Skip to comments.Queen To Sign New Charter Backing Gay Rights
Posted on 03/09/2013 9:15:19 PM PST by Steelfish
Queen To Sign New Charter Backing Gay Rights The Queen will sign a new Commonwealth charter opposing discrimination suffered by women, gay people and ethnic minorities.
By Robert Watts 09 Mar 2013 In a special ceremony to mark Commonwealth Day on Sunday, she will also give a speech endorsing the new agreement which states signatories oppose all forms of discrimination, whether rooted in gender, race, colour, creed, political belief or other grounds.
The words other grounds are said to refer to sexuality however any specific references to gay people are not included to avoid antagonising Commonwealth countries that retain laws against homosexuals, according to the Mail on Sunday.
The charter is the first time the Commonwealth has had a single document setting out the "core values of the organisation and the aspiration of its members".
The document includes affirmations on democracy, human rights, international peace and security as well as freedom of expression. It also contains a commitment to "gender equality" and womens empowerment.
The charter was agreed by all Commonwealth heads of government in December.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
The Queen to recognize queens, how appropriate.
So much for being the protector of the faith. She needs to go the route of Charles I. England needs Cromwell now more than ever.
How about opposing discrimination against gun owners?/sarcasm;)
Eh Charlie, yur Mum’s gone daft.
Don’t call on Charlie, he is the product of generations of inbreeding and was born daft.
Yep. And France needs Charles Martel now more than ever. But neither will happen. Bye-bye England, bye-bye France.
Have the Islamists who are about to take charge there been consulted on this?
Nice. A Charles “The Hammer” Martel (1300 years ago) reference in a FR post. And spot on right, too.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: If they’re going to have a monarchy, they should do it right and follow the Jacobite line. Too bad Bonnie Prince Charlie lost.
This isn’t just England we’re talking about here...it’s the ENTIRE Commonwealth...54 countries including Canada, Australia and India.
Didn’t even think about that ... I guess queers world wide win with this one.
What the need is some conservatives.
“all forms of discrimination”?
Perhaps the Queen of England needs to go back to school and learn English...and logic...and what it means to be indiscriminate. ...The position of Queen being the pinnacle of discrimination. Eh, maybe Parliament will recognize a random Bengali spoon as Sovereign.
People need to understand that as a Constitutional Monarch, the Queen has no choice but to sign this charter if presented to her by her government. She can only intervene in a case where the government is acting unconstitutionally - not just because it is doing something she may not agree with.
If the Church of England was opposed to the charter, she might have some method of protesting under her position as Defender of the Faith, but the Church of England and its Archbishops and Bishops approve the charter.
Before you know it she’ll be hanging out with Michael Jackson.
Cromwell is a large part of the the reason she can’t intervene - the last time a Monarch acted in the way you describe was in 1688, and Parliament - using the powers they took to themselves in the Civil War lead by Cromwell - removed the Monarch and replaced him with two new Monarchs who would do what Parliament said.
The Queen is a Constitutional Monarch and she does, and always will, act within the Constitutional law of her realms, as she swore her oath to do. Even if she disagrees with a position that Her Majesty’s Government takes, unless a government acts unconstitutionally, the only action she can take is express her views to the Prime Minister in private - the Queen has the right to be consulted, to encourage, and to warn.
I honestly have no idea what her position on this is - I have met her and had conversations with her, but this particular issue has never come up. I do know she is a truly devout Christian - far more so than most of the Church of England itself is, nowadays - and that may inform her private views on this. But those views will remain private and have little to do with her duties as Queen.
But on that issue, as on others, unless the government acts outside the constitution, she cannot act. And while a lot of the British constitution is unwritten, the fact that gun laws are in the hands of Parliament rather than the Monarch is actually one of the relatively few bits that is written down:
And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare ...
That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
Britain has a constitution. The Queen follows it to the letter, always has, and always will. When that constitution gives a power to Parliament, that's the end of the matter.
Personally, I think constitutions should be respected in that way to that extent.
What a disgrace. Time for other countries to leave the commonwealth and retain laws against this kind of disgusting perversion. Russia sets the standard!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.