I saw this statement released by the Green Party today, regarding the so-called 'discrimination of Catholics' not being able to be made Monarch in England.
I find theRed Green brigade usually very anti-Catholic, and anti-Pope. I am supposing that if a Catholic were to be made Monarch then he/she would be an easier target for Liberals and thus more of an argument could be made for a republic in NZ?
Green MP Keith Locke says that any changes to the royal succession laws must end all discrimination against Catholics.I am wondering why the sudden interest by the Greens in anti-discrimination against Catholics?
British Prime Minister David Cameron has proposed to other nations with Queen Elizabeth as Head of State a change in royal succession law to remove the bias against female heirs and the disqualification on a heir who marries a Catholic. The move, which Mr Cameron is pushing at CHOGM, would require legislative changes in several Parliaments, including New Zealand’s.
“The Government should tell Mr Cameron that any reform bill going through our Parliament will also end the prohibition against a Catholic ascending to the throne,” said Mr Locke.
“To do otherwise makes a mockery of our Human Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on religious grounds.
“We should ask Mr Cameron to be a little bolder and remove all discrimination against Catholics.
“If that means the Monarch can no longer automatically be head of the British Anglican Church, so be it.
“Of course, all these changes leave more fundamental questions like why our Head of State lives in Britain and why the Head of State is determined by inheritance, rather than by a democratic process.
“We only need to look to Ireland for a good example. The Irish go to the polls today to elect a non-executive president who has limited powers, not dissimilar to those of the British monarch,” said Mr Locke.
I find the
Yeah, I'm with you.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe so. For instance, I'm definitely glad that England fought its way out from under Papal authority, I honour the people who fought for that and I think it was an important step towards freedom, democracy and secularism. But I also don't think present-day English law should discriminate against Catholics or that we should have a state religion - those are hangovers from the conflicts of 300+ years ago and should be done away with (the same could be said for the entire system of hereditary monarchy, but let's take what we can get). The Greens generally aren't English and probably don't have strong feelings either way about the Reformation, but the bit about archaic laws discriminating against people they definitely do get.
ReplyDeleteThe link clearly sets out their motivation. They can see the obvious discrimination and there is no downside to point it out (but good on them), and equally, they use it as a vehicle to criticise the monarchy: “Of course, all these changes leave more fundamental questions like why our Head of State lives in Britain and why the Head of State is determined by inheritance, rather than by a democratic process.
ReplyDeleteAll part of wiping the history of the nation clean and starting afresh.
Stop the discrimination against monarchy eligibility, because the end game is to eradicate the monarchy in any event.
Not that I think they are being malicious or calculative in speaking this position, but the position helps them more than not, and any genuine altruism behind their comment is somewhat suspect.
FWIW I find the media and politicians generally have a polite respect for Rome (with the sole exception of the issue of child abuse). What I really can't understand is how it's perfectly fine to have a Catholic as head of the Church of England. But then, PC politicians never did think through the theological implications of their comments very well.
ReplyDelete