NATIONAL AMNESTY FOR THE LATIMER FAMILY

The attitude of the Liberal party towards the Latimer family drama.

In August 2001, like more than 60,000 citizens of this country (see petition by the Canadian Association for Civil Liberties), I sent a written request to Mme Justice Anne McLellan, then Justice Minister and Attorney General of Canada, asking her to intervene on behalf of Robert Latimer, for a sentence reduction. Following is part of the answer I received, which I suspect must be similar if not totally identical to all others who had sent a similar request: “As the Supreme Court has recognized, this case raises difficult and delicate questions causing a division among Canadians.”

Mme Minister and Attorney General was referring to section 4 of the Supreme Court Judgment: “ We recognize the questions raised by Mr. Latimer’s case are those who divided Canadians giving rise to a national debate.” In their judgment from January 18th 2001, the judges upheld the sentence for second-degree murder against R. Latimer.

But what sort of division were they referring to, since, from 1993 at the very beginning of this tragedy pools clearly indicated a majority support (between 70 and 76%) of the population for humanitarian and ultimate solutions in extreme situations such as the Latimers experienced? This majority support was maintained up until the Supreme Court judgment of January 2001, when we reiterated our indignation against the life sentence imposed on Robert Latimer. Furthermore, 59% among Canadians were against Latimer conviction to second-degree murder for his compassionate gesture towards his daughter.

If we differ on one point, it’s on the objectivity of some judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada. As a matter of fact, similar pools indicate that 50% believe that some judgments by this court are politically inclined (for details on these pools, see: “My attempt to understand the Supreme court’s January 18/2001 decision on R. Latimer’s web site: robertlatimer.net [order Robert’s book]

When referring to divisions, our judges and politicians are probably alluding to their own divisions… The majority of one judge (5 against 4), in 1993 was sufficient to deny Sue Rodriguez right to a “medically assisted suicide.” So the strangely unanimous judgment by the Supreme Court judges in 2001 only confirmed or sanctioned the reversal of the only equitable judgment in this “case”, thus the one by the judge of the second court case, which granted a constitutional exemption to R. Latimer based on article 12 from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Liberty, calling the sentence disproportionate in regards to the offence. Judge Ted Noble compromise reached us, and is always in accordance with our common sense and humanitarian feeling i.e. it is cruel, uncommon and extreme that this father would serve a life sentence for having ended the cruel, uncommon and extreme conditions his daughter Tracy had to endure.

It’s as if those elected and all others involved named, had a common interest in this “cause” with “delicate questions” to confuse the legislative debate on euthanasia with a certain level of legal tolerance in view of situation with concrete and recurring compassionate nature, which affect many among us.

It may even be possible, that our elected members are not suffering such divisions on those « delicate questions ». Otherwise, how could we explain the about face of the Chrétien government, to reconsider it’s promise to hold a free vote in Parliament during 1995, following a senatorial committee report on euthanasia and “assisted suicide”, which recommended amending the criminal code for “compassionate murder cases”.

In any case, it is still unacceptable that this government unduly transfer this presupposed division on our shoulders, which is in no way a reflection of our clearly manifested opinion in those cases of “compassionate murder”.

The origin of the Supreme Court unanimous judgment is based on another attempt to divide us

If our government still has an interest on dividing us to better govern, others were and are still interested in dividing our compassionate feelings. We are talking here of a coalition of at least six organizations devoted to the defence of the rights of peoples-with-handicaps, together with two Pro-Life organizations to influence the Supreme Court judges in sentencing R.Latimer because his daughter was handicapped. Their preference being that she continued suffering under the pain cycle she was submitted to.

According to those activists, who are in some ways Pro-Life-Handicaps, our own compassion towards the compassionate act of a father in consideration for his daughter would be inappropriate: “ Richler attributed the strong levels of public support for Latimer to the fact that most people don’t have close contact with someone with a severe disability”, Diane Richler of the Canadian Association for Community Living, (Canadian Press, December 13th, 2001).

