On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 05:05:44PM +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
All their headlines are relevant if you follow the
study of the
Australian Constitution, read further.
i have read further. complete waste of time. they're only "relevant"
if you believe their self-serving misinterpretations of both law and
The site is about the constitution and our rights
relating from it and
could have fooled me. it looked like a typical right-wing nutter's
web site. all the usual talking points, the usual self-serving
misinterpretations and simpleton straw-man logic, and the usual childish
"but i don't wanna pay tax it's not fair" whining.
our legal history that includes our bill of rights
from England which
most people don't believe we have.
The constitution has no provision for political parties; each politician
should represent their constituents independently. The party system is
true enough, the constitution does not recognise political parties. it
neither prohibits nor endorses them.
parties are annoying and have partially subverted the representative
nature of the australian democracy, but they're not unconstitutional.
there's no definition of HOW a rep. should represent their constituency.
what the loony right ignore on sites like this is that the constitution
does not forbid elected reps banding together according to interest or
ideology, or to get something of value (the votes of other reps, for or
against particular Bills in the House) in exchange for their own.
parties are, at worst, a flaw in the system....but it's better to have them
out in the open where the public can see what's going on than to have
the same stuff going on in secret.
and just as with independant - no party - reps, if the voters think that
they haven't been represented properly, they get to vote in someone else
in the next election.
Fluoride is an issue and fluoridation of water is
definitely a concern
known and acted upon by the group.
General Ripper certainly thought so.
craig sanders <cas(a)taz.net.au>