Hi everyone.

I've just come back from Queens Square Shopping Centre, West Bromwich. Whilst there I looked at the"CCHR" exhibition "Psychiatry an Industry of Death" and talked to the folks who were attending the exhibit.

I also spent £20.00 on the DVD "Psychiatry an Industry of Death" and a copy of "Psychiatry, Its Fraudulent and Deadly Practices, The Compendium."

However having never heard of the "Citizens Commission on Human Rights" I decided to search the terms psychiatry an industry of death and came up with Indymedia Birmingham, UK | Operation Happy Shopper and then on to your web-site from indymedia.

However I'm even more confused.

I see there is a link between the Church of Scientology and the "Citizens Commission on Human Rights".

So I started to feel that I'd been duped by a front organisation of the Church of Scientology, (other than the usual media scare stories about the Church of Scientology I really don't know a great deal about them so my feelings of being a sucker are quite inexplicable, well inasmuch as I'm exposed to constant media manipulation as anyone else I really shouldn't be surprised that I'm as scared of the bogey-man as anyone else).

I carried on reading around the subject and read some of the comments in opposition to the exhibition. I also noticed that quite a few of the posts referenced Wikipedia as a primary source.

When I read that "Whilst the name 'Citizens Commission on Human Rights' (CCHR) certainly makes it sound like they are a alturistic [sic] group looking to help people, the truth is somewhat different. The group have absolutely no interest in stopping the many human rights abuses around the world, they are an ofshoot [sic] of the 'Church' of Scientology"(http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/birmingham/2008/03/393916.html). I was nearly rushing back to West Brom to demand my money back and give them a verbal kicking for taking the piss.

However one name kept cropping up, Dr Thomas Szasz. Now I'm familiar with this name, 'cos I have a book by him, "The Manufacture of Madness" (like so many of my books it remains unread) and I thought "I didn't realise Thomas Szasz was a Scientologist." So I searched Wikipedia for Szasz's biographical details and found the following

Relationship to Citizens Commission on Human Rights
Together with the Church of Scientology, Szasz co-founded the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), in 1969, to help clean up the field of human rights abuses. He remains on CCHR's Board of Advisors as Founding Commissioner,[7] and continues to provide content for the CCHR.[8] In the keynote address at the 25th anniversary of CCHR, Szasz stated: "We should all honor CCHR because it is really the organization that for the first time in human history has organized a politically, socially, internationally significant voice to combat psychiatry. This has never been done in human history before."[9] Szasz, himself, is an atheist, without any membership or involvement in Scientology. In 2003, the following statement, authorized by Szasz, was posted to the official Szasz web site by its owner, Jeffrey Schaler, explaining Szasz's relationship to CCHR:

"Dr. Szasz co-founded CCHR in the same spirit as he had co-founded — with sociologist Erving Goffman and law professor George Alexander — The American Association for the Abolition for Involuntary Mental Hospitalization...

Scientologists have joined Szasz's battle against institutional psychiatry. Dr. Szasz welcomes the support of Jews, Christians, Muslims, and any other religious or atheist group committed to the struggle against the Therapeutic State. Sharing this battle does not mean that Dr. Szasz supports the unrelated principles and causes of any religious or non-religious organization. This is explicit and implicit in Dr. Szasz's work. Everyone and anyone is welcome to join in the struggle for individual liberty and personal responsibility — especially as these values are threatened by psychiatric ideas and interventions."[10]

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szasz#Relationship_to_Citizens_Commission_on_Human_Rights)

So I'm not really sure why this exhibition is receiving such a bad press from the folks on this board.

And why would you want to stop people, like me, from making up my own mind, by petitioning to have this exhibition banned?

Any suggestions?

Thanks JJW

1. Ask yourself why the CCHR is primarily concerned with taking on psychiatry considering:

a) they are funded, primarily, by the church of scientology.

B) scientologists push their own version of psychiatric help called Auditing, which you have to pay for.

c) they aren't trying to work with the psychiatic profession to get a better understanding of the human mind and ways to treat it, instead being more concerned with spreading fear about it.

d) they are mainly (i.e. nearly entirely) staffed by scientologists

e) they were co founded by L.Ron Hubbard, the founder of scientology.

Also consider the fact that scientology has at least a severe disliking for psychiatry.

Use that as a starting point.

We don't want to stop you making up your own mind, but we do want you to get some background info from another side other than that of the Co$ before you do.

