|
Copy List
Submission to the Australian Human Rights Commissioner
"BUSHTALKS" Bendigo
from THE BENDIGO
ANTI-FLUORIDATION ASSOCIATION
Presented by Peter L. Reid and Peter M. Reid
To: Mr Chris Sidoti
Human Rights Commissioner
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
"Bushtalks" - Bendigo Wednesday 18th November 1998.
A Submission on behalf of the Bendigo Anti-Fluoridation Association.
This submission on behalf of the above Association is against the decision
of Coliban Water in league with the Victorian Government Health Department,
to fluoridate the drinking water supply of Bendigo and surrounds.
We are basing our submission on:
Article 5(1) - Part 11 and Article 7 - Part 111 of the chapter titled
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights contained in The
International Bill of Rights - United Nations, New York 1993.
The very first words of the Nuremberg Principles, formulated in 1945-46
after World War 2 as a response to Nazi medical experiments on humans are:
"The voluntary consent of the human subject
is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have
the legal capacity to consent, should be so situated as to be able to
exercise free power of choice without any element of force ... form of
constraint or coercion."
In other words the Nuremberg Court found it a
criminal practice to force medication on any person or community, but our
elected State politicians turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to such a moral
law.
We would therefore submit that compulsory fluoridation of public drinking
water supplies is unequivocally contrary to the Nuremberg Principles.
Fluoridation is compulsory medication with fluoride chemicals, even though
every scientific publication in the world on this particular process;
recommends indepth, serious research into its possible and known health
hazards. The U.S. National Research Council in their book - Health Effects
of Ingested Fluoride (1993) states (P. xiii):
"Thus accurate information on potential health effects of fluoride is
needed."
The famous Australian pharmacology scientist, Sir Stanton Hicks stated:
"No two patients react alike. Fluoridation
treats people in the terms of statistics, not as individuals of which no
two are alike."
The original fluoridation trials were
experimental and were acknowledged as same. There is no documented proof
throughout the world, that this medication (fluoridation) is safe. The
scientifically advanced countries of Europe do not have fluoridation. It has
been rejected in most European countries as being unsafe, ineffective and
unnecessary.
"Fluoridation treats people in terms of
statistics, not as individuals of whom no two are alike."
As no documented proof exists as to the safety of fluoride, the proposed
compulsory fluoridation of our local drinking water supply by Coliban Water,
is the same as the early fluoridation trials, i.e. - medical
experimentation. It will continue to be so until the safety of fluoride is
proven and documented by reputable scientific bodies. This means it is
contrary to the latter part of Article 7.
Proof of Experimentation on Human Populations:
The Victorian Government Committee of Inquiry
into the Fluoridation of Victorian Water Supplies 1979-80 stated (P. 57):
"At present the action of fluoride is not
completely understood but it is understood there are four major mechanisms
of potentially beneficial action."
The journal of the American Medical
Association 22nd-28th December 1989 stated (P.3460):
"The actual mechanism through which
fluorides act to prevent caries are not fully understood."
Benefits and Risks U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services - Public Health Services 1991:
"Clearly dental fluorosis is associated
with ingested fluoride during the tooth forming years, but the exact
mechanism by which dental fluorosis occurs is not fully understood."
The report of the Royal Commissioner (The
Honourable Malcolm Peter Crisp, a Justice of the Supreme Court of Tasmania)
1968, titled The Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies, states in Parts 972
and 980:
"There is just a possibility that some
individuals may be found who will react abnormally to fluoride at levels
far below those which will affect normal beings."
"Fluoridation of communal water supplies has
inescapable consequences for all members of the community."
In a book (193 pages on fluoridation) by the
National Health and Medical Research Council in 1991 titled: "The
Effectiveness of Water Fluoridation", the following paragraphs are
documented (P.139/Section 8.1 and P.141/ Section 8.3):
"It is a matter of concern that the
Working Group cannot point to a single ongoing Australian study which
monitors adequately the impact and possible adverse consequences of this
policy (fluoridation) and that in its pursuit of the terms of reference,
the Working Group has had to rely on: indirect analyses of very inadequate
datasets, collected not for the monitoring of this policy but for other
purposes; a limited number of Australian studies; and upon overseas
investigations of these matters. The Working Group's recommendations and
conclusions are the consequence of its attempts to arrive at the best
possible assessment of the likely risks and benefits of continuing
fluoridation at the present level, or of adopting alternative policies.
