you can read German or want to translate it into your
own language, here
is the complete expert opinion on the internet.
are the commentators statements - only in German.
first press statement issued on 29th of March in
This first press statement is very similar to the IAAPA
statement in English,
German Press reports on the publication last Monday:
further explanation, in case you are not familiar with
the word "ratification" in the international
one might compare it with buying a house: the first
step after the negotiation is the signature of the contract.
But the deal is not completed until the money has changed
hands and the house is handed over to the new owner.
This fulfillment of an international agreement in national
laws could be called the ratification.
distinction between the signature of the convention
and the ratification is very important, because of course
we are all in favour of all nations signing the convention.
But in my opinion, the best time to forward our claims
is BEFORE the ratification, because at that time we
can illustrate e.g. with expert opinions what it means
to ratify the convention. The time before the ratifications
is the right time for making demands; after the ratification
it becomes the time for begging only. Before the ratification,
the lawmaking system has the choice to say, yes we want
the consequences of the convention and therefore abolish
all coercive psychiatric measures. After the ratification
the lawmaking system has an easy time doing nothing
and it is almost impossible to force the lawmaker to
overcome this. They simply don't respond because they
like the psychiatric control of the citizens as a governing
paternalistic force. Our hope, that judges would force
them into action is extremely doubtful, because judges
now always help the psychiatrists to legalize their
evil doings. They feel comfortable to continue with
the existing laws and their answer to our demands would
be: "as long as we have the old laws, we can base
our verdicts on them. If there should be a contradiction
in the laws, o.k. find a judge on a higher level to
force the lawmaker to abolish the old law."
am sure that the "begging tour" will be a
worthless, a completely exhausting enterprise with frustrating
final results. I am convinced that anticipating this
frustration of our hopes is the reason why the pro-force
World Federation for Mental Health endorses the UN Disability
you can read here:
Assembly Endorses UN Convention On The Rights Of Persons
The WFMH Member Assembly, meeting in Hong Kong SAR China
on August 20, 2007, endorsed the United Nations Convention
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and urged
national governments throughout the world to embrace
and implement the provisions of [
hope you understand now why I am warning against a "Treaty
Ratification Campaign" before our demands for abolishment
of the mental health laws are supported in the parliaments.
of my warnings are the 17 nations which already ratified
the convention, although nothing at all has changed:
Bangladesh, Croatia, Cuba, El Salvador, Gabon, Guinea,
Hungary, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Namibia, Nicaragua,
Panama, Peru, San Marino, South Africa, Spain [here
is the current list]. Not
a single person less is incarcerated, bodily harmed
by forced psychiatric treatment or humiliated by forced
these nations lips: they say "convention"
but mean "coercion".