Euthanasia Rebutted: NO 'right to life' in Australia

By Daisy Snow

Euthanasia--the act of assisted suicide--was once outlawed in every country in the world because it destroys civilizations. The problem is that representative democracy in Western countries allows politicians to acquire an authority that goes beyond the power of

• Language: English
• Publisher: URLink Print & Media, LLC
• Release date: Apr 24, 2024
• ISBN: 9781684861507

Daisy Snow

The author is a highly educated Disability Support Pensioner who overcame terminal illnesses and injuries to her body that cripple other people through her own efforts and ability. Her perspective is metaphysical. That viewpoint and perception goes beyond religious belief and explains the psychic and superhuman abilities of the spiritual self that are unknown in academic and scientific circles. She also wrote letters to all Members of Parliament in 2017 when the Euthanasia Bill was on the table. Although Parliament agreed that the author was vulnerable as were the other categories of people she listed, Parliament refused to endorse legislation to protect the vulnerable. That is why the author investigated Euthanasia and wrote an informative book about it in 2018. This book acknowledges the updates. In late 2020 as happened through providence itself, the author Meret-Field Sally-Brown, penname Daisy Snow, witnessed how Euthanasia Laws are implemented in Victoria to murder the targeted in cold blood regardless of their objections. Although the author was not murdered under the state's Euthanasia Laws like other innocent and disenchanted people, she remains vulnerable. This is because of the non-factual criminal claims documented against her in the Mental Health Systems of both South Australia and Victoria. Criminal claims are commonly documented in mental health files in Australia against the poor, the vulnerable and the targeted because they cannot be documented in police files as such because they are not true. The Government of Victoria is therefore able to use the System's Abuse of its Euthanasia end of life laws to firstly, eliminate the unwanted, and secondly, to reduce the number of people reaching old age.The author's Euthanasia book provides vivid and graphic evidence about the value, purpose and sanctity of life that cannot be explained in religious terms. Her area of expertise apart from her numerous university qualifications is Metaphysics.

Book preview

Euthanasia Rebutted: NO ‘right to life’ in Australia.

Euthanasia Rebutted: NO ‘right to life’ in Australia.

Copyright © 2023 by Daisy Snow. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any way by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the author except as provided by USA copyright law.

The opinions expressed by the author are not necessarily those of URLink Print and Media.

1603 Capitol Ave., Suite 310 Cheyenne, Wyoming USA 82001

1-888-980-6523 | [e-mail]

URLink Print and Media is committed to excellence in the publishing industry.

Book design copyright © 2023 by URLink Print and Media. All rights reserved.

Published in the United States of America

Library of Congress Control Number: 2022905419

ISBN 978-1-68486-201-6 (Paperback)

ISBN 978-1-68486-150-7 (Digital)

05.12.23

CONTENTS

List of Poems 

List of Songs 

List of Articles 

List of Endorsed Acts of Parliament 

Dedication 

Prologue 

Methodology 

Preface 

Pretext 

Chapter 1: The Death Bed 

Three Types of Suicide 

Beyond Politics 

Corruption in Government 

To Die Like a Dog 

Chapter 2: The Pokerfaced Public 

A Catholic Perspective on Euthanasia 

Unavoidable Hardships and Dangers 

Evidence to the Contrary 

2000 Years Lost 

Chapter 3: The Scam – The Charade 

Part 1: 

Metaphysics 

God-Consciousness 

Dictator Dan: The Euthanasia Premier of Victoria 

The New South Wales Experience 

Quasi-Genocide 

Part 2:

Logic and Mental Illness 

Alternative Thinking 

Qualms With Islam 

Reddit 

Teenage Guinea Pigs in Queensland–Daisy’s Story 

Another Story 

Chapter 4: No Safety In The ‘Right To Die’ 

Legalities 

Cold War Syndrome for Aboriginals 

Integrity – No Integrity 

No Federal Intervention: Unresolved Legal Questions 

Further Unresolved Legal Questions Under Federal Law 

Personal Stories and Crimes Against Humanity 

The Exception 

Chapter 5: Beyond Parliament 

The False Messiah 

Irony 

Defective Parliamentary Legislation 

An Unnatural Death 

Life Beyond Death 

A Fascist Persuasion 

Crimes Against Humanity 

Chapter 6: A One Way Ticket: In Ancient Times and Today 

Part 1:

Father Christmas 

The One Way Ticket 

The Catholic Perspective 

An Islamic Perspective 

Part 2: 

Targeting the Elderly, the Disabled and Others: for a Euthanasia End-of-Life Death 

Government Administration 

The ‘Grim Reaper’ 

Modern Utilitarian Philosophies 

Genocide In Australia: An Historical Perspective 

The Homeless 

Administrative Priorities 

Communist China 

Part 3: 

Hitler - Nazi Germany 

A Neo-Nazi Style Holocust Verses Refugee Privilege In The Host Country 

Refugee Privilege 

World War II 

The New-Nazi Western War of Russia, February 2022 

Birth And Death 

Veterinary Ethics 

Politically Euthanasia 

Wisdom 

Chapter 7: Parliamentary Refusal To Allow Life 

Part 1: 

Ancient Wisdom 

Victoria’s Dispute With Federal Parliament 

Genocide – The Fast Verses the Slow 

Volunary, Involuntary and Non-Voluntary Euthanasia 

Beyond Politics 

Part 2: 

A Transition to Immorality: Euthanasia 

A Transition to Immorality: Double Effect 

Miss X 

A Transition to Immorality: Parliamentary Delinquency 

Victoria’s No Right to Live Policty 

Internal State Terrorism 

Parliamentary Criminality: The Euthanasia Dead 

Corrupt Parliaments and Governments 

Chapter 8: No Safety in the ‘Right to Die’ 

Illegal Court Proceedings For Miss X 

Parliamentary and Court Deliquency 

The Enormity of Government Corruption 

Letter To Members of Parliament and the Federal Court 

The Death Penalty Reinstated Even for Minors 

Examples That Defy the Need for Euthanasia Laws 

Belgium’s Child Euthanasia 

Chapter 9: Wisdom Of The Ages And The Disheartned 

Part 1: 

Unanswered Queries 

The Metaphysics Perspective 

The Controversy 

The Aftermath 

Part 2: 

