|
Site Hosted By
|
|
|
Are The British Out of their Minds?
In recent months the press has given much attention to public anger about bankers’ bonuses. In particular the £703,000 a year pension to be paid to Fred Goodwin, former chief executive of the failed bank RBS, from a "pension pot" of £16.9m. The exploitation of the parliamentary expenses system by avaricious legislators has also has also caused outrage.
But there was hardly a peep from the British people when Charles Windsor, son of the hereditary head of state, took £19m of their money year. This was more than Mr. Goodwin’s entire "pot". And Windsor takes a similar amount every year.
In most countries this would be thought an excessive amount to give to the head of state in spending money, never mind to her son. Indeed, even in the UK the head of state does receive less.
This seems crazy. But is it?
 More
|
USA - Yes We Can
UK - No You Can't
In 2008 the American people elected Barack Obama as their head of state. He is the first non-white American to hold that office.
But had his Kenyan father chosen Britain rather than the UK for his studies his son, his grandchildren and their grandchildren would have been excluded from the office of head of state. For in this country the constitution requires that that position be filled only by northern European Protestants. No Blacks, no Jews and, indeed, no Irish need apply. The British allow one family, the dysfunctional, high-living white Windsors, the exclusive right to represent them.
Britain's racist constitution
|
"It will often be open to objection for a number of reasons. It may not produce the best candidate for the post. It may be likely to result in the appointee being of a particular gender or racial group. It may infringe the principle of equal opportunities."
Court of Appeal, October 2001
Ruling on an appointment to public office made from a "circle of family, friends and personal acquaintances." |
| |
Taking Liberties
When the British police stop and search citizens at random or because of a gut feeling of wrong-doing they are usually faulted, not for doing so without a reasonable suspicion of law-breaking, but because a disproportionate number of non-white citizens may be the victims.
This may seem advantageous for those who suffer from such discrimination. But it may also have the disadvantage for them of creating the appearance that they enjoy special treatment. For it does indeed put them into another British minority, those whose civil liberties are taken seriously.
|
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
"
Thomas Paine
Democrat
Why is it that it often takes the unfair treatment of a minority for the British to stand up in defence of their civil liberties? And why can those who belong to a minority group not depend on the majority's self interest to protect them from infringements of civil liberties that affect the entire population?
|
|
Lords of Misrule
No Representation Without Donation
In 2009 apologists for the House of Lords suffered a further setback as a result of revelations that some legislators-for-life have been keen to accept payments in return for influencing legislation. This has undermined the apologists’ claim that the undemocratic chamber is justified by the high-minded independence of the unelected legislators.
The scandal caused the Financial Times to reiterate its call for what it called "the truly revolutionary route: an elected chamber, where alleged misconduct can be tackled by voters". This was the serious conclusion to a mocking editorial comment headed "Doffed cap and trade", proposing that seats in the feudal chamber be openly sold to the highest bidder. The newspaper described this as "no representation without donation".
|
"In a modern democracy, it is difficult to justify a second chamber where there is no elected element – where the public has no direct input into who sits in it".
Jack Straw
Leader of House of Commons
The scandal developed after a sting by the Sunday Times in which 4 legislators-for-life told an undercover journalist that they could use their privileged place in the legislature to have laws changed to suit business interests. The four Labour Party supporters, Thomas Taylor, Peter Snape, Lewis Moonie and Peter Truscott were said to have asked for as much as £120,000 for their services. The parliamentary code of conducts forbids this.
|
|
"The Mother of All Parliaments"
Republicans Barred
" I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and her successors, according to law, so help me God."
The 2005 general election to the House of Commons reduced labour party representation and increased that of the conservatives and liberal democrats. But the law made standing for election to that chamber pointless for one group of British citizens. They are republicans, banned by the Parliamentary Oaths Act from sitting in "the mother of parliaments".
