Succession to the Crown Bill and the EU’s (and UK’s) Equality Act. 5.4.2013
We have fought two World Wars to ensure our way of life
remains the same governed by and through our long standing Common Law
Constitution. That we are governed by elected Politicians that govern this
Country according to that same Common law Constitution also. That our Monarchy
remains as it has been for Hundreds of Years. All set down in 600 years old or
more Constitutional Documents from Magna Carta 1215 and our Declaration and
Bill of Rights 1688 and 1689. The Act of Settlement, Act of Union, plus many
others. Many brave and wonderful people
gave their young lives for all of us in two World Wars. Yet here, we are
allowing foreigners to dictate what even our Monarch has to comply with-foreign
laws. We betray all those that gave
their lives for our freedom. No, that is not exactly right. Those
Members of Parliament that we in innocence and trust, elected and pay, betray
all those that lost their lives not only fighting in that last war that I
remember well and one in which our Queen played Her part in that war too, we betray innocent children and babies also
that lost their lives in the bombing of this Country, for they never had a chance
to live.
The proposed
Succession to the Crown Bill requires nine (9) changes to nine different parts
of our long standing Common law Constitution.
Countries on the Continent can easily change their Constitutions because
after that war, they had NEW written Constitutions that are easily changed
where as ours goes back for hundreds of years and why the people of this
Country, that may have lost relatives in that last war, may have to “fight” all
be-it in a different way- to keep our long standing Common Law Constitution
that so many gave their lives for. Not
to be governed by foreigners but to continue with our way of life and according
to the Constitution so many gave their lives for. We cannot afford to let them down now.
15th Feb 2013. Lord Wallace of Tankerness
(Liberal Democrat,) began the debate, saying: ‘This is a bill with a clear
purpose; to bring gender equality to the rules of succession and to
remove explicit pieces of religious discrimination from our statute book.’
He continued: ‘The bill does three things. First, it ends
the system of male preference primogeniture in the line of succession.
Secondly, it removes the bar on a person who marries a Roman Catholic from
succeeding to the Throne - a legal barrier that applies to Catholics and only
Catholics and no other faith. Thirdly, it replaces the Royal Marriages Act 1772
- an Act that requires any descendent of King George II to seek the reigning
monarch's consent before marrying, without which their marriage is void... With
King George II's descendants now numbering in their hundreds, this law is
clearly unworkable and so it is replaced with a provision that the monarch need
only consent to the marriages of the first six individuals in the line of
succession, without which they would lose their place.’
Lord Dubbs, (Labour)
expressed his support for the Bill, saying: ‘The clear point, which has been
stated by many members of this House, is that as a country we are totally
opposed to discrimination on grounds of gender or religion. It is wrong that
there should be discrimination at the highest level in our country... I would
like there to be a position in which the monarch herself or himself could in
future be a Catholic, or of no faith, if he or she wished. That would be a
better outcome than the present one.’
Lord Lexden (Conservative), then spoke about the
impact of the bill across the Commonwealth: ‘The coalition ministry is to be
congratulated on securing for them the full support of the 15 other
Commonwealth countries of which Her Majesty the Queen is head of state. However,
little has been heard of the progress that the 15 are making in implementing
these fundamental changes... The government's most laudable aim is that the new
era in the world's greatest monarchy, which is now foreshadowed, should begin
simultaneously in all 16 realms. It would be useful to hear from my noble and
learned friend today when the point of common action envisaged by the
government is likely to be reached.’
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (Liberal Democrat)
responded on behalf of the government, and concluded by saying: ‘...we look
forward to the birth later this year of the child of Their Royal Highnesses the
Duke and Duchess of Cambridge... The change that we are putting forward will
mean that if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have a daughter, then a son, the
daughter will precede the son in the line of succession. As we look forward to
the birth, we can also celebrate that whether a boy or a girl, the child will
have equal claim to the Throne. I think it is the mood of the House to wish the
Duke and Duchess of Cambridge every happiness as they face up to the challenge
of parenthood.’
Committee stage, line by line examination of the bill,
begins on 28 February.
Succession to the Crown Bill summary. The bill makes three key changes to laws
governing who can be next in line to the throne by:
removing the first born son preference and allowing an
older daughter over a younger brother to become a monarch allowing anyone who
marries a Roman Catholic to remain in line limiting the requirement that all
descendants of George II must obtain the monarch’s permission to marry to the
six people nearest in line to the crown. If the monarch's approval is not given
then the married couple and their descendants lose their place in the line of
succession.
UK Equality Act 2010
EU Equality
Equality Generally
The (UK) Equality Act 2010 will affect most areas of
current law. By Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC
The main provisions
of the Equality Act 2010 came into force on 1st October 2010. The Act is
important for public and private law practitioners alike, and affects most
areas of current law.
The Act provides for equal treatment without direct or indirect
discrimination in employment, housing, education and the provision of public
services. It gives new protection to the fundamental right to equal treatment
without discrimination anchored in Article 14 of the European Convention
on Human Rights and EU equality legislation.
