The Orwellian-Russelian "Court of Protection" sterilises the mentally unfit

The people who want to enforce this totalitarian freak show are insane in their own right, and have no authority to judge the mental health of others.

"
Sterilisation ruling: what is the Court of Protection?

What is the Court of Protection?

It is basically intended as a court for people who are not able to make specific decisions relating to their own welfare. Its activities only became a public forum in April last year.

What does it do?

It rules whether people are able to make decisions for themselves; rules on behalf of people who cannot adequately do so; decides on serious medical cases where the patient is not able to give or deny consent; and appoints deputies to act on behalf of those people in matters of money.

Effectively, it has the power of life or death. It can order or prevent abortions, impose treatment for potentially terminal conditions and turn off life-support systems.

Has it ruled on previous notable cases?

In the last year, the Court of Protection has been in the headlines repeatedly.

Last May, Sir Nicholas Wall, the President of the Family Division, ruled that a 55-year-old woman with learning difficulties had to receive treatment for cancer of the uterus even though she had a phobia of hospitals and needles.

In the same month, the family of a blind, autistic pianist called Derek Paravicini, 30, were given control of his affairs because he needs one-to-one care for life in a case that made legal history.

Last October, the court gave permission to doctors to force life-saving treatment on a 30-year-old woman, known only as SB, who has a fear of being touched, particularly by men, after it was told that she could die without emergency treatment for aplastic anaemia, a condition in which her bone marrow does not produce sufficient new cells to replenish blood cells.

Then, earlier this month, a 41-year-old man with a low IQ was banned from having sexual intercourse by a judge who admitted the case raised questions about "civil liberties and personal autonomy".
"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8325181/Sterilisation-ruling-what-is-the-Court-of-Protection.html

What if they say we're insane?

There have been many attempts to insinuate that 'conspiracy theorists' (that is, concerned citizens who don't trust the govt) are dangerous, crazy and/or mentally ill. I would dispute that.

If one wants to cast their net that wide looking for madness, look at the ruling class first. Sterilise those creepy people, if anyone. Who wants more Royals and Rockefellers anyway? Talk about useless eaters.

Okay so there are some mentally deficient people out there who can't look after themselves. But, this is a very weak excuse to grant such power to a court, that they can decide who is to be sterilised/aborted/killed. There is a reason why the term 'slippery slope' has become a cliche. Because that's the Illuminati MO!!

Those who fail to learn from history and all that.
Churchill and Eugenics; the 1913 Mental Deficiency Bill

One thing I will tack on the end here, is my 'eugenics disclaimer'. See, it's one thing to 'self-direct human evolution' by promoting good health, by promoting virtue, by raising people up, educating, enlightening, improving standards of living. That does fall under the literal definition of 'eugenics'. However, most of what the rulers of the world do, is geared towards dumbing people down and making them sicker and weaker.

Although researchers often describe the 'elite' as 'eugenicists', it is worth noting that (imo) simply using the term 'eugenics' may mislead people, as to their real motives. While they talk about improving humans, their main aim is to limit, to stunt, to deform humanity, not to enhance it. Which would be immoral in itself if done by force, but that is only the cover for the real agenda which is to kill kill kill, all the way down to 500 mil.