|
|
|
No Country for Democrats
Britain's Shame
In the UK 92 legislators have inherited their seats in the legislature from a relative. When one of them dies, those that remain elect the replacement from other members of the "aristocracy". These and other House of Lords legislators are immune from the public will. They are legislators until they die.
But the Parliamentary Oaths Act effectively bars other citizens from sitting in that same legislature even if elected by the people if they believe in the thoroughly democratic tenets of republicanism that are accepted as the norm from the United States of America to the Republic of India. For the Act allows them to take their seat only if they publicly recant their deeply-held beliefs by swearing a feudal oath of allegiance to the Windsor family. Not to the people. Not to a democratic constitution. Not to their country. But to a family. In Iran you cannot stand for election as president if you oppose the the system of Islamic government. In Britain you cannot sit in Parliament if you oppose monarchy. Republicans are also barred from serving in the army, air force and judiciary for similar reasons.
Members of that same Windsor family are allowed to veto certain legislative proposals regardless of the wishes of the people.
To add injury to insult Elizabeth Windsor and her son given vast amounts of the people's money every year. They are allowed to loot £31m annually from the so-called "duchies" of Lancaster and Cornwall. Since 2011 their family has also been given 15% of the profits of the Crown Estate, a public real estate holding. This has given them upwards of £:36m annually. The President of the United States is paid $300,000.
All of these privileges are irretrievably in the hands of the Windsors. All other citizens are forbidden to become head of state.
The Centre for Citizenship is dedicated to ending these and all other feudal privileges and to securing for the people of Britain their right to republican government.
|
Olympic Gold But Democratic Dross Shames Britain
Hereditary Legislators To Stay in Parliament
|
|
|
|
While British Olympic athletes were honouring their country with gold medals, its politicians brought shame on their country, using the cover of the Games to keep the hereditary legislators who were to have lost their seats in a new reform of the second chamber of Parliament. So in Britain in 2012, hard as it may be to believe, some seats in Parliament will continue to be the private property of the country's "nobility", passed on from generation to generation.
The decision of the government to keep the hereditary and other unelected legislators rather than face down the opponents of reform, again critically undercut Britain's claim to be a model of democracy. 350 years after the civil war in which the rights of the Lords were first seriously challenged, the people are still to be treated as serf-like fools, unfit for more than a limited control of their legislature. Laws passed by the elected representatives in the House of Commons will continue to take effect only if the hereditary and other "Lords"approve. The most contemptible of people, those who believe that it is right to accept an hereditary seat, will continue to have a veto over the wishes of the people.
This setback for democracy is the result of the opposition of many Conservative Party MPs, supported by the Labour Party in order to embarrass the governing coalition. Even some Liberal Democrats were unenthusiastic, according to newspaper reports.
|
"You only are chosen by the people and therefore in you only is the power of binding the whole nation by making, altering or abolishing of laws. You have therefore prejudiced us in acting so as if you could not make a law without both the royal assent of the king (so you are pleased to express yourselves) and the assent of the Lords".
Richard Overton
A Remonstrance of Many Thousand Citizens, 1646
The debased values behind the decision were also on display in the Olympic Games opening ceremony. It portrayed the factory owners of the Industrial Revolution negatively but showed no such negativity towards the Windsor family. The factory owners shared the wealth their factories created, although inequitably, and helped make Britain a prosperous nation. The Windsor family has created nothing but has taken millions of pounds from the pockets of the people every year for merely being "royal".
|
|
The Worshipping of the Windsors
The Degradation of Democracy
At least nature is reliably democratic, something the British people find it very hard to be. The sky was grey. The temperature barely reached 60. And there was rain. But that did not stop countless Britons showing their deference to the Windsor clan on 3 June 2012 by assembling on the banks and bridges of the River Thames to salute their hereditary head of state as she passed through London on a stately boat.
Some wore headgear with small flags or crowns supported by stalks. Some carried flags in their hands. One flag hanging from the window of a public housing block in south London had no blue but much pink, possibly the result of washing at too high a temperature. Although it was reported that there was more enthusiasm south of the Thames, the crowds were not big enough for South Eastern Trains to run its trains into central London at anything more than 30 minute intervals, although the day before they had run every fifteen minute. But the baby buggies of parents taking toddlers for initiation into the rites of Windsor-worship made them crowded.
|
Jubilee flag flutters in London rail station
|
|
This was "jubilee" day, a celebration of the sixty years that Elizabeth Windsor has held Britain's chief public office, while millions of other Britons have been excluded because they were born into a different family. Sixty years, in each of which the Windsor clan has been paid extraordinary amounts of money for doing little if anything. Jubilees were originally at fifty year intervals, when debts were written off. Windsor has had two jubilees but the people have never been relived of the burden of the extraordinary democratic and financial burden.
In 1956, according to an opinion poll, thirty five per cent of the population thought Liz Windsor had been appointed as head of state by God.
|
Yet again the finest traditions of British democracy were firmly pushed to the margins while feudalism had a field day. More than 1,000 republicans demonstrated on the river side outside City Hall as the Windsor boat passed. Nearby monarchists had to sing "God Save the Queen" to ward off the evil.
Warding Off Evil
The Financial Times seemed to be doing much the same. And because it is usually exceptionally intelligent in its journalism, its behaviour on this occasion may tell us something particularly interesting about the British aversion to true democracy.
Read on
|
|
No Monarchist Bias Says Police Complaints Commission
Only Criminals Required To Be Joyful
|  |
|
Metropolitan Police Commander Christine Jones was speaking to criminals when she gave her instruction that the 2011 Windsor wedding was to be a day of joy. That is what the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has ruled in its response to a complaint of police anti-republican bias by John Pratt of the Centre for Citizenship.
Commander Jones told the news media shortly before the feudal wedding celebrations that she wanted to make it clear that the wedding day was to be one of "joy". The IPCC claims that this did not indicate any monarchist bias. Rather it was a warning to criminals who might infiltrate republican protests!
|
"But let us make it absolutely clear - this is a day of celebration, joy and pageantry. It is fantastic day for Britain". The unbiased words of Commander Christine Jones, Metropolitan Police.
The IPCC ruled that Mr. Pratt had not been personally affected by the behaviour of Commander Jones and therefore his complaint could not be considered. This was because Jones' comments were "clearly directed at any criminals who might seek to disrupt the day", not at "law abiding members of the public".
 More
|
|
Are The British Out of Their Minds?
Windsors Allowed To Loot Public Resources
In 2011 and 2012 the news media have given much attention to public anger about bankers' bonuses. In particular Stephen Hester's proposed £1m bonus and the £703,000 a year pension that was 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 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 in one year. This was more than the Hester bonus and Goodwin's pension "pot" combined. 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
Obama Visit Exposes Shameful Constitution
"It is possible for . . . the grandson of a Kenyan who served as a cook in the British army to stand before you as president of the United States".
President Barack Obama
The 2011 European visit of President Obama has highlighted shameful features of Britain's constitution..
In Ireland the President visited the humble home of a relative in a small Irish town. In Britain he spent the night in the home of one of the richest people in the world. She is paid £12m a year as ceremonial and hereditary head of state. Obama is paid just $400,000 for one of the most onerous jobs there is.
In Ireland the American president spoke to the people who gathered in the streets of Dublin to hear him. In London he addressed the members of a legislature that includes hereditary legislators and legislators-for-life.
President Obama found it remarkable that he should be addressing the two chambers of Parliament. "It is possible for . . . the grandson of a Kenyan who served as a cook in the British army to stand before you as president of the United States". he said.
It would have been undiplomatic for him to have pointed out that if his father had married a British woman it would have been impossible for him to address the American legislature as a representative of his country. For the British constitution does not allow the children of newcomers to become head of state. Only members of the Windsor clan are allowed that privilege.
Nor could a British Obama have taken a seat in the British legislature. As a republican (with a small "r") he would be barred by the Parliamentary Oaths Act that requires an oath of allegiance to the Windsor clan, not to the people.
Britain's racist constitution
|
| |
|
Everybody Loves a Wedding
But Feudal Institution Fails to Hold Nation Together
"From the 19th century . . . the farcical state of royal tradition was rectified, first by inventing new ones . . . and second through a campaign in the vulgar press to increase the popularity of the monarchy among British working people". Letter to Financial Times.
Barely a week after the Middleton/Windsor marriage the Scottish National Party achieved a majority in the Scottish parliament for the first time, promising a referendum on independence and demanding control of the Crown Estate in Scotland. Although it is far from certain that that Scotland will leave the UK, the argument of monarchists and apologists for monarchy that the feudal institution unites the nation looked more than every like an excuse. But that did not stop them wishing away that part of the population that wants to replace monarchy with democracy.
There is no denying that the wedding spectacle was a marketing success for the monarchists. But that was not enough though for them. Like the former supporters of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya they hate to admit that there is anyone who really does not love the beloved leader. This made them strident in their certainties. The one third of the populations that wants to be free of the feudal institution and the majority that did not gaze in awe at the Windsor wedding had to disappear. A newspaper quoted "Steve Edge, a 53-year-old owner of a design agency, who said that 'subconsciously everybody loves' the monarchy, an institution he called the 'true brand of Englishness.' You can see it, he said, 'on days like today . . . with over a billion people watching'".
More
|
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?
|
|
"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 2010 general election to the House of Commons removed the labour party from power and brought about a coalition government. 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 former 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 |
