13 Oct 2009
This is one of the most extraordinary stories I’ve read in the papers for years: the Guardian has been banned from reporting on a parliamentary question tabled by an MP.
The Guardian’s report today says:
The Guardian has been prevented from reporting parliamentary proceedings on legal grounds which appear to call into question privileges guaranteeing free speech established under the 1688 Bill of Rights.
Today’s published Commons order papers contain a question to be answered by a minister later this week. The Guardian is prevented from identifying the MP who has asked the question, what the question is, which minister might answer it, or where the question is to be found.
The Guardian is also forbidden from telling its readers why the paper is prevented – for the first time in memory – from reporting parliament. Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret.
The only fact the Guardian can report is that the case involves the London solicitors Carter-Ruck, who specialise in suing the media for clients, who include individuals or global corporations.
This represents what is fundamentally wrong with our political system – parliament must be fully accountable to the people. If the people were sovereign it would be impossible to enforce a ban like this, as the people would have a guaranteed right to know what our parliament is discussing.
The Spectator has suggested that this is the question the Guardian is not allowed to report:
From Parliament.uk, “Questions for Oral or Written Answer beginning on Tuesday 13 October 2009″
(292409)
61
N Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of legislation to protect (a) whistleblowers and (b) press freedom following the injunctions obtained in the High Court by (i) Barclays and Freshfields solicitors on 19 March 2009 on the publication of internal Barclays reports documenting alleged tax avoidance schemes and (ii) Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura.
This is proof if ever it were needed that we need a new constitution, one based on the sovereignty of the people, that puts us in charge and gives us the right to know what’s happening in government and parliament.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 13th, 2009 at 11:10 am and is filed under British constitution, Constitutional reform, Liberty. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Comments are now closed.
Facebook
Twitter
October 13th, 2009 at 11:28 am
“If people were sovereign” that phrase means nothing. Are the people sovereign in the USA? Im sure their congress or government ban certain things being published.
I have no idea at all why such a thing would be banned in this case, and ofcourse our parliament needs reforming. But that is not an excuse to destroy the monarchy.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Allthough the fact this has still been printed in certain papers and mentioned on BBC daily politics, it goes to show we have a free press in this country that goes out of its way to get the information to the people.
Theres nothing to be concerned about. Certain legal issues may sometimes need gag orders.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Simon, the BBC Daily Politics presenters were clearly outraged that they could not talk about the story. They said we are not allowed to tell you about the most important story today. Andrew Neill said unfortunately we are not in America.
If you have “no idea at all why such as thing would be banned”, then why do you think there is nothing to be concerned about. There is MUCH to be concerned about.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Pauline, i do not think it should have been banned, the point is despite the ban for what ever reason it was applied, our mainstream press has got the information out, including the BBC and instructed people to check the internet to find out more about it. So we have little to be worried about, especially as its such a rare occurance and im sure there will be tons of Freedom of Information requests into why it was done in the coming days and weeks anyway.
Its not the end of the world. We have a free press. The media in America is far more corrupt and biased, with the overwhelming majority of the news media there biased in favour of Obama and not covering it in details. Its not just legal issues they fail to cover its things that damage obama.
I linked a video here the other day, CNN a major american news channel, had children singing a song to help obama get his healthcare reforms. The British media is the best in the world, with the exception of some gutter press… all that despite living in a constitutional monarchy with a parliament which needs reforms.
October 13th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Simon, read through your comments and highlight the hypocrisy. It’s truly amazing.
The only information that should not be in the public domain when it comes to the governance of this country should be information which has been declared as an official state secret which must remain secret for the security of the country. There must be a proper, legal definition of what this should be. These people are our employees! How dare they keep information from their employers!
October 13th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Liam Finn: “The only information that should not be in the public domain when it comes to the governance of this country should be information which has been declared as an official state secret which must remain secret for the security of the country.”
There you have it folks. Republicans would also continue State secrecy.
Surely the issue here is about a Bill of Rights and not the Monarchy.
October 13th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
I don’t like the manner in which you put that, Neil. I have quite clearly stated that the only information that would be secret would be that that endangered lives if in the public domain. The way you described \State secrecy\ is quite clearly a misrepresentation of what I said.
I agree, it is about a Bill of Rights but it is also an indictment on our democracy, as is the monarchy. Ultimately, it’s because the monarchy is the greatest symbol of how we are robbed of our sovereignty.
October 13th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Simon, I haven’t seen the specific clip you are referring to but I’ve followed the story about the kids singing about Obama – the fuss is about the right wing reaction to this (they were bizarrely calling it government indoctrination). It was not a cheerleading story as you might imply. Regarding this story, if the government bans reporting on a story, then there is no free press. Also, you state that the British press is the best in the world – maybe, but when a certain Australian and a certain pornographer dominate the press, I wouldn’t be making such claims.
