It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


UN Human Rights Council tells the UK to get rid of their Queen.

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 05:13 PM

posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 05:13 PM
Most of what you have written, along with most other people on this thread, are completely clueless when it comes to the British monarchy and its role in the UK today.

I do not normally post, but your statement that the British are not used to freedom was absurd. Ever heard of the Magna Carta? Habeas Corpus? The right to be judged in a court by one's peers? Equality before the law? The primacy of Parliament in taxation and legislative matters? All these themes were invented in Britain. Those ideas of liberty in the United States began life in Britain, and the father of ideas of liberty, John Locke, was British. At the time of the American Revolution, Britain's constitution was highly regarded for its balance. Furthermore, its totally anachronistic to look back a thousand years of 'tyranny' of the monarchy and condemn it; western societies now are better educated, stable, middle-class. Powerful monarchs were necessary centuries ago to maintain order, in the choice between order with subjugation versus freedom and anarchy. Read Thomas Hobbes.

Right now, the monarchy have a nominal constitutional position as 'head of state'. In reality this means the monarch signs the bills Parliament passes to ratify them into law. This is an obligation rather than a power because the British monarchy has no choice but to do exactly what Parliament instructs it to. It is nothing more than a figurehead. And incidentally I am a republican but it mains me to see such misinformation about the monarchy.

posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 02:34 AM

Originally posted by Ste2652
Aww, that's nice. We're quite capable of deciding whether we want a Queen or a President ourselves, thank you. It's worked pretty well for the last thousand years.

What a waste of time. Why doesn't this council start focusing on real human rights issues... Zimbabwe anyone?

According to the video, Iran complained about the UK's poor efforts to tackle sexual discrimination. Says the nation where women aren't allowed to hold public office and where homosexuals are hanged.

The UK should follow the US's lead and leave the Human Rights Council. Clearly it has descended into an utter farce.

[edit on 13/6/08 by Ste2652]

Yeah it worked great, tell the people of Ireland that. Having a Queen ruling there worked well.

[edit on 15-6-2008 by mOOmOO]

posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 02:50 AM
reply to post by mOOmOO

Nice over-simplification of Anglo-Irish history there. It's much more complicated than "Those evil English invaded....". They had Kings and Nobles of their own, most of whom invited or worked with the English/Scottish settlers. Go read a book before spouting your mouth off.

posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 02:59 AM

Originally posted by stumason

Oh and for the person who said Norman colonisation was in the 1500's, that is quite, quite wrong.

Actually, i was referring to the saxon invasion, which was roughly 1500 years ago.

I'll forgive you for making that mistake, though.

posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 03:03 AM
It's nice to see that although we share the same belief that the monarchy in Britain is a good thing to have (comparatively), we can still find it within ourselves to claim each other's ignorance if we think it nessecary.

I'll admit, in that case it was nessecary.

posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 03:08 AM

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant
I got the time period wrong, it should actually be about 1500, with regards to the norman 'colonisation' of england.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by Anti-Tyrant]

There it be, not to quibble any mind you....

Normans came in 1066AD

Angles, Jutes and Saxons started coming in around 4-500AD

EDIT: As for ignorance of history on all our parts, I blame the PC brigade who seem to think it is better to spend the secondary school years studying modern American history than that of our own...

Most of what I know I had to learn myself, although my school was better than most and covered a good range of British history topics. These day's, it's very uncommon to have lessons in British history in schools.

[edit on 15/6/08 by stumason]

posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 03:12 AM

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant
reply to post by Vitchilo

Infact i believe the one thousand year anniversary of our saxon* heritage

*I got the time period wrong, it should actually be about 1500, with regards to the norman 'colonisation' of england.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by Anti-Tyrant]

Please don't tell me i have to make it clearer.

[edit on 15-6-2008 by Anti-Tyrant]

posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 03:15 AM
One thousand year celebration of the Norman Colonisation, One thousand five hundred year celebration of the Saxon Invasion.

Like i said, i'll admit i got myself muddled up there.

posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 03:16 AM
Rather not derail the thread, but when you say "I got the time period wrong, it should actually be about 1500, with regards to the norman 'colonisation' of england ", that does confuse the issue.

It is bad grammar and yes, you do need to make it clearer, as reading the sentence how you've written it implies that your talking about the Normans.

Anyhoo, you've clarified yourself now, so all is well. No need to get into handbags at dawn scenario

It's pleasing to see someone who is even aware of the Saxons and Norman conquests without staring back at you with a glazed look

[edit on 15/6/08 by stumason]

posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 03:18 AM
reply to post by stumason

I got mixed up between the Normans and the Saxons lol.

