Were you aware that there is a push for universal “mental health” screening across the United States, beginning in infancy?

It’s something that has been on the horizon for a while now. Conservative education watchdogs (like those at EdWatch) are understandably against this disturbing project due to obvious reasons.

But now our worst fears are being confirmed: a chilling article in the Washington Post ponders the idea of whether so-called “bias” can be an “illness.” The article provides a perfect example of where “universal mental health screening” may be headed—or perhaps, where certain people want it to lead.

Take a look at some excerpts from this article:

“...some [mental health practitioners] are asking whether pathological bias ought to be an official psychiatric diagnosis.”

“Perpetrators of hate crimes could become candidates for treatment and physicians would become arbiters of how to distinguish ‘ordinary prejudice’ from pathological bias.”

“Darrel A. Regier, director of research at the psychiatric association, said he supports research into whether pathological bias is a disorder.”

“Doctors who treat inmates at the California State Prison outside Sacramento concur: They have diagnosed some forms of racist hatred among inmates and administered antipsychotic drugs. ‘We treat racism and homophobia as delusional disorders,’ said Shama Chaiken, who later became a divisional chief psychologist for the California Department of Corrections, at a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. ‘Treatment with antipsychotics does work to reduce these prejudices.’

“Chicago psychiatrist Bell said he has not made up his mind on whether bias can be pathological. But in proposing a research agenda for the next edition of psychiatry’s DSM of mental disorders, Bell and researchers from the Mayo Clinic, McGill University, the University of California at Los Angeles and other academic institutions wrote: ‘Clinical experience informs us that racism may be a manifestation of a delusional process, a consequence of anxiety, or a feature of an individual’s personality dynamics.’

Conservatives (and Christians) need to be aware that things like this are actually happening!

In many cases, so called “bias” is already being treated as a crime. A recent column by Melanie Phillips in the British The Daily Mail describes a recent encounter over an alleged “homophobic” incident:

When the new Civil Partnership Act came into force last week, family values campaigner Lynette Burrows took part in a discussion on BBC Radio Five Live about its implications.

During the programme, Ms Burrows said she did not believe that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. Placing boys with two homosexuals for adoption, she said, was as obvious a risk as placing a girl with two heterosexual men who offered themselves as parents.

To her astonishment, the following day she was contacted by the police who said a ‘homophobic incident’ had been reported against her. She had committed no crime but, said the police, it was policy to investigate homophobic, racist and domestic incidents because these were ‘priority crimes’. Such action was ‘all about reassuring the community’.

Far from being thus reassured, it is difficult adequately to express one’s shock and abhorrence ­ not at Ms Burrows, but at the actions and attitudes of the police. What kind of a society has this become where, if someone expresses an opinion which falls foul of the politically approved doctrines of the day, the police start feeling their collar?

Freedom of speech is supposed to be the bedrock value of a liberal society. It should only be constrained in extreme circumstances where a crime may be committed, such as incitement to violence or encouraging terrorism.

In the case of Ms Burrows, no crime had been committed. It was simply that her views fell foul of the doctrine that to criticise the behaviour of self-designated victim groups is to be pronounced guilty of prejudice.

Is the U.S. far behind?