Letter to the Minister and the Public Advocate 

Hoodwinked for Death 

Behind the Civil Curtain 

Reddit on the Internet 

No International Human Rights in Australia 

Chapter 10: Devolution And Deviance 

Problems With Euthenasia Legislation 

Prior Assisted-Dying Programs 

One At a Time Delinquency 

Internal State Terrorism in Australia 

Natural Law and Mother Nature 

Quotes From Dumbass 

Chapter 11: Beyond Democratic Governments 

Part 1:

Scenario 1 

Scenario 2 

Scenario 3 

Scenario 4 

Update May 2021 

Parliamentary Failure - Fiasco 

Legal Precedents 

1st Legal Precedent - re Quinlan, March, 31, 1976

2nd Legal Precedent - Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, June 25, 1900

3rd Legal Precedent - Glucksberg, June 26, 1997

4th Legal Precedent- Vacco v. Quill, June 26, 1997

5th Legal Precedent - People v. Kevorkiarr, Nov. 20, 2001

6th Legal Precedent - Bush v. Schiavo, Sept. 23, 2004

7th Legal Precedent - Gonzales v. Oregon, Jan 17, 2006

A Public Overview 

Part 2: 

Differences in Australia 

Population Control and Targetig the Ageing Population 

Educational Propaganda 

Self Help 

Political and Health Propoganda 

Nursing Crisis 

Letter to Mental Health Complaints Commissioner 

Letter 

Forced Drugging Slow Euthanasia Torture 

Chapter 12: Divergence In Legalities 

Third World Nurses Implement the ‘Right to Die’ 

No Response from Members of Parliament 

After Death Revelations 

‘Right to Die’ Torment to Aboriginal People 

An Unregulated Constitutional Matter 

Letter to Attorney-General, Victoria 

Medical Ethics and Intervention 

The Easy Way Out 

Parliamentary Wrongs 

Chapter 13: Euthanasia Legalities Rebuffed 

Part 1:

Medically Speaking, Unfit to Live 

Bioethics, A Will to Live 

Reforms Mounted on Reforms 

Letter to Federal Attorney General 

Part 2: 

Karma – The Scales of Justice 

Historically - Death Assistance in War 

Medical Danger in Euthanasia Laws 

The Tools Legalized for Death 

Psychological Effects on Death Workers 

The Karmic Response 

Chapter 14: Public Interest Questions and Personal Stories 

A Public Interest Question 

Exceptions To the Crime of Murder 

Victoria’s Reinstatement of the Death Penalty 

A 2010 Amendment to the Crimes Act 

Inner Objections 

The Inner Self 

Doctor Death 

Euthanasia Pitfalls in Criminology 

Thinking Differently 

Chapter 15: Victimizing The Unwanted And The Grey Disaster 

The Grey Disaster 

Excess Population 

Propaganda 

Euthanasia In the Netherlands–An Example 

The Aging Population: The Grey Disaster 

Dangerous Drug Therapy and Criminal Administration in Government 

The Absolute Risk 

Daisy, The Involuntary Euthanasia Rep. 

Genocide Or Crimes Against Humanity 

Autocracy In Australia: Not Democracy 

Euthanasia Premier Resigned 

Bibliography 

References 

Letter to all Members of Senate and House of Representative, 12th April, 2023

Benji Cole Radio Interview, USA Transcripts - Euthanasia Rebutted 

Counter-Propaganda—Book Talk 

- Matriarch and WW III

- Euthanasia Rebutted

- UFO Confirmation and Giving Putin the Nod

Submission: Senate Inquiry into Takeover of Calvary Hospital in Canberra

List of Poems 

List of Songs 

List of Articles 

List of Endorsed Acts of Parliament 

DEDICATION

 

The author, Daisy Snow, dedicates this book firstly to victims of the euthanasia, fascist campaign spear-headed by Dajjal––the false messiah––and his well placed connoisseurs to destroy the fabric of society in the western world. The anti-Christ in Christianity and Catholicism is known as the Dajjal in Islam.

Euthanasia Rebutted is also dedicated to Daisy Snow’s step-daughter, Leslie’s father and to all those people in Australia who fear being rounded up for detention and drugging and the possibility of a euthanasia confrontation in a nursing home or a mental hospital––again, in Australia. The loss of freedom and liberty and the cruelty and ill treatment imposed is so bad in some of those places that Daisy’s step-daughter would prefer to jump off a jetty and kill herself rather than be detained in such a ‘terrible’ place.

Leslie’s father calls his aged nursing home a prison. He is an aboriginal man. His doctor of many years sent him to hospital for specialist treatment on his foot. The hospital sent him to the nursing home against his will. The home took $350,000 out of his superannuation because he is illiterate and couldn’t defend his integrity and honour in any way at all, let alone his money. He worked for 45 years as a crane driver. The nursing home threatened him. They plan to sell his house. He used to enjoy listening to his records at home, but can’t do that anymore. There is nothing left in life for him and no smile on his face. Daisy is a witness. Physician Assisted Suicide, PAS euthanasia end of life death, is not his style.

The way some of our elderly are treated in nursing homes and mental hospitals in Australia is so bad that their mistreatment could be termed unbearable. And that qualifies them for a questionable—one at a time––physician assisted suicide, PAS euthanasia death. After all, when you come to think of it without qualm, ageing is a terminal illness. The euthanasia Premier of Victoria did not mention that loophole in his assisted suicide murder laws. Reforms to the Euthanasia Act are therefore necessary.

Daisy’s book was written to advise the ill-informed that robbing Mother Nature of a life has karmic consequences that might prove more unbearable than any pain and suffering endured in our earthly existence. Euthanasia can never be a worthy or admirable solution to the wrongs of the world in this age in history. According to the metaphysical perspective, the Karmic debt incurrd is a punishment, meted out many times over in this life time or the next as a learning experience.

The difficulty is that esoteric learning and the metaphysical and occult traditions that justify karma and the invisible world went underground because of the Roman Catholic Inquisition two thousand years ago. In that respect we have lost two thousand years of knowledge and understanding about the real meaning and purpose of life on Earth. Science and Logic gained the upper hand in the demise and reduced the sanctity of life to a nothing. That is why murder under certain circumstances can now be treated as not-a-crime in Australia. Euthanasia Laws were endorsed in parliamentary legislation in Victoria in late 2017 and came into effect on 19th June, 2019 as a service to mankind rather than as an irreversible Death Penalty.

