Automatic Trust in Government:
|Topic||For Individuals||For Government|
|Spending||Individuals must spend within your means and bear any debt yourself.||Government may spend an unlimited amount of money. If this exceeds revenues it can usually either: increase amount of existing taxes to no limit, invent new kinds of taxes to no limit, borrow on the Public credit, or create more money. Seemingly for this reason, although Government often complains about lack of money to spend on anything helpful to life (eg. education, ending world hunger) they pour no end of money into things they want to do (eg. COVID-19 response, arming Ukraine, military spending)|
|Contract Obligations||Individuals are absolutely expected to honour their contracts or pay fair penalties.||Government usually cannot be made to honour international or election contracts, such that it is common form them to break international treaties they formerly agreed to, and fail to fulfill or even act contrary to election promises. As for standing obligations, to the Public they can usually change them at the stroke of a pen, such as reduction in services.|
|Respect of Human Rights||Individuals must absolutely respect the human rights of others, as declared in the human rights declaration of that region, or face severe legal remedies.||Although most Governments award legal rights and freedoms to their citizens, these are typically crafted with one or more clauses which Government can use to override all of the rights in it. In other words, although such legislation may award you inalienable rights before other individuals, Government can override all of those rights if it wants to. For example, in the The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, articles 1 and 33 can be used to override many the rights stated eslewhere (we add emphasis in bold):
Similarly, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights contains the following clause which permits human rights override (we add emphasis in bold): Article 29 Section 3: "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."
|Getting Others to Cooperate with what you Want||You can only win others' cooperation at their uncoerced free will, which normally involes you making a good argument for it.||Governments can compel compliance at will against unlimited penalities (such as astronomical fines). Even to fight a war, they don't need to convince you, but simply conscript you.|
|How to Deal with Enemies||Forgive them or take them to court for fair trial and remedy, unless they are legally immune somehow, such as if they had you sign away such rights before they harmed you. Burden of proof is on you. Only the pepetrator may be targetted.||Government has often taken a gangster-like prosecution of opponents, such as using: harassment by discretaionry legal mechanisms such as searches and audits, harassment by enforcement of normally not enforced laws, disappearing people, torture, assassination, or the launching of a war. Widespread collateral damage considered acceptable. For example, the US has often targetted arbitrarily labellled 'terrorists' for execution without trial by airstrike, considered acceptable even though on average 50 bystander civilians are also killed for each 1 'terrorist' killed in such actions.|
|Use of Violence||NEVER appropriate to escalate a conflict, such as to strike first, and force is only tolerated in self-defense of a clear and immediate life threat, and even then you may be brought to trial to defend your use of force. No matter disagreements of words, they are supposed to STAY words, and NEVER supposed to jump to violence as a 'next phase'.||Violence by Government is typically the method used when words fail, and all laws are ultimately supported by a threat of violence. As for war, first strikes by Government are generally tolerated.|
|How to Deal with Friends||You can reward them, but it will be out of your own pocket.||Can arbitrarily give any parties (such as monarch, military, and pharmaceutial companies) legal immunity for prosecution from harms. Can award them lucrative contracts using public funds, for unnecessary things, and also cancel the contracts in payment of large penalty fees for nothing delivered.|
|Revenue||If you want more money, you can ask your employer or customers to pay more, but they might not agree, and might move to the competition.||They can arbitrarily increase the amount of money they obligate citizens to pay them. They can also vote their own salary increases and expense accounts.|
|Waste||Individuals are usually blamed for environmental pollution and harm.||Government is not usuually blamed for environmental pollution or harm, even though waste disposal is either under their direct control (military and civilian waste) or at least regulation (industrial waste).|
|Forestry||Individuals in a city are sometimes not permitted to cut down a tree on their own property.||Government may usually cut down whatever it wants.|
Even though there is nothing illogical about being distrustful of the party on the other side of an arrangement (such as citizens are with delegating poewr to Government), it is considered a psychiatric sign of insanity to not trust Government completely. For example:
It is precisely on this basis that anyone critical of or disobedient towards Government based on principle have not only been often socially dismissed but attacked on a psychiatric basis. For example:
Nov 26, 2022: Canadian Psychiatric Association Targets Anti-Vaxxers
