Thursday, February 14, 2008

Labour ditches the Bill of Rights 1689

Cranmer received an email a few days ago from the office of John Redwood MP informing him that he had been elevated to the blogroll of John Redwood’s Diary. In commemoration of this, His Grace is delighted to reproduce a most prescient recent article by the redoubtable Mr Redwood on the theme of the Bill of Rights 1689. It encapsulates perfectly the extent to which this morally-deficient government is prepared to ride roughshod over the foundations of the Constitution, and the depths to which they are prepared to sink in order to achieve their perverted ends.

It is refreshing that an MP - any MP - is not only accurately knowledgeable about the religio-political history, but perceives the acute parallels 300 years on, and is prepared to risk ridicule and scorn by drawing attention to these matters:

It is typical of this government that Parliament should not be meeting on this day of all days. On 13th February 1689 “the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster” presented a declaration to the new sovereigns, King William and Queen Mary.

This declaration, known as the Bill of Rights, established Parliamentary supremacy over the Crown in important areas, and guaranteed Parliament’s freedoms .It did so that the people could practise the religion of their choice, avoid arbitrary manipulation of their laws and require redress of ills before they had to pay taxes.

The Declaration included amongst other articles:

“That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of the laws by regal authority…is illegal

That the levying of money for or to the use of the Crown ….without grant of Parliament…is illegal

That the raising or keeping of a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with the consent of Parliament, is illegal

That election of Members of Parliament ought to be free

That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament

And that for the redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently”

This new settlement was designed to put an end to the rule of James II and of any other King who thought he could govern without Parliament, raise money without Parliamentary approval, suspend the laws and manipulate the army.

It proved effective. All subsequent monarchs had to acknowledge Parliament’s power, and seek accommodations with Parliament when they needed money, wanted to amend the law or wished to drive through important changes in the nation.

It is sad that today’s Parliament allows itself to be regularly suspended, to be timetabled into subservience on crucial matters, sidelined by Ministers who tell the media before the Commons, and overruled by Brussels. If Mr Straw wants a new constitutional document, he could do worse than enforce the provisions and spirit of the Declaration of Rights, one of the central documents to emerge from our predecessors’ struggles for liberty and free speech.


There are, of course, some other crucial provisions relating to the Monarchy and the Church of England, which were reiterating in the Act of Settlement, and these are inseparable from the development of the liberty and free speech to which Mr Redwood refers.

Cranmer commends Mr Redwood to his communicants, who will doubtless find many of his posts to their liking. But he wishes that Mr Redwood might recognise the similar failings and constitutional ignorance among the leadership of his own party.

14 Comments:

Blogger Bert Rustle said...

John Redwood appears to be a democrat, unlike most MPs. Yet the Drive-By Media appear more concerned with his singing ability.

However he also appears to be an Egalitarian, which is incompatible with democracy and is actually destroying democracy.

I have yet to hear any elected national politician, or indeed any broadcaster who is willing to voice logical deductions from the statistical analysis of empirical data and their incompatibility with Egalitarianism.

14 February 2008 at 08:04  
Blogger AethelBald, King of Wessex said...

Bert,

Sounds interesting but that might be because I didn't understand it. Are you perhaps equating Egalitarianism and Collectivism?

Your Grace,

Cameron is, as the Americans say, a mile wide and an inch deep. One recalls his recent position paper on Afghanistan, at ConservativeHome, where he did not even mention narcotics. A bit of a pillock really, and Oxford should give thought to his impact on their brand, but back to the Bill of Rights.

You rightly point out that there can be no equivalent to the US Bill of Rights and you give the reason. Unfortunately we have already seen the (on this occasion Conservative) government curtail the freedom of speech in this country. So, sadly, our so-called rights are no such thing and legally there is nothing we can do about it. Correct me if I am wrong.

Fortunately, someone once said "If Liberty is not in mens' hearts then no piece of paper will save it". That is what has to be remembered, and passed on.

