ThoughtCrime
Dec. 2nd, 2005 02:58 pm![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
elenbarathi.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
multiplicity_archives In his post about Consumer-friendly multiplicity here, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
draegonhawke brings up a question that's often seen in these discussions - namely, "How do we go about 'coming out of the closet' so the general populace can see that we're just people, and not two-headed axe-murdering maniacs?"
Well, the bottom line is that we really can't at this point - at least not with any degree of safety. We're guilty of ThoughtCrime, and 'coming out' is an admission of guilt which may lead to one's being stripped of one's civil rights under international law, incarcerated indefinitely without charges or trial, and subjected to "treatments" which would be labeled "atrocities" if they were perpetrated upon prisoners of war.
It's not just multiples who face this danger, of course. Everyone whose inherent nature or chosen lifestyle is described in the DSM-IV as "a disorder" is in the same boat. That's a whole lot of people - enough to have a significant influence on legislators if we were all to take a stand together, instead of hiding out in our insular little communities.
It's illegal to throw a mass murderer into prison without a trial before a jury and legal representation, even if he's caught red-handed over the corpse of his last victim. However, it's perfectly legal to imprison an allegedly mentally-ill person with no trial, no lawyer, and no evidence of criminal activity on the unsupported word of a psychiatrist who claims he may "pose a danger to others." Why is this?
It's illegal to treat a person with a physical illness against her will, even if she's in the middle of a heart attack brought on by 50 years of heavy smoking and obesity, and will die in five minutes if nothing is done. However, it's perfectly legal to force an allegedly mentally-ill (but physically healthy and uninjured) person to take highly-toxic drugs of questionable effect on the unsupported word of a psychiatrist who claims she may pose a danger to herself. Why is this?
We elect representatives to safeguard our rights and freedoms under the law, so how come the Thought Police - the psychiatric establishment - are permitted by them to act outside the law in this way? Maybe we should ask them these questions, eh? Maybe we should demand that they DO something about the situation, so the phrase "equal rights under the law" is interpreted to include those citizens who don't agree with or embody the psychiatric establishment's definition of "normal".
See, ultimately it doesn't matter that much whether the general public sees multiplicity as an OK thing. It doesn't matter whether it accepts that some people identify as animals, legendary beings, aliens, Napoleon, and/or the opposite sex, and yet still lead happy, useful lives. In all honesty, it's probably not going to, because there are still people out there who can't even deal with the fact that humans naturally come in a wide variety of skin-tones, or the fact that not everybody agrees with their conception of God. But consider: in this country no one's legally permitted to lock you in a cell just for being the *wrong* skin-color or religion, no matter how much they don't like it. At present, they can legally lock you up for holding the *wrong* beliefs about the nature of 'reality' or your own being.
Oppose involuntary psychiatric treatment. Write to your Representatives and tell them what you want them to do about this - hey, we hire those guys; they're supposed to listen to us, and if they don't, we (still) have the right to fire 'em and hire somebody else. As long as it's lawful to imprison people for ThoughtCrime, none of us are ever going to be safe, so let's take some action and change things.
Here's some links:
Curing The Therapeutic State
Thomas S. Szasz, M.D.
Peter R. Breggin, M.D.
MindFreedom.org
PsychRights.org
StopShrinks.org
draegonhawke brings up a question that's often seen in these discussions - namely, "How do we go about 'coming out of the closet' so the general populace can see that we're just people, and not two-headed axe-murdering maniacs?"Well, the bottom line is that we really can't at this point - at least not with any degree of safety. We're guilty of ThoughtCrime, and 'coming out' is an admission of guilt which may lead to one's being stripped of one's civil rights under international law, incarcerated indefinitely without charges or trial, and subjected to "treatments" which would be labeled "atrocities" if they were perpetrated upon prisoners of war.
It's not just multiples who face this danger, of course. Everyone whose inherent nature or chosen lifestyle is described in the DSM-IV as "a disorder" is in the same boat. That's a whole lot of people - enough to have a significant influence on legislators if we were all to take a stand together, instead of hiding out in our insular little communities.
It's illegal to throw a mass murderer into prison without a trial before a jury and legal representation, even if he's caught red-handed over the corpse of his last victim. However, it's perfectly legal to imprison an allegedly mentally-ill person with no trial, no lawyer, and no evidence of criminal activity on the unsupported word of a psychiatrist who claims he may "pose a danger to others." Why is this?
It's illegal to treat a person with a physical illness against her will, even if she's in the middle of a heart attack brought on by 50 years of heavy smoking and obesity, and will die in five minutes if nothing is done. However, it's perfectly legal to force an allegedly mentally-ill (but physically healthy and uninjured) person to take highly-toxic drugs of questionable effect on the unsupported word of a psychiatrist who claims she may pose a danger to herself. Why is this?
We elect representatives to safeguard our rights and freedoms under the law, so how come the Thought Police - the psychiatric establishment - are permitted by them to act outside the law in this way? Maybe we should ask them these questions, eh? Maybe we should demand that they DO something about the situation, so the phrase "equal rights under the law" is interpreted to include those citizens who don't agree with or embody the psychiatric establishment's definition of "normal".
See, ultimately it doesn't matter that much whether the general public sees multiplicity as an OK thing. It doesn't matter whether it accepts that some people identify as animals, legendary beings, aliens, Napoleon, and/or the opposite sex, and yet still lead happy, useful lives. In all honesty, it's probably not going to, because there are still people out there who can't even deal with the fact that humans naturally come in a wide variety of skin-tones, or the fact that not everybody agrees with their conception of God. But consider: in this country no one's legally permitted to lock you in a cell just for being the *wrong* skin-color or religion, no matter how much they don't like it. At present, they can legally lock you up for holding the *wrong* beliefs about the nature of 'reality' or your own being.
Oppose involuntary psychiatric treatment. Write to your Representatives and tell them what you want them to do about this - hey, we hire those guys; they're supposed to listen to us, and if they don't, we (still) have the right to fire 'em and hire somebody else. As long as it's lawful to imprison people for ThoughtCrime, none of us are ever going to be safe, so let's take some action and change things.
Here's some links:
Curing The Therapeutic State
Thomas S. Szasz, M.D.
Peter R. Breggin, M.D.
MindFreedom.org
PsychRights.org
StopShrinks.org
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-12-03 01:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-03 01:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-03 05:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-03 02:11 am (UTC)Well, except for what has been going on with Arab-Americans, even those who are legal, naturalised citizens, in the course of preserving our so-called national security.
Other than that, I do of course take your point, and would add the following:
http://www.antipsychiatry.org/due-proc.htm
In many states, all that needs to happen is a telephone call from a relative or neighbour stating their belief that we are a "danger to self or others".
Permission to run this as a guest article at both Pavilion and Astraeasweb?
no subject
Date: 2005-12-03 03:00 am (UTC)- Kathru
no subject
Date: 2005-12-03 05:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-03 05:56 am (UTC)It mademe also think of Jesus he was differnt the people feared him so they saidhe waseither a liar, a lunatic or wrongto be crucified they dont even know why the had to label and kill what they did not understand. Toni
no subject
Date: 2005-12-03 12:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-03 07:22 pm (UTC)So true, and y'know, the more the people of this nation [USA] permit our Constitution to be disregarded, the less actual security any of us have. The law of this country is still based on the Constitution, though, which means that actions contrary to it are in fact illegal. If our lawmakers won't uphold the Constitution, we have the right to vote them the hell out of office and elect some who will.
The problem, of course, is that so many of the people of this country have gotten so used to government corruption that they just acquiesce to it rather than opposing it in even the simplest ways - they won't write a letter, they won't vote, they don't even want to hear about it, because they think it's futile. Participatory democracy can't work if people won't participate in it, which is why this country's sliding down the tubes into Fascism.
I realize that people who've been oppressed by the psychiatric establishment and/or must live under the threat of such oppression have even less faith than most in the protections supposedly afforded by due process under the law. Kír, for instance, has no faith in them at all; he says there's no such thing as justice, and that he only goes along with me on this issue because he'd rather be a rebel than a slave. That's pretty fatalistic, but it may be that others would agree with him, and therefore would take some action even if they don't expect it to really accomplish anything.
That's an excellent link, and I will spread it around - thank you! For sure, you can run this as a guest article - *grins* - would've written it with less haste and more care if I'd known.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-03 08:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-03 03:06 am (UTC)- Kathru
no subject
Date: 2005-12-03 06:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-03 07:51 pm (UTC)Just a thought....
Date: 2005-12-03 03:12 am (UTC)Re: Just a thought....
Date: 2005-12-03 05:59 pm (UTC)All a printed form-letter says is that you were persuaded to sign somebody else's form-letter, and that doesn't count for much. Snail-mail petitions are counted as one letter. Internet petitions are just deleted as spam; signing them is a total waste of time because there's no way to verify the signatures.
"Eloquence" doesn't matter much in this. What, you think the representatives actually read the metric ton of mail they get every day? If they did, they wouldn't have time to tie their shoes. Nope nope - the letters are read and answered by aides and secretaries, who just present a synopsis of the day's haul to the representatives. Therefore, the more brief, simple, and straight-to-the-point, the better.
Getting all the issues addressed in a single letter isn't good strategy, because it's too much information and won't be conveyed. What works is addressing one issue per letter, preferably to ask for specific action. The links I posted up there have plenty of information about current issues on which action needs to be taken.
How to write a letter and where to send it? Check out Congress.org (http://www.congress.org); all the information is there. You can also call or send e-mails to representatives - again, you won't get the actual person, but you will get someone whose job is to keep the representative informed about voter input.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-03 06:50 pm (UTC)All right. Is there any kind of bill on the table right now to tell our representatives to look at/support/oppose? Or is it at this moment an issue of saying "Please consider introducing a bill that ______"?
no subject
Date: 2005-12-03 08:07 pm (UTC)I posted a whole bunch of links here; there are dozens if not hundreds of current issues to choose from, and all the information you need to choose some is there. Click around, pick an issue - any issue - write a brief paragraph (two or three sentences) expressing your views, and send it. That's really all there is to it.
I can't tell you which particular issues you should pick. You're not even in the same state as me, and I have no idea what's going on in Iowa at present - most of the issues tend to be state-specific rather than federal. You don't have to pick just one issue, y'know - you can pick a different one every week, or check the activism sites at random and fire off a letter whenever something inspires you to do so, which is what I do.
The thing is really a whole lot simpler than you're making it out to be. Just do one to start, without thinking about it too much or getting bogged down in quibbles. You're not writing for a grade here, y'know, nor for publication, so you don't have to try to be Daniel Webster. Neat writing, correct spelling and coherent sentences are always nice - I'm sure the interns who read it will appreciate it, since they have to slog through so many pages of illegible scrawls sprinkled with swear words and exclamation points - but a voter is a voter regardless of how he writes. Any letter is better than none.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-03 08:12 pm (UTC)http://www.astraeasweb.net/politics/
Particularly but not limited to
http://www.astraeasweb.net/politics/badpsych.shtml
Re: Just a thought....
Date: 2005-12-05 05:54 am (UTC)Re: Just a thought....
Date: 2005-12-03 08:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-03 06:00 am (UTC)Ya know we would have ALLOT of people cause we would sign all of our system people right? That would be more than a Communitty that would be like a Country writing a letter, Just a thought Toni
no subject
Date: 2005-12-03 05:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-03 05:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-03 06:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-03 08:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-03 12:33 pm (UTC)Somebody messed up in the head enough to murder countless people has lots of idiots going "zomg what about his *right* D:" yet as soon as a shrink says the word you can be locked up and forced into treatments, no matter how much you say no.
It's a thought that admittedly, scares me. Not much scares me the way that does. The thought of being forced into these treatments, when I know I am a stable and rational individual, with nobody listening to me when I explain just that.
"in this country"
Date: 2005-12-03 03:00 pm (UTC)Like we're in the UK.
apart from that i think you have a good general piont
Re: "in this country"
Date: 2005-12-03 03:56 pm (UTC)Re: "in this country"
Date: 2005-12-03 05:08 pm (UTC)Re: "in this country"
Date: 2005-12-03 08:10 pm (UTC)They have roughly the same rules, we just don't flex those legal muscles quite so often and easily.
Re: "in this country"
Date: 2005-12-04 12:20 pm (UTC)I live in Australia and our government is in the process of passing new anti-terror laws (when our PM isn't kissing Bush's shoes) and the law pretty much allows any persons suspected of being involved in terrorism in any way(of course aimed at muslims) to be held until they are determined to be of no threat.
Australia also feared a "yellow invasion" during WWII and set up detainment camps all over the country and even deported some people to countries that they had never seen because of their ancestry.
Every new government thinks they will do something different and they won't be like the "other" government that got carried away or lost sight of the goal.
Enough of my rant.
Mel
no subject
Date: 2005-12-05 06:01 am (UTC)