View previous topic | View next topic

Ireland: Mary McAleese and Queen Elizabeth

Page 2 of 7
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

dr.bob
723955.  Mon Jun 28, 2010 11:14 am Reply with quote

Peter Dow wrote:
Quote:
Sometimes the law is wrong and needs to be broken and overthrown


The key word in that sentence is "Sometimes"

Peter Dow wrote:
Ah so to encourage debate you are considering banning me?


I'm more checking whether you actually bother to read this website, or simply post your rants and then leave.

Since you're here, why don't we address some of your concerns.

I'm interested to know how you justify the allegation of treason against Mary McAleese for inviting another head of state for a state visit.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "treason" as:

Quote:
the crime of betraying one’s country, especially by attempting to kill or overthrow the sovereign or government.


Clearly Mrs McAleese is not trying to "kill or overthrow the sovereign or government", so I assume you think she is betraying the country. I find it hard to understand how inviting another head of state for a visit counts as a betrayal, so perhaps you can explain it to me.

If it has something to do with Britain and Ireland's turbulent history, I wonder if you could explain how far back history needs to be remembered. Should Britain refuse to host a visit from Angela Merkel due to the nasty things the Germans did in the Second World War? Or maybe they should refuse any visits from Silvio Berlusconi. After all, the Romans were really quite horrid when they came over 2,000 years ago.

Peter Dow wrote:
Presumably then you got your doctorate at a university with a royal charter, Dr Bob?


As it happens, I did. Though I'm not sure how many Universities we have that don't have a Royal Charter.

 
CB27
723987.  Mon Jun 28, 2010 12:32 pm Reply with quote

Peter Dow wrote:
There are a number of forums to debate in on the internet and it stands to reason that I am going to put more effort in where my posts are not summarily censored. Also I am not even allowed to link to my own website in my signature here!

I think you've answered your own question.

You might not be advertising goods or services, but in a sense you are advertising your opinion. By admittedly going around various websites and posting the same information you're not debating, but advertising.

It's been made very clear on this site that advertising sill not be tolerated, so your link is gone, but there is a section for people to show off their websites, have you bothered to go there?

Then there is the hostile reaction to your posts, and you're right to point it out. However, consider the fact that you've posted the same information in several sites, this is akin to someone handing out political flyers to members of the public. Is that person handing out leaflets challenging people to a debate? No, they are looking to recruit people to their cause, and that's the message you're giving others, whether you mean to or not.

As for the debate itself, can I respond to this remark:

Quote:
Spartacus broke Roman slave law. Jesus broke Roman law. Robin Hood broke the Sheriff of Nottingham and Evil King John's law. Wallace broke Edward I's law. Churchill broke Hitler's law. Nelson Mandela broke Apartheid law.

Sometimes the law is wrong and needs to be broken and overthrown, so that nobody can ever enforce such a law ever again. That's the position every good socialist would defend.

Spartacus - broke the law to gain freedom for himself and possibly gain personal power, there is no historical evidence he wanted to reform Rome or abolish slavery, that came from fiction. He died, as well as thousands of others, and did nothing to achieve better life for slaves. Conditions for slaves improved because of the expansion of the empire and the work of various people to improve everyone's life, not because of individuals breaking the law.

Jesus is a debateable subject, but if you take religious dogma out of the equasion, the facts that remain is that the church which exists in the name of Jesus was set up by Paul, not by Jesus, his family, disciples, or those who actually knew him.

Robin Hood - Fictional.

William Wallace was fighting for independence and famously declared "I could not be a traitor to Edward, for I was never his subject." Despite various fictional portrayals, he was effectively fighting a war and didn't purposefully break a law in order to have it changed.

Churchill - I'd like to know which of "Hitler's" laws he broke, considering he was a British citizen.

Nelson Mandela, about as close as I can come to agree with you, except that it wasn't Mandela's breaking of the Apartheid laws which led to his arrest, it was terrorism, something that was still illegal when he was President, and still is now. Mandela did achieve a lot for South Africa through his words and actions while incarcerated, and for the support he gained.