Those recommendations and conclusions must be qualified by emphasising the
current dearth of an adequate evaluative Australian database."
"There are no Australian reports which permit the Working Group to
precisely estimate, with confidence, the current intake of fluoride which
various aged individuals are ingesting, nor the differential amount of
fluoride which is being stored in Australian skeletons, in fluoridated and
unfluoridated areas."
The Royal College of Physicians book
"Fluoride, Teeth and Health" (1976) (p.14) states "the precise mechanism by
which fluoride reduces caries is not understood." This is a concern for the
community, when one considers people in privileged positions; responsible
for the health of the community compulsorily mass medicate with fluoride
chemicals yet have no scientific understanding of how it supposedly works.
Everyone irrespective of age, size, healthy or unhealthy, recuperating from
a sickness, with or without teeth are being medicated, which we believe is a
flagrant violation of both Articles 5 and 7.
The medical laws in Australia, covering doctors etc states that no doctor is
allowed to medicate any person against their will. The kM.A. Code of Ethics
also states:
"Every patient has a right to expect a
complete and thorough examination into his condition and that accurate
records will be kept."
The Medical Treatment Act 1987 states in part
under Preamble:
The Parliament recognises that it is
desirable -
(a) to give protection to the patient's right to refuse unwanted medical
treatment;
(d) to state clearly the way in which a patient can signify his or her
wishes in regard to medical care;
It therefore follows that a Government cannot
medicate people against their will unless there is an epidemic of a
contagious disease.
Dental disease is not a contagious disease. We
understand this is law in most developed countries of the world. To flout is
contrary to Article 7.
In Bendigo we have over the last 28 months, in dealing with Coliban Water
and the Victorian Government, been denied the ability "to exercise free
power of choice". We have been denied the right to a properly constituted
and responsible customer survey or referendum to gauge the views of the
water users within Coliban Water's boundaries, for compulsory fluoridation.
The result would indicate "the will of the people".
Our organisation has legitimately collected over 7800 signatures from
people protesting against the decision to fluoridate our drinking water.
These have been presented to Coliban Water, which together with the 350
letters of protest and about 100 phone calls of objection received by
Coliban Water, indicate a substantial protest.
Considering we had only 12 people out collecting signatures, and we were
only able to canvas 10-12,000 people, we consider 70%-80% of those
canvassed; voting against compulsory fluoridation to be a strong case of the
people protesting against a lack of "free consent to medical or scientific
experimentation", as outlined in Article 7. There have been 4 public
protests, including a street march as well as 2 public meetings protesting
against Coliban Water's decision.
The Victorian Governor's Speech, "Address - in - Reply", Hansard 12th August
1987 (P.154) referred to a "requirement on Government agencies to pursue
goals of social justice and these necessarily included":
... fair, efficient, accessible services,
the protection of citizen's rights and the extension of the individual's
democratic right to influence decisions which affect him or her."
The Victorian Government in November 1993
altered the Victorian Constitution as follows:
The Health (Fluoridation) Act 1973 - Version 012 - Act No. 8506/1973, now
reads:
Section 4 - Protection from rights of action No person has any right of
action against
a) a water supply authority; or
b) a member of a water supply authority; or
c) a person acting under the direction of a water
supply authority; or
d) a person acting on behalf of a water supply authority under a contract
made between that authority and the person in respect of anything done in
regard to the fluoridation of a public water supply in accordance with the
provisions of this Act.
Section 12 - Supreme Court - limitation of
jurisdiction
it is the intention of this section to alter or vary section 85 of the
Constitution Act 1975 to the extent necessary to prevent the Supreme Court
from entertaining an action of the kind referred to in section 4.
In the Health and Community Services (Further Amendment) Act 1993 - No.
124/1993 (9-12) the same rulings are covered by (9) Section 4 substituted
and (12).