14 February 2008 at 08:45  
Blogger Bert Rustle said...

Aethelbald, king of wessex wrote … Are you perhaps equating Egalitarianism and Collectivism? … Egalitarianism in the sense of all distinguishable human groups are equivalent and fungible. For example a lack of female Nobel Laureates is due to sexism, a lack of black Nobel Laureates is due to racism. However the vast over representation of men in prison is not sexism, the vastly disparate rates of black on white sexual violence ( here and here ) is not racism. That the higher levels of testosterone in males than females might explain male aggression and violence but the same disparity between Black and Chinese males does not.

14 February 2008 at 09:46  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

It encapsulates perfectly the extent to which this morally-deficient government is prepared to ride roughshod over the foundations of the Constitution, and the depths to which they are prepared to sink in order to achieve their perverted ends.

His Grace sums up NuLabour very fairly, if a somewhat charitably too. I assume, at least, that Christian charity prompted the understated "morally-deficient".

14 February 2008 at 11:02  
Blogger AethelBald, King of Wessex said...

Bert,

You appear to be using Egalitarianism as if it had a well-defined meaning. But it does not. I think your real beef is with Tall Poppy Syndrome. You feel that you are a member of an elite and that you are being discriminated against.

Further, I would caution against treating individuals who belong to a class as if they all had an aggregate property of the class in equal measure. Some Chinese men are quite ballsy. For example, Mao Tse Tung was noted for his appetite for teenage girls and killed more than a few people. Compare Desmond Tutu where even his name spells wuss. [Just kidding here, folks, ++DT is someone I truly admire and most certainly has nads of steel.]

14 February 2008 at 11:57  
Blogger Bert Rustle said...

With the indulgence of His Grace I will reply to Aethelbald, king of Wessex.

Aethelbald, king of wessex wrote … Egalitarianism as if it had a well-defined meaning. But it does not… I explicitly gave examples to demonstrate my use of the word. I am of the opinion that my examples are consistent and effective as a definition.

Aethelbald, king of wessex wrote … I think your real beef … I would ask you to address my argument, not your perception of my motivation. What possible relevance is your perception of my motivation to the quality of the argument I present? Reportedly Isaac Newton was a mystic, does that invalidate the arguments he presented?

Aethelbald, king of wessex wrote … Further, I would caution against treating individuals who belong to a class as if they all had an aggregate property of the class in equal measure. … I did no such thing and your examples are not effective counter-examples to the examples I gave.

The correct comparision is between the relative range of values of a particular trait. Far less satisfactory is comparing averages, through to the nonsensical comparison of comparing individuals, as you have done. For example, a statistical analysis of empirical data demonstrates that Male IQ is more variable than female IQ. Consequently, nearly all really stupid people are male and nearly all really clever people are male, even though the difference between average male and average female IQ is less than five points.

14 February 2008 at 13:07  
Blogger Dave said...

Your grace,
I saw this on the BBC and while it's off topic it's a timely reminder of the worst aspects of Islamic Law
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7244579.stm

Surely this is proof, if proof were needed, that Islamic law is medieval?

14 February 2008 at 16:01  
Anonymous moreplease! said...

Government like 'demonic beast'

The Bishop of Carlisle has compared Gordon Brown's government with a "demonic beast" from the Bible. The Rt Rev Graham Dow accused the government of behaving like a seven-headed beast in "imposing its morality" on the nation... Bishop Dow's remarks were made at a meeting to launch a new book challenging liberal views on homosexuality.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/7244502.stm

14 February 2008 at 16:43  
Blogger Homophobic Horse said...

Aethalbald, people who object to egalitarianism are always denounced as insane, they have to be lest egalitarianism be shown to be so fatuous it has to be abandoned. This sort of spurious psychiatric diagnosis all ends in the Gulag.