Hadn’t the Latimers cared for their suffering “severely disabled” daughter for over 12 years? Yes of course, but for their own misfortune they are non-handicapped parents and not active in a group for the rights of Persons-with-handicaps… Therefore, disqualified as experts on the rights of Persons-with-handicaps. In the mind of the so-called experts in questions of handicaps, this is the reason why we were not allowed to feel Tracy’s pains, moral or physical, or, to those of her father who would have committed the crime of being overly sensitive to the uncontrollable pains of his daughter. This in other words and according to the activists, Latimer should have before hand perceived Tracy as a Person-with-handicaps to her own detriment. A father doesn’t stop being a father because he is non-handicapped, as Tracy was a human being and a daughter, not only a Person-with-handicaps as the activists claimed. Accordingly and in full respect of her Rights, as stipulated under articles 7, 12 and 15(1) of the Charter of Rights, Tracy should have been protected against any and all “unusual and/or cruel treatments”.

In reality, it was assumed that the Latimers, even as parents, had no right or freedom to pass a judgment on their daughter’s quality of life, as if her life had acquired value added or absolute quality because she was handicapped.

A judgment, which discriminate against all parties.

More or less, the Supreme Court judges got trapped on the law field by the Pro-Life-Handicaps lobby, who was dead set judicially, on the approval of obstinate therapeutic methods to one of their own, charging the father for the murder their Cause…

Robert Latimer would have spent only one year in prison if the judge in the second trial had accepted the jury’s recommendations. Robert Latimer would have been set free if the judges had acknowledged the mean of “defence based on necessity” inscribed in the Criminal code, which recognize an ultimate act in an extreme situation: “It rests on a realistic assessment of human weakness, recognizing that a liberal and humane criminal law cannot hold people to the strict obedience of laws in emergency situations where normal human instincts, whether of self-preservation or of altruism, overwhelmingly impel disobedience. The objectivity of the criminal law is preserved; such acts are still wrongful but in the circumstances are excusable. Praise is indeed not bestowed, but pardon is…” (Supreme Court judgment, section 26)

Robert Latimer has spent nearly five years in prison. Those are useless suffering imposed on him and his family.

The judges decision to convict Robert Latimer to serve a minimum jail sentence of ten years, is a pure and simple misappropriation of at least three articles from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom act:

ART.7. 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.

ART.12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

ART.15(1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

We feel that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom was misappropriated to better lynch the Latimer family in the name of these afore mentioned articles. A family was perceived as non-handicapped (like the majority of us), to the benefit of People-with-handicaps “Cause”. Consequently came the Supreme Court’s discriminatory judgment, handing over legal custody of Tracy to the activists-extremists for the rights of People-with-handicaps. Since they were totally unscrupulous to posthumously and retroactively recuperate the daughter, holding her hostage to have the father sentenced to jail and separate the family.

Such an illegal act performed in a totally legal environment requires reparation

A National Amnesty for the Latimer family.

We all bear a certain level of responsibility in this “Cause”. If Latimer is guilty so are we all. In his situation, we would have had to choose between two options: act as he did or do nothing, in which case we would be morally guilty.

If Robert and Laura Latimer were found guilty as non-handicapped-parents, if Tracy was in a way found guilty of being “only” a Person-with-handicaps and if Robert Latimer remains incarcerated in spite of a popular verdict against the punishment, then WE ARE ALL GUILTY!

Therefore, we are all condemned to serve a compassionate sentence: A NATIONAL AMNESTY FOR THE LATIMER FAMILY

This sentences was evoked by the judges of the Supreme Court as inscribed in articles 89 and 90 of our Criminal Code; it’s the prerogative of Royal Pardon: “It is also worth referring again to the royal prerogative of mercy that is found in s. 749 of the Criminal Code […]” Where the courts are unable to provide an appropriate remedy in such cases, where the executive sees as unjust imprisonment, the executive is permitted to dispense “mercy”, and order the release of the offender. The royal prerogative of mercy is the only potential remedy for persons who have exhausted their rights of appeal and are unable to show that their sentence fails to accord with the Charter. But the prerogative is a matter for the executive, not the courts. Our government if it chooses so, will undoubtedly consider the matter; examine all of the underlying circumstances surrounding the tragedy of Tracy Latimer, which took place in October 24, 1993, some seven years ago. Since that time Mr Latimer has undergone two trials and two appeals to the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan and this Court, with attendant publicity and consequential agony for him and his family” (Supreme Court judgment of January 18th, 2001, sections 89 and 90).

We are all guilty, but most of all, we are ALL RESPONSIBLE. It is our responsibility and our duty towards the Latimer family and ourselves, to engage in necessary action AND PUT PRESSURE ON OUR ELECTED GOVERNMENT TO GRANT National Amnesty to the Latimer Family.

To send a copy of text for amnesty to our government: http://michelwbujold.com/amnisty/

Montreal, the 14th of september 2005

Dear Robert Latimer,

First, excuse in advance my english or my french in english… I hope you are doing well even if you are in exile. I saw you and I heard you on TV after the Supreme Court’ decision. You said that they didn’t understand you.

As a independent writer, I have tried to understand you and to understand THEY. And after almost five years at nearly full time I come to the same conclusions as you, taking account of my own perception:
1. The Supreme Court’s judgment, almost literally, was a sort of a transcript of Facts and Background of the Council of Canadians With Disabilities in Coalition.
2. The extremist minority of these activists of the rights of persons-with-disabilities went after you and your family because you were non-disabled (except for the poor Tracy whom they held hostage for their Cause) and non-activists yourselves…
3. That’s why I consider the Supreme Court’s decision as discriminatory – so against our Charter – before you and your family – including Tracy in the first place of course - and all of us Canadians as a majority.

I have tried to express and prove that in two books. The first one was published two years ago. The title is Le don de la mort (Death as a gift, which means that I consider your ultimate intervention for Tracy as a paradoxical gift of life). This first essay was supposed to be translated in english but the publisher went out of business. So the book had a very little impact. That’s why I decided to rewrite this first text. It is done and it will be published at my own expenses in few weeks. The new work and new title is Le lynchage constitutionnel de la famille Latime (The constitutional lynching of the Latimer family), a publishing of 21 millions of Canadians. In this new version I am trying again to demonstrate what I just wrote in 1.2.3.

This edition is mostly in french but a part have been translated so that an english reader should get the main argument. Two hundred copies will be in circulation in few months.
I wont get any money from that work. The money I will get will pay for printing new copies. I hope the response will be more important this time.
In order to get the media attention I plan to launch the book in Ottawa. I will be there the 11, 12 and 13th of October.

The first day I will be in front the house of the new General Governor to ask her remind to the executive that you have been in jail for too much time now and against our will as the majority of this country. Also I will officially recommend you as a Companion of the Order of Canada… You deserve this honour and gratification because you took into your own hands the humanity of your daughter.

The second day I will be in front of the Supreme Court’s building. There I will deliver seven symbolic subpoenas to all the judges of Supreme Court to tell them that they did not do their job on your case.

The third day I will be in front of the Parliament to deliver subpoenas to the members of the executive to remind them that the royal prerogative of mercy must come from their own initiative due to the respect they own for our democratic opinion.

All this action can be followed at my internet address: http://michelwbujold.com.
There, a petition is avalable, National amnesty for the Latimer family, which people can directly send to the executive. http://michelwbujold.com/amisty.

The idea of the supoenas is to condemn the authors of your condemnation to a compassionate sentence: sign the National amnesty… So I hope it will be sufficient to mobilize more people to protest against the injustice of your imprisonment.

Take care, dear Robert Latimer, and keep faith in your destiny. Truth can’t be wrong.

Being realistic, I don’t expect a miracle from my personal initiative. But I hope it will be a moral encouragement for you. But I am sure of one thing. As you said, only a new trial can serve as a full reparation for what they have done to you ignoring or pretending to ignore what good you have done for Tracy. In this way, OUR book could be a strong basis from which good will people should understand that a crime have been perpetrated against the humanity of you and your family including Tracy.

Of course, you will be the first one to receive a copy of OUR book. If you consider this writing good enough to help you, I will be happy to send you more copies. It will be the job of everybody of us to put this sort of prosecution address into the hand of the right people, I will ask the Friends to draw a list of these people so that we don’t send two copies to one person.

By the way, I want to ask you pardon for those who will never ask you, and your family, pardon. Pardon. Pardon, Robert.

