Canada Again in the Forefront in Its Efforts to Protect the Health of the Mind and Bodies of Her People

While a certain class of the public officials in America are, judged by their activities, hell bent on adulterating the drinking water of the American people with dangerous Toxic drugs, the Supreme Court of Canada denies this privilege to the officials of its water supply.

In a news item published by The Globe and Mail, Canada's leading newspaper, edition June 27, 1957, under the title:

"Ottawa, June 26. - The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that Metropolitan Toronto cannot add fluorine compounds to the water which it supplies to the 13 municipalities which make up the metropolitan community.

"As Chief Justice Patrick Kerwin, who dissented, noted in his judgment, the majority decision raises the question whether the other municipalities in Ontario which are already fluoridating their water actually have the power to do so.

"The court's ruling was a 5 to 2 decision to dismiss the appeal of Metropolitan Toronto against an Ontario Appeal Court decision. The Ontario Court had reversed an earlier decision by Mr. Justice F.G. MacKay, who had ruled, in a case brought by Forest Hill against Metro, that the senior municipality was entitled to add fluorine compounds to its water supply.

"Both Mr. Justice Rand and Mr. Justice Cartwright who wrote majority decisions found that Metro Toronto's fluoridation bylaw was not aimed at making the supply of water more pure and wholesome.(1)

-------------------------------------------------
(1) This is a conclusion arrived at by all but a few of those who have given time, thought, and a thorough investigation, though it might not be wise for an individual to publicly state such an opinion. However, in order to be perfectly fair and just, it is our personal opinion that there are many men in public life, as well as reputable physicians, who actually believe it would be a good and desirable thing to pollute the public's drinking water with Toxic substances.
-------------------------------------------------

"On that basis, the majority found that the municipality had exceeded the jurisdiction granted it by the Ontario Legislature. Finding with Messrs. Justices Rand and Cartwright were Messrs. Justices Robert Taschereau, Fauteux and Abbott.

In effect the court's decision today tosses the problem back at the Ontario Government.

"If the Ontario Legislature means the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto to have the power to add fluorides to its water, Mr. Justice Cartwright noted, the Legislature can make its true intention clear by amending the Metropolitan Toronto Act.

"It was designed, as Mr. Justice Cartwright put it, ‘to cause the inhabitants of the Metropolitan area, whether or not they wished to do so,(2) to ingest daily quantities of fluoride in the expectation that this will render great numbers of them less susceptible to tooth decay."

-------------------------------------------------
(2) Evidently the Canadian Supreme Court is jealous of the rights of her people and will not permit them to be oppressed by compulsions such as forcing them to ingest a Toxic substance such as sodium fluoride, in their drinking water, feared by millions as a destroyer of body and mind.
-------------------------------------------------

"In his dissent, Chief Justice Kerwin said Metro's action in passing its fluoridation bylaw was not an invasion of the field of public health and there was, therefore, no need to refer to any provincial statue except the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, Section 41, which gave the council power to pass bylaws which would guarantee an abundant and continued supply of pure and wholesome water.(3)

-------------------------------------------------
(3) It might be argued with truth that much of the public drinking water is not pure and wholesome, but if that is true, then certainly diluting it with a highly Toxic substance will not purify it, rather make it all the more dangerous. There are means of purification without the employment of poisonous substances.
-------------------------------------------------

"During the Supreme Court hearing, J.J. Robinette, arguing on a brief prepared jointly with J. Ragnar Johnson, Forest Hill solicitor, had claimed that metro Toronto doesn't have the power to administer medication on a mass scale.(4)

-------------------------------------------------
(4) And among a free people, or supposedly free people, no man or group of men, should be trusted with such power.
-------------------------------------------------

"Carried to an extreme, he said such arguments could mean that Toronto could add orange juice to its water because orange juice is good for babies and would not make the water impure.(5)

-------------------------------------------------
(5) This point is well taken, and does credit to Mr. Robinette's sense of reasoning. It is not only a sane reasoning but apropos due to the fact that the vitamins and minerals in oranges are among the most important elements to help preserve healthy teeth. It might be further argued that there are many substances which might be mixed with the water that would be of great benefit to health.
-------------------------------------------------

"The argument by Harold Manning, Metro Toronto lawyer, that the addition of fluorine compounds does not affect the quality of wholesome water was rejected by Mr. Justice Rand's decision although he said he found the argument attractive.

"Fluoridation, he said, `is not a means to an end of wholesome water for water's function but to an end of a special health purpose for which a water supply is made use of as a means."(6)

-------------------------------------------------
(6) A proper and correct conclusion. It is compulsory mass medication and should have no part in the government of a free people. To sanction it is a first step in mass slavery. If man can be compelled to partake of a poison against his will, than it is certain that he can be forced to do any other thing against his will.
|Top|