Philosophy of LaLeva & Claudio Capozza MBBS (Italy), Naturopathic Doctor (Australia)

(One of the founders) August 21 2002

It might seem superfluous to have yet another movement for consumer protection: are there not too many already? No, our association was born precisely because many of us are not at all agreeing to leave the protection of our rights in the hands of institutionalised structures which are controlled by certain interests and therefore inefficient.

We consider ourselves to be mature and able to decide autonomously what might be bad or good for us (talking about our health) and more in general, we believe that "consumer protection", more often than not, grows out of a desire to "make us be good" to consume the "right" things, and to form an obedient flock of consumers.

However we are all individuals, and our choices will have to be individual ones, if we do not want to lose all freedom.

Many times prohibitionist practices are hidden under the cloak of "protection" of consumers and of their mental or bodily health, when in reality quite different interests are at stake.

Examples are numerous. There is prohibitionism of alcohol, which is a thing of the past, but in it's time it has brought great fortunes to the mafia families during the "golden twenties". Another prohibitionism is the one on drugs, which for many years has effectively removed hemp fibers from the market, that were in heavy competition with synthetic fibers produced by certain chemical giants. This same drug prohibitionism has become, in more recent times, a veritable gold mine for secret services and criminal cartels who are making huge profits trafficking cocaine and heroine.

We should not forget "moral" prohibitionism as we see in sexual matters, where prostitution becomes a "dirty job", while rich and poor alike are using the services of the world's oldest profession, at one time or another. There is a special stigma reserved for any diverse sexual practices, and just the last example in a long list is paedophilia on the internet, which provides a ready alibi, (having maybe been put there for that very purpose) to call for "efficient controls" on all communications, even personal ones, that are transmitted on the internet.

And then, last in this short list but not for that less insidious, we have prohibitionism on the freedom of choice in health matters. Our constitution clearly states in article 32, "no one may be obliged to undergo a certain medical treatment, save by a disposition of law". It goes on to say "in no case may the law violate the limits imposed by the respect for the individual." Nevertheless we are told that a girl and her parents are not able to choose by themselves whether or not to undergo chemotherapy, a modern torture by injection of highly toxic substances to "exorcise" the evil, in this case a cancer growth. Vaccines of course we are obliged to accept, even though proof of their danger to health exists and is only kept quiet to not ruin a good business. We are still subjected to the "butcher's treatment" of electroshock, albeit in a more "humane" version accompanied by anesthesia, even though the psychiatric camps called hospitals were abolished some time ago. And while we are at it, there is also prohibitionism of "high doses of nutrients" to be kept away from consumers at all cost, if we are to believe some ministerial officials or "authorities". They seem to be preoccupied with holding on to their jobs and various committee seats rather than with our health. Instead it would be their duty to provide us with the means we need to avoid getting sick, rather than to "manage" our illnesses!

We are against any kind of prohibitionism, under any pretext, but even more importantly, we are in favour of the freedom to choose. Ours is a program that goes far beyond the field of health as such.

It is true that in this first moment of our existence as an organised movement we are concentrating mainly on choices inherent in the field of health, which we believe are important and need to be resolved urgently. In any case however, our philosophy is broader than that. We are open to growth (we prefer that it be an "organic" growth, that is, a natural development that is not forced) towards other horizons of protection of individual rights and personal choices.

By Claudio Capozza MBBS (Italy), Naturopathic Doctor (Australia)