Comments by "TJ Marx" (@tjmarx) on "Will the prime minister sack the home secretary after protest clashes?" video.

There seems to be some confusion about the purpose of armistice day. It's there so that we remember the laying down of weapons, the pursuit of peace and the terrible price in human lives attached to both willingly paid by those who believe in peace. There is no better day to march for peace than a day dedicated to remembering its value. That is entirely consistent with the spirit and functionality of the poppy symbol. Lest we forget isn't just some empty virtue signal. It means if we forget their sacrifice, we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of war and cause more men (and women) to sacrifice at the alter of peace. To hold their memory on good stead and with respect, it is our duty to work at all times towards peace both domestic and abroad. What is else a protest for peace but honouring their memory.
68
@unionjackjackson4352 So, government. The crown is a type of government. Worth pointing out in the UK, the crown does not need consent of parliament to decree anything. Parliament on the other hand requires royal ascent to pass or rescind anything. That's what it means to live in a monarchy, there isn't really a democracy it's just the illusion of one. Edit: A correction to your comment to Daz. Palestine has not refused anything. Palestine is not currently a country, it does not have a military nor a unified government. It is a divided occupied territory, whose occupier is attacking defenceless civilians under its occupation, not just in Gaza, but in the West Bank and East Jerusalem too. Acting as if this is an equal two sided event completely mischaracterises what is going on.
2
The last sentiment of the OP is wrong. Rights are granted by governments, and they can absolutely be taken away at will. Rights exist only to facilitate responsibilities and society. You have no guarantees.
1
@stephencollins9062 Fictional characters don't grant rights. The magna carta IS government. All rights are granted by governments, that's why they have to be written down and it's why they have to be enforced (or not). What faith you may or may not hold is entirely irrelevant to rights you hold. Genuinely inalienable rights would not need to be written down, declared nor enforced. It is precisely because you have no such immutable rights that these concepts were created. You might want to look into the history of rights. The concept of "human rights" is even more a joke. They're only invoked and enforced when it suits the interests of the geopolitical establishment. They're merely a political tool. You hold no genuine power, nor does a group. We would not be 5 weeks into peace protests and 75% of the country agreeing with a ceasefire without the needle of opinion and action for the political establishment moving an inch. If anything the opposite. You've gotten entirely the wrong idea about how society and indeed the world more broadly works.
1
@unionjackjackson4352 lol. 🤦‍♂️ Rights are defined and granted by laws. Telling me you have xyz right is meaningless unless the government agrees and enforces it. If a government repeals or refuses to enforce a right, you don't have it. Period. Saying otherwise is a waste of breath. For example, if you hold up the right to say what you want and the government decide to criminalise what you have to say, tada no more right. Equally, if you decide you have a right to protest and the government decide you aren't doing it peacefully or they just don't like your cause, tada no more right. If you are now talking about the UDHR, you're in even worse luck. UN declarations, conventions and treaties only apply if ratified AND ENFORCED domestically. They are voluntary. Article 1 of the UN Charter, all members remain sovereign and their sovereign rights supersede the UN. The UDHR isn't even signed by every country, let alone ratified by them which only goes to further my point. It's only signed by 103 countries, that means 46% of the UNGA aren't even signatories to the UDHR let alone the other 22 countries not members of the UN. Of the 103 signatories, it is only ratified by 64%. In other words, the rights of the UDHR do not apply to the majority of countries in the world. Repealing rights granted under the UDHR in the UK is as simple as repealing local ratification, instructing police and government bodies to not enforce them or the King waving his hand and making it so. Absolutely nothing prevents you losing those rights, and it never has. They are simply things a government grants their citizens in order to facilitate citizen responsibilities, facilitate the economy and allow society to operate cohesively. Monarchy (N) 1. Government by a monarch. 🤣🤣🤦‍♂️ A government is any individual, family, group or body with the authority to administer public policy, control the state and generally...govern. It is by extension any official agent, group or body authorised to administer, adjudicate, enforce or act matters on behalf of primary government. The crown is the head of state. That is, the King is to the UK (and those members of the commonwealth still in the monarchy) what a president is to the US or France only with infinitely more power. The crown is sovereign, that is legally there is no difference between the King and the UK. He can as it stands, do literally anything he wants. He is immune to all laws, and parliament can not act against the crown because it derives its authority to act directly from the crown and can not do anything without his consent. You can feebly shift the goal posts however you like, at the end of the day rights aren't a real thing. They're concepts granted by governments and that's the same regardless of where in the world you live. You only have the power those with actual power say you can have, and only so long as they allow it.
1