October 13th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Mark, that would fall into the category of Gutter press, although Sky news is fair and respectable despite still being owned by the murdoch empire.
Now you mention the incident in America and you dismiss it as just a fuss created by the right wing in the USA. I am sorry but the song was clearly cheerleading for some form of reform, perhaps not what Obama wants, but its clearly saying there needs to be change and its obama trying to bring change and republicans who are opposing much of it. I will provide the links to the collection of incidents again so you can take a look, this was not an isolated incident.
October 13th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Here are a few links..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mvP0ArKIGY – Some form of radical black youth group.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdPSqL9_mfM – Young school children in campaign mode singing a nice little song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU – A couple of black panthers that are supporters of Obama who are standing outside a polling station with weapons to intimidate voters. Funny enough the charges against these people were dropped by the Obama Justice department after he took office.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpvHn3E7JMw – Then we have some celebs pledging to serve their president!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCaunVgxu_U – Then there was the school speech incident which had many conservative parents worried. This is an interview with one republican talking about it.
Another example of school children being taught to praise obama. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO3NBqT3LBc
Then the latest incident is the CNN song, you watch it and listen to the lyrics, i accept they are not praising obama like in some of the others, but its clear the song is aimed at some form of reform.. thats Obamas political agenda. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwYeIr_zzqw
Im sorry but all the above is scary as hell, and its not just “ring wing nuts” worried. It is most certainly indoctrination in the USA when school children are doing such things for their President.
October 13th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Yes, actually Simon I do follow the American newsmedia. The song was written by the teacher of the kids in question, and other videos of kids singing about Obama have surfaced as well. Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh et alia have called it part of ‘Obama’s plan to indoctrinate your children with liberal progressive values’. This made it news as people debated the veracity of these claims and whether or not it was right to use kids in a smear campaign against the president – quite the opposite of what you were claiming. Previous to this, John Boehner and Micheal Steele claimed that it was improper for the President to address the schoolchildren of america, just as George Bush and even Ronald Reagan had done (except that they did use it as an ideological platform) because he would ‘indoctrinate your children with liberal progressive values’. So, was the story about the schoolkids singing really just a cheerleading story? Nope, I’m sorry but you’re wrong.
October 13th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
wow. I did not think i would find republicans in this country supporting this kind of indoctrination. Its deeply disturbing. The one about his speech to children is not one that worries me but it worries people. How can you defend all the other videos using children and young people? Its enough to make me physically sick and should alarm any republican.
October 13th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
jeez, you must be terribly confused. So you’re aligning yourself with Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter? If you believe that those kids are part of an indoctrination plot then you are also a friend to the ‘tea party’ protestors especially those who turn up to townhall meetings carrying loaded guns expressing their 2nd amendment freedom. They are home videos of school productions and were not news until the right wing put them on tv, spread them on the internet and told people they were part of plot.
October 13th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Graham
Mark’s comment about Simon should be deleted in line with your moderation policy.
“direct personal attacks on bloggers”
“Basically, you’re a nut.”
Paul
October 13th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
How ironic that this is a topic about freedom of the press and there are calls for censorship!
October 13th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
I agree, Paul.
Mark, at the risk of sounding patronising, don’t name-call Simon. His arguments are already bad enough.
Now, Paul: give us an argument in favour of the monarchy.
By the way, Republic released its accounts information to all members through the post.
October 13th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Read the moderation policy Mark. Is that censorship?
Liam, as an adherent (and presumably one who funds the Roman Catholic church) perhaps you could explain why you support a theocratic monarchy in Rome but not a constitutional monarchy in Britain.
Thanks for the update on the accounts. Better very late than never!
October 13th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Ok, fair play – I concede that for the thin skinned that might be too strong. I know you do not need my approval to remove that line, Graham, but you have it anyway. I guess all I meant to say was that his belief in the indoctrination plot betrays the calibre of the argument he portrays regarding any of the issues discussed in this blog, which is not a personal attack but I think more offensive than calling someone a nut. Paul, moderation is a form of censorship, you pedant.
October 13th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Damn right i support Americans right to protest against their government reforms. Those tea parties have been peaceful, although the mainstream media went out of its way to ignore them or rubbish them. It sounds to me like you have been brainwashed by MSNBC.
10,000s took part in tea partys, how many went with guns? This is the thing the American media highlighting a single incident in an attempt to brainwash people against the entire movement. I do watch fox news, and during the Bush years it was obvious they are behind republicans more than democrats, but my god i didnt know how left wing the rest of the American media was until the election. They have grossly ignored their duties as journalists and betrayed the American people. It truely is shocking the bias the media has shown over there, which again is why i say we have a far far far better free press than the United States of America (A republic).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoikNVzesGc – Heres the “white” racist who had the gun which MSNBC reported. There has been a huge effort by certain people and media to make this issue about race, its a disgrace. You have the incompetent former President Jimmy carter claiming its all about race, its pathetic. Glen beck and co have serious concerns about the path Obama is leading the country down and i dont blame them. You dont see the sort of nonsene weve seen with Obama here for our prime minister.