Six months after Euthanasia was lawfully practiced in Victoria, the Coronavrus Pandemic hit world headlines. The possibility that the disease that still shatters the world was a karmic response to the Euthanasia Movement’s victory in Western countries was not considered. This book is dedicated to the enlightenment of the unwary and as an eye-opener to the uninformed and lop-sided logical and scientific thinker––the secular don.

PROLOGUE

 

Belief in god developed in most sectors around the world from personalizing the divine energy that was known to be available to everyone. Moral values therefore arose in the various communities, and the word of god became indisputable. Behaviour was therefore controlled. What was found to be dangerous to the community at large became an indisputable moral value sanctioned by god himself. Personal opinion and individual preferences didn’t count. Life was valued and sanctioned as the work of god herself and then himself. Mother Nature remained in the background as the blueprint of creation with total control of everything.

Representative democracy allows selected individuals to be promoted to a dictatorial level in parliament and in government. International Human Rights and the like have replaced god. What was once taboo, can now be trumpeted in parliament as acceptable. The reasons for outlawing specific activities and behaviours in the community as dangerous to humanity are shunned and overshadowed with modern concepts of equality, compassion and civil or legal rights. In effect morality has been outlawed. Morals and values can’t be argued anymore in their own right even when the majority of the electorate disagree with the decisions argued in parliament.

The voters are stunned. All that can be done is to explain that the demise and the downfall is a backward step––devolution––that has karmic consequences that can’t be undone. To use colloquial terms, euthanasia as legislated in the Parliament of Victoria in Australia is a bastard in that it goes against the belief that life is sacred and not to be spoilt, belittled or treated as a whore or a prostitute. The people as a whole did not give politicians the democratic power to make laws that kill the innocent who have not committed a crime. In that respect the Parliament of Victoria does not represent the people anymore. The difficulty is that there is no means to resolve the rebellion at the highest level of power in Australia. Other states can therefore follow suit and kill their own inconsequential without question.

……………………………..

METHODOLOGY

 

The methodology used in this book to investigate and explain what is left out of the euthanasia debate around the world is metaphysical in perspective and viewpoint. Logic and scientific principles don’t apply. They are modern concepts that have nothing to do with the ability of individuals and groups around the world to turn away from barbaric practices and come to some common agreement for the benefit of all. Murdering our fellow travelers on the road of life instead of looking after them when the need arises is not one of them.

Any behaviour or practice like euthanasia that proved to be dangerous to humanity was once outlawed in all countries around the world and was taboo. Humanity was able to progress and civilizations were able to form and flourish. Thinking was not controlled in the olden days like it is today. Logic does not apply to the metaphysical perspective because any line of reasoning in logic is met with overtones of equality, compassion and civil rights. The secular perspective outlaws any opposition. There is no alternative line of reasoning available to consider. Humanity is at war with itself. The metaphysical perspective goes beyond the limitations of controlled thinking and scientific and logical reasoning because it is aligned with the natural instincts and fabric of Mother Nature.

The notoriety of the churches in today’s 21st Century and the secular education that exists around the world in Western countries has caused a division in society that questions morality and individual behaviour. What was once shunned as dangerous to the welfare and sustainability of the people is now addressed in terms of equality, civility and legal rights as implied.

The churches have always been at odds with the metaphysical perspective. Their depreciation and decline lends a hand to elevate the traditional metaphysical perspective to a level that was once revered as wisdom and insight. No other perspective can explain the absolute reasons that describe suicide and euthanasia as Crimes against Humanity and crimes against the ultimate purpose of life on Earth. The wisdom and enlightenment that can be found in metaphysical thinking goes beyond academic professionalism. It is demoted in democratic Western countries that replace the vote of the people with scientific and academic dictatorship and autocracy.

……………………………..

PREFACE

 

The 21st Century poses a new threat to humankind. In Australia representative democracy has been infiltrated by fascist perspectives that were outlawed in the mind of the people when Hitler’s Nazi Germany was defeated at the end of World War II.

The poor, the unwanted, the targeted, the victimized, the disabled, the vulnerable, the terminally ill, the homeless and the disadvantaged like the author are the potential victims of a genocide that is potentially far greater than the Holocaust of Hitler’s Nazi Germany.

Belief in God once united the people in solidarity in Western countries. Civilization was able to evolve and progress. That inducement can’t happen anymore in Australia. Philosophy was taken out of the curriculum in schools so that people could be brainwashed with secular and logical perspectives. The purpose of life has been largely forgotten and cast to one side. The horse has bolted!

Democratic representative parliaments in Australia don’t fight anymore for the freedom and liberty that was once embedded in the Australian culture. They pretend that the purpose of life is to work and pay taxes. That secures their democratic political trade and explains why dinky-die and true blue Australians have become a minority in their own country.

Freedom and liberty did not develop from a slave culture, but we are treated as though it did. The convict mentality has not been erased in Australia. Education that empowers our imperial government system has left us numb––unable to think for ourselves. The devolution of human kind is not headed backwards towards our convict beginnings, but towards the slave culture of Islam needed for the establishment of a One-World Government. Of necessity, Islam fights the Beast.

In the 1970’s the United Nations asked the world to reduce population growth. Islam and the Roman Catholic Church refused. Australia conceded, but is now being taken over by the mass immigration of people from countries that refused to reduce population growth.

A renewed call from the United Nations to reduce population growth allows Western countries to rewrite the law and re-establish the death penalty in another context—euthanasia. Islam won’t do it, but Western countries will. Islam rules, if not today, tomorrow! The multiplication effect of overpopulation wins the electoral vote.

Like Hitler’s economic strategy before and during World War II when he euthanized the Jews, the disabled, the ill and the targeted including unworthy children, euthanasia laws and the new death penalty for the innocent in Victoria are designed to reduce population growth. Parliament can then cut corners and reduce the amount of money it spends on health care, welfare benefits and pensions.

