The recent publication Inside Britain – A Guide to the UK Constitution (http://www.citizenshipfoundation.org.uk/main/news.php?n359) must be one of the most deceitful, inadequate and deliberately ill-informed documents ever published in the English language.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton, Minister for Constitutional Affairs, whos department funded the book and its distribution to schools states that the publication is aimed at teenagers. It is in fact an insult to their intelligence, a disgrace to our heritage and a deliberate attempt to mislead future generations of adults.
But should we be surprised? We have had to endure 40+ years of successive governments dumbing-down constitutional education in our schools – all part of a politically-motivated process to remove knowledge and understanding of British sovereign rights and freedoms. This process, insidiously started by Wilson and Jenkins in the 1960s, has produced at least two generations already with little idea of what their true rights and freedoms are. The publication continues the process. It is a very British disgrace.
Some more glaringly obvious errors include :
* A total misrepresentation of the relationship between Sovereign and people. No attempt to explain that the British people are sovereign in their own country, and that the state answers to us. (How else could the British people enjoy the right - if they so wish - to throw out their elected representatives at least every five years.)
* No attempt to explain that Magna Carta, 1215, and the Declaration of Rights, 1688, were both contracts directly between the Crown and the people. Both were and still are beyond the powers of parliament. Any repeal of statutes based on those contracts leaves the original contracts untouched. (References: Speaker Betty Boothroyd, Hansard 21 July 1993).
* No mention of the recognition by King John of our rights and freedoms at Runnymede in 1215, except for a passing and wholly inadequate reference.
* No attempt to distinguish between the ‘recognition’ of rights and freedoms by successive British sovereigns, and the supposed ‘granting’ of such rights and freedoms by 'European' politicians and bureaucrats - as the EU absurdly attempted in their 'constitution document' (later described by Keith Vaz, then minister for Europe, as no more significant than a copy of the Beano).
* No mention of the significance of the Coronation Oath which renews the contract between the Crown and the people when each new sovereign takes the throne.
* A distortion of the role of parliament and its relationship with Crown and people.
(Why else does every Act start: "Be it enacted by the Queen's most excellent majesty...")
* Civil servants being described as an arm of the state, which they are not. Neither are they there to support a government per se. They are there to do Her Majesty's Government's (lawful) bidding.
* A claim that the armed services are an arm of government – they are not. All officers swear an oath of loyalty to the Crown, as does the Prime Minister and all other ministers and Privy Counsellors.
* No mention of Charles 1, nor Cromwell, and their respective constitutional consequences. Nor are the full consequences of William and Mary gaining the throne explained. The Bill of Rights 1689 is almost ignored.
Our young deserve much better than this shoddy work; they dererve ''education, education, education'' not propaganda, propaganda, propaganda.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton, Minister for Constitutional Affairs, whos department funded the book and its distribution to schools states that the publication is aimed at teenagers. It is in fact an insult to their intelligence, a disgrace to our heritage and a deliberate attempt to mislead future generations of adults.
But should we be surprised? We have had to endure 40+ years of successive governments dumbing-down constitutional education in our schools – all part of a politically-motivated process to remove knowledge and understanding of British sovereign rights and freedoms. This process, insidiously started by Wilson and Jenkins in the 1960s, has produced at least two generations already with little idea of what their true rights and freedoms are. The publication continues the process. It is a very British disgrace.
Some more glaringly obvious errors include :
* A total misrepresentation of the relationship between Sovereign and people. No attempt to explain that the British people are sovereign in their own country, and that the state answers to us. (How else could the British people enjoy the right - if they so wish - to throw out their elected representatives at least every five years.)
* No attempt to explain that Magna Carta, 1215, and the Declaration of Rights, 1688, were both contracts directly between the Crown and the people. Both were and still are beyond the powers of parliament. Any repeal of statutes based on those contracts leaves the original contracts untouched. (References: Speaker Betty Boothroyd, Hansard 21 July 1993).
* No mention of the recognition by King John of our rights and freedoms at Runnymede in 1215, except for a passing and wholly inadequate reference.
* No attempt to distinguish between the ‘recognition’ of rights and freedoms by successive British sovereigns, and the supposed ‘granting’ of such rights and freedoms by 'European' politicians and bureaucrats - as the EU absurdly attempted in their 'constitution document' (later described by Keith Vaz, then minister for Europe, as no more significant than a copy of the Beano).
* No mention of the significance of the Coronation Oath which renews the contract between the Crown and the people when each new sovereign takes the throne.
* A distortion of the role of parliament and its relationship with Crown and people.
(Why else does every Act start: "Be it enacted by the Queen's most excellent majesty...")
* Civil servants being described as an arm of the state, which they are not. Neither are they there to support a government per se. They are there to do Her Majesty's Government's (lawful) bidding.
* A claim that the armed services are an arm of government – they are not. All officers swear an oath of loyalty to the Crown, as does the Prime Minister and all other ministers and Privy Counsellors.
* No mention of Charles 1, nor Cromwell, and their respective constitutional consequences. Nor are the full consequences of William and Mary gaining the throne explained. The Bill of Rights 1689 is almost ignored.
Our young deserve much better than this shoddy work; they dererve ''education, education, education'' not propaganda, propaganda, propaganda.
1 comment:
Indeed so
Post a Comment