Now the whitehouse has declared war on Fox News.
October 13th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
I dont mind people calling me what ever the like, it doesnt bother me.
October 13th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Simon, Americans are progressive hence Obama got elected. You watch Fox news. I need not comment any further because you have damaged your position immeasurably by that admission.
October 13th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Paul, I’m sure it was you who asked this question before and I’ve told you what my feelings are towards the Pope. I disagree enormously with a significant number of his views such as those on homosexuality and condoms. I don’t subscribe to a rigid defintion of the papacy being a monarchy anyway – the pope is elected (even if it is only by a tiny number of people). Please don’t interpret that as me saying that the Catholic Church is democratic. God no!
October 13th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
I see only the left wing agenda is suitable in a republic. I really am stunned that you see it possible to defend the videos above. Did you watch them all?
All hail the messiah, Obama Obama.
So under a future Republic can i expect to see children in schools here singing songs about our president in such a way? Can i expect to see a potential presidents thugs outside a polling station in an attempt to intimidate people? Will the BBC have a bunch of school kids on to sing a nice little song encouraging reform when our president decides he wants to reform something? Should a news channel that speaks out about a president be condemned?
October 13th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Simon, I don’t see how you can debate anything having swallowed hook, line and sinker one of the most ridiculous conspiracy theories ever conceived. This is a repellent theory, equating Obama with Hitler, liberalism with fascism, Democrats with Nazis (Nancy Pelosi specifically) and thus denigrating all that died because of that awful regime. This facet of it is Limbaugh and Fox News’ claim that Obama is forming a Hitler youth like organisation, as has been explicitly expressed through their outlets. If you think that these videos are part of an indoctrination plot I can only assume you agree with this bile.
October 13th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Lmao, unbelievable. Im not saying Obama is forming a hitler youth although comparisons will always be made.. they were made against Bush too.
But are you honestly telling me you see no problem at all with children being used in such ways? So you would have no problem with some children in our schools being taught to sing songs about a potential Prime Minister Cameron?
October 13th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
As I have said before, this calling Obama the messiah is lazy and unimaginative as was calling Bush thick all the time. The difference is, Obama will be gone in 4 or 8 years time! The Queen and her successors will not be!
October 13th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Am i the only person here who finds these videos slightly disturbing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mvP0ArKIGY – Some form of radical black youth group.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdPSqL9_mfM – Young school children in campaign mode singing a nice little song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU – A couple of black panthers that are supporters of Obama who are standing outside a polling station with weapons to intimidate voters. Funny enough the charges against these people were dropped by the Obama Justice department after he took office.
Another example of school children being taught to praise obama. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO3NBqT3LBc
Then the latest incident is the CNN song, you watch it and listen to the lyrics, i accept they are not praising obama like in some of the others, but its clear the song is aimed at some form of reform.. thats Obamas political agenda. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwYeIr_zzqw
Mark are you telling me you have no problems with any of the above videos and would be ok with seeing that here in a British Republic? Its a simple question, forget fox news.. they may highlight these things but they didnt implement or arrange them.
October 13th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
imatt, i like the phrase and song. That is not the point of my comment though, its about the other video contents, which are deeply disturbing for me and if its ok with people here its one less reason to support a republic i guess.
October 13th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
The childrens’ right to a private life were abused by the right wing media, so no I don’t think it was right. Where is the proof that anyone involved with the current administration had anything to do with the content of the songs? There is none, becuase they weren’t. We know this because the teachers of the children have come forward and admitted to penning the songs. There were no complaints made by any of the people present at any of the performances. The context of many of the performances was that they were celebrations of the presidency and contained similar celebrations of other figures including many republican presidents – this is a common event in US schools and they certainly were not partisan performances! The only problem I would have with kids singing about Cameron would be that he is not an important enough figure – Obama is an important president because he is the first non-white president and so evidences the progress of the civil rights movement and the country’s attitudes as a whole. There is nothing wrong with a teacher teaching children to sing a song about a political figure except if the figure is currently in power and provides the content of the song. That is not what has happened here and, because the right wing draws comparisons between this invented controversy and the rise to Fuhrer of Hitler, claiming it is puts you in a precarious position because I can only assume you condone this comparison.
October 13th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
“There is nothing wrong with a teacher teaching children to sing a song about a political figure except if the figure is currently in power and provides the content of the song.”
I see so if loyal obama supporters teach children to sing songs about their president its fine aslong as the orders didnt come from the whitehouse, well thats wonderful.
“The only problem I would have with kids singing about Cameron would be that he is not an important enough figure ” YES thats right, hes not important enough because he is only going to be a Prime Minister, not our head of state. Children do not celebrate our prime ministers in this country, we do not have “prime ministers day” like the USA, and whilst i want cameron to be the next prime minister of this country, i do not expect ANY school in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to be teaching children songs about him. Even if he was the first black president, it is NOT acceptable.
Your response to these matters are deeply troubling, and this is one of the reasons why i oppose a republic. Ofcourse this is the US system of republic which is flawed, but it is described on this site as the second most popular after a ceremonial president. If such a system is so dangerous and open to abuse, why is Republic not clearly saying its a dangerous system and not the sort of Republic this country should become?
October 13th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Well what is wrong about it? I’m guessing you must oppose that awful song that teachers in this country force the children in their charge to learn and recite known as ‘God save the Queen’. Explain the difference if you do approve of the national anthem.
October 13th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
God save the Queen is about loyalty to our head of state, our Queen. She does not get involved in politics there for there is no political agenda or conflict of interest. That is the whole reason why i support our current system where the Queen is NOT political and has no allegiance or past allegiance to a political party.
Labour supporters, Conservative supporters and yes even Lib Dem supporters, hell even some SNP supporters (Salmond says theyd keep the monarchy) are able to unite behind our monarch. Children singing their national anthem is fine for most people in this country, i think you will find children singing songs about one of our prime ministers would be very very different.
Having a single president who is both your head of state and head of government is very dangerous, because some feel they have a duty to be loyal to their head of state because “Hes the president” the way i expect people here to show loyalty to our Queen. I dont expect people to be loyal to our prime minister in the same way.
But apparently that flawed Republican system is the second best Republic model, only beaten by the ceremonial president one (which i agree is better). Sorry but that doesnt appear to leave us with alot of choice really though does it.
October 13th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOXbBsHh1cE
This news report asks “Is it a lack of respect for the president or the presidency?”
October 13th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
So, by your logic, when you say it is about loyalty to the monarch you admit that the national anthem is a form of pro-monarchy indoctrination. I wouldn’t go so far; I’d just say it’s a relic of a long passed era. The loyalty to the president is certainly not being observed in the US right now as evident in Fow News bile stream, Limbaugh and Beck’s crowing over Chicago not getting the Olympics and in their outrage at him being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize ( they think the american military should get it!). If you point to america and say how bad it could be, you have defeated that argument because of all this ‘opposition’ to the president that you cite. You began by impuning the American media because you base some of your opinion upon Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News but you also referred to his newspaper’s as the gutter press. I think you’re a bit tangled in your logic.
October 13th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Our national anthem shows respect to our Queen, our head of state. As i said before i see a big difference between monarchy and a political figure who has a political agenda.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaR5LM9i1J8 “When Congressman Wilson insulted US President , he also insulted the American people”
I have never said that him being head of states stops anyone from saying anything against him, ofcourse even here people are able to say things against our Queen and the monarchy anyway. However it is obvious and has been accepted by some republican supporters here the US system of a single head of state / head of government does leave room for abuse and a conflict of interest.
The office of the presidency is the highest office in the land, the guy represents every American. We do not look at our prime minister in the same way because we have a monarch above the prime minister. I will show respect for my Queen, i refuse to show respect for a government that over the past 12 years has done huge damage to my country.
You have said you are ok with school children being taught to sing songs about their presidents even if they are in office aslong as the orders dont come from the President. Well guess what the Queen has not ordered us to keep God save the Queen our national anthem, there is no legislation on this matter. It is up to parliament who we elect.
October 13th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
That last clip you linked refers to people accusing Obama of being like Hitler, or a fascist and a socialist (the ring wing don’t see these as mutually exclusive) or a man who wants to kill your kids and your parents. Glenn Beck accused Obama of being a “racist who has a deep-seated hatred of white people” live on fox news and never apologised for it. This is the lack of respect to which they refer.
October 13th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
@ Simon : “She does not get involved in politics there for there is no political agenda or conflict of interest. That is the whole reason why i upport our current system where the Queen is NOT political and has no allegiance or past allegiance to a political party.”
How do you know that the queen does not get involved in politics? Do you have exclusive rights to the minutes of her meetings with the PM? Although, Simon, you believe, judging from your posts, that she is superhuman, she is in fact only human like the rest of us and therefore has opinions. In her position, surrounded by deferential sycophants willing to do anything to curry favour, she could well use her influence to get her way on certain matters, and she may not, but we just do not know.
October 13th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
“Having a single president who is both your head of state and head of government is very dangerous, because some feel they have a duty to be loyal to their head of state because “Hes the president” the way i expect people here to show loyalty to our Queen. I dont expect people to be loyal to our prime minister in the same way.”
So why do you feel that people feeling allegiance to, say, the Prime Ministership or a Presidency is dangerous but being loyal to the monarch is totally different and fine? You say it’s because the queen is not involved in politics (which is debatable but a point that I will concede), but I don’t see how that some might “feel they have a duty to be loyal to their head of state” is a dangerous thing.
