Friday, December 29, 2006

The BBC’s Christmas repeal vote

The BBC’s Today programme asked the public to suggest laws which should be scrapped, and thousands made their suggestion. A panel has now come up with a shortlist of six, and Cranmer is urging all of his communicants to vote, by New Year’s Eve.

Of course, there is no assurance that a lone MP will take up the battle on the nation’s behalf, but the poll is important in its symbolism, and, in this day and age, symbols are frequently more important than the reality they seek to evoke.

Cranmer would support the repeal of a number of these laws, but two are of considerable interest, and both would have potentially seismic implications if repealed:

European Communities Act 1972
Act of Settlement 1701

Cranmer unequivocally supports the repeal of the 1972 Act, and just as unequivocally opposes repeal of the 1701 Act.

It is interesting to observe BBC bias once again at work. Some of these Acts have a line of BBC explanation, in order to inform the public in their vote. The European Communities Act has no helpful explanation like ‘the unaccountable source of 80% of British laws’. It simply stands alone, without comment. The Act of Settlement, however, is ‘the law that prevents a monarch from marrying a Catholic’. A simple, biased statement, which ignores every other clause in this important document. There is no mention of it being crucial ‘to the peace and safety of the Realm’, no understanding of its historical significance, and no appreciation of its role in protecting the UK from unwanted external political interference. It is paraded as a ‘bigoted’ and ‘outdated’ Act, the repeal of which will doubtless appeal to millions of Roman Catholics and Scottish nationalists. Its demise would, however, herald the end of the Church of England.

It costs nothing to vote on-line, so Cranmer exhorts all of his communicants to visit the BBC Radio 4 site, and to consider voting for the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972. This yoke of oppression has been borne for too long.


Anonymous Ulster Man said...

Not a cat in hell's chance of it being repealed, but I've voted, for what it's worth.

Do cats have an afterlife?

29 December 2006 at 11:15  
Anonymous Voyager said...

I voted 4 times for the Repeal f the European Communities Act but note that the Catholic William Hamilton-Dalrymple, the son of Sir Hew Hamilton-Dalrymple Bt., in Scotland in 1965 and was educated at Ampleforth College and Trinity College, Cambridge, where he was first history exhibitioner then senior history scholar is against the Act of Settlement 1701 although that applies to England and the 1703 act applied to Scotland

29 December 2006 at 13:00  
Blogger Thomas Fuller said...

"Not a cat in hell's chance of it being repealed, but I've voted, for what it's worth."

Me too.

I wish the EU would withdraw from Britain.

29 December 2006 at 14:04  
Anonymous Oiznop said...

"I wish the EU would withdraw from Britain."

It will not. It needs the money, gold reserves, foreign currency reserves, foreign investments, oil, fish......

And what does the UK get back?

I have voted for repeal. If Cameron adopted a referendum policy on this act, he'd win the next election hands down.

29 December 2006 at 18:52  
Anonymous Colin said...


29 December 2006 at 19:56  
Blogger Eddie said...

Your wish is my command. Actually, that isn't true, but as your wish coincided with my wish, I took it as a command.

29 December 2006 at 21:43  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Eddie,

Actually, His Grace exhorted his communicants, and requested that they consider voting.

He is not into the authoritarian Romish approach, whereby those who do not obey are isolated, humiliated, or excommunicated.

29 December 2006 at 22:16  
Blogger Sir Henry Morgan said...

Voted exactly as you requested Your Grace. It was the most worthy; though there were one or two others that made it a close run thing.

29 December 2006 at 22:58  
Blogger Death Bredon said...

Bring back the Test Acts!

30 December 2006 at 16:47  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course the Act of Settlement does have a foundation based on the Declaration of Rights and the Bill of Rights and as Betty Boothroyd stated in the House in1993 "the Bill of Rights has never been amended" maybe someone could clarify as to how the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 was passed as that almost entirely rescinded the protection of the Realm contained in the Bill of Rights.