Government typically expects loyalty to them over any family bonds, presuming first ownership of children, and expecting you to turn in even your own mother if she disagrees with Government policy. Example article:December 17th 2022 New Zealand Goes Full 1984, Tells Public to Report Political Dissidents as “Terrorists”
It's worth noting that most of the mass atrocities, including human rights suspensions, holocausts, and genocides, done in the work were done by Government, and not just foreign governments, but the victims' own government, including democratic governments. This fact above anything else is reason to be reluctant to trust Government of any kind. Such mass atrocities in history done by governments to the own people under their rule include:
Actually directing people into danger. It can be so bad that disobedience to Government is sometimes your best or even only chance to survive. For recent examples:
Signing COVID-19 vaccine contracts which state that harms are unknown, and protecting those companies from liability, and then reassuring the Public the vaccines are 'safe'. Sep 7, 2023: It’s confirmed – three governments around the world signed contracts where Pfizer said it did not know what was in the “vaccines”, or the long term effects AND taxpayers would pay for all damages
COVID-19 Vaccines for Pregnant Women: During the COVID-19 crisis, Government and its agencies encouraged pregnant women to accept the COVID-19 vaccine by portrayal of COVID-19 as a risk but not the vaccine (for example, the Canadian government as shown here), even though the vaccine manufacturers explicitly noted that there was no data on the risks to pregnant women on the information sheets they provided to Government and made available (often through Government websites) to healthcare providers (see links on our Clearfacts page but one is here). Other examples:
COVID-19 Vaccines Otherwise: Government promoting these vaccines literally as 'safe' and even mandating them, while also publishing data on harms up to and including instant clinical death (cardiac arrest) following the vaccines not proven unrelated, and despite the impossibility of long-term harms being known in a vaccine which was only recently invented.
2023-08-25: Disobey and Live – Maui Fire Barricades
A shocking willingness to conduct scientific and weapons tests of unlimited potential danger. Examples include:
MANY outdoor nuclear tests, which destroy and release fallout into wide areas of the living environment, especially the high-altitude ones such as in Operation Fishbowl.
Reportedly setting wildfires near residences and/or blocking people from leaving while doing little or nothing to suppress the fires.
Many human rights abuses during the COVID-19 Crisis, where Government suddendly started ordering people how to live, breathe, and stand apart, on excuse of public safety due to a virus they said existed and was dangerous. People were't even able to visit their own mother in nursing home at all, or visit their own child in hospital unless they accepted the vaccine the Government demanded people accept. Certain businesses were allowed to keep running while others were not arbitrarily. For example, large stores were generally allowed to remain open while small stores were generally closed. Places of worship were ordered closed while liquor stores were left open. Certain protests were allowed while others were not. The Government detained people based on a positive test only, and compelled discrimination based on someone's vaccination status, even if they were provably immune to the disease. Many leaders were shown not to follow their own orders. The crisis didn't end despite vast majority acceptance of the vaccine, but only got worse.
'The (Jewish) Holocaust' (1938-1945), ie. the Nazi regime's persecution of its own Jewish people under its rule (ie. their own goverment, if not originally, then at the time): 13 million Jews killed.
The Great Chinese Famine, which was a direct result of radical government-ordered changes to farming practices, and government hoarding. Individuals were left to starve to death, despite Government having more than enough food to save them, because Government kept taking the same amount of food from the farmers even when production dropped, leaving them with nothing.
The Christian Holocaust, which was hundreds of years of lethal persecution under the Roman empire.
The government slaying of its own infants around the time of Moses' birth “And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive.” (Holy Bible, KJV, Exodus 1:22)
The government slaying of its own newborns, around the time of Christ's birth in Bethlehem “Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.” (Holy Bible, KJV, Matthew 2:16)
Armenian Genocide 1915-1917: The Turkish government exterminated its own Armenian people.
1923-1953 Soviet Union slaughter of dissidents
1948-1952 China slaughtered political dissidents
1975-1977 Cambodia slaughter
Guatamalan Genocide: of the Guatamalan government of its Mayan civilians
Ugandan Genocide: 1971-1979 Uganda slaughter of 300,000 Christians
There is evidence that Governments sometimes use a temporary crisis as an excuse to seize power, raise taxes, or demand more funding, which they tend to hold onto permanently. Examples:
The 2020+ Government-announced COVID-19 crisis, for which they demanded dictatorial powers, starting with the power to lock down the society to 'flatten the curve' of infection (please see our COVID page).
