Example of a Persuasive Speech : Diana Diana – Cover up or Accident? There are many conspiracy theories surrounding the death of the beloved Princess Diana. I would firstly like to say that these are not my opinions but facts and quotations that I have found in books or on the Internet. Since the Princess’ death in 1997, there was immediate pressure from the public towards the Royal family, and towards MI6. [pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic]The first conspiracy theory is that the death was faked.
The story goes that fed up with the constant intrusion into her private life by the media, Diana, aided by the resources of lover Dodi, staged a spectacular ‘death’, in a hope that she could retreat to a life of privacy. A plan that went horribly wrong, leading to her death. But would this idea be possible? My view: No. Diana was famous all over the world. In this day and age it would not have been possible to avoid the press – Diana and Dodi would have known this all too well. Also, she loved her sons. In this plan she would have had to leave them. To me this theory is not what happened
The second conspiracy theory is that of the evidence – one that stands out in particular for me. A) Bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones still lives, but testimony from Mercedes auto experts says that it would have been almost impossible for anyone to have survived a crash in the tunnel in a car going at 121 mph. Maybe, as driver Henri Paul’s lawyers claim, the car was not going that fast. Maybe the crash was faked by the army-trained Rees-Jones who had previously deposited Diana and Dodi elsewhere. My view: Highly unlikely. If the bodyguard was to set up the accident, why be in the car at all?
If he had set up the accident I am sure he would have set up an excuse/alibi to not be in the vehicle. And as is commonly known now, he was the only one wearing a seatbelt – the fact that this saved his life seems most likely to me. B) Dodi’s usual driver was not used. Mystery still surrounds Henri Paul, the security officer, who stepped in at the last minute to drive the Mercedes S-280. It took a full two days for his name to be revealed, for instance. Co-workers at the Ritz Hotel say he kept himself to himself and never socialised with them.
One version of this conspiracy has it that Paul simply did not exist, another that he was quickly whisked away from the hospital after being declared dead by doctors in cahoots with the Al Fayed family. My view: We know for a fact that the drivers were changed, but there is no solid evidence to say why. Also, surely the Al Fayed family had more than one driver. If I was them I would want to know the person driving me in my car. Wouldn’t you? Now finally from the evidence: C) Just six hours before she died Diana let slip to Daily Mail reporter Richard Kray that she was about to withdraw completely from public life.
My view: A funny one – but is the reporter just looking for a cheap story or has he got the proof? The truth is still unknown. The final conspiracy is the most popularly believed. That the British MI6 killed her. Some say that she was the target; some say that it was Dodi. Here’s the evidence: Rogue elements in the British Secret Service decide that Diana is a threat to the throne, and therefore the stability of the state. They take her out. As for Dodi, business enemies of Dodi and his father Mohammed Al Fayed assassinate Dodi, with the death of Diana; a magnificent cover for their peration. My views are exactly that, and you should make up your own minds. But there is a mountain of evidence to say that The Lady Diana’s death was no accident. Either way, the people of Britain have demanded answers for ten years now – after coming close, then having all the evidence stolen! Will we ever find out? My final view on this is, that as long as the people responsible don’t want us to, then no, we will never find out the truth. Getting Civil I am against the government sanctioning same-sex marriages. Am I intolerant? Am I homophobic?
Am I part of a fundamentalist religious sect of some sort? What if I tell you that I am against the government sanctioning marriages between a man and a woman as well? Am I against marriage? Am I an anarchist? Am I insane? Actually, I believe I have the sanest solution to the whole marriage debate and I don’t hear anyone talking about it. My solution is to leave marriage where it belongs – in religious and private institutions. What business is it of the government to sanction relationships between consenting adults? Why is it up to the government to define what a marriage is?
Why should the government be involved in promoting or discouraging particular types of relationships? We are a free country so why is it up to the government to tell us how we, the citizens, can define our relationships and which ones are acceptable in their eyes and which ones are not? My contention is that unless relationships chosen by consenting adults of their own free will endanger other individuals, the government has no business sanctioning them or preventing them. Am I saying that the government has no role in personal relationships?
Well, not exactly. Legal arrangements are necessary for the purpose of expeditiously dividing property and providing for custody of any children resulting from a relationship if the relationship ends. Through legal arrangements, the rights of all involved can be protected. That’s why I believe that all legal partnerships between two people who have committed to each other should all be civil unions in the eyes of the government. Whether these relationships are called marriages or not is up to religious institutions and the individuals themselves. pic][pic][pic]I have a friend who is a lesbian. The woman she loves is Dutch and they got married last summer in Holland where it is legal. I saw the pictures. They were happy, joyful. Their families and friends attended the ceremony and support them in their commitment to each other. They have a house together. They have jobs and pay taxes. They participate in civic activities. They are enjoying life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But what if their families did not support their choice and their commitment to each other?
If something were to happen to one of them, either a life threatening illness or even death, by law, the family could prevent the partner from being involved in making decisions for her loved one’s care or even the arrangements for a funeral. Unless prior arrangements were made, the benefits of being a legal couple would not apply to these two committed partners who make every bit as much of a contribution to society as any heterosexual married couple does. I have a friend who has two children with her partner.
If their partnership were to dissolve, it is possible that the woman who actually gave birth to the children could bar the other woman, the woman that the children have always known as their mother from having any contact with them. The non-birth mother would have no rights. Are the children’s rights protected here? Some people argue that allowing same-sex couples to have civil unions would result in an undue financial burden on society, primarily because of the benefits that currently apply to married couples that would now have to be extended to same-sex couples.
So are we trying to prevent people from having equal rights to save a few bucks? To me, that’s like saying we should not have allowed women the vote because it would increase the cost of elections. Some people are concerned that allowing same-sex couples the legal rights of a civil union would require religious institutions to marry them. There would be no such requirements. Churches and other religious institutions would be free to exercise their beliefs and traditions as they have always been.
Two people who love each other should be able to commit to each other and be protected by law in the relationship and in the case that the relationship ends. Any children who are the result of the relationship should have their rights protected as well. In my opinion, all people who want to have legal recognition of their committed status should have the option of a civil union and that all people joined in a civil union should have equal rights regardless of their gender. Whether a name is given to that union beyond the legal one should be up to religious institutions and the individuals themselves, not the government.