In some ways is Britain less free than the US?

[fujiyama]

For example, I just read a little about the other post with the national identity cards. I also know they have surveillance securtity cameras everywhere.

Also, they have extremely screwed up libel laws which are extremely friendly to the plaintiffs -- thus making for the recent decision by the publisher of "House of Saud, House of Bush", not to publish the book there.

Plus, their foolish Prime Minister has sided with Bush on the war, yet it seems unlikely his party will dump him.

So, for all we rip on Bush and how horrible he is (and he sure is horrible), other countries also have crappy leaders that seem as likely to keep hold of power -- granted atleast Blair isn't quite as bad on the domestic front as Bush is here at home.

I just thought it might be interesting to compare the state of freedom in various ways, between the US, Britain, and for that matter, the rest of Europe as well.

[rwenos]

1. And Then There's The Official Secrets Act

By Act of Parliament, passed in the 1950's, the British government can suppress publication of any national security secrets it wishes to -- thus the Pentagon Papers would never have been published in the UK, if Watergate had happened there.

There's this thing called the First Amendment -- the Brits don't have it. Or any of the rest of the Bill of Rights, for that matter.

And they have a monarch who can dissolve Parliament and order the deaths of her subjects any time she wants.

It's easy to forget the differences, when watching Harry Potter or Masterpiece Theatre.

[Striker Davies]

3. Order the deaths of her subjects?

Horse manure.

And that stuff about dissolving parliament any time.

One little git in Australia tried something like that when in the role of Governor General and he paid the price. Betty Windor might have the apparent legal right to do that, but if she tried it, she'd be forced to abdicate bloody fast.

You have a seriously flawed view of the Royal Powers. They are very, very few.

[newyawker99]

16. Hi Striker Davies!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[MrSlayer]

4. I would love to see this.

It would be hilarious if the Queen, in her old age, decided to bring back the monarchy and hold court like in the old days.

"Off with their heads!"

[mobuto]

11. I don't think that's too likely

I think the Hanoverians decided quite some time ago that declaring the Divine Right of Kings is not exactly a winning issue.

I think the unchecked power of the Government is a much bigger issue. The Government, not parliament, wields absolute power. Without a written Constitution or checks and balances to restrain it, Government can do pretty much whatever it wants. That's kind of scary.

I don't much care for Tony Blair, but can you imagine how screwed up Britain would be if it handed the near-dictatorial powers of the premiership to, say, Silvio Berlusconi or to George W. Bush?

[AGD4y2357y]

27. Hmm....

"I don't much care for Tony Blair, but can you imagine how screwed up Britain would be if it handed the near-dictatorial powers of the premiership to, say, Silvio Berlusconi or to George W. Bush?"

Considering Blair is a member of parliament, and parliament would it's self need to be solidly fascist, how exactly would that happen? If the people of England elected a solidly fascist majority... well, at that point the country would have probably gone to hell anyway.

"I think the unchecked power of the Government is a much bigger issue. The Government, not parliament, wields absolute power. Without a written Constitution or checks and balances to restrain it, Government can do pretty much whatever it wants. That's kind of scary."

The EU will help to see to it that doesn't happen. England will be in the EU long before such a political shift could occur in england.

[AGD4y2357y]

25. Wow

did the GOP fax you this anti-UK propaganda? I understand they hate the EU.

"And they have a monarch who can dissolve Parliament and order the deaths of her subjects any time she wants."

Ever hear of no confidence? You see it in just about all parliamentary systems. This is usually a GOOD "feature" to have.

As far as order the deaths - HAHAHA. Christ, Bush has more power to covertly do away with people than the Queen (who has essentially no power) does.

I trust you are aware the death penalty has been ABOLISHED in the UK, and has been for some time? If you have a problem with state sanctioned murder I don't see why you would be directing your concern to western europe where it has been abolished. If anything the US is biggest offender here. Hell, the US will sentence children to death. Even CHINA doesn't do that. Score another freedom point to europe.

[T_i_B]

2. And in some ways we are more free

Swings and roundabouts really.

[Bombtrack]

5. Well it is a theocracy. I can't believe that liberals put up with giving

the royals millions of dollars a year for jack shit in return.

The parliamentary system seems less favorable to me than what we have.