Our Association considers these 2 sections contravene Article 5 (1), because
the Victorian Government altered the Constitution to prohibit any
fluoridation cases being entertained by the Victorian Supreme Court.
The High Court of Australia was set up for every citizen of Australia to use
as a means of appeal if a case is lost in the Supreme Court. However to use
the-facilities of the High Court a case must first be heard by the Supreme
Court. A case not heard by the Supreme Court cannot be appealed to the High
Court of Australia. This means a case relating to fluoridation cannot reach
the High Court of Australia.
This is dictatorship of the worst kind, when the gazetted laws of a state
or country are re-written, to force mass-medication on the populace.
The Bendigo Anti-Fluoridation Association considers that this is the mass
medication of a community with a cumulative chemical poison of unknown
dosage and controlled by each person's thirst and not a scientific or
medical prescription.
Opinion of Lord jauncey in the case of:
Mrs Catherine McColl against Strathclyde Regional Council 1983, High
Court of Scotland.
This particular court case on fluoridation in Scotland presented most top
scientific, medical and dental people from around the world arguing both
sides.
In Judge Jauncey's Opinion, he made a number of interesting conclusions.
(P.370) "Fluoride is intended to produce
a positive effect on the body of the consumer after ingestion. (Therefore
fluoride and fluoridation is medication)." "Thus the water instead of
being the object of treatment becomes the means whereby fluoride is
carried into the consumer's body to effect a result which could also be
achieved by the consumption of fluoride pills or of food and drink
containing high levels of fluoride."
(P.371) "Furthermore since fluoride would involve an encroachment on
individual rights to the extent that persons would be forced to drink
water containing a substance, fluoride, which they did not wish to drink,
a liberal construction which permitted such a result should be adopted."
(P.381) "Such a situation (fluoridation)
would necessarily involve a restriction on the freedom of choice of the
individual who would have little alternative but to consume the
fluoridated water whether he liked it or not."
"If two possible constructions on the Statute are available, that
construction should be preferred which encroaches the minimum of the
personal rights of the individual. To put the matter in another way,
the individual's right to choose how to care for his own body should only
be encroached upon by Statutory provisions in clear and unambiguous
language. In the fourth place there is no evidence that water with a
natural fluoride content of 1 ppm is normal by world standards ..."
"Thus to suggest as do the respondents (the fluoridation lobby) that they
are merely replicating nature by increasing the fluoride content of
surface water is inaccurate, since water naturally containing such a
concentration would normally contain other constituents which are not
present to the same degree in surface water. There is thus an element
of artificiality about the end product of fluoridated surface water."
The Court found it illegal for fluoride. to be
added to drinking water in Scotland.
However Prime Minister Thatcher decided if beaten in Court then the way to
win would be to change the law, which she did by presenting a case for
compulsory fluoridation which she personally followed carefully through both
Houses of Parliament where it was passed.
The combined water suppliers advised the Prime Minister they would not
fluoridate their water unless they had a Government guarantee of immunity
from claims of damage to health by people drinking their fluoridated water
supplies.
After much haggling, Prime Minister Thatcher advised the water supply
companies that the Government would cover them with an indemnity each for
f12 million. To the surprise of the UK politicians this offer was soundly
rejected and advice given to the Parliament that no fluoridation would be
processed within the UK unless a guarantee of unlimited immunity was
documented to each supplier of water.
The UK Government has not agreed to this total immunity, and there has been
no fluoridation of water supplies carried out in the last few years (Total
fluoridation in UK approximately 10% of the population).
The people of UK in many groups formed to oppose fluoridation have been
asking why would water suppliers ask for an unlimited immunity
from legal claims if fluoridation is, as the Government states, perfectly
safe? Here is a case of human rights being eroded by bad laws.
Conclusion:
Coming back to Australia and Victoria in particular, the same scenario
exists here.
The 1973 Compulsory Fluoridation Act gave immunity to all those connected
with the adding of fluoride to drinking water supplies, as mentioned
earlier.
We consider fluoridation is a restriction of human rights by a compulsory
act of mass medication with a fluoride chemical that has physiological
action on the human body.