I would have liked to visit you and to give you the book lively, but I don’t have enough money for the travel. After all my efforts, people ask me if I have met you. I respond to them: I can’t, he is in jail. This is no place for me and for him… But, as soon as he gets out…

Best and warm regards to you, to Laura and the kids,

Michel-Wilbrod Bujold
1911, rue Panet, Montréal, H2L 3A1 514-525-2133
wilbuj31@hotmail.com ou contact@ michelwbujold.com

P.S. Just send me some words so I know for sure that you received this letter

MA DÉCLARATION DE PARDON

JE DEMANDE PARDON À LA FAMILLE LATIMER

À toi, Robert Latimer
À toi, Laura Latimer
À vous, Lee, Lindsay et Brian Latimer,
Je vous demande
PARDON
au nom de tous ceux
qui ne vous demanderont jamais pardon
malgré toutes les souffrances inutiles
qu'ils vous ont causées depuis le décès de Tracy, votre fille, votre soeur unique
PARDON
au nom de ces avocats et de ces juges
qui ont en quelque sorte trahi la loi humaine
PARDON
au nom de ces prétendus porte-parole
des droits des personnes-avec-handicaps
qui sont aussi des personnes-avec-ou-sans-handicaps
ou/et qui sont aussi des parents d'enfants handicapés
et qui vous ont aussi en quelque sorte trahis
pour leur Cause
PARDON
au nom de tous ces croyants pratiquants ou non
qui ont aussi de la même sorte trahi leur Dieu
qui pourrait être le Même pour tous
dont on nous a appris qu'il est infiniment bon
infiniment juste et infiniment miséricordieux
PARDON
au nom de tous ces éditorialistes et chroniqueurs
de tous les journaux, de tous les médias
qui ont quasi unanimement médiatisé
sans le critiquer
le jugement lui-même unanime des juges de la Cour suprême
PARDON ET PARDON
au nom de tous ceux
qui n'ont pas su et qui ne savent toujours pas ce qu'ils font
ou
qui ont su et qui savent encore trop ce qu'ils font
ce qu'ils vous ont fait
et ce qu'ils veulent toujours vous faire
PARDON

Montréal, le 10 octobre 2005

Vos Excellences madame Michaëlle Jean
Et monsieur Jean-Daniel Lafond

Votre excellence, Madame Jean,

Je m’adresse d’abord à la mère de famille. Je voudrais attirer votre attention sur le drame de la famille Latimer. Donner naissance à une enfant victime d’une très grave paralysie cérébrale est sûrement une des pires épreuves que peut subir un parent. Cette épreuve, Laura et Robert Latimer l’ont amoureusement et courageusement assumée pendant près de treize ans. Tracy, à qui beaucoup de choses ont manqué, a eu droit à la vigilance indéfectible de ses parents.

Mais il y a une limite humaine à la douleur. À celle que Tracy pouvait endurer et à celle que ses parents devaient endurer. Aucune loi ou aucune bonne volonté médicale ne peut comprendre les limites de cette capacité d’endurance. Les Latimer ont jugé que cette limite avait été franchie dans la situation extrême de Tracy.

Vos excellences, Madame Jean et M. Lafont

Au Canada, nous avons majoritairement compris cela. Nous avons compati au sort cruel et inusité de cette famille. Les juges de la Cour suprême ont eux-mêmes évoqué la possibilité d’une prérogative royale de clémence. Pourtant, depuis bientôt cinq ans, les Latimer sont toujours désunis sous nos lois. Et, permettez-moi de le dire sans détours, comme en exil dans leur propre pays. Et toujours sous nos lois, un père compatissant souffre sous les apparences d’un meurtrier, le pire des meurtriers comme si la compassion était devenue la pire des motivations.

En tant que société démocratique et majoritaire nous avons largement dépassé notre propre limite à faire souffrir les membres de la famille Latimer. Reste le baume de votre intervention afin que les Latimer puissent enfin vivre en toute sérénité le deuil de leur fille.

Michel-Wilbrod Bujold

P. S. S’il y a un drame qui a unifié «les deux solitudes » c’est bien celui de la famille Latimer

1911, rue Panet, Montréal, H2L 3A1 Tel :514-525-2133

Montréal, le 11 octobre 2005

Vos excellences,
Madame Michaëlle Jean et Monsieur Jean-Daniel Lafond,

Je veux proposer la candidature de Monsieur Robert William Latimer à titre de Compagnon de l’Ordre du Canada.

Depuis 1980, Monsieur Latimer a fait la démonstration de son dévouement comme père. En 1993, il a posé à l’égard de sa fille Tracy un acte d’altruisme qui nous a émus.

Depuis le 19 janvier 2001, il assume les conséquences de son geste de compassion.

