad guys come in, and the good guys get shoved out. So, by definition, when you have a certain love for your Country, you want to defend your Country!
[MC] You say you were in the infantry with Yves Tétu, what year was that?
[SJ] When I was 19 years old. I don't have the date like that off the top of my head, but Yves Tétu had left, I think in Chilliwack. At that time, Chilliwack was a base in the Canadian Army. This is where we trained future officers, both in the Navy, in the Air Force, and in the Army. And I think it was at the end of Chilliwack. He had been offered a nice job as a police officer, and he had compared that with the stupidity of what we were doing in the Army (laughter) and he was gone! But soon after, I don't remember exactly how long after, he was shot, and I remember it was another policeman who killed him.
[MC] OK, so he left the infantry because he had another opportunity, but you, why did you get out of the infantry?
[SJ] Ah, because physically, I was no longer able. It was too hard for me.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] It was during Phase 3. I remember, it was cold, it was snowing and it was raining at the same time. And we had been outside in the field I don't know how long, night and day. I said: "That's enough!"
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 2 of 46]
[MC] Do you have any regrets?
[SJ] Yes, of course I have regrets. I wanted to finish, just to finish. It's always good to finish what you start. But after, I realized it might have been a blessing in disguise, because I didn't realize it, but I had signed a contract, I think, for 9 years! (laughter) So many people wanted to get out of the Canadian Army but couldn't, because it was difficult, but I got out just like that, by snapping my fingers! But as long as we were in training, they "flushed" people as quickly as possible, but when you hit a certain stage in the training, then the contract kicked in, and they kept you.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] I don't know if it was at the end of Phase 3, or at the end of Phase 4 when this kind of trigger occurred, but even if I'm sad I didn't stick it through, on the other hand I don't know if I could have endured. There was a lot of alcohol, a lot of adultery, a lot of continual blasphemy, and there was nothing, nothing in the Canadian Army at the time. We weren't doing anything. It wasn't like you could go save the widow and the orphan. It was "grabbing our bacon", as they used to say in the Army! I don't know what to call this very monotonous life of bureaucracy in the barracks, but I don't know if I would have been able to "tough it out". So yes, I'm sad to have left before I finished, but would I have been happy if I had "toughed it out" to the end? I don't know.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] But there, as I say, I was 19, it's very far away, so I don't know.
[MC] OK. Aside from your interest in the Canadian Army and the US Marines, you also mention in your articles that you had the impression of having a priestly vocation.
[SJ] Yes, yes. This is one of the reasons why I complain about the bishops.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] Because I see the kind of candidates who become priests, and I see that they won't touch me with a ten-foot pole. (laughter)
[MC] OK.
[SJ] I said, "Yeah... How come you ordain pedophiles?" (laughs) (I know it's sad, but I see things from the inside.) "How is it that you promote people who have lifestyles totally opposed to what you claim to be your requirements? And how is it that a guy who is a virgin, who has never been drunk in his life, who has never taken drugs, who has no criminal record, and who knows Saint Thomas Aquinas, and the Bible, and the Catechism, how come that you don't want anything to do with him?" Whereas bozos become priests right away...
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 3 of 46]
[MC] Have they ever justified to you...
[SJ] As much as the QPP justified the deactivation of my license! It's about the same kind of situation. It sounds silly to say, but there are a lot of similarities. When you're doing something dishonest, it shows. The QPP have been trying for a year not to tell me why they deactivated my license, and it was finally with you that it finally came out.
[MC] Hum, hum.
[SJ] It is more or less the same for Quebec bishops. They know they are doing bad things. If you go into any church in Quebec, and you look at what the priest does during Mass, and what the priest says during the homily, it's obvious that this isn't what he's supposed to do, this isn't what he's supposed to say. Jesus never said: "Ah, all your sins are forgiven, everyone goes to Heaven, love, love!" Rather, Jesus said: "Stop committing sins or you'll burn in Hell!" It's necessary to make efforts; moral perfection does not come with Baptism! It's not automatic. It takes some efforts to get out of our bad behaviors. In addition, sins are not automatically forgiven, we must repent. Read the ancient teachings of the Catholic Church, for example, on Confession. The priest in the confessional is supposed to forgive you of your sins, if you repent of your sins. This is why you go to the confessional; it is so that the priest can assess whether you repent for your sins. And "repent" means that not only do you apologize, but after that you have to go and repair the wrongs you have done. A thief who robs a bank, who steals a million dollars, is going to be told by a good priest in the confessional: "Go give back the million dollars to the bank, then after that, go tell the police that it's you who robbed the bank, and after that you can come here to ask for forgiveness." You cannot be sincerely repentant for your sins, unless you do everything you can to repair all the damage you have caused, or at least go and denounce yourself to all the people you have harmed. But that, they will never say that in the "catholic" churches, except the one where I am at the moment, Saint-Zéphirin-de-Stadacona.
[MC] So when you speak...
[SJ] It's like, my website is mostly a theology website, it doesn't really talk about firearms. It talks a bit about politics.
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 4 of 46]
[MC] You speak of refusal with the Dominicans, then at the Seminary, then the Legionaries of Christ.
[SJ] Yes.
[MC] So none of these organizations justified why they refused your...
[SJ] Most of the time, it was just me who buggered out.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] Like the Legionaries of Christ. I ran away after two and a half days because I was terrorized. I had never been so scared in my life. And as you can see on my website, if you search a little, about 20 years later, the founder of the Legionaries of Christ turned out to be a world class sex pervert. He was condemned by the Vatican, it's appalling. I think he had 3 or 4 children. He had 2 separate families. He put his hand in the collection basket to pay for trips everywhere. (laughter) It was terrible.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] And all the people around him knew what was going on, and participated in this corruption. Fortunately, the Legionaries of Christ did not take me. Dominicans are not the same thing. I left after two and a half months. But there too, I saw corruption. But you don't know. If you knew a little about how the Catholic Church works, [you would know that] when you set foot inside a church where corruption has taken over, it's obvious.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] It's obvious in the Mass. It's obvious in Confession. It's obvious in the chants. And with the Dominicans, it was obvious. I joined the Dominicans because I wanted to become like the Dominicans described in books. Real Dominicans who want to follow Saint Dominic their Founder. But it was corruption. They did everything except that.
[MC] OK, and the Seminary?
[SJ] The Montreal Seminary was Cardinal Marc Ouellet. I don't know if you remember him?
[MC] Yes.
[SJ] At that time, it was Father Marc Ouellet who was Director of the Montreal Seminary. And he told me: "No, no, not you."
[MC] But...
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 5 of 46]
[SJ] And afterwards, he became bishop of Quebec. And it was his Director, the Director of the Quebec City Seminary, who had been appointed by Cardinal Ouellet, who sent me an e-mail saying: "Don't dare show up at priesthood information meetings [meetings organized by the diocese to attract potential candidates to the priesthood], and if you put this e-mail on the Internet, I will sue you!" (laughter) I still have his letter if you want to see it. So that's it. It's obvious, what can I say? When someone has something to hide, when they are dishonest, they will not start saying: "Do you mind if I record our conversation." The Director of the Quebec City Seminary didn't start his conversation like that! (laughter) He specifically didn't want to leave any evidence behind.
[MC] Yes. Do you still aspire to become a priest or brother today, or is it something of the past?
[SJ] Ah, it's too late at 56. I'm too old for that.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] If I was 20 years old yes, but I am not 20 years old.
[MC] When you say on your site: "So I decided that, since I didn't have anything to lose anymore, I might as well say out loud what I considered to be the Truth!"
[SJ] Yes, yes. And that is one of the reasons that explains the Love Tubes. I don't know if you've carefully read the five [flyers that compose it], but you have to be pretty cheeky to distribute such things, especially these days. I told myself that I could just shut my mouth, and go to Roset [small grocery store in Sillery] to eat good meals. And I have good interpretation contracts, I have nothing to complain about. And I have a nice apartment. Yes, but for my Country, someone has to say these things out loud.
[MC] And what do you mean by "nothing left to lose"?
[SJ] That's it. "Nothing left to lose" is when someone has a good job, when someone has a pension fund, when someone has young children, when someone has a career, a reputation. This person will say to themselves: "If I start saying such things, they will make me lose my job. They will threaten my children, etc." I have nothing to lose. That's it, I have nothing to lose. Like for example, when I was in the National Assembly and the lady from the Muslim Association of Canada said that they would like Quebec to change its laws to allow child marriage. I saw it, I was there, I was the one who translated what this lady said.
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 6 of 46]
[SJ] Yes, it's true that I'll be in deep shit if I say it publicly, but "so what"? Someone has to say it. Someone has to sound the alarm. But it's not just that, for example, the rise of the Police-State. This is another problem that we see. Increasingly, the police, rather than having an authority delegated by the Parliament to which they must remain accountable at all times, are using more and more discretionary powers. They are the ones who decide, and too bad for you, they don't have to justify themselves to anyone. This is another problem that we see in our society. Another problem that we see in our society ..., but there, anyway, you read it all in the Love Tubes.
[MC] And...
[SJ] Like the letter I had sent to Minister Duclos saying: "I have just two quick questions for you. First, if a group of Catholic priests decided to go buck naked on the street and dangle their genitals in front of small children, would you agree with these behaviors? Second, if someone denounced these behaviors and was sued for $104 million by these priests, would you be on the side of the guy who denounced the behaviors, or on the side of the people who were suing him for $104 million?" Because I was sued for $104 million, because I denounced what I saw at the gay pride parade with Justin Trudeau in Toronto in 2016.
[MC] Yes, I saw that on your site too.
[SJ] If a group of Catholic priests did things like that in front of children, they would be thrown in jail immediately, and the Media would come down on them like a ton of bricks. Whereas us, we were videotaped by the CBC. I was at the gay pride parade in 2016, and the CBC filmed it all. And, as if by chance (Looney Tunes whistle,bas when something suddenly disappears), everything that made homosexuals look bad was censored by the CBC. It's magic!
[MC] OK.
[SJ] And there are others like that. In general, all the issues that people don't want to talk about, because it would endanger their career, or their health, or their pension fund, or whatever.
[MC] When you talk about the gay parade, this is the one where you had been part of it, right? You were part of it?
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 7 of 46]
[SJ] Yes, yes, yes.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] As I explained to you last time, I never would have thought of doing this. I don't have a delirious imagination like that! It was Bill Whatcott who had decided to found the Gay Zombies Cannabis Consumers Association, and to send a delegation of the Association to the parade. (laughter) I thought it was so ridiculous, but why not?
[MC] What made you follow him in his movement?
[SJ] It is among other things because he had come to Quebec City, eight years before. He wanted to distribute flyers, and I said to him, "I'm going to help you, we're going to distribute flyers together." And at that time I had read his circulars, it was not very good. I said, "Look, I think you should make a flyer more like this." And the flyer called: "Love Sodomites, Hate Sodomy!", is the flyer I wrote eight years ago. I was trying to suggest to Bill Whatcott to distribute it. And he didn't want to, we had a falling out, and he left, and blah-blah-blah. I felt guilty, so when he asked me, several years later, to come to the gay pride parade to pass flyers, I thought it would be a chance to make it up to him.
[MC] OK. I saw among your accomplishments that you ran in the federal elections for the Christian Heritage Party, in 2015?
[SJ] For the past 5 elections. [Mistake: only 4. Abandoned the fifth one because of Marie-Claude's illness.]
[MC] OK, tell me about it. What did you want to accomplish? What were your objectives, by running for office in the federal elections?
[SJ] The objectives of anyone running for election, in federal elections. Get elected, then go to Parliament, then govern the country.
[MC] As for me, having no interest in politics, I find it hard to imagine myself running for office. But you, to go ahead and participate in this, you must have had a political agenda?
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 8 of 46]
[SJ] Of course! (laughter)
[MC] OK. (laughter)
[SJ] First, respect common sense morality.
[MC] OK, because not everyone is running for election, so I wanted to know a little bit about your minding behind that.
[SJ] When we see our country going down the drain, we tell ourselves that something should be done.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] What do we do when our Country is going to Hell? We try to improve its democracy. How do we improve our democracy? Well, we run for election and try to talk to people. And that's where I noticed (because it's one of the things you may have seen on my website: I complain a lot about the CBC), that's where I really was confronted to the fierce censorship of the CBC. When you say something that the CBC does not want to hear (Looney Tune whistle, as when something suddenly disappears), you disappear, it doesn't exist, nothing has happened. One of the things that really struck me was when Émilie Dubrueil, with a crew from the TV news program, came to film Marie-Claude and me. Marie-Claude was helping me with politics, and they had filmed us for two and a half hours, and they had reduced everything to just 3 minutes, in addition to adding lots of lies. In addition, they had removed all the good things that I had told them. In any case, it was really a hatchet job. They had arranged everything to make someone look bad. But all the people who are somewhat aware and who have somewhat conservative opinions know that the CBC isn't there to transmit information.
[MC] OK, so you, your main agenda, was really at the level of democracy?
[SJ] My main agenda was to govern Canada well. Governing Canada well involves many things. Between others, to reinvigorate Democracy, but also, among other things to remind Canadians that there are certain moral laws. For example, parents are not supposed to kill their children. For example, children are not supposed to kill their parents (abortion and euthanasia). Things like that. Things that the CBC never wants to talk about. Except to give the point of view of people who are in favor of abortion and euthanasia. But also all the things like for example the deficit. Canada is burying itself in debt; we are burying our children and grandchildren in debt. And that is for both parties, the Conservatives and the Liberals: it is the same thing. So there is no one talking about that, it is presented as normal that they raise our taxes and waste our money.
