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!
Thanks for posting that. You saved me the effort of trying to say the same things, and said it better.
Read naturalman1975’s posts above. He’s got it right.
I have learned so much from you over the years on the ways of England. Just want to say thanks. I owe your country my life.
Actually, technically, she isn’t. The Head of the Church of England is officially, Jesus Christ (Henry VIII did style himself as Head, and so did his two immediate successors, but from the reign of Elizabeth I, this changed). The Queen is the Supreme Governor. But she does not set the policy of the Church. That is in the hands of the Archbishops and Bishops - in particular, the Lords Spiritual who are also part of the British government (they have seats in the House of Lords) - and the Synod.
All being the Supreme Governor really means is that the Archbishops and Bishops can’t assert their religious authority over her (ie, they can’t excommunicate her) in contrast to the way the Pope and occasionally other senior Catholic clergy used to do to Monarchs.
You’ve had conversations with the Queen of England?
Who are you?
The Queen is up in her 90s or so. I would think her trendy staff drafted this trendy proclamation for her. They were pro-active and The Queen just signed on to it. Which she should not have. It seems to me that Royal staff tilt gay anyway and always have everywhere. So they influenced her.
OMG!! Not the Queen now!! Has EVERYONE lost their MORAL GROUD and COMMON SENSE????
The sun sets on the British Empire.
|Country||Date||Year of Independence||Notes|
|Afghanistan||08-19 !19 August||1919|
|Antigua and Barbuda||11-01 !1 November||1981|
|Australia||01-26 !26 January||1788|
|Bahamas||07-10 !10 July||1973|
|Bahrain||12-16 !16 December||1971||15th August, 1971|
|Barbados||11-30 !30 November||1966||Barbados Independence Act 1966|
|Belize||09-21 !21 September||1981||September Celebrations of Belize|
|Botswana||09-30 !30 September||1966|
|Brunei||01-01 !1 January||1984|
|Cyprus||10-01 !1 October||1960||16 August 1960, but Cyprus Independence Day is commonly celebrated on 1 October.|
|Dominica||11-03 !3 November||1978|
|Fiji||10-10 !10 October||1970|
|The Gambia||02-18 !18 February||1965|
|Ghana||03-06 !6 March||1957|
|Grenada||02-07 !7 February||1974|
|Guyana||05-26 !26 May||1966|
|India||08-15 !15 August||1947|
|Ireland||04-24 !24 April (Easter Monday)||1922||Proclamation of the Irish Republic commencing the Easter Rising on 24 April 1916|
|Israel||05-14 !14 May||1948||5th of Iyar on the Hebrew calendar. Declaration of Independence|
|Jamaica||08-06 !6 August||1962|
|Jordan||05-25 !25 May||1946|
|Kenya||12-12 !12 December||1963|
|Kuwait||06-26 !25 February||1961|
|Lesotho||10-04 !4 October||1966|
|Malawi||07-06 !6 July||1964|
|Malaysia||08-31 !31 August||1957||Hari Merdeka|
|Maldives||07-26 !26 July||1965|
|Malta||09-21 !21 September||1964|
|Mauritius||03-12 !12 March||1968|
|Myanmar||01-04 !4 January||1948|
|New Zealand||04-18 !6 February||1840||Celebrated as Waitangi Day. Also see Independence of New Zealand|
|Nigeria||10-01 !1 October||1960|
|Pakistan||08-14 !14 August||1947||Yaum e Azadi. Independence from the United Kingdom on 27 Ramadan ul Mubarik, 14 August 1947|
|Saint Lucia||04-18 !22 February||1979|
|Saint Kitts and Nevis||09-19 !19 September||1983|
|Saint Vincent and the Grenadines||04-18 !27 October||1979|
|Seychelles||06-29 !29 June||1976|
|Sierra Leone||04-27 !27 April||1961|
|Solomon Islands||07-07 !7 July||1978|
|South Africa||12-11 !11 December||1931||1931. Not a public holiday. Union of South Africa formed on 31 May 1910 and Republic of South Africa declared on 31 May 1961|
|Sri Lanka||02-04 !4 February||1948||February 4, 1948, Sri Lanka had their independence. Nearly 150 years of UK ruling the countries they finally had independence. At the time the country's name was British ceylon.|
|Sudan||01-01 !1 January||1956|
|Swaziland||09-06 !6 September||1968|
|Tanzania||12-09 !9 December||1961|
|Trinidad and Tobago||08-31 !31 August||1962|
|Tuvalu||04-18 !1 October||1978|
|Uganda||04-18 !9 October||1962|