As for stopping the exhibition from being displayed, we find it to be highly offensive scare mongering which serves no purpose than to flog materials by the Co$ and pull people into it's organisation.

Hey, you found my article.


=)


Now.

In short.

Dr. Szasz may have had good intentions with the founding of the CCHR.

However,

Now; the CCHR is mostly staff by Scientologists. Chris Wrapson, elected spokesman for West Brom at least, is definately one.


Scientologists promote Dianetics courses above Psychiatry.

This is because People using Dianetics = Money for the C.o.S.


The difference lies in,

Psychiatry and Psychiatric drugs can help people.
Can we assure Body Thetan spotting does?
In some instances, it has caused the opposite.

The exhibit was petitioned innitally because it's Scientologist propaganda at its current state, regardless of who founded it.

However, on the date of the innital protest, (Mon 31st,)

We directed anyone who had not seen the exhibit to it once we had spoken to them, so they could hear their side of the story.

And in the interest of Free Knowledge to make up your own mind, I'll quote a third article on IndyMedia about the CCHR in West Bromwich. This was taken down/hidden for 'Misinformation' or something like that, I'm lead to believe.

I can assume that [name] is Chris Wrapson. He's the elected Spokesman.

So, if this 'John' does have his email address, I suppose you can send him any questions if so you desire.

(Or I guess you could send them yourself. An email address for Chris Wrapson can be found near the top of a Google Search of his name on Page 2. I shan't post it here however.)

I wouldn't have paid £20 for a DVD myself.
I'm sure it's on Youtube. ;)

There you have it in a nutshell. The CCHR aren't entirely honest about their CoS connections, who, by David Miscaviges' admission in his 2007 New Year address to the Church (google for the video), are trying to completely obliterate psychiatry.

The CCHR exists purely to obfuscate the message originators; they have used the same message for this exhibit as the CoS have in America (see the end of the Panorama: Scientology and Me documentary), the CCHR has not, to my knowledge or research, campaigned on anything other than the "abuses" of psychiatry in it's 40 year existence and is funded and mostly run by Scientologists (read the back of their information booklets).

If the CCHR were to be open about their connections with the CoS, people would be fully informed about who were involved, allowing them to make a balanced decision; since the CCHR don't want that connection to be widely known, our petition was to prevent this misinformation being exhibited dishonestly, whilst our protests outside the exhibit were there to provide the balance.

The CCHR is not interested in improving psychiatry, it is there solely to be a legitimate front for the CoS's obsessive hate of psychiatry. Thats what we take issue with.

Well I'm more interested in the likes of Thomas Szasz than the Church of Scientology.

I know nothing about the Church of Scientology and I'm not sure what the issue is with them as an organisation.

The contents of the DVD appear plausible, although I will read around the subject before making up my mind.

I'm interested in your comments

"Also consider the fact that scientology has at least a severe disliking for psychiatry."

Thomas Szasz interests me more and the following appears quite rational to me

"Szasz has been associated with the anti-psychiatry movement of the 1960s and 1970s, although he has resisted being identified as an anti-psychiatrist. He is not opposed to the practice of psychiatry if it is non-coercive. He maintains that psychiatry should be a contractual service between consenting adults with no state involvement. He favors the abolition of involuntary hospitalization for mental illness. In a 2006 documentary film called Psychiatry: An Industry of Death released on DVD Szasz stated that involuntary mental hospitalization is a crime against humanity. Szasz also believes that, if unopposed, involuntary hospitalization will expand into "pharmacratic" dictatorship."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szasz#Relationship_to_Citizens_Commission_on_Human_Rights)

My starting point is my own involvement with "psychiatry" and I can personally vouch for its inability to understand human distress. Psychiatry would rather diagnose and medicate than accept that it is not necessarily that the individual is sick but the sickness of human beings is a symptom of a sick-society.

You comment

"they aren't trying to work with the psychiatic profession to get a better understanding of the human mind and ways to treat it, instead being more concerned with spreading fear about it."

Well the DVD certainly makes some stark claims; but surely nothing that can't be refuted if it is incorrect?

Although I would agree it's rather dramatic in tone and strays into areas of individual wrong-doing to build a case against the whole-profession is a form of scare-mongering.

However other areas covered such as Scientific Racism, Eugenics, the DSM and the creation of more and more categories of mental illness to justify medicating human-beings in the interests of the pharmaceutical companies needs serious attention and serious resistance from anyone committed to human freedom.