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 9 of 46]
[MC] Wait there, I'm looking at my notes. I asked the questions I needed to ask.
[SJ] OK.
[MC] If we are talking about your website, have you had any reactions that motivate you, which continue to fuel your motivation to write all this on your website?
[SJ] It must be said that my motivation is not like jogging. When you stop having the motivation to jog, well, you stop jogging. Whereas for a website, even when you don't want to touch it, it stays on the Internet. You just have to pay once a year for it to stay on the Internet. So if you look in "Recent Additions", I don't post much anymore, among other things because I'm taking care of Marie-Claude a lot. But I think I basically said what I had to say. I've put a lot into it, and it's sure that there are always small additions to be made. There are also circumstances that may make me write an article or two, but I don't really see. Essentially, my message has been spoken. My message is essentially that if we compare the official teachings of the Catholic Church with what priests and bishops do in Quebec, well, there is a very big difference. There are really very big differences, which explain why it's not for nothing that things are going badly in Quebec. It is not for nothing that the Catholic Church has almost disappeared in Quebec. It is the corruption of the leadership of the Catholic Church. That was the message in 2004. I developed this message, and the aspect of firearms and freedom of expression is related, in the sense that when the Catholic Church becomes corrupt in a Country, it's the entire moral sense of citizens that suffers, and it ends up having an influence on everyone.
[MC] OK. There is a phrase from Bill Whatcott: "Jihad for Jesus".
[SJ] Yes, that's one of the things he says. Bill has many good qualities. I don't know if you met him?
[MC] No.
[SJ] Bill has many good qualities, but there are things that I don't agree with. That's why my website is not called "Bill-Whatcott-is-the-Best.com".
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 10 of 46]
[MC] Yes.
[SJ] I collaborate with him for some things, and for the rest, well it's as if it surprises me, stuff like that. He has freedom of expression too, so I don't stop him from saying what he has to say.
[MC] OK, so "Jihad for Jesus", what do you think when he says things like that?
[SJ] Well, it's not an expression I use. "Jihad" in ancient Arabic, for example, the Ministry of Agriculture in Iran is called the "Ministry of Agricultural Jihad".
[MC] OK.
[SJ] Because "jihad" is a word that has several meanings in the dictionary.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] One of the senses means: "Make an effort", so "agricultural jihad" makes sense in Arabic, but one of the meanings of the word "jihad" is the Holy War.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] It's killing people, because if we read the Koran, it is written strictly speaking, verbatim: either they convert to Islam, or they pay the "jizya" (the tax for infidels) or they get killed. So this is "jihad". So I, of course, am against it. Jesus said the exact opposite of that. He said, No, no, you can't force people to choose one religion over another. It has to come from them. It is a free response, and we offer what we believe to be the truth, and then people respond freely. So saying a "Jihad for Jesus", of course he means in a very broad sense of just wanting to make an effort for apostolate. But because, strictly speaking, that isn't what it means, and I am very obsessive about the meaning of words, so I do not use words that can lead to confusion.
[MC] Okay. At the beginning of my call, I told you that I was studying your eligibility for your firearms license application, and there are things related to the firearms that intrigued me on your site. One of the first things I wanted to know: are you currently a member of a shooting club?
[SJ] Two shooting clubs: Valcartier and Beauséjour.
[MC] OK, do you go shoot regularly?
[SJ] Ever since the QPP has chopped me in the legs with a saber, my enthusiasm has been down a lot. First, I can't even buy ammunition anymore.
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 11 of 46]
[SJ] In fact, the reason this whole long story of license deactivation started was that I became a member of the Valcartier Shooting Club, and there was a course called "Black-Badge". It looked interesting, so [another member and I said] let's do this, and I signed up. OK, but: "It will take you 400 rounds for the weekend, because it involves a lot of shooting". OK, so I go to Cabelas.ca and I order my rounds, and the lady at Cabelas.ca said: "Ah, I can't, it doesn't work!" What do you mean, it doesn't work? It has always worked, my PAL. "Ah no, it doesn't work!" Well, why doesn't it work? "Ah, I can't tell you, it doesn't work!" So there, I tried to phone the Firearms Bureau: "Well no, it's a random deactivation of your license."
[MC] (laughter)
[SJ] It's like that. So me, let's say that this has cut off quite a bit the pleasure of going to shoot, since the beginning of this whole saga, of this whole story.
[MC] OK. "Black-Badge", explain to me a little what it is.
[SJ] It's "ippe-sick", I.P.S.C. [International Practical Shooting Confederation]. It's all over the world. You can search for IPSC on the Internet. There are competitions, it's like, I don't know, biathlon, something like that, and it's called "ippe-sick".
[MC] Is it open to everyone?
[SJ] Yes, but you must be a member of a shooting club, have your license, etc.
[MC] OK, so this is something closed?
[SJ] No no! (laughter) When that happens, you have to (laughter), if you start to see things that don't exist, you have to pick up the phone and call Valcartier and ask, "Do you have a Shooting Club?" Yes. "Could you pass me its President?" Yes. And there, you can speak to the President of the Valcartier Shooting Club. He's going to explain it all to you. And it's not "closed", no, no. (laughter)
[MC] My goal is for that. That's why I'm talking to you today. It's because I want to understand. You know, not everyone is...
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 12 of 46]
[SJ] I don't know how to explain. Take your Lifeguard course to be a lifeguard in a swimming pool. It's going to be called, I don't know, "Lifeguard Course". Why is it called "Lifeguard Course"? I do not know. That's what it's called. Can anyone do it? Of course. You have to know how to swim, and things like that.
[MC] But what does this training consist of?
[SJ] Sorry?
[MC] This training, what is it?
[SJ] The course? I never took it! (laughter)
[MC] OK.
[SJ] I had no ammunition, so I canceled. I called, I said, "Excuse me, can I get my check back? I've been screwed by the Chief Firearms Officer." And the guys told me: "Keep us posted!", because they thought this whole situation was weird.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] So this is one of the reasons why I wrote my text on the Internet: so that everyone could follow what was going on.
[MC] I read an answer to Ms Guilbault which intrigued me a bit.
[SJ] Guilbault?
[MC] The Minister of Justice, Ms. Geneviève Guilbault.
[SJ] Yes, yes, yes.
[MC] You contacted Ms. Guilbault about the Registry.
[SJ] I sent a letter, but she never spoke to me. She never returned anything to me.
[MC] You have a section on your site that contains Correspondence.
[SJ] Yes, yes.
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 13 of 46]
[MC] In this correspondence, you mention that firearms are also used for defense, defense of the family and defense of the Homeland.
[SJ] Yes Yes. That is absolutely taboo and heretical in Canada. We don't have the right to talk about this. This is one of the reasons why I mention it. Because every time they talk about firearms in Quebec, it's always: "Ah! Recreational and sport shooting! " This is not the reason why Canada is still a country that is a little bit free! Go to the November 11 ceremony, the Armistice. All the people who died trying to defend our civil liberties. It's not just shooting at pieces of paper. At some point, when our Country is attacked, we have to defend our Country. Same thing with our family. If we are able to defend it other than with firearms, good, good! If the neighbor parks his car on your property, you call the police, he gets his car towed, and it ends there! (laughter) But when our Country is attacked or when our family is attacked, we have to defend it.
[MC] OK. In the same answer, you say, "Our enemies will be able to invade us".
[SJ] Yes, yes.
[MC] Who are you referring to when you talk about enemies?
[SJ] Anyone who would be against the laws of Canada. Anyone who would be against the Constitution of Canada. It's just "enemy" in the sense of common sense! For example, during World War II who were our enemies? They were the Nazis. We sent soldiers to fight against the Nazis. Logically, because Nazism isn't pretty.
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 14 of 46]
[MC] And "enemy", can it be "enemy" in another sense too? Because here we are talking about freedom of expression. Does it become an "enemy", someone who does not think like us, or who do not have the same vision as us?
[SJ] Well, it depends. You say that very, very, very ambiguously. It's too ambiguous. If you say, "Someone who doesn't think like we do", it could be someone who likes chocolate ice cream, while we like vanilla ice cream. It's too vague that, you have to be more precise.
[MC] When you, when you tell me about the...
[SJ] How does this person disagree with us?
[MC] OK. Let's say I give you a more concrete example. The woman who came to the National Assembly, from the Muslim Association of Canada.
[SJ] She [Iqra Khalid] is currently a Member of Parliament in Ottawa, promoting S-103, the kind of bill to eliminate freedom of expression, and to prevent criticism of Islam. Iqra Khalid is a Liberal MP for Justin Trudeau. Before, she was from the Muslim Association of Canada.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] She was, I don't know, director or assistant director. In any case, she was highly placed in there. But it was not her who was there that day. So it's not Montreal, it's for all of Canada.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] Muslim Association of Canada. Precisely, a problem like that cannot be solved with firearms, it must be solved with debates.
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 15 of 46]
[MC] OK.
[SJ] This lady, some journalist should have gone up to her to say: "What? Do we need to legalize child marriage?" The little 6 year-old girl, she can't be consenting. (laughter) At 6 years old she can't be. A journalist should have gone to put a microphone under her nose. And there should have been a politician who, among all the politicians who were there, one should have said: "Listen madam, over here, we don't put the word "marriage" and "child" in the same sentence. Unless you want to say: "Marriage is a holy institution made for the procreation and education of children". But not child in the sense of the child is the one who gets married! (laughter) But nobody said anything.
[MC] What prevented you from going to see a journalist and reporting all this?
[SJ] God, that's the 64 thousand-dollar question. And here I tell you, I was being recorded. This is serious. The reaction came very late. I translated everything, I saw everything, and I left after my contract, and I went back home. I think it took weeks before it sank in. And then I said: "Wow! Did this really happen?" Hello? Dear Lord, the Members of the National Assembly pretended, everyone wanted to crawl under the carpet. I remember Agnès Maltais, because Agnès Maltais is the only one who had an indignant tone of voice. Because, after the person has presented their brief, all parliamentary groups can ask their questions. And when it came to the Parti Québécois, Agnès Maltais spoke. She said something very, very politically correct, but she had an indignant tone of voice. And everyone else acted as if nothing had happened. And I, having known that this was what was going to happen, I would have said to the lady: "Hey, can I have your brief?" And can I have the tape, and I would have gone to the MPs after that, and said: "Hey, Madame Maltais, why didn't you say such and such a thing?" But, it was a shock to me. It was only later that it sank in, I don't know how to say it. I did not understand it. It's also by reading the news, watching everywhere, in England, France, Sweden, and elsewhere in Canada. And there it is like: "Jeepers! Ho! It's the same everywhere! Our freedoms are under attack!" Anyone who criticizes Jesus and the Bible is given government grants. Anyone who dares to say that there may be something wrong in the Koran is hunted by the police. The police come down on them.
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 16 of 46]
[SJ] It's serious, but that's what's going on. And that's when I started to tell myself that someone had to say something.
[MC] Why, basically, must a citizen have a gun to defend himself, to defend his homeland, his family, when one has (incomprehensible)
[SJ] Among others.
[MC] Yes.
[SJ] Also for recreational and sport shooting. Me, I do not eliminate recreational and sport shooting. I just want to remind people that it is not only for recreational and sport shooting, it is also to defend our family and our homeland.
[MC] And the role of the Canadian Army or the army in general, in this role, to defend oneself. Why does a citizen have to have a gun to defend himself, when we have an army?
[SJ] Ah, no, no, it's not in that sense. I'm thinking broadly.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] When I say: "You have to have guns, it's not just for recreational and sport shooting". When the Fatherland is attacked, the Army defends us with guns. At one point, people forget that, the people who died and whom we honor on November 11 at the Armistice, they didn't fight with fly swatters.
[MC] No, but the ordinary citizen in this notion of...
[SJ] Well, "the citizen", we mustn't forget that in the past, armies were much less well organized than today. When the Country was attacked, they rang the bell: "Ding, ding, ding! Hey! Everyone, we're under attack!" And then there, they grabbed their muskets and their old shotguns, and everyone gathered around: "OK, let's defend the Fatherland!"
[MC] OK. So basically, a person, apart from recreational purposes, for shooting clubs and all that, in your opinion could defend themselves with a gun?
[SJ] Well, that's common sense! You can read Canadian case law. If your life is in danger, someone attacks you at home, you fear for your life, you have the right to defend yourself! You, I know that you are not a police officer, but you can read in the laws. I don't have the case law before me, but there are cases like that.
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 17 of 46]
[MC] So, defense with firearms would be justifiable?
[SJ] I'm not the one who says this, it's the Courts, the courts of Canada!
[MC] So in certain specific cases where?
[SJ] I'm sorry, forget what I said. I do not understand your question. It's in Canadian law. There is nothing in Canadian law that says that if someone arrives with your knife in your house and is about to slaughter your husband, you and your children, and you have a gun, it is not there is nothing that says you have no right to defend yourself! It is not illegal to defend yourself!
[MC] OK, and someone who is not attacked or anything but who thinks he can defend himself. Is that justifiable?
[SJ] Well, it is because by definition, if the law says that one has the right to self-defense, as for example the case that I have just described to you, well we have the right to say so. We have the right to self-defense. I do not understand your question.
[MC] Because in your site, you clearly specify that the defense of the family, the defense of the Fatherland, it sends a message. So, I am trying to understand a little what you want to pass as a message, because it is sure that people who read your website want to understand.
[SJ] If they are ever unsure of what I'm trying to say, they just send me an email or call me or come to see me. As you've seen, I am very, very easy to reach. I'm not hiding. I'm not like the Antifas who put on masks and we don't know who they are.
