and the internments of Irish terrorists who were British subjects?

I'm sure Britain has about the same protections as U.S. At least it's not illegal in U.K., i think, to be a Holocaust denier as it is in France i believe and perhaps Germany.

I am definitely not a Holocaust denier but anyone should have the right to express their opinion without fear of laws.

Yes, freedom of speech..unless you are protesting the war or holding up an impeach sign

my neighborhood is literally peppered with Impeach Cheney and Bush yard signs as well as End the War signs.

Don't think there's any limiting protesting - except under certain conditions to do with public safety.

"and the internments of Irish terrorists who were British subjects?"

Guantanamo? The internment of Japanese Americans?

Desperate times.....

Not illegal at all to deny the holocaust, but highly ridiculous.

The written constitution argument is a total red herring. We have a constitution contained within the body of law. It is there, just not all in one place.

<<< "and the internments of Irish terrorists who were British subjects?" >>>

Very few were terrorists - and internment without charge or trial was the best recruiting sergeant the IRA ever had. Pity others didn't learn from history

well said

I still rather have a written document that guarantees such rights - not a body of law. But basically right now there is little difference - i agree.

"but neeer stands up with a U.S. citizen and certainly one in the U.S."

So the 70,000 US citizens interned for the crime of having Japanese parents weren't "real" US citizens?

Or the however many million black people denied the right to vote AFTER the abolition of slavery?

Or the people summarily imprisoned for free speech under the Sedition Act?

Or the people your current President and till recently Attorney General claimed were justifiably tortured?

Or the people persecuted in McCarthy's day?

Constitutions - above all constitutions signed by slave owners who postured about liberty - do nothing for real rights. Though they're terrific ways of protecting the KKK or the right of every psychopathic student to buy an AK47 and try it out on his classmates.

Rights get protected by political systems dedicated to protecting them.

Though it helps if a country's citizens know a bit about their history.

Sorry PQ,

Outside the US, the US is not not a model to be admired. Désolé....

about ancient history it seems except for the C & W torture thing - which always happens abroad when the U.S. transfers the suspect to a third-party country to do the dirty work.

I'm sure i could scour British history since the Magna Carta or whatever origins of the government and since ever accumulated rights and show the same.

And all those very past events would no doubt be judged un-Consitutional today because of legal precedent, lacking when they occurred.

A London bobbie once said he could search me without any cause anytime he wanted to - not sure if he was joking or not???? But if so - enough said about protected rights.

> like U.K. has blocked publication of certain books i believe - not possible here unless national security i believe

Ditto in the UK. The government did attempt to ban the publication of <i>Spycatcher</i>, by the former head of MI5, but were unsuccessful.

The Chatterley ban was overturned in 1960 in the UK, 1959 in the US, and prohibition of virtually any textual matter on obscenity grounds has been impossible since then. Censorship on national security grounds is also pretty difficult if not impossible.

That would have been a while back. The SUS laws, allowing stop and search were withdrawn decades ago because the cops were seen to be targeting young black males.

No one is saying anyone is perfect, but the American blind love affair with America is kind of boring for spectators.

well if you've read my comments much i have no love affair with America and routinely condemn our current executive branch actions

Gitmo is a disgrace and is against what i proudly could call the american way - but it's the antithesis of it

the recent unprecedented spying OK'd on Americans on phones (hasn't been court tested yet)

illegally invading Iraq

sanctioning torture, etc.

being a bully that everyone hates

that i love the Constitutional protections i is one thing but to say i have a love affair with Amerika is far from the truth.

I'm actually embbarrased currently to be associated with my governments actions abroad - as Brits should also be vis-v-vis Iraq at least.

A catholic and apparently only a Catholic can not become king or queen of England et al - so much for the every man is equal thing

and a man takes precedence over a male to be head of state - enough said.

Academic point.
Under our non existant constitution, you can't have the Monarch taking orders from the Pope.

I am sure this law would be revoked under the slightest pressure.

The female thing: I don't think that is etched in stone. The heir to the throne is not necessarily even related to the bloke on the throne.

Queen Anne wasn't directly in line, but became queen.

How many male monarchs have their been in the past, oh, say, fifty years?

I'd be a lot more worried about a bar on Catholics in a serious governmental post that wasn't 99% ceremonial. But there isn't one.

&lt;I'd be a lot more worried about a bar on Catholics in a serious governmental post that wasn't 99% ceremonial. But there isn't one.&gt;

what a bunch of B.S. to skirt the very real discrimination issue - no one can become head of state except for a perhaps moronic heredity line - how primitive and anti-democratic! Pass it off as ceremonial but the monarch is on the public dole for big-time pounds and no one but some silly hereditory folks can tap into this.

There is no defense of this travesty - if 99% inieffectual that means there is 1% chance of effecting - who knows if in a crisis Queenie or her successors may not wield real power?

fnarf999

Actually it is still on statute that a prime minister cannot be a Roman Catholic. Hence Tony Blair attending mass every Sunday, having an RC wife and children but being nominally not RC.

Although the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 contradict this.

There needs to be a test case to see which act takes pescidence

fnarf999

Actually it is still on statute that a prime minister cannot be a Roman Catholic. Hence Tony Blair attending mass every Sunday, having an RC wife and children but being nominally not RC.

Although the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 contradict this.

There needs to be a test case to see which act takes precedence

Er what happened to the DNA debate?

A London bobbie once said he could search me without any cause anytime he wanted to - not sure if he was joking or not&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

Not.

Also there is no law to stop a catholic (or anyone else) being PM. That's because there's no such job as PM - it's a convention.

In any case, when it comes to rights we DO have a written constitution - the European Convention on Human Rights which over-rules all British law.