The ideology of the Vatican has never changed it has simply developed under the guise of the EU, but reading the small print in the Bill of Rights clearly states that if the Crown is passed to a Catholic "no allegiance shall be owed" and as Acts of Parliament are given Royal Assent maybe Alestair Crowley's "Do as thou will, shall be the whole of thy Law".

Given the way Blair and his cohorts have destroyed the nation with the acceptance of the Crown and the silence of the Church, maybe it is time for a renewal that reinforces that agreed in 1689.

30 December 2006 at 19:42  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Bring back the Test Acts!

probably a good idea - The Test & Coroporation Acts were directly responsible for the rise of Birmingham as a powerful manufacturing city and throughout the North of England Congregationalists, Baptists, Methodists, were the entepreneurial groups than built the great manufacturing centres because they were excluded from University and the Professions and Government Employment - they had only Trade.

The oath for the Test Act of 1673 was:

"I, N, do declare that I do believe that there is not any transubstantion in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or in the elements of the bread and wine, at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsovever."

"I, N, do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare, that I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is not any Transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever: and that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other Saint, and the Sacrifice of the Mass, as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous…"

The 1778 Catholic Relief Act was similar to those Acts of Indulgence Charles II periodically tried to introduce in the 17th Century..........the 1829 Act and grant to Maynooth Seminary were not an impairment of The Bill of Rights because it was The Test Acts which regulated that aspect.

Then again The Bill of Rights had this statement:

"That the subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law."

When Britain introduced her first Firearms Act in 1920, the Bill of Rights provision was respected: the normal "good reason" for the issue of a licence for a pistol was self defence. This remained the case following the Firearms Act 1937; a change of policy was only indicated when the Home Secretary stated in October 1946 that he would "not regard the plea that a revolver is wanted for protection of an applicant's person or property as necessarily justifying the issue of a firearm certificate". (9) Perhaps because applicants were advised that other "good reasons" were open to them, this shift of policy went unchallenged. But if the right to weapons for defence fell into abeyance, it was not thereby extinguished: in 1913 it had been ruled in Bowles v. Bank of England that "the Bill of Rights still remains unrepealed, and no practice or custom, however prolonged, or however acquiesced in on the part of the subject, can be relied on by the Crown as justifying any infringement of its provisions".

31 December 2006 at 08:26  
Anonymous bob said...

Perhaps a campaign should be initiated to reintroduce or reinforce all of the Penal Laws so that we Catholics might know our rightful place in society...

31 December 2006 at 10:00  
Anonymous Odessa Calling said...

I have voted to repeal the European Communites Act 1972, though it would have been a tough choice if the Abortion Act 1967 (I think that's the right year) was on offer.

31 December 2006 at 15:46  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob said: Perhaps a campaign should be initiated to reintroduce or reinforce all of the Penal Laws so that we Catholics might know our rightful place in society...

Bob, it's not about the individual it is about the institution, the UK has laws clearly intended to prevent usurping of the Crown or Church by a Foreign Religion. When you consider the way Blair and his Marxist Zealots on one side, the EU and the secularists on the other are now rushing headlong to turn the country into a den of immorality, crime and anti-social behaviour, maybe reminding them that this is not Uganda or some Balkan creation of the UN if need be by enforcing the Laws that were once respected around the World would be a start.

We did have the Mother of all Parliaments, now we have a corrupt Commons a tainted Lords and a potential Monarch who wants to please all of the people all of the time by being defender of faiths.

As I am nominally CofE, we don't need to revisit the Cromwellian Era but recognise that the UK was built on Christian values, to that end if the Protestant Religion is under threat then unless this Land is simply a place to live duty says "Defend it".

