Dokumentarfilm maj 2012: Danmark skruer op for gassen_1

On the occasion of the Danish EU Presidency 2012, Snuff Street Journal interviews human rights lawyer Claus Bonnez, who explains that the Danish courts systematically violates the human rights convention article 5, in connection with the legal proceedings undertaken by Danish psychiatric patients.

See Documentary with subtitles in: dansk, deutsch, english, français - http://bit.ly/LlkHeZ

I anledning af det danske EU formandskab 2012, interviewer Snuff Street Journal menneskerettighedsadvokat Claus Bonnez der udtaler at de danske domstole systematisk overtræder menneskerettighedskonventionens artiklel 5, i forbindelse med den juridiske sagsbehandling af danske psykiatriske patienter.

Production: www.red-tape-inc.com

Transparency international, Danmark - rapport 2012:
"Borgerne har, ifølge Grundloven, ret til en retfærdig rettergang. Danmark har en uafhængig og meget professionel juridisk institution, der sikrer en høj grad af retssikkerhed, og domstolen nyder stor tillid i befolkningen. Verdensbankens indeks viser også, at retssikkerheden i Danmark er rimelig optimal med 98% ud af 100 (100 svarende til optimal retsikkerhed), og Freedom House giver i deres seneste rapport fra 2011 Danmark maksimum point i forhold til respekten for både politiske og civile rettigheder."

Læs formandens beretning 2012. http://transparency.dk/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/FORMANDSBERETNING_2012.pdf

EU states appeal court ruling on transparency
http://euobserver.com/18/32576

snuffstreetjournal.com presents

Denmark increases the volume_1

a documentary film about the new criminals

Danish Presidency of the EU

EU-Values?

Would you please
present yourself?

I am Claus Bonnez
and I'm a defence attorney,

and lawyer in other areas as well:

i.e. compulsory hospitalization,

"Retsplejlovens" Chapter 43a

The diagnosis is not my speciality

This, I'll leave for the medical
specialists to explain

Do you know the renowned 'Rosenhan Study',
and if you do, do you have an opinion about it?

I have heard about it

It was a study where some students were
called in to participate in an experiment

They were here detected having a psyciatric
diagnosis, despite the fact that they

didnt' suffer from any mental illness -
that's what I know about the experiment

Could psychiatrists in America
distinguish between madness and sanity?

He was called David Rosenhan and he
devised a dramatic experiment

He assembled 8 people, including himself,

none of whom had ever had
any psychiatric problems

Each person was then sent across the
country to a specific mental hospital

At an agreed time they all presented
themselves at that hospital,

and told the psychiatrist at duty they
were hearing a voice in their head

that said the word “thud!"

That was the only lie they should tell,

othervise they were to behave
and respond completely normally

And then what happened?

They were all diagnosed as insane,
and admitted to the hospital

All of them?

All of them!

And were any of them insane?

No. There were nobody that could
have judged these people as insane

But I told friends, I told my family:
"I'll get out when its fine to get out...thats all!"

"I'll be there for a couple of days,
and then I'll get out!"

Nobody knew that I would
be there for 2 months!

Once admitted, all 8 fake patients
acted completely normally

Yet the hospitals refused
to release them,

and diagnosed 7 as suffering from
schizophrenia and one from bi-polar disorder

They were all given powerful
psychotropic drugs

They found that there was nothing they could
do, to convince the doctors they were sane

And it quickly became clear
that the only way out

would be to agree that they were insane
and then pretend to be getting better

The only way out was to point out
that they were correct.

They said I was insane,
”I am insane, but I'm getting better"

That was an affirmation
of their view of me

In court, when I am called in to question
a compulsory hospitalization;

which is from judicial human rights
aspect

If the rules are respected, which under Danish law is
critical,

because in praxis, the law generally doesn't permit a 'second
opinion'

which is an alternative opinion beside the conclusions of the
official assessment,

which you must bring to bear on a person
to meet the legal criteria

of being compulsorily hospitalized in
Denmark

Ok, does that often happen?

But... it's the rule!

Is it the rule that there is no possibilty for the patient to get
get a 'second opinion'?

Yes, absolutely,

according to Danish psychiatric law,
if you are compulsorily hospitalized, you have the right

to have your case tested in the Danish courts, to see if the
hospitalization was entitled,

and this justice is elementary under
Danish law,

according to the European
Human Rights Convention Article 5

You have the right for this impartial
justice,

and of course also because we are members of the
Council of Europe

to respect the Danish
constitution

So, when we have these cases,

in my opinion, they become nothing
more than a sham

because you in reality have no other expert opinions, than the
ones from the hospital even though

they are the ones, that have kept the
individual in custody

And hereby we need a critical second
opinion

that can eventually dispute the offcial authority's
opinion

And it is understandable that as judges, courts and
attorneys

we have no specialist psychiatric
knowledge,

and I as an attorney don't know when a doctor says that an
individual is insane

Very often you can't see whether the clients
are normal or insane,

so this I can have no clue about, and neither does
the judge,

and the attorney working on behalf of the
hospital doesn't either

When we have this sort of case in the
courts

we base the case on the documentation from the concerned
hospital,

and it's not very surprising that they
say their own decision was entitled

And therefore these cases are very subjective and
hollow,

and in my conviction, conflicting with the European Human Rights
Convention

This statement I base on concrete
decisions

from the European Court of Human Rights:

that there should be an impartial body which
make the subsequent assessment

if the concerned individual
is or was insane,

therefore not the institution that has
decided the enforced detention was originally justified

For me it is quite obvious,

and the European Court of Human Rights
practice is not very surprising

but when you try and invoke it in Danish Law

it's like talking to deaf ears

Both County and High Courts.
They basically do not care!

