|
Site Hosted By
|
|
No You Can't
We're British
Barack Obama is well in the running for the presidency of the United States of America. He is the first non-white American to have a strong chance of holding the highest office in the USA.
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." |
 |
Lords of Misrule
Cheering Greets Democracy's Defeat
Britain’s legislators-for-life left no doubt about their contempt for democratic rights when they voted on 14 March 2007 by a majority of 361 to stop the people electing any of the members of Parliament's second chamber. Only 121 opposed this decision while, in another vote, a mere 122 supported the election of all legislators.
The feudal legislative chamber was packed for the vote. According to the Financial Times the unelected legislators "vociferously expressed" their opposition to the decision of elected members of parliament that they should lose their privileged part in law making. But "the normally solemn chamber reverberated with cheers" when the "Lords" voted by 409 to 46 against even a half-elected chamber.
The BBC predicted that this overwhelming rejection of democracy would lead to "months of parliamentary gridlock". And the vote seemed helpful to those elected legislators who do not want a fully elected second chamber. They may try to put together a compromise deal that would leave many unelected legislators in Parliament.
|
"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 House of Commons could impose its will on the legislators-for-life but this would take a large amount of effort and time. Alternatively the Labour Party might put a commitment to an all-elected parliament in its next election manifesto. If it then won the election the "Lords" would find resistance even harder to justify.
New Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who replaced Tony Blair in June 2007, has promised constitutional reform but has been silent on reform of the feudal chamber.
|
|
"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
|
|
|
Setback for BBC Extortion
Although the government is to increase the TV licence fee from £131.50 to £151.50 by 2012 the British Broadcasting Corp. is complaining that it will be £2bn short of the money it needs. Director-General Mark Thompson has claimed that it will be unable to improve the poor quality of its programmes without this money.
The increases in the fee that TV viewers are expected to pay for permission to watch television will be lower than the expected increases in the retail price index. This may mean a reduction in income in real terms.
Critics of the media giant hope that this is the beginning of the end the BBC’s extortion, currently running at £3bn annually. To collect the money the Corporation monitors every household and business, and threatens that is investigators will "interview under caution" anyone who has not bought a licence. Businesses selling TV receivers and companies providing cable or satellite TV must report the names and addresses of their customers to the BBC.
"Welcome to the real world" said the Financial Times when the settlement was announced. The newspaper argued that licence fee funding could
|
"Visits from a TV Licensing Enquiry Officer are routine and only take a matter of minutes. This has the advantage that, once the Enquiry Officer has ascertained that there is no (TV) set, we will only contact the resident occasionally."
David Legge
Director of TV Licencing Operations
Letter to The Independent, 2001
not be justified after 2012. It also believed that the government would be "highly nervous" about creating "television licence martyrs" by enforcing the licence on people watching TV on personal computers. An increasing number of people are already realising that in fact the BBC has great difficulty taking legal action against viewers who refuse to buy a licence.
This is good news for civil rights advocates and critics of what one Labour MP has called the "imperial" BBC. But for those, like BBC director-general Mark Thompson, who believe that the state broadcaster is "perhaps the greatest force for cultural good on the face of the earth", it is an important setback.
How the BBC flouts our rights
|
|
Copyright © 1998- Centre for Citizenship
|
|
The centre for republican democracy |