L’acte d’abnégation de cet homme, de ce père de trois enfants, de ce citoyen responsable constitue une contribution extraordinaire et exceptionnelle à l’humanisation de notre attitude face à nos conditions de vie et de fin de vie en situations extrêmes.

Nous sommes toujours nombreux à penser dans nos cœurs qu’un jour prochain on reconnaîtra son geste de sensibilité comme faisant partie du patrimoine de compassion de notre pays et de l’Humanité en devenir de nos sociétés civilisées.

Avec mes plus chaleureuses salutations et ma plus grande reconnaissance,

Michel-Wilbrod Bujold

Montréal, le 10 octobre 2005

Honorable ministre de la Justice,
Cher Monsieur Cotler,

Après presque cinq années de recherches, de réflexion et d’écriture sur le drame de la famille Latimer, j’en suis arrivé à la conclusion que Robert Latimer n’a pas été jugé, condamné et puni pour ce qu’il a fait, mais plutôt pour ce qu’on a pensé qu’il aurait dû ne pas faire.

C’est pourquoi, sans approuver complètement son geste, nous nous sommes quand même majoritairement reconnus en lui. Nous lui avons accordé le bénéfice du doute : en pareilles circonstances extrêmes, nous aurions pu ou nous aurions voulu agir de même à l’égard de nos proches. Et nous avons été majoritairement choqués par la sévérité de sa sentence.

De leur côté, les juges de la Cour suprême ont parlé «d’erreur de jugement» pour caractériser le geste de compassion de ce père de famille. Malheureusement, les juges ont eux-mêmes erré quant aux faits dans cette Affaire. D’où leur propre erreur dans leur jugement…

Une telle erreur de jugement ne peut qu’équivaloir à une erreur… judiciaire.

J’ai confiance dans la capacité de réparation de la Justice et j’ai personnellement confiance dans votre propre esprit de justice. La preuve en est que de tout le Cabinet c’est à vous que je fais parvenir mon exemplaire d’auteur, Le lynchage constitutionnel de la famille Latimer.

Avec mon plus grand respect
Et l’espoir de créer un dialogue sensible et effectif

Michel-Wilbrod Bujold

SUBPOENA 2. aux sept juges de la Cour suprême du Canada

Aux Beverly McLachlin, Claire L’Heureux-Dubé, Charles Doherty Gonthier, Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major, William Ian Corneil Binnie, Louise Arbour, vous les sept juges unanimes de la Cour Suprême qui, tout en condamnant un innocent, avez entériné la forme d'euthanasie médicale la moins humaine pour Tracy Latimer.

Vous qui, tout en condamnant un innocent, avez aussi condamné la personne humaine en Tracy qui ne pouvait pas se défendre contre des soins prodigués contre elle, perdant ainsi son humanité, - déniée derrière l'étiquette de «gravement handicapée» - et tous ses droits comme personne.

Vous qui avez sous-estimé, ou sciemment sous-utilisé, les ressources de notre Code criminel et de notre Charte en renversant sur les épaules de toute une famille le fardeau d'une très grave situation, aggravant ainsi circonstanciellement un acte de compassion qui était de nature à mettre fin à la situation inhumaine de Tracy Latimer.

Vous qui avez aussi condamné la fille, en lui refusant, posthumément et rétroactivement, le droit d'être secourue par son père qui est INTERVENU dans un acte ultime d'auto-légitime défense pour Tracy incapable de donner, ou de ne pas donner, son consentement.

DE CE FAIT ET «EN L'ESPÈCE», Robert Latimer s'est posé en exécuteur testamentaire de sa fille puisqu'il était humain et raisonnable de penser qu'elle ne demandait pas à tant souffrir avant de mourir.

Supposer que Tracy Latimer, comme chacun de nous, n'aurait pas voulu, ou ne pouvait pas, consentir à l'acte humanitaire de son père qui avait déjà droit à toute sa confiance comme elle avait droit à la sienne, constitue une négation pure et simple de la personne, comme personne d'abord et ensuite comme personne-avec-des-handicaps.

Vous qui ne pouvez pas ne pas avoir vu, dans le geste ultime de Robert Latimer envers sa fille Tracy, qu'il avait dépassé les apparences de sa condition de «gravement handicapée» pour rejoindre sa situation de très gravement accidentée et rejoindre enfin son humanité nue.