About the only person I can honestly say broke a law in order to have it changed was Ghandi, and though there are a number of examples, the ones that come immediately to mind were the burning of papers in South Africa and his action against the tax on salt. These were acts which directly broke a law which was unfair, and eventually led to their reversal and even greater reforms.

 
ali
723990.  Mon Jun 28, 2010 12:44 pm Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:
I'm not sure how many Universities we have that don't have a Royal Charter.

Quite a few, actually. Since 1992, all new universities have been established under the powers of the Further and Higher Education Act, 1992.

Further and Higher Education Act, 1992 wrote:
77 Use of “university” in title of institution

(1) Where—

(a) power is conferred by any enactment or instrument to change the name of any educational institution or any body corporate carrying on such an institution, and

(b) the educational institution is within the higher education sector,

then, if the power is exercisable with the consent of the Privy Council, it may (whether or not the institution would apart from this section be a university) be exercised with the consent of the Privy Council so as to include the word “university” in the name of the institution and, if it is carried on by a body corporate, in the name of the body.

(2) The reference in subsection (1) above to a power to change the name of an institution or body includes any power (however expressed and whether or not subject to any conditions or restrictions) in the exercise of which the name of the institution or body may be changed; but the power as extended by that subsection has effect subject to any such conditions or restrictions.

(3) In exercising any power exercisable by virtue of this section to consent to a change in any name the Privy Council shall have regard to the need to avoid names which are or may be confusing.

(4) Any educational institution whose name includes the word “university” by virtue of the exercise of any power as extended by subsection (1) above is to be treated as a university for all purposes


I don't think that this list is complete...

 
Jenny
724074.  Mon Jun 28, 2010 10:47 pm Reply with quote

Peter - you can do what you like and say what you like on any website that you run, and you can take any legal consequences therefrom. Anything you put on this website reflects on QI and I for one will not tolerate anything that is legally questionable. I regard a call to assassinate the monarch as legally questionable. I do not have to be a monarchist to take this view.

I think dr.bob and CB27 made some interesting points. If you are actually interested in debate rather than advertising, then it would be instructive if you were to answer them, as I imagine they are arguments that might often be made against you.

 
dr.bob
724221.  Tue Jun 29, 2010 10:40 am Reply with quote

Peter Dow wrote:
Well done for remembering the gist of my original post which seems to have been deleted entirely.


Err, no it hasn't. It's here. You were probably a bit confused by the fact that it's vanished off the top of the page, but you strike me as the kind of person who's easily confused.

Peter Dow wrote:
Republicans hold that the republic is what one ought to be loyal to, specifically its constitution which probably defines more precisely the loyalties expected of the president and the officers of the republic.


That's a very good point. Since the Republic of Ireland is a republic (hence the name), the nature of treason is indeed specifically defined in its constitution. Namely Article 39, which states:

"Treason shall consist only in levying war against the State, or assisting any State or person or inciting or conspiring with any person to levy war against the State, or attempting by force of arms or other violent means to overthrow the organs of government established by the Constitution, or taking part or being concerned in or inciting or conspiring with any person to make or to take part or be concerned in any such attempt."

Now you'll have to explain it to me a bit more, because I really can't see how "inviting a foreign head of state for an official visit" in any way counts as levying war against the State or overthrowing the organs of government.

Peter Dow wrote:
We don't have anything in this kingdom - the monarch has it all. We don't even have the right to take our next breath of air, as Jean Charles de Menezes found out that day on the London Underground when the kingdom's police shot him dead.


Actually, we do have the right to take our next breath of air, as enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998, which is the law of this country. Even the monarch is bound to obey the laws of this country.

Peter Dow wrote:
Most specifically, McAleese's treason would be to allow Queen Elizabeth any resource of the Irish republic all of which resources could be used to the benefit of the citizens of the republic but instead are being wasted and abused towards a wholly damaging exercise of giving an enemy monarch an international platform.


Sorry, that's not treason as defined in the Constitution of Ireland.

Peter Dow wrote:
Generally of course, this monarch also does harm to the people and nations of Britain, Scotland, England, Wales, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and supporting the UK monarch as McAleese appears to be about to do is an act of war against those and other peoples of the world who are oppressed by this monarch.


Oppressed? To take one example, consider Australia. In 1999 the Australian public held a democratic vote to decide whether they should keep the Queen as the head of state. They voted, by a 55% to 45% majority, to keep the Queen as head of state.

Now, I'm not sure what rules there are on your planet, but personally I find it very hard to consider implementing the democratically expressed will of the people as "oppression." I also find it somewhat offensive to people living in places like Burma who are suffering real oppression that morons like you choose to misuse the term to further your badly thought out arguments.

 
CB27
724230.  Tue Jun 29, 2010 11:01 am Reply with quote

Peter Dow wrote:
Very quickly, treason is to betray your country to whom you were or ought to have been loyal.


(My boldened bit) That again answers your question, treason against your country is about who governs the land and what the law dictates as treason. This is Ireland's treason law.

It has nothing to do with "aspect of your country" or what kind of politics you adhere to, it's about law.

What you describe is a personal sense of betrayal, and that's your opinion, but it doesn't mean others have to share it.

I won't go into details of the errors in describing how different political philosophies see their countries, I think that's a sperate discussion on general politics. Suffice to say, they have nothing to do with whether something is legal or not under the current constitution.

BTW, to seek to amend the constitution through violent means is treason.

Being a socialist, democrat or nationalist doesn't automatically mean you oppose a monarchy, of the four groups you claim to represent only republicanism truly advocates abolition of monarchy within the state.

However, whether republican or anything else, nothing gives you the right to dictate the constitution or government of another country. If you do intervene in another country then you need to give a credible reason why, that's at the heart of the argument over the Iraq war, some felt the reasons given were credible, some not (I'm not inviting a discussion on Iraq, that's for another thread, I'm using it as an example). However, whichever reasons you give, and no matter how credible they seem to you, you need to be answerable to the people of that country and the international community as well (again, the Iraq inquiries proev that).

Quote:
We don't even have the right to take our next breath of air, as Jean Charles de Menezes found out that day on the London Underground when the kingdom's police shot him dead.

That's an extremely ludicrous statement, and one that's not only disrespectful to Mr de Menezes, but also to all the people who worked hard and fought to give people the various rights you take for granted, even the very right of being able to share your opinions freely with the public.

Quote:
Those are general points. Most specifically, McAleese's treason would be to allow Queen Elizabeth any resource of the Irish republic - the time and attention of the president and other representatives of the people or officers of the republic, the time and attention of the national broadcasters, to occupy any part of the land, the use of airports or of the roads, the use of buildings, venues and outdoor facilities, the eating of the food etc - all of which resources could be used to the benefit of the citizens of the republic but instead are being wasted and abused towards a wholly damaging exercise of giving an enemy monarch an international platform.

As I pointed out earlier, that whole paragraph is completely wrong legally, but it's also wrong because Britain and Ireland are not enemies. It's also wrong because there's nothing in any of the philosophies you claim to represent to suggest that foreigners cannot be allowed to visit (even nationalism).

Quote:
The "enemy" status of Queen Elizabeth is most acutely seen in her role as head of state of the UK which controls Northern Ireland.

I'm afraid you're behind the times, and are wrong. The constitution of Ireland, and in particular Articles 2 & 3 (regarding Northern Ireland), was amended so that this is no longer the case.

Quote:
Generally of course, this monarch also does harm to the people and nations of Britain, Scotland, England, Wales, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and supporting the UK monarch as McAleese appears to be about to do is an act of war against those and other peoples of the world who are oppressed by this monarch.

Can you provide actual proof that the QEII does harm to these people, or did in the past? Also, unless treaties are in place, how does supporting one country translate as an act of war on another? Can you provide these treaties?