[MC] Because me, that's it. My goal is not to interpret your site, but it is that you can explain to me and verbalize your [incomprehensible].
[SJ] I'm verbalizing it, here! Go see a judge, tell him about a specific case, like someone who comes in with a big kitchen knife to your house, and who starts slaughtering your children and you and your husband.
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 18 of 46]
[SJ] And you, let's suppose, I don't know, but let's suppose you're into recreational partridge shooting and you have 12-gauge shotgun. If you take your 12-gauge shotgun and shoot the guy because you are a little lady of 5 feet one, and you are not able to stop him otherwise, is this justifiable as a use of force? The judge will say: "Well yes, madam! Common sense!" I'm not making this up, that's just it.
[MC] No, I understand that. But it's just that I, if I put myself in the context that you tell me, and that my gun is locked in a locked trunk, and that the ammunition is locked apart, and that someone enters our home and that he attacks, by the time that I unlock all that, he would have done his deed.
[SJ] It depends. If he starts kicking through the door, you're going to say to your husband, "Call 9-1-1, and I'll start unlocking [the gun]!"
[MC] OK.
[SJ] That's what you would do anyway. In fact, it is probably your husband who would tell you: "You, Call 9-1-1, I'll unlock!" (laughter)
[MC] (rire)
[SJ] I don't understand the difficulty.
[MC] No, it's just that I am trying to understand your vision of things. Of course it is not mine, but we are not here to debate my vision of things.
[SJ] Like what, if someone came in with a kitchen knife and started cutting the throats of your kids, you'd let them? All of a sudden, I'm interested!
[MC] Ah.
[SJ] Until now, it was you who was asking me questions, but here I am like: "Wow! Jeepers!"
[MC] Once again, if the situation presented itself, it would be another thing, but here, it's rather to see you, basically, what you would do.
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 19 of 46]
[SJ] Wow! Jeepers! She's weird! (laughter)
[MC] It's just that I'm trying to understand your approach a little. And you are not the only one to think like that. But it's just that I'm studying your request, so that's why I'm looking into your file. Of course I don't think you are the only one who thinks like that.
[SJ] It's not just me who thinks like that, it's the whole Canadian legal system who thinks like that!
[MC] We were talking about the massacre, the mosques, all that. What do you think of d'Alexandre Bissonnette, of what he did with his guns?
[SJ] That is one of the reasons why I'm complaining about the CBC, but there is very, very little information that came out on this case. Who is this guy? Not only that, but what I read in the newspapers (but God knows if the newspapers are telling the truth), is that his parents said: "Ah well, the poor guy, he had started drinking, and he was very, very depressed, and he had started to consult a psychiatrist again". But elsewhere in another newspaper I read that his parents signed for his firearms license. It seems to me that when you sign [as a guarantor] for a firearms license, it says: "If you ever have doubts, or the person is blah-blah, call 1-800-FIREARMS CONTROLLER!" Well, they saw their son falling into alcohol and being depressed, and they knew he had a gun, because they were the ones who signed. They did nothing. Why didn't a reporter put a microphone under their noses to ask them questions? In any case me, naively, this is one of the questions I would have asked them.
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 20 of 46]
[MC] Okay. What would you have asked as a question?
[SJ] Well, that's it! If I had been a journalist, I would have said first: "I am sorry for the events and I do not want to increase your suffering", and all that, blah-blah, because journalists must still have a little bit of diplomacy, but I would have said: "As a journalist, sometimes I ask somewhat embarrassing questions". Then I would have said: "I have a gun at home, and you know, you have to sign lots of papers. The people who sign on our form, they commit themselves. And you, is it true that you signed on your son's form?" And then I would have said: "Is it true that you knew that your son had problems, that he was very fragile? (Because they said, in one of the letters they had published: "Ah, our son was weakened, and he was always very fragile, he always had frail mental health".) You are the ones who signed, and you knew he had frail mental health." In any case, I do not know what happened, I was not there myself. Then I would have asked questions, among other things to prevent this from happening again. If people sign forms to allow someone else to have a gun, but then they wash their hands of it: "You know, pfff, I signed, but now I don't care!", in this case, something is wrong! The object of the exercise, of signing the form is that you keep a little eye on it [the license applicant]. You're kind of responsible, especially if it's also your child.
[MC] Yes.
[SJ] In any case, as I told you, I cannot blame anyone because I only have third and fourth hand information. You know, the newspaper Le Soleil, it's not a particularly reliable source of information, but if it was true what they said in this newspaper, I would have had questions, really.
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 21 of 46]
[SJ] Me, I found it really disgusting what had happened, but I found it strange, because I had sent, without knowing it, my flyer to that mosque. I had calculated, I think a year and a month, or a year and two months before the massacre. [sent 2016-Sept-26, massacre 2017-Jan-29] And they didn't even answer me.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] But it was also funny to compare all of Alexandre Bissonnette's behavior with my behavior. Why did he kill people like that? It doesn't make sense, it's completely useless, killing people like that! If you have a problem with Islam, well, you have to say it: Love Muslims, Hate Islam! And the problem is with Islam. People who are in Islam, most of the time are prisoners, they cannot get out. And that is a long story, but I could prove it to you by A plus B. In Islam, if you leave Islam, you get the death penalty. The jurisprudence of Islam is such that, for all the main factions of Islam, it is forbidden to leave Islam. Apostasy is punishable by death, so once you are in Islam, you cannot get out of it. These people are prisoners. It is not by shooting them that we'll solve the problem.
[MC] But what would be the solution?
[SJ] I'm looking for it! It's informing them. But how do you reach them? I tried to reach out to all mosques in Canada, it didn't work. I tried to distribute Love Tubes, it didn't work. I tried to talk to the CBC, it didn't work. I speak out, but nothing gets through.
[MC] OK, what do you think the next step would be to reach these people?
[SJ] I have no idea. This is one of the reasons why I'm focussing on taking care of Marie-Claude. What I had to do, what was in my power, I did. Before God, at the Last Judgment, I can say: "Look there, You gave me very small means. I took the very small means that were at my disposal, and I used them, and it gave the results it gave. And the rest, well, I can't help it."
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 22 of 46]
[MC] OK.
[SJ] What it would take, for example, would be a report by the CBC which would say: Today, we are going to do a report on what the Muslim Association of Canada said to the National Assembly on such date and at such an hour, but then, it would be a scandal. Then, everyone would say: "Oh boy, bench-clearning brawl!"
[MC] But if you don't agree with the CBC, what is stopping you, again? Because, I tell you that you are making a lot of arrangements to spread your site and your ideas and to try to convey your message, but it looks like you are stagnating on the CBC. Why the CBC in particular?
[SJ] And not the other Media? This is because the other media do not come and steal my money from my pocket.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] Take TVA for example [a private TV channel in the Province of Quebec]. If TVA does a report with which I do not agree, I'm not the one who pays TVA. Whatever, I'm not sure anymore, because Justin Trudeau is distributing lots of money to all kinds of newspapers and television channels! (laughter) Before Justin Trudeau's bill, it was just the CBC that was subsidized with taxes. The rest were private companies that had to make a profit. This does not mean that when they tell lies, those are not lies! It just means it's less insulting.
[MC] OK, but...
[SJ] But when it's me who pays to transmit the lies, then it is not funny.
[MC] But if that would allow you to put forward certain injustices that you pointed out to me during our conversation today?
[SJ] It will never happen to the CBC. The CBC will never change.
[MC] No, but to change from, why are you staying on...
[SJ] Because they will always take my money to promote all the things that destroy Canada.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] So for sure, paying taxes to have a national broadcaster, in itself, is not immoral. It could be a good thing. But the CBC would have to present the two sides of the story, not just present one version of the facts.
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 23 of 46]
[MC] OK.
[SJ] Right now, they only present the Leftist version, and the rest, too bad for you!
[MC] OK.
[SJ] Myself, I'm not asking that the CBC censor people who don't agree with me, I'm asking the CBC that they stop censoring us. Because us, our positions defend themselves very well.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] Like the story of the National Assembly asking for child marriage. You can't tell me, because we are being recorded, but you know that I'm right. But the CBC, they don't talk about it. And if they talked about it, the citizens would say, "Hey! Ho! Is this really what we want? And the politicians who said nothing, and who let it pass, are they really the politicians that we want?" (laughter) This is how everything would turn out. In other words, political corruption would have a hard time existing, if journalists did their job well.
[MC] In any case, I'm here to understand your site, not to talk about politics.
[SJ] But as my website talks about politics, indirectly you're going to be a bit tarnished.
[MC] Indeed. I want to come back to one point in your response to Ms Guilbault.
[SJ] Yes, yes.
[MC] Again, you mention that your solution to reducing the likelihood of gun violence is: "no Muslims, no Atheists".
[SJ] Yes, and I'm adamant about this, especially Atheists, among others. But it's because people, they don't think. I studied Philosophy. I can explain it to you in great detail. If God does not exist, Good and Evil do not exist. If God does not exist, you are only a temporary collection of molecules. Molecules that were randomly gathered by a purposeless evolution. There can't be Good or Evil. All there is, are human conventions. So let's suppose murder is bad. Ah? OK! Suppose killing Jews in concentration camps is OK.
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 24 of 46]
[SJ] Ah? OK, we vote "In Favor"! And there, it becomes "good" to kill Jews in concentration camps. Suppose that killing babies, even at birth, is okay. Ah? OK, we vote "In Favor"! The concept of Good and Evil vanishes, disappears without God.
[MC] OK, that's it...
[SJ] This is why the Canadian Constitution (there are few people who know this), begins with the fact that Canada is founded on the Supremacy of God and the rule of law. [Source] And the words "Supremacy of God", the expression "Supremacy of God", are in the Canadian Constitution, you can search the Internet on the Government of Canada website. Because, among other things, if there is no God, there is no Good and Evil.
[MC] OK. That explains Atheists. How do you explain Muslims?
[SJ] Muslims? [First] a religion can be anything. If you decide to found a Bicycle Worshipping religion, and everyone has to prostrate themselves before their bicycle five times a day, there is nothing stopping you from doing that. A religion can teach anything. But it is true that Islam teaches things that are incompatible with Canadian laws, for example, if you read the flyer that I distributed: Love Muslims, Hate Islam, well Islam, that's what it is. Islam is the Umma, the House of Dar-al-Harb, and everyone has to convert to Islam. People who do not convert must either pay the tax of the infidels or they must be killed. And historically, since the year 600 or so when it started, Islam, well that's how it operates.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] If we look in countries, as soon as Islam becomes the majority, that's what happens. Child marriage is one example. In all countries where Islam becomes the majority, child marriage automatically becomes legal. Why? Because Muhammad himself did it. And Muhammad is the perfect man according to the Koran. So if Muhammad does it, it's okay.
[MC] And in an eligibility process, you have people applying to get a gun license. How would you manage, precisely, not to have Muslims and Atheists?
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 25 of 46]
[SJ] Ah well, that's a question of political details. For example, one of the first things you learn in political science is that you can't read thoughts. You cannot judge what is called the "internal forum". You, I don't know what's going on in your head. So a judge, or any judicial or legal process, cannot decide by looking at what is going on in someone's head. It has to be, like, on an oath: "I declare that I am not a Muslim and that I am not an Atheist". If the guy, deep in his conscience is an Atheist but he doesn't say it, then in theory there is no way of knowing. Same thing for a Muslim. A Muslim who hides, no one who will know. But on the other hand, what it does is that it sends a message to the population to say: "Atheism has logical consequences". If we look at the logical consequences of atheism, it is very bad for society.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] So that sends a message to the population by saying: "It's not good to be an Atheist".
[MC] OK. So the solution for "no Muslims, no Atheists", would be based on a declaration?
[SJ] It's not in my opinion, it's common sense. We cannot, as I say, we cannot read minds! (laughter) Reality is like that! Go talk to any judge and ask: "Can a court process, Judge, be based on reading the accused's thoughts?" The judge will say: "Well no! It has to be something obvious, that you can judge in court, that you can measure, that you can touch with your finger".
[MC] And in fairness, do you think this is a good solution?
[SJ] Well, obviously!
[MC] OK.
[SJ] This is because these days, as I say, my whole website is there to say things that people don't want to hear. So for sure it seems horribly politically incorrect to say that, but on the other hand, if you look at what Islam teaches, and what are the logical consequences of Atheism, that's it.
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 26 of 46]
[SJ] And then, if you do statistics on the number of mass killings, how many serial killers were either influenced by Islam or influenced by Atheism? There, Oh boy, it becomes interesting! Alexandre Bissonnette, that's something else I would have liked to know. What was this guy doing all day? What were his beliefs? Because if you look in the United States, among other things because it is very publicized in the United States, there are a bunch of them who are Muslims, people who went to the mosque, who were very pious. And everyone around them said, "Ah yes, going to the mosque was very important to them."
[SJ] Or maybe it's people who were starting to sink into Atheism. Because if you go to the end of your reasoning, if God really, really does not exist, if we are really, really just random globs of molecules temporarily gathered by a purposeless evolution, and that you feel like re-aligning molecules (you know, killing someone for an Atheist is just re-aligning molecules, because the person has no spiritual soul), well killing someone, for an Atheism, it's nothing. There are different degrees of Atheism, the person may be more or less aware of the logical consequences of his Atheism, but the logical slope, the general slope of atheism is a very dangerous slope. The more someone goes down that slope, the more that person becomes a threat.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] It's like I'm telling you. I'm sorry, but I studied Philosophy, and when I was trying to do my master's degree, I studied Ethics, we study things like that: what are the foundations of law, what are the foundations of Good and Evil, where it comes from, why do we say that Good and Evil exist.