Also describing the COVID-19 crisis as an 'opportunity' to rebuild society in their image.
The 2022 Energy Crisis in Europe, for which they are demanding energy rationing to 'flatten the curve' of energy usage: European Leaders Demand Lockdown To “Flatten The Curve” Of Electricity Prices
Demanding money for a fake water system cris which was immediately fixed when another level of Government showed up: Taxpayer shakedown? Water pressure immediately restored in Jackson, Miss., after Corps of Engineers shows up
When peoples in other nations are more free or prosperous, Governments have an incentive and tendency to prevent or at least impede this information from reaching their own people, lest their people become angry with the oppression or failure of their Government compared to other nations. For example:
In 2022, China imposed severe COVID-19 social restrictions when most other countries had lifted them. Thereofre the Chinese Government censored evidence of the freedoms of other peoples, such as in maskless fans at the World Cup 2022. Example: Chinese state media CCTV cuts out scenes of maskless fans at World Cup amid Covid-19 protests
Laws should enforce and therefoe approximate morality, so that they reinforce moral fairness in society, and no more burden on the People than that. They should seldom need to be changed, since morality is eternal, though our understanding of it does evolve.
Immoral leaders don't understand this, but tend to use legislation merely as coercion to get what they want and it's wrong. Although legislation must have conditions within it (such as what constitutes a criminal act), when the imposition or relief of legislation is conditional on another party's behaviour, then that legislation is not a tool of morality but of authoritarianism, ie. is only using the power to make or rescind Laws to bully other parties into a certain behaviour at the time. Example(s):
Although this is not usually clearly reported this way, the 2022 natural gas shortage crisis in Europe is not simply due to the 'war in the Ukraine' but specifically due to Europe arbitrarily imposing sanctions to block deals with Russia (even deals vital for Europe's surival!) as well as refusing to pay for the natural gas in rubles (which they could easily do). The gas is ready to sell but, rather than lose face by lifting the sanctions, European leaders would rather let their People die in the cold. Russia is burning off their natural gas instead (wasting vital fuel and generating excess carbon dioxide), as well as finding other buyers to the south and east. Europe is racking their brains to figure out how to survive the coming winter. Turkey solved the problem easily by agreeing to pay in Rubles. Resources:
September 09, 2022: Switzerland threatens residents who heat their homes this winter with jail time
August 26, 2022: You Have No Idea How Bad Europe’s Energy Crisis Is
25 August 2022: Germany Fears for its Supply
Aug 24, 2022: Winter Is Coming
8 Aug, 2022: Turkey will pay for Russian gas in rubles
Unfortunately the tendency to conspire is a common human failing which we see in all sectors of society, even in families, such as when one relative tells you not to tell another relative something which concerns them. It is naive to think that Government is open with the People, especially as it's well known they have established levels of secrecy in security clearances of information.
We know they keep secrets from the People, but are they willing to withhold information to the point of harming their people? Real world experience shows us that they often are:
Zelensky faces furious criticism from Ukrainians — WaPo . This article exposes that Ukrainian president Zelensky deliberately mislead the Ukrainian people with assurances of peace he knew were false, to protect his revenue.
2003 Iraq War: The USA claimed they had weapons of mass destruction and no evidence was found of their existence, not even when the USA occupied Iraq. Millions dead.
9/11 Twin Tower Attack: Since it is physicall impossible for two aluminum airplanes to destroy three steel & concrete skyscrapers, it is a lie. On this lie was justified the invasion of Afghanistan.
Gleiwitz incident: According to Wikipedia, Hitler had is own forces attack his own radio tower so that he could tell his own people that Poland did it to justify his attack on Poland and the start of the second world war.
The only real limit is what the Public will bear, and each generation seems willing to bear just a little bit more.
Aggregate taxation should be considered. The Government seems to tax us in as many directions as possible, and each one to the limit we will bear in that one direction, to a phenomenal aggregate tax on each person's life. They typically even tax your income, and then tax the money remaining (again) when you go to spend it.
There is no incentive for democratically elected Government to be solvent, especially when spending is a popular election platform and the voters who approve it won't have to pay it back.
