[email protected] To [email protected] Today 12:32 THE REMOVAL OF INTRINSIC/INHERENT RIGHTS, IS THIS MORAL? BECAUSE IT IS LEGAL Inherent; Adjective, Existing as an inseparable part, intrinsic: Intrinsic; Adjective, Belonging to a thing by its very nature: Every human being has a right to be. Every human being, irrespective, has a right to unimpeded freedom, (as long as one is not killing or harming other people.) Every human has a right to food. Every human has a right to water. Every human has a right to freedom of thought. If any citizens of the United kingdoms forces an animal into a box, refuses to feed the animal and impedes the animal from feeding itself, that person is by definition being cruel to that animal and therefore guilty of that offence of cruelty. The law will punish that individual (theoretically) Feeding the homeless is now anti social, Citizens STOPPED AND WARNED, not arrested, with a warning that any future ‘anti-social’ homeless feeding would be treated as a breach of public order laws. fignews.info/…/brighton-cops-arrest-disabled-man-fo…/ When politicians remove the right to food and water to an individual and impedes the individual from feeding themselves, the law is silent. There is no law to stop this cruelty to a human being. Our government have decided that the inherent and intrinsic rights of any human being are removable and the laws and judiciary of the land will enforce this opinion. Feeding the homeless is now an offence. In removing our right to give charity to the hungry, the government are stopping us doing what is right, morally, and forcing us as compassionate human beings into accepting his misery, irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the issue. His misery may have been directly brought on by the thieving bankers, who are having a great Christmas on the money they stole and are still stealing. His misery may be continuing because of government policies to borrow to help the bankers and not let’s jail the bankers and get the peoples money back. Irrespective oh how he got there, he has a right to life. Or does he? The government say these measures are to “get the lazy off state dependence” Coincidently, Hitler used the same argument. The vast majority of impoverished families are working families on low wage whilst the people making decisions (politicians) have never experienced life outside wealth and privileges. The majority of the cabinet are millionaires. The government tell us unemployment is going down, watch this……….. I have 8 million people without work, I class 3 million as sick and disabled, I now have 5 million unemployed, I class 2 million as income related unemployed and send them off as free labour and remove them so I now have 3 million unemployed, I sanction another 1.9 million and remove them and TAHH DAHHH 1.1 million unemployed, seasonally adjusted of course. This is the reality of our government idea of us as a people; they think we are lower than animals. Animals are protected by animal rights, the violations of which are, CRIMINAL OFFENCES; Human are protected by human rights, the violations of which are CIVIL OFFENCES. When politicians remove inherent/intrinsic rights of any creature by culling, we lift a moral eyebrow and let government get on with it in the hope “it is for the good of the country”; Now government have removed YOUR INHERENT RIGHTS will you accept the culling of you and your family? Forget the rights and wrongs of the culling; what gives politicians the right to even think like that of the people they are supposed to represent? Your inherent right to life belongs to no one; to try to remove this right is assaulting the individual’s intrinsic being. What have we become as human beings if we allow political ideology over the right to life? What has politics become that it has no morality connected to its actions. Our whole parliament is rotten to the core. why have you as the lord speaker not pointed out to parliament that it is immoral to remove these right. the government and Mr Cameron in particular chose to introduce his (camerons) personal morality into politics and into the decision making and actions of government, i have to ask Mr Lord Speaker why YOU have not pointed out the immorality of using morality to justify continued austerity that is leaving people hungry and in real need of help. if a human cant earn money and we are not allowed to beg or steal to feed ourselves, how do we survive? please ask mr cameron to enlighten the people in his theory of how this will work for the person. no money, cant beg or steal, people cant give you their own charity, YOU DIE. IT REALLY IS THAT SIMPLE LORD SPEAKER AND PARLIAMENT ARE SO REMOVED FROM REALITY THAT THEY HAVE FORGOTTEN IT. PARLIAMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE THIS KIND OF IMMORAL ACTION. PLEASE ASK THE PM ON MY BEHALF IF THIS BEHAVIOUR OF POLITICIANS IS WHAT YOU CONSIDER TO BE MORAL, WHAT IN GODS NAME DO YOU CONSIDER TO BE IMMORAL? JSA. END. jsa
Posted on: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 13:26:15 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015