Wed, Nov 15, 2016 at 11:51 AM
from:Christine Massey <cmssyc@gmail.com>
Dear Mr. O’Connor,
http://www.peelregion.ca/counc
Would you please provide me a copy of the original act of 1957? My understanding is that it states the purpose of water fluoridation (medication).
As you know, medication without informed consent is illegal, and the pro-fluoridation authorities are now pretending that fluoridation is not medication even though any dictionary will tell you otherwise, and many European countries have stated that they rejected fluoridation in part because it is a form of compulsory medication, and Canada’s Supreme court stated in 1957 that fluoridation is compulsory medication, in Metropolitan Toronto v. Forest Hill (Village): https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-
You will best prices on sildenafil http://djpaulkom.tv/dating-might-seem-become-aggravating-to-females-2/ be able to perform sex effectively and impress your partner. The viagra online visit description ingredients of the capsules consist of potent herbs and natural aphrodisiacs. In this way, great cialis 40 mg find this link now work to build libido as well as help the development of tumour cells. Live a Healthy Relationship A penile erection that is required for having sex with the maximum dose of only one overnight generic viagra per day.
Thank you,
Christine
Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 11:51 AM
from:Christine Massey <cmssyc@gmail.com>
Dear Regional Solicitor, Patrick O’Connor,
Having never received a reply from you to my email of June 13, 2016, below, I and other residents remain in a state of bewilderment at your “Report on the Legislative Framework for the Authorization and Regulation of Community Water Fluoridation“, which deals with the Region’s addition of a hazardous chemical that threatens the physical security of residents to municipal tap water, published in the June 2016 agenda of the Fluoridation Committee (http://www.peelregion.ca/council/agendas/2016/2016-06-09-cwfc-agenda.pdf).
Specifically:
1) You stated that “There is no direct federal regulation of community water fluoridation” and discussed Health Canada’s publication Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality.
You did not address s. 7 of the Canadian Charter and Rights and Freedoms, which states that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”
You also did not address the federal Food and Drugs Act, which prohibits the sale of articles of food or drink that “has in or on it any poisonous or harmful substance.”
Both of these laws are superior to the Fluoridation Act. Why did you not address them?
2) You also did not address Health Canada’s note published in Table 2 of their Guidelines stating that the MAC (maximum “acceptable” concentration) for arsenic (a carcinogenic contaminant of the Region’s fluoridation chemical, hydrofluorosilicic acid) is based on not on safety but “treatment achievability; … levels should be kept as low as reasonably achievable.”
You also did not address Health Canada’s note published in Table 2 of their Guidelines stating that exposure to lead (a neurotoxic contaminant of the Region’s fluoridation chemical) “should be kept to a minimum“.
Why did you not address these important aspects of Health Canada’s Guidelines?
3) You also ignored Section 20 of Ontario’s Safe Drinking Water Act which states that “no person shall cause or permit any thing to enter a drinking water system if it could result in … a drinking water health hazard….” and “Dilution No Defence”. Violation of Section 20 is a criminal offence.
The SDWA is superior to the Fluoridation Act. Why did you not address Section 20 of the SDWA?
Please note that most the above information was laid out by ‘Superstar’ lawyer Nader Hasan in his June 2014 legal brief (available here: http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/peel.june2014.pdf). Nader made a presentation to the Region in June 2014 about this.
I hope that a more thorough and accurate overview of the legislative framework pertaining to the practice of artificial water fluoridation as practiced in the Region of Peel (adding toxic waste HFSA to our drinking water) will soon be provided by Regional Staff to Council so that Council can make a properly-informed decision on this issue.
Best wishes,
Christine Massey
Fluoride Free Peel
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca
*******
From: (Councillor ) Sprovieri, John Councillor
Sent: 2016/11/15 8:36 PM
To: ‘patrick.oconnor@peelregion.ca‘ <patrick.oconnor@peelregion.ca>
Hi Patrick,
Based on the exact wording of the Food and Drug Act, I have no doubt that Peel Region is violating the Act. The main question that staff needs to be answer is, ‘’What exactly is the Water Treatment Agent used to Artificially Fluoridate the Water Supply in order to determine which level of Government should be responsible for the decision making.
I have a strong suspicion that the reason why Health Canada pawned off the responsibility to the Provinces in 1957 after the Supreme Court Ruling that Fluoridation is a ‘’Compulsory Preventative Medication’ and the Provinces pawned off the responsibility to the Municipalities in 1962 with the Fluoridation Act, is because of the violation of their own Act.
It is very likely that Delany’s Private Members Bill to Mandate Water Fluoridation to all the people in Ontario was not passed into law is because of the violation of the Safe Clean Water Act.
I hope that staff will have an answer of what is Fluoride for the committee at the next meeting.
John.