And now I've taken an action against with a concrete
case in front of the Human Rights Court

Aha, on this basis?

On exactly this question
where no

impartial body was allowed to
make a subsequent assessment

Both County and High Courts focused in this specific
case,

as in the many of the
other cases I have taken,

exclusively on the testimony
from the authorities,

the admitting doctor's
expert assessments,

and the expert's assessment which
maintained the forced hospitalization

And in my opinion,

it doesn't comply with the
legal requirements as provided within

the European Human Rights
Conventions Article 5

Hospital reported to "Arbejdstilsynet"
(Official Work Inspectorate) - EPN.dk

Doctors uses illegal force every 2nd day
- dr.dk

The boss to the staff: "Stop being caring
towards the patients" - dagensmedicin.dk

"Arbejdstilsynet" returns streessplan
from psychiatric hospital - stiften.dk

14 year old girl illegally fixated 286
times

Pharmaceutical companies gilders official
control panel - borsen.dk

Psychiatric patients loosing 9 out of 10
court cases against the authorities

One publised case, was when the staff at
Risskov pschyhiatric hospital,

in the suburbs of Aarhus, due to very
heavy workloads,

filed a complaint to "Arbejdstilsynet" to get assistance

in facilitating a dialogue with the
Direction of the Hospital; who had maintained

a rigid agenda from their singluar
viewpoint

MADLY BUSY - I must do, I must do, I must
do!!! Calme, calme - take it easy; take a pill

The staff reported:

"Jobs are not being done, the staff have to seriously weaken the quality and it affects the
treatment and the work they do"

"...time for professional reflection and
immersion is not present in the daily work"

"Time for professional reflection and
immersion is not present in the daily work"

Yes, it is clear

You could say it's a bit of another
problematic question that you raise,

because the question is: when you
are admitted to a hospital,

if the working conditions
is so poor

as described in the study
from "Arbejdstilsynet",

it creates the risk that the staff of the hospitals
can simply mis-diagnose the patient,

and it can have an impact, both on people
who benefit from being under treatment at

the hospital - they may be too
early written out and sent home -

while others who shouldn't be at the
hospital for example: because they are not sick

remain at the hospital unwarranted

Which obviously is a serious problem

when people are in involuntarily
custody

But, if so, one imagines
that the hospital

had proper working conditions,

very professional
and competent staff

it is still in violation with the
rule of law

as the European Court of Human Rights
interprete in Article 5,

that it can not be the same institution which
subsequently

so to speak, deliver the opinions and the assessments
which the court makes its decision upon

when a citizen claims in front of court,
that a compulsory admission was unjustified

This of course is amplified by a poor
working environment

Because of this, the validity of the medical
staffs opinion is called into question

However, even if this not the case,

it remains problematic due to the

contradictory thought-process,
present in a democratic states courtroom,

which is the fact that the defendant

has the opportunity to
submit arguments in favor

as well as the opposing side, has this
opportunity,

and that is the position of the patients when
discharged

As it have earlier been seen with, for example,
"Tamilsagen" State employees are not always trustworthy,

Attorney Claus Bonnez

Give me one example of a patient who has taken action and filed a lawsuit

Highcourt Judge Hanne Kildal,
East Jutland's Chief of Police Jørgen Illum.

I don't know whether you're going to interview the
opposing side, e.g. the offiicial adminstration

In next episode of "Denmark increases the volume_2",
we'll contact Aarhus District Court

Is Justice something that is being used
selectively in Denmark - a country that used to have

It does not occur
in weeklies of the judiciary,

Music by Niklas Aldén

Produced by

RED-tape-inc.com

Serious accusations from humanrights lawyer
Claus Bonnez against the Danish state

So it is normal that
Danish Law doesn't follow

Soundeffects

Special Thanks to:

That is very problematic!

The Snuff Street Journal editorial office will in subsequent
editions make an interview with "Domstolstyrelsen"

The Ultimate Freedom:
the Freedom of Crime

The only source of ammunition that the patients have access to

This is absurd,
and a breach of the fundamental

Torben Thygesen and Michael Møller
Hansen

Two of the District attorneys employees whom
we know have processed such a case:

With law, thy must build the country

after the psychiatric law, and has been permitted
to obtain expert impartial assistance

and possess the integrity and
independence that would be expected in their position.

and the European Court of Human Rights,
Article 5

but instead the courts emphasize the doctor
whom hospitalized the patient

for an interview with one of its
representatives District Court Judge Mette Helby Jensen,

human rights traditions we have in
Danish Law

is the opposing side's information
concerning themselves

or in other legal periodicals
that I have knowledge of

patient an opportunity for a
critical expert assessment

the European Court of Human Rights
practice that allows the former

to discuss the punitive consequences of officials
administrationally, violating the Danish constitution

traditions and reputation for respecting
human rights.

whom are branding Denmark as the
worlds happiest country