Barking Mad will be putting up a candidate for the next Senate election. Name our party is back on the agenda - seriously. See previous post.So, please help with a name (not more than six words).
Here is a start:
- People and Pets
- Citizens with Pets (CWP)
- People with Pets (PWP)
- Our Families, Our Pets (OFOP)
- Responsible Pet Owners of Australia (RPOA)
- Family Pet Reform Party (FPRP)
- Citizens for Pets (CFP)
- Family Pet Advocacy Party (FPAT) FP Advisory Party?
- People/Citizens with Companion Animals/Pets (PWCA, CWCA, CWCP, PWCP)
- Family Companion Animal Advocacy Party (FCAAP)
- Pawlitically Correct (huh?)
Image from MyDogVotes
AEC Party Registration Handbook
Vote now so you can vote for your pet in the next election.
5 comments:
This is just as a publicity stunt right? You don't seriously expect to get voted in?
Barking Mad is not interested in 'stunts'. There are over 3 million dog owners who have no political representation, yet experience diminishing access to public space, rental accommodation, strata living, holiday accommodation, public transport and other public amenities that can be happily shared.
The shooters who represent the ‘guns, dogs and 4WD’ brigade are the only political party representing dog owners, and their members are very different dog owners than the mostly metropolitan, coastal family-dog owners we represent.
We have had conversations with two major parties about putting up a candidate.
Pet ownership contributes more to the economy annually than fishing and forestry combined. If you can imagine the fishing industry without a strong lobby, or the forestry industry without an effective lobby, then your political experience is vastly different to Barking Mad’s.
As for expecting to be voted in, if I could predict the future in 2010 or 2011, I wouldn’t be selling my soul for a fair-go for responsible pet owners – I’d be running the banks or something similar!
A review of our constitution relative to electing Senators would cast light on the electability of an independent or single-issue party member.
"Barking Mad is not interested in stunts"...?! Are you serious?!
What was the dogs on the non dogs beach, if it wasn't a stunt?
Anon. We appreciate a dissenting view, though we would prefer a proper argument in accompaniment.
We respect people willing to defend their point of view, especially if they do this up front, not anonymously, and if they can argue a point without arguing a person out of the room.
We appreciate this because we accept our system of government.
A family dog on a beach with a family is a normal part of life in our society, and our coastal fringe habitation. The decision regarding if the beach is a no-dog beach, no-littering, no-smoking, no-fishing, no-swearing, no-nudity, no-perving, no-swimming or whatever is a matter for the courts.
Our system of government embraces and protects the right to challenge existing laws. In the simplest examples I can think of to hammer this point home (though not hopeful of the outcome), think rain-water tanks (necessary, banned, reinstated with rebates!), Aboriginal land rights (look what happened to them when they let boat-people on shore!), green waste collection (this required a legislative change in the Local Government Act), seat-belt laws and drink-driving laws. And the list goes on.
What does the full bench of the High Court say?
“When a law of a State or federal Parliament or a Territory legislature is alleged to infringe the requirement of freedom of communication imposed by … the Constitution, two questions must be answered before the validity of the law can be determined. First, does the law effectively burden freedom of communication about government or political matters either in its terms, operation or effect. Second, if the law effectively burdens that freedom, is the law reasonably appropriate and adapted to serve a legitimate end the fulfilment of which is compatible with the maintenance of the constitutionally prescribed system of representative and responsible government and the procedure prescribed by s 128 for submitting a proposed amendment of the Constitution to the informed decision of the people. If the first question is answered ‘Yes’ and the second is answered ‘no’, the law is invalid.” Edited for brevity, source Lange as quoted in Coleman v Power http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2004/39.html
We are unlikely to post further comments from your ip address anonymously - there are better forums than our blog from which to whine, poke, whip and complain without putting up anything of substance.
Hi Eedra I think our Political Party should be called - Responsible Pet Owners of Australia (RPOA)as this is more of which we are Promoting,representing.
Post a Comment