[MC] But it's just that I'm trying to take this example, this solution, and incorporate it into my job, my work. How to do? How to justify so...
[SJ] Your job at the moment is impossible. I'm telling you like that, because I'm always saying politically incorrect things, but your job right now is pretty much impossible to do. You cannot apply the common sense rules in your job, because you would find yourself like me, persecuted by the police.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] That's why there is no one who does what I do. To do what I do, you must have nothing more to lose. I can't lose my job: I don't have one.
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 27 of 46]
[SJ] I can't lose my pension fund, I don't have one. When you have nothing more to lose, you say to yourself: "At least, I'm going to tell the truth!" Because you know very well that there are religions which have violent teachings, and that the more someone will adhere to this religion, the more someone will consider that this religion is true, then what is written in the supposedly sacred books of this religion will have an influence on their behavior.
As I repeat to anyone who wants to listen, a Catholic fundamentalist is someone who begins to truly believe what Jesus said. What will happen with this person? Well, he or she ends up on road signs [In the Province of Quebec, many towns, villages, streets, etc., have names of Catholic Saints]. This is the consequence of being a Catholic fundamentalist, he or she ends up on road signs: Sainte-Catherine, Saint-Ludger, Saint-Yves. They begin to love their enemies. Even Jesus, while he was being crucified, said: "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing". Catholicism, pushed to fundamentalism, gives holiness. [While a] religion that teaches violence, if you start to take literally what your religion teaches you, well, that has consequences.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] I talk about Islam, because it's a problem that is very present in Canada at the moment, but there could have been other religions too. The religion of the Aztecs, for example. It no longer exists, but in the past, they would take innocent people, open their chests and rip out their still-beating hearts, and then they would throw them down the stairs. It's (laughter) it's freakish! It wasn't a good religion, so people who really believed in that religion ended up doing evil, because of their religious beliefs.
[MC] Oui.
[SJ] So for you, in your work, you should rephrase that in order to avoid being too politically incorrect. Like, if the person has religious beliefs that glorify violence against innocent victims, or if the person has a philosophical position that makes him lose sight of the foundations of Morals and Ethics, he won't get a license. All I do is say it politically incorrectly, much more briefly: no Muslims, no Atheists.
[MC] OK. It's not a done thing, as they say. (laughter)
[SJ] (laughter) But I've kind of given up hope. It's not as if my positions were going to prevail in the Public Place. I've sort of grieved my loss.
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 28 of 46]
[MC] You mentioned in one of your articles that you were on your bed in New York when you filled out the restricted weapons license form, to answer the questions of background and all that.
[SJ] Yes, it's because every year there is a big meeting of Alcoholics Anonymous. And I am an interpreter for this contract. So I was in my room, and I was relaxing, and "dring", it turned out it was the lady from the QPP.
[MC] And when we talk about health in general, do you have any health problems?
[SJ] Well, I have a big belly, I have to lose weight, my knees hurt, I walk too much. Besides that, these days, I have plantar fascitis underneath my left foot.
[MC] Ah yes.
[SJ] I need to lose about thirty pounds, my knee also hurts a little, but other than that, it's pretty good.
[MC] OK, physical health. Mental health, with the case of Ms. Bouffard and all that?
[SJ] There is not much to do, as I tell you. I could roll around the floor with sadness, but as you have seen for yourself, and as anyone will see, we're all going to croak!
[MC] Hum, OK.
[SJ] I don't really have a solution, apart from saying that she lived well, she is a nice lady, she was always good with everyone, she always tried to do her best to help her neighbor, so if she goes to Hell, you and I are cooked! (laughter)
[MC] (laughter)
[SJ] There is no hope for us!
[MC] And concerning depression, and all that, was it something that affected you?
[SJ] Me, the most depressed I got, was when [it first hit me].
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 29 of 46]
[SJ] She was diagnosed two months after I diagnosed her. Since I do conferences on just about any topic, at one point I did a conference where I was translating a physician who was describing the symptoms of ALS [Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis]. And as I translated I was thinking "Hey! That sounds like Marie-Claude!" So that evening, I came back, I started to cry, and I told her: "That's what you got". And two months later, the neurologist at the Infant-Jesus said: "Well yes, that's what you've got."
[MC] OK.
[SJ] So there, she knew ahead of time what she had. But the biggest shock was at that moment, before her diagnosis, when I was translating the description of the symptoms of the disease during a conference, and I said: "Oh, oh... she has all that!"
[MC] OK, but have you ever been diagnosed with depression?
[SJ] No.
[MC] Or another mental health diagnosis?
[SJ] No.
[MC] OK. Have you never seen a psychologist or a psychiatrist?
[SJ] Everyone who is a leftist thinks I'm quote "crazy" in a way, because I have positions that are very, very diametrically opposed to that of the majority of Canadians. But when people ask me about my positions, [I say:] "Look at this, there is this, and this." I do not adopt my positions because I want to be different from others. I adopt my positions because they seem to me to be true. I have the subjective impression that my positions are good.
[MC] Hum, hum.
[SJ] And since the reaction of most people who disagree with me is to run away, I say to myself: "Why didn't they just explain to me where I was wrong, if I'm wrong?" Like the QPP. For a year they did everything except tell me: "It's because of your Love Tubes". People who have something to hide, they hide!
[MC] I come back to something in your article. You say, "We don't have guns first and foremost to pleasure ourselves on the shooting range, but because: Your value will protect our homes and our rights."
[SJ] Yes, yes. It comes back to what I told you. The Armistice, on November 11, was important when I was in the Canadian Army.
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 30 of 46]
[SJ] We'd put on our uniforms, and we stood at attention. Come to think of it, there are lots of countries that have no freedom, no democracy, nothing. They only have one dictator, and too bad for you! And the rare countries where there is still a little freedom, generally, it is because people took their rifles and said: "NO! You have no right to be tyrannical toward us! That's wrong!" It is in the history of all the countries where there is still a little freedom: there are, somewhere, people who said to themselves: "That's not right, that!"
[MC] Because earlier in the conversation, you said that it was in the first place for target shooting, recreation, and secondly for defense.
[SJ] Yes.
[MC] It seems to contradict itself here.
[SJ] No, no, there's no contradiction. It depends if there is someone who is attacking your country. The goal of having a firearm is mainly recreational, but if the Nazis are attacking Canada, for example...
[MC] Hum, hum.
[SJ] Fortunately, we were on the other side of the ocean, but if we had been in France, you and me, in 1939, there...
[MC] Yes.
[SJ] If that's how it is, the "recreational" is over! Now isn't the time to go to the shooting range and shoot paper targets! It depends on the circumstances.
[MC] OK, because in the context, the sentence really says no guns for recreation, it's really to protect homes and all that.
[SJ] No.
[MC] We don't...
[SJ] I just want to say that when our homes and our rights are attacked, it takes guns. And when our homes and our rights are not attacked, well there we can do recreational shooting!
[MC] OK.
[SJ] I don't understand your question.
[MC] It is not as such a question. It's really about going to understand the meaning of your sentences.
[SJ] I see.
[MC] I don't want a personal interpretation.
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 31 of 46]
[SJ] I don't see. It is not difficult to understand. The guy who wrote the National Anthem of Canada, well, that's it! He wrote it well, there!
[MC] OK.
[SJ] If you want to have a free country, guys have to have a bit of balls, enough to defend themselves.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] If we don't defend ourselves, sooner or later, we will have our freedoms taken away.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] This is what has happened historically. If you look at other countries, well, a country that does not defend itself ends up being taken to the cleaners. It's standard.
[MC] Do you think, in this same line of ideas, that a system like that of the Americans where the citizen carries on himself a weapon, would work here in Quebec?
[SJ] Ouch, you have to be careful! Laws in the United States are absolutely not like in Canada. In Canada, there is a law for all of Canada, the Firearms Act. It was not the province of Quebec that invented this, it was for all of Canada. In the United States, it's a mosaic. You've go everything. There are places in the United States where I think the laws are stricter than in Canada. There are certain cities in any case where it is stricter than in Canada. And there are other places in the United States where it's pretty much a free-for-all. And even within a State, there are counties, and depending on the counties it can vary. This is the first observation: it is difficult to compare apples with oranges. You have to tell me to compare Canada with which State [of the United States], and with which county of which State. And second, if you read the very important things in Ms. Guilbault's text, if you read what the Constitution of the United States says, that's not what they're doing right now. The United States itself does not respect its own Constitution. (Whether for the Catholic Church or others, I like to compare the writings with the behaviors!) But the Constitution of the United States does not say: "Take some guns, go for a walk, and the Hell with laws and regulations!" The American Constitution is careful to say, "A gun, yes, but you are in a well-regulated group." Well-regulated, this means that if you start to be senile, or violent, they will expel you from the group and take away your guns.
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 32 of 46]
[SJ] While often in the United States, what you see when there is a massacre is that there was a guy all alone who was vegetating in his basement or something like that, and who was completely cut off from civilization. This is contrary to the United States' Second Amendment. That is not what's written in the Second Amendment. Have you read it?
[MC] Yes.
[SJ] It is a social act, having a gun, according to the Constitution of the United States.
[MC] You have a position on the Firearms Registry.
[SJ] Yes.
[MC] What do you think the Firearms Registry is for?
[SJ] It is purely to look good politically. It's like Law 9. I talk a little bit about Law 9 in my text. The fact is that some politicians want to be re-elected, so they take a look at what the electorate wants, and then they make a smoke-and-mirror show, so that the voters vote for them in the next elections, whether the law makes sense or not. Law 9 is a good example, because in this case it is an absolutely useless law. In any case, it is not even under provincial jurisdiction, firearms, it is under federal jurisdiction. What does Quebec have to do with a gun law? We are always whining for Ottawa to respect our jurdistiction, and here we are going to play in their jurdistiction, first of all! And secondly, it's pure rubbish. Me, to comply with my Law 9, I can go to the shooting club and just sign the register as if I had shot. It proves nothing. The guy Alexandre Bissonnette, he had his Law 9, and that changed absolutely nothing. Whereas if you take a look at what I'm talking about in my text, if the person is forced to be part of a group of citizens, and they meet from time to time because they are part of a group to defend the Fatherland, then it will show! "Hey there! Alexandre is weird these days, he's changed a lot, he's started drinking again!" and blah-blah. It's when there is a certain social fabric that when part of the social fabric starts to go wrong, the rest of the group can react.
[MC] But the Registry, knowing that this person who is going badly or who is in this social group, if we don't know if he has weapons or not, our intervention is different.
[SJ] This is pure rubbish. This is an argument that comes up often, but the police will tell you, when they arrive in a house, they don't look in the Registry, they search [the house]. They don't give a flying bleep [about the Registry]. They won't start saying: "Ah well, according to the Registry, he has no guns."
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 33 of 46]
[SJ] No, no! According to the Registry, none of the criminals in Quebec has a gun! (laughter) They are not allowed to have them, and yet they do! According to the police [themselves], in their daily work, they don't give a flying bleep about the Registry!
[MC] So, you are saying that a police officer who enters a suicidal person's home is not going to first take the time to check whether this person is armed or not?
[SJ] No, no, that's not what I'm saying. When you're hunting down criminals, you assume they are armed. When a person is suicidal, well, the person who is suicidal normally shoots himself in the head, not the police! The police want to save the person. No, no, I'm talking about criminals. When the police are running after bad guys, they assume they are armed. When they arrive at the house of a bad guy, they assume that there are weapons somewhere.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] The only people who register their guns are people like me who obey the law. Criminals, (laugher) they don't register their guns! It's another debate, but it's far-fetched. The sole purpose of the Registry is to gain political capital during electoral periods.
[MC] OK. To help me, it is sure that I went around your site, but to understand correctly, to analyze the other links, do you have other sites to refer to?
[SJ] My own sites? there is just essentially my site which has two names, "www.jesus-eucharistie.org" and "www.inquisition.ca", but all that is written on the website, that there are two sites with the same content.
[MC] OK, those are your own sites?
[SJ] The only other sites of mine are small minor sites, like there is one called "www.proviequebec.ca". It's just because we organize a pro-life event. All the information I am telling you is already on the Internet, on my website.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] It's written in a Section. If you send me an email, I will send it to the Section which points to my other websites. But these are very small "punctual" websites.
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 34 of 46]
[SJ] Since we have a pro-life event every year in Quebec City, we have a small website called "www.proviequebec.ca" to organize this event. There is the Christian Heritage Party website for the county I am in. I haven't touched it for years, but in any case, there is one. Other than that, I'm trying to think... There are a few other websites that I made for friends, but which are not my own websites.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] Do you want the websites that I read?
[MC] Yes.
[SJ] It's written on my website. When you get to my website, there is the Table of Contents, and there is a section called "Some Good Hyperlinks". So when I like a website and find it to be a good site, I write it on the websites that I recommend.
[MC] When I looked at your website and all that, we also checked your Facebook account. Do you have a Facebook account?
[SJ] No, I “flushed” it, it's been quite a while.
[MC] OK, you are no longer active on Facebook?
[SJ] No, no, I "flushed" that several months ago.
[MC] This year?
[SJ] It's written in my "Recent Additions". (laughter) Like I tell you, I don't have a very good memory, so when I do something, I put it on my website.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] I wrote it down somewhere. It's because there is a friend of mine named Nirmal Paul Savio, who is in India, imagine! He kept pestering me: "Ah, your website, you could have more traffic on your website if you had a presence on Social Media!" So a year or two ago, I started. I had made a Twitter account, and Facebook, and all that. Basically, I was referring to my website, but I "flushed" it all.