VOUS ÊTES TOUS ACCUSÉS, JUGÉS ET CONDAMNÉS À UNE SENTENCE DE COMPASSION : AMNISTIE NATIONALE POUR LA FAMILLE LATIMER
http://michelwbujold.com/amnistie

SUBPOENA 1. aux membres de l’exécutif du gouvernement

à Jean Chrétien, ex-Premier ministre du Parti Libéral du Canada, vous qui croyez avoir trouvé l'immunité politique par votre silence et votre inaction également irresponsables,

aux ex-ministres de la justice et Solliciteurs Généraux du Parti Libéral du Canada,
Chris Axworthy, Anne McLellan, Lawrence McAuley et Martin Cauchon,

à Paul Martin, Premier ministre du Parti Libéral du Canada,

à Irwin Cotler, ministre de la Justice et Procureur Général du Parti Libéral du Canada.

VOUS ÊTES TOUS ACCUSÉS, JUGÉS ET CONDAMNÉS À UNE SENTENCE DE COMPASSION : AMNISTIE NATIONALE POUR LA FAMILLE LATIMER
http://michelwbujold.com/amnistie

Honorable Prime Minister of Canada,
Honorable Justice Minister,
Sollicitor General

With respect to our differences of opinions, our values and faith,
In spite of our diverging interpretation and perspectives on the nature, the sense and consequences of Robert Latimer ultimate recourse towards the life of his own daughter,
Acknowledging the extreme and specific circumstances with having to face the physical, moral deterioration of Tracy, as well as the lack of a humanitarian decisional structure, legally responsible, this caring father responsible to feed and protect, and recognize as such after twelve years of constant dedication, that it was justified to intervene in Tracy’s tragic destiny. Knowing from the day she was born, burdened with the most severe form of cerebral palsy, totally dependant from a physical and intellectual perspective while not in a position to express her distress verbally,
Thus acknowledging, by being placed in a non-choice situation, this responsible father choose to say no in his daughter’s name, to those medical options not susceptible to alleviate her pain and suffering. This was practically, a near refusal to treatments, which we could not avoid pre-supposing, would be unacceptable for Tracy or any other human being,
After taking note, that the available medical and surgical options, could be perceived from the perspective of equivocal concept of “pain management”, as a form of research and experimentations on Tracy’s living body, and to constitute for her sake, non-voluntarily but surely, according to article 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedom: “unusual treatments and/or cruel punishments.
And taking further note, that the prescribed options could constitute for this father, faced with the moral obligation to rescue and help his healing daughter, confronting the obvious risk of being abandoned to people who were dead set on keeping her alive in spite of the pain and suffering, which again according to article 15(1) of the same Charter, offers the same protection to all individuals whether or not they are handicap. This implies that any individual cannot be protected against their will or detriment.

Accordingly, in agreement and communion of thought, we endeavour for recognition for the rights of the physically-handicap-individuals, to be fully and entirely integrated in our society.
The fact that there are no fundamental nor virtual differences between handicap and no-handicap individuals, and
So it is that anyone of us is susceptible between birth and death, to be afflicted by one or more handicaps,

WE CANADIAN CITIZENS,
have already shown our majority support in favor of reducing Robert Latimer’s sentence - such gesture of empathy is in line with the judges of the Supreme Court suggestion of January 18th, 2001, to appeal for Royal clemency. The summary of this suggestion is as follow: “[…] Should it decide to revue the question, the executive committee will most likely consider all the circumstances which surrounded the tragedy of Tracy Latimer […] with the unavoidable publicity and suffering resulting from such, to him and his family.”
Taking into consideration the four years of detention already served by Robert Latimer,

We reiterate our compassionate support towards this hard-hit family.

WE ASK AND INSIST, THAT the afore-mentioned process is set in motion, for the immediate release of Robert Latimer. We consider his place to be among his family, allowed to live in respect and serenity the mourning of their daughter and sister Tracy..
Finally, it is clearly understood that this act of National Amnesty is not to be considered a univocal approval of Robert Latimer act of mercy towards his daughter Tracy. This paradoxical act of compassion, which we recognize can’t either be judged or condemned by us.
Send directly to the Prime Minister and to the Justice Minister:
http://michelwbujold.com/amnisty/