A person so wronged by the monsters who call themselves the human race – too wronged by too many. This is the curse of every slave to human cruelty and evil in every generation of the monsters who call themselves the human race. We who are not sufficiently protected because there are no humane protections for the victims of psychiatry.
The law and the government are not perfect. There’s obviously the fallibility of the mind that is a universal incompetency. When no one of good conscience can prevail then what can a victim do?
Take the history of race relations. The law and the law makers legislated for terrible evil and cruelty until individuals such as Rosa Parks saw the wrongs enough to fight against the law and the law makers.
Judicial review as I understand it is a pitiful way to counteract the fallibility of the minds of the law makers and those in public organisations. There continue to be terrible justices and inequalities and cruelties and evil with respect to race relations. The modern Black Lives Matter campaign is a response to the failures of the law makers and public institutions.
These movements I assume are “politics by politics but not by politicians” in contrast to “judicial review is not to be abused to conduct politics by any other means”.
These movements are fundamental to change and to counteracting the fallibility of the minds of the law makers. But when no one of good conscience can prevail these movements of rebellion do not exist.
For example…
When few if any see anything wrong with slavery then what has the slave who wants to be free have as a protection? What options does the victim have when they exist before anyone of good conscience can prevail?
To depend on the monsters who call themselves the human race to recognise evil and injustice is like expecting monsters to care. To depend on the monsters who call themselves the human race to recognise when they’ve done too much evil is like expecting monsters to care. To expect the monsters who call themselves the human race to recognise what is unlimited suffering and what’s wrong with making suffering and suicidality unlimited is like trusting monsters to care.
When those who have black skin were slaves it is without doubt obvious that slave owners believed they cared about their slaves. But they couldn’t care because they couldn’t see what’s wrong with slavery.
The slave owners had no concept of what’s too much suffering to protect their slaves and neither did the law makers in this time. The slave owners had no concept of what’s too much evil and cruelty to do to a slave and neither did the law makers. There were the slaves who were happy with being slaves and being unprotected and they did nothing to change the evil that prevailed centuries ago. Just like the law makers saw nothing wrong. But there are always victims who recognise what’s wrong with being a slave who recognised too much evil and too much suffering.
In the above paragraph who do you judge as having rational minds and whose minds are deeply flawed? The law makers could no doubt give rational arguments to justify the creation and perpetuation of slavery. The only argument the slave who refuses to be a slave – those who recognised the tyranny of evil for what it is – has is “this is too cruel to do to me”.
Irrespective of political and legal theory – which I admit I don’t understand – one role judicial review plays for the victims in this civilisation of monsters is to make the argument “this is too cruel to do to me or any one else”. It is even more invaluable when no one of good conscience can prevail against the fallibility of the minds of the law makers and the rest of the monsters who call themselves the human race.
What else is there for the power of the individual, for the victims, than judicial review?
On a personal note
Some have the belief they care about me. Some might feel I’m being too cruel when I expect them to support my death and the legalisation of assisted suicide for all. Some might believe the problem is with me and the fallibility of my mind.
The problem is no one of good conscience can prevail and that’s the proof of my existence as well as the monumental extent of my suicidality that stands as testament to how much this generation of the monsters who call themselves the human race really do care about making me a slave to human cruelty and evil. It would not matter if I argue “this is too cruel to do to me” because I am a slave to human cruelty and evil.
My life and my suicidality stand as testament to the truth that no one of good conscience can prevail. Countless governments and the rest of the monsters who call themselves the human race have absolutely no recognition of when they’ve done too much evil to me or when they’ve forced me to suffer and endure too much against my will.
Their acceptability of harm to me is married with how much they can’t recognise the difference between cruelty and care. It is not the tyranny of the persuasive I face. It is simply the tyranny of evil. Because this generation of the monsters who call themselves the human race can’t recognise the difference between cruelty and care.
No one of good conscience can prevail. No one can recognise when I’ve faced too much evil or too much suffering and suicidality. Thus I am denied the protection of assisted suicide to be a slave to human cruelty and evil – and a slave to the proof of the truth about human nature.
The acceptability of harms done to me it is only the care of ownership, of slave owners, I face not empathy and understanding for my being to protect me. I do not face the empathy of equality or the equality of empathy. I face levels of harm that no one consents to. I face harms only possible by ignoring what I do and don’t consent to as well as ignoring my pain and suicidality.
Too many suicidal individuals before me have faced the cruelty and evil expressed in the paragraph above. We face the cruelty of those who say they care but they only have the care of tyranny and are deaf to the screams of suicidal individuals such as “this is too cruel to do to me”. This is the care that exists and has existed always existed for the victims of psychiatry. The care about getting whatever they want by using whatever evil and cruelty monsters want to do to a suicidal individual and there’s no safety from this or want to provide safety.
There are the happy slaves happy with a sense of care that only has one definition of harms too great to do to a suicidal individual and that’s to provide a good death. There’s the minds of the law makers who see care in having absolutely no concept of what’s too cruel to do to a suicidal individual. There’s the suicide experts who believe even imprisonment – the punishment used on the worst criminals – is no longer cruelty when it’s done out of a sense of care. There’s the human rights movement who protect enemy combatants and prisoners of war but don’t want to protect suicidal individuals against torture – even the human rights movement see acceptable harms done to suicidal individuals that are wholly unacceptable to the victims. So suicidal individuals are not protected.
When no one of good conscience can prevail assisted suicide is a protection without equal against those who have no competency to recognise what’s too much evil or too much suffering and suicidality.
If you believe in judicial review and it can beat the value of assisted suicide then you should fight for both protections.
For the fallibility of the mind judicial review it certainly serves the purpose of victims arguing “this is too cruel to do to me or anyone else” to protect against wholly unacceptable harms that are acceptable to the monsters who call themselves the human race. Especially when social movements don’t exist to “politic by politics but not by politicians”.
But what else is there when you face wholly unacceptable harms done to you and the monsters who call themselves the human race see acceptable harms and even care in these wholly unacceptable harms.
What else is there when you face “by the people for the people but not for me” and it’s worse than death what the people and the government want to do to you. When no one of good conscience can prevail to recognise what’s too much evil and too much suffering to force on a suicidal individual – and they tell you they have no concept of what’s too much harm to do to you because they care about you.
When they want to make you a slave to human cruelty and evil – irrespective if they do it out of a sense of care – then what have you got? If judicial review serves as this safety and for victims to be heard “this is too cruel to do to me or any one else” then it has the potential to beat the value of the protection of assisted suicide. But when no one of good conscience can prevail then what do you want when they want to make you a slave to human cruelty and evil?
I see the law as an explicit moral code. But I see the competency of the minds of the human race so clearly. There’s no competency to care or recognise the difference between cruelty and care that’s innate to human nature but there’s a clear competency for achieving sadistic cruelty and pure evil. What’s the universal protection when even the human rights movement can’t care about you? What’s the victims guarantee? If this is what judicial review is then it is great.
If nothing else: recognise being forced to suffer and endure against one’s will is cruelty – even if you believe the cruel is irrelevant when you do it out of a sense of care – and you might be more humane than you are now.
a thing that defines the competency to care 