--- In thomasszaszdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, mirah@d... wrote:
> René, I haven't read all of it yet, but it looks to me so far that
this
> verdict is of little use to us.

I find it hard to see how any one-off legal case can 'sensationally'
help us. It's rather like the Witchfinder General admitting to one
mistake, and thereby actually grabbing extra credence for the
underlying process (as long as it doesn't happen too often!).

The "applicant" as the document calls
> her, was incarcerated involuntarily, also after reaching the age of
> majority, without any prior civil commitment.

Would a 'civil commitment' include 'sectioning.'? If not, I don't see
how the applicant is any different from all the other mental patients
detained involuntarily.

Richard in London


So the institutions that
> held her were guilty of unlawful detention. But the problem rampant
> throughout the world is not unlawful detention, it is lawful
detention.
> Civil commitment is lawful. That's the problem. It shouldn't be, but
it
> is. So from what I've read so far, this verdict does nothing for all
the
> millions of people being held against their will by civil court order.
>
> If you disagree, can you explain why?
>
> Mira