Friday, August 8, 2008
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Firebombs show new tactics of animal activists
John Coté, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Two firebombs targeting UC Santa Cruz biologists appear to mark an escalation in violence by militant opponents to animal research, a transition from threats and harassment to acts of terrorism and attempted homicide, authorities said Monday.
"There has definitely been an increase in the volume of harassment, and now we've seen an increase in the stakes of the violence that they're willing to spread in the name of this cause," Santa Cruz police Capt. Steve Clark said. "This signals a new level of aggressiveness."
<<>>
Early Saturday, and just minutes apart, firebombs destroyed a car outside the campus home of one researcher and torched the front door of another, who had to flee with his wife and two young children by lowering a ladder out a second-story window. A third researcher received a threatening telephone message around the same time, police said.
Federal, state and local investigators are checking for potential links between this weekend's attacks and other incidents of harassment against UC scientists in recent months. Those include a firebomb that exploded on the front porch of a UCLA researcher's home in January and six masked activists trying to force their way into a researcher's Santa Cruz home during a child's birthday party in February.
"There's clearly surface connections," FBI spokesman Joseph Schadler said. "But as far as who did it, and whether they're the same people, that's something that only time and investigation will determine."
Authorities were tight-lipped about details in the latest firebombings. Witnesses have said that more than one person was involved, Clark said, adding unspecified forensic evidence was recovered at the scenes.
"We do have some viable leads that we're working on," Clark said. "We hope that those become fruitful."
He described the bombs as "Molotov cocktails on steroids."
No one has yet taken responsibility for the firebombings, which Santa Cruz Mayor Ryan Coonerty derided as terrorist actions.
Coonerty and Police Chief Howard Skerry announced a $30,000 reward Monday for information leading to the arrest and prosecution of the people involved. The money is being put up by UC Santa Cruz, the FBI, the city, community donors and the national Humane Society, which said the bombing tactics are "reviled by mainstream advocates of animal protection."
"One cannot claim to be an animal protection advocate and threaten violence against other people, even if we disagree with what they are doing," National Humane Society President Wayne Pacelle said. "This behavior is antithetical to the core principles of the humane movement."
Jerry Vlasak, a former animal researcher who now serves as a spokesman for the North American Animal Liberation Press Office, which posts on its Web site communiques from activists taking credit for attacks, said peaceful protests have been ineffective in stopping "the torture and murder of animals."
"Violence then became a morally acceptable tactic," Vlasak said. "If animal abusers aren't going to stop perpetrating these types of atrocities, they ought to be stopped using whatever means necessary. What we're starting to see is the implementation of that type of strategy."
That appears to be evident around the 10-campus University of California, officials said, noting UC Berkeley recorded harassment against 24 researchers and seven other employees. There have been at least 20 reports of damage to researchers' homes in Berkeley, Oakland and El Cerrito since August.
In January, a Molotov cocktail exploded on the front porch of a UCLA researcher's home. Last fall, the same home was flooded when someone broke a window and inserted a garden hose with the water on full force. At UCSF, faculty have received death threats, and a researcher had a burning effigy left on the doorstep of his home.
The incidents prompted Assemblyman Gene Mullin, D-South San Francisco, to introduce a bill in February that would allow UC officials to withhold names of animal researchers from public documents to prevent activists from harassing them. AB2296 has stalled in the Legislature.
It is unclear whether the incidents are the work of a cohesive group or the actions of individuals or small cells inspired by ideology and the online posting of each other's exploits, said those familiar with the activists.
Animal Liberation Front, a group that took responsibility June 16 for setting fire to a UCLA van as part of its effort to force the university to stop experimenting on primates, has historically operated as small groups that remain anonymous to each other, Vlasak said.
Clark, though, said such activists tried to appear independent of each other to avoid prosecution under racketeering laws that have been used to get lengthy sentences for organized crime and street gang members.
"They have a vast communication capability - texting, blogging and Web sites," Clark said. "They do have a communication network established and, I think, communicate not only locally, but nationally."
E-mail John Coté at jcote@sfchronicle.com.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Two firebombs targeting UC Santa Cruz biologists appear to mark an escalation in violence by militant opponents to animal research, a transition from threats and harassment to acts of terrorism and attempted homicide, authorities said Monday.
