You are in the
company of
Roger Warren Evans
Roger Warren Evans
|
|
You are in the
company of
Roger Warren Evans |
|
| Part of www.LivePolitics.net < Back to Home Page |
NewLiving Diary Index
|
item0077C 1074, 1075 1074 7 March 2005 I backed Falconer
My reasoning, which seems to coincide with the Registrar's ruling, was this. The 1998 Human Rights Act requires the Courts to interpret all ambiguities in prior statute law, if possible, so that the Act is "compatible" with the European Convention of Human Rights, now fully incorporated into UK law. And Article 14 of the Convention reads as follows - "Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right". Now, in creating the modern option of a Registry Office marriage, the 1836 Act merely declared that "Nothing in this Act shall affect the conventions governing the marriage of members of the Royal Family". That is to say, the respectful 1836 Parliament simply declared that it was not intending to change those Royal conventions, at least not that time 'round. But the 1998 Parliament said something quite different, deliberately creating the "compatible interpretation" requirement for the Courts. And there is no prohibition, anywhere in the legal system, upon Prince Charles' choosing a Registry Office marriage. There is more than ambiguity - there is silence. Therefore, we all say, the principle of Article 14 should apply, the "compatibility principle" applied, and the legality of Prince Charles' path confirmed to the Registry Office confirmed. The law has been "modernised"...
1075 23 March 2005 “I spy strangers…”
The nasty Tory campaign now being waged by Michael Howard draws deeply on
these ancient aggressions and their related fears. They may not be
"racist" in a narrow legal sense, but that is not the point: they are a crude
calumny upon all those who are "not like us" - gypsies, immigrants, Arabs,
"Europeans", those failing to speak English, those believing in the "foreign
concept" of human rights - the Tory campaign appeals to traditional
aggressions, bringing out the worst of human nature and making it seem
acceptable. If anyone ought to be ashamed of Michael Howard, it is the
Welsh and the Jewish communities.
We have failed. What do you think? Drop me a line
|
|
|
| Created by GMID Design & Communication COPYRIGHT
NOTICE
|
On the arcane subject of the
1836 Marriage Act, I was right
to back Charlie Faulkner. On 8 March, the Chief Registrar Ken Cook
upheld Falconer's view of the validity of the forthcoming royal Registry
Office marriage. 
PS
Remember the Salvation Army's problem? In September 2000, just before the
Human Rights Act came into force, the Sally
Army revoked its rule that a serving Salvation Army officer could not
choose to marry anyone other than another SA serving officer.
Why?
Because the rule would have been overruled, under the Human Rights Act.
I suspect that all communities, the world over, are wary of newcomers. I
have no specific Darwinian justification for thinking so, but I suspect
that a heightened apprehension, a certain defensiveness in the presence of
"strangers", was a precondition of early survival, in a violent
environment. I am aware that certain cultures have overcome these traits
and developed a positive "welcoming" posture towards newcomers, treating
them as guests rather than potential enemies. But "I spy strangers"
remains a powerful warning cry of the human animal. In the threatening
world of early man, the warning must have proved very useful. 
But like many other human traits, suspicious aggression needs to be
contained, managed by social institutions. Indeed, if
civilization is to flourish, these aggressive propensities must be
overcome. 
