Understanding law

Further to my reply I might suggest this could be an interesting subject for
your students.

The goal is bring down a government that has made law that violates human
rights in such a horrific way. (my personal experience and that of others I
have spoken to).

The Mental Health Act allows one person to have an opinion and declare an
involuntary treatment order. Once done this means there is an unspecified
period of imprisonment and an unspecified punishment that involves drugs -
new technology drugs that can stop a person's ability to think and remember
their past - thus wiping the slate clean ready for suggestion and
questioning to install a new set of beliefs (such as liking the person who
has been harassing as this will solve the emotional / strategic problem
perceived by the victim.) What is the morality of this? How can it be
justified? Should it be allowed? What if someone might kill someone should
they be imprisoned physically and with drugs like this? Are personal
freedoms important or the good of the community important? or is personal
freedom the best for the community? How can an opinion be tested? what if
the opinion is wrong, unfair, malicious, has been influenced by malicious
statements from someone else, has been made for improper purpose, the person
has bad breath and is not likeable? ????

Techniques of persuasion suggests that messages must be framed to be easily
understood and appreciated in their significance - does my letter do this
and how could it be improved? What is the basic message and is it important
and why is it important?

There is the framing of the Act. www.legislation.qld.gov.au  current acts,
M.  It reads OK and appears to have procedural fairness, but there is the
big issue of the importance of the opinion of a psychiatrist and what this
means to due process and the appeals process. Since the opinion does not
provide facts and reasons and is formed by the psychiatrist on his own after
talking to the "patient / defendant" and others such as his enemies and
antagonists in a dispute situation the information used can have lots of
malice and hearsay in it and the psychiatrist can be persuaded to punish the
patient/ defendant etc.... How does the Act protect from this type of thing?
Where is the procedural fairness and due process defined in the act?

There are also issues such as the nature of star chambers.
It was only 200 years ago that star chambers operated and caused much
injustice. There were procedures introduced to minimise the injustice. A
good story to the local magistrate and he would give you the neighbour's cow
or wife. Wives were the property of husbands and women did not have legal
status and so could not own property. Even now a person must be over 18 to
have legal status and be legally able to own property and vote. What does
this mean? There are basically two entities, there is the person and their
Legal Entity. The legal entity can be passed to another person with a power
of attorney or with the appointment of an administrator by the guardianship
tribunal. What does the Mental Health Act do to a person's legal entity?
Only 300 years ago a good story (or payment) could get someone burnt as a
witch.

Those procedures (due process) include:
Police investigate, judge judges with judgments providing facts and reasons
to show how the decision was arrived at. Punishment is a defined term of
imprisonment and / or a specified fine amount.
The defendant is provided with the charge they have to defend, is given the
case against them and an opportunity to prepare a defense.
There are rules of evidence to eliminate malice and hearsay, but things are
not perfect
have a look at www.harrycroll.com/courts.html. The defendant gets a chance
to contest the evidence against him and also gets an opportunity to tell his
own story in his defense.

There are other issues such as the effectiveness of the letter, does it
achieve its objective, what is its objective, how could it be improved to
achieve its objective.

Is it provocative and emotional etc...

A bit about chaos:
When there is a very high energy gradient the flapping of a butterfly's wing
can start a thunderstorm. A virus has the capability of spreading in a
population. The elements necessary to create a political virus are a message
that is relevant, has that interest concern and will cause discussion and as
such the discussion carries a message capable of being retransmitted - (the
right place in the energy gradient).
The second element is the distribution and presentation of the message - the
flapping. How many letters need to be distributed to get things moving and
what are the methods of distributing of messages and is the message
organised to be distributable?

When the gain is significantly greater than 1 the message grows over time
and becomes a "sore point" in the population. This sore point is then read
by politicians if they are smart enough and they make changes and get
re-elected. If it is not read they get voted out and someone else gets a go.
Note the current sore point with retirees is the lack of support in the last
budget for the aged pension and how the aged pension restricts people from
being able to earn additional income as it punishes them by taking too much
too fast as they earn. having a job has costs such as getting to work,
cloths and work gear etc. The government takes too much from the pensioner
too fast and this is also a sore point.

I hope this gives you some idea of what is trying to be achieved and the
thinking behind the letter.