Is religious speech on line in Thursday's U.K. election?
Freedom to criticize homosexuality in the United Kingdom may be on the line when British citizens go to the polls Thursday to elect a new Parliament and a new prime minister.
At issue is a section of British law often known as the Waddington amendment that makes it clear that criticizing homosexuality is not prohibited.
Although all three major candidates for prime minister back "gay rights" in various forms, Conservative Party leader David Cameron is the only one to support the amendment, which was added to a same-sex hate crimes law. Parliament tried but failed to overturn the free speech safeguards last year, and Prime Minister Gordon Brown -- the Labour Party leader -- said he is committed to try once again to strike the amendment....
Guinness wrote: a) Well it looks as though England will soon be free from the egg yolk of Scottish tyranny. b) Was "wee man" a reference to the 1 solitary Conservative MP in Scotland out of 59 seats? c) Oh well, there's always the possibility of proportional representation to cheer you up. You can comfort yourself with another 9 wee men or wee lassies next time around.
a) The English/British monarchy comes from Scottish heritage - viz the Stuarts.
c) The problem with voting in Scotland for Westminster is twofold. One, they politically live in the past. Two, their obsession with perceived nationalisism in opposition to what they perceive as ostensibly English, rather than British.
The so called Scotish parliament is a case in point. - It was used by Labour to get the vote in the 90's, and they took the bait, but all Scotland got was more bureaucracy but with an all important scottish accent. This then becomes political science for some in Scotland. As I pointed out Scotland has never accepted national leadership whether monarchial or political. Labour gets the vote because it is (wrongly) perceived as the working class party!
Socialism and democracy are impractical and unworkable ideologies in mankind.
wee man wrote: But Scotland never having experienced a specific governing body of any ilk, cannot perceive the benefits obtained thereof. We here in Scotland are therefore destined to wander aimlessly from Westminster to Brussels without the hindsight of how to live under a reigning anybody.
Well it looks as though England will soon be free from the egg yolk of Scottish tyranny.
Was "wee man" a reference to the 1 solitary Conservative MP in Scotland out of 59 seats?
Oh well, there's always the possibility of proportional representation to cheer you up. You can comfort yourself with another 9 wee men or wee lassies next time around.
Guinness wrote: Mike, Thank you for outlining a case for a supreme democratic Parliament. I hope you in the US will soon be rid of the evils of a "supreme court" and rid of an "executive" that does not need the necessary support of the legislature.
Understandable you might conclude such. But I think it outlines the necessity for judges to be limited to their rightful judicial role. If Congress were doing their job, they wouldn't allow courts nor the president to legislate. There is much ignorance here of what constitutes the Republic, even among the politicians and judges.
wee man wrote: --- Democracy of course is a fable and has never existed anywhere. Oligarchy is how all Western nations rule themselves.
In the US, it's what happens when wisdom is ignored, intent denied.
Thomas Jefferson in letter to William Jarvis, 1820:
"You seem, in pages 84 and 148, to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is "boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem, '' and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments coequal and co-sovereign within themselves."
Today it's almost a given that what a judge says is final, though constitutionally, not so, what he decides is limited by the same law that limits the other branches.
The Scotsman wrote: Conservative election candidate
"Conservative Party leader David Cameron is the only one to support the amendment, which was added to a same-sex hate crimes law"
Of course the problem with Conservative voting in Scotland is two fold - One; the largest people mass area around Glasgow were brought up on a diet of socialism. They still vote thinking that Labour Party philosophy is "for the people"
Two; (And this is crucial) Scotland has never had a real leadership! Apart from William Wallace, Robert the Bruce and the Stuarts who became expats anyway, - Scotland never had monarchial or political administration.
The basis of Conservatism is authority vested with the people, which of course is alien to the socialist mentality. We observe a similar dichotomy in America with Republican vs Democrat! But Scotland never having experienced a specific governing body of any ilk, cannot perceive the benefits obtained thereof. We here in Scotland are therefore destined to wander aimlessly from Westminster to Brussels without the hindsight of how to live under a reigning anybody.
Democracy of course is a fable and has never existed anywhere. Oligarchy is how all Western nations rule themselves.
General Election 2010: Sacked Tory candidate says Cameron is not fit to be PM Published Date: 04 May 2010
A FORMER Conservative election candidate who was sacked for making homosexual slurs has launched a savage attack on David Cameron. Philip Lardner, who is now standing as an independent in North Ayrshire and Arran, called his former leader "frighteningly weak".
He described his suspension from the party as "opportunism of the worst kind" and claimed Mr Cameron was "spurred on by obsequious advisers".
In a letter to The Scotsman, he also said the Tory leader's actions "should give cause for concern as a potential prime minister". Mr Lardner has also been put under a "precautionary suspension" from his job as a teacher.
He wrote the comments which led to both suspensions in response to a Conservative U-turn on Section 28, which prevented civil partnerships being promoted in schools.
Last year, Mr Cameron apologised for trying to block Labour repealing the law, which had been introduced by Margaret Thatcher's government in the 1980s. Mr Lardner wrote on his blog, under the heading 'What I believe in' that "homosexual behaviour is not normal behaviour".
The Conservatives branded his remarks "deeply offensive" and suspended him immediately.
"Conservative Party leader David Cameron is the only one to support the amendment, which was added to a same-sex hate crimes law."
The speculation at this time is that Conservative will get in. But inevitably the pseudo socialist Labour party will get back in to power in the years ahead, as there are people here who still think Labour is a "peoples" party (or vote).
The fact is that Labour like the Liberals are anti-Christian and pro-sodomite bureaucrats, who wouldn't know how to run a bus que, far less a nation. This is why they are similar to Orwell's 1984 "Big Brother" concept telling people what to think and do!!
If Labour got in and stayed there for a very long time without opposition then Britain would become a dust-bin like Russia.
Labour and Liberal-Democrat are becoming more and more anti-authority, such that goverment, justice and education are polluted by the Liberal Philosophy of the kind which has destroyed the British (and European) churches. Thus morals and marriage are no longer extant in many parts of the community, free speech is only free if you speak in the correct, (PC) sodomite-vernacular.
But this has more to do with a dead church, C of E/C of S than politics!