Discussion World Forum  


Go Back   Discussion World Forum > Politics & Current Events > World Politics (Non-US)

World Politics (Non-US) For discussions of politics, issues and elections from around the world.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old Oct 20th 2014, 09:48 PM
Dominick's Avatar
Dominick Dominick is offline
Globetrotter
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Dying Europe
Posts: 3,837
Default Re: Which group most discriminated against?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael View Post
Please cite something to back this up please.

Short of a court-ordered response to criminal violence, I don't think you can legally do that.
That certainly exists and apparently even in Ontario:

http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bil...ssionID=37%3A1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Law
5.Section 17 of the Act is repealed and the following substituted:

Action by police officer

17.Where a police officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a person is acting or has acted in a disorderly manner and has reasonable cause to believe that the person,

(a)has threatened or attempted or is threatening or attempting to cause bodily harm to himself or herself;

(b)has behaved or is behaving violently towards another person or has caused or is causing another person to fear bodily harm from him or her; or

(c)has shown or is showing a lack of competence to care for himself or herself,

and in addition the police officer is of the opinion that the person is apparently suffering from mental disorder of a nature or quality that likely will result in,

(d)serious bodily harm to the person;

(e)serious bodily harm to another person; or

(f)serious physical impairment of the person,

and that it would be dangerous to proceed under section 16, the police officer may take the person in custody to an appropriate place for examination by a physician.
The mere perception (read: whim) of a cop is sufficient.

According to this (don't know the quality of the paper though), Toronto police have put away 8,441 people in 2013 alone!

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014...ll_people.html

It exists, that I know of, at least in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany too.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old Oct 22nd 2014, 01:10 AM
shekib82 shekib82 is offline
Globetrotter
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,134
Default Re: Which group most discriminated against?

Just to note, I am not against psychiatric detention if the treatment in the institution follows human rights. I am just mentioning this as a counter example to Michael's claim that it is not discrimination.

Now my position would be different in places like Lebanon where institutions are not humane.

And frankly when someone is psychotic ,if for example he is off his meds, and then he is forced to take them and comes back to his senses, he feels better and grateful. The only issue is the treatment of that person while he is psychotic.

Anyway, this is not the part were I see human rights violations or discrimination to occur, except in poor third world countries.

Discrimination and human rights violations happen when someone like me who is medicated and who otherwise doesn't suffer from any symptom of mental illness is forced to hide his illness from employers, even go as far as to not claim medical coverage for fear that he will be discriminated against at work.

It also works when he has to hide his status from friends or people he meets for fear that his character and judgement will be questioned.

It also works when in a court of law his testimony is questioned on account of mental illness.

When in all cases he was competent and sane.

In other words, the mentally ill are treated as if they are always insane, and not like for a lot of them insanity is something they go through when they spend months without medication.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old Oct 22nd 2014, 01:13 AM
shekib82 shekib82 is offline
Globetrotter
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,134
Default Re: Which group most discriminated against?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael View Post
All people who are not above-average looking, do not have above-average intelligence, nor above average social skills or above-average social status generally face routine discrimination in just about everything.

That's always the problem with society - there is never enough prestige and glory to share with everyone on the planet who believe they deserve a piece of it.
most people are not above average, that is why they are most people. And I don't see how the condition of most people is discrimination. Discrimination is the status of a minority vis a vis a majority.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old Oct 22nd 2014, 01:55 AM
NickKIELCEPoland's Avatar
NickKIELCEPoland NickKIELCEPoland is offline
Globetrotter
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 8,080
Default Re: Which group most discriminated against?

Quote:
Originally Posted by shekib82 View Post
most people are not above average, that is why they are most people. And I don't see how the condition of most people is discrimination. Discrimination is the status of a minority vis a vis a majority.
By my definition, if a minority repesses a majority, as in apartheid South Africa, that is also discrimination.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old Oct 22nd 2014, 02:21 AM
shekib82 shekib82 is offline
Globetrotter
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,134
Default Re: Which group most discriminated against?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NickKIELCEPoland View Post
By my definition, if a minority repesses a majority, as in apartheid South Africa, that is also discrimination.
Yeah. I guess you are right about that. Maybe I should have said in a democracy.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old Oct 22nd 2014, 02:29 AM
NickKIELCEPoland's Avatar
NickKIELCEPoland NickKIELCEPoland is offline
Globetrotter
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 8,080
Default Re: Which group most discriminated against?

Quote:
Originally Posted by shekib82 View Post
Yeah. I guess you are right about that. Maybe I should have said in a democracy.
That would have been closer to my way of thinking.

I still don't completely agree, however. In the democratic United Kingdom, the England-based people (who are a majority) feel discriminated against, since Scotland-based people have influence over several matters in England, which England-based people have no influence over in Scotland.
http://www.discussionworldforum.com/...ead.php?t=5186

Last edited by NickKIELCEPoland; Oct 22nd 2014 at 02:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old Oct 31st 2014, 06:59 PM
Michael's Avatar
Michael Michael is offline
Administrator
Herder of Cats
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 14,823
Default Re: Which group most discriminated against?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dominick View Post
That certainly exists and apparently even in Ontario:

http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bil...ssionID=37%3A1



The mere perception (read: whim) of a cop is sufficient.

According to this (don't know the quality of the paper though), Toronto police have put away 8,441 people in 2013 alone!

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014...ll_people.html

It exists, that I know of, at least in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany too.
I've been trying to follow up on this stuff. As near as I can tell, this is only the 'normative' right of the police to apprehend people who are actually violent (or engaged in criminal violence). And this is only a right to hold someone a temporary basis for psychiatric evaluation. After that, the state has to prove just cause in order to keep hold of them, or agreement of the patient, otherwise they can walk free.

Now it is possible that our police are trying to push the envelope of what they are allowed to do here, but that's part and parcel of the general trend of police seeking to expand their general powers of apprehension and detention, not something specific to the mentally ill. Legally, the only thing the police can do is pick someone up (who is allegedly acting violent) and hold them for a psychiatric evaluation and court review if criminal acts are involved. And as the Star article notes, the rising numbers might also indicate a positive policy situation where police are bringing more mentally ill people to hospitals instead of throwing them in jail like they used to do.

That is to say, my essential point still stands. I did note the exception for police and violence and that's exactly what your links are pointing at. A screamer on the streets is free to keep screaming on the streets as long as he's not actually violent to others. If the screamer gets actually violent, the police may apprehend them, but without the violence, they can't legally do it. And without a court order, you can't legally hold them beyond a reasonable time allowed for evaluation and treatment recommendations. And treatment cannot be legally enforced without a specific court order subsequent to the evaluation. The "community treatment orders" mentioned are just regular court orders - which means a proper court hearing ordering a specified treatment. In other words, you can't ship your annoying mentally ill nephew off to the sanitorium with this legislation. Mentally ill people who have demonstrated violence can be forced into some treatment regime, but that requires specific judicial court review and judgement. If there is no evidence of criminal violence, there cannot be legal detention or court ordered treatment.

Anyway, the bottom line is that I'm not trying to make light of any discrimination mentally ill people are subjected to. Lots of people are discriminated against for a variety of reasons. I'm merely pointing out the one form of discrimination that mentally ill people don't face is legal descrimination - quite the opposite in fact - they have extra special legal protections that I don't have. If I am criminally violent, the police will lock me up and a court will send me to jail for years. If however, the police suspect that I am mentally ill, then no jail - I get to go to a hospital for evaluation by doctors. That's a significant difference. Outside of the first world, things would be different, but I'm talking about first world here.
__________________
Remember what the dormouse said: Feed your head!
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old Nov 1st 2014, 12:29 AM
Dominick's Avatar
Dominick Dominick is offline
Globetrotter
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Dying Europe
Posts: 3,837
Default Re: Which group most discriminated against?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael View Post
I've been trying to follow up on this stuff. As near as I can tell, this is only the 'normative' right of the police to apprehend people who are actually violent (or engaged in criminal violence). And this is only a right to hold someone a temporary basis for psychiatric evaluation. After that, the state has to prove just cause in order to keep hold of them, or agreement of the patient, otherwise they can walk free.

Now it is possible that our police are trying to push the envelope of what they are allowed to do here, but that's part and parcel of the general trend of police seeking to expand their general powers of apprehension and detention, not something specific to the mentally ill. Legally, the only thing the police can do is pick someone up (who is allegedly acting violent) and hold them for a psychiatric evaluation and court review if criminal acts are involved. And as the Star article notes, the rising numbers might also indicate a positive policy situation where police are bringing more mentally ill people to hospitals instead of throwing them in jail like they used to do.

That is to say, my essential point still stands. I did note the exception for police and violence and that's exactly what your links are pointing at. A screamer on the streets is free to keep screaming on the streets as long as he's not actually violent to others. If the screamer gets actually violent, the police may apprehend them, but without the violence, they can't legally do it. And without a court order, you can't legally hold them beyond a reasonable time allowed for evaluation and treatment recommendations. And treatment cannot be legally enforced without a specific court order subsequent to the evaluation. The "community treatment orders" mentioned are just regular court orders - which means a proper court hearing ordering a specified treatment. In other words, you can't ship your annoying mentally ill nephew off to the sanitorium with this legislation. Mentally ill people who have demonstrated violence can be forced into some treatment regime, but that requires specific judicial court review and judgement. If there is no evidence of criminal violence, there cannot be legal detention or court ordered treatment.

Anyway, the bottom line is that I'm not trying to make light of any discrimination mentally ill people are subjected to. Lots of people are discriminated against for a variety of reasons. I'm merely pointing out the one form of discrimination that mentally ill people don't face is legal descrimination - quite the opposite in fact - they have extra special legal protections that I don't have. If I am criminally violent, the police will lock me up and a court will send me to jail for years. If however, the police suspect that I am mentally ill, then no jail - I get to go to a hospital for evaluation by doctors. That's a significant difference. Outside of the first world, things would be different, but I'm talking about first world here.
The key sentence in that law is:
"...Where a police officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe..."
The typical cop has zero knowledge of psychology, let alone psychiatry. The typical cop will 'believe' this on prejudice, bigotry or just plain mischievous grounds. I bet you 1,000 that cops have used this law to eliminate love rivals, left wing protesters, or anyone who pisses them off for whatever reason. Getting picked up under a mental health issue even once is enough to destroy a life or a career no matter what the ensuing evaluation says.

And it's one of the most persistent myths in Western middle class circles that incarceration under a mental health act is 'softer', a privilege or something of that kind. One's a hundred times better of doing jail time. The typical outcome of incarceration under a mental health act is that the 'pampered' subject is permanently drugged up to his or her eyeballs (Big Pharma's got to make a living), has no recourse to legal assistance, gets no visits from human rights, charity or religious organizations and has no prospects of anything similar to parole. In short, such people tend to be left vegetating for an indefinite time, not unusually until death.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old Nov 1st 2014, 02:09 AM
shekib82 shekib82 is offline
Globetrotter
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,134
Default Re: Which group most discriminated against?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dominick View Post
The key sentence in that law is:
"...Where a police officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe..."
The typical cop has zero knowledge of psychology, let alone psychiatry. The typical cop will 'believe' this on prejudice, bigotry or just plain mischievous grounds. I bet you 1,000 that cops have used this law to eliminate love rivals, left wing protesters, or anyone who pisses them off for whatever reason. Getting picked up under a mental health issue even once is enough to destroy a life or a career no matter what the ensuing evaluation says.

And it's one of the most persistent myths in Western middle class circles that incarceration under a mental health act is 'softer', a privilege or something of that kind. One's a hundred times better of doing jail time. The typical outcome of incarceration under a mental health act is that the 'pampered' subject is permanently drugged up to his or her eyeballs (Big Pharma's got to make a living), has no recourse to legal assistance, gets no visits from human rights, charity or religious organizations and has no prospects of anything similar to parole. In short, such people tend to be left vegetating for an indefinite time, not unusually until death.
This is obviously discrimination. Add to this if someone's is actually mentally ill but on medication and otherwise normal, but who might get into some kind of trouble with the law for some legitimate reason. He will be discredited just because he is mentally ill. He will be treated as though he is psychotic, even though he would not be.

A mental illness is a permanent stigma.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old Nov 1st 2014, 06:56 AM
dilettante's Avatar
dilettante dilettante is offline
Moderator
Resident Historian
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,082
Default Re: Which group most discriminated against?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dominick View Post
The key sentence in that law is:
"...Where a police officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe..."
The typical cop has zero knowledge of psychology, let alone psychiatry. The typical cop will 'believe' this on prejudice, bigotry or just plain mischievous grounds. I bet you 1,000 that cops have used this law to eliminate love rivals, left wing protesters, or anyone who pisses them off for whatever reason. Getting picked up under a mental health issue even once is enough to destroy a life or a career no matter what the ensuing evaluation says.
What are police officers to act on in the moment if not their own "reasonable and probable" beliefs?

Any power given to the police is liable to be abused, but surely it would be odd for the law to read that if an officer "believes" someone is behaving violently, is mentally ill, and is likely to cause bodily injury to someone else, he/she should NOT take them into custody.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dominick View Post
And it's one of the most persistent myths in Western middle class circles that incarceration under a mental health act is 'softer', a privilege or something of that kind. One's a hundred times better of doing jail time. The typical outcome of incarceration under a mental health act is that the 'pampered' subject is permanently drugged up to his or her eyeballs (Big Pharma's got to make a living), has no recourse to legal assistance, gets no visits from human rights, charity or religious organizations and has no prospects of anything similar to parole. In short, such people tend to be left vegetating for an indefinite time, not unusually until death.
I'm dubious as to the typicality of such treatment...

But then I'm not familiar with this subject, so maybe I should be more freaked out then I am.
__________________
kyrie eleison
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2008 - 2017, DiscussionWorldForum.com