Is mental health a right?
Human rights, global governance, and 'inclusion' grown out of the barrel of a gun.
‘Mental health as a human right’ undermines natural rights, facilitates global tyranny, and must be rejected in full.
In the past decade, there has been a noticeable, concerted shift towards the idea that mental health is a human right.
The United Nations (UN), World Health Organization (WHO), World Federation of Mental Health (WFMH), various NGOs, and others have repeatedly told us that everyone has a right to the highest attainable standard of mental health.
This right, then, necessarily includes universal access to mental healthcare and, to quote the American Counseling Association in a statement on human rights in reference to the ‘trans bathroom’ issue, “the right to be accepted for their unique and authentic selves.”
But is this true? What even is “mental health” or “inclusion,” and do we actually have a right to it? If so, what are the implications?
The UN-WHO-WFMH Nexus
First, the World Health Organization (WHO), which directs and coordinates “international health” for the United Nations (and is overseen by a former “top figure” of a Communist terrorist group🤡), defines health in its constitution as the “state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity,” concluding that “governments have a responsibility for the health of their peoples which can be fulfilled only by the provision of adequate health and social measures.”
Following this, “mental health” is defined as “a state of well-being that allows people to cope with life's stresses, work well, and contribute to their communities,” meaning that it goes beyond the absence of psychological or other ‘mental health’ conditions.
Accordingly, the UN has made this a core concern since at least 2015, with the Special Rapporteur issuing successive reports to the General Assembly and Human Rights Council:
In 2015, for the right to the “enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health” (including the need to provide psychosocial interventions in early childhood).
In 2017, calling for a recovery- and community-based model (versus biomedical model) that promotes “social inclusion.”
In 2018, citing the role of “discriminatory attitudes and xenophobic political rhetoric” in creating harmful environments.
In 2019, on the role of social determinants of mental health.
In 2020, calling for a global agenda for mental health.
This culminated in 2023, when the UN General Assembly reaffirmed the human right to mental health and explicitly connected it to the Sustainable Development Goals, especially Goal 3 on “ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being for all at all ages.”
Tellingly, the theme of 2023 World Mental Health Day, an initiative of the World Federation for Mental Health (WFMH), was “Mental health is a human right.”
The WFMH, founded the same year that the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), has also long advocated for this recognition and practice, including as it relates to mental health care as a right.
Interestingly, the UN Secretary-General’s message for 2023 World Mental Health Day provided a good summary of the agenda and its specific relationship to ‘universal health care’:
Mental health is not a privilege but a fundamental human right — and must be part of universal health coverage. Governments must provide care that promotes people’s recovery and upholds their rights. This includes strengthening community-based support and integrating psychological help into broader health and social care.
We must also tackle abuses and break down the barriers that prevent people from seeking support. And we must address root causes — poverty, inequality, violence, discrimination — and create more compassionate and resilient societies.
The WHO has also reaffirmed its position that “mental health is a basic human right for all people,” which includes:
the right to available, accessible, acceptable, and good quality care; and
the right to liberty, independence, and inclusion [emphasis mine] in the community.
Importantly, “social inclusion,” defined by the UN, is the “process of improving the terms of participation in society, particularly for people who are disadvantaged, through enhancing opportunities, access to resources, voice, and respect for rights.”
This definition in context tells us that “social inclusion” must necessarily exclude some “voices” to elevate others (see Herbert Marcuse’s ‘repressive tolerance’), following the traditional line of Neo-Marxist intersectional practice of ‘centering the marginalized’ (and ‘de-centering the marginalizing’) in order to displace power and initiate revolution.
Note that, in the context of global governance, this will include “colonized” areas of the “Global South” like Yemen, Palestine, Haiti, Iraq, etc..
Really, really think about that.
Natural vs. Human Rights
This then raises the question: What are human rights, and how do they differ from natural rights?
Here, we can see that natural rights, as outlined in America’s founding documents, are based on the philosophy of natural law, which identifies rights as inherent to all individuals and are thus inalienable. The government’s role is to protect these rights. These are generally framed as negative rights, focusing on protecting individuals from government interference in their personal freedoms.
In contrast, human rights, as defined by the UDHR, are a broader and more expansive set of entitlements, and include not only civil and political rights, such as the right to life, freedom of expression, and freedom from torture, but also economic, social, and cultural rights, such as the right to education, work, and healthcare.
Governments are thus obligated not just to refrain from infringing on these rights, but also to actively promote them. Thus, while human rights include some negative rights, they also include positive rights (one might say that human rights, then, dialectically negates and transcends natural rights).
Enforcement of “Mental Health”
Thus, we can see that the alleged right to mental health (and accompanying mental health care) cannot be considered a natural right but rather requires the contrivance of rights put forth by the United Nations.
Given this context, one can very quickly see how the right to be accepted by others contradicts the foundation of American freedoms and is necessarily tied up with censorship, psychological abuse, and other forms of tyranny.
Logically, the only way to ensure everyone ‘feels included’ is through (carceral) political power ‘grown out of the barrel of a gun,’ and further inquiry into recommendations by these global governance organizations quickly reveals the play.
The WHO tells us clearly that “human rights violations” can be prevented by:
Ensuring laws and policies are in line with human rights conventions, effectively superseding local law into global governance,
Replacing psychiatric institutions with “community mental health services,”
Changing societal attitudes (subtext being through psychological grooming and abuses of cognitive liberty).
Protecting populations from climate change, humanitarian emergencies, inequity, and poverty, which means seizing and redistributing wealth, tyrannical lockdowns, censorship, and other necessary elements of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.
As noted previously, we also know from the UN that this right is explicitly tied up with the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, which necessarily require a tyrannical (and almost certainly catastrophic) transformation of every single aspect of human existence to achieve.
Thus, it’s clear that the ‘right to mental health’ is grounded in the UN Doctrine of Human Rights, explicitly tied up with Agenda 2030 directing us into (once again, catastrophic) communofascist governance, and requires extensive violations of natural rights in order to achieve.
It must be rejected in full.
Photo Attribution: https://www.flickr.com/photos/worldeconomicforum/52633258049
Linked URLs
https://www.who.int/about/governance/constitution
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mental-health-strengthening-our-response
https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/mental-health-promoting-and-protecting-human-rights
https://www.who.int/southeastasia/news/detail/10-10-2023-world-mental-health-day-mental-health-is-a-universal-human-right#:~:text=This%20encompasses%20the%20entitlement%20to,from%20seeking%20help%20and%20support.
https://press.un.org/en/2023/sgsm21968.doc.htm
https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-health/right-mental-health
https://www.ohchr.org/en/health/mental-health-and-human-rights
https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n15/238/25/pdf/n1523825.pdf
https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g17/076/04/pdf/g1707604.pdf
https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n18/234/88/pdf/n1823488.pdf
https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g19/105/97/pdf/g1910597.pdf
https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g20/094/45/pdf/g2009445.pdf
https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n23/189/19/pdf/n2318919.pdf
https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/rwss/2016/chapter1.pdf
https://www.globalgoals.org/goals/3-good-health-and-well-being/
https://www.counseling.org/about/values-statements/human-rights#:~:text=ACA%20and%20its%20members%20agree,a%20respect%20for%20diverse%20views.
https://www.apa.org/international/united-nations/response-high-commissioner-human-rights.pdf
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20221109-who-chief-tedros-walking-tightrope-on-tigray
https://newdiscourses.com/2021/02/repressive-tolerance-left-good-right-bad-what-could-go-wrong/
https://newdiscourses.com/2023/07/exposing-the-sustainable-development-goals/