The Act also clarifies and extends the concepts of
discrimination, harassment and victimisation and applies them across nine
protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and
civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and
sexual orientation. It will in due course extend positive equality duties to
public authorities which must have due regard to the need to eliminate
discrimination, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations
between different groups. It broadens the circumstances in which positive
action may be taken voluntarily to further these aims, replacing nine major
earlier pieces of legislation covering gender, race, disability, religion or
belief, sexual orientation, and implements the EU equality directives.
The main Directives affecting domestic legislation are: Council
Directive 2000/43/EC implementing the principle of equal treatment between
persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin; Council Directive
2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in
employment and occupation; Council Directive 2004/113/EC implementing
the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access and supply
of goods and services; and European Parliament and Council Directive
2006/54/EC on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities
and equal treatment between men and women in matters of employment and
occupation (recast). Also relevant in this context is Article 157 of the
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
European law will continue to influence the interpretation
of the new Act, and there will be cases falling outside the scope of the Act
which may be covered by the European principles of equality. The European Court
of Human Rights has recently recognized that Article 14 of the Convention
applies not only in areas covered by other Convention rights, but also where
the State has voluntarily decided to provide additional rights: see JM v
United Kingdom Application no 37060/06, 28 September 2010, para 45 ,
The Explanatory Notes published with the new Act provide
lucid guidance on the structure and content of the new Act, and are available
on the government’s legislation web-pages.
Practitioners will also find The Equality Act 2010
(Commencement No. 4, Savings, Consequential, Transitional, Transitory and
Incidental Provisions and Revocation) Order 2010 (SI 2010/2317), a
detailed guide to which elements of the pre-October 2010 statutory framework
remain in force. END The whole on http://www.blackstonechambers.com/news/newsletters/employment_law_focus_articles/the_new_equality_act.html
The Equality Act 2010 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom.
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE
COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Strategy for equality between women and men 2010-2015
Strategy for equality between women
and men 2010-2015 Brussels, 21.9.2010
COM(2010) 491 final http://www.ipex.eu/IPEXL-WEB/dossier/document.do?code=COM&year=2010&number=491&extension=FIN
All
these proposals are contrary to the Oaths made by the Queen at Her Coronation.
Her
Majesty is aware of that, and so are all those in the House of Lords and
without doubt, all those in the House of Commons. Without doubt a Queen can be our Monarch because we have had two
Elizabeth’s and one Victoria.
This
Government or any UK Government is seemingly prepared to alter our
Constitutional Documents because foreigners wish it to be so and to comply with
new EU Legislation. Yet this is a Constitution that so many have given their
lives for. So many-yet you know already
the vast majority of people want out of the oppressive European Union, a Union
upon which none we elect dare allow the people a true and fair Referendum-and
neither the Government, nor the people can afford-not only financially but
Constitutionally, cannot afford to remain in.
There
is no point in having, paying or electing anyone for a British Government or
Political Party to sit in the House of Commons that cannot Govern this Country
according to its present Constitution or one that will allow strangers or
foreigners to decide or determine that we cannot Govern our own Country
according to its present long standing Common Law Constitution. Had we have lost that last war, we would
have had to have had a new Constitution, but many of those in that wonderful
building now, would not have been born, for one Adolph Hitler would have made
sure of that. As it is at present, just how much longer will the European Union
allow that Houses of Parliament to have two separate Houses now that this
Government has set up already the EU Regions ready for the EU’s Committee of
the Regions to set their Regions, tasks? How do you know another “Hitler” figure will
not come on the scene? Anne Palmer.
See above JM v United Kingdom Application no.
37060/06, 28 September 2010, para.45.
Note 10. Lord Justice
Neuberger (Just a snippet-to make you think) As for the applicant's
argument that her relationship came within the concept of family life, he took
the view that, the European Court having considered this issue to be within
States' margin
of appreciation, it
was open to the domestic courts to decide the point for the United Kingdom. His
conclusion was that, having regard to the relevant House of Lords case-law,
same-sex relationships should be treated in the same way as heterosexual
relationships for the purpose of Article 8. He further concluded that the
relevant provision of the MASC regulations had been enacted out of respect for
family life – in this case the relationship between the absent parent and
his/her new partner. Accordingly, the applicant's situation came within the
ambit of Article 8. He concurred with Lord Justice Sedley that the Government
had not provided an adequate justification, and agreed with the proposed remedy.
(Question? Does this also apply to our
Monarchy? Same Sex Marriage? Was I
right after all in my previous paper on this matter?
I
will ask you another question. Is it
right that having gone through the last war to keep our Constitution and way of
life in tact, to allow foreigners now, to insist we change nine (9) parts of
our long standing Common law Constitution that so many of the people of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and members of the
Commonwealth fought so hard and gave their lives for-to keep forever untouched
especially at the whim and guile of Foreigners on the Continent of Europe
dictating what this British Government and Nation must do?
A P 6.4.2013.
Posts