Thanks
JJW

Eugenics,

Now.

Surely Eugenics follows/was inspired moreso by Darwinism rather than Psychiatry.

My personal opinion.

[edit]

Eugenics is a social philosophy...

The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883,[2] drawing on the recent work of his cousin Charles Darwin.

Sir Francis Galton F.R.S. (16 February 1822 – 17 January 1911), half-cousin of Charles Darwin, was an English Victorian polymath, anthropologist, eugenicist, tropical explorer, geographer, inventor, meteorologist, proto-geneticist, psychometrician, and statistician. He was knighted in 1909.

Racial hygiene (often labeled a form of "scientific racism") is the selection, by a government, of the putatively most physical, intellectual and moral persons to raise the next generation (selective breeding) and a close alignment of public health with eugenics. In the past, this has been done by using deportation, segregation, compulsory sterilization, and even genocide of persons or groups with various mental disabilities, ethnicities, handicaps, criminal backgrounds, religious affiliations, etc.

It was the German eugenicist Alfred Ploetz who introduced the term Rassenhygiene in his "Racial hygiene basics" (Grundlinien einer Rassenhygiene) in 1895.

Alfred Ploetz (August 22, 1860 – March 20, 1940) was a German physician, biologist, eugenicist known for introducing together with Wilhelm Schallmayer the concept of racial hygiene (Rassenhygiene) in Germany. "Rassenhygiene" ist another name for eugenics.

From their own website

"CCHR was founded in 1969 by the Church of Scientology and the internationally acclaimed author, Dr. Thomas Szasz"

http://www.cchr.org/about_cchr/

Now, you can research the Co$ quite easily and I suggest doing so before you carry on into the CCHR.

What we want people to do.

Yeah, it is quite plausible and rational. But what about the rest?

Would you call the Industry of Death exhibit rational?
Have you read the leaflets?
Have you read the disclaimers inside the rear flap??



Psychiatry caused the Holocaust? What about the 13th century York and London Jewish massacres?

Who put out and paid for this DVD?

http://www.scientology.org/news-media/brie.../hr/051221.html

Note who sponsers the group.

Care to explain?

Yeah, you need to compare that to other sources of information from both sides.

That's more to do with the far right supporters in the medical profession than medicine and psychiatry. It's just racists trying to use science to back them up.

Unless you're looking at race specific problems such as sickle cell anemia, race doesn't come into it and the GMC will happily deal with racism as with any other form of Mal Practice.

You do realise that eugnics can includes pedigree animal breeding don't you?

That's like saying that using anti-bacterial hand wash is committing genocide (which comes into eugenics as well). Yeah it's arguable, but then using domestos is getting rid of the germs you don't want to breed, whilst drinking Yakult supposedly increases the ones you do.

Eugenics has been around since people began breeding animals for specific use. That would be pretty much when we gained the ability to farm livestock and tame wolves/dogs. If psychiatry is responsible for that I'd be surprised. It's just using words that sound big and impressive to make people listen.

As for the Holocaust, anti-jewish sentiment was rife on the German/Austro-Hungarian Empire side at the end of WW1, no intervention was needed to get people to believe this. The racism was already there, one man acted on it.

Read what you've posted there. Sure you meant to post that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEDwq7EC4HQ&NR=1

What you must keep in mind is that the Church of Scientology are very good when it comes to PR. Unfortunately for them no amount of rhetoric can bring back their own members who have died after being denied psychiatric help at times when they needed it most. Perhaps these examples of what happens when Scientologists are denied psychiatric help may be of some interest to you.

http://www.lisamcpherson.org/

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/JeremyPerkins/

http://www.scopical.com.au/articles/News/4...eads-not-guilty

And thanks for taking the time to come here for the other side of the story. :)

Well, yes and no, some supporters of the idea of Eugenics did use some of Darwins idea as their basis, but Darwin himself was totally against eugenics of any sort.

The Theory of Evolution is an explanation of how we came to have such a diversity of life on the planet. A beautiful and elegant theory, and also a fact.

The Theory of Evolution would be a despicable and cruel way to run any sort of society.

What I meant was Darwinism is closer to Eugenics than any Psychiatric study is that I have stumbled across,

Not that good ol' Charlie thought it was a good idea.

Yup I realise you weren't intending to criticise Charlie D.

I just wanted to clarify this as Darwin is a personal Hero of mine.

Just don't get me started on creationists, lol.

What about creationist-evolutionists...like me?