October 13th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Mark the last clip shows clearly biased media which is pro Obama and anti republicans, but again like with the previous link its showing there is an expected respect for the presidency. the guy claims the republicans on fox dont expect republican presidents to be shown disrespect id accept that, but it clarly works both ways and for both sides.. People think the office of the presidency must be respected.
Do we all here feel we must respect the office of the prime minister or respect our prime minister? I dont think so and i certainly dont. Respect for our prime ministers must be earned, like Churchill for example. The only person people are really encouraged to show respect for in this country is our monarch, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and the royal family to a lesser degree. We just dont have the same sort of respect for prime ministers, unless they are great prime ministers and even then i dont expect songs about them!
October 13th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Bob Wiggin, she has opinions im sure she is likely to be conservative no one says she doesnt, but she is politically neutral when carrying out her duties, and former prime ministers from both parties do not question her actions. She doesnt use her position to campaign for a certain political party. Prince Charles uses his position to encourage change on certain issues, like climate change and i am uncomfortable with that because i dont accept the man made climate change myth. But the royal family do not publically get involved in political campaigns or show support for parties.
The only people who seriously question the Queens impariality appear to be anti monarchists anyway.
October 13th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Impartiality***
Mark, its being loyal to their head of government i have a problem with, which is the flaw when the head of government also happens to be the head of state like in the USA.
Its not always easy for people to draw the line of where they are disagreeing with the president or disrespecting the office of the presidency.. as highlighted in one of those videos.
You have said yourself you dont see a problem with kids in schools being taught to praise their president aslong as its not an instruction from the president / whitehouse. Such praise can lead to them feeling loyal to their president, if they are loyal then do they find it easier to follow orders? If they find it easier to follow orders from their president, is that dangerous because theres less questioning of such orders?
I fully accept this isnt that a problem with the ceremonial presidency type of republic, although its unlikely that in such a system you will always end up with a neutral president (they will likely have been involved in a political party before trying for the highest office in the land). But republic does not rule out the US system here, perhaps they should because its deeply flawed and its a far more dangerous setup than our constitutional monarchy as far as im concerned.
October 13th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
No, Simon, calling anyone a racist and a Nazi is disrespectful. There are those that revere the presidency and those that revere only a republican presidency. Bush was called an idiot and there was outrage; Obama is called a racist and a Nazi and there is little more than a whimper. Only the other day did the White House finally speak out against this torrent of abuse that began in july with the first of the town hall meetings. It is an orchestrated, astroturfed movement and is very disrespectful to Obama the man that was elected with the support of the American people. It is right that some see this movement that seeks to smear the President as being disrepectful to the office and therefore the country. Look at the leaders of the opposition to Obama: Betsy McCaughey is attempting to prove that Obama was not actually born in Hawaii but in Kenya; Glenn Beck is supposedly a journalist but calls the president racist and organises an anti-obama rally (his 9/12 party); Rush Limbaugh famously said “I hope Obama fails” and sang a song called “Obama the magic negro”; Palin claims that the proposal of a NICE equivalent in the healthcare bill is a plot by Obama to kill off everyone over 65 with no basis for this opinion. It is out of order and if that was going on here we’d be outraged; actually it would never happen here because we already have at least a basic level of respect for the Prime Ministership and the government.
October 13th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
There is a difference between a basic level of respect for everyone, whilst i hate Gordon Brown, labour and the huge damage they are doing to this country, i wouldnt use insulting terms to describe him or make an issue of him being Scottish or his eye problems which recently was mentioned in the media. That sort of basic level of common decency, is rather different to thinking there is a need to show respect to the office of the presidency.
In this country we would not have children singing songs about our prime ministers. In the USA it appears that is happening, and you have said yourself that aslong as Obama didnt order it or wasnt involved, then you dont have a problem with that. I have a huge problem with it. I do not expect any child in this country to ever sing a song in school praising a prime minister of the day. Perhaps there may be one which references Winston Churchill, but a living prime minister in office would be totally unacceptable.
You clearly have strong views on what is happening in the USA, i am sorry you seem to endorse and support the path obama is taking them down, its scarying my american friends.
October 13th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
The point I make is that we already have this thing you’re so scared of – respect for the Prime Minister. In America, there is reverence for the presidency but that is not a partisan concept. It is not dangerous either – if you think that supporting your head of state means that you should not question anything they say or do, well, that’s silly. You’re also continuing that ‘they shouldn’t sing about Obama’ tripe – who exactly asked them to do it and what was the context? We have established that you think songs that are explicitly about loyalty to a head of state are fine, but that kids singing about the president in the context of singing about important americans past and present is unacceptable. Check your facts on this because it is only people on the very, very far right of american politics that think there is a controversy.
October 13th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
I note also you seem to have a ‘with us or against us’ view of things. Because I disapprove of the tone of the opposition to Obama you conclude that I approve of his policies. That is a non-sequitur.
