A Mad Hatter rule that flouts human rights
Friday 27 March 2009
10:05 am
I awaken to the amazing reminder from my radio that Britain still bans the heir to the throne from marrying a Catholic.
I turn over in bed to check the calendar. Yes, it really is 2009. Evan Harris MP will try to change the law in parliament today. He will almost certainly fail. What does this say of the human rights act?
The government says it wants to change the law, but it has to be agreed by 15 Commonwealth countries who have the Queen as head of state.
I go back to sleep and dream of Alice in Wonderland and awaken again trying to remember who on earth DID steal those damned tarts.
But I do find myself remembering that the heir to the throne CAN marry a Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Jew, Sikh… Come back Alice, all is forgiven!
Related posts:
There are 19 comments on this post
Looks like we’re a fair way away from Royal civil partnerships and adoptions then!
the monarchy is outdated and pointless. It should be abolished altogether
I totally agree. Not only is it outdated and pointless – it costs a lot of OUR money. This is money spent on people who already are very well off, because they happened to be born into the ‘right’ family.
Just because something has a long tradition does not necessarily mean it is a good thing. And monarchy definitely isn’t. Countries can be represented by elected people, we can have street parties, celebrate and be happy anyway!
The Monarchy is the one great asset we have for this Nation – it represents Tradition, History, Respect Abroad, a common love that the man in the street has for our Queen (God bless her!). What an example to the rest of the world and to the nincompoop Ray Khan who obviously is talking out of his backside when he wrote this comment – . Keeps our Democracy as a Democracy which it wouldn’t be under a Republic or Dictatorship (oops! I forgot Tony Blair!) GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!
I think you are forgetting the hundreds of years or basically dicatorship the English Monarchy had.
It is certainly very Alice in Wonderland at the moment.
Apart from the nonsense about the Royal Family and who they can and cannot marry, I’ve just watched Eric Pickles on Question Time trying to justify needing a second home even though he only lives 37 miles from the House of Commons because ‘he has to be at work promptly at 9.30′
We pay for that home but he can sell it when he retires and add the cash to his generous, inflation free pension
The world has gone completely mad. The first thing we need is a slot on the ballot paper for the next election for ‘A plague on all your houses’ I bet it would get voted in in most constituencies. Maybe then MPs would realise they are there to serve us and not themselves
To paraphrase from Lewis: Off with their heads.
God save the Queen,
But not if she’s Catholic!
I think not allowing catholics to marry into the ‘royal’ family is ridiculous!
We live in a so called ‘multi-cultual society’ – surely laws should follow this movement of culture? The current customs in regard to the royal family are ridiculous and prejudice to Roman Catholics. As a Catholic I am insulted by the views shared by Dr Starkey on today’s news and saw them as unnecessarily prejudice!
The Human Rights Act 1998 requires “Protection from Discrimination”, but still within limitations, so we take no action to dismantle a system of monarchy that is steeped in centuries of discriminatory practice.
Should we not, however, pay serious attention to the moral consideration that, if people wish to view the monarchy as setting an example to be followed by the populace at large, this institution ought to take every means to refuse, annul, and abolish all discriminatory practices involved in its foundation, practice, and purpose?
If we value so highly the principle of democracy, one that has been fought for over centuries of battle with discriminatory systems of government, let us be thorough and avoid hypocrisy in its implementation. This will require far, far more than some tinkering with monarchical rights of succession.
But I am afraid it will always be part of human nature for some pigs to wish to appear more equal than others. We will have to make the best of it and try to ignore them.
They did this in Sweden years ago, the country still stands. But why not a republic?
In a modern democracy there is no moral justification for having a monarchy, the office being hereditary and exclusive to less than 1% of the population.
In the USA a man of modest background, broken family and mixed race is elected president, something that couldn’t happen in Britain! In Britain, the present system excludes not just blacks and Asians from running for election to the top job, but 99% of all whites.
The British constitution should be brought up to date and be inclusive of all members of society, reflecting fundamental demographic, cultural and social change. I have nothing against the Queen as a person but the hereditary principle has no place in a modern democracy.
We tamper with the constitution at our peril. Our constutional monarchy has protected us from dictatorships and revoloutions and religious discrimination. It makes us money, which a boring old
president would not… Leave well alone!
How does the monarchy prototect us from dictatorship and abuse of power, as Charles Wall argues? The Queen wasn’t able to prevent a British government sending armed forces to Iraq, which many would argue was a illegal war (not to mention Suez in 1956).
The suggestion that monarchy prevents religious discrimination is equally risible, since obviously Roman Catholics have been excluded for centuries from the succession.
Similarly, the authority of the Crown was used to commit political assassinations, unlawful evictions and religious discrimination in Ireland over generations, so the argument that the monarchy protects us from tyrants just doesn’t stand up.
I think even Jack Hardy will agree that the Anglican Church with the Queen as its head is more open and much less discriminative than the Catholic Church. The head of our church does not discriminate against women, rant against homosexuals,or cause countless deaths by banning condoms… That really is discrimination.
Protestant monarchies are generally liberal, progressive and relatively prosperous eg Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Holland, the Scandinavian countries, and last but by no means least, us. However in our case since Labour have ruined the economy, sadly the words prosperous and progressive must be omitted.
Are we really discussing this?? I find it quite astonishing – and profoundly depressing – that in the twenty-first century ANY institution – however venerable and toothless – discriminates against other people on the grounds of their religion or sex – and gets away with it. Quite, quite astonishing!
Thank you for your insights. As far as those people who call us Catholics discriminatory, well, I am a woman. I do not feel like a second class citizen in the Church. I know many women who feel the same. Any homosexual is simply asked not to practice sex, just as an unmarried heterosexual is asked not to practice it.
But, herein lays my point. There are plenty of Anglicans who are just as ‘discriminatory’ about all of this – in fact, it threatens to split the Anglican church. I think about people who feel the Anglican Church has entered civilized community. Finally, yes, it has. But when the poorhouses were constructed because the people who had been taken care of by the monasteries for free (given jobs on the ranges, cared for if sick and given shelter if homeless or traveling), I think we can hardly hail the history of the Anglican Church. None of the churches back then had much to boast about.
Many Protestant faiths are ‘discriminatory’ toward women and homosexuals, if you want to use the word ‘discrimination’. Actually, the Catholic Church teaches to love the person, hate the action.
But back to the Catholic Church: thanks for your article. It reminds me of why my husband and I watch Channel 4 News: the anchor and the entire team are reasonable people. After all, you seem to realize that Catholics do not practice cannibalism and worship idols. We don’t keep guns in our attics, ready to rise up and take over the world if the Pope orders it and really, most of us are nice people if you get to know us!
@ Roberta – you don’t discriminate, because you’re a woman? And don’t feel second class?
I didn’t know that my being a female made me incapable of discriminating. As an ex-Catholic woman, I feel very pleased that without the constant invisible presence of a judgemental imaginary fairy-godfather, telling me I must only have sex with the people he tells me to. He has more people out to attack me for being happy than I do him.
No-one else is hyperbolising and calling Catholics cannibals with guns. There’s little point comparing the merits of any religion against another. All religions discriminate by ‘simply asking’ certain people not to make love to each other, because you don’t like it. However it’s not your business. And it’s not ‘simply asking’. It involves controlling laws relating to marriage, and taxation, and widow’s pension. Telling tiny children in ‘faith schools’ that there is an Evil parallel universe called Hell, which you can be judged and sent to but never die from, unless you focus on sexuality and why it must be stopped. Teaches them that Heaven is somewhere else, other than here. Rather than make the world more heavenly. Pray for help rather than act.
Albeit, with good hearts, not meaning to, and with good intentions. But within religion, the love is not unconditional.