Intersectionality of the sectioned

Ask anyone in the street what is required to arbitrarily detain a person under a Mental Health Act, and what do they say: Oh they have to be a harm to themselves or others.

NOT TRUE IF YOU THINK THAT YOU'RE IGNORANT

Mental Health Act (MHA) is a piece of government legislation that restricts a person and forcibly drugs, electrocutes, fetters, interrogates, brainwashes... all under the guise of medicine. Of course it is actually Forced Human Experimentation, a lucrative exploitation that for over 200 years medicos and governments have utilised. That said, what does it require to detain a person, under such an act, given that no one deserves to be tortured 24/7 indefinitely, and, innocent people just shouldn't be subjected to restrictions.

NO YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE A HARM TO SELF OR OTHERS... 

Let's read Victoria's Mental Health Act, the spot where they section people, sectioning meaning arbitrarily detain and forcibly inject chemicals into a person's body, electrocute, put in a 4-point-fetter etc...

MENTAL HEALTH ACT 2014 - SECT 29

Criteria for an Assessment Order

The criteria for a person to be made subject to an Assessment Order are—
        (a)     the person appears to have mental illness; and
        (b)     because the person appears to have mental illness, the person appears to need immediate treatment to prevent—
              (i)     serious deterioration in the person's mental or physical health; or
              (ii)     serious harm to the person or to another person; and
        (c)     if the person is made subject to an Assessment Order, the person can be assessed; and
        (d)     there is no less restrictive means reasonably available to enable the person to be assessed.

This Government Legislation is located HERE

How many of the 4 criteria does a person have to meet to be sectioned? Even if it were said to be ALL 4 criteria that are met, you'll notice that B has two parts, which both do not need to be met.

So, the person 'appears to have a mental illness'. What is that? Cognitive and/ or social diversity. And this legislation actively lays out that it discriminates on that basis, of a perceived disability, human traits that no one should be arbitrarily detaining and torturing a person over under Government Legislation.

And, because of this perceived disability, or human trait, the person 'appears to need immediate treatment to prevent'... So, here we have perception, and prescience being put into Government Legislation, in order to exploit a person. The nature of the VMHA is such that it allows for the Human Research Code of Ethics loophole, of permitting Emergency Research. (Though the VMHA falls short of articulating itself to this purpose, you have to look at the Legislation that gaurds against medicos doing Human Research, to find out horror of horrors what they are permitted, most especially to those under this nebulous legislation that victim-blames for the purpose of exploiting those mentally-illed.)

What is 'serious deterioration in the person's mental or physical health' ? A nebulous line, that can discriminate against anyone on the basis of perceived disability, including whistle-blowers and victims of crime (that psychiatry has readily covered-up for by literally and violently shutting down and shutting up those people attempting to speak out against abuse and corruption. ie victims of church paedophilia, the corruption at the ATO, those speaking out against toxic substances in food, environment...) 

And then, look here, OR, is used or serious harm to the person or to another person. See, OR - a person doesn't have to meet that criteria, that particular criteria that a person on the street justifies restricting an innocent person and subjecting them to forced psychiatry, just isn't necessary to section a person.

People talk about Intersectionality, but what about those who are sectioned? What about Intersectionality of the Sectioned? These are a group of people who have been exploited most horribly for over 200 years, are still being exploited under government legislation and yet they're not part of your INTERSECTIONALITY? Because you think they're... what? Insert some ignorant prejudiced line here - 

The Victorian Mental Health Act is a nebulous piece of government legislation, designed to control anyone who attempts to speak out against corruption, and to make money from lucrative human experimentation on the most vulnerable sectors of the community - the financially and socially disenfranchised.

This is the truth of the VMHA, if you take out the doublespeak:

THE CRITERIA THAT GIVE A PSYCHIATRIST GOVERNMENT LEGISLATED RIGHTS TO TORTURE YOU TO DEATH!

The four criteria are:

1.       You have human traits of cognitive and social diversity

2.       Because you have human traits you need immediate invasive, cruel forced human experiments conducted on you to cause:

a.       serious deterioration in cognitive social abilities and physical health

b.      serious harm to you and others connected to you

3.       You will be immediately silenced from any further whistle-blowing (through arbitrary detention) and tortured into submission if placed on a treatment order and used for lucrative human experimentation, as you are financially and/ or disenfranchised.

4.       There are no less restrictive means, reasonably available within the budget, for psychiatrists to get the required human specimens (of which you fit the criteria of) that is needed for this particular invasive, cruel, lucrative human research project.

