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