Whilst waiting for my daily zapp at the not-so-local oncology centre, I picked up a copy of This England to while away the time and was surprised and delighted to see an excellent article on the demetrication of road signs and a very good photo of tony. I also noticed that some Germans had taken the trouble to write in with their support. Perhaps we could have a Friends of BWMA established in Germany!

On the subject of "This England" - a very worthy magazine - the editor is supporting a campaign to obtain a judicial review on the legality of the various treaties signed up to by successive governments. It is considered that giving away British sovereignty to Brussels under the Treaties of Rome, Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice, as well as the Single European Act, is contrary to our Constitution and, therefore, illegal. Substantial funds are needed to process the legal submission and all donations are welcome at CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE,c/o PO BOX 52, CHELTENHAM, GL50 1YQ.

Allan Tallett

Wait a minute, I thought the UK doesn't even have a written constitution as such? Why doesn't Tony Blair, in his quest for modernisation, establish a working party to draw up such a document?

How can it be that successive governments do something that opposes the public's will ? Does one have to subscribe to conspiracy theories to believe that ?

Ralf

Vicki your idea of a little countermetric
initiative in Germany seems very good
where and if anyone is receptive to it

I have seen posting on internet by french-born
people opposed to metric

what did these German's say in their letters?

"Wait a minute, I thought the U.K. doesn't have a written Constitution..."
-------------------------------------------------------

This is a common myth put about mainly by those who are frenetically working to impose a European Constitution on us and the peoples of Europe and so undermine the Constitutions of the U.K. and other European nations.

On the contrary, Britain probably has more in writing about its Constitution than any other country; it's just that it has evolved over the centuries and isn't drawn up in one single document like the American Constitution.

Examples of aspects of Britain's Constitution that are set down in writing:

* Magna Carta 1215 - recently acknowledged by former Home Secretary Jack Straw still to be part of Britain's Constitution

* Acts of Parliament - going back to, for example, a Treason Act in the 1300s which Jeff Rooker MP recently said could be used against British Citizens who had become Al Qa'eda terrorists

* The Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9 and the Act of Settlement 1701 - establising Britain by law as a Protestant nation, and forbidding the monarch to be or marry a Roman Catholic; laid down that no power was to be given to any foreign power

* Acts of Parliament laying down the rights of British citizens; rights to, e.g. jury trial, 'habeas corpus', the presumption of innocence etc.

* The Coronoation Oath (*1), which sets out the 'contract' between the Head of State and his/her people.

* Case law in the British courts (i.e. 'precedent'), interpreting aspects of our Constitution - and which have a history of centuries.

And so much more...

-------------------------------------------------------

*1 This includes the following:

Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the peoples of Great Britain and Northern Ireland...according to their respective laws and customs?"

Sovereign: "All this I promise to do"

The United Kingdom does not have a written constitution insofar that the procedure and the requreid majorities to change Britain from a monarchy to a republic are the same as the procedure and majorities that are required to change something small like the national speed limit. Most countries have a constitution which is difficult to change and laws that are a lot easier to change.

An example of the lack of a constitution was in 1943 when an election was due. Parliament passed a law postponing the election for a year. This was repeated in 1944. The US however had an election in Nov 1944 as was required by their constitution.

There is NO procedure or majority that could lawfully change the UK from being a monarchy to a republic (short of a literally unanimous agreement by every British subject and the monarch). If the House of Commons voted for such a thing, the Queen would have the right and duty to veto it (to refuse her consent) and dissolve that treasonous Parliament. Even if she abdicated instead, the right to the crown would automatically pass to the next in line, and so on.

"There is NO procedure or majority that could lawfully change the UK from being a monarchy to a republic"

Of course there is, as Parliament can legislate on any matter it chooses. The citizens of the United Kingdom would have no direct control over such a decision, and it is quite clear that if our democratically elected Parliament wanted to replace the monarchy then The Queen would stand aside and respect that choice as she does every other decision it makes.

True that Parliament swears/affirms to The Queen, but only by Act of Parliament, which could also be changed in the meantime if necessary.

The sovereign Parliament is not the House of Commons alone, but includes the current monarch, who has the right and duty of veto against all unlawful legislation. If a monarch gave consent to an abolition of the monarchy, that would be to abdicate his position. But just as no Parliament can bind its successors, so no monarch can bind his; the next in line would still have the right to the throne, because under the British constitution the succession is automatic, not in the monarch's gift. Parliament has and can have no legal authority to change the basis from which its authority is drawn, except by the agreement of every individual to whom it bears responsibility. The Queen and Crown has obligations to every one of her subjects, which she cannot lawfully abandon.

This is not to dispute that the monarchy could be abolished unlawfully, nor that traitors in the House of Commons might not wish to do so. This has already happened once. But every Englishman would have the right and duty to resist such treason by any means possible.

Paul,

The monarch is here at the invitation of Parliamant (See the Act of Settlement 1701), so Parliament has the authority to remove the monarch.

The Act of Settlement can be read at:
://www.worldfreeinternet.net/parliament/settlement.htm

QUESTION 1: Complete this sentence:

"Parliament has the authority under the 1701 Act of Settlement to replace the monarch...

ANSWER:

Only if they then replace him/her with another one".

"The sovereign Parliament is not the House of Commons alone, but includes the current monarch, who has the right and duty of veto against all unlawful legislation."

