You Must Be Mad!
Mad, as in insane. As in losing one's senses. As in courting danger.
Individuals, or groups, who seek to dissent from authoritarian views and actions taken by their country's administrators in representation of the country's purported values are granted the privilege of doing so, of belonging to opposition parties able and capable of freely stating their views in free societies. Such individuals who seek to do this while living in dictatorships risk their freedoms, their very lives.
Under the Soviet system in the old USSR shipping dissenters to the Gulag was a matter of course. Books have been written about that insult to humanity, authors celebrated and supported by the international community. Demonstrators, dissenters, those who actively worked against the repressive actions of the state were given 'medical examinations', declared unfit to mingle in society and incarcerated in mental asylums.
Both of which methods were quite effective in stilling unrest among its people, although it did instill great resentment. And fear. But fear was the operative device here, and it proved essentially effective as a deterrent. As did outright murder, which the administration of the old USSR engaged in when it was deemed necessary, and in the old Stalinist days it was considered necessary exceedingly frequently. Fear works.
But this is the new Russia. A new, fresh-faced, confident and economy-booming country, resurgent in pride and determination. Ask Vladimir Putin. This is one steely-nerved and capable leader. Enjoying great popularity in a country whose tradition and comfort lies in authoritarian rule. For Russians are more than willing to trade in their 'freedom' for the certainty of no untoward surprises and the comfort of predictability.
Yet who might have predicted there would be a return to state-sanctioned murder as a handy-dandy expedient to offset dissent of a too-strident nature? Or the determined unveiling of government corruption? And who could possibly have imagined that the state would decide to resort again to punish dissent by locking up dissidents in insane asylums? Psychiatry tarnished and its reputation purloined for use as a legitimate state tool for stifling dissidents.
"We're returning to this Soviet scenario when psychiatric institutions are used as punitive instruments", according to Yuri Savenko, president of the Independent Psychiatric Association of Russia. "I call this not even punitive psychiatry but police psychiatry, when the main aim is to protect the state rather than to treat sick people." Once again, in Russia, as in the Soviet Union, the definitions of mental illness have been re-written: paranoia equates as an obsession with the 'struggle for truth and justice'.
Challengers to the current system of governance end up in prison for extended incarcerations: think Yukos. Others, like human-rights protesters who own businesses are locked away, their once-thriving businesses fall apart and they become bankrupt. All extremely powerful methods of persuasion.
Individuals, or groups, who seek to dissent from authoritarian views and actions taken by their country's administrators in representation of the country's purported values are granted the privilege of doing so, of belonging to opposition parties able and capable of freely stating their views in free societies. Such individuals who seek to do this while living in dictatorships risk their freedoms, their very lives.
Under the Soviet system in the old USSR shipping dissenters to the Gulag was a matter of course. Books have been written about that insult to humanity, authors celebrated and supported by the international community. Demonstrators, dissenters, those who actively worked against the repressive actions of the state were given 'medical examinations', declared unfit to mingle in society and incarcerated in mental asylums.
Both of which methods were quite effective in stilling unrest among its people, although it did instill great resentment. And fear. But fear was the operative device here, and it proved essentially effective as a deterrent. As did outright murder, which the administration of the old USSR engaged in when it was deemed necessary, and in the old Stalinist days it was considered necessary exceedingly frequently. Fear works.
But this is the new Russia. A new, fresh-faced, confident and economy-booming country, resurgent in pride and determination. Ask Vladimir Putin. This is one steely-nerved and capable leader. Enjoying great popularity in a country whose tradition and comfort lies in authoritarian rule. For Russians are more than willing to trade in their 'freedom' for the certainty of no untoward surprises and the comfort of predictability.
Yet who might have predicted there would be a return to state-sanctioned murder as a handy-dandy expedient to offset dissent of a too-strident nature? Or the determined unveiling of government corruption? And who could possibly have imagined that the state would decide to resort again to punish dissent by locking up dissidents in insane asylums? Psychiatry tarnished and its reputation purloined for use as a legitimate state tool for stifling dissidents.
"We're returning to this Soviet scenario when psychiatric institutions are used as punitive instruments", according to Yuri Savenko, president of the Independent Psychiatric Association of Russia. "I call this not even punitive psychiatry but police psychiatry, when the main aim is to protect the state rather than to treat sick people." Once again, in Russia, as in the Soviet Union, the definitions of mental illness have been re-written: paranoia equates as an obsession with the 'struggle for truth and justice'.
Challengers to the current system of governance end up in prison for extended incarcerations: think Yukos. Others, like human-rights protesters who own businesses are locked away, their once-thriving businesses fall apart and they become bankrupt. All extremely powerful methods of persuasion.
Labels: Justice, Politics of Convenience
posted by Pieface | 5:12 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home