Too bad that Prime Minister JUSTIN Trudeau doesn't have the same democratic courage of his convictions as Prime Minister PIERRE ELLIOT Trudeau demonstrated when the Parliament abolished the death penalty in 1976.
Back then, P.E.T. allowed a free vote in the House of Commons because he:
a) understood any question dealing with the taking of a citizen's life was a matter of deep personal conviction involving the conscience of all Members, and thus he
b) believed that the role of elected legislators in a representative democracy is to make such life and death decisions free of the party whip as a sign of respect to their consciences and constituents in making such an important decision such as the taking of a life by the state.
Evidently young Justin lacks the trust and respect for his fellow parliamentarians as their compatriots experienced from his father when he asked them to deal with their life and death matter: capital punishment.
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Alex Schadenberg, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition: Liberal Members of Parliament are ordered to vote for euthanasia bill.
Back then, P.E.T. allowed a free vote in the House of Commons because he:
a) understood any question dealing with the taking of a citizen's life was a matter of deep personal conviction involving the conscience of all Members, and thus he
b) believed that the role of elected legislators in a representative democracy is to make such life and death decisions free of the party whip as a sign of respect to their consciences and constituents in making such an important decision such as the taking of a life by the state.
Evidently young Justin lacks the trust and respect for his fellow parliamentarians as their compatriots experienced from his father when he asked them to deal with their life and death matter: capital punishment.
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Alex Schadenberg, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition: Liberal Members of Parliament are ordered to vote for euthanasia bill.
If one cannot vote by one's conscience on the two primary issues of life - that is the beginning of life, and death - then everything in between is up for grabs. The murderer does not have to live by his conscience, nor the rapist, nor the thief, and on throughout the whole of life. Conscience is negated and life is up to the whim of the moment because the only one respected - if that word can even be used - is myself - at this particular moment. When conscience is gone life becomes mayhem. One is free to say that the only thing worth protecting is my status. This is what the so called ‘whip’ voting is - a protections of my status as an elected official! So I am free to take life if I deem that my status, as I perceive it, is being threatened.
ReplyDeleteWe do not live in a communist state yet! No one can force me to vote against my conscience! I do not have to say ‘yes’ to a whip vote knowing that the whip vote is going to declare that the taking of a life is legal. No one can force me to take a person’s life! Yet when I go against my conscience on a vote of life and death – effectively I am saying ‘yes’ to killing another! This has ramifications for all of life. If the Government of our land can use protection of one’s elected position as a reason to vote for killing, then, why should anyone be barred from using the same argument of self protection for any action!
Fear has to become the way of life within the land, as no one can be trusted, and law cannot even be enforced - if it even exists. How can law exist in a conscience - less world! Everyone becomes a law unto himself. No one, nothing is sacred. Nothing has meaning - except as I deem it to be so! If the nation’s parliament can behave that way, it becomes the example to be followed by the citizen’s of the land.