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 35 of 46]
[MC] Was there any particular reason that...
[SJ] Yes, it's all described in laborious detail on my website, the reason I did this. Among other things, because it is all the big players like Google and Facebook and Twitter who censor Conservatives. I've had articles that were censored. When you say something they don't want to hear (Looney Tune whistle), it disappears.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] And you have no recourse. I can give you an example if you really want to. When I was at the Gay Pride Parade in Toronto, before the parade started, I took my camera and did a 360 degree pan, to show what it looked like, before the start of the parade. And in this overview, we could see the official delegation of Google, who are the owners of YouTube.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] Google, one of their properties is YouTube. At the Gay Pride Parade, in front of us was the "Naked Men of Toronto" delegation, and behind us it was the "Sado-masochists of Toronto", well, so that's how it was in the parade. So I filmed what I saw in the parade, and put it on the Internet. So there, YouTube censored my video! (laughter) When they said to me: "Well, this is not acceptable according to our community guidelines", I said: "Look in such a video: we can see the official delegation of you, of Google. You sent people to this parade, because you agree with this parade. And now, you tell me that what happened at this parade, cannot be shown in public? You're the ones who don't comply with your community guidelines! Don't send an official delegation to this parade if you find that there are unacceptable things going on during this parade!"
[MC] Hum, hum.
[SJ] They do not care. They are big, they are rich, they don't need me.
[MC] So Facebook, how long have you been inactive?
[SJ] Since the same date as Twitter, when I "flushed" everything at the same time.
[MC] OK.
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 36 of 46]
[SJ] I'm sorry, you should look in "Recent Additions" from last year, I imagine.
[MC] OK, we can check that out.
[SJ] If you send me your e-mail, I'll get it and I'll send you the hyperlink, because it's all explained right there.
[MC] OK, I'll give you my contact details at the end so you can. Either way, I'm going to be in charge of your case, so if there's anything, you will go through me.
[SJ] And that's it. This is mainly because these big companies censor the conservative point of view. It is also because we have no control. I'm on my website. When I say something, it's because I say it! And I say it, because I agree with! And I am able to prove it by A plus B, or in any case, I have the impression in my head to be able to prove why I am right. But on Facebook, there's all kinds of stuff going on, and who is this? Who is this stuff? And we don't really know who is what, and when someone puts a comment on what we said, who is he?
[MC] Hum, hum.
[SJ] At one point, I got it wrong and emailed a guy, "Hey! You liked my comment!" I never liked your comment [he replied]. It was somebody else. People have an avatar so you never know who it is, so you don't even really know who you're talking to. And I didn't like it. WHereas on my website, I know who I am, and I know that what I put on my website is what I agree with. No one can tell me: "Ah! Well there, at one point, there was someone who showed a photo of a banana, and you said to yourself: "Hey, I like that, bananas!" But in fact it was a group of far-right terrorists!" Did I know that? I like bananas, and I clicked on "I like bananas!" So no, I said to myself: "No more nonsense. I have things to say, and when I say it, I say it on my website." And don't try to tar me by association by saying telling me: "There is such a thing, at some point someone clicked on one of your comments and it was such a kind of person." I don't know who clicks on my stuff. On my site, I know what I'm doing.
[MC] Even if you are no longer active, you were a member, or you became a member of two groups that intrigued us: La Meute and Storm Alliance.
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 37 of 46]
[SJ] Yes, yes. Among other things, one of the reasons why I "flushed" all of these people is that when the time came to distribute Love Tubes, I sent them an email like: "This stuff seems to be up your alley, and I would need help." And they never answered.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] I think they were too scaredy-cat ("pissous" in French)! (laughter)
[MC] OK.
[SJ] If they are too scaredy-cat, I have no time to waste with them.
[MC] OK, but in the first place, what was the point of joining these two groups?
[SJ] Well, as I say, I don't know exactly who [the people] are behind these groups, because they don't say it. But they seemed to want to defend Canada, and Canadian identity. And I say: "It's good, that, to want to defend Canadian laws! I'm in favor of that!" But after that, we don't really know who they are. There are no names, no clear statement of their policies. Moreover, like I said, I thought maybe they could help me. We might be able to do things together... "Nawthin'".
[MC] OK.
[SJ] So I thought: "I don't have time to waste on this".
[MC] OK, adhériez-vous à certaines idéologies que ces groupes-là ont?
[SJ] Well, that's exactly it. This is exactly one of the reasons why I "flushed" all of my accounts. Because the double-crossers [The QPP], what they do is they say: "You shook hands with such a guy, because he had a shelter for abandoned kittens, but that guy, he happens to be a pedophile, so you too are a pedophile!" No, I shook his hand, because I wanted to congratulate him, because he took care of abandoned little kittens. You know, that's it, guilt by association!
[MC] Hum.
[SJ] Since I do not control who these people are and what they do, unlike a political party where there is going to be an electoral platform, and I can agree or disagree with their electoral platform. A nebulous group, where we do not know who is in it, or what exactly their positions are, well it's perfect to have guilt by association! Someone says: "Ah! There is a member of such a group who, at one point, did something evil, and you tried to become a member of that group!"
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 38 of 46]
[SJ] Well yes, but I did not become a member of that group to do evil things. So, to avoid the typical Leftist maneuver of guilt by association, I said, "No, look, I have my website, it's clear, all I have to say, I say it clearly, I don't hide. When I distribute a flyer, it has my business card in it. I don't wear a mask. I am not like the Antifas or these people. I'm not hiding. Here I am. What I have to say, I say it."
[MC] Speaking of masks, during the gay pride parade, the Zombies...
[SJ] Yes, yes, yes.
[MC] You were wearing a mask.
[SJ] Yes! (laughter) But on the other hand, all my information was on my flyers.
[MC] But why the mask? Because there were certain members of your group who wore no mask, versus you who wore a mask.
[SJ] The only gentleman who didn't wear a mask, I think he was American. He was not concerned, it was like not his problem.
[MC] And why the mask?
[SJ] It wasn't me who designed the costume. I arrived in Toronto that morning and they said, "Here's your costume."
[MC] Could you have chosen not to put on the mask?
[SJ] Yes, I could have chosen not to wear the mask. But at that time, I had no idea what was going to happen. Jeepers, it's overwhelming! There are a quarter of a million people in this thing! It's mind-boggling when you're in the middle of the parade.
[MC] Hum, hum.
[SJ] [Through my flyer] They have my phone number, my address, my photo, my email. I'm not hiding. But at the time, I don't want to be attacked. And I'm still not hiding. I am still on the Internet, my flyer is still on the Internet, and I have handed out over 4000 [Love Tubes].
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 39 of 46]
[SJ] The flyer that I distributed at the gay pride parade, there is one in the Love Tube which dealt with homosexuality. This flyer, all my contact details are on it, and my website, all my contact details are on it too. But during the actual parade, whew, jeepers, luckily I had a mask!
[MC] Why do you say that?
[SJ] Because we don't know what they're going to do. A crowd, a quarter of a million people, how will they react? (laughter) But on the other hand, after that, they have my flyer, my address, my phone number.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] A crowd does not behave like an individual. It is a question of psychology, of mob psychology. A mob is not a rational being. It's not...
[MC] OK, so for now, I think that pretty much covers the questions I had for you today.
[SJ] OKdoo!
[MC] I took a lot of your time, but I really appreciate it, because I was not at liberty to interpret your entire site in all its nooks and crannies. So I preferred to talk to you.
[SJ] Not only that, but it was a complicated case. I am not an Alexandre Bissonnette who is preparing to go and kill people. I am a citizen who looks at the serious things around him, and who does not know how to react, who does not know how to reach the citizens around him to wake them up, to wake them out of their torpor. And, after trying since 2004, my conclusion is that apparently, things won't move much! (laughter) "You might as well prepare to be patient!" So I'm paying to keep my website online, and I hope someday people will wake up.
[MC] Are you planning a retirement at some point? Professionally as well as for your site?
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 40 of 46]
[SJ] Retirement? Yes, at some point I will no longer be able to work. I'm going to be too old.
[MC] (laughter) OK, that's it...
[SJ] (laughter) I don't understand, retiring from my website?
[MC] From your website, or from your translation contracts. A retirement is something that needs to be prepared, you are not old, but... Do you have plans for when unfortunately Madame Bouffard is going to leave this world? Do you have any plans?
[SJ] It's going to be six months, according to the neurologist. Six months, a year. I am still of working age, so after that I will continue to work. Marie-Claude is not really related to my retirement.
[MC] It's Plan B. Right now, you're busy with interpretation contracts. But once Marie-Claude is gone, how are you going to make up for that time? Your site, or...?
[SJ] My site, I worked hard on it for years.
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 41 of 46]
[SJ] As I told you, I've said quite a bit, to my knowledge. I don't see what new [articles] to add.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] What I have left is just to clarify certain things, and to answer the questions I am asked. So me, that means I have to find something else to keep myself busy. So I was trying to find a little sideline, to go into business. I was trying to find another source of income, because interpretation, there are two high seasons, and then it's quiet.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] So I would have time to go into business to do something. I'd rather not to do something like "window cleaner". But I tell myself: some job, where I would be my own boss. Marie-Claude, her advantage is that she did sewing. Her market was weird, but it worked. One of the things she did was liturgical garments. She sewed clothes for priests. She had sewing machines, and could make a living like that, making clothes for priests. I would have liked something more [manly!], Plumber, electrician, I don't know.
[MC] And Ms. Bouffard, you met her in what context, in the beginning?
[SJ] I was a stretcher bearer, a summer job at CHUL [more than a quarter of a century ago]. I pushed "old geezers" around in their stretchers.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] And at one point, I pushed a young nun in a wheelchair. (laughter) It's quite rare to see young nuns. She was still quite young at the time, and I was a little impressed: a young nun in a wheelchair! And when we arrived for the X-rays, the nurse had said to her: "OK, Madame Bouffard", and I said: "You have to say SISTER Bouffard!" The nurse looked at me and says: "No, it's Madame!" And I said: "No, it's SISTER Bouffard!" And Marie-Claude found it funny. So that's how I started talking to her.
[MC] You say she was a nun.
[SJ] Nun.
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 42 of 46]
[MC] She is a sister, OK. She is a "sister" in the sense...
[SJ] It's a sad story. She was a nun in something called the Army of Mary. They were excommunicated by Cardinal Ouellet about ten years ago. In other words, they started out as a Catholic religious order, and then they became heretics.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] So I told her: "Get out of there! Come back into the Catholic Church! Get out of your religious sect, and come back into the real Church!" So she left the Army of Mary eleven years ago.
[MC] How long have you been friends with Madame Bouffard?
[SJ] When she was in the Army of Mary, she lived in her convent. She had been a nun for 24 years. So her brother put her up at his house, on rue Lafayette, in the downtown par of the city. At one point, we realized that the neighbor next door was renting his apartment on the second floor, so then, jeepers creepers, we went crazy! They said to him: "Please, Please! could Marie-Claude rent your apartment?" [He replied:] "No problem!" When he saw her, he saw she was very nice! And imagine, a nun, but dressed like something other than a nun, she still looks like a nun! It really screams "quiet tenant"! So he was glad to have her. That's it. She came to live here, she was my neighbor like that for eleven years.
[MC] Okay. Perfect. Excellent. Look, thank you very much, Mr. Jetchick, for the time you have given me today. I think we went around. Don't be surprised if I still need a few clarifications. I may call you again.
[SJ] Yes, it's easier to email me to tell me that you are going to call me.
[MC] OK.
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 43 of 46]
[SJ] Because these days, since Marie-Claude was right here, she was sick and I was her primary caregiver, I was always next door, I always had my cell phone with me. But as she is now in a long-term care facility, I no longer need to stress out with my cell phone next to me all the time. So I leave it at home, or I shut it off, things like that.
[MC] OK.
[SJ] But if you send me a little email saying: "Look, can I call you tomorrow, will you be there?" Yes, yes, I will be there.
[MC] OK, great. But before you leave, Mr. Jetchick, I'm going to leave you my contact details.
[Here, Ms. Myrianna Castagna painstakingly spells out her name, phone number and email address, using the pilot's alphabet (Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Delta), since the telephone line was so bad. It takes up almost two pages of the transcript.]
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 44 of 46]
[SJ] OK. If it doesn't work, at least I have your phone number.
[MC] If there's anything, don't hesitate to call me. I'm going to look into it, and it's not tomorrow morning that I'm going to make my decision.
[SJ] Ah yes. As I say, in my head, I given up on everything. Before, it was important, but now, since Marie-Claude's diagnosis, it's like, blah...
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 45 of 46]
[SJ] We know that the Police-State is moving forward, and that governments are more and more uninterested in our freedoms, and there aren't good chances that things will improve, so I've kind of given up on those things.
[MC] But my job is a uniform and fair process.
[SJ] Yes.
[MC] So I have a law, I have criteria. I'll look into all this.
[SJ] Yes, yes. As I say, normally when I speak with people, they are [well-meaning]. Everyone is trying to do their best, given the system they are in. I don't really have doubts about the intentions of the people who interact with me. It's the people who hide behind the people who interact with me, who worry me! (laughter)
[MC] So we go like this, Mr. Jetchick. If you have any questions, contact me.
[SJ] Yes.
[MC] And me, anyway, once the decision is made, it will affect your renewal request, but it will also affect your license.
[SJ] Yes, yes.
[MC] So in both cases, the decision will be communicated to you.
[SJ] Yes, I imagine!
[MC] In the meantime, I might call you, if I need more details, other things to explain to you. We will talk again.
[SJ] OKdoo!
