Dear Editor:
On June 19, 2016 Jessie Simpson’s rights were stripped away.
Section 7 in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: 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, and to respect the basic principles of justice whenever they intrude on those rights.
Right to life: autonomy (legal right to decide own destiny) and quality of life are properly treated as liberty.
Right to liberty: to enjoy individual dignity and independence.
Right to security: includes a person’s right to control his/her own bodily integrity, and defined as when ‘action causes severe psychological harm to the individual’.
In a horrific manner, Jessie’s freedom came to a halt.
Sue Simpson fights for simple justice, for her son, for herself. She has lived this nightmare for 102 months — or, to define it, each and every moment for 3,145+ days. And it continues.
Jessie is entitled to simple dignity of his person from those that care for him, which is required 24/7 for the past 3,145+ days, and it continues.
The costs are staggering, no matter how you calculate it. His supervision goes beyond what is ‘funded’ financially, and facility resident staff physically and mentally. Without family support who know him best, his guardianship would be a dire picture.
A derogatory comment was made online with regards to an editorial, of Jessie and his family’s ‘lifestyle’ and all that encompasses it.
The ending sentence included ‘consequences of our actions and choices’.
Jessie, his mother, his family, had no choice. Whatsoever. And that is just wrong.
Mr. Teichrieb’s actions made that definite. And the consequences for Jessie and his family is overwhelming.
Should all the funds currently held by the court be released, it amounts to 4.3% of the total awarded to Jessie. I imagine no one would agree to 4.3% of anything, yet Sue Simpson has battled for almost nine years to perhaps come to this paltry amount.
Jessie and his family deserve no less than the basest of fundamental justice.
— Sharlene Klein
Dear Editor:
Yes, I value having a local paper, picked this one up recently.
I am 89, do not get out much, so enjoyed reading about what is going on around
Kamloops. Many years ago I had a small business in town.
I am mailing a token one time donation in appreciation for the work you do.
— Barbara MacManus
Editor’s note: Last issue’s letter from Bret Jolliffe inspired a few responses from the community:
Dear Editor,
I applaud your commitment to local journalism and thank you for your efforts.
I have seen some comments alleging censorship and it is infuriating but not unexpected. We’ve witnessed a very vocal minority of Kamloops residents attempt to dominate public discourse with views that most of us might consider extremist.
They don’t need another platform. They have plenty of other opportunities to assert their opposition to progressive ideals and to continue expressing their victimhood.
Thank you for maintaining your stance.
— Tyrone Joseph
Kamloops
Dear Editor
What rock did this person crawl out from under? Sounds like he needs to move to the USA. Preferably to a state where it is OK to marry your sister, or where you brush one tooth. This is the 21st century, he needs to catch up.
— Lorne Wood
Kamloops
Dear Editor:
If Mr. Jolliffe’s published letter had included the N-word, would you have published it? He certainly insulted other groups whose human rights are in jeopardy. Ugly opinions and name-calling based in bigotry and ignorance don’t belong in public discourse. Jolliffe’s letter was inflammatory and outright mean. If the local paper will allow the same level of divisive and cruel language as social media, what’s the point of a print paper?
Most major news outlets no longer allow commentary because of voices like Mr. Jolliffe’s. Just because someone accuses you of censorship doesn’t mean you have to bite the worm on the hook! That this also has to do with another discussion and platform entirely should have disqualified this letter from publication.
— A Concerned Citizen
Name withheld by request
Editor’s note: while we’re happy to have printed these respsonses, we’d also like to put this particular conversation to rest. Thanks. — T.S.