People who believe God made the world yet we evolved from Gods creatures?

I vote that this thread is moving away from what JJW has posted and should probably be split :)

As far as general species development and the creation of life goes there are six theories.

Creation

1 - The catalyst that allowed the development of life was natural, hence we were not created by a 'god/gods'.

2 - The catalyst that allowed the development of life was artificial, intended or accidental, hence we were created by a 'god/gods' whether accidental or inntended.

Evoloution

3 - The world and its content developed with assistance from an outside force.

4 - The world and its content was not developed with assistance from an outside force.

5 - The world and its content was developed with partial assistance from an outside force.

2 x 3 = 6

Only one rules out 'God/Gods', the combination of 1&4.

Creationist Evolutionists have a much more plausible theory than the traditional creationists or "Young Earth Creationists" but I still feel that Creationism of any type is adding an unnecessary layer of complexity.

Creationism of any sort doesn't answer any questions but begs the question, who created the creator.

If it seems unlikely to you that the complexity of life originated without a creator, the creator must be more complex, then surely the same questions must be asked about the origins of the creator.

So it doesn't answer any questions but redefines the original question.

qft

But I thought you were part of a concerted effort to get the whole exhibition banned?

I wouldn't have been able to see the "Industry of Death" exhibit if you had been successful in your attempts to have the exhibit banned. Ditto the leaflets, etc.

And yes I do find it rational. What is irrational about drawing attention to the role of the medical profession in the service of a coercive state?

I also find it extremely naive of you to think otherwise.

I'm not interested in the Church of Scientology nor am I interested in what any religion has to say. I'm still trying to get my head around the angel Gabriel, the virgin birth, the holy trinity, the ascension and transubstantiation.

As far as I'm aware all religions have very silly, childish beliefs, customs and practices. I might be wrong.

I think it's self-explanatory.

How could I do that if you insist on banning the exhibition?

I don't recall pedigree animal breeding being mentioned in the film, the exhibition or the literature. But I'll have a closer look.

This is a diversion into the realm of nonsense.

I came onto this web-site in all innocence to ask a simple question.

Why do you want to ban an exhibition which puts across a point of view that, obviously, differs to your own?

We live in a free country and people are free to hold all sorts of weird, wonderful and wacky views. If you disagree have the debate. Don't ban and don't bludgeon people with all sorts of nonsense. If your problem is with the Church of Scientology fine. That's obviously what gets you worked up. Personally I think they're a sideshow.

I also find your reliance on the journalism of the BBC disappointing. They are the most pro-war broadcaster (Study deals a blow to claims of anti-war bias in BBC news) and John Sweeney's recent biography of Chávez and Venezuela was incredibly biased. (British Journalist John Sweeney lies in BBC Documentary on Venezuela)

I'm not really sure where you're coming from. Of course I meant to post those comments. The DSM is an absolute joke and the pharmaceutical industries are more interested in profit than human well-being.

Care to argue their case for them?

I could go on but this is boring and I really do think we're arguing at cross puposes here.

For example scientific racism as a justification for the slave-trade and imperialism and as practiced in Namibia(Genocide, concentration camps, medical experiments on camp prisoners)

Look at least now I can look at this material and, thanks to the people on this forum, maintain a high degree of objectivity.

However I'm still not very comfortable with people wanting to ban that which they disagree with.

Thanks
JJW

[QUOTE=JawJawWell,Apr 9 2008, 09:53 PM] [QUOTE]What we want people to do. [/QUOTE]

But I thought you were part of a concerted effort to get the whole exhibition banned?[/QUOTE]
If we'd of wanted to do that we'd of got a petition going and taken it straight into the queens, with copies to the other locations. We haven't. We've protest and given out information. What people do with that info, if they take it or leave it, is up to them.

[QUOTE][QUOTE]Yeah, it is quite plausible and rational. But what about the rest?

Would you call the Industry of Death exhibit rational?
Have you read the leaflets?
Have you read the disclaimers inside the rear flap??[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't have been able to see the "Industry of Death" exhibit if you had been successful in your attempts to have the exhibit banned. Ditto the leaflets, etc.[/QUOTE]

See above answer. The exhibition is still there till the 17th. We're not protesting further. When it goes to Edinburgh, the anon up there will take the course of action seen fit by themselfs. We had two small protests, they may have something else.

Anon in WDC got the exhibition pulled with a campaign on their part. We decided not to do that and went the protest route.

[QUOTE]And yes I do find it rational. What is irrational about drawing attention to the role of the medical profession in the service of a coercive state? I also find it extremely naive of you to think otherwise.[/QUOTE]
Likewise I find it naive to take a group at face value, without researching their main funder.

Professor Thomas Szasz may have had a good intention when he setup the group but we believe this has been hijacked by the Co$ for their own ends.

[QUOTE]Now, you can research the Co$ quite easily and I suggest doing so before you carry on into the CCHR.[/QUOTE]

I'm not interested in the Church of Scientology nor am I interested in what any religion has to say. I'm still trying to get my head around the angel Gabriel, the virgin birth, the holy trinity, the ascension and transubstantiation.[/QUOTE]
So you're interested in psychiatry and a group that produces their drugs and allows them to continue, yet you're not interested in the shady group which funds the CCHR, or why they only act on psychiatric practices and medical groups.

They are mainly funded (and staffed) by the Co$ who promote Diagnetics, their own brand of psychological help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianetics

There are other pages on it, that'll give you an overview. If you're not convinced go to a Co$ buy a copy. Here's a basic synopsis of the way it generally works:

1. Co$ promotes the CCHR.
2. CCHR points out the alternatives, namely Diagnetics/Auditing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianetics#Procedure_in_practice for auditing).
3. The only people who can legally sell the book are the Co$.
4. The only people who Audit (excluding the Free Zone who are mostly ex-scis) are the Co$.

[QUOTE]As far as I'm aware all religions have very silly, childish beliefs, customs and practices. I might be wrong.[/QUOTE]

1. Dianetics is the Basis of the Scientology 'Religion' (not recognised as a religion in the UK).
2. Dianetics is the alt to psychiatrics promoted by the Co$
3. The Co$ funds the CCHR
4. Profit

[QUOTE][QUOTE]Care to explain?[/QUOTE]

I think it's self-explanatory.[/QUOTE]
Not without knowing you're background. MD? Psychiatrist? Ex-Patient?

[QUOTE][QUOTE]Yeah, you need to compare that to other sources of information from both sides. [/QUOTE]

How could I do that if you insist on banning the exhibition?[/QUOTE]
We didn't, we haven't, it's still there.

They have a voice, we have a voice. They put out info, we put out info. Ban? Nah.

[QUOTE][QUOTE]You do realise that eugnics can includes pedigree animal breeding don't you?[/QUOTE]

I don't recall pedigree animal breeding being mentioned in the film, the exhibition or the literature. But I'll have a closer look.[QUOTE]

[QUOTE][QUOTE]That's like saying that using anti-bacterial hand wash is committing genocide (which comes into eugenics as well). Yeah it's arguable, but then using domestos is getting rid of the germs you don't want to breed, whilst drinking Yakult supposedly increases the ones you do.

Eugenics has been around since people began breeding animals for specific use. That would be pretty much when we gained the ability to farm livestock and tame wolves/dogs. If psychiatry is responsible for that I'd be surprised. It's just using words that sound big and impressive to make people listen[/QUOTE]

This is a diversion into the realm of nonsense.

I came onto this web-site in all innocence to ask a simple question.

Why do you want to ban an exhibition which puts across a point of view that, obviously, differs to your own?[/QUOTE]
You see you had some credibility till this point. It wouldn't of been that hard to ban the exhibit, or find enough sigs to get it through. If we'd of wanted to ban it we would of, like WDCanon, but we didn't. We chose to protest.


[QUOTE]We live in a free country and people are free to hold all sorts of weird, wonderful and wacky views. If you disagree have the debate. Don't ban and don't bludgeon people with all sorts of nonsense.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, this one was going well till...

[QUOTE]If your problem is with the Church of Scientology fine. That's obviously what gets you worked up. Personally I think they're a sideshow.[/QUOTE]

This. With the money they put behind funding they're no sideshow. They haven't been since 1970 (rough year, 20 since Diagnetics was published) and they're still going strong.

Then...

[QUOTE]I also find your reliance on the journalism of the BBC disappointing. They are the most pro-war broadcaster (Study deals a blow to claims of anti-war bias in BBC news) and John Sweeney's recent biography of Chávez and Venezuela was incredibly biased. (British Journalist John Sweeney lies in BBC Documentary on Venezuela)
[/QUOTE]

BBC is pretty neutral considering the rest of the world, The Gaurdian is pretty anti-war. The observer is just funny. Times is alright though can get a bit monotonous.