[MC] Perfect, so take care of yourself and talk to you soon, Mr. Jetchick.
[SJ] Okay, see you next time!
[MC] Goodbye!
[Communication Transcript, Session 2, 46 of 46]
Focus on the buxom accusations! Don't look at what they're founded on!
[Source]
Warning: This Rebuttal is long. If you're impatient, you may go straight to The Conclusion.
The following points are not in dispute:
- Any non-truncated quote from S. Jetchick's website.
- All of S. Jetchick's deeds described on his website.
The longest document in the QPP's Summary of Facts is the "Communication transcript" (Appendices 8 et 9), the transcription of a telephone conversation lasting more than two hours, between Ms. Myrianna Castagna and S. Jetchick. Not only does the QPP base several of their allegations on this conversation, but S. Jetchick supports several of its rebuttals on that same conversation.
The transcription made by the QPP endangers a full defense, because it's difficult to understand:
- Sound quality. The telephone line was rather bad.
- Absent transcriptors. Numerous misinterpretations (for example, "killer in Syria" instead of "serial killer") indicate that the transcriptors received the digital audio tape, without having been able to attend the conversation themselves.
- Lack of context. Both Ms. Castagna and S. Jetchick know the content of the website they are discussing, the first because she's read it, the second because he wrote it. The transcriptors don't seem to have this context.
- The transcription rules don't aim for clarity. Transcriptors, because of their police-related mandate, must "track" the noises they transcribe, while carefully avoiding injecting their prejudices or their interpretation. This gives sometimes hilarious results. For example, the slightest fit of cough is carefully indicated ("clears his throat"), all stuttering and all onomatopoeias are noted, but punctuation (necessary for understanding) is almost nonexistent.
- Mrs. Castagna misled S. Jetchick. S. Jetchick is a professional conference interpreter with over two decades of experience. He works at the Château Frontenac, the Quebec City Convention Center, the National Assembly, and sometimes even at the Quebec City Courthouse. He is quite capable of putting a tie and a jacket on his voice. On the other hand, if you invite him to come and have a beer around your propane BBQ in your backyard, he will change his language level and speak as the transcript of the QPP indicates. This same transcript also shows that Mrs. Castagna insisted that the recording was only to facilitate her note-taking, and that she just wanted to get to better know S. Jetchick and his website.
We offer our transcription, written in proper French, made by one of the two people present during the conversation, with a table of contents, and hyperlinks to the relevant articles on the website. In the event of disagreement, we submit that the digital audio recording should prevail, and not the suboptimal transcription provided by the QPP.
[Source]
The fundamental claim of the QPP can be thus summarized:
S. Jetchick is full of opinions incompatible with those of Justin Trudeau. S. Jetchick is full of guns. Therefore, S. Jetchick will commit in the future acts of violence with his guns.
Both premises are true, but there is no logical connection between the premises and the conclusion, as we will demonstrate below.
For his part, the fundamental claim of S. Jetchick can be summarized as follows:
All political dissidents are persecuted by Justin Trudeau. S. Jetchick is a political dissident. Therefore, S. Jetchick is persecuted by Justin Trudeau.
In our opinion, the way the QPP deals with this case shows a political bias, not a calm and impartial analysis. This is what we'll try to show in the rest of our rebuttal.
[Source]
The first thing that appears when you open S. Jetchick's file is just how much he looks like Snow White, even though he has had 56 long years to "get his dress dirty":
- No conviction of any kind in any court;
- No charges of any kind in any court
(despite all his efforts!);
- Never had any event associated with firearms, despite the fact that
S. Jetchick's first firearms license was obtained when he was about 20
years old (therefore about 36 years in total, but with intervals without
license or weapons);
- Has never associated with violent people;
- Has never been treated for anything psychological or psychiatric;
- Absolutely nothing related to alcohol or drugs, ever, of any kind;
- Has always clearly
advocated non-violence and respect for the laws
on its website (started in 2004);
- Is a member of a religion whose
Founder and Current Leader
whose non-violence is legendary;
- Has pastimes of catatonic harmlessness, such as singing in
a Gregorian chant choir;
- Doesn't smoke, doesn't swear, pays all his taxes, respects all laws;
- etc.
Offhand, S. Jetchick seems to be a very ordinary citizen, quite the opposite of a threat to public security.
[©Warner Brothers]
It is all well and good to spend 56 years on this Earth without doing harm. But avoiding evil deeds is not enough. We must also do all the good we can! What would Snow White look like, if she came out of her castle and tried to courageously defend the Widow and the Orphan, like Wonder-Woman? Certainly, she would try to do good, but by taking good means, ethical means:
"Without the help of grace, men would not know how to discern the often narrow path
between the cowardice which gives in to evil, and the violence which under the
illusion of fighting evil only makes it worse. This is the path of charity, that
is, of the love of God and of neighbor."
[CCC, #1889]
Not only would this "Wonder-Snow White" take morally lawful means, but she would take the most effective, the most powerful means. Now, humanly speaking, what is the most powerful means we have to improve our Society? Political action.
That's not all. Many politicians build their careers on popular issues ("sustainable mobility", wind turbines, little abandoned kittens, etc.). But there is a whole series of issues that most politicians shun, because they require too much effort and don't "pay well enough" in votes. Only courageous and altruistic politicians dare to deal with these orphan-issues.
But there is more! Dealing with touchy and politically incorrect files is already difficult, but a good politician must approach these files in a rational and democratic manner, encouraging debates where "The first who invokes a religious belief, loses!"
Obviously, S. Jetchick is not as young and pleasant to look at as "WONDER-Snow White", nevertheless, in addition to avoiding doing evil, he has devoted many years to political action, in the most ethical, courageous and rational way possible.
Talk is cheap (especially for a politician!), but a judge wants Legal Tests. We offer three, which we will use several times in the rest of this rebuttal: The Lacroix, Trump, and Castagna Tests.
The recipe for the Love Tubes:
a few drops of official Church teachings,
diluted in lots of very sweetened water.
Etymology: Of Cardinal Gérald-Cyprien Lacroix, current leader of the diocese of Quebec, famous for his refusal to teach the teachings of the Church which would make him lose his popularity and his paycheck.
Instructions: Bring Cardinal Lacroix into the courtroom (by sub poena or otherwise). Ask him questions under oath, in order to make him admit that Love Tubes contain only a very diluted and sweetened version of some official teachings of the Catholic Church.
Indications: This Test is indicated when certain social pathologies are suspected, such as:
- a Police Department that persecutes a lonely and defenseless citizen, and who wishes to avoid drawing attention to the fact that it's also persecuting every Catholic in Canada at the same time;
- a diocese that rejects a candidate for the priesthood, because this candidate is truly Catholic, and because he makes this diocese and its pope look bad;
- the sociological "Flesh-Eating Bacteria", which destroys all of society. This occurs when citizens decide to serve money (or the things that money can buy, such as sex, worldly glory, etc.) rather than God (or God-derived products, such as Ethics, the Common Good, Justice, etc.). Indeed, who better to set a bad example, to infect a Country with the Society-Eating Bacteria, than bishops (who have promised to serve God, who have no wife and children, who must live in poverty) bishops who avoid the less pleasant tasks of their job (like telling people the truths they don't want to hear) in order to cash their paycheck "in peace"?
(And let's not forget that spiritual diseases (like alcoholism, pride, greed, etc.) behave completely differently from physical "diseases" (like dying of thirst, or dying of hunger, of dying of cold, etc.). The more you're physically ill, the more you desire the medication. But the more you're spiritually ill, the more you run away from the medication (like stopping to drink, or reminding yourself of your humiliating shortcomings, or giving your money to the poor, etc.). So a bishop, so-called "physician of souls", who only wants to please your ears...)
Donald Trump protecting his political career,
by strutting around with the "gay" flag.
[Source]
Etymology: From the current President of the United States of America, Donald Trump, famous for his political maneuvers to avoid being too much against some powerful influence groups (such as the gay lobby, or the Muslim lobby, etc.).
Instructions: Take a sheet of paper, write on it: "Just as it's perfectly legal in Canada to criticize Jesus and to burn a Bible, it's just as legal to criticize Muhammad and burn a Koran". Then sign, date, slap on your picture and your physical address (where you actually live as we speak). Post on the Internet, and wait at home for the consequences.
Indications: This Test is indicated when it's necessary to verify the credibility of a witness who states that:
- distributing Love Tubes is a perfectly safe activity, an activity that should not make anyone think about self-defense;
- the justice system is not biased, there is no pressure to convict a politician who distributed Love Tubes, and a judge who defends freedom of expression needs not fear retaliation.
Myrianna Castagna.
[Source]
Etymology: Named after a QPP analyst.
Instructions: Take an impeccable citizen, and for three years, make him suffer injustices from his government. Deactivate his license, lie to him when he tries to find out why, make him undergo a "cavity search" in his private life under false pretenses, drag his reputation into the mud, waste a lot of his time and money, and so on. Then, if this citizen's most violent reaction is to throw brown envelopes full of money at his lawyer, he passes the Test.
Indications: This Test is indicated when one wants to test the psychological stability of an individual, when he's assaulted. An individual who passes this Test demonstrates, as far as science can predict the future, that the probability of committing an act of violence is statistically negligible.
Before refuting point-by-point the QPP's allegations, we must note the fundamental mechanism that makes them possible: their systematic omissions. To see the gaps in their analysis, it suffices to look in the direction opposite of the one in which the QPP is trying to attract the Court's eyes.
These omissions mainly focus on two points: the Love Tubes (a group of five flyers distributed by S. Jetchick) and the political activities of S. Jetchick (open letters to Members of Parliament, participation in demonstrations, articles published on the Internet, etc.).
The QPP scrupulously insists on omitting the fact, no matter how clearly documented in their own Summary (for example, Annex 5e and Annex 8 and 9, §1.18.6), that S. Jetchick did everything a prudent man could have done do to verify the legality and the harmlessness of his "Love Tubes", before starting their distribution (at least concerning the three levels of government). The list of contacted authorities is long:
- Municipal, Provincial and Federal levels of government;
- the Canadian Army;
- all mosques in Canada;
- his bishop, Cardinal Gérald-Cyprien Lacroix;
- local Media (Journal de Québec, Le Soleil, Le Devoir,
Radio-Canada, etc.);
- etc.
In these letters, S. Jetchick politely asks the opinion of these authorities on the content of the "Love Tubes" and on his intent to distribute them.
The QPP also makes great efforts not to draw the Court's attention to the fact that these "Love Tubes" never led to a conviction, or even to a charge. They even fall into the stereotype of the iffy lawyer who puts the most important part of the contract in very small print! At the bottom of the page, for the one and only time in the 268 pages of their Summary of facts, they use much smaller characters when they admit: "No charges were laid as a result of these events". (1.6) Police events).
Why does the QPP make such efforts to avoid talking about this fact, and to avoid talking about the Legal Opinion, which was certainly requested from the Legal Department of the Quebec City PD, which eventually led to all these complaints been classified as groundless?
Let's not forget the importance of these "Love Tubes" for this whole case: S. Jetchick's permit was deactivated immediately at the beginning of the process, because of them, the investigation was launched because of them, the "rectal search" in S. Jetchick's private life was triggered because of them, they are cited as one of the reasons for the revocation of S. Jetchick's permit, the QPP's allegations about them concern the Criminal Code ("Public incitement to hatred"), not some trivial parking offense or speeding ticket, etc.
Despite the prolixity of the QPP's accusations against S. Jetchick, no quotation from any of the five "Love Tube" flyers appears anywhere in their long "analysis". The "Love Tubes" are there, in their Summary of Facts, but the QPP never refers to their content!
(The reason for the QPP's self-censorship concerning the contents of the "Love Tubes" is easy to understand. Imagine if a pedophile sent registered letters saying: "Hello, I intend to go and sexually abuse small children in your city in a few months. Do you have any objections to my project? Here is my name, address, photo, etc." If none of the politicians who received these letters notified the police, and this pedophile went ahead with his plans, who would be blamed? That explains why the "Love Tubes" must be simultaneously very bad (in order to be able to accuse S. Jetchick), but also perfectly good (to avoid causing trouble to the powerful people who did nothing after receiving them.) Of course, the same thing cannot, simultaneously and in the same respect, be good and bad, but the QPP is hemmed into this metaphysical pirouette, while it crosses its fingers, hoping the Court doesn't break out laughing when they notice.)
The QPP repeatedly accuses S. Jetchick of encouraging "defense with arms", while inevitably truncating the little "in accordance with the Law", which S. Jetchick never omits. La QPP insistently questions S. Jetchick on this subject, in their telephone interrogation (Annex 8 and 9, §1.18.16, Annex 8 and 9, §1.18.17, Annex 8 and 9, §1.18.22).
Simply re-reading these passages suffices to see that S. Jetchick never advocates "defense with arms" like that, without conditions. He never encourages vigilantism. He never encourages bypassing the police to redress a perceived wrong. On the contrary, S. Jetchick gives a specific example of defense with weapons: a criminal breaks down the door of Mrs. Castagna's house, kitchen knife in hand, to come and cut the throats of his children. His description of the right reaction to take in such a case is impeccable: first call 9-1-1 (the police, who should always be the first resort), while unlocking weapons in case the police do not arrive on time. Note also all the other specific conditions: it is an imminent threat (and not a distant threat, or even an proximate one); it is also an imminent threat to life (not property theft), etc.
Notice also the ridiculousness of the situation: the QPP accuses S. Jetchick of encouraging defense with arms, except that S. Jetchick never discussed this subject either on his website or in all his political activities, except once the QPP deactivated his license and began to persecute him! In the telephone conversation with Mrs. Castagna, S. Jetchick undergoes a police interrogation, and he has the obligation of answering all their questions, under penalty of losing his license!
