No doubt, the title of this post reminds Catholic readers somewhat of their childhood learnings of the Confessional process. Not a deliberate association, I assure you; but one that does give me cause to apologise for those who might have expected a shakedown of the SA State Election a little earlier!
I won't delve into the entrails of slain goats nor the dissections of the psephologists - probably had enough of that, right? I would, however, like to offer a few short comments on the DLP and this election.
Let me begin with a great big 'thank you' to everyone who joined up, donated, prayed, letterboxed, emailed or chatted to friends or stood on a booth on polling day - great effort guys! A special mention to those who came from interstate for the election. In addition to two DLP stalwarts from Victoria, we were gobsmacked when four young fellas made their own way across from Melbourne to help out. Well done!
Major thanks to my upper house running mate, good friend and fellow nutter, David McCabe. Dave's efforts were well and truly above and beyond the call. With work on the following day, Dave was still pulling down posters at midnight the day after the election and had a few more to snaffle before work the next morning!
Mark Freer's commitment as Candidate for Hartley was, likewise, never in doubt. An extra big bouquet to Mark : a political neophite three months ago has now morphed into a seasoned campaignster!
Clearly we did not win a seat in the Upper House. The eleventh position went to D4D's Kelly Vincent - enough said if you read my last post! Put simply: in a polarized election and with virtually no media attention what we achieved was outstanding - even if not quite enough.
We staffed something like 35 booths out of approximately 500 across the state; we ran one lower house candidate from 37 possible - yet we still polled better than many candidates! Imagine what we could achieve with a larger presence!
I guess that's a good point to finish on: If you've appreciated what we've begun in SA and what the DLP is doing, why not get on board. Put the 'U' back in Labor and help the DLP work for the issues that really matter!
Monday, March 29, 2010
Friday, March 12, 2010
Dignity for Disability - continuing betrayal of the disabled
I've blogged before about the Dignity for Disability Party and their lead candidate's support for voluntary euthanasia.
Dr. Paul Collier passed away during this last week. In his passing he is widely recognised for his excellent work in advocacy for the disabled in many ways. It is indeed fitting that he should be remembered so.
One correspondent to this blog attacked me following my speech against euthanasia last weekend where I railed against D4D for the pro-euthanasia position of Dr. Collier. (see here) That person said that Dr. Collier's position on VE was a private matter and that he spoke at the Voluntary Euthanasia rally as a private citizen (I have proof that this was not the case, but, for the sake of the argument, let's assume that this is so).
Someone's personal view on this issue is normally exactly that; personal. However, when someone represents a group for whom such a matter is of intrinsic interest and contrary to the science and basic human dignity of those they represent, then such a view needs to be made public. My criticism of D4D is essentially that they knew about Dr. Collier's position on this issue but did not think to advise their membership and their potential voters.
It would be a travesty and a moral outrage, in my opinion, if people living with disabilities, their friends and families, supported D4D because of their advocacy only to find at some future time that their elected candidate voted for a VE bill.
Let's briefly revisit the issue by way of explanation. The disabled are amongst the most vulnerable members of our society. They need and deserve our support and protection is such ways as to enable them to enjoy their rights and full access to the goods of society on a par with everyone else.
The spectre of euthanasia is directly contrary to these aims. In the Netherlands, where VE has been practiced for decades (and legal for about a decade) children born with disabilities are routinely euthanased without consent (under the Groningen Protocol). Both in the Netherlands and in Switzerland, people with disabilities are over represented in the assisted suicide and euthanasia statistics. Again in the Netherlands, support services for the disabled, the infirmed and those with terminal illnesses are under resources and, in some cases, almost non-existent. Why? It stands to reason: They have other choices.
Make no mistake, the existence of voluntary euthanasia makes the disabled more vulnerable, not less. Read Alison Davis' story HERE to see what I mean. Thats why the US Journal on Health and Disability recently devoted an entire edition to the issue of Assisted Suicide - a close associate of VE. They concluded, in all their articles, that legalised Assisted Suicide (and VE) is never in the best interests of the disabled. (See the January 2010 edition HERE)
The Adelaide press ran appropriate and sensitive stories on the passing of Dr. Collier. According to the electoral act, his name remains on the ballot and his votes pass to the number two candidate, Kelly Vincent.
Kelly Vincent has been outed by the SA Voluntary Euthanasia Society as also supporting legalised VE. (see HERE . Click on Legislative Council and scroll down). What is going on here?