|United Arab Emirates||12-02 !2 December||1971||National Day (United Arab Emirates)|
|United States||07-04 !4 July||1776||Fourth of July. Declaration of Independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1776|
|Vanuatu||07-30 !30 July||1980||Independence from United Kingdom and France in 1980|
|Yemen||11-30 !30 November||1967||South Yemen 1967|
|Zambia||10-24 !24 October||1964|
|Zimbabwe||04-18 !18 April||1980|
Nobody particularly special, but I went to school with the Prince of Wales, and later wound up serving alongside the Duke of York in the Navy, and became friends with both of them. The Royals have normal lives as well as their official lives and they have friends who are just normal people. I certainly would not call the Queen a friend, but I have met her through her sons and I have had some conversations with her.
No, her staff didn’t draft it for her. The government of the United Kingdom did, in consultation with the governments of the Commonwealth Realms, and if requested, it is part of her role to sign such a document if requested by her Prime Minister and to make such a speech if Her Majesty’s Government requests it. Unless it is unconstitutional, she does not have a choice.
That’s her role within the Constitutional Monarchy - to give the Royal Assent to the acts of Her Government except in the most exceptional circumstances of Constitutional violations. She is not an absolute Monarch with the power to overrule the wishes of the elected government of the United Kingdom, or any of the Commonwealth Realms. She has the right to be consulted, to encourage, and to warn, in private conversation with her Ministers (most generally with the Prime Minister) but she must act on his advice unless his advice or the actions of the government are outside the scope of constitutional law.
Can you give me a link to the text of this constitution to which you repeatedly refer?
In terms of the issues I have been discussing here, the most important of these documents is the Bill of Rights of 1689, where Parliament required King William III and Queen Mary II to sign a declaration transferring most of the still extant powers of the monarchy to the day to day control of Parliament. You can find the text of that document here.
I read an article where Islamists rape young boys and girls before incarcerating them. They wouldn’t want criminals to remain virgins ya know. Those Islamists? I keep hoping there is truly such a thing as moderate Islam, but I keep seeing all evidence to the contrary. They simply cannot exist in a democracy.
The “other grounds” clause would seem to be particularly broad. It would seem that, theoretically, no one could be turned down for a job, rental, etc. for any reason.
Next up will be the new Pope.
“Next up will be the new Pope.”
Don’t bet on it.
So when is th queen having Charles’ coming out party?
I said the very same thing about a host of issues about ten years ago. Although one thing doesn't necessarily mean another, we are in some very worrisome times.
I’m descended from Robert Fitzwalter, the leader of the Magna Carta Barons, so I’ve studied many of the the things of which you speak.
And my assertion is that the condoning of homosexual conduct is one of the worst violations of the premises of the English Constitution imaginable, because it destroys its moral basis and authority.
thanks! Much appreciated
Well, that argument would not have any relevance in a court of law, so your assertion really has nothing to do with the reality here.
Morality is not a constitutional issue - perhaps that’s unfortunate, but it’s a fact. And the Monarch is certainly not free to impose their own personal morality on the law - which when you look at the behaviours of some of the Monarchs is a very good thing.
All Monarchs since about the time of William and Mary have upheld the constitution - not all have been moral people.
There is no constitution without morality. Just looming dissolution, anarchy, and destruction.
Thank you for your dignified and informative reply.
But why did she shoot herself for so many years? It sounds so unlike her... ;-)
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.