"There has definitely been an increase in the volume of harassment, and now we've seen an increase in the stakes of the violence that they're willing to spread in the name of this cause," Santa Cruz police Capt. Steve Clark said. "This signals a new level of aggressiveness."
<<
Early Saturday, and just minutes apart, firebombs destroyed a car outside the campus home of one researcher and torched the front door of another, who had to flee with his wife and two young children by lowering a ladder out a second-story window. A third researcher received a threatening telephone message around the same time, police said.
Federal, state and local investigators are checking for potential links between this weekend's attacks and other incidents of harassment against UC scientists in recent months. Those include a firebomb that exploded on the front porch of a UCLA researcher's home in January and six masked activists trying to force their way into a researcher's Santa Cruz home during a child's birthday party in February.
"There's clearly surface connections," FBI spokesman Joseph Schadler said. "But as far as who did it, and whether they're the same people, that's something that only time and investigation will determine."
Authorities were tight-lipped about details in the latest firebombings. Witnesses have said that more than one person was involved, Clark said, adding unspecified forensic evidence was recovered at the scenes.
"We do have some viable leads that we're working on," Clark said. "We hope that those become fruitful."
He described the bombs as "Molotov cocktails on steroids."
No one has yet taken responsibility for the firebombings, which Santa Cruz Mayor Ryan Coonerty derided as terrorist actions.
Coonerty and Police Chief Howard Skerry announced a $30,000 reward Monday for information leading to the arrest and prosecution of the people involved. The money is being put up by UC Santa Cruz, the FBI, the city, community donors and the national Humane Society, which said the bombing tactics are "reviled by mainstream advocates of animal protection."
"One cannot claim to be an animal protection advocate and threaten violence against other people, even if we disagree with what they are doing," National Humane Society President Wayne Pacelle said. "This behavior is antithetical to the core principles of the humane movement."
Jerry Vlasak, a former animal researcher who now serves as a spokesman for the North American Animal Liberation Press Office, which posts on its Web site communiques from activists taking credit for attacks, said peaceful protests have been ineffective in stopping "the torture and murder of animals."
"Violence then became a morally acceptable tactic," Vlasak said. "If animal abusers aren't going to stop perpetrating these types of atrocities, they ought to be stopped using whatever means necessary. What we're starting to see is the implementation of that type of strategy."
That appears to be evident around the 10-campus University of California, officials said, noting UC Berkeley recorded harassment against 24 researchers and seven other employees. There have been at least 20 reports of damage to researchers' homes in Berkeley, Oakland and El Cerrito since August.
In January, a Molotov cocktail exploded on the front porch of a UCLA researcher's home. Last fall, the same home was flooded when someone broke a window and inserted a garden hose with the water on full force. At UCSF, faculty have received death threats, and a researcher had a burning effigy left on the doorstep of his home.
The incidents prompted Assemblyman Gene Mullin, D-South San Francisco, to introduce a bill in February that would allow UC officials to withhold names of animal researchers from public documents to prevent activists from harassing them. AB2296 has stalled in the Legislature.
It is unclear whether the incidents are the work of a cohesive group or the actions of individuals or small cells inspired by ideology and the online posting of each other's exploits, said those familiar with the activists.
Animal Liberation Front, a group that took responsibility June 16 for setting fire to a UCLA van as part of its effort to force the university to stop experimenting on primates, has historically operated as small groups that remain anonymous to each other, Vlasak said.
Clark, though, said such activists tried to appear independent of each other to avoid prosecution under racketeering laws that have been used to get lengthy sentences for organized crime and street gang members.
"They have a vast communication capability - texting, blogging and Web sites," Clark said. "They do have a communication network established and, I think, communicate not only locally, but nationally."
E-mail John Coté at jcote@sfchronicle.com.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Pt 3 Walid Shoebat Exclusive PZ-TWIBP Interview 08-03-08
Pt 3 Walid Shoebat Exclusive PZ-TWIBP Interview 08-03-08
This is the final segment of our exclusive interview with Walid Shoebat discussing his latest book, God's War on Terror.
In this segment we focus on Psalm 83, Joel 2-3, and the final battles and the day of the Lord.
Folks, we as Christians await the coming of Christ.
• But do you realize Islam awaits the coming of the Mahdi?
• Do you know that the Mahdi ushers in a 7 year peace treaty?
• Do you know that the Mahdi changes times and laws?
