|
http://www.news.com.au/world-news/queen-one-does-support-gay-rights/story-fndir2ev-1226594158648
Monday, on live television, Queen Elizabeth will sign a new Commonwealth Charter “designed to stamp out discrimination against homosexual people and promote the ‘empowerment’ of women – a key part of a new drive to boost human rights and living standards across the Commonwealth.
The charter 'opposed' discrimination rooted in gender, race, color, creed, political belief or other grounds, with the 'other grounds' expected to include gay rights and equal rights for boys and girls to ascend to the throne.
Report:
HER Majesty is set to sign an historic charter that declares widespread opposition to discrimination and endorses gay rights and gender equality.
Queen Elizabeth II will mark Commonwealth Day by putting pen to paper on the first document to formalise among Commonwealth nations, "core values of the organisation and the aspiration of its members".
In doing so, the Queen will officially rally opposition to "all forms of discrimination, whether rooted in gender, race, colour, creed, political belief or other grounds".
While she won't specifically mention gay rights, those "other grounds" are reportedly an unofficial reference to discrimination against homosexual people, the Mail on Sunday reports.
Some Commonwealth nations are still fiercely, and in some cases legally, opposed to gay and lesbian rights.
The Mail, quoting a Palace source, reports: "The impact of this statement on gay and women's rights should not be underestimated."
"Nothing this progressive has ever been approved by the United Nations."
The Queen will sign the charter at Marlborough House in London later today (UK time).
The document represents a significant stance against all forms of discrimination from the Palace, and more broadly the Commonwealth.
The particularly strong stance on gender equality follows International Women's Day, which was celebrated on March 8.
It reads: "We recognise that gender equality and women's empowerment are essential components of human development and basic human rights.
"The advancement of women's rights and the education of girls are critical preconditions for effective and sustainable development."
Not everyone is won over by the move. Conservative British MP David Davies feels the charter is unnecessary.
"I fail to see why the Queen needs to make a special statement on this country's opposition to discrimination against gays and women," he told the Mail.
"It is a statement of the blindingly obvious.
"My worry is that the politically correct brigade will use it to silence legitimate debate about issues like gay marriage.
"One can't help wondering what Prince Philip's view would be."
What do you think? Is this a meaningful step from the Palace? Does it make the Queen, in the words of the gay and lesbian rights group Stonewall, a "feminist icon"?
The potential reach of the Charter is vast. The Commonwealth of Nations, formerly known as the British Commonwealth, consists of 54 independent sovereign states: Homosexual acts are still illegal in 41 of the Commonwealth’s 54 nations. Penalties include the death sentence in parts of Nigeria and Pakistan; 25 years jail in Trinidad and Tobago; 20 years plus flogging in Malaysia; and life imprisonment in Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Uganda, Bangladesh and Guyana.
Same-sex relationships are recognised in only five Commonwealth countries: UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa. This is a good start.
|
what does it mean exactly if she signs the carter? im not very familiar with colony rights or something? will it legalize gays in all of the uk teritories?
|
Wait, I thought the British royalty really didn't do anything at all, i.e. had no power? Or can the head of state sign legislation which is brought to him/her by Parliament as a symbolic move? This is interesting though.
|
On March 10 2013 17:41 xwoGworwaTsx wrote:
what does it mean exactly if she signs the carter? im not very familiar with colony rights or something? will it legalize gays in all of the uk teritories?
The UK has no powers over their former colonies. Every single one has complete sovereignty rights over their own nation.
This is essentially just a political statement that may eventually bleed down into more substantial issues with the relationships of the Commonwealth nations.
Still, it's a nice token gesture.
On March 10 2013 17:44 Aerisky wrote:
Wait, I thought the British royalty really didn't do anything at all, i.e. had no power? Or can the head of state sign legislation which is brought to him/her by Parliament as a symbolic move? This is interesting though.
The crown (or a representative in the colonial nations) is still technically required to sign off on all bills passed though legislation.
"Required", as in they will sign every single Bill that parliament passes because a refusal to do so will result in the immediate severance of that last formality of royal power.
|
...wording of that is terrible, as "discrimination" can include discriminating against, oh, I don't know, criminals? Like when we throw them in jail for "other grounds", which would include them stealing stuff? Also, it doesn't specifically say homosexuality, so I think the article is writing like that just to attract attention.
And I somewhat disapprove of the UK trying to get (officially) involved with any of the Commonwealth, they haven't been (politically) involved (in theory) for some time and we've been doing just fine without them.
|
On March 10 2013 17:44 Aerisky wrote:
Wait, I thought the British royalty really didn't do anything at all, i.e. had no power? Or can the head of state sign legislation which is brought to him/her by Parliament as a symbolic move? This is interesting though.
That is a lie to fool people how they are all cute and cuddly and not part of a ruling elite that has been in power for hundreds of years in Britain and been responsible for high crimes against humanity.
