Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Bill of Rights (1689) - bigoted?

  1. #1
    Senior Member SIR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    GB
    Posts
    1,568
    Thanks
    656
    Thanked 660 Times in 424 Posts
    Rep Power
    5

    Question Bill of Rights (1688) - bigoted?

    This honorable gentleman thinks so, and i'm am very much inclined to agree...



    for an extant piece of legislation something is very wrong, like the privilege of being able to defend oneself being exclusive to only one religious 'faith'...

    also, anyone who is confronted with another making the assertion that there is no legal right to free speech in English law, refer them here;

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2
    Last edited by SIR; August 15th, 2019 at 12:27 AM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    547
    Thanks
    143
    Thanked 469 Times in 205 Posts
    Rep Power
    6

    Default Re: Bill of Rights (1688) - bigoted?

    I'm kind of scratching my head trying to figure out your point. Are the principles in the bill of rights bigoted? No. Were some specific implementations of it bigoted? Yes.

  3. #3
    Senior Member SIR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    GB
    Posts
    1,568
    Thanks
    656
    Thanked 660 Times in 424 Posts
    Rep Power
    5

    Default Re: Bill of Rights (1689) - bigoted?

    The biggest problem I have with it is the lack of review and reform to keep it in line with with modern attitudes and other legislation!

    The Law Commission is supposed to be dedicated to reviewing and reforming all legislation; the Bill of Rights is a significant foundation of our so-called 'unwritten' constitution, you'd think they'd have corrected that particular anomaly by now...

  4. #4
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    547
    Thanks
    143
    Thanked 469 Times in 205 Posts
    Rep Power
    6

    Default Re: Bill of Rights (1689) - bigoted?

    If it properly enshrines fundamental principles, it shouldn’t need to be reformed to stay in line with modern attitudes.

    It’s one thing to expand fundamental rights to include groups that were previously excluded (e.g: women’s right to vote). That’s simply recognizing just how fundamental a right is, and the hypocrisy of espousing it for some and limiting it for others. It’s another thing to limit fundamental rights because “modern attitudes” don’t like it or find it convenient (e.g: limiting free speech because some find the content “offensive”). Lastly is the problem of rationalizing new “rights”, like the right to health care or basic income; which rely on removing or limiting the rights of others. At the extreme, citizens become slaves of the state, because their property and labor are no longer their own.

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dneal For This Useful Post:

    mhosea (August 26th, 2019), SIR (August 19th, 2019)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •