I am not exaggerating. I haven’t used the word ‘Nazi’ lightly in the title of this feature.
I have used the word NAZI because of the remarkable parallels between the latest West Australian Mental Health Commission proposals, and the Eugenics ideals that spawned the insanity of the Hitler’s Nazis, which of course included enormous funding of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute which got their ideas from the Rockefeller Foundation.
The Eugenics ideals are self evidently incorrect in many ways, but perhaps the most glaring obvious error is the fact that the Eugenicists of old believed in selective breeding to once again play God, and attempt to produce a ‘superior’ human.
In the case of the globalists, the self proclaimed elite have reduced their gene pool via interbreeding to such a great extent that what was portrayed in ‘Deliverance’ was probably a fairly accurate portrayal of the sort of thing that the globalists like to get up to in their spare time.
The problem with what the globalists have planned is that it concerns you, me and everyone else you know, where ever you may live.
Many people are still only just getting to grips with the fact that what we are all faced with is a planned scientific dictatorship. Aldous Huxley described it accurately and it is moving in to a town near you.
The question is, do you think that with the prospect of a totalitarian brutal system of global governance riding in to town, that perhaps you might want to have something to say about being sidetracked whilst the finishing touches are put in to the plans of the most brutally genocidal regime than anything that has ever gone before?
I know the answer to that. If you don’t then I hope the following critique of the current proposals helps put things into perspective for you, and if you do, then please say something about it. Do not let this slip through. It must be opposed.
I have gone over some of the excellent work carried out by the CCHR in relation to the nightmarish, Orwellian proposals under consideration for Western Australia a couple of years ago. Things have moved along since then, and I have www.Naturalnews.com to thank for raising the alarm regarding where things are at. (Oh and by the way yes I was informed that the CCHR is funded from Scientologists, but I called the CCHR to quiz them on this and the bloke I spoke to said that he was a volunteer and even if someone called him to ask him something about scientology he wouldnt be able to tell me anything because he didn’t know anything about it. Just so you know.)
Before I get in to the proposals I would like to say that obviously there are some folk that are as nutty as a fruitcake, there are drug crazed loons out on the street, some absolute genuinely insane space cadets out there and I am just stating the obvious to highlight that yes obviously some people need some help.
However, some basic principles should be adhered to at all times. Firstly, that the consent to treatment should be by the patient. In the event that the patient is unable to, then the consent must always reside with the partner, or sibling, or the parents, or guardian of that individual.
We must not accept any attempt to take that authority and place it in to the hands of any government.
If we accept the proposals, the door is then open to adopt a Soviet Union style incarceration of political dissidents, of sterilizations and controversial treatments such as brain frying ECT or lobotomies.
This is not wild conjecture, the only thing that that I mentioned in the last sentence that isn’t included in the WAMHC proposals is the locking up of political dissidents – everything else is there in the proposals.
The following is from Natural News, the full article is here http://www.naturalnews.com/035185_Australia_sterilization_children.html
Australian children to be sterilized without parental consent under new eugenics law
Thursday, March 08, 2012 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
(NaturalNews) If you have ever seen the famous 1975 movie One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, you likely recall several disturbing scenes in which mental health patients are given frontal-lobe lobotomies, or the iconic scene where actor Jack Nicholson’s character undergoes electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). Today, these horrific forms of so-called mental health treatment are considered to be cruel relics of the past, but a new bill in Australia proposes that young children be given these treatments without parental consent, and even be permitted to undergo sterilization procedures without parental consent.
The Government of Western Australia’s Mental Health Commission (WAMHC) has basically conjured up a proposal for new mental health legislation that bypasses parental involvement in the mental health treatment process, and instead tasks children under age 18, and of any age, with making the decision about whether or not to be sterilized, or whether or not to have their brain tissue destroyed with psychosurgery procedures. If a “mental health professional” can convince children that they need such treatments for their own good, in other words, than Australia’s youngest members of society will be open game for the eugenicist agenda.
It almost sounds like the plot of a sick movie, but it is all true and fully documented right in the WAMHC Mental Health Bill 2011, which you can access here: http://www.mentalhealth.wa.gov.au
Eugenicists want to sterilize Australian children without ever telling the kids’ parents
In the twisted minds of those who have seized positions of power all over the world, separating children from their parents and performing medical experiments on them in secret is a fully acceptable form of “medicine.” And this form of child abuse is exactly what WAMHC has proposed in its new mental health bill.
Pages 135 and 136 of the bill (pages 157 and 158 of the PDF) cover the issue of sterilization, explaining that if a psychiatrist decides that a child under 18 years of age “has sufficient maturity,” he or she will be able to consent to sterilization without parental consent. It also goes on to say that parents will never be notified that the sterilization procedure occurred, as only the “Chief Psychiatrist” will be privy to this information.
It sounds an awful lot like the euthanasia programs that emerged in Germany during the 1930s, when Nazis began secretly sterilizing individuals with physical or mental disabilities as part of “Operation T4″ (http://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/people/victims.htm). This eugenics program was later intensified, of course, when German physicians at Nazi death camps routinely sterilized men, women, and children, and later killed them, as part of the Nazi regime’s utterly revolting ethnic cleansing experiments (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/aumed.html ).
Medical ‘authorities’ want to arbitrarily commit children to mental institutions, indefinitely restrain them, and force them to undergo brain-damaging procedures
All of this gets worse, however, with other language scattered throughout the bill that would allow psychiatrists to involuntarily and indefinitely detain children who are “suspected” of having a mental illness. And during their detainment, such children can be forced to comply with drug, restraint, and seclusion protocols, as well as be forced to undergo permanently-damaging procedures like psychosurgery or ECT.
Worse, those who would be permitted to detain these children in the first place, deemed as “authorized mental health practitioners,” are so loosely defined that virtually anyone could be authorized by the Chief Psychiatrist to abduct supposedly “mentally ill” children and commit them to mental institutions against their will and their parents’ will.
Mental Health Commission is only accepting comments on the bill until March 9, 2012
The language in Australia’s Mental Health Bill 2011 truly is horrifying, but not necessarily surprising. Similar efforts to undermine parental authority are taking place both in the U.S. and around the world.
California Gov. Jerry Brown, for instance, recently signed into law Senate Assembly Bill 499, which allows for children as young as age 12 to be vaccinated with the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine Gardasil, Hepatitis B, and various other sexually-transmitted disease (STD) vaccines without parental consent (http://www.naturalnews.com/033848_Merck_legislators.html ).
But our friends “down under” need your help today in spreading the word about this deadly legislation, and sending comments of opposition to Australia’s Mental Health Commission as soon as possible.
You can send your comments by email to:
You can send your comments by “snail” mail to:
GPO Box X2299
Perth Business Centre, W.A. 6847
If you live in Australia, you can also contact the Mental Health Minister, the Health Minister, and your local Member of Parliament by visiting:
The deadline to submit a comment is March 9, so be sure to submit your comment before then. And remember, health freedom issues, whether domestic or abroad, eventually affect all of us if left unchecked. This is why it is important to combat tyranny and injustice anywhere and everywhere it may be found.
Sources for this article include:
Note the parallels drawn between the current draft bill proposed and the German Nazis in the article above.
And now taken directly from the document, the Draft Bill, some of the proposals are below, but firstly let us just look at what the draft says at the start:
The objects of this Act are as follows —
4 (a) to ensure people who have a mental illness receive the
5 best possible treatment and care with —
6 (i) the least possible restriction of their freedom;
8 (ii) the least possible interference with their rights
9 and dignity;
So, with the above in mind let’s see how ‘least possible’ restriction of freedom, interference with individuals rights and dignity translates into what is being proposed:
The first part talks at length regarding the process for obtaining consent for treatment, and details such as giving all the information to the patient and allow them time to make an informed decision etcetera, but the Draft goes downhill from that point on.
The next section deals with ‘Involuntary’ patients.
4 (1) An involuntary patient is a person in respect of whom an
5 involuntary treatment order is in force.
6 (2) An involuntary treatment order is —
7 (a) an in-patient treatment order; or
8 (b) a community treatment order.
9 22. In-patient treatment order
10 (1) An in-patient treatment order is an order made under this Act
11 under which a person can be admitted to a hospital, and
12 detained there, to enable the person to be provided with treatment.
Furthermore, there are even provisions in the proposals that could enable the psychiatrist superpowers of declaring any place that they deem suitable as a suitable venue to make a determination as to whether or not a person needs to become an involuntary patient.
Referral to psychiatrist
(1) If, having regard to the criteria specified in section 25, a medical
practitioner or authorised mental health practitioner reasonably
suspects that a person is in need of an involuntary treatment
order, the practitioner may take action under subsection (2) or (3) in respect of the person.
(2) The practitioner may refer the person for an examination to be
conducted by a psychiatrist at an authorised hospital.
(3) The practitioner —
(a) may refer the person for an examination to be conducted
by a psychiatrist at a place that is not an authorised hospital if, in the practitioner’s opinion, it is an appropriate place at which to conduct the examination;
72 Hours detention on a whim by an ‘authorised’ person
Detention to enable person to be taken to authorised
12 hospital or other place
13 (1) A medical practitioner or authorised mental health practitioner
14 may make an order in the approved form authorising the
15 person’s detention for up to 6 hours from the time the referral is
16 made if satisfied that, because of the person’s mental or physical
17 condition, the person needs to be detained to enable the person
18 to be taken to the hospital or other place.
(3) A person cannot be detained under this section for a continuous period of more than 72 hours.
For the purposes of subsection (2), these things may be done in
relation to a person referred to in subsection (1)(a)(ii) or (iii)
or (b) without consent —
(a) the person may be examined;
(b) samples of the person’s blood, tissue and excreta may be taken.
Giving oral authorisation
10 (1) A medical practitioner or mental health practitioner may
authorise orally the bodily restraint of any of these people —
(a) a person who is a patient;
Turning voluntary patients into involuntary patients if they want out
32. Detention by person in charge of ward to enable voluntary
13 in-patient to be assessed
14 (1) This section applies if, having regard to the criteria specified in
15 section 25, the person in charge of the voluntary in-patient’s
16 ward reasonably suspects that the voluntary in-patient is in need
17 of an involuntary treatment order —
18 (a) because the voluntary in-patient wants to be discharged
19 from the hospital against medical advice; or
20 (b) for another reason.
I wont include the part in there that enables someone suspected of being mentally ill from being stripped down to their underwear for a frisk search, which no doubt would do wonders for anyones mental wellbeing. Anyway but wait there’s more
Involuntary patients and mentally impaired accused
140. Application of this Division
This Division applies in relation to —
(a) an involuntary patient; or
(b) a patient 1 who is a mentally impaired accused who must be detained at an authorised hospital because of a determination made under the CL(MIA) Act
section 25(1)(b) or amended under section 26 of that Act.
141. Informed consent not necessary
(1) The patient can be provided with treatment without informed consent being given to the provision of the treatment.
The proposal includes a number of provisions to enable children to make ‘informed consent’ to a variety of treatments. Now just to make another obvious point for the benefit of the contributors to the Draft –
It is utterly ridiculous to expect that a child would be able to give informed consent to anything. They are children, you Draft Bill morons!
Requirements for ECT: voluntary patient: child between 12
and 18 years of age with capacity to consent
(1) This section applies in relation to a child who —
(a) has reached 12 years of age but is under 18 years of age; and
(b) has sufficient maturity and understanding to make
reasonable decisions about matters relating to himself or
170. Requirements for psychosurgery: child who is between 12
16 and 18 years of age with capacity to consent
(1) This section applies in relation to a child who —
(a) has reached 12 years of age but is under 18 years of age; and
(b) has sufficient maturity and understanding to make reasonable decisions about matters relating to himself or herself.
(2) A person must not perform psychosurgery on the child unless —
(a) the person is a neurosurgeon; and
(b) the child has given informed consent to the psychosurgery being performed; and
the Mental Health Tribunal has given its approval
Just to clarify that, then a 12 year old child, who can’t drive a car, but apparently can be given the ‘ok’ to agree to having some lobotomizing treatment that will impact on them for the rest of their lives?
What is wrong with that proposal do you reckon?
For one, if you have a look through the document you may notice the recurring use of the word ‘opinion’ because that’s really a good indicator of the quackery of psychiatry, since they cannot scientifically demonstrate to ‘prove’ anything beyond their ‘opinion.’ It’s as fake as the IPCC scientific ‘consensus’.
The proposal allows for anyone declared as an ‘involuntary’ patient to be given ‘emergency’ electro convulsive therapy, or ECT. http://www.ect.org/effects.shtml
18 A medical practitioner who performs electroconvulsive therapy
19 on a person does not commit an offence under this Division
20 if —
21 (a) the person has reached 18 years of age; and
22 (b) one of the following applies —
23 (i) the person is —
24 (I) an involuntary patient
I can’t think of any situation where frying someone’s brains with an electric current would be beneficial in any emergency but what would I know?
I do know that it is a controversial subject, and I have also investigated the issue, the rapid rising use of ECT on young children in Victoria, and what some of the people who have been given ECT often against their will and have declared it as ‘torture’, some people lose their memories, some break bones due to the violent contractions and muscle spasms that it can produce which is why they usually use anaesthetic and muscle relaxing drugs which is small consolation for those subjected to this medical torture that was spawned via MK-Ultra amongst other things, it is disgusting. Yes there are people out there who claim that they have benefitted from ECT but they are the minority compared to those that have spoken out against the ‘treatment’.
Division 3 — Sterilisation procedure
It comes as no surprise that sterilization is included in great detail in the proposal, because it supports the eugenics ideals of the scientific dictatorship.
208. Sterilisation procedure: meaning of
(1) A sterilisation procedure is the provision of medical or surgical
treatment that is intended to make a person, or to ensure a person is, permanently infertile.
SO here below is the part that enables children to consent to being sterilized.
209. Requirements for sterilisation procedure
A person must not perform a sterilisation procedure on a person
who has a mental illness unless —
(a) if the person is a child who does not have sufficient
maturity or understanding to make reasonable decisions
about matters relating to himself or herself — the
Family Court has authorised the sterilisation procedure
to be performed; or
(b) if the person —
(i) is a child who has sufficient maturity and
understanding to make reasonable decisions
about matters relating to himself or herself;
Part 13 of the Draft Bill talks about Patients’ rights, which explains the necessity to explain ‘you have no rights’ as outlined below.
Anyone finding themselves at the mercy of this nightmarish proposal may feel somewhat reassured that they have some freedom as outlined in 228:
228. Freedom of lawful communication
(1) This section applies subject to section 229.
(2) A patient has the right of freedom of lawful communication.
(3) A patient’s freedom of lawful communication includes the freedom to do any of these things —
(a) communicate to the extent that is reasonable with other people in the authorised hospital;
(b) send and receive —
(i) uncensored private communications; and
(ii) uncensored communications from the patient’s legal practitioner;
(c) receive visits from, and be otherwise contacted by, a mental health advocate at any time;
(d) receive visits from the patient’s legal practitioner at all reasonable times;
(e) receive visits from other people at all reasonable times;
(f) access postal and telephone services, newspapers, radio and television at reasonable times.
The above seems reasonable enough until you see 229:
Restrictions on freedom of communication
(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), a psychiatrist may make an order in the approved form —
(a) prohibiting a patient from exercising a right under section 228; or
(b) limiting the extent to which a patient can exercise a right under section 228.
The proposal to bring Nazi Germany to Western Australia can be found here
(If anyone cant find the document email me here and I will email a copy to you.)
Unfortunately the closing date for public comment ends on 9th March. Please have your say – NOW!
The CCHR article on this issue can be found below:
The 2001 Policies and Procedure Manual of W.A.’s Graylands psychiatric hospital warned staff that once the electroshock machine was turned on, “it was as lethal as a loaded gun and should be treated as such”.
Medicare-funded-electroshock treatments in W.A. increased 50% between 2005 and 2011. Freedom of ￼Information Requests revealed that in 2007/08 children aged 11 to 15 were given electroshock. In 2009/10 there were 16 children under the age of 18 who were given electroshock. If this Mental Health Draft Bill is implemented, the numbers of children receiving electroshock can only skyrocket, as all required safeguards to protect children are not in the bill.
Voluntary patients in W.A. who refuse to consent to electroshock are threatened with involuntary commitment. A voluntary patient was given electroshock in 2010/11 despite refusing to give consent. Threats to make a patient involuntary if they refuse any treatment are common.1 To be forced to receive damaging physical treatment with permanent debilitating consequences is a violation of fundamental human rights.
It is the role of Parliament to protect citizens from harmful psychiatric practices encased in law. If Parliament had not banned Deep Sleep Treatment (where patients were put into a drug induced coma and battered with electroshock) in N.S.W. it would still be legal. In N.S.W., 48 people died in the infamous Chelmsford Private Psychiatric Hospital after receiving Deep Sleep Treatment and it took a Royal Commission to expose the human rights abuses. For years the psychiatric profession had turned a blind eye and failed to effectively act against its members whose conduct was abusive and criminal. They must have external scrutiny and review.
While electroshock is set to be banned in the draft bill for any child under 12 only, in 2009 the previous W.A. Mental Health Minister Mr. Graham Jacobs, said he believed it should not be given to any child under 16 and he believed most people would want the age cut-off to be higher than 12 years. Electroshock should be completely banned, but its use on the elderly, pregnant women and children is especially destructive and should be prohibited. [Pages: 100, 101, 103, 104, 194, 105 of the Draft Mental Health Bill 2011]
AGE OF A CHILD: The age of a minor is determined by existing laws and this proposed draft of the Mental Health Bill also defines a child as “a person under 18″. While society restricts 12 year olds from smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, skipping school, having sex and driving a vehicle, psychiatry wants them to “consent” to mind-altering drugs, electroshock, psychosurgery and sterilisation. How is it that a 12 year old, according to a psychiatrist’s subjective opinion, could “have sufficient maturity and understanding to make reasonable decisions about matters relating to him or herself” when the information provided by psychiatry is biased and subjective? [Page 3 of the Draft Mental Health Bill 2011]
PARENTS RIGHT TO VISIT & COMMUNICATE WITH THEIR CHILD CAN BE REMOVED: At any time a psychiatrist can decide it is not in the child’s best interest to see his or her parents. The psychiatrist can make an order which prohibits the right of a parent to visit or communicate with their child, and refuse the child access to the telephone or visits from friends. [Pages: 145, 146 of the Draft Mental Health Bill 2011]
KIDS PLACED IN PSYCHIATRIC WARDS WITH ADULTS: The draft bill does not rule out children being held in wards with adults if the mental health service considers it is appropriate for them to be there. Children should never be treated in a psychiatric ward with adults. To consider exposing children to such an environment shows pitiful respect for them and leaves them open to physical and sexual abuse in an environment where there is insufficient supervision. [Page 161 of the Draft Mental Health Bill 2011]
RESTRAINT AND SECLUSION OF CHILDREN: Children can be restrained in a psychiatric institution. Only the use of mechanical restraint (manacles, belts, straps etc.) and the use of bodily force by others are covered in the draft bill. Chemical restraint, the use of psychiatric drugs to subdue and control the person, is not covered in the draft bill, so there are no legal safeguards to prevent its application. In the 2009 National Mental Health Consumer and Carer Forum’s (NMHCCF) report “Ending Seclusion and Restraint in Australian Mental Health Services”, it states: “Chemical restraint is unacceptable as a form of involuntary restraint in any circumstance” and is an “exceptionally dangerous experience for people with a mental illness, as documented previously by the Mental Health Council of Australia”.2