Even 100 years ago people hated kings and queens because they were rulers and restricted people's rights, now they are adored, idolized and loved even.
But she has ultimate power, she controls the MI6, MI5, she controls Canadian parliament, Australian parliament and British parliament and can prevent them from operating. Also most of the courts are royal courts that directly answer to the queen.
So its all hidden in plain sight.
|
It's impossible to say what effect this will have without actually reading the document but in those excerpts there's already some worrying things. I'm very much in favour of gender equality, but why do we specifically need women's empowerment, women's rights and the education of girls? Why specifically mention only females if the goal is to achieve gender equality? I don't know about all the Commonwealth countries, but at least in Western countries females are already advantaged compared to males when it comes to rights and education.
|
On March 10 2013 17:51 Gamer_Girl wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2013 17:44 Aerisky wrote:
Wait, I thought the British royalty really didn't do anything at all, i.e. had no power? Or can the head of state sign legislation which is brought to him/her by Parliament as a symbolic move? This is interesting though. That is a lie to fool people how they are all cute and cuddly and not part of a ruling elite that has been in power for hundreds of years in Britain and been responsible for high crimes against humanity. Even 100 years ago people hated kings and queens because they were rulers and restricted people's rights, now they are adored, idolized and loved even. But she has ultimate power, she controls the MI6, MI5, she controls Canadian parliament, Australian parliament and British parliament and can prevent them from operating. Also most of the courts are royal courts that directly answer to the queen. So its all hidden in plain sight.
Wow. I'd swear this was a joke if I didn't just see your rant in the US Politics thread.
Someone is rather delusional...
|
On March 10 2013 17:51 Gamer_Girl wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2013 17:44 Aerisky wrote:
Wait, I thought the British royalty really didn't do anything at all, i.e. had no power? Or can the head of state sign legislation which is brought to him/her by Parliament as a symbolic move? This is interesting though. That is a lie to fool people how they are all cute and cuddly and not part of a ruling elite that has been in power for hundreds of years in Britain and been responsible for high crimes against humanity. Even 100 years ago people hated kings and queens because they were rulers and restricted people's rights, now they are adored, idolized and loved even. But she has ultimate power, she controls the MI6, MI5, she controls Canadian parliament, Australian parliament and British parliament and can prevent them from operating. Also most of the courts are royal courts that directly answer to the queen. So its all hidden in plain sight.
Yeahhhhhhhhhhhh no. In theory the governor general of New Zealand is under the power of the Queen, and in theory he has some limited power, but in reality he does nothing except what he's told to by the NZ government, and every election he officially elects whomever got voted in as Prime Minister. And the Queen never does anything much anyway. If she ever told the governor general to do anything, and he did order something, NZ would most likely ignore him and remove that bit of the government, so it's just a token of alliance rather than any actual power.
|
On March 10 2013 17:52 Drunken.Jedi wrote:
It's impossible to say what effect this will have without actually reading the document but in those excerpts there's already some worrying things. I'm very much in favour of gender equality, but why do we specifically need women's empowerment, women's rights and the education of girls? Why specifically mention only females if the goal is to achieve gender equality? I don't know about all the Commonwealth countries, but at least in Western countries females are already advantaged compared to males when it comes to rights and education.
Nigeria, Malaysia, Sierre-Leon, Pakistan...
There are a lot of nations in the Commonwealth that aren't exactly up to par in terms of women's rights.
|
On March 10 2013 17:51 Gamer_Girl wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2013 17:44 Aerisky wrote:
Wait, I thought the British royalty really didn't do anything at all, i.e. had no power? Or can the head of state sign legislation which is brought to him/her by Parliament as a symbolic move? This is interesting though. That is a lie to fool people how they are all cute and cuddly and not part of a ruling elite that has been in power for hundreds of years in Britain and been responsible for high crimes against humanity. Even 100 years ago people hated kings and queens because they were rulers and restricted people's rights, now they are adored, idolized and loved even. But she has ultimate power, she controls the MI6, MI5, she controls Canadian parliament, Australian parliament and British parliament and can prevent them from operating. Also most of the courts are royal courts that directly answer to the queen. So its all hidden in plain sight.
hahaha what?!
You crazy. As if controlling MI5 was 'ultimate power'. Her only 'real' power is that she can dissolve parliament, and unless she wants full blown riots and national rebellion she can only do that with overwhelming public support, as in its a rogue parliament and all other options have failed.
We live in a democracy, which sadly means you're entitled to voice your crazy opinion.
Anyway, nice gesture by the Queen. I'm not a huge fan but she has political sway so hopefully this will help at least a few people out there. I like it, its not forceful but it should be persuasive.