[QUOTE][QUOTE]Read what you've posted there. Sure you meant to post that?[/QUOTE]

I'm not really sure where you're coming from. Of course I meant to post those comments.[/QUOTE]

OK to quote you

[QUOTE]the DSM and the creation of more and more categories of mental illness to justify medicating human-beings in the interests of the pharmaceutical companies needs serious attention and serious resistance from anyone committed to human freedom.[/QUOTE]

That's almost standard Co$ speak. That's the reason. We wouldn't hold it against you if you were a sci, our problem is with the church, not the congregation.

[QUOTE]The DSM is an absolute joke and the pharmaceutical industries are more interested in profit than human well-being.[/QUOTE]

That's the majority of the pharmaceutical industry anyway:

1. Make Drug
2. Brand
3. Try and stop clones
4. Over price
5. ????
6. Profit

Why do you think the NHS has so many budget probs? This isn't unknown to us. They make the stuff to kill the bugs/stop the problems, do some tests and flog it. Care about the end user? Do they even see the end user?

However the bigger concern is the Co$ and the groups it starts/hijacks as a front to it's own ends.

[QUOTE]Care to argue their case for them?

For example scientific racism as a justification for the slave-trade and imperialism and as practiced in Namibia(Genocide, concentration camps, medical experiments on camp prisoners)[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but then I go back to the far right/facist argument. That's what the peeps who argue scientific racism were, are and will be. We had Indian generals in the British Empire till some idiot commissioned officer decided (basically) that we should introduce racism into the ranks to show them who was in charge and 'better'. WTF comes to mind. That mindset carried through, then when the 3rd Ryche reared it's ugly head it got even more brutal.

Black slaves were looked down upon as savages and expendable. That was the mindset of those times, it's one that'll haunt us forever. It was a long term forerunner for racism being brought into the British Army.

Psychiatry world domination/slavery plot? I'd be more concerned with the Trilateral Commission, Common Purpose and the major banking families such as the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers. Those are the big wigs.

[QUOTE]Look at least now I can look at this material and, thanks to the people on this forum, maintain a high degree of objectivity.

However I'm still not very comfortable with people wanting to ban that which they disagree with.[/QUOTE]

We don't want to ban it. End of. Co$ is the main problem as far as we're concerned. If Co$ stops 'hijacking' the CCHR then we're off the CCHRs back. Or at least I will be.

There are good alternatives to most things, however Dianetics compared to Psych is not one of them. It's a costly fraud as far as we're concerned, designed to get you into the Co$ (or Hotel California as I like to call it) and giving them your cash. Sure, it's one of many alts that the CCHR mentions but there is no question (in our minds) that it's due to the Co$ backing them.

[QUOTE]I could go on but this is boring and I really do think we're arguing at cross puposes here.[/QUOTE]

Banging heads? Possibly, I enjoy the debates. If this was a bar and you were a girl I'd be asking you out by now.

Seems like your mind was already made up before you even signed up to these boards.

Obvious troll is obvious.

I'm not trolling!

I'm asking a simple question.

Why do you want to ban an exhibition, no matter how offensive you find it?

Thanks
JJW

Short answer - Because it's misguiding propaganda for a Dangerous Cult.

DESPITE IT'S ORGANIZATIONS ORIGINS.

Obvious Troll is Obvious and lives under a bridge.

It's not necessarily the offensiveness but rather the danger of their views.

The scientologists have taken a number of people off psychiatric medicine and put them on vitamins instead.

Elli Perkins was stabbed 70 times by her son after he was taken of his medication.

A similar case has occurred in Australia within the last month.

Maybe, there can be an argument made that in some circumstances psychiatric medicine has been over-prescribed without full consideration of the consequences, but in some situations it saves lives.

The CCHR would like to see all psychiatric counseling and medicine banned outright. If they were calling for an independent review of psychiatric treatments, I'd have no objection to them holding an exhibition putting forward their views.

But their extreme views have led to deaths and will undoubtedly lead to more deaths if it is allowed to continue.

The CCHR are portraying psychiatry as the sole cause for ALL the worlds ills.

I'm not being sensationalist, I've had the misfortune of reading the CCHR booklets on their website; I quote;

Pages 30 and 29 of Chaos and Terror.

Page 24 of Brutal Reality.