I hesitate to draw conclusions about the intentions of D4D but I'm none-the-less compelled to note that there's something seriously wrong here. As a parent of a child with a disability I feel personally betrayed that what we might call a 'peak advocacy body' is not acting in my child's best interest nor in the intrinsic best interest of any disabled person.
No matter what fine and lofty achievements this group can claim for the disabled, their support for voluntary euthanasia through the views of not one, but two, Legislative Council candidates casts an all-consuming shadow. Without the fundamental protection of their lives in law and in practice, the disabled will become more vulnerable; the quiet whispers about comparative 'quality of life' will eventually become audible.
A vote for D4D is not a vote for the best interests of the disabled
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Rally Shake Down
Watching the Channel 9 News tonight you would have thought that we (the DLP) were the nasty interlopers raining on someone else's parade. The News ran an interview with the anti-Trevor Grace rallly organiser who claimed that they had 'done the right thing' and were angry at being gazumped by us.
I gave an interview to the same journalist making it clear that we infact were the rightful party on the day - not them - becuase we had followed the correct ptotocol and booked the rally in the appropriate manner with the sargeant at arms of the parliament. Did they put this side of the story? No, not at all!
Such is the balanced and objective journalism that exists in this state at the moment. Shame!
As a post script, I learnt shortly after my speech that the D4D lead candidate whom I mentioned in my speech and whose group I attacked, fell ill last night and was on life support. Had I kown that I don't think I'd have changed anything. His views are his views and my attack was on the organisation.
Having said that, in your charity, please join me in a prayer for Dr. Collier, his family and friends at this time of difficulty.
If you feel so motivated, why not phone Channel Nine and give them a few well chosen words (polite of course) about their objectivity.
I gave an interview to the same journalist making it clear that we infact were the rightful party on the day - not them - becuase we had followed the correct ptotocol and booked the rally in the appropriate manner with the sargeant at arms of the parliament. Did they put this side of the story? No, not at all!
Such is the balanced and objective journalism that exists in this state at the moment. Shame!
As a post script, I learnt shortly after my speech that the D4D lead candidate whom I mentioned in my speech and whose group I attacked, fell ill last night and was on life support. Had I kown that I don't think I'd have changed anything. His views are his views and my attack was on the organisation.
Having said that, in your charity, please join me in a prayer for Dr. Collier, his family and friends at this time of difficulty.
If you feel so motivated, why not phone Channel Nine and give them a few well chosen words (polite of course) about their objectivity.
Anti-euthanasia Rally - my speech
Folks I gave this speech at a DLP Rally on the steps of Parliament House, Adelaide on Sunday the 7th of March.
Euthanasia Rally speech
Euthanasia from the Greek and meaning a happy death
It is at best a misnomer to describe the deliberate killing of a human being as ‘happy’.
As with the prosecution of so much of the agenda of the anti-life progressives, the first assault comes in the form of a corruption of language.
“Death with Dignity” they cry. As though these ghoulish death peddlers were simply benevolent players bringing dignity to death where none previously existed. What rubbish!
“Compassionate Choice” they say. There is no compassion when the object is dead because compassion means ‘to suffer with’ and is not a synonym for killing. ‘Choice’ itself has now become a sacrament unfettered by truth and convention. It is never licit to choose a lie over truth.
We see this in other areas:
“Pro-choice” sounds a lot nicer than ‘pro-death’ doesn’t it?
The squeaky wheel of the progressives demands to be greased but when the still small voice dares to speak truth into this confused world it is drowned out in a cacophony of empty shibboleths and the messenger is pilloried and demonised. Sounds familiar doesn’t it? God Bless you Trevor Grace!
“Freedom of Religion” has been sacrificed to the god of tolerance and diversity – an unholy deity of deceit and weasel words.
Clearly, language is important. No progressive agenda could succeed without control of the lexicon. Slogans and the subversion of language serve to camouflage the truth. Paraphrasing Jack Nicholson’s character in A Few Good Men: THEY CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH! Nor can they accept, for the sake of their agenda, anyone else using the language of truth lest they be exposed for their hypocrisy.
There are absolute truths which the pro-death brigade acknowledges in the breech. The Truth convicts; they know it; they can’t deal with it – so they suppress it.
Since when was deliberate ending of a life akin to palliative care? That’s the line Green’s MLC Mark Parnell tried on us last year. Though it is entirely obvious to any reasonable person that the twain shall not meet, a significant number in the Upper House of this parliament either couldn’t or wouldn’t see the blindingly obvious.
That is the danger before us at this moment. A change of heart by one courageous MP at the eleventh hour was all that stood between the status quo and defeat in November last year. Progressively the calibre of our elected MLCs has deteriorated. The major parties offer us, at best, a mixed bag while many others are either programmatically pro-euthanasia or subversively so.