Interesting to hear about the successors part
|
On March 10 2013 18:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2013 17:52 Drunken.Jedi wrote:
It's impossible to say what effect this will have without actually reading the document but in those excerpts there's already some worrying things. I'm very much in favour of gender equality, but why do we specifically need women's empowerment, women's rights and the education of girls? Why specifically mention only females if the goal is to achieve gender equality? I don't know about all the Commonwealth countries, but at least in Western countries females are already advantaged compared to males when it comes to rights and education. Nigeria, Malaysia, Sierre-Leon, Pakistan... There are a lot of nations in the Commonwealth that aren't exactly up to par in terms of women's rights.
I'm not disputing that. The point is that if one wants to achieve gender equality, it's unnecessary or even harmful to specifically mention improving the situation of one gender while ignoring the other.
|
On March 10 2013 18:12 Drunken.Jedi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2013 18:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 10 2013 17:52 Drunken.Jedi wrote:
It's impossible to say what effect this will have without actually reading the document but in those excerpts there's already some worrying things. I'm very much in favour of gender equality, but why do we specifically need women's empowerment, women's rights and the education of girls? Why specifically mention only females if the goal is to achieve gender equality? I don't know about all the Commonwealth countries, but at least in Western countries females are already advantaged compared to males when it comes to rights and education. Nigeria, Malaysia, Sierre-Leon, Pakistan... There are a lot of nations in the Commonwealth that aren't exactly up to par in terms of women's rights. I'm not disputing that. The point is that if one wants to achieve gender equality, it's unnecessary or even harmful to specifically mention improving the situation of one gender while ignoring the other.
I think you're somewhat overstating the weight of this charter. This is not a law, or even a trade agreement. It's, at best, a political scolding.
|
Y'know what, I'm not a fan of the royals by any means but no matter how ineffective this gesture is, it tells the world what the first world stance towards these issues is.
It is ridiculous such a measure needs to be taken but I support it.
|
On March 10 2013 18:21 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2013 18:12 Drunken.Jedi wrote:On March 10 2013 18:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 10 2013 17:52 Drunken.Jedi wrote:
It's impossible to say what effect this will have without actually reading the document but in those excerpts there's already some worrying things. I'm very much in favour of gender equality, but why do we specifically need women's empowerment, women's rights and the education of girls? Why specifically mention only females if the goal is to achieve gender equality? I don't know about all the Commonwealth countries, but at least in Western countries females are already advantaged compared to males when it comes to rights and education. Nigeria, Malaysia, Sierre-Leon, Pakistan... There are a lot of nations in the Commonwealth that aren't exactly up to par in terms of women's rights. I'm not disputing that. The point is that if one wants to achieve gender equality, it's unnecessary or even harmful to specifically mention improving the situation of one gender while ignoring the other. I think you're somewhat overstating the weight of this charter. This is not a law, or even a trade agreement. It's, at best, a political scolding.
Stop making unfounded assumptions. I never said that this charter would have major effects.
|
Oh, another 'insert political figure here' says something about gay rights, its not like we've had a thread like this before on TL.
*yawn*
If we already merged all North Korea talk into a single thread, these running around in circles gay threads are a much bigger problem
|
On March 10 2013 18:29 Drunken.Jedi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2013 18:21 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 10 2013 18:12 Drunken.Jedi wrote:On March 10 2013 18:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 10 2013 17:52 Drunken.Jedi wrote:
It's impossible to say what effect this will have without actually reading the document but in those excerpts there's already some worrying things. I'm very much in favour of gender equality, but why do we specifically need women's empowerment, women's rights and the education of girls? Why specifically mention only females if the goal is to achieve gender equality? I don't know about all the Commonwealth countries, but at least in Western countries females are already advantaged compared to males when it comes to rights and education. Nigeria, Malaysia, Sierre-Leon, Pakistan... There are a lot of nations in the Commonwealth that aren't exactly up to par in terms of women's rights. I'm not disputing that. The point is that if one wants to achieve gender equality, it's unnecessary or even harmful to specifically mention improving the situation of one gender while ignoring the other. I think you're somewhat overstating the weight of this charter. This is not a law, or even a trade agreement. It's, at best, a political scolding. Stop making unfounded assumptions. I never said that this charter would have major effects.
That guy is stirring shit up just to get you agitated
|
|
|
On March 10 2013 18:40 Zeo wrote:
Oh, another 'insert political figure here' says something about gay rights, its not like we've had a thread like this before on TL.
*yawn*
If we already merged all North Korea talk into a single thread, these running around in circles gay threads are a much bigger problem
im on it bro
|
The original quoted article is REALLY bad. It makes it sound like the Queen is actually doing something.
From the BBC: "The Queen is set to sign a new charter backing equal rights after it received the support of every Commonwealth nation, it has been reported."
Basically it's a token gesture sort of saying "look what we have achieved". All 54 nations have already agreed democratically to the principles anyway.
All this royalist hate is pretty stupid. The royals are a huge asset to our Country in so many ways. Yeah it's not fair that it's purely based upon birth, but life's not fair. If you're gonna start being vindictive then everyone loses.
I just like to remind everyone that the head of state that won the most Gold medals at 2012 was in fact the Queen and not Barrack Obama 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