The 1866 Act requires that elected legislators publicly affirm or swear an oath of allegiance to Elizabeth Windsor (the hereditary head of state described in the oath as “Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth”), to her son Charles Windsor and to any member of her family who might follow her as hereditary head of state. Any representative of the people who fails to do so is liable to be fined and to be thrown out of parliament.
Apologists for this law point out that there are MPs with republican beliefs that have sworn or affirmed allegiance to the monarchy in order to take their seats in parliament. This, they say, means that republicans in Britain are not really denied their civil rights.
In truth a law that requires a representative of the people to lie and to make a statement that is deeply repugnant and inconsistent with a belief in the sovereignty of the people before they may exercise a civil right, is a law that denies them that civil right. A democracy that prevents a democratically elected legislator from taking her or his seat in the legislature without swearing
|
allegiance to a feudal institution that is at odds with the democratic spirit and democratic institutions, is a democracy that has no sense of shame.
The Parliamentary Oaths Act has survived in a nation that considers itself a paragon of democracy because to repeal it would be to question the legitimacy of the British monarchy. And those MPs who do question that legitimacy are afraid of the conservative wrath that they would face from both Left and Right if they did so in public.
As so often in Britain's democracy the ease of a shoddy evasion is preferred to the rigours of principle. The mother of parliaments would rather its members swore false oaths and that republicans of deep democratic conviction were denied a basic right, than allow a feudal institution to be undermined.
|
|
Commission censors republicans
"Monarchy is racist" banned
The Commission took the view that we were minded to reject the application for the registration of the "Monarchy is Racist, End Monarchy Referendum" party because, in our view, the proposed name could cause offence to voters if it appeared on a ballot paper.
Conrad Wells, Registrar
The Electoral Commission has refused to register "Monarchy is Racist, End Monarchy Referendum" as the name of a political party. According to Commission official Conrad Wells, "in our view the proposed name could cause offence to voters." The commission has not objected to names that seem to call for non-Welsh people to be expelled from Wales or for a revolution by workers.
The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which established the little known commission, gives it the power to censor party names that it believes are "obscene or offensive."
|
Prominent among the names that the Commission has not found offensive are those of the "Wales for the Welsh" and the "Workers Revolutionary" parties. It has also registered the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, the Ulster Protestant League and the Berkshire Stop the War parties.
The Commission has not admitted censoring other party names but has said that it may refuse the register the name of the White Nationalist Party. It has refused to explain which voters it believes would be offended by the name it has banned or why it considers the name "Monarchy Is Racist, End Monarchy Referendum" offensive.
Full report
|
|
|
BBC: The Greatest Force
Is the British Broadcasting Corporation, sometimes affectionately called “the Beeb” by its admirers “the greatest force for cultural good on the face of the earth” or a politically biased extortion racket?
The first claim was made by Mark Thompson, the state broadcaster's director-general. The second opinion might be held by a republican aware of the corporation's long record of propping-up the feudal institution of monarchy, while harassing citizens for the crime of not seeking its permission to watch TV.
But both points of view draw attention to something else. That is that the BBC, despite its birth in the 20th century, fits well with Britain's feudal attitudes and institutions. (If you doubt this read the statement of the BBC Trust's chairman later in the article). Like an arrogant Lord, it sees itself as a worthy dispenser of what it thinks is good for the masses. And it believes that this entitles it to have its hands in the pockets of the masses whether or not they want what it dispenses.
|
BBC Trust Chairman Michael Lyon warned “the government and opposition parties . . . that he and the other trustees were appointed by the Queen, through the Privy Council ‘rather than just at the dictate of ministers’”, according to the Financial Tines. He was “sending a defiant message to politicians of all parties that his organisation will conduct an ‘all-or-nothing’ struggle to protect” the privileges of the corporation.
And by accepting that the BBC may ignore their civil rights merely to broadcast TV, the British have done something even worse. They have signalled that when more serious matters are at stake too, they will accept their subservience to the state.
How the BBC flouts our rights
|
|
Copyright © 1998- Centre for Citizenship
|
|
The centre for republican democracy |
