www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Interesting developments in England

New group replaces al-Muhajiroun [news.bbc.co.uk]

Dear Myles,

Stupid question but here goes. Does The United Kingdom provide the right to free speech? I recall reading somewhere about the possibility of removing from the Kingdom those who were not proper citizens if those individuals were considered a threat to the national security by action or words.

Thanks, from across the pond,

Michael

Technically nobody in the UK has any rights. Because Parliament is absolutely sovereign and there is no written consitution the King-In-Parliament--on paper--has the right to make or unmake any law in his/her domain. Agreements with the EU have slightly erroded this reckless power but on paper the British government has the power to pass and enforce any law it so desires. The courts in the country do not have the power to strike down any law because they are QC or KC (Queens or Kings counsel). Because of the monarch's position in the British system Parliament has the power to do whatever it so desires.

Dear Myles,
Your analysis of the non-existent "unwritten constitution" is absolutely correct; please allow me to thank you for it.
In the dying years of the USSR the Thatcher government had the gall to send a letter to the Soviet government demanding (!) that there should no longer be an Established Church in the USSR. Very few people seemed to grasp what an "own goal" that was!

Incognitus

So miles would you consider yourself a citizen or a subject? I believe in the UK it is against the law for a citizen to use force in self-defence.

We can use force in self-defence - but it has to be reasonable - you are not meant to kill someone that way.

We can also use a degree of force when protecting our homes/property - but again only in a limited way - the case of farmer Tony Martin is the recent outstanding example of this.

Tony Martin reports [edp24.co.uk]

We have similar laws in Australia. I presume this is from the 'common law' and we have federal and state constitutions. People may only use reasonable force to defend themselves and their property or the Police will press charges. Like the British we are also citizens only and no longer British subjects (we were for a very long time both!!!). It did not mean anything in the end anyway. Those who would like to see the Union Jack on the flag removed are going to have to wait a very long time before that will get through a referendum. The one on the republic failed and no doubt a change of flag one would also fail.

Here in the colonies you have the right to do what Tony Martin did. Sure you will go through an intense investigation, and perhaps a trial if it wasn't clear-cut. But clear-cut cases happen daily in our country.
Many here knew about Tony Martin.

Sorry to disagree with you, Anhelyna, but I think that the Tony Martin case was very troubling.

The idea that someone can go to jail for shooting a burglar, who might have also been a murderer for all Tony Martin knew, is the hallmark of an absurd society. Not to mention the fact that he has to face a civil suit from the other burglar who was wounded. Poor burglar. Maybe Tony should have had milk and cookies ready for them. :rolleyes:

If an intruder breaks into a citizen's house, he should realize that he is taking the risk of getting his head blown off. How does the citizen know whether the burglar is a murderer or not? Should he give the criminal a chance to kill him, or his wife, or his children? There are too many violent criminals running around for it to be worth the risk. I say benefit of the doubt should go to the citizen in cases like this.

Latin "you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers" Trad

It doesn't matter if Tony Martin used a gun or a can opener to defend himself. He had the basic human right to defend his own life and his family.

umm - I didn't think I had said that what happened to Tony Martin was right or wrong.

Frankly we are allowed to protect ourselves - the problem is what is reasonable force ?

We weren't theorizing your position on Tony Martin We were drifting off topic.

Anhelyna said:

The question is, what is reasonable force when someone breaks into your home, your sanctuary, in the wee hours of the night? In my case I have a wife and two small daughters. I may be confronted with a noise, and a silhouette in a doorway at 3AM. I've just come out of a deep slumber, I am confused and scared. Shall I inquire of the intruder what his purpose is? Does he mean to just rob us or will much more serious harm be done to my poor little girls? How are you armed, sir? How many prior convictions do you have, and is your history violent? There isn't any time for that . I must, from the fact that a stranger has violated my premises, assume the worst. More importantly, the offender needs to assume the worst when he breaks and enters. He's entered someone's sanctuary in the middle of the night, and he should expect "a warm welcome." Don't be shocked and and feel offended if you're shot as a consequence of breaking and entering. Then to have the gall to file a lawsuit for being injured while commiting a robbery! Let's just give them OJI, on the job injury insurance, at government expense!

Here's a case that turned out better:

Texas Granny [officer.com]

Even after he's been told to lie down, this clown goes for her gun. This is what happens in real life folks. These are the people that show up in the wee hours of the night. He's very lucky, she actually aimed for and shot him in a limb. That is not what self defense courses teach, she should have shot him in the torso.

We had an elderly couple down here in the St. Pete area confront an intruder. The gentleman shot the assailant, but didn't kill him. They left the assailant unattended, he got up, took the weapon, and killed them both after they had summoned police.

My point is Texas Granny excercised far less than reasonable force and was lucky her intruder ran away. Elderly couple excercised far less than reasonable force and paid with their lives. Reasonable force is whatever it takes to survive, to make the assailant stop , and assume the worst at the outset.

Yes, this was off the original topic, but nothing about being Catholic prohibits me from defending my home or family from whatever vermin might threaten it in the dark of night.

As a sidenote, a house alarm is a good investment. Most vermin will run from the sound of it.

Doug, happy to live in Florida where we can still defend "our castle"

I've never seen a thread get off topic this quickly.

Back to the subject: How does one expect to reason with people who begin an organization by claiming that the Queen is an enemy of Islam? How does one find alliance with the groups of Muslims who rejected groups like this radical new group?

CDL