Arguing that women are not allowed to argue, that women must be disabled from arguing, doing public arguing to correct politicians, psychiatrists and family members, is an attempt to disable women of their civil rights. That forced psychiatry exists in Australia as a threat and menace to silence any argument a woman makes, has long perverted civil rights.
That criminals given positions by government appointment, have used the word ‘disabilities’ indiscriminately, to violate civil rights. That psychiatrists have been given positions to do this, has meant the worst criminals have been able to avoid detection by the radar, so that they would be ‘off the radar’. The worst criminals being those whom are given authority to use the word ‘disabled’ indiscriminately.
There has been an incorrect use of the word of disabilities and interpretation of the word disabilities as well as discrimination, in legislative acts in Australia; even though Australia’s Constitution does use the word ‘disabilities’ correctly, and there is no need to change Australia's Constitution, on this basis, and people must not lobby for that.
The Disabilities Discrimination Act, must not continue to pervert the course of justice for the profit and power of medico crimes, that constitute slavery and torture offenses. The title of this act alone, atrocious. That these words are being applied to non-criminals, even worse. The disabling of women for profit and power, via false and pseudo-medicalisation has been apparent for a long time.
Depriving a person of someone or something, is to disable. To ask a person to identify with ‘disabilities’ therefore is asking a person to be deprived of someone or something, and consent to that. Do not ask a person if they identify with disability, unless you're asking a question for policing purposes, then there's usually more direct ways of asking that, than through this term.
Disablement is an act of incapacitating or immobilising; do not ask a person to identify with this policing measure. Police have disablement measures, that people are subjected to when they’ve done a serious crime. Even so, there must be limits on the disablement measures, and the disablement must be watched, so that it doesn’t go too far.
Legal disability is an imposition, in the Australian Constitution, on Judges powers to act and duties. That is detailed and complicated, and criticism of understanding here, pertaining to the work of Judges former and present, in this part of the constitution, is welcome, as an argument. Though, there should be no interest in changing Australia's Constitution, except through those legislative acts that pertain to that. That the term legal disability mentioned here, only as an example of how disablement is used as a term, world wide on powers to act, and powers to report corruption.
It is necessary that all people, working in any branch of government know that they have a duty to report corruption, and a duty to act upon that. That this duty to report crime, extends to the public as well. When the crime is perverting the course of justice, and reporting methods, and mainstream media is not doing due diligence, that's when the truth is being too much denied, by those whom have a position to file reports on the criminal conduct.
Women need slavery abolished in the legislature, so that women can speak the truth and not be told that they need to lie to stop the enslavers. Women need to demand that forced psychiatry be abolished, that slavery be abolished in the legislature. Psychiatrists and other medicos must never be allowed to force themselves on women, or men, or children, ever again, by calling those people they force themselves on 'disabled'.
Disabling restraints are the limits on the limits on the transfer of property. That ‘disabling restraints’ as a conveyancing term, of contracts, that has been perverted by medicos, particularly psychiatrists (whom named themselves alienists in 1800s). This perverting of legal terms to claim another property through social services, and medicos is diabolical. This perverting of terms by psychiatrists and geriatric medicos to claim a person as property must be stopped. Slavery must not be tolerated.
Families will find different ways to tell each other, what is needed, that there are certain lines that are to do with policing, to do with The Crimes Act, that must never be crossed. When the truth has been perverted, and the worst criminals such as psychiatrists are, being allowed to be ‘off the radar’, undetected; interference makes it difficult to communicate for families, and argument is needed, to resolve what has not been spoken about in the correct way. Argument should not result in condemning a person to forced psychiatry, so that one person can 'win' over the other.
To disable is to impair, to diminish, to legally disqualify, to render someone legally incapable. That term disabilities and the synonym here, disqualified, in the Australia’s Constitution, is for licenses, and must not be used to violate civil rights.
When the worst criminals are medicos whom are given authority by the government to use the word ‘disabled’ indiscriminately, innocent people are being subjected to disabling policies and clauses only meant for outlawry and treason offenses. That a state or country might declare certain innocent persons to be ‘with disabilities’ and condemn them to the policies and clauses needed for outlawry and treason offenses, is outrageous, and this outrageous perversion is what has happen in Australia.
It is a dirty trick to call an injured person, a ‘person with disabilities’. That insurers for workers compensation likely had a hand in it.
What ‘social security’ workers in 1909 were, that they couldn’t work after the tasks they were allocated post war, or a job that got exposed, that government said entitled them to a person, a secret workers compensation benefit. That was the main disability pension in 1909.
That civil disability in 1700s was a person whom had legal rights or privilege revoked as a result of criminal conviction, such as a license disabled. Such that a Medical doctor no longer would be able to practice, after criminal conviction.
In 1900s and prior medical doctors were considered grave robbers and exploiters and murders in their disgusting perverted interests in dissecting people; that there was a huge group of people wanting their medical licenses to be disabled, if they did that crime. That group of people, wanting medical licenses to be disabled, was largely women.
That what was appropriate about the word disable, was misappropriated, and the word disappropriation was used, as a condemning of something, property, or an opinion that is unfavourable to be publicly expressed, or used by those whom mind the affairs of the state and country. What was the crime expressed? Breach of contract? If that, then the person knows where, what how. Approving of slavery is a crime, advocating for enslavers and torturers is a crime. Anyone whom uses the hates-speech of the mental health industry, is inciting hate-crime, that enables authorities to continue to allow corruption of the word ‘disabilities’ and that enables psychiatrists to force themselves on innocent persons, enslave and torture them for the purposes of diabolically cruel forced human experimentation. That could be understood to be a breach of contract. That main-stream media whom have done this, need to apologize, and make amends, as do government officials whom have used the incorrect terms, so that the public can better understand the situation as far as the use of the term 'disabilities', and whom is really responsible for the propagating the hate-speech and inciting hate-crime that is mental health eugenics based slave-naming of people that psychiatrists have enslaved and tortured, and taken the property of.
That disaffirmance, an act of denial, a repudiation, of an earlier transaction looks like a crime, but it’s meant to be a declaration that a contract is void. If all psychiatrists and mental health staff contracts are given to disaffirmance, psychiatrists and other mental health staff cannot continue doing what psychiatrists unlawfully lobbied government for a contract for. The government officials can revoke consent, and say that the consent was given via unlawful means, under false pretenses by psychiatrists perverting the course of justice, so that psychiatrists could be above the law, and ‘off the radar’, in their acts of cruelty upon persons that psychiatrists appropriated as 'property', in other words enslaved under the term persons with disabilities.
The word disabilities, must not continue to be perverted. The UN CRPD is holding conferences on watching the way each country in the world uses this term, and that civil rights must not be violated through the use of the term ‘disabilities’ or the synonym ‘discrimination’.
All women should want this, term ‘disabilities’ to be used correctly, if there’s women that don’t want this, they’re criminals.