Joint Committee on the Draft Mental Health Bill Written Evidence

DMH 332 Christians Against Mental Slavery

Submission to the Joint Committee on the Draft Mental Health Bill


An international, evangelical Christian poltical group that wants the non-consensual technological

monitoring or influence of human thought to be declared a crime against humanity worldwide. || ||

30 October 2004

Six of the twelve formal members of Christians Against Mental Slavery are British. One of the British members is now living in France, but the rest live in the UK. Two others are British residents, one German and the other South African. Another member is South African and living in South Africa. The remaining three members are US citizens living in the USA. The group has far more associates than it has full members, and collaborates with others worldwide who are not necessarily Christians, on what is a serious, but underpublicised humanitarian issue. (For example, there is a copy on our website of the speech made by a British member, on this topic, at a civil rights rally in Houston, Texas this year.) There is a list of the full members on our website, with details of academic qualifications and profession in some cases.


Yesterday, the hearing was held of a successful appeal against the sectioning under the Mental Health Act of a "client" of this group.

Earlier this year the client concerned made a complaint at a police station of assault, perpetrated remotely by unidentifiable assailants who were apparently armed with the sort of weapons which the European Parliament said it wanted banned, worldwide, in Resolution A4-0005/99 Paragraph 27, but which the Home Office has told this group explicitly that the present government is determined not even to have discussed publicly, let alone banned. The client was sectioned and forcible injected, merely because a psychiatrist formed the subjective opinion that her complaint to the police was "inherently implausible". (It was conceded that she had never been a threat to the safety of herself or others, which had never been alleged.)

A leaflet published by this group was produced at the hearing, in addition to the somewhat weightier and more scholarly material mentioned below, and expert testimony was given by the group's secretary, who also cross-examined the psychiatrist.

This group has written more than five times to the Royal College of Psychiatrists, without receiving a single reply, asking what scientific tests British psychiatrists use nowadays, in order to determine objectively whether those presenting with symptoms consistent with the abuse of "manipulation" weapons (to use the term used in the relevant European Parliament resolution), and perhaps attributing their symptoms to such a source, are genuine victims of such abuse, or psychotic persons who are hallucinating the symptoms, and deluded as to the cause of those symptoms.


1. There should be a general statutory obligation for psychiatrists to refrain from diagnosing delusion before they have conducted rigorous investigations which are capable of determining scientifically whether the untypical beliefs they consider to be "delusional" are (1) potentially true after all, or (2) demostrably false, with the patient being given the benefit of any possible doubt.

2. Until manipulation weapons have been banned worldwide and existing stocks placed beyond further use (as requested in our petition, an outcome which the present government declines to pursue), this should expressly include an express obligation to eliminate rigorously before diagnosis (using Faraday Cage shielding if necessary), any possibility must that the genesis of symptoms is the abuse by third parties of electromagnetic manipulation weapons, which can penetrate solid barriers such as walls of brick or stone, and hence can be abused remotely.

3. Any inability of a victim to explain why he in particular should have been picked for non-consensual experimentation with, or operational deployment of, manipulation weapons, should no more be grounds for diagnosing "delusion" than the inability of a rape victim to explain why the rapist picked on her, amongst all the women (some of them prettier) the rapist could have chosen to rape but didn't, would be considered adequate grounds for inferring automatically that the rape victim was fabricating any rape allegation brought.

4. Due allowance must be made for the fact that those who report manipulation abuse might not be scientifically educated, and might therefore be unable to explain what would, in any case, only be their best guesses as to how the weapons deployed to their detriment function.

5. In view of the known congruence between (1) the documented bioeffects that can be caused, intentionally or maliciously, by microwave radiation and (2) known symptoms of schizophrenia, it is also necessary for microwave causation of symptoms, whether deliberate or accidentally, to be eliminated, before any attribution of those symptoms to a psychiatric cause would be lawful, even in cases where the patient presents without alleging manipulation weapon abuse.


I shall not rehearse here the more obvious rationales for our proposals, of which the Committee can think or remind itself unaided, rationales that are based upon ordinary notions of public safety and fairness. I shall confine myself here to two novel arguments, which might not have been considered before.

1. The abuse of manipulation weapons is intendedly impossible to prove on the part of any individual plaintiff, against any specific defendant who is perpetrating that abuse remotely, of which remote perpetration such weapons are capable. As with the now acknowleged health risks associated with tobacco use or exposure to asbestos, it can only be proved that such abuse is likely to be taking place amongst a particular population, by the use of statistics. This epidemiological evidence of a tell-tale trend is masked by the routine sectioning of anybody who (for example) attends a police station in order to make a complaint that they are being "zapped" non-consensually, in this way or that, because sectioning complainants discredits their testimony.

2. Psychiatry has failed to rise to the new challenge which the modern age has presented, which, our backing evidence shows, includes the wilfull agenda to develop weapons whose use can simulate mental illnesses, weapons as likely to motivate testing that violates the Nuremburg Code as did atomic weapons, whose affects we now know were ascertained unethically. It is therefore unsafe to allow psychiatry the luxury of continued "self-regulation". In the public interest, new statute law must now impose, explicitly, for the first time, the burdens prescribed in our recommendations, which are burdens which psychiatry has shown itself unwilling to shoulder voluntarily.

Supporting Evidence

The following scientific papers are offered, as material supplementary to this submission, in support of the contention that nowadays it is technologically feasible for unknown assailants to perpetrate, remotely, effects such as those who complain at police stations of those effects are apt to find themselves summarily and unjustly sectioned, a factor which impedes the efforts of those determined to put onto the domestic political agenda the sidelined concerns of the European Parliament.

On the Need for New Criteria of Diagnosis of Psychosis in the Light of Mind Invasive Technology

Carole Smith

Microwave Bioeffect Congruence With Schizophrenia

John McMurtrey

Inner Voice, Target Tracking, and Behavioral Influence Technologies

John McMurtrey

Review of Literature Related to Recording Microwave Hearing Transmissions by Microphones, and Consideration of Recordings by an Affiant to Remote Harassment

(short title: Recording Microwave Hearing Effects)

John McMurtrey

Thought Reading Capacity

John McMurtrey

Pinneo's 1975 Research Into Technological Thought Reading

short factsheet by John Allman

Feasibility Study For Design of a Biocybernetic Communication System

Lawrence Pinneo et al

Physiologic Word Recognition From Cognitive State

John McMurtrey

Remote EEG Discussion

John McMurtrey

Our websites publish some of the correspondence conducted over a period of about nine months with various government ministries, and others, which substaniates our claims appertaining to the political support we receive, and the opposition we encounter. A goodly portion of that correspondence was with the Home Office's Security and Intelligence Liaison Unit.

We maintain multiple copies of our website because of past experience of a denial of a service attack and other downtime, when we had only a single copy of the website. One such episode was timed to coincide with an appearance made by a group member on national television in the UK. Another (affecting only one site) took place around the time of the Labour conference, at which we exhibited.

The amusing tri-fold leaflet summarising our political position, produced for insertion into the Christian Peoples Alliance party conference delegates' pack, is viewable at

Christians Against Mental Slavery

previous page contents next page

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 24 November 2004