That comes from having to think it out in my head, mate.

posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 03:28 AM
As a schoolboy I was taught that the UK has a constitution ... made up of both written laws & Parliamentary conventions (Erskine May etc). Quite how the government proposes to amalgamate all that legislation & history into one tidy written constitution escapes me. A better use of their time might be to address the constitutional anomalies that their own devolution legislation has thrown up.

As to the UN Human Rights Council, I suppose they do have a point ... it must surely be a breach of human rights that none of the children born today in the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and all the rest will ever be the Head of State of their own country under the current system. That's just plain wrong. And we all know it's wrong ... yet most in the UK at least couldn't care less. They're quite happy with HMQ as Head of State because the system just works and has done for hundreds of years. And you can't say that for most government administration nowadays.

No matter ones party affiliation it gives me comfort at least knowing that there's always someone to whom PM Thatcher or Blair has had to go down on bended knee to. Keeps the politicos in check and there's nothing wrong with that.

posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 03:36 AM

Originally posted by Niall197
They're quite happy with HMQ as Head of State because the system just works and has done for hundreds of years.

"It is not titles that honour men, but men who honour titles".

I think the Queen, at the very least, honours her title.

Which is more than can be said for Dubya.

posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 03:50 AM

Originally posted by OhZone
So these minorites are being "mistreated".
What made them think they should go there in the first place.
They are being treated as invaders with they are.
Don't like it. Go back where you came from.
why do muslims come to a Christian country and not to another muslim one ?...

posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 04:04 AM
reply to post by deltaboy

The UN Human Rights Council said no such thing.

Notice the fact that the USA are complaining about British jails being overcrowded.

posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 06:58 AM
Personally i am not a fan of the monarchy but as they leave me alone i leave them alone and so let them stay if they want.

I would like to clear up a few toughts i have had from reading the posts of this thread.

The Queen does indeed have powers such as the power to claim any piece of land she so wishes in the entirety of her dominion.
The truth is that if she tried to exercise this or any other powers her position affords her then she wouldn't stand a chance because the ones with the real power (by that i mean the people of the country) wouldn't allow it.
It is a courtesy to her and all monarchs that came before her that she has the power that she has and i see it a a respect paid to her and all previous monarchs for risking and in the past giving their lives in order to try to keep this country free.
She is a figure head and a tourist attraction that brings money to our economy through tourism which is a good thing.

As far as other countries complaining about us in relation to human rights then i say what ever they have been smoking i want some!
How can the UN human rights council say anything to us when we have the Polish Prime Minister say he "wanted to kill" and thousands of Poles calling for the death of an Englishman for a decision he made during a Euro 2008 match.
The Polish come to live in England and then call for an Englishmans death, and the UN talk to us about human rights.

Do we blow ourselves up to make a political point?
Do we advocate wholesale murder of people for their sexuality?
Do we want an entire country to be wiped off of the map due to religious differences?
No we don't, and yet countries with a list of human rights violations as long as the Nile deign to lecture us on human rights.
It is ridiculous.

We should remind the world that if it were not for Britain then most of the so called 'free world' would be speaking German right now.
We created/instituted most of the things that people call human rights to exist in the first place.

Oh and if it is true that the U.S.A. is complaining about our prisons being too overcrowded then maybe they should concentrait a little more on affairs at home before they try to lecture to the country that gave them democracy.

This isn't a rant more a statement of a few facts and opinions on my part.

[edit on 15-6-2008 by smokey101]

posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 12:06 PM

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
The Lisbon Treaty made many references to "Human Rights". I'm guessing it is just becoming a universally bad thing to have.

Indeed it is.

Because these 'human rights' come without any responsibilities whatsoever and specifically act against those who dare to exercise consideration or respect for others.

The very term 'human rights' has become an abomination

posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 07:04 PM
Aul Lizzie is not the Queen of England ... the real descendants of earlier Monarchs live in Australia .... Elizabeths descendants hail from Germany ... so if things were fair and the world operated as it should Elizabeth the II should be shopping for her groceries in LIDL!

posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 07:20 PM
As an American I have always viewed the Brittish Monarchy as a veiled threat to their political system, and therefore a deterrent to aberant behavior by the politicians. I mean this in the most positive sense.

Should the politicians get out of hand, the people always have someone at the ready to point to and say: "Take the wheel, these dolts have had their day!"

I wish we had a standby president, so we could all get outraged and demand the tarring and feathering of a particularly bad president, followed by his being ridden out of D.C. on a rail! The alternative should always be from a third party in my humble opinion. Something neither major party would ever be comfortable with. Therefore a maximal persuasion.

[edit on 15-6-2008 by Cyberbian]

posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 10:15 PM
DONT u just love hipocrites saudiarabia has a king and their telling the uk to get rid of their queen all I CAN SAY IS hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in