Of course, but the present position since 1707 is that the monarch agrees to all legislation. If a Government put through a Bill to abolish the monarchy then of course The Queen could veto it, but she wouldn't because of our constitutional position, which she personally recognises more than anyone else.

There is no mandate on her to make decisions based on the views of anyone other than herself.

Also, as we have no written constitution, there is no requirement for us to have a monarchy, and Parliament has the power to choose any system of government, not just which monarch we have.

Firstly, ignorant foreigners and others please note yet again: Parliament IS the Monarch PLUS the Lords PLUS the Commons. Without a Monarch there is no lawful Parliament.

Secondly, the so-called Act of Settlement was itself arguably unlawful, insofar as it purported to claim authority over the Crown.

Thirdly, it is not the case that the monarch is expected to consent to ALL legislation, only most of it, in particular, such as is not itself unconstitutional; the monarch IS expected to reject any and all unconstitutional legislation (by "expected" I mean "constitutionally obliged").

Fourthly, the monarch is morally and legally bound by the terms of his or her coronation oath, and to respect the immemorial Rights of Englishmen (I am not certain whether there is a similar legal obligation to respect the Rights of Welshmen, Scotsmen or Irishmen, or whether they have any such particular Rights - note the capital letter - as distinct from natural rights or personal rights or ordinary property rights).

Fifthly, it is incorrect to say that the UK has no written constitution; it is merely that, unlike other countries, it has not tried to restrict its constitutional provisions to a single document (I say "tried" because even the US Constitution is not a single document, not even if you parcel all the Amendments in together; both international treaties and case law also contribute to that constitution).

Dear Paul,

By your reasoning no matter how over-whelming the wishes of the British people, they could never move to a republic without your say-so. I mean according to what you say have the veto, because you are a British subject who has to agree with everyone else before it can happen. Not even the Queen herself can agree to it, again according to what you say.

I call upon you to reflect upon your arguments.

It remains a crime in the United Kingdom to campaign for a republic.

Those who yearn for a republic can always go and live in one

Thanks for your response Tony.

I await that from Paul himself to the specific point I raised.

In response to you personally Tony, I have to caution you with this observation:

Your words are those of a Tyrant. You brand it a criminal offense for anyone to contemplate an alternative constitution. I suggest you put the idea to Neil Heron who prides himself as champion of human rights!

"The so-called Act of Settlement was itself arguably unlawful, insofar as it purported to claim authority over the Crown.

Thirdly, it is not the case that the monarch is expected to consent to ALL legislation, only most of it, in particular, such as is not itself unconstitutional; the monarch IS expected to reject any and all unconstitutional legislation."

How can legislation be unconstitutional if all three parts of Parliament agree to it? The Act of Settlement was certainly agreed by all concerned. If everyone agrees to abolish the monarchy, then as the authority of Parliament is total and absolute it would be so settled. The same point arises with changes to the House of Lords and the Parliament Acts.

"Fifthly, it is incorrect to say that the UK has no written constitution; it is merely that, unlike other countries, it has not tried to restrict its constitutional provisions to a single document"

What we mean by this is that, unlike other countries, the UK has only one way to make and change law, Act of Parliament. This means that the abolition of the monarchy would rank alongside plant varieties legislation. There is no constraint on Parliament in what it can do or in having to invoke special procedures (eg referenda, two thirds majorities) when wanting to make constitutional changes.

"It remains a crime in the United Kingdom to campaign for a republic."

"Your words are those of a Tyrant. You brand it a criminal offense for anyone to contemplate an alternative constitution. I suggest you put the idea to Neil Heron who prides himself as champion of human rights!"

I'm sure we won't see the UKIP launching that particular campaign at the ECHR!

>>> "...the UK has only one way to make and change law, Act of Parliament. This means that the abolition of the monarchy would rank alongside plant varieties legislation. There is no constraint on Parliament in what it can do or in having to invoke special procedures (eg referenda, two thirds majorities) when wanting to make constitutional changes..."

Or so we believed. The judgement of Lord Justice Laws changes the above.

I was going to make a reference to Judge Laws but thought better of it.

His judgement is only important when considering implied repeal. The fact remains that Acts of Parliament are equal in terms of explicit amendment.

Pip: Fortunately the UK has never been a democracy, in which the majority is has the right to violate the rights of minorities, but a constitutional monarchy under the rule of law. That means that it is unlawful to abbrogate the right of even a single person, irrespective of how much support such acts may have, even to the extent of the support of everyone, including the monarch and the rest of Parliament, apart from the person himself. That is what the rule of law means - and what those living in less happier lands have never understand. The authority even of the sovereign is subject to that rule of law.

"To NO ONE will we sell, to NO ONE will we refuse or delay, right or justice."

Parliament has authority only to do what is lawful. It does not have the right or authority to abbrogate the right of a single person. It may have the power to do so, but that is something completely different. Unconstitutional legislation is thus unlawful even if passed by the whole Parliament unanimously - because it arrogates authority that Parliament never owned.

Only by unanimous agreement of absolutely every single person whose right is to be expunged, or with what each and every person considers full compensation for its loss to him, can such an Act be made lawful. Parliament is sovereign only in the sense that there is no higher authority, not in the sense that it is entitled to pass any decrees it wishes; it is the servant of civil society under the rule of law, not its master.

It is quite false to say that the only way to make and change law in the UK is by Act of Parliament. It has never been true, and isn't true today. A great deal of our law is judge-made law, for example (or, rather, in theory, judge-discovered law, following the principles of natural justice).

Sorry for spelling mistakes. I hit post instead of preview.

Paul,
may I conclude that in your opinion it's absolutely impossible to turn the UK into a republic ?

It would not be the "UK" then would it? :-)

pip:

"Your words are those of a tyrant. You brand it as a criminal offence to contemplate alternative constitutions".

REPLY:

I will calmly pass over your words of defamation.

For the record, I was quoting the law of the United Kingdom on advocating a republic*, and I did not say it was a crime to 'contemplate' a republic.

-------------------------------------------------------
* Kevin McNamara, Labour MP, brought in a Private Members' Bill last December to make it legal to campaign for a republic. It received little support and achieved the unlikely feat of uniting Roman Catholic MP Anne Widdecombe** and Rev. Ian Paisley, who led the opposition to it

** Anne Widdecombe once said: "Every time I pass the statue of Oliver Cromwell outside Parliament, I feel like spitting at it. She said this *after* she converted from the Church of England to the Roman Catholic Church

{(I say "tried" because even the US Constitution is not a single document, not even if you parcel all the Amendments in together; both international treaties and case law also contribute to that constitution).}

That's not entirely true. Treaties are part of the supreme law of the land, but they are not part of the Constitution. In fact tehy are only the supreme law IF they comply with the constitution, otherwise they are null and void.

What a lot of confusion I am suffering after reading these posts.

"Parliament has authority only to do what is lawful. It does not have the right or authority to abbrogate the right of a single person. It may have the power to do so, but that is something completely different. Unconstitutional legislation is thus unlawful even if passed by the whole Parliament unanimously - because it arrogates authority that Parliament never owned."

To me this seems to be a matter of opinion. It seems clear to me that over the centuries Parliament has assumed for itself the rights and authority that go with its power, for example the vires to Acts states "and by the authority of the same". Once again, I must return to the point that the "constitution" is founded upon a collection of documents which are mainly Acts. In this sense, Parliament by its absolute authority determines the constitution, part of which is that authority itself. Otherwise we would be stuck in a situation whereby we can't change our system of Government. Are you arguing that the creation of Parliament in the first place was unlawful?

"It is quite false to say that the only way to make and change law in the UK is by Act of Parliament. It has never been true, and isn't true today. A great deal of our law is judge-made law."

Perhaps I expressed this badly. What I meant was that in the present day, the only way of efficiently changing law is by Act. The abolition of the monarchy would not be founded upon case law.

"That is what the rule of law means - and what those living in less happier lands have never understand. The authority even of the sovereign is subject to that rule of law."

Perhaps we should make clear that if not for the constitutional reform of creating Parliament and making all three elements of it subject to the control of the three together, we would never have pioneered the rule of law. Simon de Montfort, Oliver Cromwell and others were crucial in that process.

"In 973, in the first English Coronation Servive, Edgar made a three-fold promise:

First, that the Church of God and the whole Christian people shall have true peace at all time by our judgment;

Second, that I will forbid extortion and all kinds of wrong-doing to all orders of men;

Third, that I will enjoin equity and mercy in all judgments"

- E.C. Ratcliff, 'The Coronoation Service of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II (1953), p. 24.


Earlier in this same book, Ratcliff wrote: "Inevitably, the Biblical practice of anointing brought with it the Biblical conception of the 'Ideal King', who stood in special relation to God as His Servant, and whose duty it was to defend true religion, to support its ministers, and to maintain justice and righteousness among his people" (p.6)

The original Latin version of Edgar's Oath can be found at L.G. Wickham Legg, 'English Coronation Records' (190l), xxxi.


For 1,029 years since then, that 'contract' between Monarch and people has been maintained - and during that time Britian prospered, developed Parliamentary democracy, led the abolition of the world-wide slave trade, created unmatchable civil rights for the individual like jury trial and 'habeas corpus' that have been exported to many parts of the world, and still has a special collection of nations, the Commonwealth, many of whom retain the Queen as their Head of State.

And with Britain remaining a Monarchy, it has become the most popular destination on the planet for immigrants.

With a Monarchy having presided over a record like that, who would wish to abolish it?

-------------------------------------------------------

It might also be noted that in every town and village in the United Kingdom are war memorials, remembering those who gave their lives in the last two World Wars 'for King and Country'. It's sad to see the efforts of those who gave the ultimate sacrifice, or gave so much in other ways, for 'King and Country' (and for freedom on the continent of Europe) being undermined by those who nowadays seem to despise both 'King' and 'Country'

All very nice, but I don't think any of these things are locked in for all time. I suppose you'll be suggesting that these things prevent the disestablishment of the Church of England? Plus presumably the independence of overseas territories, although it seems you might have lost that one.

I'm a supporter of the monarchy by the way.

By the way, I thought the first English king was Athelstan in 925?

Conrad: Read what I wrote (if your English and logic skills are up to it, which I strongly doubt). Words you will need to grasp include "lawful", as distinct from "possible", "unanimous", as distinct from "majority", and "right", as distinct from "power".

