More MPs who don't understand what the Human Rights Act does

[caramel_betty]

The overall issue here is that some people are saying that swearing an oath or pledge to the Queen and her successors is a breach of human rights for people who aren't CofE, or are Republican, or various other things. However, leaving the details of that to one side

Comments

[nja]

This stuff about how swearing an oath to the Queen is BLATENT DISCRIMMINATION is just rubbish too. Perhaps I've been reading too much Thomas Hobbes recently, but the Queen is the Sovereign, and what you're effectively doing by swearing an oath to her is explicitly stating that you accept the current constitutional settlement. Which is the point of swearing such an oath. I can understand people not wanting the UK to be a monarchy (I think the restoration of Charles II was one of the biggest tragedies of English history), I can understand Irish Republicans not wanting to swear an oath accepting the British state, but then those people either shouldn't put themselves in a position where they are having to swear such an oath, or should accept that while they have the right to want to change the status quo, they can't claim a right to pretend that it isn't the status quo. I think Sinn Fein were much more honest when they were getting elected to the Westminster parliament and then refusing to have anything at all to do with it, rather

[caramel_betty]

This stuff about how swearing an oath to the Queen is BLATENT DISCRIMMINATION is just rubbish too. Perhaps I've been reading too much Thomas Hobbes recently, but the Queen is the Sovereign, and what you're effectively doing by swearing an oath to her is explicitly stating that you accept the current constitutional settlement. Which is the point of swearing such an oath.

I think the "bltanetkt discrimminayshnu" stuff is also a big bag of tosh, although I can see that some people would prefer to pledge an oath (or whatever) to "the country" or whatever. One of the things I like about the US is that they don't swear an oath to the President, or even to Congress, but to "the flag" and "the republic". (The "one nation under Bob" bit is slightly more annoying.)

I imagine that the courts would probably decide against a test-case on the issue. Obviously, the exact decision would depend on the exact case, but I think the courts wouldn't want to play republican politics by the legal back-door.

[sleetersoulfire]

I think it's the 'be made to' part that gets on most people's nerves. I am subject to the laws and whims of this country, I don't need to stand up and say I am. Just as one doesn't need to sign the Official Secrets Act to fall foul of it, one doesn't need to pledge allegence to the state to fall foul of it either. It's not like you're going to be suddenly outside the power of the state if you refuse to take the oath, as much as that would gain it a whole bag load of support.

I just don't see the point in an oath. It wont change anything either way.

[sleetersoulfire]

What I hate most about the discourse in this country surrounding human rights is how little the people speaking actually know. Like your Today dude. Most people don't know enough about human rights to know that when some toss piece says "OMG hoomin rites is fur joor terrists an crimimal" the correct reply is "Shut the fuck up, toss piece

[vashti]

Most people don't know enough about human rights to know that when some toss piece says "OMG hoomin rites is fur joor terrists an crimimal" the correct reply is "Shut the fuck up, toss piece!"

Things like this are why I wuv j00 so much.

[caramel_betty]

IAWTC.