14 February 2008 at 16:58  
Anonymous hear o israel said...

your grace
i am pleased mr redwood has enjoyed some of your insightful articles posts and bloggers , equally mr redwood often produces very good explanations of the functioning and reason of politicians thinking as well as important doses of history.

his article on the bill of rights ,he almost seems surprised that we are all not rioting in the streets. these are fought for and hard won rights.
the contempt that nu labour have consistantly shown over the last ten years and more so with brown and millibands , is ignoring and dismissing the very electorate who they are supposed to serve.

i am both angry and amazed myself that not only is the social fabric of the UK broken , but also our ability to govern in response to the peoples whishes based on ou countries traditions/religion and history . i would say parliment has become broken , by forces that are not democratic in there end determinations.

the more i see what nu labour have done ecnomically , the more i realise the true cost , of an ideaology rather than principled goverment.

i think we have been badly cheated somewhere , we see some of the symptoms but the diagnosis and culprits seen to elude even the most honest of questions.

14 February 2008 at 18:48  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Bill of Rights also states:

that it may be enacted, that all and every person and persons that is, are or shall be reconciled to, or shall hold communion with, the see or church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be excluded, and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the crown and government of this realm, and Ireland, and the dominions belonging thereunto, or any part of the same, or to have, use, or exercise any regal power, authority, or jurisdiction within the same. In all and every such case or cases the people of these realms shall be, and are hereby absolved of their allegiance.

Parliament is ordering that "when Britain is not governed by a Protestant Monarch you shall be and are absolved of any allegiance", which to me means everyone including Crown Servants must "ignore any and all Acts of Parliament", Parliament being supreme I intend to, particularly ones passed since 1997.

P.S. Anyone know a rhyme for a month other than November ?

14 February 2008 at 22:21  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cramer

I could not agree with you more.

I have commented on Redwoods blog and indicated much the same as your fine self, you may have noticed.

In the nicest possible way you understand. Its best not to piss these people off too much. You never now which type of uniform they really have stashed in the locker.

There is a link placed by a chap named Steven Baker from a friend and cell mate of mine Sean Gabb, posted on Redwoods site.

Please Please PLEASE read it in full. It is the finest work of intellectual libertarian plain speaking I have possibly ever read. And its very scary 100% true stuff indeed.

Atlas shrugged

If his counter revolution does take place, which it may well have to if we are going to hang are heads with pride ever again. Pray for us, the common people. We will need all the help we can get.

Unfortunately we only have the Conservative party as a democratic alternative, which is not really much of an alternative at all.

But let us all PRAY and hope its better then blood on the streets.

Because far more unfortunately then the complete and utter demise of mine and Redwoods party.

Blood on the streets is the only type of language our ruling class understand, or have the slightest inclination to act on, in our favor.

Now or at anytime in the past.

15 February 2008 at 03:11  
Blogger AethelBald, King of Wessex said...

A point I failed to make above is that we are constitutionally unable to protect ourselves against the tyranny of Parliament. There is no defense, no checks or balances. Parliament is supreme and whoever owns Parliament (the Political Class = Cameron,Harman,Blair,etc) can do whatever they think they can get away with under cover of "doing right". And the last thing they will do is check their own power.

The EU looks more attractive in this light :b

15 February 2008 at 08:46  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

King of Wessex said:

A point I failed to make above is that we are constitutionally unable to protect ourselves against the tyranny of Parliament. There is no defense, no checks or balances. Parliament is supreme and whoever owns Parliament (the Political Class = Cameron,Harman,Blair,etc) can do whatever they think they can get away with under cover of "doing right".

My posting above referred to the BoR and how it says "you are to give no allegiance and are absolved from any" meaning that acts given Royal Assent are to be ignored.

Anon 02.11 said

Blood on the streets is the only type of language our ruling class understand, or have the slightest inclination to act on, in our favor.

Not all are waiting to hold placards or sit at home complaining, as you say its the only thing they understand, in a history peppered with violence you think they would have learned from it.

15 February 2008 at 11:08  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older