• Do you know that the Mahdi will rule from the temple mount?
• Islam does not honor women
AND...
• Islam cuts the heads off of those who are infidels (Christians and Jews)
Is all this just a coincidence?
Order the book RIGHT NOW by calling the following phone number
877-832-7200
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Tyson Replaces Labor Day With Muslim Holiday
The Shelbyville, TN Tyson poultry processing plant is replacing Labor Day with the Muslim holiday Eid al-Fitr.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Paradise Lost; Why the Left Loves Muhammad
By Timothy Birdnow
"For who can yet believe, though after loss,
that all these puissant legions,
whose exile hath emptied Heaven,
shall fail to reascend Self-raised,
and repossess their native seat?"
John Milton
Paradise Lost
Book one, verses 631-634
Conservatives seem baffled by the animosity held by liberals towards Christians and Jews. Christianity requires the believer submit to authority, accept the rule of government, be charitable to his fellow; in short, be a model citizen. Ditto the Jews, who held these requirements even longer than the Christians. Why are liberals so hostile to both? For that matter, why do liberals seem so smitten with that 7th century holdover known as Islam? Why do those on the Left seem less than eager to defend our freedom and way of life from the ravages of Islamic Jihad?
To understand this, it is necessary to examine the intellectual underpinnings of modern Liberal thought. We must begin with Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Godfather of modern liberalism, in his treatise The Social Contract:
"MAN is born free; and everywhere he is in chains."
Why? George Bush, of course, but also because
"It was in these circumstances that Jesus came to set up on earth a spiritual kingdom, which, by separating the theological from the political system, made the State no longer one, and brought about the internal divisions which have never ceased to trouble Christian peoples. As the new idea of a kingdom of the other world could never have occurred to pagans, they always looked on the Christians as really rebels, who, while feigning to submit, were only waiting for the chance to make themselves independent and their masters, and to usurp by guile the authority they pretended in their weakness to respect. This was the cause of the persecutions.
"What the pagans had feared took place. Then everything changed its aspect: the humble Christians changed their language, and soon this so-called kingdom of the other world turned, under a visible leader, into the most violent of earthly despotisms.
"Several peoples, however, even in Europe and its neighborhood, have desired without success to preserve or restore the old system: but the spirit of Christianity has everywhere prevailed. The sacred cult has always remained or again become independent of the Sovereign, and there has been no necessary link between it and the body of the State. Mahomet held very sane views, and linked his political system well together; and, as long as the form of his government continued under the caliphs who succeeded him, that government was indeed one, and so far good."
So, Christianity and Judaism, by giving the World Separation of Church and State, destroyed the old pagan order and splintered the power of the collective will. To those who believe in this collective and the exercise of the will of society over the individual, there can be no worse crime. The results were ‘the most violent of earthly despotisms' while the Islamic world, that model of theocratic benevolence, offered a government ‘so far good'".
(It is ironic that the Left would use that very Christian concept of separation between Church and State as a tool to eliminate the author of this division.)
Those who would revolutionize society, who would remake America in their own neo-pagan, atheistic mold, find the fundamental weakening of the power of the State intolerable (since it is only by that power that their will can triumph), and would prefer to institute a system more akin to that of Muhammad. They admire Islam for maintaining the ancient regime, although they ultimately plan to displace Allah with a Man-centered deity.
Of course, the liberal also hates being constrained in any way, and traditional morality flows, as they perceive it, from the Church down. By raising Islam as an alternative to Christendom, the liberal hopes to bludgeon the keepers of morality. Islam can help with the dirty work of crushing the usurper ideologies of Christianity and Judaism, and then, of course, their turn will come.
Then, too, we can look to Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, who believed not in the rationality of Christendom, but in a mythical Greek paradise ruled by "Dionysian" creative forces - emotionalism and irrationality. These forces were vanquished by the rise of Socratic intellectualism and the coming of Christianity. Nietzsche argued further against a fixed reality in his unpublished work `On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense', claiming that what we think of as truth is merely a convention agreed upon by society, thus freeing Man from the tyranny of concrete reality.