The new euthanasia laws have more to do with the financial stability of the economy than the hardships encounter by the terminally ill. The people need to be saved. The euthanasia Premier of Victoria used the Dajjal’s one-eyed propaganda in the Parliament of Victoria itself by stressing compassion in disregard to the whim of the people. He notoriously ignored and overshadowed political history and the solidarity and wisdom of the masses. Scholarly academics, the false messiah and minority groups rule, not the people. We have been forsaken—conquered.

PRETEXT

 

The way the government of Victoria murders its unwanted citizens under Euthanasia Laws is not transparent in Victoria or elsewhere in Australia. The Death Penalty or medical procedure has emerged in a country mental health hospital in Victoria as a service to the people rather than as a punishment for being diagnosed as mentally ill, right or wrong. That is why every elderly person in Victoria’s authorized country euthanasia hospital is asked every day if he or she wants to commit suicide.

The difficulty is that the inmates who are forcefully detained in that mental hospital do not know that that hospital is a euthanasia hospital. The author is a witness. She wrote the manuscript ‘Euthanasia Rebutted’ in 2018 and updated it in book form in 2021 with what she witnessed in late 2020.

Regardless of how many ‘No’ answers an aged mental health patient might make, one ‘Yes’ answer requires the death procedure to be performed on the mental health client. Any ‘No, No, No, No’ objection is regarded as evidence that the medical patient can not do the deed himself or herself and needs assistance. A lethal injection resolves the problem. The patient dies. The person’s medical file can then be closed.

Other states in Australia are copying Victoria’s non-criminal murder of unwanted citizens in the country. As said, the author is a witness. If she had not written letters to all Members of Parliament when the Euthanasia Bill was on the table in the Parliament of Victoria in 2017, she too would have undergone cold blooded murder just like the other inpatients in that mental hospital in late 2020. Murder under certain conditions is not a crime anymore in Victoria.

CHAPTER 1

 

THE DEATH BED

The governance of the people in the Western world, has taken a turn for better or for worse at the beginning of this 21st Century. Taking the life of another used to be called murder, but now it can be deemed euthanasia—a voluntary, involuntary or non-voluntary ending of a person’s life. The word ‘euthanasia’ comes from Ancient Greek and means a good death. In those days suicide did not have the same stigma as it has today. Condescendingly, the gift of the gab face of the Victorian euthanasia Premier on television in 2017 in Australia ignored the relevant political, social and religious history about euthanasia that should have been considered before death by physician-assisted suicide, PAS euthanasia, once called murder, was legalized in Victoria, Australia. The euthanasia Premier of Victoria robbed the judiciary of its traditional decision-making power to determine if an alleged murder was or was not a crime.

The same premier who laid bare his emotions to make a case for the World Euthanasia Movement’s arguments in the media and in parliament to kill off the unwanted and the unworthy––the medically diagnosed terminally ill––did not change his emotional pleading when it came to the coronavirus pandemic. He was compassionate, but this time it was about the escalating number of people who died from the disease. His emotions controlled his reasoning. That is apparently why he blotched up the hotel quarantine counter-coronavirus measure that spread the disease unnecessarily and put Australia in debt for billions of tax-payer dollars. The possibility that the outcome of the coronavirus plague was a karmic retribution for murdering the innocent as per correct government procedure was not taken into consideration.

Condescendingly, if his empathy for those who were near the COVID-19 coronavirus death bed was not genuine, but fake or deception, there is always the possibility that he is in leagues with the One-World Order that seeks to pave the way politically and administratively for the establishment of a fascist One-World Government. His nickname in social media, Dictator Dan, suggests that possibility. Anything goes because the intentions of the power bodies of the world are hidden behind too many political and conspiracy curtains. The One-World Government agenda ascribes to what is called Globalization.

Hercules was the god of strength and heroes in ancient Roman mythology. He was a warrior who was famous for his strength and his adventures. He committed suicide––euthanasia––by drinking poison, but was allowed an immortal life with the gods after death. His conceit was to intentionally leave what could be described as the hell of life to enter the heaven of death. Dictator Dan and the World Euthanasia Movement follow the same agenda––the same principles or tenets of belief. In his physical life on the Earth plain, nevertheless, Hercules was the sociopath who killed his wife and children. By committing suicide he escaped the hell of life to enter the paradise of death. The euthanasia premier of Victoria capitalized on that story in parliament itself without mentioning its origin.

THREE TYPES OF SUICIDE 

Three types of assisted suicide, correctly called euthanasia, exist although the practice can be classified as passive or active. When a positive action brings about the death of the euthanasia medical client it can be called active; but when the death occurs because of the withdrawal of life-sustaining medical assistance, it is referred to as passive. The courts of law once use to examine the motivation behind the killers reason for committing the murder, but euthanasia laws take that prerogative away from the criminal jurisdiction of the courts of law and makes that an initiative in politics, government bureaucracies and mental hospitals.

Who should die under euthanasia laws is the prerogative of individual doctors of medicine in some European and Western countries. The choice to die is not necessarily made by the individual to be killed. Social workers and nurses speak for the mentally ill and the disadvantaged in Australia. They make the choice, not the client. Death workers in some European countries are really social workers who specialize in death or what was once called assisted suicide.

There can be no satisfactory answer about killing a person legally because what happens after the death of the physical body is not known in politics, logic, science or psychiatry. There is an enormous amount of evidence that the ‘inner me’ of an individual has the potential to exist in a refined, not dense, not heavy, but spiritual essence. Politicians and euthanasia advocates are silent on that issue. A degree of ignorance therefore pervades their rational. If wisdom would have it, the missing picture and the missing knowledge pulls the wool over their eyes and makes euthanasia advocates unfit to make decisions. Ignorance can only create lies and falsehood. Something is wrong. Mother Nature is being robbed of her god-given and natural right to decide when life should be terminated. From a metaphysical and spiritual perspective the resultant karma, the pay-back––what is owing to the giver of life––amounts to numerous unstoppable incarnations on the earth plane.

The claim that human beings have a spiritual body as well as a physical body can be experienced through astral projection. The psychic technique that allows the inner self to leave the material body and venture into the void or the spiritual world or even the material world is known in some Secret Societies in the Western World, but has no foundation in science or in public universities. It is considered in academic terms to be a No-No, mumbo jumbo or insanity. To those who have experienced astral projection, though, that knowledge cannot be undone. To know by experience that human beings are more than just material or physical bodies is personal and goes beyond any euthanasia consideration in the political world of governance. Ending the life of an individual before his or her natural time is effectively robbing the spiritual body of an earthly existence. It is dangerous.