          Please also see:

FAST-TRACKING PERPETRATION OF ELECTRO-CONVULSIVE-TRAUMA

The Victorian Mental Health Tribunal can hold a hearing as soon as possible if it receives an urgent application because a psychiatrist says that electrocution under general anaesthetic is necessary to:

1. ·         Destroy your life
2. ·        Cause serious damage to your health, or
3. ·        Cause you suffering or continual suffering, as well as significant pain or distress.

        So, think about it:

Media bias against survivors & their allies

Media Bias, against human rights reporters, and media bias in favour of human rights abusers’ doublespeak propaganda -  it’s everywhere in Australian reportage, everywhere in our awards and grants system. It stinks like a neighbours illicit drug-making operation, you're not sure what to do about.

When I’m talking about mainstream media, especially government sponsored media, being biased in their reporting of human rights, particularly that regarding people being tortured and enslaved by psychiatry. I mean, reporting that allows those who are violating citizens rights, to be the author of articles published in mainstream press, that attempt to claim that they’ve just put together the best of the best in the nation, when that's not true. When the opposite is true.

            False advertising for the whitecoats, not only that, but also really violating the people enslaved by psychiatry, as well as authors who are psychiatric survivors and human rights activists, who  see articles that are later corrected, after the legislation has been drummed into the public as sound and secure human rights legislation.

This is just one example: The Drum regrets original version of this article did not include the declaration of Dr Leslie Cannold's position on the Mental Health Tribunal. A declaration which the public really needed to know at the time, as well as the article being sponsored by P.Bogfart of the Whatever Party, paid for by that rancid organisation with the cross and knight insignia: RANZCP 

Regrets like the Victorian Mental Health Act 2014... What reform exactly was there, in that Act from the 1984 Rights for Psychiatry to Enslave & Torture Act?

Victoria still has the highest rate of forced treatment of non-criminals, per capita, in the world. And by non-criminals I mean people who have NEVER been charged with a crime, and never could, because they never did anything to cross laws that make sense, but somehow 'appeared to be mentally ill' to some psychiatrist diagnosing their perception and distress as a 'serious mental illness' for whatever P.Bogfart reason.

Lots of awards are given to white-coteries, like Cannold, who hold human-rights back over 200 years and profit from disgusting human rights violations.

Humanist of the year? For eff's sake! Grow up Australia!

WTF! Cannold has been given a writers studio at Abbotsford Convent, where little girls were put to hard labour, doing all the laundry for the profiteering convent, as well as cafes, restaurants and motels. Then, they were slandered as 'whores' and shamed into never seeking compensation. Even with Ireland's similar Magdalene Convent Laundries, some of those who suffered got compensation and validation for their grief.

Little girls who were imprisoned for hard-labour at Abbotsford, that got slandered as whores, think of those Dr L. Cannold, while in that writer appointed Studio C2.54 at Abbotsford Convent! But you won't, you'll write a story about the 'hard working Nuns'.

Yes, of course the victims of psychiatry, or the victims of Abbotsford Convent just wish to forget the past and get on with their lives. And for a while, those women who were brutalised as young girls had no choice but to do that. (Only venting occasionally to those they could trust).

Yet this is the reportage, ‘Australia did have a similar system' to the Magdalene Laundries,  'conditions were indeed harsh, but it remains not easy to gain a just overview of what happened. Views conflict sharply. Apparently genuine memories of very oppressive conditions conflict with nun’s recollections of their doing their best for difficult cases.’ http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/magdalen.pdf

Oh the nuns doing their very best, like the psychiatrists doing their very best to abuse people and use them for profits and then cover it up as 'care' and 'help.'
Australia is very good at cover-ups, better than Ireland. And I think Victoria is probably the Human Rights Abuse State of the world, placing violators in positions as writers, artists, critics... and never allowing the victims of crime to speak, if they are determined to tell the truth, even when they have the qualifications in form of diplomas, bachelors, PHDs...

This MHS has to go, it's based in eugenics doctrine. It's holding the Civil Rights Movement back.

We need to reclaim our day from those who wish us to be seen as 'specimens'.

Bibliography

• 'Post-war Australia was categorised by a new era of nation building led by the conservative Robert Menzies as Prime Minister. There was a perceived need for strict discipline for juveniles. Children could be placed in juvenile detention centres despite not having committed a criminal offence. Further, during this period there was a concern that 'sexually depraved girls' could be a cause of delinquency and therefore needed to be separated from the mainstream. As a result of these attitudes, many vulnerable children were criminalised.' http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15140
• Alliance for Forgotten Australians http://forgottenaustralians.org.au/