October 13th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
I’m going to keep well out of this crazy Obama-related slanging match and any religious debate that may ensue from the ‘Unspoken Constitution’ thread.
However, Liam, I still eagerly await the chance to have a football-come-ideology-related debate with you via email!
October 13th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Mark, I do have a problem with people who go after Obama with hateful speech based on skin colour or just general offensive comments that shouldnt be made to anyone. But you seem to have a problem with those taking part in tea parties, such people were just protesting against their government which is their right, perhaps if we protested more in this country against political leaders there would be more change in policies.
However i do disagree with those who think its reasonable for young children to be singing political songs about their political president. Thats the problem, i would hope people in this country were loyal to their Queen, however as she is not making policy and running the country there is no conflict of interest. If i feel i must be loyal to my Prime Minister, surely you can understand for some it causes a conflict of interest.
Like in the case of the kids singing in school. Would a labour voter want their kids being taught to sing a song about Maggie? She was our first woman prime minister, id say thats a pretty big deal like you mentioned Obama being the first black president. So we have the first woman prime minister of our country, yet there are no songs about her (not good ones anyway lol) .
Does the context really matter in these cases? Children should NOT be used for promoting a presidents agenda on a news channel (the healthcare one). Children should not be used for a campaign sing song (the young girl one). That leaves the one that did take place during the Presidents day thing, i accept thats slightly more complicated but it highlights why we shouldnt have a day to honour heads of government. We just would not see such things happening here towards our prime minister or potential prime minister. Perhaps the exception would be a group like the BNP, they worship the Chairman Griffin and give him excessive powers within their party.
October 13th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Simon, not only do you hold the most annoying views about Monarchism, you also have displayed ignorance on logic in most of your reasoning; but now that you are deliberately peddling LIES about polity in the United States, on top of your lack of respect for the moderation policies of this site, of which you and I have been forewarned, numerous times, therefore, I suggested that the site admininistrators ban you from here. You contribute nothing to the issue of Monarchy vs. Republic. Sorry, if I were to be in charge of this website, you’d be gone.
October 13th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Chill out Eclub and let Simon have his say. Even if he’s not contributing much to the debate, except on the odd occasion, he can’t do any harm.
October 13th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
This sums up my view.
Simon: “God Save The Queen is about loyalty to our Head of State, our Queen. She does not get involved in politics here – and there is no political agenda or conflict of interest. That is the whole reason why I support our current system where The Queen is not political and has no allegiance or past allegiance to a political party.”
Glad to see Mark agrees.
October 13th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
@ Eclub
When I had US cable one thing that struck me was that the US mediia has a very different approach to the UK media. One of the main differences being that extreme viewpoints on different ends of an argument were ok to make – in other words the combination of freedom of speech and money meant that a wealthy christian producer could air on national TV a programme about searching for Noah’s Ark – the science was dreadful but it was presented as if it was a documentary. In the UK I have always been impressed by at least a nodding attempt to create balance (except where the Windsor’s are concerned).
@ Simon
I was forced to sing loads of songs at school. For example christian hymns (I am not a christian) and that particularly sychophantic dirge ‘God Save the Queen’ – especially the latter is very political in my book so I totally agree with you – no singing against one’s conscience,
October 13th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Anyway it is clear now the original ban this conversation was about has been lifted and theres been a whole debate on it in parliament.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8304483.stm
British democracy in action! Hell we didnt even have to get rid of the Queen to do it, Rejoice!
God save the Queen.
October 13th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Tim Sharp, when you were in school and “forced” to sing God save the Queen, how did you already have a political view on the monarchy?
As for being forced to sing christian songs, with the exception of I vow to thee my country or Jerusalem, which should be sung in schools, i am sorry for your unfair treatment.
October 14th, 2009 at 12:31 am
long enough ago to remember it at the end of films too – I was certainly aware that the monarchy were ordinary people hyped up by the press when I was eight or ten – luckily I developed an early like for la marseillaise and george washington and oliver cromwell ( although have gone off him since )rec
October 14th, 2009 at 2:58 am
@Neil
You missed the point spectacularly. I don’t care about the national anthem and have stated so. I just asked Simon why he thinks a few isolated groups of children singing in praise of Obama is unacceptable and to be feared whereas a song that is taught to all school children in reverence of the queen is to be encouraged.
@Simon
You ask if the context really matters. Yes it does. You claim that the children are being used to promote Obama and that that is wrong. If the government has forced them to do so then it is wrong. If the teacher taught the kids a song praising Obama, what do you propose? Ban the expression of political views? Ban kids singing songs? The content of the various songs were things like “Mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack Hussein Obama/He said that all must lend a hand/To make this country strong again.” Oh my gosh, better stick them teachers on the rack.
October 14th, 2009 at 10:21 am
The present queen may stay out of politics, though we have no way of finding out what influence she or her agents may bring to bear behind the scenes. However, what royalist can be sure that her “heirs and successors” will do so?