The present Victorian Government has indicated there is a possibility,
indeed a very positive possibility of privatising all water supplies in
Victoria. Following these comments and noting the problems in the UK where
indemnities were criticised, as not only undemocratic and medically
dangerous, but a complete erosion of the rights of the people concerned; the
Victorian Government without any public notice to the community, created a
new fluoridation Act (Amendment Act 1993 No. 124/1993 - see P4). This was a
way for the Government to distance themselves from the English problems and
find a way to protect themselves and the future owners of drinking water
supplies when adding a fluoride chemical to their water supplies.
The extreme to which this act relates has not been given any space in the
media. Even though it has been offered to the press, it has been kept secret
from the public. If fluoridation is safe, if it does not conflict with the
will of the people and the civil rights, or human rights, whichever heading
you wish to use, the following question must be answered. Why would a
Government alter the Constitution of the State, to prohibit the Supreme
Court from hearing cases against those responsible, such as Coliban Water,
for adding this fluoride chemical to drinking water supplies and the
possibility, indeed the great possibility of harm to those drinking the
water?
At first glance one becomes horrified at the extreme action by the
Government to protect the compulsory additions of poisonous fluorides to
drinking water supplies, but the matter goes one step further, in it
being not the erosion, but the complete destruction of human rights in
Victoria. We consider human rights is a whole and cannot be destroyed
piece by piece.
The law that created the High Court of Australia stated that this Court is
available to every Australian citizen. There was a clause added however,
that the High Court would not, or could not entertain any legal case unless
it had previously been through the Supreme Court. As a Human Rights
organisation, we trust you will appreciate this type of Government action on
compulsory fluoridation, and appreciate and recognise it as not for the
people but for those adding this poisonous material to water supplies.
Perhaps your committee may consider this a serious but isolated matter. Let
us assure you that this Act on Fluoridation is not isolated. Last year the
Tasmanian Government Lower House passed a Bill to prohibit meetings in
Tasmania, where fluoridation is discussed. Only by public outcry was this
Bill removed in the Upper House, but it does indicate the extremes
Governments (politicians) will attempt to stop any rights of the people to
oppose compulsory fluoridation. The actions of a Government body, in this
case Coliban Water, to ignore a substantial number of protests, is further
proof of this policy against human rights.
It is law in Australia, recently highlighted, by a High Court of Australia
statement, that it is the responsibility of doctors to advise patients on
side effects and the action of any medicine provided by them to a patient.
We suggest that this order is not carried out by the Government because
there has never been a public statement or warning to the community about
fluoridated water. This is because there is no known dose, which brings the
matter back to a most dangerous method of medication, and one which may take
many years to surface, in a manner that can be identified without
opposition. It takes Coliban Water out of the water supply game, and into
the realms of uncontrolled medicators, lacking in scientific and medical
qualifications.
The scientifically advanced countries of Europe have banned, stopped or
never even considered fluoridation as a safe and effective compulsory
medication for their populations. (See attachment No. 6).
The Australian Constitution xxiiiA states:
"The provision of maternity allowances,
widows pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness
and hospital benefits, medical and dental services but not so as to
authorise any form of civil conscription, benefits to students and family
allowances."
Here you have the Australian Constitution
stating quite clearly there cannot be "civil dental conscription" which of
course is fluoridation.
Our Association considers all the foregoing data in our submission validates
the grave and unlawful injustice of the compulsory fluoridation of our
drinking water supplies, being foisted upon us by the Victorian Government
and Coliban Water. This being an action we feel is in violation of the
precepts of The International Bill of Rights and we seek a protection
through the Australian Human Rights Commission.
Annexures
Copy of the Health (Fluoridation) Act 1973 -Version No. 012 -Act No.
8506/1973 (1-12).
Copy of the Health and Community Services
(Further Amendment) Act 1993 -Act No. 124/1993 (Part) (9-12).
Copy of Brisbane - The Lord Mayor's Task Force
Report -Fluoridation.
Copy of the Medical Treatment Act 1987 (Part).
Copy of Toxicity Chart.
Copy of Table 1 - US Congress Report -
Developed countries that do not fluoridate.
Copy of State of the Nations Report.
Copy List
|
