UK: The government has pledged to press ahead with controversial plans to reform mental health law, which would extend the use of compulsory treatment.

The Queen's speech revealed that the draft mental health bill, which includes plans to forcibly treat people in the community as well as in hospital, would continue to undergo pre-legislative scrutiny.

Ministers claim the bill would provide better protection for the public from "dangerous people with mental disorders", by making sure they undergo treatment?

It is my understanding that personality disorder is not a mental illness. However, the authorities are quick to attack personality when people pester them and get in their way.

Disgruntled people will pester the authorities because of a complaint made to them that has not been acknowledged or because they're not being treated equally, justly or fairly?

Personality is always attacked when it is perceived that a person is not mentally ill and has not committed a crime but they have become a pest. Why is that?

Personality disorder it is argued, by some authorities to border on mental illness but it doesn't mean that you're mentally ill.

Personality also borders on creativity. If you put someone in a straight jacket or decide where or what they can do socially - because some person you come into contact with - has developed a "personality clash" with you or you with them that's the danger as well.

Of course everyone can become dangerous depending on how far they're being pushed, who's doing the pushing, the reason for the push and if pushed how far they might fall?

The fact is in today's 'War on Liberty' which is largely based on 'superstition', 'alleged terrorists' and 'witches' the community cannot give the Queen the parliament or anyone else the powers to decide forced treatment for a personality disorder or personality clashes.

The bill would allow mental health staff to impose a condition on patients in the community to stop them from engaging in "specified conduct", such as going to the pub or socialising with certain people. The patient could be forcibly detained in hospital if they breached this code of conduct?

But who is mental health staff? What qualifications do the ministers propose they have? Why have they not used the term psychiatrist? It used to take two psychiatrists to schedule a person now they wan't the orderly or the nurse to do it?

The problem with that of course is if there is any malpractice then it's only the nurse or the orderly that gets done? Can you take a nurse or an orderly to the medical board for malpractice?

And if it's true then that is another danger.

In NSW Australia they want the police to do it?

Police to uphold law not decide mental health

A diagnosis of mental illness could be made over the phone instead of in person, and involuntary psychiatric patients could lose the right to have their case reviewed by a magistrate, under proposed changes to NSW mental health laws.

More:  http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2004/10/82117.php

The UK bill is unsound, abhorrent and repressive. Dictating to the community about their unique personality and fitting them with restraints to control their social movements is tantamount to being chained to the powers that be.

If it is a fact that they don't even need to have a medial degree in psychiatry then what has been propose is fascist.

The bill, which is being studied by an expert parliamentary committee?, would also remove a legal loophole? that allows people with severe personality disorders? to refuse treatment on the grounds it does not improve their condition?

But is it a legal loophole? I don't believe a word of that because usually these people need education or better social skills - so that they can learn to relate to people better - in order to be able to go on and then socialise with respect to the whole community -not be isolated, de-socialised placed on pills or put into a straight jacket.

Ever look in the mirror? Ever sung in the shower? You see personality belongs to the individual and we are all unique. Whose going to decide whether our personality or our genes for that matter make the grade according to some authority?

Apparently the bill would leave clinical staff to decide whether it was "clinically appropriate" to order compulsory treatment."

"This might mean sectioning psychopaths who could not be cured of their personality disorder, but might benefit from treatment of depression or anxiety".

But it is my understanding that a psychopath has a mental illness because they have no conscience? That's along way away from having a personality disorder or personality clash. And again what qualifications does the "clinical staff" have to have?

This bill is attempting to categorise and label psychopath and personality in the one bag and that is another 'extreme danger'.

It could also mean sectioning off whistleblowers so they won't talk? Or be used to attack the integrity of any person who gets in the way of the authorities.

Who is clinical staff? A Psychiatrist? Two Psychiatrists? A Doctor? A Nurse? Or the orderly?

The joint committee on the draft mental health bill is due to publish its report at the end of March 2005. The bill is expected to come into force in 2007.

