(Getting around Tokyo unencumbered by Australian helmet law)
Further to the matter of me not voting at the last General Election for all the reasons I outlaid here, I received a letter this week from the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) in which it was stated that they (the AEC) considered my reasons to be 'valid and sufficient.'
As a result the AEC proposes 'to take no further action in this matter.'
So if in this instance my reasons for breaking Australian law are considered by a relevant government body to be 'valid and sufficient' why have they not been in 'matters helmet' when to all intents and purposes Australian courts have accepted that my arguments are reasonable and valid and going a long way to explain why I choose to ride a bicycle without wearing a helmet?
If the AEC has the power to judge and decide questions of law occasionally accommodating law-breaking in favour of the law-breaker, why can't Australian courts?
Is it the $$$$$$ involved?
Are the stakes higher?
And/or is it that voting is just an utterly irrelevant, little red-herring game played by the masses to keep us busy and deluded?
So much to sigh about ...
(also published on 'Freedom Cyclist Blog')