Blaming and demonising the entire psychiatric profession - whether the individual practitioners are good people or not - for such atrocities as the Holocaust, ethnic cleansing in any country and "man's inhumanity to man" is so similar to other groups being demonised in human history it can only be seen to generate one thing; hate. Hate of the target group.

I therefore ask you; why should we in a liberal society allow someone to broadcast that hate? We don't allow the BNP to. We don't allow extremist religious groups to. Why should the CCHR be different?

I agree with Anon76; if they had an exhibition to highlight the "shaky" science psychiatry works from and the over medication of normal people, I don't think we would work to ban it; we would still protest as the CCHR are a front group for the CoS, but this message of hate shouldn't be tolerated.

...

Absolutely bizarre response.

Is the world so paranoid that someone with a genuine query which doesn't accord with group-think is automatically treated with suspicion?

I've previously stated that I will look at the material I bought with a high degree of objectivity. I also thanked the poeple on this forum for their comments.

But just because I don't agree with everything that has been posted that makes me a troll?

Oh well nevermind.

Thanks
JJW

First
"scientific racism" did not cause the slave trade it was pure racism, greed and peoples unwarranted self esteem

Second
imperialism is not racism, it is one country taking over other countries to get more power and/or resources

Third
actually I fail to see what psychiatry has to do with this "scientific racism" your on about.... how can you blame a whole branch of medicine for individual thought.

Fourth
"Genocide, concentration camps, medical experiments on camp prisoners" crimes of a government not psychiatry.

Fifth

err... isn't that what the CCHR is trying to do with psychiatry?

Sixth

But then you slate our choice of media

Yeah and your point is?

Seventh

O'RLY?

No.

The fact you disagree isn't what makes you a troll.
Your constant brushing off of our points, which we're giving you in response to your questions, is troll-like.


You - lol why u want ban?
Us - Scientology front group, evil! Badmanz!
You - that r silly. Scientology r joke. Szazz blah blah blah. EUGENICS = PSYCHITRY LOLOLOLOL BAD. Why u want ban?
Us - NO EUGENICS = DARWINISM INSPIRED PHILOSOPHY! CCHR = Scientolgy = Bad.
You - But why u want ban?!


^ Is trollesque in my opinion.



However, I've got a question for you now sir, these purchases you made, where did they keep their stock?

I like how you dodged the 2 posts after that, which actually made some very good points against CCHR.
Again proving yourself to be a troll.

JawJaw: My suspicion is that you are a scientologist.

IF I'm right:
Say Hi to Chris Wrapson, no hard feelings, I'll buy you a pint once this is all over. We're not a bad bunch of people and you'd probably quite like us of you met us socially.

IF I'm wrong:
I apologise for my paranoia and hope that our posts have been enlightening, informative, or at least entertaining in some way.

[

I didn't say it caused the slave-trade I used the word justification.

And usually justified by ideas of inferiority and superiority which rely to a large extent on racial stereotypes.

Well I guess that when you seek to justify your actions you will use as much learned opinion in whatever branch of academia or professional field which will support your rationale.

If the CCHR does seek to blame all the worlds ills on psychiatry then I agree with you. That is absurd. My starting point is my own scepticism towards psychiatry and its unwillingness to challenge the status quo. it looks at the individual rather than the sick society we live in.

I agree up to a point. They are usually the crimes of a state. And a state draws servants and powerful justifications from all areas of human knowledge.

Not according to the little I've read from Szasz. But maybe he's being duped?

Sorry? where did I do that? I'm just really sceptical about the function of the BBC. I thought that was the point of Indymedia?

It's self-explanatory. The BBC is an instrument of state propaganda and shoring up support for an illegal war.

So I guess the consensus is that I'm a member and I've come on here to troll?

I find all religion a turn off. I'm more interested in Chomsky, Dawkins and MediaLens than silly notions about good and evil, etc.

And, I'm sorry, I'm completely against banning anything. Even the BNP. Give em enough rope and they'll hang themselves.

Thanks
JJW

Personally I find the thought that you actually buy into the conspiracy theories about the pharm-companies highly amusing and at the same time, dissapointing.

Someone who is obviously so inquisitive, should have realised that for such a conspiracy to actually exist, every single living doctor/nurse/health-worker would have to be in on it. And I mean every single. I'm all for paying lip-service to some conspiracy theories, but that one just doesn't cut it for me. Sorry.

Our problem with scientology is precicely because it is not a religion, it is a cult. We have no problem with people believing in some faith or another, freedom of religion and all that.

