Quote of the week

My colleagues and I often care for patients suffering from hallucinations, prophesying, and claiming to speak with God, among other symptoms—in mental health care, it’s sometimes very difficult to tell apart religious belief from mental illness…. Our conclusions frequently stem from the behaviors we see before us. Take an example of a man who walks into an emergency department, mumbling incoherently. He says he’s hearing voices in his head, but insists there’s nothing wrong with him. He hasn’t used any drugs or alcohol. If he were to be evaluated by mental health professionals, there’s a good chance he might be diagnosed with a psychotic disorder like schizophrenia. But what if that same man were deeply religious? What if his incomprehensible language was speaking in tongues?

Nathaniel P.Morris
Scientific American
11 March 2020

Con Court on the Public Protector

The Public Protector’s explanation of the meeting of 7 June 2017 with the Presidency was, and still is, woefully inadequate. … In this Court, the Public Protector has contended that the adverse findings made against her by the High Court were based on innocent errors on her part.  The Public Protector’s persistent contradictions, however, cannot simply be explained away on the basis of innocent mistakes.  This is not a credible explanation.  The Public Protector has not been candid about the meetings she had with the Presidency and the State Security Agency before she finalised the report.  The Public Protector’s conduct in the High Court warranted a de bonis propriis (personal) costs order against her because she acted in bad faith and in a grossly unreasonable manner.

SHARE:     
BACK TO TOP
2015 Constitutionally Speaking | website created by Idea in a Forest