The difference between voluntary, involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia needs to be understood. Voluntary euthanasia assumes that the medical client in consideration personally, intentionally and deliberately chose death rather than life. That is, he or she voluntarily and intentionally gives his or her consent as required by law and asks for assistance to commit suicide. Involuntary means the opposite. The medical client is not in agreement with being put to death. He or she is unwilling and is reluctant. The reaction is instinctive and spontaneous. A death worker, a nurse or a social worker, however, who uses pressure to persuade a medical client beyond his or her wish to live rather than die, invalidates every aspect of that choice. The arguments and harassment used to intimidate a reluctant medical client does not make involuntary euthanasia voluntary.

The term, non-voluntary, however, refers to a medical client who is unable to give his or her consent. In the cold and callous explanation as put by an atheist, such a non-decision or inability to weight up the facts and make the appropriate decision would apply to a child. But then even a child has emotions and feelings. If put to the child in a way the child could understand, for example, ‘Do you want to be dead like that dead cockroach or that dead animal that can’t breathe, can’t walk and can’t see and can’t do anything and can’t even play?’ the answer would invariably be ‘No’. The physical and emotional reaction of the child would indicate the no answer. Euthanasia advocates do not agree and pro-euthanasia academics dictate that certain categories of people want to die when that is not necessarily the case.

What academics and euthanasia advocates leave out of their arguments and their guesses and theories is what is important, not the rhetoric that was once the prerogative of the judiciary. In that respect the unqualified decision-maker has become the judge. What is actually known is that some doctors of medicine in Europe have taken the lives of medical patients and even children without their knowledge or consent. Their death was non-voluntary because of the medical decision that the child or medical client under scrutiny did not have the mental capacity to way up the facts and make the appropriate decision. That is, the physician or the medical doctor made the choice, not the individual who faced the death penalty.

There is an exception to the crime of murder in Victoria, Australia. Although the death penalty has been abolished in Australia, criminal administration in government bureaucracies effectively allows the death penalty to be re-established. A person who is not a solicitor is at odds and cannot defend himself or herself when government bureaucracies disagree with parliamentary legislation and devise their own laws and policies. There is no end to corruption in government administration in the country and no law to enforce the system to abide by parliamentary legislation. The author, Daisy, is a witness and a victim.

Members of Parliament in Victoria knowingly put the lives of the vulnerable, the aged, the homeless and the disabled at risk when it made laws to legalize physician-assisted suicide, PAS end-of-life euthanasia death. Not everyone has a right to a say under the Act. The author, Daisy, is one such vulnerable person. She has numerous disabilities, but lives independently and has successfully treated her own cancer and osteoporosis. Doctors of medicine look at Daisy with suspicion. No one is supposed to recover from terminal illnesses without medical assistance. Nevertheless, Daisy is healthy although she is now seventy five years old. The medical client to be killed, however, might not be aware that he or she is undergoing the elusive government death procedure. Social workers and mental health workers speak for the targeted.

Sceptics challenge the above contention and disputation. That is actually so because three psychiatrists must come to an agreement to allow a physician assisted suicide, PAS, end-of-life euthanasia death. In actual practice, though, a psychiatrist doesn’t have to monitor a medical client’s request for an end-of-life euthanasia death. Social workers or mental health workers do that for the diagnosed or acclaimed mentally ill. Anyone, however, is liable to fit into the category of mental illness at some time in their life.

In a mental health ward in a public hospital in Australia the psychiatrist only has to read the notes the nurses write down on the inpatients file. The possibility that the nurse in question could be a compulsive liar or a euthanasia advocate is not taken into consideration. An inpatient in at least one mental health ward in a country public hospital in Victoria is questioned once a day about whether or not he or she wants to commit suicide. One ‘Yes’ answer is what is required for a medical client’s mental illness to be regarded as a terminal illness. The ‘NO, NO, NO, NO’ objections witnessed by the author from another room in that hospital did not save mental health clients from an instant death by lethal injection. The Voluntary Assisted Dying Act of Victoria 2017 does not elaborate on what a conscientious objection actually is. Such is the story about one way euthanasia laws are implemented in the state of Victoria in Australia.

BEYOND POLITICS 

Some members of state parliaments and territories in Australia have the audacity in this day and age to go beyond protocol in their assumption that they are all powerful. In the olden days life was regarded as sacred, but not today, at least in some parliaments and territories in our country. The vulnerable, the unwanted, the aged and the disabled, homeless and targeted don’t necessarily have a say. Hunting out or targeting a specific group of people for elimination purposes should be called a Crime against Humanity and should be prosecuted in the International Courts of Law. It’s up for grabs in Australia. Justice doesn’t apply!

Ethics has replaced morals and wisdom as been left out of the agenda! The aged are not consulted about important issues in life anymore. They are treated like ignoramuses and ‘imprisoned’ in nursing homes and old aged homes to keep them quiet. Public education has cancelled out and wiped away the knowledge that was once gained from experience and from just living. The problem with the euthanasia agenda is that all it knows is logic and secular and scientific reasoning. It treats selected people like the deprived, the underprivileged and the disadvantaged and even the aged as dispensable.

Civilization advanced throughout history because belief in god united the people and gave humanity a common bond. Morality was considered to be His domain—the domain of the almighty, the all-powerful, the all-knowledgeable. Life was regarded as sacred. That divine insight and awareness has been removed from our educated and secular world of scientific and secular reasoning. Logic supersedes Almighty God in our educated world. It all appears demeaning and corrupt or shameful—dishonourable and shocking. Science and reason has replaced wisdom. Moral values don’t apply anymore, but concerned people still cry, Immorality! Ethics are designed to protect government workers and others, even parliamentarians, from discovery.

