Thursday, 29 February 2024

Crown Dependency?

Assisted suicide in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and possibly very soon in Scotland, Jersey and the Isle of Man. In all six states of Australia, in fact, so it has received Royal Assent there six times. Jersey and the Isle of Man are specifically Crown Dependencies. What is the monarchy for? That whole Coronation malarkey, what did it mean?

I have no idea where those classless and incorrupt republics are supposed to be, so the case for change has not been made. The arguments for a republic are rubbish in their own terms. But in their own terms, so are the arguments for the monarchy. Britain may yet have a fourth Prime Minister in this Parliament, and it has had three General Elections in the last nine years, so the world does not exactly look at us and see stability.

And symbolic value, you say? Symbolising what values? Assisted suicide in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and possibly very soon in Scotland, Jersey and the Isle of Man. You cannot symbolise nothing, and there is no value in trying to do so. Quite the reverse, in fact. Monarchists may console themselves only that the republicans' arguments are no better, thereby upholding the status quo by default.

The legalisation of assisted suicide would give to a High Court judge in the Family Division such power over life and death as no judge in this country had enjoyed since the abolition of capital punishment. My paternal grandfather was born before such working-class men could vote in parliamentary elections, and my maternal ancestors included African slaves, Indian indentured labourers, and Chinese coolies. We who come off the lower orders and the lesser breeds, and perhaps especially those of us who are disabled, know perfectly well who would be euthanised, and how, and why.

Even if we had made it past the industrial scale abortion that disproportionately targeted us, then we would face euthanasia as yet another lethal weapon in the deadly armoury of our mortal enemies, alongside their wars, alongside their self-indulgent refusal to enforce the drug laws, alongside Police brutality and other street violence, alongside the numerous life-shortening consequences of economic inequality, and alongside the restoration of the death penalty, which is more likely than it has been in two generations, and which would not be repealed if the Prime Minister were a former Director of Public Prosecutions who was now a war criminal.

All this, and the needle, too? This is class and race war, and we must fight to the death. That death must not be ours, but the death of the global capitalist system. Having subjected itself to that system to a unique extent, Britain is uniquely placed to overthrow it, and to replace it with an order founded on the absolute sanctity of each individual human life from the point of fertilisation to the point of natural death. That foundation would and could be secured only by absolute fidelity to the only global institution that was irrevocably committed to that principle, including the full range of its economic, social, cultural and political implications. For all its Commonwealth role, that institution is not the British monarchy.

6 comments:

  1. Who has ever argued that a constitutional monarchy prevents assisted suicide (parliamentary sovereignty means laws can be passed only by our elected Parliament and such matters are conventionally treated as matters of conscience and therefore subject to free votes)? What constitutional monarchy prevents is tyranny and that’s the true difference between us and Europe’s many ex communist or fascist republics. The only time constitutional monarchy has been abolished (by Oliver Cromwell) it was replaced by a military dictatorship as also occurred when Italy abolished its constitutional monarchy. Thereby proving the point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pavlovian response. Half-remembered from a Ladybird book. You are just lucky that the other side cannot prove the case for change.

      Delete
    2. The rest of the time you say Britain is a tyranny.

      Delete
    3. They are not far wrong. The persecution of Julian Assange, the Public Order Act, the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act, the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act, the Nationality and Borders Act, the Elections Act, the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act, the National Security Act, the Online Safety Act, and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, with both the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, and the Criminal Justice Bill, in the pipeline. The monarchy has not protected liberty against any of those.

      Of course they really mean things like woke and the lockdowns, but the same principle applies, and not only in Britain. Think of the Canadian truckers. The monarchy was an elaborate display of Christianity, but what did any of it mean?

      Reclaim was a republican party, and Richard Tice openly wants Nigel Farage to be President when Donald Trump was President again. In their own terms, who could blame them?

      Delete
  2. The rest of the time you say Britain is a tyranny.

    Nobody serious says that. All the laws Lindsay cites were passed by an elected Parliament and a future one can undo them. Meanwhile the supposed ban on protests has gone entirely unnoticed by all the protesters taking over London every weekend.

    Such people are very lucky they have never lived in a real tyranny.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nor have you. You just bang on that you either already do, or very soon will. Then you support the real measures that might indeed be steps towards it. Keir Starmer also supports those measures, or at best does not propose to repeal them. Think on.

      Delete