The fact that Anonymous is made up of people of differeing faiths should be a huge clue to that (for example, I'm about as anti-religious as you could get, and there are at least two members who are fairly Christian, one or two who are very Christian and a number of generally agnostic or Atheist members. i'm sure there are a fair few other religions banging about our group as well - these are just the ones I've noticed.)

What we protest against is not the 'Religion' of Scientology (though not a single one of us will ever allow it to be called thus - to us, it is and always will be, a Cult) but the Corporation behind it.

There is plenty of evidence that this Corporation is every bit as sleezy as we think it is. Pop over to www.xenu.net sometime and have a read of the articles published therein. The man who runs that website double-checks everything he publishes through it and even offers Scientologists the chance to prove him wrong - with plenty of links to outside sources to offer a different point of view.

Our protesting of such things as the CCHR is just another form of this. CCHR is demonstrably an offshoot of the Scientology Corporation, with one aim in mind: 'make Scientology more money.'

The idea that Psychiatry can cause harm is not a new one and it plays into the 'Pharm-Companies' conspiracy theory quite well - probably using the fact that a lot of Alternative Therapy users/promotors will agree with it as well - playing on 'the publics' natural tendency towards 'natural' over 'chemical' beliefs. (And neatly disregarding the fact that all 'chemical' remedies are either based on or actually use the 'natural' remedies.)

But this is all about PR and money. It has been demonstrated again and again, that while, yes, there are some unfortunate cases where Psychiatry has contributed towards ill-health and death, Psychiatry and Psychology are the best forms of mental health control around.

The Scientology Corporation would have you believe otherwise, often telling those who are suffering from ill heath that 'Auditing' is their best chance of health (read up on Auditing, and you will find that this is about as far from true as it can get).

Once these vulnerable peple have been hoodwinked into using this 'Auditing' - they are then told they need to pay for it. And to continue using it - because after a certain amount of time, these people become 'addicted' (albeit psychologically) to it - they must pay more and more extortionate amounts.

These are things the Scientology Coporation will not tell you - so we go along to offer our viewpoint alongside theirs.

And yes - we would, in the long run, prefer for this practice to be abolished. Because it is demonstrably a form of abuse against those vulnerable few who cannot see it for what it is.

This is why we (I say 'we' but I personally did not manage to attend the Happy Shopper' protest) protest.




Anons - if any of my info was in corect, please let me know, and I will edit.

Seriously man.

I wanna go buy the DVD tomorrow.

Where do they keep the stock?

Sorry I'm really trying to keep up with you and I'm not dodging anything.

Let me say I'm just giving my opinion. right or wrong I'll own it.

I'm also trying to learn from the people on this forum about all this stuff.

So I'm trying to have a discussion. Not score points or say I'm completely right.

If my responses seem troll like I'm sorry they are just answers to the points others have made and I'm trying to keep up not ignore anything anyone says.

Thanks
JJW

^^^^

First of all I didn't use the term conspiracy. Nor am I interested in so-called "conspiracy-theories." (Prozac, Suicide and Dr. Healy)

Personally I think they are a distraction from what's going on in the world.

Thanks for further info on The Scientology Corporation. I'll re-read it and bear it in mind.

Are you involved in protesting other issues like the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan or is this site just organised around opposing COS?

Thanks
JJW

This particular group is for protesting CoS.

Though I wouldn't be surprised if various members are also members of other protest groups.

Dude; ignoring people is rude.


I wanna buy the shit so I can properly appreciate the opposite opinion.


Where did they keep their stock? =O

Attention of Scudmuffin

Well what I did was pay £20.00 on an impulse for the DVD and a big bumper book of facts.

Now I do seriously have issues with the way psychiatry attempts to reinforce the stauts-quo and seeks to locate problems as residing in the individual rather than seeing human distress as a reaction to a sick society. (see Free to be human, david edwards. No it's nothing to do with scientology, in fact the guys a buddhist, but I'm aware of him from Medialens)

So when I saw the exhibition I was impressed with seeing something in a public space which purported to be addressing a personal concern.

However, as i previously explained, when I got home I typed in the search term to find out who the hell they were and, well the rest is boring.

Anyway they gave me a receipt for my £20.00 so I might just bring it back tomorrow.

All the best.

Thanks
JJW

had the dvds in their hand.
don't know where they got the book from

Funny that.

On every occastion I've walked through, (Unanonymously, I might add,)

They've always been empty handed...