The Federal Parliament of Australia has jurisdiction under Section 122 of the Australian Constitution to investigate the legality of legislation enacted by any of its territories in relation to the right of Federal Parliament to endorse legislation to overturn legally questionable Territorian Law. Deviance in law is not a simple matter. Legal questions have to deal with controversy stacked upon controversy. The lives of the unwanted, the vulnerable, the legally unrepresented, the homeless and the disabled, like the author, are at risk of euthanasia mishaps and legal conspiracies.

Evidence of this above catastrophe or deviance in goodwill and benevolence can be found in the debates and scholarly articles posted on the internet. Such publication is necessary because government administrative policies and strategies to manipulate and control the people are not transparent. Secrecy Provisions prevail in law. The general public does not necessarily know the inns and outs of the intentions of parliament or what has been left out of the blueprint or the modus operandi in the administrative system of the country.

In order for a government to legislate on exceptions to the crime of murder, it has to abolish our god-given right to live that is acclaimed to be incorporated in Common Law and the democratic and cultural rights of the people. After all, if we didn’t have a lawful right to live as some claim, murder would not be a crime. The Parliament of Victoria did not endorse legislation to inhibit our right to live. It just made an exception to the crime of murder. Nevertheless, the death penalty has the same outcome and consequences as involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia and murder, but the death penalty is outlawed in federal law in Australia. The euthanasia Premier of Victoria used compassion to overshadowed federal laws about the consequence of his death penalty euthanasia provision. A wrongly condemned, targeted and killed individual cannot appeal to a court of law to be allowed to return to life. Death is absolute.

The contradiction is that involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia is not necessarily illegal in Victoria. It is not a simple matter. The mentally ill and other specified individuals do not have a right to a say. Social workers and mental health workers speak for them. Hitler’s fascist World War II Nazi government legalized murder when it abolished all civil rights. It was then able to send the unwanted to death camps. Hitler shook the world with terror by so doing and committed Crimes against Humanity in the process. Democratic and parliamentary debates in Victoria, if not in Australia, tend to venture beyond that restriction and constraint as though and as if the right to live is all hogwash and disrespect.

Internal State Terrorism is practiced by a state when it turns on its own people and commits the most flagrant violations of Humans Rights that could ever be imagined. Read the definition about Internal State Terrorism in Combs, Martin and Slann’s Encyclopedia of Terrorism, if you don’t believe. Administrative loop holes in euthanasia parliamentary laws have the potential to be one such transgression. Parliamentary legislation gives the appearance of being a legal and diplomatic plan and procedure devised for a compassionate purpose, but in the case of a determination to steer the country towards Globalization, it might also be just a step towards the establishment of a One-World Government, an OWG, akin to Hitler’s ambition to rule the world.

Euthanasia laws give doctors of medicine and others an unprecedented power to kill as prescribed by law. Nevertheless, there is a danger in that delegated power to kill the innocent because criminal administration in government cannot be eradicated or eliminated. Again, Secrecy Provisions prevail. Mishaps occur. According to what is known in the public arena, government administrators and bureaucrats use all sorts of legally questionable strategies in their control and manipulation of the people. Their questionable schemes and actions appear to the public mind as a conspiracy fact. Euthanasia laws have the same potential.

According to the Australian Federal Parliament’s actual Report, entitled Euthanasia – the Australian Law in an International Context, in

Research Paper 4, 1996 -1997, Part 2: Active Voluntary Euthanasia ‘when medical intervention takes place, at the patient’s request, in order to end the patient’s life’

the Northern Territory was the first parliament or legislature in the world to pass laws that allowed a doctor of medicine to administer drugs to a person in order to kill that person and end his or her life. Federal Parliament intervened to invalidate that law, but the same has not occurred in Victoria.

Regulations are now endorsed in parliamentary legislation in Victoria to assist terminally ill medical patients who want to die, so that suicide ‘murders’ can be performed legally. Those who do not want to die, however, are in jeopardy, especially inpatients in public mental health hospitals in Victoria. Any safety proviso in law cannot be 100% guaranteed because criminal administration in government in Australia is relatively unresolvable even in a court of law. The odds are stacked up against a non-cooperative inpatient in a public hospital in Victoria when he or she chooses to die a natural death regardless of medical and academic reasoning to the contrary.

Hassling a mental health patient once a day with the question, ‘Do you want to commit suicide’ is not seen to be putting pressure on an inpatient to agree to instant death by lethal injection. Any argument to the contrary can easily be document as an episode of mental illness. The author is a witness. She was put in a mental hospital in country Victoria for two and a half months in late 2020 for no proper or legitimate reason. Being involved in a family squabble is not a mental illness in the Mental Health Act 2014. The author was questioned every day if she wanted to commit suicide. She was only let out of the hospital because she objected to that question because she had written letters to every Member of Parliament in Victoria before euthanasia was legalized in Victoria under certain conditions.

CORRUPTION IN GOVERNMENT 

Examples have to be used to explain corruption in the government system in Australia because it is not otherwise understandable or convincing. A Member of Parliament does not have any given power to intervene when mishaps occur, whether they are intentional or not, unless he or she stands up in parliament to voice the concern. Correct procedures must be followed. Writing to the relevant minister in power does not necessarily rectify administrative or judicial errors in law or mishaps or even unlawful administration. A Member of Parliament who is not a member of the political party in power at the time has limited power. Representative democracy has a number of weaknesses. That is one of them.

Retrospectively, another is that a Minister of Parliament must protect the accused government worker or workers in the first instance. The professional in the system is given the protection of the state in the first place, not the ordinary citizen. What that means is that the government medical worker who is injecting the medical patient with a lethal injection is protected by the state, not the person being murdered. Australia is not a Communist country.

An ordinary Member of Parliament cannot just stand up in parliament to voice the alleged miss-governance or a concern. That is not on. In the same context, an ordinary person in a democratic country, cannot call out an objection in a court of law like they can in a Communist Country. The problem or difficulty is that the relevant Attorney-General has the given power to intervene, not an ordinary Member of Parliament or a concerned citizen. The integrity of a government department or a court of law must always be safe-guarded and protected. The wronged civilian or child takes second place.

In the case of a wrongfully executed physician-assisted suicide, PAS euthanasia death, neither the Attorney-General nor any Member of Parliament can rectify that criminal administration and bring the victim back to life. Death is absolute.