This wild spirit, this vision of the anti-mind slithers throughout liberal thought and can be seen in numerous left-wing positions; being soft on crime, spiritual environmentalism, their admiration for dictators such as Castro and Mao, and in their current love affair with radical Islam. Terrorism is the ultimate irrational force, a violence aimed at random destruction and mayhem. It holds kinship with the bloodlust of the Marxists and Nazis, and, as such, is a ``creative force`` by Nietzschean standards. (Oh, and Nietzsche also hated Christians and Jews, and was a prime inspiration for National Socialism; copies of Thus Spoke Zarathustra were issued to German soldiers during World War One, gaining the interest of a certain corporal...)
A return to the "good old days" of the 7th Century, to a time before paradise was lost to the tyranny of Judeo-Christian intellectualism seems preferable to modern liberals, who have flatly rejected Hobbes` view of primitive life as solitary poor, hard, nasty, brutish, and short. We especially see this in the neo-paganism of the environmentalist movement; they dream of a lost pastoral Eden where mankind could be free of the drudgery of industrial life and the endless intellectual toil. A great many on the Left wish to overthrow the current order, replacing it with this twisted Nietzschean/Rousseauian mirage stolen from the Book of Genesis.
Of course, to those who do not believe in a concrete reality, as many liberals do not, one system is as good as another, and we have no right to judge the Moslem on how he conducts his affairs. Since the Jihadist's reality is equally valid as the Westerner's, we are practicing moral Imperialism if we force our Judeo-Christian moral law on them. This is exacerbated by the fact that they are Third World peoples; many liberals, deep in their hearts, are pulling for what they perceive as the underdog - in this case the terrorist murdering thug-at the expense of their own culture. A racist, sexist, homophobic, power-mad society such as ours deserves to be taught a lesson! Even if the teacher is racist, sexist, homophobic, and power-mad, they aren't Western, Christian, or White! They aren't Dick Cheney! Power to the people!
There is a strain of masochism involved here as well; the white liberal perceives himself as having unfairly benefited from his station in life, having lived well on the backs of the poor. Somebody must be punished for this! He will flagellate himself in his mind, and will support those who will punish his country, because justice demands retribution, and America has lived far too well. If we must endure terrorist attacks to atone for our sins, so be it! Perhaps we should do the decent thing and die; let others have their turn at the table.
Here Socialist thinking comes into play; there is only so much to go around, and we have been hogging it for too long. For those in the Arab world to live better, we must exit the stage. It's only fair!
The Liberal ultimately believes that the culture we have built, the triumph of Judeo-Christian values, is diseased and must be erased. If Islam can do their work for them, so be it. Islam, like the State under Marx, will ultimately wither away, and the paradise which predated Christ and Abraham can be restored. At least they like to think so.
Much like Milton's fallen angels, they believe they have been dispossessed of their rightful station by a tyrannical spiritual entity, and they are determined to repossess their native seat-the fallen pastoral paradise promised them by Rousseau and Nietzsche-via the triumph of their Collective Will. This is their prime mover, their principle motivation. It is why they were so enraged at the loss of their political power, and why they hate the ``usurper`` George W. Bush; they were driven out before they could attain paradise. This concept-lifted from Christian doctrine-that History has an ultimate end in a Humanistic Eden cannot be overstressed; the Left is consumed with this. They feel that, by losing their political power, they have been cast into the Lake of Fire.
"They, looking back, all the eastern side beheld
of Paradise, so late their happy seat,
waved over by that flaming brand, the gate
with dreadful faces throng`d, and fiery arms."
Paradise Lost
(Book XVII, verses 642-644)
Timothy Birdnow blogs at Birdblog.
"For who can yet believe, though after loss,
that all these puissant legions,
whose exile hath emptied Heaven,
shall fail to reascend Self-raised,
and repossess their native seat?"
John Milton
Paradise Lost
Book one, verses 631-634
Conservatives seem baffled by the animosity held by liberals towards Christians and Jews. Christianity requires the believer submit to authority, accept the rule of government, be charitable to his fellow; in short, be a model citizen. Ditto the Jews, who held these requirements even longer than the Christians. Why are liberals so hostile to both? For that matter, why do liberals seem so smitten with that 7th century holdover known as Islam? Why do those on the Left seem less than eager to defend our freedom and way of life from the ravages of Islamic Jihad?
To understand this, it is necessary to examine the intellectual underpinnings of modern Liberal thought. We must begin with Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Godfather of modern liberalism, in his treatise The Social Contract:
"MAN is born free; and everywhere he is in chains."
