The Forum > General Discussion > election 07
election 07
- Pages:
-
- 1
-
- All
Posted by sarnian, Wednesday, 26 September 2007 12:41:20 PM
| |
Sarnian - too true
Some of us have watched anxiously, with despairing thoughts, as one by one, values of integrity have been abandoned in Australia, over the past 11 years. One can recite them – the litany of lies – from the GST, the children overboard, the AWB ……. We can look back with shame at the treatment of refugees, the government hypocrisy over the David Hicks affair, the mindless following of George W Bush into Iraq, Afghanistan, and away from Kyoto. John Howard and his crew have become masters of doublespeak, and hypocritical action. The most critical current examples are the signing, (but not ratifying) of the Kyoto Protocol, and the signing up of Australia for membership of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) on September 16 . By its actions on Kyoto – the Howard government has pulled of the sleight of hand of influencing Kyoto, without actually joining it – in a blatant attempt to sabotage Kyoto, in the interests of the government’s fossil fuel industry backers. Now, with the GNEP, Australia is signed up to take back nuclear wastes. But of course, Howard only said we’d not take back “other people’s” wastes. Under the GNEP, with the uranium only “leased” – the wastes will be “our own”. Of course Howard will point out that the GNEP membership is “not binding” – so it doesn’t really matter if we’ve signed it. The recent UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was also “not binding”, Australia couldn’t sign that one, could we, because somehow to sign it would be bad for Australia. The Greens are the only party stand up for those old-fashioned values of integrity - we're sure going to need them in this new world of global warming, renewed militarism, and the contempt for truth and human rights that has been the hallmark of the Howard government. Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com Posted by ChristinaMac, Thursday, 27 September 2007 10:24:55 AM
| |
Could I just point out that there are more options than just the Greens for the Senate.
There are independent such as myself, Dr Karl has just announced that he will be running for the Climate Change Coalition (which might well split the "green vote") and many others. I would suggest that if you are concerned about the role of the Senate that you investigate the options fully and vote for those that most clearly match your personal views. James Purser Independent Candidate For The Senate http://jamespurser.com.au Posted by James Purser, Thursday, 27 September 2007 1:06:32 PM
|
- Pages:
-
- 1
-
- All
The decisions you will have to make are for Business as usual or change.
The change will not be to your liking but is a way to meet hard times with less impact than business as usual.
What are the choices?
A Howard Government who will pay derisive lip service to global warming and continue to do the bidding of corporate barons who are encouraging the disastrous climate change or put in a Rudd government who is yet to be judged for his green credentials.
Neither of these is in themselves a good answer to the problems. The alternative is to also put in a third party acting as a balance in the Senate.
The Greens are the obvious choice. The Democrats are fading into obscurity and the other parties are either too radical or are aligned with Howard. More Greens in the Senate would keep both of the major parties straight.
Having one party control both houses has been a recipe for trampling over any accountability or debate.
We were dragged into a war and were no threat.
We have not signed the Kyoto treaty, which will result in no slowing down global warming.
We have seen the way we work changed and our rights abused and threatened.
All of this was unstoppable because there was no check or balance in the house, which is supposed to review.
That is what the senate is there for. It is not a rubber stamp.
There will be a lot of talk about a mandate but a really strong government can also be a dictatorship.
I urge you to think hard before you make a final decision on where your one democratic right is spent. It can only be spent once.