Earlier quoted context omitted.
As if it WEREN'T an opinion. But I agree with your sentiment.
Uh-oh, some anti-literacy infants have modded me down. Up with ignorance, right?
Make sure you come back to mod this down too, crybaby.
Anti-royal protesters are being arrested in the U.K. as 'Not My King' tag grows
671–680 of 693 posts
Re: Anti-royal protesters are being arrested in the U.K. as 'Not My King' tag grows
#672Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not confused :) The argument is circular: "Why do these things? Because we've always done them!" That's just daft, it doesn't leave any opportunity for change. You suggest: > The UK constitution is based on precedence. It's clear from the discussion here that even the existence of a constitution in the UK is debatable, let alone it's contents . It's been pointed out here that precise meaning in written constituti…
> "Why do these things? Because we've always done them!" Literally how is that any different to ‘Why do these things? Because it says so on this piece of paper!’ And as has been said a few times - precedence and literally ‘written down’ are not mutually exclusive - you’re after a red herring by obsessing on the ‘unwritten’ part. Most legal systems use precedence - the US uses judicial precedence to interpret the cons…
If as you say there's no difference, then why not write it down? If there is a difference, why is that? (I'm asking these questions to point out that your statement raises them - I'll have a go at answering them below.)
More correctly, I believe 'unwritten' is not accurate, since as you point out precedent can be set e.g. in the courts or parliament, and these precendents are written in judgements and Acts. So a more accurate term would be uncodified rather than unwritten, meaning there is no single constitution but an ever-changing collection of precedents. (This isn't to accuse you of inaccuracy - everyone in this thread has used the same inaccurate terms, including me.)
There are pros and cons to a codified constitution. We see some cons in the USA, where the Constitution has become sacred, and changes to it are extremely difficult to achieve. That's a shame, and an artefact of its importance within the partisan politics of the USA. Most other nations have a codified constitution and don't seem to have this issue - at least, not to such a paralysing degree.
Another con is so-called wiki-constitutionalism [0] i.e. the attrition of the utility of the constitution by continually amending it to strengthen and expand the role of government.
One pro of a codified constitution would be to clarify the customs surrounding existing precendents, especially the consequences attendent with flouting them. See proroguement [1]
> > "Why do these things? Because we've always done them!"
> Literally how is that any different to ‘Why do these things? Because it says so on this piece of paper!’
My larger point was about admitting the possibility of change. If an authority figure says "we do X because we've always done it" then we need a way to challenge that. Personally, I'd prefer that to be written and codified, and open to change. You're quite right to point out that legal precedent provides a way to do this in law, and democracy ostensibly enables that. The thread was about protestors being arrested at ceremonial events; my concern was about silencing the questioning of the status quo and authority, and the deferential manner in which public representatives and protectors have fallen in line. Protest is central to change. Arresting protestors at the recent events is a bad look - it smacks of protecting incumbent power. Quelling protest is something that has historically been done on the say-so of authority figures. I'd prefer that to be consigned to the past.
My smaller (?) point was about monarchic ceremony. Personally I find it extremely distasteful for people [2] in archaic uniform to march into cities across the Commonwealth at the behest of tradition. It's not mere "cosplay" (as someone else here described it), it's emblematic of incumbent power, and a harking back to more authoritarian times.
As for my 'obsessing', I didn't introduce the 'written down' bit, and it feels to me that you're the one obsessing over the status quo. Perhaps we're looking past each other. I see no reason to continue with a non-codified constitution. Apparently you do. We've tried to explain to each other, but clearly we're not getting through. Oh well, we tried!
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki-constitutionalism
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_British_prorogation_contr...
[2] Including representatives of state, church, and military throughout the Commonwealth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_of_accession_of_C...
(Edited for formatting and clarity.)
Re: Anti-royal protesters are being arrested in the U.K. as 'Not My King' tag grows
#673Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Nothing much really changed per se after Democracy. " Yes, something very important changes, which is a rejection of the fundamental premise that some people are inherently superior and deserve to rule because of it. I wonder if the fact that the UK is still so strongly class segregated is a cause or effect of still having a monarchy? "what are you fighting for" Not tolerating a bunch of elitist, parasitic pricks wh…
>>rejection of the fundamental premise that some people are inherently superior and deserve to rule because of it. >>Not tolerating a bunch of elitist, parasitic pricks who think they have the right to rule because they are better than everyone else. Democracy just offers you a choice to pick among a range of elitist pricks . Note in monarchy too, the prime minister is more or less a person of merit. The monarchy jus…
"Democracy just offers you a choice to pick among a range of elitist pricks."
At least none claim be be of "Royal Blood" and their children don't automatically become ruler. A monarchy legitimized class based thinking in a very fundamental way, which I think is very bad for society.
"The monarchy just maintains a veto"
Please, monarchies are just nepotism on steroids. They had to make up the concept of "Royal blood" or "THe divine right of kings" to justify why one person should have so much power and be so unaccountable.
There justification for being in power is "I'm inherently better than you, and all my descendants will always be better than yours forever"
Re: Anti-royal protesters are being arrested in the U.K. as 'Not My King' tag grows
#674As a Brit, the monarchy should be abolished.
It is just embarrassing at this point.
Re: Anti-royal protesters are being arrested in the U.K. as 'Not My King' tag grows
#675As a Brit, the monarchy should be abolished.
As another Brit you are in the minority with that. Personally I don't mind them really.
How can anyone tolerate being a "subject" instead of a citizen? How can you obsequiously sing "God save the Queen\King" as your national anthem? It is just shameful.
Re: Anti-royal protesters are being arrested in the U.K. as 'Not My King' tag grows
#676Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disrupting a funeral is one thing. Disrupting a funeral the public is forced to pay millions of pounds for, while other members of said public can't afford food and electricity, is a completely different matter.
I don't think that it is. The rich and powerful are still real people with real grief. I'm not opposed to people protesting parliment or whatever, but let the mourners mourn in peace.
"The rich and powerful are still real people with real grief."
Then they should grieve in private and at their own expense.
Re: Anti-royal protesters are being arrested in the U.K. as 'Not My King' tag grows
#677Re: Anti-royal protesters are being arrested in the U.K. as 'Not My King' tag grows
#678Earlier quoted context omitted.
Worth checking this out: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part... Notably: > The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the preve…
Wow, that's an awful lot of stipulations. It almost makes the preceding "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression" seem laughable.
Yeah, it's a common misunderstanding by Americans (and even British people due to American media influence) that the UK has freedom of speech. Instead it is this _really_ washed out vague protection. NPR clearly have zero idea of this either.
Add on top of this the new hate crime laws that disallow 'hate speech' (which includes critique) of 'protected classes', and you don't really have the right to complain. The police also record "non-crime hate incidents" on your permanent record (zero due process, zero ability to remove it), and the police will quite literally come to visit you and "correct your thinking" (yes, they actually say this).
Personally, I really want to see freedom of speech implemented. This of course directly conflicts with the traditions we know and love, so it's unclear where we go from here. It seems as though freedom of speech is coming whether it matches our culture or not, and many British people already behave as though they already have it.
Re: Anti-royal protesters are being arrested in the U.K. as 'Not My King' tag grows
#679Earlier quoted context omitted.
Americans too. https://www.npr.org/2022/09/06/1121322520/a-black-protester-...
Americans are constantly learning that unfortunately you have to fight for your rights. The First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth have been eroded to various degrees in direct violation to the Constitution, but that doesn't mean that they aren't still rights.
No. It just means that the prevalent drivel in this discussion about how much better it is in the US vs UK concerning ‘what are you allowed to say so the government isn’t mad’ is moot. I’d wager that those arrested in the UK won’t even see a judge but will be released right after, unlike in the ‘free’ US where what you say to a cop will be fully persecuted and lead to actual jail time of several years, for saying words to a government representative.
Re: Anti-royal protesters are being arrested in the U.K. as 'Not My King' tag grows
#680Earlier quoted context omitted.
As another Brit you are in the minority with that. Personally I don't mind them really.
How can anyone tolerate being a "subject" instead of a citizen? How can you obsequiously sing "God save the Queen\King" as your national anthem? It is just shameful.
I've never been called a british subject to my knowledge. Googling has "Until 1949, nearly everyone with a close connection to the United Kingdom was called a ‘British subject’".."Since 1983, very few people have qualified as British subjects."
The god save the queen stuff is kind of traditional and doesn't mean much. "God save the queen / The fascist regime..." (Sex Pistols) is also kind of traditional and quite popular. No one forces you to sing either but the Pistols did much better in the charts.
A lot of non UK folk seem to have some strange ideas about how it works here. The royals haven't had much power for centuries.
At least we get a figurehead who is generally popular vs say electing a Trump/Clinton and having half the population hate them until they get ejected for someone the other half hates.