I’ve said it hundreds of times now and we need to hear it, we need to heed it and we need to act on it.
We stand upon a precipice. We lose two anti-euthanasia stalwarts from the Upper House to retirement at this election. God Bless Rob Lawson and Caroline Schaefer. The Liberal Party has offered replacements that, it would seem, do not hold the same firm opposition on euthanasia. If we don’t stand against this black tide of death in a concerted and organised way then we may see, in the next parliament the passage of a VE bill in the Upper House that will send shock waves across the western world.
It’s a hard but necessary sell when I tell you that with this knowledge you are duty bound to act with all the effort you can muster in your individual circumstances.
Let’s look at what’s on offer at this election in the Upper House:
Liberals: A mixed bag.
Labor: ditto the Liberals.
In the Lower House our Candidate for Hartley is standing against the current Labor member Grace Portolesi who has openly declared her support for euthanasia. Mark’s doing a great job and is likely to ensure that this seat changes hands. On ya Mark!
The Greens: Pro-euthanasia. As Lord Monckton said to me a few weeks ago, the Greens have traffic light syndrome: They’re Green but too Yellow to admit that they’re Red!
The Democrats: Pro-euthanasia – who can forget Sandra Kanck’s euthanasia efforts. The current Lead Candidate is cut from the same cloth.
Independent David Winderlich: Supported Parnell’s bill last year.
Independent for Voluntary Euthanasia: enough said
Independent for Legalised Voluntary Euthanasia: ditto – nothing like diversity!
Independent Christians for Voluntary Euthanasia: That’s like saying “Christians for Atheism!” I really don’t get these people.
Those above who have made their preference for voluntary euthanasia known have, at least not hidden their position. For this we should be grateful.
I reserve, however, my harshest criticisms for Dignity for Disability and, as a father of a disabled child; it pains me to do so.
The Dignity for Disability Lead Candidate is in favour of euthanasia. He actually spoke at a SA Voluntary Euthanasia Society rally on this very spot not four months ago representing D4D. He was quoted in hansard by two pro VE MPs.
How can it be that the lead candidate for an organisation created to serve the needs of some of the most vulnerable people in our society support euthanasia when we know both from common sense and the data from places such as the Netherlands that these same people are amongst those most at risk from euthanasia – often without consent?
It is no accident that in Holland both palliative care and disability services are amongst the most underdeveloped in the western world. Why would they put additional strain on their health budget when the old, the infirmed, the depressed and the disabled have –quote-unquote- “other alternatives”?
In January the prestigious US Journal on Health and Disability devoted an entire issue to discussing assisted suicide, euthanasia and the disabled in terms of public policy and risk. Every single contribution in that edition recognised the significant risks that voluntary euthanasia presents for those living with disability. It concerns me that well meaning people either with disabilities themselves or a heartfelt desire to help the vulnerable in their family may find their genuine voting intention turned against them should the D4D candidate take a spot in the Upper House.
On the positive side of course, there are a number of independents who share our views. I’ve already mentioned Trevor Grace and we need to mention our friends at Family First. They will see Rob Brokenshire returned to the Upper House. This is so important. However, even that success would leave us in the minority on VE in the Upper House after this election.
That’s why the Democratic Labor Party’s rebirth at this election is so significant and that’s why it is so important that you support the DLP.
Our focus is on keeping the eleventh and final upper house seat in the hands of an anti-euthanasia candidate. This is absolutely imperative. Your vote for the DLP is not only a vote for an ethically sound pro-life party, it is also a vote for a party that’s preferences will also work towards this good end.
The Democratic Labor Party was born by the sacrifice of those who put principle ahead of prestige and position. We are the only party with such a history. The modern DLP honours this tradition.
We will not compromise.
We will not do dodgy deals for the sake of preferment.
We will stand against the tide
We will not bend
Stand with the DLP.
Make a commitment to make a difference. If every person here took the time over the next 2 weeks to speak to 50 people about the DLP and to explain briefly why we need the DLP we would be so much closer to success. That’s about 4 people a day. People you meet at your work, your school your Church, your sports club, your gym – wherever.
The Democratic Labor Party – because South Australia deserves better!
Thank you
Euthanasia Rally speech
Euthanasia from the Greek and meaning a happy death
It is at best a misnomer to describe the deliberate killing of a human being as ‘happy’.
As with the prosecution of so much of the agenda of the anti-life progressives, the first assault comes in the form of a corruption of language.
