🚀 go-pugleaf

Iain Jameson <Iain.Jameson@dsto.defence.gov.au> wrote in article
<33404E58.4A08@dsto.defence.gov.au>...
> Patrick Canion wrote :
> 
> >Iain Jameson <Iain.Jameson@dsto.defence.gov.au> wrote:
> 
> >>Concerning the betrayal of democracy and our 
> >> basic human rights, can the Govenor General 
> >> refuse to sign the Andrews bill into law?

Nope. 

> >>If we ever needed protection from a bad law, it's now.
 
Nope, totally unrepresentative swill like a GG dont get to decide a damned thing. 

> >>Let's hope he has the guts to throw this bill in the scrap heap where it belongs, 

No thanks, not into letting totally unrepresentative swill rule any time soon. 

> >> and give the individual back the right to determine their own lives and deaths -

They still have. The ONLY time they have a problem is when 
they need medical assistence, and then ONLY in the territorys.

> >>in accordance with article 3 of the UN bill of human rights.

Fuck article 3 of the UN bill of human rights, yet another unrepresentive swill. 

> >Just putting aside the rights and wrongs of euthanasia for a moment
> >Iain, do you realise the implications of the arrogance of the statement 
> >you've just made?  I mean, if you don't agree with the system of democratic 
> >government we have in this country just because they passed a law that 
> >you feel goes against popular opinion (but more probably simply on the 
> >basis that you feel they are 'wrong'), either move country or start a revolution.

He's right.

> Any less arrogant than hoping the Federal Government 
> will overturn a bill passed by the Northern Territory?
 
Yep, if we are sufficiently pissed off about that particular piece of legislation,
we can give the clowns who passed it the bums rush next time we get to vote.
We cant with a totally unrepresentative swill like the GG. 

We can also start putting the boot into state parliamentarians and 
getting them off their arse to pass equivalent legislation to the NT and 
the feds can whistle dixie for all the good their recent legislation will do. 

> Any less arrogant than deciding the terminally ill cannot have a choice? 

They've always had a choice. They only have a problem if they arent prepared
to commit suicide themselves and want a medical person to kill them. 

> Have no freedom to determine how they die?
 
Utterly mindless rhetoric, they have plenty of freedom to 
kill themselves and it aint even illegal to do that anymore. 

> Why is the G-G there? To look pretty? 

Essentially to decide who gets to form government if its very finely balanced,
and when to hold elections when that isnt completely cut and dried. 

> To waste our money? 

That too. 

> To protect us from dictatorship and bad laws?
 
Fraid not, nothing remotely resembling anything like a decent democracy if he 
decides whats a good law and what aint. The present one is a complete fool who
isnt actually capable of doing that anyway. Quite capable of doing that other stuff tho. 

> The Territories bill was overturned because of religion, not democracy. 

And we get to give them the bums rush if sufficently pissed off about that. 

> Read the Weekend Australian if you don't believe this. 

Golly gosh, one of Ruppys rags is gospel now ?

> That is what annoys me, that a bad law got through
> based on politicians beliefs, not democracy.

Thats life. Sure beats letting a totally unrepresentative stuffed shirt swill like 
the GG decide. You'd be the first to howl if the parliament had instead chosen 
to pass a euthanasia law and the GG refused to sign it coz he was a fundy.