31 December 2006 at 18:26  
Anonymous bob said...

As I'm not British my opinion on these matters isn't very important in the grand scheme of things, but it seems to me that the real problem isn't an the existence or non-existence of acts of parliament, but rather a crisis of faith. I think you can only say a country is Christian to the extent that Christian faith is practised in that country, and on that score the only part of Britain that is truly Christian is Northern Ireland. Britain may have a Christian heritage, but then so does most of North Africa, and Christianity is very much a minority there now. My point is that a parliament can pass all the laws that it wants to, but it won't actually make people practice the Christian faith, and it's the absence of Christian faith in Britain which seems to be a large factor in so many problems - but again this is just the opinion of an outsider which therefore does not amount to much.

31 December 2006 at 20:18  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

bob...on the contrary, I am sure you will find that the esteemed Cranmers' visitors are most willing to discuss comments when they are well made.

I would agree there is a crisis of faith and that stems from the destruction of society by New Labour and it's devout hatred of anything resembling Western Values.

I don't contend that we should suddenly find God in whatever guise worship takes place, my point was that by force of Law the UK is Protestant by historical conflict and resolution won by Civil War and Religious conflict.

A Parliament (and Parliamentarians)as well as a future Monarch, who cannot accept that have no place to be there and as such should be removed, and threats of foreign religions, corrupt politicians and rampant secularism is bringing Parliament full-circle to now be the same threat that an Absolute Monarchy was, and we all know the result.

31 December 2006 at 22:00  
Anonymous bob said...

I agree with you that God cannot be found within the dictatorship of relativism, as Pope Benedict might say. And you're of course right that legally and historically Britain is a Protestant nation with a Protestant monarchy. And of course if you have a parliament and a future monarch who are to a greater or lesser degree at odds with the legal and historical position of the nation then there is a real problem. My point, however, is that while it is perhaps right and proper that the law should do more to uphold the legal and historical place of Protestantism in Britain, Protestantism itself (as well as Catholicism, Orthodoxy and all other classifications of Christians, lest I be accused of singling out Protestanitsm) needs to replant itself within the heart of the nation. The Reformation was a turning point in history because it captured people's hearts and brought a vigour to their faith. As a Catholic I'm grateful to the Reformation for producing the Catholic Reformation (aka the Counter Reformation) which reinvigorated Catholicism. I think the attitude of parliament and the future monarch is a symptom of a deeper problem which needs to be addressed as urgently as the legal problems do.

31 December 2006 at 22:57  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Perhaps a campaign should be initiated to reintroduce or reinforce all of the Penal Laws so that we Catholics might know our rightful place in society...

That's a jolly generous offer Bob............thatnls for not being selfish about it !

1 January 2007 at 08:02  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Bob, I suspect the Crisis in Faith as such came in the late-Victorian ERa and accelerated after The Great War when the sheer devastatation to communities with the loss of Pals Regiments hit home and widows of MIAs had to wait 7 years for courts to declare them dead and in the interim be denied Poor Relief.

Northern Ireland has a large number of refugees from the Irish Republic who lived under the Catholic Church as an arm of Government and felt rather as Jews living in an Islamic Republic. The British State was essentially nominally Protestant and relaxed about it; now it is less relaxed since it sees a threat to the integrity of both Nation and Protestantism in terms of free-thought, free-speech, and individual beliefs in God. It sees foreign invaders, attack on Freedom of Conscience by Militant Secularists intent on imposing Socialism and obedience to Secular Ideology; and a general degeneracy of the dilapidated Protestant Nation.

Christians have always been a minority; widespread compliance was achieved through fines and social conformity. MInorities however make History and the current minority ruling elite has no mass-mandate - Blair was elected Leader of his Party with 15% Labour Members voting for him; and his regime was elected in 2005 by 21.6% eligible voters. The fear the populace has is that a) a Minority regime coupled with b) a Minority Religion - islam - could effect substantive changes to the Nation irreversible by Christians under democracy.

