About the SFD blog
'The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.'
-- Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816.
'Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule.'
- Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil; Prelude for a Philosophy of the Future, Vintage books , 1966, (1886) at p. 90.
Madness is certainly the rule in New Zealand with regard to the majority and Parliament's mental health laws. This blog was initially designed for personal use only, but why not become activist. The message is clear; all legislative provisions that compel a so -called 'mentally disordered' (see definition in s.2 Mental Health (C.A.T.) Act 1992) person to take drugs should be repealed. Parliament, should not have the jurisdiction to decide what drug another human being has to take and to compel them to take it. However, Parliament, with its supremacy, has theoretically and academically speaking , unlimited power. It almost escapes comprehension how Parliament's jurisdiction could extend to these vast limits.
You will note the posters on this blog using terms like 'fascist democracy'. In the 19th century John Stuart Mill stated in On Liberty : '... and in political speculations " the tyranny of the majority" is now generally included among the evils against which society requires to be on its guard' ( at p.62). The following passage encapulates New Zealand's tyranny:
‘As with most democratic governments, but even more so in New
Zealand, the Executive wields extraordinary power, including the
power to take away fundamental rights and freedoms, which are
protected only by goodwill and trust, and not by the courts. This
enormous and almost unchecked power of government, alone and
through Parliament, has been likened by a former Prime Minister
to that of the Stuart Kings before the Glorious Revolution of 1668.
It was characterized by other commentators as an almost perfect
example of a strict majoritarian model, an “elective dictatorship”,
and an “overpowerful parliament dominated by what is a result
and overpowerful executive”. This is clearly a very “thin” and
(G.W.G. Leane H.R.Q. 26 (2004) 152, at p.167 :cf. J.S. Mill, On Liberty, 1859 at pp. 62 & 63; James Madison et al, The Federalist Papers (1788); Alexis de Tocqueville Democracy in America (1835).
In New Zealand, descriptions such as 'tyranny of the majority' and 'elective dictatorship' fit nicely. Another factor adding to all this is that the Legislative Council Abolition Act 1950 states 'The Legislative Council of New Zealand is hereby abolished...' (s.2(1)). Therefore, the New Zealand Parliament is unicameral, that is, it has only one chamber - the House of Representatives. Compare the UK which has the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
The majority of people in New Zealand, via a democratic mandate, elect their representatives into power. However they cannot be blamed after that for what those representatives, acting as Parliament, enact into law. The people are to blame for the initial act, that is, of electing their representatives into Parliament based on a handful of promises. If Parliament later chooses to break those promises there is little the majority can do, as Parliament retains its supremacy. However, where do the minority fit into to all this?
Do you think the minority, the ones held under the Mental Health Act, would have voted for representatives who sought to enact a piece of legislation that takes away their fundamental rights, such as the right to refuse treatment in section 11 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990? Or, do you think they they would vote for a party they wished to enact legislation that authorized the use of force on them? ( see s.122B(3) MHA ). It is absurd to even suggest it. Who would vote for a party that promised to take away the rights of the very people who voted them into power? That is why the majority in this country are to blame, as they hold the power, through the sheer weight of numbers. They elect who they want.
Only a small percentage of the population are held under the provisions of the Mental Health (C.A.T.) Act 1992. Almost any person who comes within the statutory definition of 'mental disorder' in section 2 of the 1992 Act can be detained and forced to take psychiatric drugs. However, there are common law and statutory exceptions. For instance, section 4 of the Mental Health (C.A.T.) Act 1992 excludes certain categories of persons from the procedures prescribed in Part 1 (compulsory assessment and treatment) and Part 2 (compulsory treatment orders) of the Act, it reads:
4 General rules relating to liability to assessment or treatment
The procedures prescribed by Parts 1 and 2 of this Act shall not be invoked in respect of any person by reason only of—
(a)That person's political, religious, or cultural beliefs; or
(b)That person's sexual preferences; or
(c)That person's criminal or delinquent behaviour; or
(d)Substance abuse; or
Compare: Mental Health Act 1983 (UK), s 1(3)
( section 4 will be left for later discussion. This is a theoretical, not legal, overview)
To continiue, the argument is this; only a small defenseless group of individuals are held under the 1992 Act. Many of those detained are hidden from site and locked away in some psychiatric institution or live in compulsory community care in some house hidden in suburbia.
Do you think that that small dis -empowered minority will ever be able to effect any real change to the 1992 legislation? Even if there was a political party who sought to repeal or amend certain provisions in the 1992 Act would they have sufficient numbers in Parliament to do so? Could they form a coalition with another like minded party? How would the majority respond if this were to happen; or would the majority now be relegated to position of minority?
Another problem in this country is the total absence of a written constitution. There is no entrenched supreme law document. Canada has the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Schedule B Canada Act 1982; see landmark decision R v Big M Drug Mart  1 S.C.R. 295 statute was held to be an unconstitutional violation of section 2 of the Charter ruled invalid under s.52 Constitution Act 1982; for United States see major U.S. Supreme Court decisions Marbury v Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803); Roe v Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973)).
New Zealand has the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The later is a non - entrenched statute. Where there exists an inconsistency with other legislation , section 4 of the NZBORA, expressly upholds that other legislation. Thus the NZBORA is inherently weak. Special regard should be had to section 3 (application) NZBORA and the operative provisions, which are sections 4, 5, and 6. To summarize enormously, everything turns on questions of statutory interpretation. That is, questions, or points of law.
The Courts in New Zealand have no jurisdiction to review primary legislation. However, there have in the past been judicial murmurings. If a piece of legislation were so repugnant to human rights would the courts refuse to give effect to it; could, or indeed would, a Court of superior jurisdiction strike it down? That argument remains academic at this stage of New Zealand's legal development.
There is no doubt that section 11 of the NZBORA has been overridden by provisions in the Mental Health (C.A.T.)Act 1992. A patient held, for instance, under section 58 of the MHA cannot invoke the right in section 11 to refuse medical treatment. However, there is a narrow common law exception to this found in Re S  1 NZLR 363 (H.C.). A patient who is 'mentally disordered' as per s.2 MHA, yet 'competent', within the common law definition found in Re K  NZFLR 318, may avoid compulsory treatment. Q: Should a 'competent' although 'mentally disorded' person be compelled to accept treatment for mental disorder? This area of law is highly contentious and unclear and so will be left to other posts on this blog.
So, the general rule is that a patient who is held, for instance, under section 58 or section 59 of the MHA must accept treatment for 'mental disorder' (s.2). Furthermore, there is statutory authorization found in section 122B(3) MHA to use '... such force as is reasonably necessary in the circumstances' against that patient in order to treat them.
What do you think the long term results will be when only a few citizens are subjected to this horrific legislative violation and the majority avoid it? All efforts must be made to stop forced drugging in New Zealand and elsewhere throughout the world.
DISCLAIMER FROM PERSONAL LIABILITY
THE WRITER OF THIS BLOG ACCEPTS NO CIVIL LIABILITY WHATSOEVER FOR THE CONTENTS OF THIS BLOG: NEITHER IS THE WRITER RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY LIABILITY FOR INACCURACIES REGARDING ANY INFORMATION ON THIS BLOG LEGAL OR OTHERWISE: THIS BLOG WAS NOT, AND NEVER HAS BEEN AND NEVER WILL BE INTENDED AS SUBSTITUTE FOR LEGAL ADVICE >IT MERELY EXPRESSES SOME GENERAL OPINIONS ON LEGAL MATTERS AND SERVES THAT VERY LIMITED PURPOSE: DO NOT RELY ON IT.