His Royal Highness Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales, KG, KT, GCB, OM, AK, QSO, PC, ADC, Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland already has a record of putting his fingers where they don’t belong.
October 14th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Tim
And what do we have at the ends of films now, adverts for chinese takeaways!, A choice between the anthem and an advert, i know which one id prefer.
Clearly singing god save the Queen did not brainwash you to love the monarchy or make you think the Queen was some sort of superbeing, there for i dont see the harm.
Damn revolutionaries. Englands short time as a commonwealth was not its happiest days. I like the French anthems tune, but God save the Queen is nicer
.
October 14th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Well the point is Mark, i would hope and expect teachers in this country wouldnt even consider making songs about our prime ministers and having children sing it, so we do not need a ban. This is the whole point, whilst there may be blairites and brownites or conservatives who think Maggie was our greatest prime minister in history… there just is NOT the same sort of loyalty to a prime minister by the people / voters / supporters as there is to a President in the United States of America. I honestly believe the reason why that happens in America is because the head of government also happens to be their head of state so theres a big conflict of interest.
Songs about George Washington in schools i can understand he founded their country (Just imagine, in 50 years time if the disgusting separtists win, children in Scotland may be singing and worshiping Alex Salmond, thats enough to make me throw up), but im sorry songs about a sitting president being forced onto the children without permission from the parents? Its clearly problematic and wrong. Some parents whos children were victims to some of these things did complain. In the USA the education system is mostly filled with liberals who pass on their infectious ideology. Here we have some very liberal teachers, some are certainly brainwashing kids about the nonsense climate change crap, trying to turn people into hippies but i doubt theres the sort of political brainwashing which bashes a certain side as you see in the USA.
We live in a constitutional monarchy not a republic. We have a Queen, people do not have to like our system but that changes nothing. She is our Queen and i see no problem with schools teaching children to take pride in our monarchy and be loyal / respect our Queen. Unlike teaching loyalty to a prime minister from a political party it doesnt shape their politics.
October 14th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Michael MacKian
There can never be certainty about all future monarchs just as you can not be sure about presidents or prime ministers. (2 years ago i would never have expected to see children in schools or on news channels being used to praise a sitting president).
However, what the monarchy does provide us with is a clear line of succession to the throne, there for we can see and get to know future monarchs long before the time they take the throne. I would trust Prince Charles, Prince William and Prince Harry to be good Kings if and when that time comes. I have concerns about Charles environmental activities however hes not going to be some evil dictator that attempts to rule our Kingdom and ofcourse i dont think he would be as good as our current Queen. If we have a bad monarch, then the monarchy will fall and this country will become a republic.
In such circumstances there will be nothing royalists can do about it. Loyalty to our Queen or any monarch only goes so far, those who take an oath to bear true allegiance to Her Majesty are not punished when they break the oath. Every single MP on this sites list of supporters is openly breaking that oath, in the past their acts would have been considered high treason and theyd swing but even us supporters of the monarchy do not want things to go that far! People must and always will have a right to oppose the monarchy and to speak out against it, but i fail to see why we should be so politically correct in our schools we cant teach kids to love their Queen and our wonderful constitutional monarchy?
Just one other point on Prince Charles.. Its true he does get too involved in certain things, ive said that before and plenty of royalist supporters on the tv do question it. However, he only gets involved in certain issues, hes not showing support for a single political party and has no power to change government policy. Just out of interest as we know some of the issues that Charles campaigns on, do we know which party he would vote for in an election? Hes very enviornmental so perhaps the Greens? He has some common sense, so perhaps lib dem as they are the most green party that has a presence in parliament? But im sure hes quite conservative on certain matters too, so perhaps the conservatives? If we believe the film “The Queen”, it looks like Prince Charles may have voted for new labour.
So despite all of Prince Charles questionable involvements on policies, we still have no clue what political party the guy would favour or vote for. Whilst not perfect hes still capable of being political neutral towards the parties and governments.
October 14th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Prince Charles is apolitical? My rear-end! He has a penchant for interfering in matters that interest him to get his own way, and he is ably abetted in this by an army of deferential sycophants who are only too willing to accommodate his every whim. I would not be surprised if there wasn’t a government minister or two amongst them either. No-one is allowed to contradict him and he will not enter into debate with anyone. We have to suffer his constant pontification on numerous subjects. Not all of us can use such influence and it is a disgrace that he continues to get away with it.
October 14th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
I said clearly he gets involved in issues and i am uncomfortable with that, especially as one of his main themes is global warming, something i have very very strong views on and oppose his position on. But he is politically neutral when it comes to political parties, which is the core issue for me.
Do we know which political party hed vote for? I honestly dont think we do.