MikeW: A constitution is simply the way an organisation is constituted; anything that is the "supreme law of the land" is part of its constitution, even if it's not part of a particular document labelled "The Constitution". (I quite agree with you, though, that any treaty not consistent with the main body of the constitution, or its formal amendments, is properly void and thus not part of the constitution.)

Ross: No, it is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of right. Parliament has indeed over the centuries arrogated to itself all manner of powers (or more usually one part has seized powers rightfully belonging to another part); but where they violate the prior Rights of Englishmen they are unlawful. Law is no respecter of persons, not even of the most powerful of persons or majorities. Neither might nor popular opinion can ever lawfully remove a prior right against the will of its holder - if it were otherwise there could be no rights at all. They may have the capacity to override the law, but that can never make such actions lawful, however much the apologists for absolute government (which includes democracy as well as absolute monarchy, oriental despotism, dictatorships, communism and fascism) may like to pretend otherwise.

Every Briton has a right to be the subject of His or Her Britannic Majesty. To deprive even a single person of that immemorial right against his will would be unlawful. If that's an inconvenience to would-be radicals - tough! Convenience is no excuse for the abandonment of the rule of law.

The constitution of the UK is primarily founded upon documents that are not "Acts of Parliament", or not in the usual sense. Documents such as Magna Carta. The writs of Common Law. Even the Institutes of Justinian. And in point of fact, in the present day most law IS changed by means other than by Act of Parliament, through secondary legislation created by the Government (NOT Parliament), through regulations promulgated by the EU, and through judicial decisions.

That evil monster Cromwell, far from assisting the development of the rule of law, helped sow the seeds of its downfall by introducing the virulent fiction that it was lawful for Parliament (or the Commons alone) to abbrogate the Rights of Englishmen for its own ends. He it was who first imposed the continental despotism of submission to the general will, a disease that has today become endemic, threatening to obliterate all the gains we have ever made.

Yes, the disestablishment of the Church of England would indeed be a major wrong, violating the rights of many people (see my essay on the subject at http://www.paulbirch.net/EstablishedChurch.html ).

Time does not erase Rights, nor expedience Justice. Nor do past sins excuse present ones.

{A constitution is simply the way an organisation is constituted; anything that is the "supreme law of the land" is part of its constitution, even if it's not part of a particular document labelled "The Constitution".

I'm aware of that. What I was trying to say was that treaties are secondary to the main Constitution. Sorry I wasn't clear on that point.

{I quite agree with you, though, that any treaty not consistent with the main body of the constitution, or its formal amendments, is properly void and thus not part of the constitution.}

Interestingly, despite the common lies told by liberals (Meaning the Democrats), the Constitution itself clearly states that treaties are secondary law.

Too bad the courts don't have the guts to throw out illegal treaties.

I have to admitt that I find the exchange of views on this discussion thread quite fascinating. I'd like to thank Paul Birch and Tony Bennett for their contributions (no disrepect to anyone else). I had no idea that the legal constitution in Britain was so framed.

Realistically though I doubt that, in the event that there was overwhelming support for Britain to become a republic, that such legal niceties would ultimately get in the way. Where there is a will there is a way so to speak. Such laws are after all man-made not God given, and if humankind decides they are no longer appropriate they will be abandoned, and no small minority will have the power to stop it.

In any case if the predictions of Arthur C. Clarke come to pass, namely the complete collapse of the Nation State, then the whole thing becomes academic.

Since I started this debate (although unwittingly), may I finish it off by noting that under the presnet system, no UK government is likely to campaign for a republic. The reason is simple - a republic would require a constitution which would limit the president's power. Under the presnet system, the Prime Minister can "advise" the monarch to do almost anything. Thus, the introduciton of a republic would actually diminish the Prime Minister's powers.

How exactly do these 'Rights' come about? Presumably the rights of all those left over from the Roman period to worship both the ancient gods and the Constantinian model (which later became Roman Catholicism) were over-ridden and annulled by the English with their raping and pillaging ways on arrival in c.400, imposing a new monarchy and pagan church system that had not existed before, which was then replaced by Augustine. Was not the creation of the Church of England by executive act the complete destruction of the 'Rights' of those following what was then the faith of the status quo?

To me, the notion that we can arbitrarily claim one point in history to have a status endearing its legality for time immemorial is a very backward concept. This sort of attitude is stuck in the pre-Darwinian period when everything was ordained as having existed from the beginning of time and having the Right to exist to the end of time without any hope of amendment or evolution. Under this idea, the very formation of Parliament or any of the advances under the Bill of Rights etc are unlawful.

I can imagine Michael Shrimpton leading another small band of supporters to the High Court to attempt this one, but I don't hold out much hope of it succeeding.

I know that secondary legislation has a worryingly ever-increasing role. Once again, I can't see the monarchy being abolished through this route, or by the EU although no doubt The Sun would put about such stories.

Prior to Cromwell, the monarch had absolute power and afterwards we had begun to steer the course to the accountability which we hold today. He may not have had the best of intentions, but he did begin a process that was the first of its kind in the world.

It is irrelevant how those, or any other rights, originally came about. It suffices that they did, and that they are rights that persons in fact possess today. To abbrogate those rights NOW would be unlawful. That other rights may have been violated in the past - perhaps even in the creation of current rights - does not and cannot make present violations either right or lawful.