 
Peter Dow
724289.  Tue Jun 29, 2010 2:32 pm Reply with quote

CB27 wrote:
Quote:
Those are general points. Most specifically, McAleese's treason would be to allow Queen Elizabeth any resource of the Irish republic - the time and attention of the president and other representatives of the people or officers of the republic, the time and attention of the national broadcasters, to occupy any part of the land, the use of airports or of the roads, the use of buildings, venues and outdoor facilities, the eating of the food etc - all of which resources could be used to the benefit of the citizens of the republic but instead are being wasted and abused towards a wholly damaging exercise of giving an enemy monarch an international platform.

As I pointed out earlier, that whole paragraph is completely wrong legally, but it's also wrong because Britain and Ireland are not enemies.

I didn't suggest (I hope) that Britain and Ireland are enemies. For the avoidance of doubt let me state that Ireland and the UK are enemies, as are Britain and the UK. (I mean Britain is the enemy of the UK and the UK is the enemy of Britain. I need to spell that out because it is not what the BBC ever tell you.)

Note that as a British (& Scottish) nationalist, I consider "Britain" the country primarily to be the British nation, ("Scotland" to be the Scottish nation) so the UK and specifically its monarchy is the enemy of the British nation (and the enemy of the Scottish nation), being as it is the kingdom which enslaves the British (& Scottish) nation, for example denying us the right to elect our own head of state, a president of a British republic (or a president of a Scottish republic).

Now admittedly, many here are happy to be treated as UK subjects and are indifferent about asserting their entitlement to British national rights - these lost souls have brainwashed by the likes of the BBC to betray their British or other (English, Scottish, Welsh) nationality.

 
Peter Dow
724305.  Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:01 pm Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:
That's a very good point. Since the Republic of Ireland is a republic (hence the name), the nature of treason is indeed specifically defined in its constitution. Namely Article 39, which states:

"Treason shall consist only in levying war against the State, or assisting any State or person or inciting or conspiring with any person to levy war against the State, or attempting by force of arms or other violent means to overthrow the organs of government established by the Constitution, or taking part or being concerned in or inciting or conspiring with any person to make or to take part or be concerned in any such attempt."

Well assuming you are right, this article 39 was written by a fascist and it has no place in a democratic republican constitution. So bin article 39, wipe your arse on it, but never defend it. It is an assault on the Irish nation and indeed on the Irish republic, violating the principles of democratic republicanism, which are that the republican state exists to serve and to defend the people, the nation, not itself.

According to this Article 39 standing on its own (I only hope the other parts of constitution are worthy), the officers of the state could proceed to exterminate every last Irish man or woman, hiring foreign workers to serve the state as concentration camp guards and police at the end to exterminate all Irish-born summarily-dismissed state personnel as well.

That being the fascist state plan any Irish republican (who was fighting to defend the Irish nation and republic, but not Article 39) would be defined as guilty of treason against the state under the terms of that fascist article 39 because said republican freedom-fighter would need to levy war against the fascist Article-39 state which itself was waging war on and exterminating the Irish people.

OK, that is an extreme hypothetical scenario, but the idea of defining "treason" as against the state is clearly shown as fascist and anti-nationalist, anti-democratic, anti-socialist and anti-people.

Hitler would have loved article 39.

Article 39 also smacks of the line in "Braveheart" when King Edward longshanks's Sheriff executes Wallace's wife who fought against being raped by one of King Edward's soldiers -

Braveheart, the Sheriff wrote:
An assault on the King's officers is the same as an assault on the king himself

(ie. treason and the penalty is death and with that he cuts Wallace's wife's throat).

An assault against a monarchist kingdom or fascist state which puts its own state and officers' rights before the rights of the people is actually a blow for freedom.


Last edited by Peter Dow on Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:40 pm; edited 8 times in total

 
Peter Dow
724308.  Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:14 pm Reply with quote

CB27 wrote:
Can you provide actual proof that the QEII does harm to these people, or did in the past? Also, unless treaties are in place, how does supporting one country translate as an act of war on another? Can you provide these treaties?

Well it is even more on-topic to provide proof of the harm that the Queen has done to the Irish people, so here it is.

Bloody Sunday - for Derry's innocent dead let justice be done (YouTube)

For proof of harm to Scots, see "Dunblane Primary School Massacre cover-up revealed".

In fact I have a forum dedicated to this question as far as the Scots is concerned.

The new Butcher's Apron. (Forum on the For Freedom Forums)

Quote:
Discussion of injury and death to Scots caused by preventable accidents and crimes.

The Queen's governments are to blame but now the Queen's First Minister abuses the Saltire to excuse her failure to protect Scots.


Harm to Australians - I have already alluded to the Australian bush fire deaths - the Queen's fault is explained here -

Australian bush-fires: mass manslaughter by the Queen

and indeed the whole forum that topic is in features harm done by monarchs and dictators to all the nations of the world.

Republican Intelligence
Quote:
Revealing how monarchs and dictators wage war on, terrorize and bring disaster upon the people and how we can stop them.

 
Efros
724318.  Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:55 pm Reply with quote

What a twonk.

 
Mickcass
724319.  Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:56 pm Reply with quote

My, my, you really are a gold plated, 100% certifiable lunatic, aren't you, Mr Dow?
Mick Cass

 
suze
724332.  Tue Jun 29, 2010 4:25 pm Reply with quote

Peter Dow wrote:
Well assuming you are right, this article 39 was written by a fascist and it has no place in a democratic republican constitution.


Like the whole of the original constitution, it was in fact written by two teams of legal draughtsmen under the personal supervision of Éamon de Valera. That man has been described as many things, but "fascist" has not often been one of them.

Note two teams, because the constitution was written simultaneously in English and Irish. Neither version is a translation of the other, and they conflict in places; where this happens, it is the Irish language version which prevails.

Now I don't know very much Irish and so cannot translate what follows, but the definitive text of that article is thus:

"Is é amháin is tréas ann cogadh a chur ar an Stát, nó cabhrú le stát nó le duine ar bith, nó saighdeadh faoi dhuine, nó bheith i gcomhcheilg le duine, chun cogadh a chur ar an Stát, nó iarracht a dhéanamh le harm nó ar mhodh fhoréigneach eile ar na horgain rialtais a bhunaítear leis an mBunreacht seo a threascairt, nó páirt nó baint a bheith ag neach lena leithéid sin d'iarracht, nó aon duine a shaighdeadh nó bheith i gcomhcheilg leis chun a déanta nó chun páirt nó baint a bheith aige léi." (source)


As for the Queen's servants having done harm to Irish (Scottish, Australian, and no doubt others) people, well I'll more or less give you Bloody Sunday - and indeed, albeit rather grudgingly, so will the British government by now. But the other suggestions made above really don't stack up as acts of "war" (using that word loosely) perpetrated by the British authorities.

 
Starfish13
724339.  Tue Jun 29, 2010 4:43 pm Reply with quote

My gosh, did he really just use a quote from Braveheart as an argument?

 
Burgess Shale
724348.  Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:27 pm Reply with quote

GODWINS LAW HAS BEEN INVOKED.

Quote:
OK, that is an extreme hypothetical scenario, but the idea of defining "treason" as against the state is clearly shown as fascist and anti-nationalist, anti-democratic, anti-socialist and anti-people.

Hitler would have loved article 39.

 
CB27
724366.  Tue Jun 29, 2010 6:25 pm Reply with quote

OK, I honestly thought I was discussing the topic with someone rational, but those answers were shockingly dillusional.

Why is it when someone has an axe to grind they believe everyone's involved in a conspiracy?

What next, is the queen a lizard? Simon Cowell is the Dark Overlord who's really in charge of the country?

You make a ludicrous opening post, complain you're not taken seriously, so people give you the benefit of the doubt and attempt to debate the subject with you and you come up with conspiracy theories. If you want to be taken seriously, consider what it is you're actually arguing about, and with.

 

Page 2 of 7
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group