For example, even when the rest of the world has relieved COVID-19 restrictions, and admitted they are medical nonsense, China has enforced lockdowns so strictly that they wouldn't even allow people to buy or order-in food, or even escape apartment buildings during an earthquake.
October 21, 2022: The authorities are our enemies
September 6, 2022: China's Chengdu enforces strict lockdown despite earthquake.
For example, telling the Public to have a tiny supply, eg. 3 days, ready when Government/Military keeps more like 10 years of supplies ready.
It's even popularly accepted, at least in movies, that the Government never tells the People the truth.
Please all see our page on Public Disinformation
Stockpiling food and water and emergency shelters for Government & Military, with Public money, but usually nothing, not even a slice of bread, for the Public.
Welcoming refugees with generous financial support also, but not any money for their People in need.
Giving money to help foreign nations cope with rising prices but not their own People. For example 25 Nov, 2022: Canadians paying for Ukraine's gas – Kiev
That's apparently why there are so many chartable and emergency aid organizations: because Government doesn't usually care much about their own civilians in crisis, so foreign aid organizations need to go in to fill the gap. We hear lots of reports of Government overspending; when was the last time you heard Government overspend, for example, to shelter & feed the homeless on their streets?
This shows contempt for both life and the Public will. Examples of issues which are greatly impacting to life but which the Public is rarely if ever asked for a decision on: geoengineering, animal exploitation, 5G/EMR, Fluoridation of drinking water, most wars.
There are many ways to tax someone on things external to themselves, but to tax someone's labour is to own it and the only way you can own someone else's labour is if they are your slave. This is a very real slavery, hidden in plain sight, where your Social Security/Insurance number is your slave number, and if you trace where the original certificate went, you'll find it's stamped and owned by the central bank. Your abilty to earn an income is considered their property as collateral against the national debt.
If they really wroked for the People, would they vote themselves a raise without asking the People? No. But because they do, it proves they rule not the People. Example December 7, 2018: Toronto councillors vote to double their budgets
Hoarding: Government is quick to discourage citizens from stocking up supplies, and encouraging snitching on anyone who does, while Government usually stocks up heavily on supplies without accusation, even to take supplies of citizens who are accused of hoarding.
These are called Black Operations and are an accepted military strategy and the concept is also popular in spy and military movies.
A quick excample is recent real-world events is the Nord Stream pipeline sabotage: only a government would have that kind of capability to do that, yet no government has claimed responsibility. It is shameful that a government did that without taking responsibiltiy; even terrorists groups generally claim responsibility for their atrocities!
It is really very difficult to think of any government in history which has served its People rather than exploited them?
Articles on the overall reasons of why Government is untrustworthy:
January 16, 2023: Don’t trust the government with your privacy, property or your freedoms
In communist, monarchy, or other dictatorial societies: pretty much whatever they want. If you're even suspected of having a thought against the Goverment it's not uncommon for such people to be disappeared.
In representative democratic societies, we notice the following tactics:
Innate Mechanisms: These are powers which the Government is explicitly granted and expected to use for the good of the People, but can be misused for arbitrary agendas instead:
Activist Lawmaking: This is a problem in three ways:
It is a socially accepted way to coerce everyone to cooperate with whatever direction you want. It's amazing how quickly the average person is offended at the slightest hint of another individual telling them what to do, but how quickly they will accept even radical lifestyle change if declared a law (such as with COVID-19 mask or social distancing orders). The ability to make laws is the abilty to command society in any way you want, against whatever penalties you want for disobedience (for example, during the 2020 COVID-19 crisis penalties for defying mask or social distancing mandates were very high: there is no limit). Laws are force because they are en-forced by a division of government paid to do that, who will use as much force as necessary to en-force the laws. When used for activism, lawmaking tends to cause far faster social change than trying to convince people to voluntarily conform their behaviours, and tends to be a preferred tool of activism where the merits of what is encouraged by the Government are weak or non-existent. The dangers are that firstly, it is an abuse of human rights to suddenly coerce everyone to conform to your beliefs (especially when those behaviours are not necessary for social order), second, it artificially perverts the natural cost-to-benefit ratio of choices which would eventually favour the better path and evolution of society, and third, since there is no Government incentive to simplify laws, activist lawmaking tends to breed a gradual accumulation of so many laws with such complexity that no one can be expected to know them all much less obey them all.