Note also that where S. Jetchick speaks altruistically, for the Common Good of all citizens, as a politician who urges The People to respect themselves. The QPP then presents this as if S. Jetchick was speaking of his navel and his personal property (note the little "himself"): "Mr. Jetchick encourages the use of firearms to defend himself" (See Section 2: Defense with weapons).
Finally, notice the remarkable absence of authorities in Canada who are willing to take the Trump Test. It's as if all these people were terrorized! As if they feared for their own safety! And then, it's S. Jetchick who is the threat, because he talks about legitimate defense, while being the only politician in North America to have passed the Trump Test?
The QPP also makes a big fuss about a text on the Islamic State, entitled "Onward Canadian Soldiers! Marching As To War!", as proof that S. Jetchick "encourages defense with arms", while once again omitting the little "in accordance with the Law". This entire article is indeed an attempt to follow the democratic process in order to have the law changed, so that Canadians can go and legally defend the women and children massacred by the Islamic State (Annex 5d). Note especially at the end of the article the hyperlink saying "Correspondence with Mr. Denis Blanchette, Federal MP for the NDP in Louis-Hébert".
No matter how distastful to the QPP, this is how democracy works. If you want to change a law, you must try to convince your fellow citizens (for example by writing an article that you put on your website), and then try to convince your Federal Member of Parliament, who will then try to convince all of Parliament. Far from being a wrongdoing, this whole article shows how to do things legally. As for the foolish idea that every real Canadian should not be indignant at and should not try to stop the crimes of the Islamic State, we presume that the Court has a less compromised moral sense than Justin Trudeau's.
The QPP is indignant when it sees a burning Koran in the article entitled "Why I burned a Koran on September 11", while methodically failing to quote what is however clearly written at the start of this article:
Let's start with "non-reasons", i.e. what absolutely can't justify the burning of a
Koran: 2.1) Hatred of Muslims is not acceptable. We must not hate our neighbor.
Jesus clearly says: "Love one another" [Jn 13:34], and "Love your enemies, do good to
those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you"
[Lk 6:27-28], etc. Hatred of Muslims is not acceptable, especially on the part of
Christians!
(Annex 5k, Section 2.1)
This article is another illustration of the incoherence of the QPP. They consider that the photo of a burning Koran constitutes a symbol that transmits information, while neglecting another symbol that also transmits information: the content of the article written in plain English! It's often said that "A picture is worth a thousand words", omitting the: "when you're trying to put together a piece of furniture from Ikea!" On the other hand, for abstract concepts, images are useless. Do you see the Little Prince asking Antoine de St-Exupéry: "Please draw me a mens rea!" A burning Koran does not tell us why this Koran is burning. For that, we have to go beyond pictures and read all the polysyllabic words of a solidly structured article.
The QPP also screams like a maiden in distress when she sees S. Jetchick dressed as a gay zombie, with a cute little rainbow-colored tutu, in the article entitled "The Gay Zombies Cannabis Consumers Association", while failing (predictably) to mention things that are bothersome to them, such as:
2.16.1) offering one's political opinions to one's fellow citizens on the Public Square is not illegal in Canada, pace the QPP;
2.16.2) Bill Whatcott, S. Jetchick and the other "zombies" were sued for $ 104 million by Justin Trudeau et al. (it was a class action) before the Superior Court of Ontario, but the rich and famous law firm which sued (Cambridge LLP, specialized in the defense of the rights of homosexuals) finally admitted that S. Jetchick's flyer (one of the five composing the "Love Tubes") was perfectly acceptable and stopped suing him (Annex 5i, hyperlink called "Multi-million dollar lawsuit against Bill and his buddies...")
2.16.3) The QPP insists that S. Jetchick's face was masked during this parade, while failing to say that S. Jetchick, when he learned of the existence of the 104 million lawsuit, contacted Cambridge LLP to give them his name and address, and beg them to sue him too! (See previous reference). To make this accusation by the QPP worse, S. Jetchick sent a letter to Mrs. Castagna telling her to add this important fact to his file, and she never even agreed to send him an acknowledgment, claiming that she cannot send acknowledgments of receipt without the authorization of her superiors! (Annex 5g, "22) Open Letter to Myrianna Castagna")
2.16.4) S. Jetchick did the exact same thing (minus the spiffy tutu) at the Quebec City gay pride parade, where this time the police officers who attempted to intimidate S. Jetchick were the object an action before the Police Ethics Commission, which documents their misdeeds (Annex 5i, hyperlink Police Ethics Commissionner"). One can speculate on why the police is trying to draw the Court's attention toward the parade in Toronto rather than the one in Quebec City! (Surely purely wardrobe-related reasons!)
The QPP makes much of the marriage "'till death does us part" that it imagines between S. Jetchick and two FaceBook groups: La Meute and Storm Alliance. As usual, the QPP omits the fact, however extensively described in its own Summary of Facts, that S. Jetchick wanted to investigate these groups in order to determine if he should join them, and after having conducted his little investigation, he decided not to associate himself with them! (Annex 8 and 9, §1.18.25).
Let us not forget the circumstances: S. Jetchick is looking for tough guys ready to take risks to distribute Love Tubes. with him. He hears about certain groups through the CBC, which describes them as "nasty people" because they try to defend our identity and our laws. Knowing the corruption of the CBC which only seeks to destroy our identity and our laws, S. Jetchick figured these groups might be good, since the CBC says that they're bad! So he decided to conduct his little investigation.
In another stab at guilt by association, the QPP presents the friendship between S. Jetchick and Bill Whatcott as proof that S. Jetchick blindly approves everything said and done by Mr. Whatcott. This statement is even more surprising when one reads, in their own Summary of Facts, the very long exchange of emails between Jetchick and Whatcott, where one can read in great detail the insurmountable disagreements between these two activists, and the repeated refusal of S. Jetchick to distribute Mr. Whatcott's flyers. In other words, even when S. Jetchick publicly declares that you're his friend, he keeps his distances and will not follow you blindly (Annex 8 and 9, §1.18.12).
Let us not forget in closing, while we're talking about S. Jetchick's methods of association, that despite the fact he does everything he can to associate himself with Catholicism, he doesn't associate himself without reservations with everything in the Church (Annex 8 and 9, §1.18.8).
The QPP omits to remind the Court who decided to put lethal weapons in the hands of S. Jetchick, and why.
If a mother selected a babysitter for her children, in the same way the QPP decides to grant a firearms license, the Youth Protection Agency would kick down that woman's front door and remove her children from her custody!
Think of the Babysitter Selection Technique used by all normal Mothers. A mother will normally choose a teenage girl, often the daughter of one of her good childhood friends. This Mother will have known the candidate for many years, she will know the parents of the candidate, and she might have even changed the candidate's diapers when she was little!
A Mother would not advertise on the Internet:
Print this PDF form, click "Yes" or "No" on the check boxes: "Am I a pedophile?", "Am I a sadistic psychopath?", "Am I an escaped convict?", etc., and send me $80 to process your request. You'll receive your Babysitter's Permit by mail!
Remember that S. Jetchick, seeing the risks to public safety caused by the QPP, wrote to the Minister of Public Security, to express his concerns about Firearms Licenses, and to explain how the verification process should be improved! How did the QPP react? By drawing the Court's attention to everything but that, and by flinging mud at S. Jetchick! (Not to mention meddling in the quasi-sacred communications between a citizen and his Member of Parliament...)
See:
- Letter to the Minister of Public Security, especially
"4) A good firearms law?"
(Annex 5c)
- The Firearms Registry, false security promoted by corrupt politicians
seeking re-election
(Annex 8 and 9, §1.18.23)
- Why silence from the Media and the Police about the Respondents
of the mosque killer?
(Annex 8 and 9, §1.18.18)
- [No license] "if the person has religious beliefs that glorify violence against
innocent victims, or if the person has a philosophical position that makes him lose
sight of the foundations of Morals and Ethics"
(Annex 8 and 9, §1.18.20)
Just in 1.3) Applicant's Profile of the QPP's Analysis, there are many inaccuracies:
2.19.1) "Mr. Jetchick [is] a fan of conspiracy theories". Asserted without proof, and nowhere else in the 268 pages of the QPP's Summary of Facts do we find the slightest attempt to substantiate this gratuitous assertion.
Sergeant Louis-François Hétu, Sûreté du Québec.
[Source]
2.19.2) "He tried to integrate [...] the US Marines [...] without success". The US Marines wanted to recruit S. Jetchick! It was Louis-François Hétu and Jean-François Caron (his two friends who made the trip with him to go to Plattsburg, NY, in order to all enlist) who were refused, because they were not Americans. Louis-François is now a police officer with the QPP! (and S. Jetchick's neighbor) Apparently if an American wants to join the USMC, it's a sin, but if a Canadian tries the same thing, it is a reason to promote him! Note also the incoherence of Mrs. Castagna: by presenting the fact that S. Jetchick decided not to enter the USMC as being a negative fact, she implies that she is against the good understanding between husband and wife, and that she wishes the death of S. Jetchick! (Annex 8 and 9, §1.18.9).
2.19.3) "He tried to integrate [...] the Canadian army, without success.". If S. Jetchick had not successfully integrated the Canadian army, he could never have become a member of the Valcartier Recreational Shooting Club as a former soldier! (Annex 8 and 9, §1.18.15). S. Jetchick voluntarily left the military at the end of Phase 3 of the Infantry Officer's Course, requesting his release. Failure? Read again what he says about it (Annex 8 and 9, §1.18.9). Upon leaving the Army, S. Jetchick was able to return to school, finish his Diplôme d'Études Collégiales, then get a Bachelor of Philosophy, which eventually enabled him to earn a pleasant living as a conference interpreter for most of his working life. Failure?
2.19.4) "His attempts to integrate various religious groups [...] also ended in failure." Did Mrs. Castagna carefully re-read the long telephone conversation she had with S. Jetchick? (Annex 8 and 9, §1.18.10, Annex 8 and 9, §1.18.8) Does she understand what the Lacroix Test is?
2.19.5) "[S. Jetchick] says [...] that he wasted his life." What intellectual dishonesty! Mrs. Castagna cuts a chunk from a sentence, carefully leaving out the other, even more important piece behind! The full quote is:
Over a year ago, as my fortieth birthday loomed, I figured I had ruined my life: no
wife and kids, no Priesthood, no career, nothing. So I decided that, since I didn't
have anything to lose anymore, I might as well say out loud what I considered to be
the Truth!
And I've been having fun ever since! [our emphasis]
In this passage (although it is included in its entirety elsewhere in their Summary of Facts, Annex 5a), S. Jetchick recalls the joyful and liberating event of the discovery of his Vocation! He even explains it at length to Mrs. Castagna during their long conversation! (Annex 8 and 9, §1.18.11).
2.19.6) "Mr. Jetchick makes rigid remarks, which betray a possible intolerance towards Islam, homosexuality, as well as other groups". One of Mrs. Castagna's most heinous lies. All of S. Jetchick's political activity is based on the very important distinction between the human dignity of a person, always unassailable, and the evil acts of that same person. S. Jetchick hammers this essential distinction, either in the titles of his flyers, or in the long explanations he gives to Mrs. Castagna (Annex 8 and 9, §1.18.20), and even an article on his website which speaks very precisely of the philosophical principles underlying the Love Tubes (My Mother's Rotten Cottage). Mrs. Castagna deliberately chooses to deny the facts, and to assert her prejudice.
What about Ms. Castagna's reliability as a witness, if she is not even able to respect the evidence before her? In the space of an 8.5x11 half-page, she manages to squeeze in six inaccuracies! (or deliberate lies?)
Speaking of reliability of witnesses, the QPP only has one verifiable witness saying negative things about S. Jetchick: Ms. Myrianna Castagna.
S. Jetchick's physician, whom Mrs. Castagna admits having contacted, has nothing negative to say.
Same thing for S. Jetchick's lawyer (not the one who represents him during this case, but his "normal" lawyer, the one who analyzed and modified the Love Tubes to ensure that they respect the law, but who because of the contract signed with his employer, cannot take other cases). This lawyer, of course, had nothing negative to say to Ms. Castagna when she contacted him, but Ms. Castagna carefully avoids mentioning his testimony.
Another sparkling testimony from a childhood friend of S. Jetchick (since 3rd Grade Elementary!), also contacted by Mrs. Castagna, is passed over in silence by her.
And what about the Testimony with a capital "T"! Respondent who signed the permit for S. Jetchick, a dear friend for over 30 years, and the subject of long discussions on the phone between S. Jetchick and Mme Castagna (Annex 8 and 9, §1.18.27), Marie-Claude Bouffard was not even contacted. Probably it was too obvious that she would never say anything negative about "her Saint Joseph", as she called S. Jetchick!
What's left? Three truncated, mysterious "testimonies", without context and without transcription, and of course without names. Did these "witnesses" even see and approve of what Ms. Castagna makes them say? In addition, did these "witnesses" say that they feared for their safety, if their identity was revealed, or is it a typical QPP manoeuvre, which has consistently used all loopholes it could lay its hands on, to avoid transparency, since this saga began three years ago?
The QPP asks the Court to have blind confidence in Mrs. Castagna. We respond that we can "prove" that Ms. Castagna is an ISIS terrorist, and that she is about to blow up the CN Tower in Toronto, as well as on the verge of slaughtering several small abandoned kittens in the village of Saint-Ipsy-Dipsy (provided that we, too, can invoke the testimony of the Giant Invisible Pink Bunny).