Why? George Bush, of course, but also because
"It was in these circumstances that Jesus came to set up on earth a spiritual kingdom, which, by separating the theological from the political system, made the State no longer one, and brought about the internal divisions which have never ceased to trouble Christian peoples. As the new idea of a kingdom of the other world could never have occurred to pagans, they always looked on the Christians as really rebels, who, while feigning to submit, were only waiting for the chance to make themselves independent and their masters, and to usurp by guile the authority they pretended in their weakness to respect. This was the cause of the persecutions.
"What the pagans had feared took place. Then everything changed its aspect: the humble Christians changed their language, and soon this so-called kingdom of the other world turned, under a visible leader, into the most violent of earthly despotisms.
"Several peoples, however, even in Europe and its neighborhood, have desired without success to preserve or restore the old system: but the spirit of Christianity has everywhere prevailed. The sacred cult has always remained or again become independent of the Sovereign, and there has been no necessary link between it and the body of the State. Mahomet held very sane views, and linked his political system well together; and, as long as the form of his government continued under the caliphs who succeeded him, that government was indeed one, and so far good."
So, Christianity and Judaism, by giving the World Separation of Church and State, destroyed the old pagan order and splintered the power of the collective will. To those who believe in this collective and the exercise of the will of society over the individual, there can be no worse crime. The results were ‘the most violent of earthly despotisms' while the Islamic world, that model of theocratic benevolence, offered a government ‘so far good'".
(It is ironic that the Left would use that very Christian concept of separation between Church and State as a tool to eliminate the author of this division.)
Those who would revolutionize society, who would remake America in their own neo-pagan, atheistic mold, find the fundamental weakening of the power of the State intolerable (since it is only by that power that their will can triumph), and would prefer to institute a system more akin to that of Muhammad. They admire Islam for maintaining the ancient regime, although they ultimately plan to displace Allah with a Man-centered deity.
Of course, the liberal also hates being constrained in any way, and traditional morality flows, as they perceive it, from the Church down. By raising Islam as an alternative to Christendom, the liberal hopes to bludgeon the keepers of morality. Islam can help with the dirty work of crushing the usurper ideologies of Christianity and Judaism, and then, of course, their turn will come.
Then, too, we can look to Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, who believed not in the rationality of Christendom, but in a mythical Greek paradise ruled by "Dionysian" creative forces - emotionalism and irrationality. These forces were vanquished by the rise of Socratic intellectualism and the coming of Christianity. Nietzsche argued further against a fixed reality in his unpublished work `On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense', claiming that what we think of as truth is merely a convention agreed upon by society, thus freeing Man from the tyranny of concrete reality.
This wild spirit, this vision of the anti-mind slithers throughout liberal thought and can be seen in numerous left-wing positions; being soft on crime, spiritual environmentalism, their admiration for dictators such as Castro and Mao, and in their current love affair with radical Islam. Terrorism is the ultimate irrational force, a violence aimed at random destruction and mayhem. It holds kinship with the bloodlust of the Marxists and Nazis, and, as such, is a ``creative force`` by Nietzschean standards. (Oh, and Nietzsche also hated Christians and Jews, and was a prime inspiration for National Socialism; copies of Thus Spoke Zarathustra were issued to German soldiers during World War One, gaining the interest of a certain corporal...)
A return to the "good old days" of the 7th Century, to a time before paradise was lost to the tyranny of Judeo-Christian intellectualism seems preferable to modern liberals, who have flatly rejected Hobbes` view of primitive life as solitary poor, hard, nasty, brutish, and short. We especially see this in the neo-paganism of the environmentalist movement; they dream of a lost pastoral Eden where mankind could be free of the drudgery of industrial life and the endless intellectual toil. A great many on the Left wish to overthrow the current order, replacing it with this twisted Nietzschean/Rousseauian mirage stolen from the Book of Genesis.
Of course, to those who do not believe in a concrete reality, as many liberals do not, one system is as good as another, and we have no right to judge the Moslem on how he conducts his affairs. Since the Jihadist's reality is equally valid as the Westerner's, we are practicing moral Imperialism if we force our Judeo-Christian moral law on them. This is exacerbated by the fact that they are Third World peoples; many liberals, deep in their hearts, are pulling for what they perceive as the underdog - in this case the terrorist murdering thug-at the expense of their own culture. A racist, sexist, homophobic, power-mad society such as ours deserves to be taught a lesson! Even if the teacher is racist, sexist, homophobic, and power-mad, they aren't Western, Christian, or White! They aren't Dick Cheney! Power to the people!