If the Law is seen as always right, that's even more dangerous for social morality. Morality is eternal and law is arbitrary, and citizens are supposed to ensure that their laws reflect morality not the other ay. In any society with no uniform or clear moral code, the Law tends to be used in place of an eternal moral code, such that anything made into a law becomes seen seen as morally right. For example, in Canada marijuana was legal, then illegal, and then legal again, and public moral opinion on this issue seemed to move with it: as though the law guides morality rather than the other way. The danger, of course, is that law is arbitrary, and without any other standard to compare it with, it could carry off society in any direction without even realizing it is wrong.
Usually no one is held respnosible in our society for lawmaking. Even theft and murder, if done by law, are not considered theft or murder anymore.
Activist Taxation. Besides merrely generating revenue, taxation of things the Government wants to discoruage can be used to discourage that thing. For example, if it wanted to, a Government could legally permit gun ownership, but put such a tremendous tax on it, as to make it impractical.
Activist Spending: The Government typically has unlimited money at its disposal, especially in fiat currenncy systems, because it can: tax to no limit, create money to no limit, and borrow money to no limit (on the Public credit). It has power to direct spending of those resources towards any agenda it wants, and this can direct unlimited publich support for any agenda in terms of such options as:
Unlimited government funding of activist organizations and events in society for any one side of any social cause. Since it tends to be more difficult to stop government funding than to start voluntary funding from individuals, and since the magnitude of government grants tends to easily exceed individual donations, social agendas which the Government favours tend to be flush with cash, no matter how evil, while social agendas which depend on individual support tend to be starved for cash, no matter how good.
Creation of Government programs which directly fund individuals leading certain kinds of activist lifestyles.
Unlimited government funding of services which imply support for one side of a social crisis or issue. To take part in the cash bonanza, organizations are tempted to cooperate with the government narrative. For example, during the early COVID-19 crisis, Governments allocated tremendous somes of money to industry (grants, medical research, medical products especially vaccines, and medical services) and news media (advertising) which was a very strong incentive for science and research to cooperate with the narrative to get their share of the money.
Activism-Based Granting or Withdawal of Government Incentives. Typically registered charities, including most religious organizations, are implicitly controlled this way, under threat that if they get too political their charitable tax exemption will be revoked. This actually happened with Human Life International Canada in the 1990s: a pro-life organization which had its tax status revoked for being political. Since individual donors like to get a tax receipt as a kickback for their donation, this tends to collapse donations no matter how good or needed the activism is.
Presumptive Mechanisms: These are ways that the Government can influence society in ways which are outside of their proper powers but often done:
Obligating the Government and therefore People to Secret Deals which the People are not permitted to read the details of.
How democratic a governance is it when the People can be bound without their consent into secret agreements meaning they're not even allowed to read them at any point? Even in dictatorships citizens often know what's been decided just don't have a say in it. Examples of this secret binding of the Public even in representative democracies include:
Sports event hosting: August 24, 2023 ‘Not sure there's much choice’: Chow says she’s reviewing Toronto’s secret deal to host FIFA games, but ink already dry
January 22, 2021: EU Commission investigated over secrecy of COVID-19 contracts
27 February 2014: Secret government contracts undermine our democracies. Let's stop them
Secret International Treaties: Almost 600 now known negotiated since 1521, according to Wikipedia as of this writing.
Secret Government Orders, ie. orders which are given by the Government but which the Public are not permitted to know about. If the People are not allowed to know Government orders, even in a so-called 'democracy', how democratic is it? For example:
Coercing business people to enforce policies on the People as their customers, or cease service alltogether for targetted groups. It's often impractical for Government to have enough Law Enforcement around the region to enforce activist laws themselves directly. At least since the COVID-19 crisis, we saw Government coerce businesses, usually under threat of astronomical fines, to coerce the activist orders on their customers (such as: social distancing, contact tracing, mask wearing, and vaccine mandates). As another example, employers are typically ordererd to collect income tax from their workers before those workers even get their share, even though it shouldn't be the right of business to involve in their workers' personal tax collection, but it is far easier for Government than trying to chase those people for the money after the fact. Since the purpose of business is for profit, a dire financial threat is something to avoid, and since it's done on all businesses simultaneously, the usual threat of customers going elsewhere due to harsh treatment won't much apply. The more the People rely on those services (such as grocery stores in cities, or access to visit your child in hospital), the more the People are under pressure to comply howevermuch they may not want to.
