Britain rejects call by UN rights body for vote on monarchy, written constitution
GENEVA (AP) - Britain is dismissing the idea of holding a referendum on whether it should ditch the monarchy in favor of a written constitution.
The U.N. Human Rights Council offers the suggestion as part of a review of Britain's rights record. Britain is one of few democracies with no constitution laying out a bill of citizens' rights.
But Britain says in a statement Tuesday there is no popular demand for a vote on a written constitution. It says Prime Minister Gordon Brown's government considers the queen vital to Britain's unity, and supports keeping her as head of state.
hahahahaha this is funny. the UN is suggesting that Britian loose its Monarchy. maybe it should focus on real issues like feeding the poor or dismantling dictatorships or disarming Israel.
ReplyDeleteohh well the UN is a bit of a joke.
good on Gordon Brown for defending the monarchy
This is a perfect example of (1) unelected international bodies encroaching upon national,
ReplyDeletedemocratic sovereignty, and (2) "if it ain't broke, we still insist you fix it."
It doesn't matter to these busybody UN activists that three-quarters of the British people
are satisfied with the Queen and their Constitution which extends back over 1,000 years.
"We're the enlightened, post-national beautiful people; we know what's best for you!"
They probably can't wait for Barack Hussein Obama, Mr. Multinationalism himself,
to become president of the United States.
God Save the Queen, and God Save the the United States of America!
Well, this only goes to show that the UN is the embodiment of the Wilsonian World Order.
ReplyDeleteGod save Her Britannic Majesty!
"maybe it should focus on real issues like feeding the poor or dismantling dictatorships or disarming Israel"
ReplyDeleteYes! Great idea. Dismantle Israel, the one free, democratic nation in the Middle East. That way the surrounding Islamic states that have sworn themselves to Israel's utter annihilation will finally have their way!
Her Majesty and the Kings and Queens of England before her trace their very sovereignty back to King David of Israel, and yet you would have the neo-nazis obliterate the homeland and peoples of King David, the kinsmen of Jesus the Jewish Messiah.
Good one, you ignorant imbecile.
God Save the Queen of Australia!
May God confound the enemies of Israel!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteRE: previous comment:
ReplyDeleteF**k the kween ! said,
"You're all just f**king racists" --
See, this is how simple-minded left-wing activists operate --
they hit-and-run with the R-word, expecting it to be the discussion stopper
(ie: we're supposed to roll over when we hear the R-word), AND
they never explain just how someone else's views are "racist";
they lack the intellectual ability and honesty to rationally defend their charge of "racism";
they throw out the R-word as a defence against dealing with the substance of others' reasoning.
Like my grandmother used to say about graffiti on bathroom walls:
"Fools who won't
show their faces
dump their crap
in public places."
One anonymous insulting another anonymous, and another anonymous almost too imbecilic for words, most amusing.
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, while I wholeheartdly agree that this is one of the single most cocked eyed things I've ever heard and that the UN as a whole is about as useful and relevant as the DODO Bird these days, it wasn't the UN Human Rights Council as a whole that made the suggestion. Having read the report, it was a suggestion/recommendation made by Sri Lanka that the U.K. have a written, preferably republican, constitution. It is the only time this is mentioned in the report, and Sri lanka was the only country to approach the subject.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteTo the Potty-mouth who relies heavily upon the F and S-words,
ReplyDelete(1) In referring to Obama as “Mr. Multinational”, I was referring to his globalist policies which would undermine national sovereignty.
(2) You just assume that use of Obama’s middle name, Hussein, is “racist”. But many presidents are commonly referred to with
their full names or middle initials (John Fitzgerald Kennedy, George W. Bush). I was not alluding to Muslim terrorists,
but since you bring it up, check out his association with convicted bomber-terrorist Bill Ayres (google Obama + Ayres).
Your responses only prove the points of my previous post -- leftwing activists presume and charge “racism” even when there isn’t any,
and they are generally low on intellectual capacity to rationally debate (in your case, by over-relying on potty language).
Well, really.
ReplyDeleteAforementioned anonymous gentleman suffering from qu-phobia is clearly beyond satire. I beg for him to go forth and multiply.
Better do what he says, lest he stave your skull in with a truncheon. Pure venomous hate.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThe preceding announcement is brought to you by
ReplyDeleteVulgar Masses for a Canadian Republic
(our vocabulary is very limited, but they actually let us vote!)
There's a trend underway in the States that anyone who opposes Obama or supports McCain for President risks being called Racist.
ReplyDeleteLike the UN agency's call for a vote on the Monarchy, it's all Political Correctness in extremis.
As for the toilet mouth, there's a whole sub-generation who consider this normal and "liberated" behaviour. More evidence of the decline of Western civilisation.
Why would Sri Lanka put forth such a proposal? Does it officially harbor anger at the UK? Does its representative to this UN body have an anti-monarchist bias?
ReplyDeleteThe Vulgar Masses will hang you all from lamp posts
ReplyDelete"The Vulgar Masses will hang you all from lamp posts."
ReplyDeleteThey think Robespierre's Reign of Terror was a liberating event in human development.
Hmmm...now why should the UK, the mother of modern liberal democracy, want to listen to what Sri Lanka has to suggest?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI fail to see how any form of support for partisan American politicians has ANYTHING to do with the Crown Commonwealth.
ReplyDeleteThe United States is a republic - and so is irrelevant to the topic at hand, as much as it is to this weblog.
I care little for Obama OR McCain. They are both republicans.
Well, the US president does affect the broader Anglosphere, so it can be pertinent to the concerns of this website.
ReplyDeletePassing mention of Mr. Obama was first made above in the context of his not supporting national sovereignty -- the focus of this thread. Then Mr. Dirty Words invaded the discussion with charges of “racism”, and the original poster refuted that charge.
But yes, the next president of the US will have a big influence on whether Commonwealth countries either continue to surrender their sovereignties to globalization (Obama), or retain more of their sovereignties (McCain).
Ivdo not understand something in the AP story that started this line of comments. The story claims "Britain is...without...a bill of citizen's rights." Americans are taught from childhood about the the Bill of Rights of 1689. (Whether or not it was revolutionary propaganda, one of the claims in 1776 was that George III had trampled the rights the colonists had as Englishmen. That is why we learn about it.) Is the 1689 Bill of Rights no longer in effect?
ReplyDelete