Related:

Blunkett's Quest, but is he on drugs?

The legislation is expected to introduce a new definition of "possession" of an illegal drug, making it an offence to have a certain amount in the bloodstream. This is likely to prove controversial - not least because some drugs, such as cannabis, can remain in the bloodstream for weeks.

More:  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/11/301672.html

Federal Fascists?

Dictionaries tell us that fascism involves, "Extreme right-wing, nationalist and authoritarian systems of government and social organisation." Almost everyone recognises the past regimes of Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini as totalitarian. However, few citizens of the US, Britain, or Australia, consider that their governments have yet reached such extremes.

Dr Laurence Britt has studied the characteristics of past regimes such as, "Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco's Spain, Salazar's Portugal, Papadopoulos's Greece, Pinochet's Chile, and Suharto's Indonesia." He lists fourteen common themes.

* 1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. (Prominent use of flags and slogans. Pride in the military, and international sports successes.)

* 2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. (The people are persuaded to accept the regime's abuse of its victims. Such as wide and intrusive surveillance, detention without legal access, extreme interrogation methods, the internment and traumatising of children, etc.)

* 3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. (The use of propaganda and disinformation to divert the people's attention from other problems, and to channel fear and frustration in controlled directions. Active opponents of these regimes are inevitably labelled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.)

* 4. Supremacy of the military / Avid militarism. (The military is seen as an expression of nationalism, and is used to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the state, and those who control it.)

* 5. Rampant Sexism (The political elite and the national culture are male-dominated. Abortion and homosexuality are suppressed. The state is represented as the guardian of moral values. Sexual smears are propagated against opponents of both genders. There is a phobia surrounding alleged sexual abuse or misconduct, in both the media and the courts.)

* 6. Controlled Mass Media. (The media is either directly controlled by the state, or it is regulated and indirectly controlled by media magnates who are politically attuned with the regime. In the present day, the media includes the Internet, and censorship and controls also apply there.)

* 7. Obsession with national security. (A national security apparatus is in place, and operating in secret and beyond any constraints from those outside the regime. The actions of the national security apparatus are justified under the headings of "national security" and "national interest." Questioning its activities is portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.)

* 8. Religion and state are tied together. (The regimes attach themselves to the predominant religion and portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite's behaviour is incompatible with the precepts of the religion are swept under the rug. A perception is manufactured, that opposing the state is tantamount to an attack on the predominant religion.)

* 9. Corporate power is protected. (The personal lives of ordinary citizens, and the operations of small businesses, are under strict control. But, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom is not compromised. Corporate excesses and abuses of market power are common. The economic elite are pampered by the regime to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of "have-not" citizens.)

* 10. Labour power is suppressed or eliminated. (Since organised labour is seen as the one power centre that could challenge the political power of the regime and its corporate allies, it is inevitably crushed or made powerless.)

* 11. Suppression of intellectuals and the arts. (Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them are anathema to the regime. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent are strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. Art and literature must serve the "national interest" or they have no right to exist.)

* 12. Obsession with crime and punishment. (There is a substantial system of criminal justice, with huge prison populations. The presence of a national police force with almost unchecked power leads to rampant abuses. Normal and political crimes are often merged into trumped-up criminal charges against opponents of the regime. Fear of rising crime levels in the society is exploited as an excuse for more police power.)

* 13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. (Those in business circles and close to the power elite often use their position to enrich themselves. Government watchdogs crack down on small operators but ignore corporate mismanagement and corruption until it is too late. Ordinary investors often lose money due to insider manipulation and fraud. The corporate executives who pilfer the financial system, or plunder natural resources without proper justification or safeguards on sustainability, make significant corporate donations to the regime, and help to keep it in power. Government tender processes, particularly in defence and technology, are biased towards favoured contractors, and public money is wasted.)

* 14. Fraudlent elections. (Plebiscites and public opinion polls are usually bogus. When elections with candidates are held they are perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods include maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and use of a judiciary beholden to the regime.)