Changes that do not violate existing rights are not unlawful; and existing rights can lawfully be transferred, voluntarily surrendered, exchanged, bought out, or, upon payment of full compensation, annulled. They may also sometimes cease to exist, perhaps upon the death of their holders, like an annuity. They may also be wrongfully expunged.

Historical injustices can seldom be put right, because both wronged and wrongdoers are dead and gone; attempts to right such old wrongs merely create new injustices, by penalising persons who have themselves committed no offence, in favour of others who have not been victimised.

It is clear that you do not know what the term time immemorial means. I suggest you go away and learn.

Your claim that the monarch had absolute power prior to Cromwell is false, although it is true that on occasion the Stuarts showed less respect for the law than they ought to have done.

Prior to Cromwell, the monarch did not have absolute absolute power, as a result of Magna Carta and the Provisions of Oxford etc. But the changes around the middle of the seventeenth century were crucial in developing the constitution, as were the later ones of 1688 and 1701.

It seems to me that these 'Rights' are based upon the destruction of other rights (as will usually be the case in evolutionary progress), are not recorded in any meaningful way other than by clouded hearsay and do not affect the power of our system of government to operate. That doesn't sound like much of a constitutional basis to me.

It is desirable that we are able to progress in the best way possible with the practicalities of our legal system. It is strange that 'Rights' should claim to bind all generations from now until the end of time with the threat of declaring actions 'unlawful' when they themselves may have been responsible for unlawful acts. If previous 'Rights' have not been tranferred, voluntarily surrendered or annulled then surely they too are still in force where the descendants of those who originally held them are still alive. They may have a 'Right', for example, to be governed by an empire, but this is all outdated nonsense.

The facts are simple. We have a constitutional system which has evolved over centuries. I think the notion of 'Rights' introduced at an arbitrary time and claiming binding authority for all time is all a bit silly. The system has to evolve to account for changing circumstances and the only way that new 'Rights' can exist is by removing old ones. That must be an essential element in an evolutionary system. Rights which claim existence for all time must have existed since the beginning of time to be realistic, and that is part of Creationist thinking. But we don't want to get started on that...

RE: 1. "rights annulled by the English with their raping and pillaging"


I refer first to this recent account of the history of the English language (which relates strongly to the history of the English people, of course). It can be found at:

http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/geoffs/FAQ_BirthOf Eng.html

"When and where did English begin? A brief but accurate answer to this would be 'very roughly 1,500 years ago, give or take a century or so, on the eastern side of the island of Great Britain - in what we now call the east and south-east of England' (but nobody called it 'England' then).

"Perhaps this is too vague for you - would you like a date? As a respectable academic, I ought to say this is as precise as we can be. But if you press me - all right, then: in a symbolic sense, at any rate, perhaps we might say that English began in A.D. 449, at a place called Ebbsfleet on Pegswell Bay, near Ramsgate in Kent. I cannot give you a specific birthday, but it will have been in the summer rather than the winter half of the year.

"...two Saxon brothers, Hengist and Horsa, landed in Kent in 449. The lcoal British King Vortigern foolishly thought he could use them and their men as allies in his tussles with British rivals, and presented them with the Isle of Thanet to live on. But once the cuckoos were admitted to the nest, they grew - more and more Saxons were invited over, despite Vortigern's protests...symbolically, the disembarkation [of Hengist and Horsa] was the point when the speech habits that were destined to turn into English became separated from those that turned into modern Dutch and German".

NOTE: The Saxons, then, came *at the invitation of* the British King Vortigern. The reason he invited them was because of the raping and pillaging of our friends on the other side of Hadrians Wall - the Picts. The Saxons proved worthy defenders of the Brits against the Picts. But soon afterwars, a wave of immigration gegan - first Saxons, and later the Angles and the Jutes, who entered Great Britain at various points on England's eastern and southern coasts.

It must be admitted that there was a great deal of mutual suspicion between the 'Brits' and the Anglo-Saxons. But there is very little evidence of actual 'raping and pillaging'. Most historians agree that the 'Brits' simply retreated to what is now Wales, though there were one or two set piece battles such as the battle of Mount Badon at which 'King' Arthur was the Brits' Commander-in-Chief.

As the 'Brits' retreated, the Anglo-Saxons started to pour into England - an illustration of what can happen once you start inviting people of a very different culture into your own country).

The most serious single clash between the 'Brits' and the Anglo-Saxons, a grossly under-reported event in our history, illustrates the clash of the Christianised Brits versus the pagan Anglo-Saxons.

In 612 A.D., at Bangor-is-y-Coed (Bangor-on-Dee these days), Anglo-Saxon forces (under the command of the Northumbrian King if memory serves), slaughtered 1,200 monks at the theological college there, as they were kneeling at prayer. This event was inspired by Augustine, who had landed in Kent in 597 A.D., on the orders of Pope Gregory. This was not to bring Christianity to these islands (the fable we seem to accept these days), but to impose the Roman Catholic Church system, including their Bishops and dioceses, on the Christians of these islands.

That there was an active Christian church before Augustine can be demonstrated by a great deal of history, generally not known to us these days, not least of the activities of Patrick, a 'Brit' born of Christian parents in West Wales, who went on to evangelise Ireland.

