Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Queen To Sign New Charter Backing Gay Rights
Telegraph (U.K.) ^ | March 09, 2013 | Robert Watts

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 “women’s empowerment”.

The charter was agreed by all Commonwealth heads of government in December.

(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: britfags; buggery; homosexualagenda; queerqueen; sodomyinuk

1 posted on 03/09/2013 9:15:19 PM PST by Steelfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

The Queen to recognize queens, how appropriate.


2 posted on 03/09/2013 9:17:37 PM PST by doc1019 (The rabbit hole that Obama is leading us down just gets deeper and deeper.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

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.


3 posted on 03/09/2013 9:18:04 PM PST by Monterrosa-24 (...even more American than a French bikini and a Russian AK-47.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

How about opposing discrimination against gun owners?/sarcasm;)


4 posted on 03/09/2013 9:18:27 PM PST by Frank_2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Eh Charlie, yur Mum’s gone daft.


5 posted on 03/09/2013 9:20:52 PM PST by Ouchthatonehurt ("When you're going through hell, keep going." - Sir Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish


6 posted on 03/09/2013 9:24:05 PM PST by Chode (Stand UP and Be Counted, or line up and be numbered - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ouchthatonehurt

Don’t call on Charlie, he is the product of generations of inbreeding and was born daft.


7 posted on 03/09/2013 9:25:48 PM PST by doc1019 (The rabbit hole that Obama is leading us down just gets deeper and deeper.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Monterrosa-24
England needs Cromwell now more than ever.

Yep. And France needs Charles Martel now more than ever. But neither will happen. Bye-bye England, bye-bye France.

8 posted on 03/09/2013 9:39:31 PM PST by Leaning Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Have the Islamists who are about to take charge there been consulted on this?


9 posted on 03/09/2013 9:55:21 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (I'll raise $2million for Sarah Palin's presidential run. What'll you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leaning Right

Nice. A Charles “The Hammer” Martel (1300 years ago) reference in a FR post. And spot on right, too.


10 posted on 03/09/2013 10:08:15 PM PST by advance_copy (Stand for life or nothing at all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

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.


11 posted on 03/09/2013 10:13:43 PM PST by RPTMS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doc1019

This isn’t just England we’re talking about here...it’s the ENTIRE Commonwealth...54 countries including Canada, Australia and India.


12 posted on 03/09/2013 10:26:28 PM PST by bimboeruption (Clinging to my Bible and my HK.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bimboeruption

Didn’t even think about that ... I guess queers world wide win with this one.


13 posted on 03/09/2013 10:29:58 PM PST by doc1019 (The rabbit hole that Obama is leading us down just gets deeper and deeper.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Monterrosa-24

What the need is some conservatives.


14 posted on 03/09/2013 11:11:39 PM PST by ansel12 (Romney is a longtime supporter of homosexualizing the Boy Scouts (and the military).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

“all forms of discrimination”?

Really?

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.


15 posted on 03/09/2013 11:24:22 PM PST by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

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.


16 posted on 03/09/2013 11:29:24 PM PST by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Before you know it she’ll be hanging out with Michael Jackson.


17 posted on 03/09/2013 11:34:35 PM PST by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America (PRISON AT BENGHAZI?????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Monterrosa-24

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.


18 posted on 03/09/2013 11:35:02 PM PST by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Frank_2001
Privately, she almost certainly does - most of the Royal family are avid hunters and shooters. The Queen no longer shoots herself, but she did for many years.

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.

19 posted on 03/09/2013 11:45:33 PM PST by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

What a disgrace. Time for other countries to leave the commonwealth and retain laws against this kind of disgusting perversion. Russia sets the standard!


20 posted on 03/10/2013 12:04:52 AM PST by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975
Well, technically she is head of the C. of E.
21 posted on 03/10/2013 12:54:28 AM PST by RPTMS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

Thanks for posting that. You saved me the effort of trying to say the same things, and said it better.


22 posted on 03/10/2013 1:29:28 AM PST by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon; naturalman1975

Read naturalman1975’s posts above. He’s got it right.


23 posted on 03/10/2013 1:32:07 AM PST by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

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.


24 posted on 03/10/2013 1:34:07 AM PST by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RPTMS

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.


25 posted on 03/10/2013 1:59:15 AM PST by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

You’ve had conversations with the Queen of England?

Who are you?


26 posted on 03/10/2013 3:26:08 AM PDT by FreedomStar3028
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

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.


27 posted on 03/10/2013 4:05:09 AM PDT by dennisw (too much of a good thing is a bad thing --- Joe Pine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

OMG!! Not the Queen now!! Has EVERYONE lost their MORAL GROUD and COMMON SENSE????


28 posted on 03/10/2013 4:14:49 AM PDT by Ann Archy (ABORTION........the HUMAN sacrifice to the god of CONVENIENCE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

The sun sets on the British Empire.


29 posted on 03/10/2013 4:21:00 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Longest Sunset in History.

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.[1]
 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

30 posted on 03/10/2013 4:29:49 AM PDT by moose07 (the truth will out ,one day. liberals and logic: Never confuse the two! Hi MI# !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: FreedomStar3028

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.


31 posted on 03/10/2013 4:31:22 AM PDT by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

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.


32 posted on 03/10/2013 4:35:39 AM PDT by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

Can you give me a link to the text of this constitution to which you repeatedly refer?


33 posted on 03/10/2013 4:56:00 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
As I think you may be aware, the British Constitution is sometimes referred to as an an 'unwritten Constitution', but that isn't actually true. It's just not written down in one document, but in several major documents with a few parts of it scattered around judicial decisions and laws.

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.

34 posted on 03/10/2013 5:06:55 AM PDT by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

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.


35 posted on 03/10/2013 5:11:33 AM PDT by momincombatboots (Back to West by G-d Virginia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

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.


36 posted on 03/10/2013 5:29:58 AM PDT by scrabblehack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Next up will be the new Pope.


37 posted on 03/10/2013 5:30:02 AM PDT by corlorde (forWARD of the state)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: corlorde

“Next up will be the new Pope.”

Don’t bet on it.


38 posted on 03/10/2013 5:40:44 AM PDT by BarnacleCenturion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

So when is th queen having Charles’ coming out party?


39 posted on 03/10/2013 6:08:03 AM PDT by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion
"Don’t bet on it."

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.

40 posted on 03/10/2013 6:30:58 AM PDT by corlorde (forWARD of the state)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

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.


41 posted on 03/10/2013 6:31:07 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

thanks! Much appreciated


42 posted on 03/10/2013 7:49:01 AM PDT by dennisw (too much of a good thing is a bad thing --- Joe Pine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

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.


43 posted on 03/10/2013 12:37:28 PM PDT by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

There is no constitution without morality. Just looming dissolution, anarchy, and destruction.


44 posted on 03/10/2013 3:04:20 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

Thank you for your dignified and informative reply.


45 posted on 03/10/2013 8:56:40 PM PDT by Monterrosa-24 (...even more American than a French bikini and a Russian AK-47.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975
The Queen no longer shoots herself, but she did for many years.

But why did she shoot herself for so many years? It sounds so unlike her... ;-)

46 posted on 03/12/2013 8:57:20 PM PDT by mbj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson