 |
Report Comment
"Not the last obscenity
For those suffering long-term emotional damage from the Sandy Hook shootings, the shootings themselves are not the last obscenity they will have to face. Current psychiatric models hold that anyone who has a history of trauma and mental health issues is more likely to be violent. Current legal models and practices in many state mental health codes and courts hold that anyone with such a history is dangerous until proven otherwise, if that person is merely accused by another claiming to have a "reasonable fear" of threat from the person with a mental health issue. So any baby involved in and affected by a school shooting will in the future be suspected as another potential babykiller. And in order to keep itself safe from such people, society has set up a mental health judicial system whereby no one who is so accused can be assured even of zealous legal counsel, or the right to remain silent when examined.
This is hardly new. Soon after the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the EEOC's March 1997 Enforcement Guidance one the Americans with Disabilities Act and Psychiatric Disabilities, businesses and news editors started opposing it on the basis that the ADA would require crazy people, such as ax murderers according to one cartoon.
See http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/psych.html, Part 30, Example C and Part 31.
See http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/ada/ch5.htm
It all had an effect. For example, in the 2000 Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law [Vol. 21, page 248], in their article on workplace violence and psychiatric disabilities, Laden and Schwartz cite a report that, "in 1998 a postal worker was fired merely for telling co-workers about his nightmares that involved a shooting at work—a shooting in which he, himself, was a victim." Footnote 10: "10. See generally Georgia Pabst, Man Fired over Dreams Presaging Shooting, Postal Service says his Dreams, Gestures Threatened Others, MILWAUKEE J. SENT., Dec. 15, 1998, at A1. Ironically, the dreams turned out to be correct; another worker did in fact attack that office."
See https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=21+Berkeley+J.+Emp.+%26+Lab.+L.+246&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=7277eddb51fc6910b1014f5921cc3320
It's a bit like some Kluxer afraid that black will rub off on him. Or that a black male whistling at a white woman is a sure sign of an eminent sexual assault. Ain't political correctness grand? It's amazing what even liberals can rationalize when they have assured themselves of its righteousness, the unpopularity of the target group, and their inability to organize and fight back."
|
|