Death can result from all forms of restraint. Only an oral order is needed for the restraint of a child. This order can be given not only by a psychiatrist, but also by a psychologist, nurse, social worker or occupational therapist. ￼The National Mental Health Consumer & Carer Forum’s position is that involuntary seclusion and restraint should be “eradicated from use in Australia’s mental health services”, “are commonly associated with human rights abuse”, “are not evidence-based therapeutic interventions,” and can “cause short term and long term emotional damage to consumers”. It is terrifying for adults, much less children. No law should force such abuse on any individual.3
The draft bill allows for any child to be secluded at any time in a psychiatric facility. The Council of Official Visitors, set up to assist involuntary patients and inspect psychiatric facilities, reported in their 2011 annual report that they had received complaints regarding rough treatment towards secluded patients, clothing removed from patients when in seclusion, patients secluded too often and patients secluded with no toilet facilities, drinks or blankets provided.4 It is not known how many seclusions or restraints occur, as shockingly it is not a current reporting requirement under the existing Mental Health Act. However a 2005 report stated that there were 2,083 seclusions in W.A. for that year.5 [Pages:122, 121, 113, 246 of the Draft Mental Health Bill 2011]
CHILDREN CAN ADMIT THEMSELVES TO A PSYCHIATRIC FACILITY & CONSENT TO DRUGS WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT: Any child, regardless of age, who according to a psychiatrist “has sufficient maturity and understanding to make reasonable decisions about matters relating to him or herself” can admit themselves to a psychiatric hospital without parental approval and consent to potentially harmful recommended psychotropic drugs. [Page 160 of the Draft Mental Health Bill 2011]
INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT OF CHILDREN: At any time or place, a medical practitioner or authorised mental health practitioner (the draft bill does not even define who this will be) who “suspects” a child of mental illness can make a legal order for them to be sent for psychiatric assessment. Even a child at a medical appointment or in a general hospital suspected of mental illness could be detained for up to 3 days while awaiting transport for assessment. Once the child is transported to the assessing psychiatrist (usually at a psychiatric hospital) the psychiatrist can involuntarily detain the child for up to 14 days. Parents will not be able to discharge their child and take them home; the psychiatrist has the power to prevent parents from seeing their child if they decide it is in the child’s best interest. A psychiatrist can then make a “continuation order” to continue the involuntary commitment for up to 3 months once the 14 days has expired. He or she can continue to do this in up to 3 month blocks each time. During detainment the child could be drugged, restrained, secluded, given electroshock (if 12 or over) and could be put into a ward with adults. Parental consent is not required to continue the detainment or for any treatment.
APPEAL: The parents can appeal the child’s involuntary detainment to the Mental Health Tribunal. If parents don’t appeal, the Tribunal must review the child’s involuntary detainment within 10 days of admission to the psychiatric hospital and then every 28 days. The Tribunal cannot order a psychiatrist to change the treatment the child is receiving. A psychiatrist can tell the Tribunal it is not in the child’s best interest for the parents to be at the hearing and parents can be excluded.
There are no guarantees that an appeal or hearing at the Mental Health Review Tribunal will result in the child being allowed to go home. In 2010/11 there were 1,248 hearings for all ages of patients with the current W.A. Mental Health Review Board. Only 4.6% (58) people had their status changed from involuntary to voluntary.6
There should be no difference in parental rights with psychiatric treatment than there is with any other medical treatment. It is completely unacceptable to remove parental rights over children where those parents are not subject to legal orders preventing them access to their children.
Please get on the case NOW!