There is a strain of masochism involved here as well; the white liberal perceives himself as having unfairly benefited from his station in life, having lived well on the backs of the poor. Somebody must be punished for this! He will flagellate himself in his mind, and will support those who will punish his country, because justice demands retribution, and America has lived far too well. If we must endure terrorist attacks to atone for our sins, so be it! Perhaps we should do the decent thing and die; let others have their turn at the table.
Here Socialist thinking comes into play; there is only so much to go around, and we have been hogging it for too long. For those in the Arab world to live better, we must exit the stage. It's only fair!
The Liberal ultimately believes that the culture we have built, the triumph of Judeo-Christian values, is diseased and must be erased. If Islam can do their work for them, so be it. Islam, like the State under Marx, will ultimately wither away, and the paradise which predated Christ and Abraham can be restored. At least they like to think so.
Much like Milton's fallen angels, they believe they have been dispossessed of their rightful station by a tyrannical spiritual entity, and they are determined to repossess their native seat-the fallen pastoral paradise promised them by Rousseau and Nietzsche-via the triumph of their Collective Will. This is their prime mover, their principle motivation. It is why they were so enraged at the loss of their political power, and why they hate the ``usurper`` George W. Bush; they were driven out before they could attain paradise. This concept-lifted from Christian doctrine-that History has an ultimate end in a Humanistic Eden cannot be overstressed; the Left is consumed with this. They feel that, by losing their political power, they have been cast into the Lake of Fire.
"They, looking back, all the eastern side beheld
of Paradise, so late their happy seat,
waved over by that flaming brand, the gate
with dreadful faces throng`d, and fiery arms."
Paradise Lost
(Book XVII, verses 642-644)
Timothy Birdnow blogs at Birdblog.
Mental health survey stuns British Parliament
From Russia Today
A survey published in Britain suggests that one in five members of the British Parliament has suffered from stress-related mental health problems. The report also criticises a law which forces MPs to give up their seats for life if they're treated in a psychiatric hospital.
“‘Idiots and lunatics’ may be given the right to stand for Parliament”, exclaims Britain’s The Telegraph - and that is exactly the kind of headline that members of the British Parliament feared.
A confidential survey of MPs and peers suggests that one in five parliamentarians suffers from a mental illness.
Professor Dinesh Bughra, who’s behind the survey, says the Westminster figures are surprisingly high.
“What was quite fascinating was that over 90 per cent in each group admitted they knew somebody in their family or friends who had a mental illness - which is a remarkably high number. We did a similar survey with the general population in 2007 which showed that 67 per cent of general population knew somebody with mental illness - so that is significantly higher than that,” said Dinesh Bughra, Dean of Royal College of Psychiatrists.
86 per cent of those questioned said it was caused by the stress of their public lives and they fear disclosing their struggles because of stigma and discrimination.
But Doctor Howard Stoate, an MP himself, who's also a General Practitioner, believes that many other jobs are equally stressful.
“I think it’s very concerning that almost 20 per cent of the MPs who took part in this survey said that they’d had significant mental health issues, particularly stress and depression. But what was more worrying was that they were unable to talk to anyone about it because they felt there might be repercussions to them in their jobs,” said Dr. Howard Stoate, Labour MP.
In old Elizabethan times ‘lunatics and idiots’ were banned from becoming MPs ‘in their non-lucid intervals’. The ancient laws also banned anyone sectioned under the Mental Health Act from putting themselves forward for election even if they had fully recovered - and required MPs to give up their seat for life if they were sectioned for six months.
Surprisingly those laws are still in place.
Many, including Professor Bughra, believe they now outdated.
“It should be changed because it compares mental illness with things like lunacy and idiocy, and it is nothing like that. And I think one way of de-stigmatising mental illness is to put it at par. If you look at Winston Churchill, he described his depression very effectively and very clearly and yet he was a very successful leader,” said Dinesh Bughra.
Still, the results of the survey provoke a mixed reaction from the public.
”It’s horrible - how can they run a country if they have mental health problems?” said a passer-by in London.
”I don’t have a problem with that - it is more of their personal problem and they have to deal with it,” said another one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