By the time of Alfred the Great (eighth century), England was becoming a settled group of Anglo-Saxon/Jutish tribes and the 'rapers and pillagers' of the times were in fact the Danes and the Vikings.

-------------------------------------------------------

RE: 2. "prior to Cromwell, the monarch had absolute power"


Er, what about Magna Carta, 1215 A.D., which King John was forced to accept?

-------------------------------------------------------

RE: 3. "was not the establishment of the Church of England by executive action the destruction of the 'rights' of those following whatever the faith of the status quo?"


In short, no, but it became true in certain respects as time went on.

It is not true of course of the period since the 'Glorious Revolution' and the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9.

In brief, the history of the Church of England and its tolerance/intolerance of dissent is as follows.

The Church of England was a branch of the Roman Catholic Church until 1536 when Henry VIII, for all the wrong reasons, wrested it from Papal authority.

As far as I know, there was until the fourteenth century no signifiant persecution of those who were non-believers, although outright pagan practices were I think outlawed.

During the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, active persecution of non-believers (and particularly of those who believed something different and who actively opposed the increasingly corrupt Roman Catholic Church) started, and again if memory serves there was a Heresy Act in 1401 which defined 'heresy' and prescribed severe punishments for it.

After that, people began to be burnt at the stake for differing with the teachings of the Church of England. There can of course be no justification for imposing punishment, especially the death penalty, against those who happen to believe something different, so long as they are loyal to their country.

Persecution of those who challenged the teachings of the Church of England diminished in Henry VIII's reign, and ended during the glorious but short-lived reign of the 'Boy King' Edward (1547-53), only to be savagely reintroduced by Roman Catholic Bloody Queen Mary.

Elizabeth I's reign largely ended such persecution, but in 1662 the Act of Uniformity imposed a regime of 'political correctness', where if you didn't agree with the official line of the Church of England, your 'living' as a Parish priest was forfeited. Rather than preach a message inconsistent, as they believed, with the Bible, thousands of Parish priests resigned or were forced out of their 'livings', spending the remainder of their days in abject poverty. It became known as 'The Great Ejection'.


It was during the years following that John Bunyan was imprisoned merely for preaching the gospel and holding 'services' without a state licence.

The 1688/9 settlement brought in an era of religious toleration and freedom, except that there were restrictions on the activities of the Roman Catholic Church and prohibitions on their taking most political and administrative jobs. These measures were certainly justified by the activities of Roman Catholic priests at that time.

It might be noted, finally, that the establishment of Protestant monarchies in different European countries e.g. The Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, was always associated with the establishment and guarantee of religious freedom and tolerance, freedom of conscience and speech.

_______________________________________________________

Why don't you read what I wrote instead of spouting more of your Darwinist nonsense? To violate a legal right is unlawful BY DEFINITION!

I never claimed that changes around the time of Cromwell were not significant in the development of the present constitution. Your statements (concerning Cromwell and the monarchs before his time) were false. Mine are true.

You want a clear statement of some of the Rights of Englishmen? Read Magna Carta. Read the Bill of Rights 1688, especially the preamble to the main text. These were not rights destructive of prior rights but re-enactments of long-standing principles. Despite the perpetual efforts of those who would subordinate personal rights to the power of the state (which is to say, abolish them), the law still restrains the tyrannies of absolute government (though less and less as the EU's oppressive grip tightens more and more).

It is quite false to state that new rights can only come into existence by removing old ones; but even if that were so, a "right" that could simply be abbrogated whenever the politicians found it inconvenient would be no right at all. A right is something to which one holds title against everyone else in the world.

I never claimed that any particular right has to remain valid for all time - I explicitly described how rights may lawfully evolve and even how they can be unlawfully ended. Descendents do not own the rights of their forefathers unless those rights have in fact been passed down to them (as however the Rights of Englishmen have been).

Nevertheless, the moral and legal principles of respect for the rights of individuals do not change; they are not based upon the will of men or fashionable opinion, but on natural law and natural justice, which it is the proper role of the law to discover and enforce.

What exactly are "natural law" and "natural justice"?

This. it seems, is a point worthy of debate.

Yes, that would be quite interesting.
If there is a thing like "natural law", doesn't it need to apply to animals as well ?
Or is there some obvious, inherent superiority of humans WITHOUT having to pull in the bible ?
So, unless you base laws on religion, there can't be "natural laws", which makes it come down to the obvious: Laws and Rights are made by Men for Men.
And that means that any idealistic notion about the immortality of Rights is, well, idealistic, but not realistic.

Ralf

^Typical Statist.

I thought natural law was meant to refer to principles that anyone could commonly expect, such as a right by a fair hearing by an independent person.

Ralf: "...is there any obvious inherent superiority of humans without having to pull in the Bible?"

At the latest count, geneticists accept there are at least 170 clear differences betweeen humans and the 'nearest' other animal species. Two of the most obvious are:

(a) the human being's capacity for speech, thought and abstract concepts, and

(b) the uniquely bipedal gait - no other creature is constructed so as to be able to walk upright on two legs all of the time, unless you count birds.

The word 'constructed' is used advisedly.

I'm happy to supply a list of the other 168 or so differences.

It is often stated that chimpanzees are our 'nearest relative' because 97% - 98% or so of the chimpanzee's genome has been discovered to be the same as that of the human genome.

All this means is that the genes which code for, e.g. eyes, nose, ears, arms, fingers, legs, toes, reproductive organs etc. etc. are very similar to those which code for those same features found in human beings.

One interpretation - which I personally accept - is that the Creator used various blueprints for His creation of all the wonderful, different, highly specialised creatures of land, air and sea - and that He used around 97% of His blueprint for humans in *designing* the chimpanzee.

Incidentally, there is absolutely no proof of evolution and indeed much proof that we haven't evolved. It is a theory wholly unsupported by any facts

Natural law describes how people should behave in order to be secure in their persons and effectively pursue their own goals and satisfactions. It is the empirical basis of civil society - if we do not respect property and the rights of individuals society will not survive or progress.

Natural law is not the same as moral law, but it's close. Natural law says, IF you want these goods for yourself and others, do this. Moral law says that it is right to desire what is good for yourself and others - and therefore that it is right to follow the rules of natural law. Natural law is the engineering basis for a just world, just as physical law is the engineering basis for the sound construction of bridges and buildings.

Natural justice is the rendering to every man his due, that is, the respecting of every man's rights, whatever they currently happen to be, and the correction of, or full compensation for, any breaches of those rights.

The concepts of natural law and natural justice apply principally to moral agents, that is, to self-aware entities capable of making choices, so their applicability to the animal kingdom is at best limited. One cannot expect a dog to understand justice - or only in a small degree - or abide by its demands. Which is why dogs don't build civilisations.

Tony:

"Incidentally, there is absolutely no proof of evolution and indeed much proof that we haven't evolved. It is a theory wholly unsupported by any facts"

You mean that seriously, don't you ?
What about neanderthals and the other gazillions of fossils found around the world ?
Or the obvious traces of evolution in the human body (eg the appendix which servers no function anymore, or the weird way the eye is construced).

Since you say "there is absolutely no proof", you actually just deprived yourself of one of your self-proclaimed superiorities of humans: rational thought.

I can go into any second-class museum and look at physical evidence that evolution exists, what physical evidence is that supports your creationist viewpoint other than "It's so beautiful and complex, it must have been created!" ?

Paul:
What you describe as "natural law" I rather view as an optimization problem:
"You have 100 people in a limited area. What are the rules to live by so that everyone has the same amount of freedom, and each freedom is maximized ?"
You can call it "natural", yes, because it arises from the basic premises (100 people in limited area), however there's nothing special about it or given by someone (the creator).
In either case, both the optimization criteria and the means of that optimization are made by men, which makes the eventual solution not "given by a creator" or "inherent to nature", but just man-made.

Ralf

Natural law is no more man-made than the laws of physics. Particular formulations, descriptions, theories and hypotheses may have been invented by particular human beings; but the underlying law is something no man can alter.

I do not recall saying anything about natural law being "given by a creator" or even "inherent to nature". However, I do believe that the world is in fact the way it is - and that natural and physical laws are the way they are - because God created it that way. Presumably, had He wished, He could have made it differently - in some respects at least - though much of natural law is simple logic that could not have been otherwise.

Natural law has nothing to do with equalising freedoms; if that is your end the rule is very simple: kill everyone. The pretence that people can be made equal (without killing them all) is one of the main ways in which statists ignore natural law. But not even a population of hermaphroditic clones could ever maintain equality - of freedoms or of anything else.

>The pretence that people can be made equal (without
>killing them all) is one of the main ways in which
>statists ignore natural law.

Some animals are more equal than others ?

It is obvious that it is *never* possible to treat everyone equally, if only for the reason that the target (the population) constantly changes.
However, the judgment of how much some freedoms weigh against others is completely up to humans.

You seem to disagree about that, Paul. Please explain, how exactly does "natural law" mainfest itself and what makes it more just than any possible human concoction ?

Ralf

No animals are equal. That is one of the facts of natural law. I do not care to debate the subject with you in any detail since I am convinced that your statist mind is incapable of comprehending natural law, or its subset, economics, and I don't want to waste my time. You evidently want to believe that governments can do anything they put enough of other people's money into. You're wrong. They can no more repeal natural law than they can repeal the law of gravity. Respect for the rule of law and the rights of individuals - as valued by those individuals themselves - is essential for prosperity and adherence to the moral law for general happiness.

I fear this debate has moved on, but I would still like ot respond to a few points.

Firstly I would like to set out my personal belief that Creationism has been so constantly discredited that it now holds very little likelihood of being true.

On the English: fair enough that they were originally invited to attend by the British, but that did not mean that they had the authority to set up their own system of religion and government. They certainly had no unanimous approval to replace the rights of their predecessors by doing so. They were quite keen on 'raping and pillaging', although obviously not as adept at it as the Danes/Vikings and the Scots/Picts. They were certainly on the wrong side of the 'civilisation' line in that respect.

On the Church: was there unanimous approval for the creation of a new state Church replacing Rome? I think not. There is no need for the followers of other faiths to be persecuted, their supposed 'Rights' were breached when their state church was taken away from them without their consent.

On Rights in general: I am not 'spouting Darwinist nonsense'. I am simply questioning whether the 'breaching' Rights is unlawful or not. If some of the Rights of Englishmen are stated in Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights, then you seem to be suggesting that these things are not amendable, which would mean, amongst other things, Parliaments binding their successors.