[T_i_B]

7. Not a theocracy

Theocracy

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Theocracy

1. A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
2. A state so governed.

That is not what Britain is ruled by. What you are looking for is Monarchy

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Monarchy

1. Government by a monarch.
2. A state ruled or headed by a monarch.

And these days the Monarchy has virtually no power and only serves as a ceremonial head of state. In pratice we are a parlimentary democracy. No use looking for a written constitution as we do not have one. And if you want more reading on that matter then may I reccomend Rights of Man by Thomas Paine.

[Bombtrack]

8. That's what I meant. But it does have an official religion

C'mon, I know the diff. I'm just tired here.

[T_i_B]

9. The Church of England

Was created in the days of Henry VIII as a state-controlled religion, and Britain is certainly not a religion controlled state. In fact in pratice we might even be more secular then the US!

[mobuto]

12. The people may be more secular

but the British state is most certainly not.

I wouldn't like my taxes going to support any religion. Britons have no choice: they pay the bills of the CoE.

[T_i_B]

17. Actually that's not the case.

The Church of England funds itself pretty well. And as you can see it is pretty open about it.

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/funding.html

The funds come largely from two places

- Individual givers in parishes across the country and other funds raised in parishes;

- The income from investments at parish and diocesan level and from the church’s historic endowments managed by the Church Commissioners.

Two thirds of the Church’s money (about £550 million) comes through the parishes in the following ways:

£180 million is given tax-efficiently through Gift Aid and a further
£50 million is recovered from the Inland Revenue in tax;
£155 million is given in cash collections and donations by Church people and visitors;
£165 million is raised through legacies, special events, the letting of church halls, bookstalls, parish magazines and so on.
A third (£250 million) comes through income from investments:

£50 million through income on reserve funds in parishes;
£45 million through income on reserves in dioceses
£115 million through the historic endowments managed by the Church Commissioners with a further £40 million from the temporary use of the capital.

A further £25 million of income to the Church comes from the fees paid for weddings and funerals.

[mobuto]

18. Except "the Church's historic endowments"

The income from investments at parish and diocesan level and from the church’s historic endowments managed by the Church Commissioners.

The Church's historic endowments are supplied and serviced by the British taxpayer. Queen Anne's Bounty and the like.

[T_i_B]

19. Correction

The Church's endowments are serviced by themselves as can be seen by the bit you just posted

The income from investments at parish and diocesan level and from the church’s historic endowments managed by the Church Commissioners.

The church is essentially funding itself here by investment management, not by government funding. Historic endowments essentially means such things as property mangement (The church does have a lot of very valuble buildings). The "Historical Endowments" are not sinceures but more grand things such as Cathedrals.

[mobuto]

20. You're simply mistaken

"Historical endowments" are not typically things like cathedrals, they're the C of E's £3.8 billion invested in such things as shopping malls, common stock (£117.6 million in BP stock, for instance), etc. And the money there has come directly from British taxpayers on a number of occasions.

On edit: corrected a horrific spelling mistake.

[T_i_B]

No

The church finances used for investment come overwhemingly from normal sources such as the collection box and jumble sales, not to mention the Church's position as a major owner of land and property.

About the only substantial benefit for the C of E in the current arrangements is the fact that it's bishops sit in the House of Lords. And even then amongst the biggest supporters of that arrangement are other religions from Catholicism to Hinduism which find the Lords Bishops to be receptive to their own concerns on a number of issues.

So really the current constitutuional position of the Church is a good thing, with the notable exception of some anti-Catholic relics still on the statute books such as the rule about no Catholic monarchs.

[T_i_B]

22. No

The church finances used for investment come overwhemingly from normal sources such as the collection box and jumble sales, not to mention the Church's position as a major owner of land and property.

About the only substantial benefit for the C of E in the current arrangements is the fact that it's bishops sit in the House of Lords. And even then amongst the biggest supporters of that arrangement are other religions from Catholicism to Hinduism which find the Lords Bishops to be receptive to their own concerns on a number of issues.

So really the current constitutuional position of the Church is a good thing, with the notable exception of some anti-Catholic relics still on the statute books such as the rule about no Catholic monarchs.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

24. When I was growing up in the 1950s-60s, British schools required

religious instruction. Is that still true?

(I never attended school there, but I had fellow students whose families had spent a year or two in England.)

[T_i_B]

29. RE?

British schools have religious education. But it is religous education and not religious instruction in state schools. Big difference there. You can learn about the beliefs and pratices of religions such as Islam and Judaism at school, without having belief imposed upon you.