“Death with Dignity” they cry. As though these ghoulish death peddlers were simply benevolent players bringing dignity to death where none previously existed. What rubbish!
“Compassionate Choice” they say. There is no compassion when the object is dead because compassion means ‘to suffer with’ and is not a synonym for killing. ‘Choice’ itself has now become a sacrament unfettered by truth and convention. It is never licit to choose a lie over truth.
We see this in other areas:
“Pro-choice” sounds a lot nicer than ‘pro-death’ doesn’t it?
The squeaky wheel of the progressives demands to be greased but when the still small voice dares to speak truth into this confused world it is drowned out in a cacophony of empty shibboleths and the messenger is pilloried and demonised. Sounds familiar doesn’t it? God Bless you Trevor Grace!
“Freedom of Religion” has been sacrificed to the god of tolerance and diversity – an unholy deity of deceit and weasel words.
Clearly, language is important. No progressive agenda could succeed without control of the lexicon. Slogans and the subversion of language serve to camouflage the truth. Paraphrasing Jack Nicholson’s character in A Few Good Men: THEY CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH! Nor can they accept, for the sake of their agenda, anyone else using the language of truth lest they be exposed for their hypocrisy.
There are absolute truths which the pro-death brigade acknowledges in the breech. The Truth convicts; they know it; they can’t deal with it – so they suppress it.
Since when was deliberate ending of a life akin to palliative care? That’s the line Green’s MLC Mark Parnell tried on us last year. Though it is entirely obvious to any reasonable person that the twain shall not meet, a significant number in the Upper House of this parliament either couldn’t or wouldn’t see the blindingly obvious.
That is the danger before us at this moment. A change of heart by one courageous MP at the eleventh hour was all that stood between the status quo and defeat in November last year. Progressively the calibre of our elected MLCs has deteriorated. The major parties offer us, at best, a mixed bag while many others are either programmatically pro-euthanasia or subversively so.
I’ve said it hundreds of times now and we need to hear it, we need to heed it and we need to act on it.
We stand upon a precipice. We lose two anti-euthanasia stalwarts from the Upper House to retirement at this election. God Bless Rob Lawson and Caroline Schaefer. The Liberal Party has offered replacements that, it would seem, do not hold the same firm opposition on euthanasia. If we don’t stand against this black tide of death in a concerted and organised way then we may see, in the next parliament the passage of a VE bill in the Upper House that will send shock waves across the western world.
It’s a hard but necessary sell when I tell you that with this knowledge you are duty bound to act with all the effort you can muster in your individual circumstances.
Let’s look at what’s on offer at this election in the Upper House:
Liberals: A mixed bag.
Labor: ditto the Liberals.
In the Lower House our Candidate for Hartley is standing against the current Labor member Grace Portolesi who has openly declared her support for euthanasia. Mark’s doing a great job and is likely to ensure that this seat changes hands. On ya Mark!
The Greens: Pro-euthanasia. As Lord Monckton said to me a few weeks ago, the Greens have traffic light syndrome: They’re Green but too Yellow to admit that they’re Red!
The Democrats: Pro-euthanasia – who can forget Sandra Kanck’s euthanasia efforts. The current Lead Candidate is cut from the same cloth.
Independent David Winderlich: Supported Parnell’s bill last year.
Independent for Voluntary Euthanasia: enough said
Independent for Legalised Voluntary Euthanasia: ditto – nothing like diversity!
Independent Christians for Voluntary Euthanasia: That’s like saying “Christians for Atheism!” I really don’t get these people.
Those above who have made their preference for voluntary euthanasia known have, at least not hidden their position. For this we should be grateful.
I reserve, however, my harshest criticisms for Dignity for Disability and, as a father of a disabled child; it pains me to do so.
The Dignity for Disability Lead Candidate is in favour of euthanasia. He actually spoke at a SA Voluntary Euthanasia Society rally on this very spot not four months ago representing D4D. He was quoted in hansard by two pro VE MPs.
How can it be that the lead candidate for an organisation created to serve the needs of some of the most vulnerable people in our society support euthanasia when we know both from common sense and the data from places such as the Netherlands that these same people are amongst those most at risk from euthanasia – often without consent?
It is no accident that in Holland both palliative care and disability services are amongst the most underdeveloped in the western world. Why would they put additional strain on their health budget when the old, the infirmed, the depressed and the disabled have –quote-unquote- “other alternatives”?
In January the prestigious US Journal on Health and Disability devoted an entire issue to discussing assisted suicide, euthanasia and the disabled in terms of public policy and risk. Every single contribution in that edition recognised the significant risks that voluntary euthanasia presents for those living with disability. It concerns me that well meaning people either with disabilities themselves or a heartfelt desire to help the vulnerable in their family may find their genuine voting intention turned against them should the D4D candidate take a spot in the Upper House.
On the positive side of course, there are a number of independents who share our views. I’ve already mentioned Trevor Grace and we need to mention our friends at Family First. They will see Rob Brokenshire returned to the Upper House. This is so important. However, even that success would leave us in the minority on VE in the Upper House after this election.
That’s why the Democratic Labor Party’s rebirth at this election is so significant and that’s why it is so important that you support the DLP.
Our focus is on keeping the eleventh and final upper house seat in the hands of an anti-euthanasia candidate. This is absolutely imperative. Your vote for the DLP is not only a vote for an ethically sound pro-life party, it is also a vote for a party that’s preferences will also work towards this good end.
The Democratic Labor Party was born by the sacrifice of those who put principle ahead of prestige and position. We are the only party with such a history. The modern DLP honours this tradition.
We will not compromise.
We will not do dodgy deals for the sake of preferment.
We will stand against the tide
We will not bend
Stand with the DLP.
Make a commitment to make a difference. If every person here took the time over the next 2 weeks to speak to 50 people about the DLP and to explain briefly why we need the DLP we would be so much closer to success. That’s about 4 people a day. People you meet at your work, your school your Church, your sports club, your gym – wherever.
The Democratic Labor Party – because South Australia deserves better!
Thank you
Friday, March 5, 2010
count down to the 20th March
15 days to go to the SA election.
David McCabe and I are fulltime campaigning at the minute. There's a great deal of organising to be done. The mainstream media have been ignoring us. The Independent Weekly posted a 30 second clip on youtube recently which was appreciated. I'm beginning to wonder if I don't need to run naked down Rundle Mall to get some attention! Maybe I should start one of those blogs: Donate here if you DONT want Paul to do a nudie run!
I was completely outclassed the other day by the DLP future member for Harltey, Mark Freer's new blog. Take a look. A great effort from a great candidate. http://mark4hartley.wordpress.com/ And there's some great music courtesy of Mark's recordings!
Mark learnt today that he's in the 'donkey' position ont he Hartley ballot paper (number one). Not a reflection on Mark's looks nor physique at all! Go Mark!
In the Upper House, the DLP is box 'O' which is in the second row above the line and the third position from the left (no ideological reflection). We're directly below the ALP which is precisely the reverse of Mark's ticket positin in Hartley.
I really wonder what effect it will have upon voters when they're given the white ballot paper with so many boxes to choose from. Let your friends know, the simple way out of the dilemma is to place a '1' in the 'O' box for the DLP.
Remember folks, there are very serious and might I say diabolical consequences afoot for this state at this election. It is imperative that we make this vote count on euthanasia - all our votes. As David pointed out today: Of the 23 Parties/Groups contesting the upper house, 7 are Pro-euthanasia, 13 have no interest either way and 3 are anti-euthanasia.
This does not include a further 12 candidates who are standing as independents. The numbers are against us!!!!
David McCabe and I are fulltime campaigning at the minute. There's a great deal of organising to be done. The mainstream media have been ignoring us. The Independent Weekly posted a 30 second clip on youtube recently which was appreciated. I'm beginning to wonder if I don't need to run naked down Rundle Mall to get some attention! Maybe I should start one of those blogs: Donate here if you DONT want Paul to do a nudie run!
I was completely outclassed the other day by the DLP future member for Harltey, Mark Freer's new blog. Take a look. A great effort from a great candidate. http://mark4hartley.wordpress.com/ And there's some great music courtesy of Mark's recordings!
Mark learnt today that he's in the 'donkey' position ont he Hartley ballot paper (number one). Not a reflection on Mark's looks nor physique at all! Go Mark!
In the Upper House, the DLP is box 'O' which is in the second row above the line and the third position from the left (no ideological reflection). We're directly below the ALP which is precisely the reverse of Mark's ticket positin in Hartley.
I really wonder what effect it will have upon voters when they're given the white ballot paper with so many boxes to choose from. Let your friends know, the simple way out of the dilemma is to place a '1' in the 'O' box for the DLP.
Remember folks, there are very serious and might I say diabolical consequences afoot for this state at this election. It is imperative that we make this vote count on euthanasia - all our votes. As David pointed out today: Of the 23 Parties/Groups contesting the upper house, 7 are Pro-euthanasia, 13 have no interest either way and 3 are anti-euthanasia.
This does not include a further 12 candidates who are standing as independents. The numbers are against us!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