By the way, has any of this ever been tested in a *recent* court case?

I think that the whole 'Rights' idea is a way in which people can pretend that things which are changing are actually staying the same. If you want a monarchy, fine you can just pretend that you have one whereas the whole legal system has other ideas. Presumably the replacement of a monarchy would then remain an illegal act for all time as long as someone wanted it to be restored. That would mean that the creation of the present monarchy is now an illegal act under the 'Rights of Britons'.

>I am convinced that your statist mind is incapable of
>comprehending ... and I don't want to waste my time

... is the usual quote of someone who has no arguments left.

>Respect for the rule of law and the rights of
>individuals - as valued by those individuals
>themselves - is essential for prosperity and
>adherence to the moral law for general happiness.

This is just meaningless rambling, put into important sounding words.

Ralf

You are a liar. I gave you clear arguments and proofs. You ignored them. Just as you have always ignored such arguments on this forum.

It is a fact of natural law that respect for the rule of law and the rights of individuals, as valued by those individuals themselves, is essential for prosperity and adherence to the moral law for general happiness. This is not "meaningless rambling". Your pretence that it is is proof either of your stupidity and ignorance, or of your deliberate dishonesty (from past experience with you on this forum I incline to the latter view, though I have little doubt that you are both stupid and ignorant as well). There is ample historical proof of the claims of natural law. Try reading Ludwig von Mises "Socialism" and "Human Action" (he was another foreigner so maybe you'll be able to take him seriously). Or Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom". Better yet, read Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson". Or Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose". Or Hilaire Belloc. Or Humboldt, or Arendt, or Rommen, or Leoni, or Zane, or Hoff, or Barnett, or any of a host of other writers from Aristotle to the present day.

But don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing to change your opinion - I wouldn't want you on my "side" - and your belief or disbelief makes absolutely no difference to the truth. I write here only for the sake of others you might otherwise deceive.

I hope you're not going to prove as stupidly pig-headed as Ralf. A legal right is a legal entitlement. Its breach is a breach of the law. It is unlawful. It cannot be otherwise, by simple logic and the simple meaning of words. This remains true of logical necessity, irrespective of whether any court or parliament is honest enough to admit it.

I have stated repeatedly and explicitly that rights can evolve in lawful ways. So stop pretending that I am saying that rights can never change. Parliaments cannot bind their successors, true, but the LAW does. Parliament is NOT an absolute sovereign, above the law, but a constitutional sovereign, SUBJECT to the law. If Parliament acts contrary to law it acts unlawfully.

No one is claiming that Parliaments (or the English, or the Normans, or the King) have always acted lawfully in the past - they very obviously have not - nor that current rights came into existence by wholly legitimate means. But, except where the CURRENT holders of those rights have themselves acted wrongfully or unlawfully it is likewise wrong or unlawful to deprive them of their property without due compensation.

> though I have little doubt that you are both stupid
>and ignorant as well

You're so full of it. Go back to your homepage and write your essays.

Ralf

Hi Paul

I intend to discuss your various arguments in detail later, as time permits.

In the mean time, you may wish to reflect on this:

http://www.skepdic.com/ch5samp.html

I know about 'a legal right' etc, and I hope you're not taking a patronising tone in explaining it. What I am contesting is whether or not these legal rights and entitlements actually exist outside the control of Parliament or whether you have just imagined them. I am questioning their status, not the meaning of words.

I cannot possibly see how this is anything other than a matter of opinion, indeed all legal interpretation involves some element of opinion. It may be your opinion that the law constrains Parliament, but it is mine that Paliament is sovereign and can as a result pass any legislation lawfully. Time for a quote I think, Oxford University no less:

"It is generally accepted that the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty means that there are no legal limits upon the legislative competence of Parliament. This, in turn, is usually understood to entail a positive and a negative aspect of the doctrine: Positively, the doctrine implies that Parliament can legislate on any matter whatsoever and in any way whatsoever irrespective of how morally obnoxious, politically inexpedient, inefficacious, or socially divisive that legislation might appear to some. Negatively, the doctrine implies that there is no other legal authority competent to legislate for Britain in competition with Parliament and no legal authority with power to impose legal limits upon Parliament or to subject its legislation to scrutiny with a view to disqualifying it as unconstitutional or invalid. And this generally accepted view is wholly in accord with Dicey's statement that Parliament has "under the English constitution the right to make or unmake any law whatever and further that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament" [pp 39-40]."

Parliament is simply an evolution of an absolute monarchy. From the original doctrine that "the King's word is law" to, after much procrastination, "Parliament's word is law". Other countries which have written constitutions, and that is a different system to ours, have a legal constraint on their legislative branches which stop them doing certain things, for example ratifying treaties without a referendum as in Ireland. We have no such explicit bars in this country. Yet these Rights are supposed to provide such a bar. It seems to me that they only exist in the minds of individuals, and their breach would likewise not have any real or effective personality.

The reason I continue to mention historical examples is because of the posterity which Rights seem to claim for themselves. Take the original example of the monarchy. If we were to abolish it now then, if there were no unanimity, which we know from this board there is not, then that would be an 'illegal' act. The subsequent establishment of a republic would then also be an illegal act. Presumably, as long as someone wanted the restoration of the monarchy it would remain illegal. It would be rather strange if it was illegal only for a c