The 16th and 17th Century saw people more concerned with liberty - the Twentieth Century is the era when liberty was traded for security and material gain; and governments grew fat on their power

1 January 2007 at 08:12  
Anonymous bob said...

That's a jolly generous offer Bob............thanks for not being selfish about it! Think nothing of it!

Being from Ireland I always have to admit a certian confusion about the exodus of Protestant refugees from Ireland to Northern Ireland. That there was an exodus is beyond doubt, and that acts of violence and intimidation occured against Protestants is undeniable, and needless to say, shameful. The confusion for me has always been the extent of the exodus. Depending on your source the number can be as low as 600 or as high as 200,000. Which of these is accurate I'm afraid I find it difficult to say, as evidence seems to be hard to come by to definitively say one way or the other. However, even if there was only one Protestant refugee it's a cause for shame.

I would be tempted to say, however, that even without an exodus of Protestant refugees, Northern Ireland would still have a better percentage of church going Protestants than any other part of the United Kingdom.

There is no doubt that materialism has taken the place of faith and shopping centres have become the new cathedrals. I'm just wondering, I suppose, how the Christian faith can reverse that tide, or even if it can, or are Christians on course to becoming a permanent minority, and if so what implications, if any, does that have legally?

1 January 2007 at 10:21  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob, well I had intended to reply but it seems I was beaten too it. It does look like the new religion of Technology, materialism and consumerism have replaced faith throughout the West, with Islam clearing up those who can neither afford to preach it or gullible enough to succumb to it.

The assault on Western values by the secularists, marxists, Islamists and aided by Blairs corrupt regime (in the UK) has left the nation with no values, little social or personal responsibility not to mention a large majority of youths no better than vermin (urban and former council estate dweller in the North so I know these places).

Added to this the NewLabour ideology of creating a welfare state to keep the hoards voting for them to keep their Gravy Train on track.

The change in faith will not come about by a sudden spiritual awakening it would seem that the only solution now is a cataclysmic and seismic shift that may well start from the day Gorden Brown's House of Card's collapses when people wonder what these false religions really offered.

1 January 2007 at 20:01  
Anonymous Voyager said...

aided by Blairs corrupt regime (in the UK)

I do think you are denying Margaret Thatcher her due. The centralisation of power and the manic materialism of the 1980s when North Sea Oil was not used in a'generational fund' as in Norway or Kuwait - for rebuilding infrastructure - but blown in tax cuts and funding mass-unemployment as British companies collapsed from on overvalued pound and the country lived on luxury imports and planning rules were rejogged to allow giant retail parks and supermarkets.

Blair has actually been a conservative custodian of the ball Thatcher started rolling, papering over cracks but doing little to preserve the Nation from the Market. The whole nature of Capitalism untempered by Religion (which Victorian England was) is to commoditise everything and eradicate differentiation.

In fact, since 70% radios globally come from the same factories in China, there is little to choose beyond a plastic brandname and casing; same is true of laptop computers which have just 4 or 5 manufacturers supplying 20 or more "badgers" and "assemblers". Benetton churns out undyed sweaters in some sweat-shop and dyes them to the latest fashion colour. Sony and Panasonic do not even manufacture many of their products but source them from firms like Flextronics and badge them.

Christianity was the admonition to Capitalists to remember a) they would die and be judged b) that they were no different in the eyes of God from their workers, but had been blessed for 'good works' c) had to put something back into the community - in the form of churches, cricket-grounds, rugby clubs, worker-housing, model villages

Now it is The State that extracts the tithe for "good works" and the Capitalist has no obligation to anyone but his shareholders - the workers are on lease from The State to whom they belong

2 January 2007 at 07:34  
Anonymous lambeg said...

Very interesting post Cranmer. I have actually added a similar entry on my blog and further contacted BBC Radio 4 for statistics that would substantiate their reason for inclusion of the 1701 Act of Settlement in their vote. I suspect it is bias and this was 'slipped in', but perhaps they can justify inclusion.

4 January 2007 at 21:40  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older