That is why the Death Penalty for criminals was abolished throughout Australia. An innocent man had been sentenced to death and executed. On the same token at that time in history, the Death Penalty was not abolished for the innocent who had not committed a crime. The government did not execute the innocent in that period of history. The government murder of the innocent only came about in Australia when euthanasia laws were endorsed in territorial and then parliamentary legislation.

To explain, the government execution of the innocent began in Victoria because the Minister for Health and the euthanasia Premier endorsed the death sentence for the terminally ill in parliamentary legislation in that state. The public was not told that a mental health inpatient who answered ‘Yes’ to the everyday suicide question––‘Do you want to commit suicide?’––was considered to have a terminal illness that necessitated death by lethal injection under the new Euthanasia Act of Parliament.

From the point of view of an innocent person screaming, ‘No, No, No, No’ at the moment of being murdered by a lethal injection in Victoria, he or she was being executed without a proper or legal reason. The point is that an innocent mental health inpatient is not protected by the abolition of the Death Penalty because he or she is not undergoing any government execution because of some criminal offence or court decision. Euthanasia Laws fall outside the realm of criminality. Criminals have a right not to undergo the Death Penalty in Australia, but the innocent and the unoffending do not.

To explain to the bamboozled, during those times in history in all states in Australia and in the federal jurisdiction when the Death Penalty was abolished for criminals, there was no need to abolish the Death Penalty for the innocent because the innocent were not murdered in those days as a consequence of a court order or judgment or a bureaucratic or mental health decision. The Euthanasia Premier of Victoria was able to concoct a government procedure to execute the innocent simply because an innocent person who had not been charged with a criminal offence was not protected under any federal or state Death Abolition Act.

Krytocracy or judge-made-law is also a debilitating or discriminatory factor because it is the unwritten provision in parliamentary legislation that allows a judge or judges to go beyond the law. The judiciary is supposed to be restricted in what laws and orders it can or cannot make according to the type of power that parliament hands down to the court. Krytocracy, however, opposes that official stipulation. The power of the judiciary is not supposed to be unfettered or entirely discretionary, a law unto itself, but to those without the money to stage a defence or an appeal, it is irreproachable and all powerful—the beast. The author found out by herself, in her own litigations in the divorce-Family Court and other courts of law in Australia, that an unrepresented litigant doesn’t stand a chance because she is not a solicitor. Status is what counts in the courts of law, not integrity or legality.

Examples that explain corruption in government always need to be spelt out because they are relatively unbelievable. What is so unrelenting and dubious is that ethical considerations in government are designed to hide criminal administration. Secrecy Provisions always prevail and assumed names have to be used in law in any attempt to explain. The ordinary person cannot speak openly. That is why examples have to be used to convince the unsuspecting that parliamentary legislation, regulations and correct procedures are not necessarily implemented correctly in government bureaucracies or the courts of law. The author stood for federal parliamentary elections in1998 with the Abolish the divorce-Family Court Party, for example. The outcome of that initiative was that Federal Parliament allowed divorce-Family Court proceedings to be published provided names are not used.

In the author’s divorce-Family Court case, Justice J made orders without jurisdiction and in defiance of both the divorce-Family Law Act 1975 and the binding nature of judgments of higher courts in the same case. The author’s granddaughter, the child in question, was a child under state Victorian Child Welfare Court Orders. Federal Parliament did not give the divorce-Family Court any power to make orders when the child in question was a child under state, Child-Welfare Court Orders. Not only that, but neither the child’s mother nor her step-father has ever applied for divorce. For a child to be under a divorce-Family Court Order, divorce proceedings have to be in place. They were not. There never was any divorce proceedings in the divorce-Family Court in relation to the said grandchild. The child welfare case before the divorce-Family Court was in the wrong court. It was therefore technically illegal, not just invalid.

The conspiracy was that

(a) both the divorce-Family Court and the Child Welfare Court refused to investigate the child’s parentage, and

(b) the Child-Welfare Agency of Victoria litigated in both the state’s Child-Welfare Court and the federal divorce-Family Court.

It ran state law against federal law with opposing orders made. Divorce-Family Court Justice J discovered that she did not have jurisdiction, no power to make orders. She therefore told the married couple to apply for divorce. Neither one nor the other has done that. They are still legally married even after more than twenty-four years of separation. The divorce-Family Court judges, therefore, did not have any power or jurisdiction to make orders in the first place, but they did.

The judiciary cannot be held accountable because no parliament in Australia has made laws to prosecute and convict rebellious judges who knowingly and intentionally overshadow parliamentary legislation and reduce it to a nothing. That is, there are no laws against Krytocracy in Australia. The courts therefore rule the roost, not parliament! Euthanasia laws aren’t any different. Because the dead can’t be brought back to life, there is no possible resolution to a miscarriage of justice when an innocent person is murdered unlawfully under Euthanasia Parliamentary Laws.

The delinquency of divorce-Family court judges who use krytocracy to make invalid orders and mental health workers who kill medical patients who do not want to die has to be spelt out and repeated. The reasons for their misbehaviour cannot be adequately explained in real, dinky-die terms. Legal restrictions always prevail. The judiciary assume some type of immunity. Their rebellious acts and behaviour are not considered to be criminal. The difficulty for the child in question, in the author’s granddaughter’s divorce-Family Court case, was that obeying the orders made in the federal divorce-Family Court meant disobeying the orders made in the state Child-Welfare Court and vice versa. The opposing orders that were made were irreconcilable. Obeying one meant disobeying the other.

Specifically, the outcome for the child was that she was denied the protection of the Child-Welfare Court Orders in place and the Child-Welfare Legislation of Victoria. Although the author filed further appeals against the final divorce-Family Court Order in time, she was not permitted an appeal. The author was a party to proceedings in both the state court and the federal court.

Both the Attorney-General and the Full Court of the High Court of Australia found that an appeal was not necessary because the divorce-Family Court did not have any legal power to make orders in the first place. That is, it didn’t have jurisdiction to hear proceedings or to make orders, but it did. In much the same respect any euthanasia executioner who murders a mental health inpatient contrary to law is protected by the government because he or she cannot be prosecuted in a court of law, regardless.

