What the human mind can rationalise...
Bernie Finn's still going for it in the Legislative Council against the Abortion Law Reform Bill. He just said that he went down to the shops and saw a packet of cigarettes with "Smoking harms unborn babies" written on it. Yes, they do, he said. And by law that warning has to be put on every packet of cigarettes. He went on:
And I know something else that hurts unborn babies. And you know what? WE'RE LEGISLATING FOR IT!This is good stuff... Pray that someone listening to him is convinced enough to change their vote on this wretched bill.
posted by Schütz @ 2:45 pm
7 Comments
.JPG)
7 Comments:
David, I missed the end of Bernie's speech. Did he finish on his own accord or was he shut down? He has been absolutely amazing and courageous in his defence of the unborn child.I pray that he is able to convince others to vote against this horrific Bill
He finished just after this remark, completely of his own accord. I wondered how it would end, myself!
You watch the mainstream media make either fun of it,refer to it negatively or not say anything
The filibuster is a tactic usually resorted to by those who do not expect to win a vote; the object is to delay a vote to a point where it will not be taken at all (if the procedural rules of whatever deliberative body is inolved allow this) or to register a protest at the expected outcome of the vote.
I doubt if there is a single example in history of [i]other[/i] people's votes being swayed by a filibuster. Other participants in the debate are more like to be annoyed by this tactic than won over by it, and knock-'em-dead killer arguments rarely take long to lay out.
If this Bill is rejected, it's unlikely to be because of the filibuster. And the fact that Mr Finn has resorted to a filibuster suggests to me that he, at least, says little prospect of the Bill being defeated in a vote. Impressive though the filibuster is, I'm bound to say that I regard it as a bad sign.
Actually I hesitate to call Bernie's speech a true "filibuster". Yes, it went on and on and on, BUT he wasn't wasting words, and he wasn't boring. He said just what needed to be said and he stopped when he had said it all. The fact was simply that it took four hours to say it. He didn't get up and say: I oppose this bill because I don't like it. He gave, in detail, every reason why this bill ought to be rejected.
So, I don't think it was his intention to filibuster. And the only resemblence to filibustering is that it was such a long speech.
Take the time to look it all up in Hansard, Perry, and then tell me what you think of it.
I'll do that, David, and get back to you. (Obviously it'll take a while!)
Dearest Lord, but they have passed the wretched thing. Let's break out the sackcloth and ashes and pray they pass some acceptable amendments (if there are any).
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home