Moreover, while re-reading this whole file, and confronted with the avalanche of sins of omission and perhaps even lies by Mrs. Castagna, we are sorely tempted to harbour some doubts about her reliability as a witness...
Is this case really politicized? Is S. Jetchick really a poor persecuted political dissident? To find out, all we need is a prejudice swap. If a feminist criticized Jesus and burned a Bible, to protest against the Church's prohibition of women's ordination, she would be entitled to a long fawning report from the CBC, not a persecution by the police. Same reaction if she then handed out flyers describing the errors of the President, during a Trump Pride Parade, while being disguised as the Smurfette. Same thing if she quoted the words of our National Anthem, to encourage Canada to defend women and children massacred by the Islamic State. And so on, and on, and on...
A good lawyer must help a Judge do his job. Of course, our point of view is very biased, but despite all our efforts to take a step back in this matter, we can still only see four options:
Option 1: The Ejection Seat. Any Judge who walks into a courtroom, and who realizes that one of the sides of "The Scales of Justice" is firmly bolted to the floor, must recuse himself. However, because of the content of the Love Tubes, any Judge who so far as quivers a nostril in a way which might be interpreted as a non-disapproval of the Love Tubes, would risk disastrous consequences. Seeing the special circumstances surrounding this case, a good judge might simply say: "I recuse myself from this case, unless someone higher up than me in the pay grade first takes the Trump Test, in order to prove that I don't have make one side win if I want to stay alive."
Option 2: Give back S. Jetchick's license. Probably a disastrous option for the Judge's career. There's a reason why three levels of government and four police forces (Quebec City PD, QPP, RCMP, Toronto PD) carefully avoided approving or disapproving the Love Tubes!
Option 3: Declare the QPP the winner. Probably a disastrous option for the Rule of Law, Democracy and Freedom of expression. On the other hand, the negative effects would not be felt immediately, and both the QPP and the CBC, as well as the whole political class would congratulate the Judge for having been "so impartial and wise"!
Option 4: Post-Crime before Pre-Crime. The QPP repeats in many places that a crime of Public Incitement to Hatred has been committed, approximately. Why not take them seriously? If a "post-crime" has been committed, why not prioritize it as it should, and then later on deal with the "pre-crime"? ("Pre-crime" in the sense that S. Jetchick would be guilty of a crime in the future, so he should be punished now by removing his license.)
A good judge would start by putting the "Pre-Crime" on the stove's back burner. He would snap his fingers and tell S. Jetchick: "Here's a Post-It with my address. Go lock up your guns in my basement. And you, Special Constable (because there is normally an armed police officer in the courtroom), accompany Mr. Jetchick, to certify safe transportation and storage". Indeed, a good judge would be acutely aware of the infamous case of the sister of the hairdresser of S. Jetchick's best friend: Valérie Gignac, police officer killed on duty, killed by the hunting rifle that a judge had ordered returned to a mentally unstable person, whom the police had previously tried to disarm!
A good judge would also know that the only way to validate if someone should have weapons is a modified version of the Babysitter Selection Technique. When S. Jetchick would have come often enough to mow his lawn and shovel his driveway and fix his leaking water heater, and the Judge would have had tea several times with S. Jetchick's Mother, etc., then he could make a real analysis, as opposed to the QPP.
After carefully "hitting the Pause button" on the Pre-Crime, a good Judge would then deal with the Post-Crime. A good judge would see that this "Post-Crime" is in fact a highly politicized file, a radioactive file that everybody is trying to get away from, by a distance of at least 1.7 Chernobyls. A judge would suspect that his only chance of success would be to rouse up We the People, by first attracting the attention of the Media. Knowing the corruption of the Media, a Judge would know that it takes blood, or sex, or some scandal to attract them. So this Judge would trigger the Lacroix Test. Indeed, if a post-crime really had been committed during the Love Tube distribution, we would have to verify if the whole Catholic Church was an accomplice! And the more this case would be "publicized", the higher the probabilities the QPP would want to run away, without the Judge needing to declare the QPP the loser! And of course, at any time, if this judge felt things were getting to hot for comfort, he would fall back on Option 1.
Judge René de la Sablonnière.
[Source]
My family members and friends are asking me how went yesterday's and today's trial. It's 7:59 P.M., and my head is still spinning a bit, so I'll try to gather a few thoughts. First:
- We'll only find out on 2020-Oct-08, at 9:30 am in room 4.14, when the judge will announce his judgment.
- Anyone could attend by video conference! All you needed was a compatible web browser (such as Firefox or Chrome, but not Microsoft Explorer or Pale Moon, etc.) and to connect with the hearing identifier on the WebRTC Portal. Four or five people from the Office of the Chief Firearms Officer did it, but no one else. On the other hand, it's forbidden to take screenshots or to record video or sound.
- I would have liked to take some notes for my "report", but when we talk, we have to stand (so impossible to take notes), and the rest of the time I was rather bewildered by everything that was going on.
- About a week before, I had let go of my lawyer whom I had hired at least since November of last year. To my knowledge, his prices were completely normal, he was very nice, and in addition he specializes in cases of revoked firearms licenses (in short, the ideal lawyer in the circumstances). But mass hysteria having destroyed my job, I could no longer afford a lawyer. He offered to go the rest of the way with me for free, but I was not comfortable with the idea of making someone else pay for my foibles.
- So I was alone for two days in front of a judge and the State prosecutor, and because of a legal technicality in this kind of case, it was I who had the burden of proof...
Ms. Castagna looks indulgently at
poor Stefan who was trying to cross-examine her.
The first day was basically the testimony of Ms. Myrianna Castagna, followed by my attempt to cross-examine. The testimony was basically reading the Summary of Facts. Something important happened at that time, but I did not notice it: the Prosecutor gave the judge only a dozen pages. I thought the Summary of Facts was the 268-page anvil, but the judge was given only the very beginning of the anvil.
After her testimony, I tried to cross-examine her. I was very clumsy, but the judge was very patient to my knowledge. I vaguely remember asking Ms. Castagna if she had given a truncated copy of the Love Tube to the judge (because she had omitted my business card, important to show that I'm not hiding). I tried to show her, in her 268-page anvil, the evidence that I always include my business card (like here, or here), but the judge didn't have the anvil. She ended up saying that she never claimed that I had distributed my Love Tubes anonymously (but she insinuated it, and encouraged the judge to believe it, by providing him with a defective Tube!). I then asked what was the technical term for a criminal who requests permission from all levels of government, municipal, provincial and federal, at least three months before committing his crime, by registered letter, providing his name, address, telephone, etc. She admitted she wasn't claiming that I had committed a criminal act (but she was insinuating it!).
I remember struggling quite a bit to ask a question like: "Could you tell the Court where in your analysis you explain the distinction between the dignity of the person and the value of their actions?" I was trying to explain that without this distinction, for example, any criticism of drunk driving becomes hatred toward alcoholics. The Prosecutor derided this, said there was no mention of alcoholism in this case, and told the judge that he was a judge, not a philosopher, so that he did not have to deal with such distinctions, etc.
In a thick fog of confused memories, I remember talking about the gay zombie story, and that the judge was incredulous when I told him that we had been sued for 104 million dollars by Justin Trudeau, but he seemed to believe me when I started to give him the details. I also gave my sheet of "Character References", which contained the names and contact details of people like my Mother, my Confessor, my Boss, and especially two people who had written to me to tell me that they could well be two of the three mystery witnesses who supposedly could not be identified because they were "too afraid of me". But the judge said it was out of the question for him to contact these people to make his own investigation. I also tried to file a copy of my website (on a USB thumb drive stuck on my business card), one for the Prosecutor and one for the judge, so that they would have complete information on this case. The judge never wanted to accept it. I also tried to ask a question like: "Do you know the French expression: «I make mine this way of thinking»?" to try to show the judge that the witness rejected case law on self defense with firearms.
Towards the end of the day, I read my testimony, which was just my story about Snow White and Wonder Woman. I was reading far too fast, so the judge couldn't take notes, and he was looking at me with a smile, probably because my interpretation of "Testimony" was not very legal! Of course, the Prosecutor did not cross-examine.
At the end of the first day, I had nothing more to say, and the judge seemed to have been on the verge of concluding the whole matter, when I stumbled upon a good thing to say. Mrs. Castagna was holding me down in a vast net of false insinuations, and I had no idea how to break free. I said something about lack of context, that she took everything I said out of context, that I had made the effort to base all my arguments on the Quebec Provincial Police's huge 268-page anvil (that I was waving around with all its little colored and numbered bookmarks I had added) in order to spare the judge of having to plow through a second anvil with all of my documentation. At that moment (in my opinion), the judge got scared. He spoke of not wanting this case to be reviewed in an appellate court, because I could not have presented my arguments (because he did not have the police's anvil, so all my references to documents were meaningless for him). So he said that we were going to start again the next day at the same time, and that the Prosecutor was going to make a copy for him, and that we were going to take all the time necessary to look at my arguments. I was disappointed: I wanted this over, so I could go rest and forget about this whole bloody affair.
Stefan tries to impress the judge by trying to lift the burden of proof.
[Source]
The next day began with (according to my subjective impression) a public flogging of the poor Prosecutor by the judge, concerning the 268-page anvil. It was only there that I understood the problem: the judge must read any document that is submitted in evidence. Even the longest and most useless document must be read in its entirety if it's officially filed in evidence. So judges are constantly battling to have as few documents as possible filed. The judge randomly "cut" the 268 pages (like a deck of playing cards, for a magic trick) and began to read aloud an excerpt, then another, neither of which turned out to have any connection with the case. I now suspect that this is a standard police thing: they artificially "inflate" the case submitted to the judge, so the judge only takes the police summary, leaving out the real documentation which may prove the contrary!
Then I started by asking the judge a question of law: I know I have the burden of proof, a bit like a barbell I have to lift off the floor. But what happens if the barbell is bolted to the ground, i.e. that it's impossible to lift? I gave the example of being forced to prove that I've never tried to kill Queen Elizabeth II. Then I took an example from the case: Is it possible for me to prove that I never tried to associate with La Meute to commit a criminal act with them? All I can prove is that I tried to partner with La Meute to commit a legal act (distribute Love Tubes), and then challenge the Prosecutor to show in the 268-page anvil proof that I tried to associate myself with them to commit an illegal act. I didn't say it that well, but I got the impression that the judge understood. (The judge also said I probably scared them away because even they, a far-right group, thought I was too far to the right for them!)
Then I continued: It is impossible for me (the barbell is bolted to the ground) to prove that I have never encouraged people to commit illegal acts with firearms. All I can do is ask the Prosecutor to show in the anvil all the passages that prove otherwise, if he can. I continued in the same vein for the conspiracy theories to which I supposedly ascribe. (During this time, the Prosecutor said almost nothing. Since he doesn't have the burden of proof, and since the police must always win this kind of administrative file reviews made by a judge, I suppose he was just like a horse waiting for an annoying horsefly to land on another horse.)
Finally, I reused the same argument for the mystery witnesses (how could I prove that they did not say that, if I do not have access to them and that the judge refuses to speak to them?). The judge at least asked for an in camera session to speak directly with Mrs. Castagna for a few minutes outside my presence. Of course Mrs. Castagna can lie behind closed doors too, but at least I was not dismissed out of hand like yesterday. After coming back, I said I had nothing more to say, so it all ended around 10:45 A.M.
My regrets? There are several. First, I had made a nice copy of my website, with a totally different home page, which was just a table of contents to the specific points on my website that are relevant to the cause. The judge could therefore have instant access to everything, without having to rummage around or reading the whole website. All I had to do was print out that page, and the little bits and pieces of my website it was connected to. But I didn't know that the judge doesn't have the right to receive a document, and only to read part of it, and a USB key is one and only one document...
Secondly, I heard the Prosecutor and the Judge talk about the Vavilov ruling, which my lawyer had told me about, because it concerns the distinction between a "reasonable" decision and a "correct" decision. My lawyer said that the standard in my case, because of the implications for the Charter and freedom of speech, had to be the correct decision. But the Prosecutor told the judge that it was only the reasonable decision (that is, a decision made by a bureaucrat, like Ms. Castagna, for example, can be completely wrong, as long as the bureaucrat apparently does his best). Except that I was already so shaky on my feet that I did not dare to venture on another pond, even more icy and slippery.
Third, listen to popular wisdom, such as, "Don't talk to the police outside the presence of your lawyer!" I should have said to everyone I had given as a character reference: "If it's the police calling you, tell them to call back later, and have a recording device and witnesses with you, otherwise they can put any words in your mouth, and then pretend that you asked them to remain anonymous, so that you cannot set the record straight". Another popular tip is: "Have you consulted your lawyer"? Fortunately for me, my flyers had been checked by my lawyer before I distributed them. In this case, it made the judge say to the prosecutor something like: there is nothing illegal in his flyers, even the police refused to lay charges for his flyers.
Will I win? I'm not filled with hope, given the politicized nature of the file (and the incompetence of that dude who was representing me that day). But at least it was free, I was not charged with contempt of court, I thought I scored a few points on the second day, I certainly made the police sweat more than if I had just sold my weapons when they took away my license about nine months ago, and all the same, for a guy who never studied to be a lawyer, who gets thrown in the water and who has to swim, I figured I could have done worse! Thank you to my Advocate!
My Advocate, Sister Marie-Claude Bouffard, 1958-Feb-12 -- 2020-Mar-30.
Non enim in arcu meo sperabo, et gladius meus non salvabit me.
[Ps 43:7]
Let's Adore Jesus-Eucharist! | Home >> Politics