The star-crossed child was a victim of a legal conspiracy. Her fate was sealed, as could be her death at any time from 19th June 2019 when the end-of-life physician-assisted suicide, PAS euthanasia death laws in Victoria became enforceable. The now adult child does not have any biological relative to protect her from a wrongful ending of her life. No biological relative has contact with her and cannot obtain contact with her. Her fate is sealed. She has never been released from her wrongful arrest by the Federal Police in Canberra in 1994 when she was four years old. Furthermore, it must be said that parliamentary legislation does not protect the vulnerable or the wronged from the death penalty of misapplied euthanasia laws although the targeted are innocent. In parliamentary terms their unwarranted death is not considered to be murder.

The High Court of Australia could not comprehend the possibility before their eyes that the judiciary of the divorce-Family Court would make orders knowingly without jurisdiction and put the life of the child in question at risk. It did. The same applies to questionable executions under Euthanasia Laws. Because government euthanasia murders are not criminal, they can’t be prosecuted in a court of law. A conscientious objection was not defined in any Euthanasia Act of Parliament in Australia. That is why the extremely loud ‘No, No, No, No’ screams of those who were being murdered under the Act were not taken into consideration. The dead don’t have a voice to argue their wrongful execution after the fact.

The child’s suffering under divorce-Family Court Orders was so bad that she was put in a mental hospital when she was eighteen years old. She has never been released from her wrongful arrest by the Federal Police in Canberra when she was four years old. Miss X is not the only child in Australia to suffer from Systems Abuse and from government cruelty and ill treatment. The number of children who suffer from such abuse is staggering, but their Internal State Terrorism* cannot be prosecuted in a court of law in this country.

A judge or a justice in a court of law can make orders to dispense with sections of parliamentary legislation as is the practice in the courts of law in South Australia. For example, Section 46 (2) (a) of the Children’s Protection Act 1993 requires a child above the age of 10 years to be served the government’s child welfare application to its Child-Welfare Court. There are no exceptions allowed in parliamentary legislation. A judge, however, can make an illegal order that is treated as a legal order to dispense with that section of parliamentary legislation. In the author’s South Australian child welfare case, no judge made an order to dispense with Section 46(2)(a) of the Act, but the top court in that state devised an illegal method to hide that judicial transgression in law as described below.

When it comes to legally questionable court orders, parliamentary legislation does not necessarily apply unless there is a means to enforce parliamentary endorsed legislation on the courts of law when there is not. An unrepresented litigant in a court of law who is not a solicitor cannot correct a deviance in law because of Krytocracy / judge-made law. Justice does not necessarily serve the people and does not necessarily prevail in the courts of law or in government bureaucracies in Australia. The public is deceived. The theory that justice will always prevail is a religious belief in Christianity, not a condition in parliamentary legislation in this country.

When the author was litigating in the higher court of law in South Australia for the child who was not served the Minister’s application as required under parliamentary legislation, she argued that particular Section 46 (2) (a) breach of parliamentary legislation. The presiding judge of that higher court therefore made an order for the non-existing Section 46 (2) (a) order to be taken to her chamber. Something that does not exist, however, cannot be taken to a judicial chamber.

Regardless of the proven breach in parliamentary legislation the author’s objections were treated with scorn. Her Freedom of Information Application to obtain a copy of that said non-existent order did not work. The author was not allowed to appeal. Something that does not exist, however, cannot be obtained under Freedom of Information Legislation. The judicial error in law and the cover-up was unresolvable. The same applies to bureaucratic or medical euthanasia errors in law that result in the imposed and compulsory death of the innocent.

Administrative corruption is commonly covered up in the government system in Australia. The same applies to bureaucratic, medical and euthanasia errors in law. The imposed and compulsory death of an innocent person who objects to being murdered under Euthanasia Laws has no right to complain in Law because, as said, the meaning of a Conscientious Objection was not defined in the Act.

The author was not executed under Euthanasia Laws in Victoria in late 2020 because her letters of objection to all Members of Parliament in 2017 could hardly be called anything but a Conscientious Objection. The said injustice of murdering non-offenders and the resultant Crimes against Humanity has the potential to exceed the number of people killed in the Holocaust in Nazi Germany before and during World War II. To be specific, Crimes against Humanity are being committed in Victoria, Australia in this day and age in the 21st Century without reprimand.

Some people in Australia are denied the protection of the legal system of the country. The author and the two children mentioned above are examples. The same applies to the unfavoured, the vulnerable, the unwanted and even the homeless. Without the money to pay, appeals are not allowed or are not successful. The author is a witness to the fact that the homeless in Adelaide are rounded up for detention and drugging in mental hospitals. Some homeless individuals die from an overdose of legal drugs. Again, justice is not applicable and therefore not available.

The right to a defence is not even available to the afflicted in a government bureaucracy or a mental hospital because any attempt to defend oneself can be or is considered to be an episode of mental illness. The naive and the disadvantaged pay the price because they are easily certified as mentally ill. They are incarcerated in mental hospitals for drugging purposes. Death from an overdose of legal drugs in a mental hospital is not treated as a crime because the psychiatrist was only trying to cure the inpatient. There aren’t any statistics available to the public. The author is a witness because they tried that on her. She had to use her intelligence and her genius to outwit the government workers.

The author originally met the South Australian homeless in a mental hospital in Adelaide. The government was trying its professional tricks on her at that time, but did not succeed. Because the author has a Masters in Educational Administration and Policy from a prominent university in Melbourne, she had the capacity to protect herself from their attempts to make her react to their professional administrative slander and contempt. Had the author reacted instead of being cool, calm and collected, the mental health workers would have been able to administered stronger and stronger drugs on her too! She, invariably, would have deteriorated to a low mental health status and would become fit for a euthanasia legal-drugging execution even though the death penalty has been abolished in Australia.

If the author had been in Victoria at this time in history after euthanasia laws were legislated in parliament, the pain she suffered between her chest because of the government cruelty and ill treatment inflicted on her would have been considered to be unbearable. And that, without question, would make her fit for euthanasia extinction in Victoria. Emotional pain can be more excruciating than physical pain caused by some injury or disease. Government or even church cruelty and ill-treatment inflicted on the less valued can be or is treated as a psychiatric illness, not a wrong in law or in government.

The author was a litigant in the child welfare proceedings in the courts of law in both Victoria and South Australia for the two children mentioned