October 14th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Simon is somewhat confused. Charlie may not be PARTY political. He IS political nontheless. Charles has often been at loggerheads with governments and various groups over issues such as GM foods, achitecture, education, healthcare and so on. To say he does not get involved in politics is a silly, confused and innacurate point to make.
October 14th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
It matters not of which political persuasion he is, what matters is that Prince Charles, and no doubt the rest of the royal clan, can use undue influence to get decisions to go his/their way.
October 14th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
But neither of you answered my question. Do we know which political party he favours? The main thing is hes neutral to political parties and not using his position to help or damage a party.
October 14th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
conservatives because he has passed funds from one of his charities to them – it was a rather large story, but I guess it never made it through your filter.
October 14th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Well a quick google search shows that it was the Princes Trust, not the Prince himself, and it wasnt directly to the conservative party anyway just some group the tories set up. Its understandable mistakes happen, but is there evidence Charles was involved?
That incident proves nothing, it certainly not evidence that Charles would vote conservative.
October 14th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
It is interesting that you would take that viewpoint when the controversy revolves around charles but take the opposite view with regard to a liberal president.
October 14th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
@ Simon : “But neither of you answered my question. Do we know which political party he favours? The main thing is hes neutral to political parties and not using his position to help or damage a party”
Are you being deliberately obtuse just to wind us up? We’ve already explained it matters very little which political party he and the rest of the royal family support and for the reasons we gave you. You cannot accept those reasons can you?
I could not care less what political persuasion he is, he must have one because he’s only human after all, (something else you seem unable to accept). What is more worrying than what political party he might favour is the undemocratic way he and his ilk can use their position and influence to subvert the democratic process.
October 14th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Simon: “Every single MP on this sites list of supporters is openly breaking the oath, in the past their acts would have been considered high treason and they’d swing – but even us supporters of the Monarchy do not want things to go that far!”
Speak for yourself, Simon.
Speak for yourself.
October 14th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
@ Neil “Every single MP on this sites list of supporters is openly breaking the oath, in the past their acts would have been considered high treason and they’d swing”
In the past are the operative words I believe, the very same place the monarchy belongs.
October 14th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
Mark,
The two things are so very different, one is about teachers brainwashing children about a political leader, the other is about a charity giving a donation to a group it shouldnt have. I didnt look in detail but i doubt there was any suggestion or evidence the Prince made the call to give that donation.
Bob Wiggin
No im being serious. We honestly do not know which political party Prince Charles would support, despite him clearly being on the record on certain issues.
As i said before i dont think Prince Charles should speak out the way he does on certain issues, especially as i do not believe in destroying British industry and businesses for the sake of attempting to “save the planet” when there is no evidence that our industries are seriously contributing to “climate change”< let alone the idea we can stop it. If Britain was put into the stone age tomorrow, this planets future climate would not suddenly change. There for why waste billions crippling our industries, costing 10,000s of British jobs!
But back to the point, Prince Charles is politically neutral because he hes clearly not affiliated with a single political party, and there are several he may support. That means he would not find it impossible to be politically neutral as our King and ofcourse he would stop speaking out on such issues as King anyway.
Neil,
lol, i suppose i should have said most of us yes. Sadly today i dont think we would have enough rope anyway
October 15th, 2009 at 12:31 am
But why are you willing to give the Prince the benefit of the doubt whereas you don’t give those teachers that same benefit?
October 15th, 2009 at 1:25 am
I give obama the benefit of the doubt that he wasnt behind the teacher ordering those children to sing a song praising him and hes not been responsible for all the other things either. As far as im concerned the teacher acted way out of line having young children sing about a political leader. But thats the flaws of their system, certain adults feel huge loyalty to their president of their candidate for president, the way we wouldnt be loyal to our prime ministers, because we have loyalty for our Queen instead.
But in the case of Prince Charles, does he sign the cheques? Does he nominate which groups should get funding? These are matters for the charity commission, and Republic has complained to them before about the Princes involvement in charities, i trust the charity commissions investigators.
October 15th, 2009 at 8:59 am
Simon – How can you be so sure that Prince Charles, when he becomes Kingy, is going to stop doing what he does now (meddling)? He has already intimated that he wants to be the activist king so that tells me he is just going to carry on. That is why he is not apolitical.
October 15th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Bob Wiggin,
Because the king will have advisors, ensuring he follows royal protocol and ofcourse if he does become an “activist king” then republic will be there to hold him to account and the British people will judge if they like his actions or oppose it, at the end of the day as ive said before it will be up to the British people. If we have an awful monarch that loses the support or respect of their people then the monarchy will fall and this country will become a republic.. there will be nothing royalists can do to stop it in such circumstances.
However this seems to be an attempt to predict the future, its far from certain that we will have a King Charles, it is quite possible the Queen outlives him. But its obvious to everyone that the Queen is such a wonderful monarch, republic only really has ammunition on Charles and guessing about what he might do as King. I think that weakens the case for a republic, rather than strenghtening it.