[RogueTrooper]

14. We are TIB

Great Britain is the most secular country in the wolrd. Less than 5% of the, self described, Christain population go to church on a a weekly basis. And that is a far more damning statistic when you realise that most of that 5% is comprised of over 60's.

There are two state religions in the UK: The Church of England ( Episcopalians ) and the Church of Scotland ( Presbyterians ). It would seem that having Christianity as your state religion is bad for the soul saving business. Separation of Church and State may not just be necessary for religous freedom but for religous attendance as well.

As for England's libel laws: They are a disgrace; laws ment to protect the rich and powerfull rather than the common citizen. Scot's libel law's are slightly diferent and only slightly less egregious.

[AGD4y2357y]

28. Are you kidding?

Who cares if it has an official religion when the vast majority of the populace doesn't even attend services. It's not like the government is forcing people to go pray, wear a cross, etc.

Tell me - how many incidents have occurred in the UK involving giant ten commandment monuments being put in gov buildings? How many the US? I am sure the US has far more religious nuts when compared to the UK.

[RogueTrooper]

15. They do earn billions from tourism

and they still have a handy diplomatic role ( Sending the Crown Prince to have a word with another country's government is a good way to get that governments' full attention ).

The prohibition of Catholics marrying the heir to the throne is a disgrace, however.

[atre]

6. They have no First Amendment...

... which makes it all the more perplexing that their media is so much more independent and free than our own.

[mobuto]

13. With freedom comes responsibility

And one thing the British media are not is responsible.

They have perfected the art of tabloid sensationalism. Hearst and Pulizter would be shocked.

[Zynx]

10. Britain has fairly significant restrictions on freedom.

It, like many other European countries, doesn't even pretend to have absolute freedom of speech. As for laws regarding the government, there are significant restrictions on what information is available to the public.

[theboss]

21. We are much freer than Britain

No First Amendment.
No Bill of Rights.
No separation of church and state.
Ridiculous libel laws.
State Secret Act.
Lack of local power.
Less direct election of representatives.
Much stricter anti-terrorism laws.
Not to mention they have a freaking monarchy that controls billions of dollars and acres and acres of land.

Also, what is the status of conscription in Europe? I know that during the 80s and early 90s I was friends with some exchange students who had to go back to West Germany to do their mandated military service. I've lost track of this.

[Kellanved]

23. conscription is getting less and less frequent

France has reduced the compulsory military service's duration to one day, in Germany both the legal basis and the military sanity of the draft is being questioned.

As for the points you're listing, they are not all entirely correct. Most EU members are traditional centralized nations with little local control, but that is mostly for historic reasons.
As for the Bill of Rights, you forgot the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

[AGD4y2357y]

26. EU law

The UK has adopted a degree of EU law. EU law mandates free speech and host of other protections that are FAR more reaching than the US constitution. I expect that when the UK fully integrates with the EU, and the EU constitution comes in to play, you will see a great degree of free speech in the UK.

Germany, for instance, had to admit female people in to its military in positions other than med because of an EU court ruling. (equal protection under the law is actually respected in western Europe)

Also - the UK actually has a free press. The BBC and a host of other news sources regularly provide accurate and reliable news. Try getting that here. This is one of the top 10 free speech issues IMO and the US has failed miserably.

Further, same sex couples enjoy a a great degree of protection in EU nations. Right now same sex couples are facing permanent 2nd class citizenship efforts in the US. It's clear to me who is "less free".

"Plus, their foolish Prime Minister has sided with Bush on the war, yet it seems unlikely his party will dump him. "

Wait for the elections.

"So, for all we rip on Bush and how horrible he is (and he sure is horrible), other countries also have crappy leaders that seem as likely to keep hold of power -- granted atleast Blair isn't quite as bad on the domestic front as Bush is here at home."

I would suggest you take a look at those in office besides "leaders". Europe just about all around has solid liberal majorities in legislative and judicial positions. This is more important in the grand scheme of things IMO.

Let's say we have Bush in office but 80% of congress belongs to us. Think he will get away with much? Not bloody likely.

[Hippo_Tron]

30. Well on one hand Britain can overthrow their government overnight...

For us, we have to worry about both houses of congress + gerrymandering and the presidency at the same time.