Individual groups can also be targetted, such as when the Canadian Government, in early 2022, ordered financial institutions to freeze assets of anyone who donated to the Freedom Convoy protest: even before it was declared illegal.
Pre-action leaks: We noticed it very common during the COVID-19 crisis a very consistent habit of mainstream news reporting what Government is going to announce a few days before they do, while Government never shows concern about the source of these leaks, and the leaks are amazingly and consistently accurate. It seems obvious to us that, when announcing a sudden change, Government actually deliberately puts out the leaks to test public reaction before they do it. That way if reaction were to be strong, they could change or even stop the announcement before they even make it. This mitigates the risk of making a radical change which is rejected which would show a loss of control by Government.
Arresting Peacefup Protesters for any of a variety of excuses (disease, hate labelling, noise, etc)
6 May, 2023: Dozens of protesters arrested during Coronation
14 March 2021: Government defends plans for noise limit at protests
Counter-Protest Announcments We've noticed that sometimes if there is a petition or protest strongly against Government direction on a topic, forming or gathering strength, that Government would not only ignore it and not correspond with the leaders, but quickly announce the opposite decision asked for, to put an end to or deflate the petition or protest. For example, in a recent pro-life rally in Ottawa, on its eve the Canadian prime minister announced new support measures for abortion. Similarly, against certain protests to sending weapons to Ukraine, the Canadian government quickly announced sending heavy weapons.
Abandoning election promises. They're nto supposed to, but they often do.
Unilaterally declaring states of emergency. Just because they can. This was rampant in the COVID-19 crisis, and effectivley put the Government above the Law.
Triggering override clauses in human rights legislation so that Government can override some or all human rights. Including these clauses in human rights legislation was sly; they were hoped never to be used. Many of these clauses were invoked during the COVID-19 crisis.
The theory of how bad government, even in reppresentative democracy, could be, is bad enough.
The reality today, however, seems to be the fulfillment of all that potential depravity, if not more. In particular, in governments today:
We see that, given the choice between spending Public money on weapons or helping the needy, they tend to choose weapons. For example, a tiny fraction of annual US military spending could have ended world hunger.
We see that, given the choice between spending Public money on deceiving the Public or helping the needy, they choose spending it on deception campaigns targetting the Public. For example, NASA doesn't seem to do anything useful except decieve the Public about space (please see our Flat Earth page when it is ready, or research yourself NASA as presented by Flat Earthers, such as the documentary 'Level with Me' (2023).
We see the only significant 'progress' Government trying to advance (besides weapons and war) is restrictions of human rights and freedoms, usually with the use of law and technology and under the pretense of doing something good. For example, the 'climate change' narrative is about cleaning the Earth of life, rather than of real pollution, and severely restricting human rights and freedoms.
We see Government using atrocities of very suspicious official narrative to advance war, such as with:
the Lusitania and USA entry into WWI
Pearl Harbour and USA entry into WWII
Nope. They pretend that they are only working for the Public good as their top priority, and that everything they do is by the full mandate of the People, even if the People were never given a clear choice on that policy (referndum).
Who knows their true intentions. We can speculate pride and selfishness. Either the rulers want more for themselves or at least the backers who helped them get into power want something from the Public coffers or legislation or military in return.
Direct democracy, where the Public makes policy decisions instead of candidate decisions would be an improvement. The idea of representative democracy, ie. that you elect someone and they can do literally anything without asking your permission again until the next election, is more like dictatorship than democracy. Even for radical human rights suspenseions in the COVID-19 crisis, it was said that political representaties didn't need to ask our permission (once elected) because that's how our 'democracy' worked.
Verify claims which Government gives you on which you make critical decisions.
Compare proposed and existing legislation to eternal concepts of human rights and morality.
Object to Government encroachment on human rights no matter the excuse, and get the override clauses out of human rights legislation. Human rights are supposed to be inalienable.
Work towards Government which offers more direct policy choice to voters, and a more enlightened electorate which actually understands the issues they vote on.
Back to Homepage