In 2006 a New Zealand Woman Was Held in a Psychiatric Ward for Saying 9/11 Was an Inside Job

August 31st, 2009

Here’s the formal apology letter from the Northland DHB.

Via: Clare Swinney:

I was wrongly diagnosed as delusional by the psychiatric staff of Ward 7 at Northland Base Hospital in Whangarei and held hospital against my will for 11 days in mid-2006, because I maintained the attacks of 9/11 were orchestrated by criminal elements inside the US Administration.

Another astounding aspect to what occurred was that Section 4 of the New Zealand Mental Health Act makes it clear that no one can be judged to be mentally ill solely on the basis of their political beliefs. The District Inspector for Mental Health – Northland, barrister Julie Young; Bridget Westenra, the lawyer she appointed to assist me and the staff of Ward 7, including the chief psychiatrist, did not appear to know this. As can be seen, it is written in layman’s language on page 33 of Chapter 2 of Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992, which is on the Ministry of Health’s own website: ‘You cannot be considered to have a mental disorder just because of your: political, religious or cultural beliefs…’.

3 Responses to “In 2006 a New Zealand Woman Was Held in a Psychiatric Ward for Saying 9/11 Was an Inside Job”

  1. Aaron says:

    Kevin, I’ve often wondered why some people get harrassed for their views in this country and others do not. I mean, why pick on Clare Swinney and leave Jon Eisen, the editor of Uncensored magazine alone – or his financial backers for that matter.

    What was it about this situation that caused her to be singled out, or is it just a the case that she came in contact with particularly zealous individuals in a system that is designed to defend itself without requiring direction from the top?

    Maybe she seemed an easier target because she is a woman, I really don’t know

  2. Kevin says:

    What happened to her was egregious and unbelievable. I can only guess about why her card came up.

    Admittedly, I don’t watch any TV here and the only time I listen to National Radio is when I’m in the car, going to or from town once a week. (It’s pretty much the only option for radio here.) When I listen to that tool, Jim Mora, and his “panel” there are usually comments about, “the bloggers” and “the blogs.”

    It’s not stated overtly, but listen long enough and you wind up with the impression that anyone who maintains a blog is a lunatic and that blogs are a joke that, unfortunately, should to be tolerated in a free society.

    Of course, the regurgitation of and bloviation about what was printed in the New Zealand Herald earlier in the day is really what the country should be focused on!

    This sort of milquetoast nonsense has created a very narrow safe zone in New Zealand, and most people are content to stay there. I can’t say that I’ve ever encountered a single controversial statement about much of anything in any NZ mainstream media at all.

    Consider what the media does here most of the time. Crime, weather, sports and inane political intrigues. (Remember the one about the bribery case involving a guy who accepted a ham at a Christmas party? I almost drove off the road into a river from laughing so hard.)

    So, in an environment like this, Clare Swinney goes to the Broadcasting Standards Authority with alternative information about 9/11… I’d venture a guess that if she had gone to the DHB with information about vaccines she’d probably still be locked up.

  3. tochigi says:

    Kevin,

    “the Panel”
    when i am in nz, and i hear that programme while in the car, a lot of swearing ensues, almost inevitably. i do know one person who occasionally is on the programme, but whenever he says something outside of the “acceptable bounds” they just ignore him, basically.

    the media has really gone downhill in nz since the early 90s. i am still struggling to come to terms with how pathetic it has become in such a short time. there did use to be real journalists and publications/programmes. but 95% of it seems to have evaporated…

    the main thing to me seems to be that there is no real questioning of the status quo, except in the most trivial ways. “unquestioning” is pervasive. if you really do ask difficult questions, you might end up like Ms. Swinney. that seems to be the message.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.