A "collection of ideocies"

@ Amsterdamsky

It is increasingly apparent that 'traveller' was right when he referred to your 'contributions' as "a collection of ideocies".  And, have the decency, man, to address directly the person who you are quoting.

The distinction between tradition and formal legalisms (i.e. the debate between Cranmer and Vanhauwaert) is obviously lost on you.  And you do not seem to realise that your own sneer about "the challenge of slavery to the US Constitution" exactly illustrates my central point in that debate.  I hope that you realise that "slavery" is of all times and of all places, but I am doubtful that you do.  Instead of focusing on modern forms of slavery in the contemporary world, you prefer to selectively focus on a particular form in a particular place two centuries ago, for obvious ideological reasons and smallminded adherence to particular prejudices.  And it is embarrasing, indeed, that you have difficulty comprehending the role and the rationale for a variety of actions by parliaments, local authority boards, etc...w.r.t issues like obscenity laws, alcohol consumption regulations, etc...  Indeed, your absurd linkage of "police abuses" to the "Founding Fathers" shows what kind of 'kettle of fish' you represent.  The Founding Fathers may have lived a long time ago, but you for sure are no improvement on them, despite the advantage of two further centuries of 'evolution'.

Finally, I am a Belgian citizen, and have no "anglo-saxon traditions" in a narrow sense.  That certainly doesn't prevent me from being able to appreciate some of these traditions and observe their fruits in the real world.  But that must be incomprehensible to your parroting kind of perverse western selfhaters.

need for a constitution

"However, Cranmer may have something of substance to say if his comments were to imply that traditions can be more important than formal legalistic texts."

For the UK.  Without a doubt the very few liberties left in the US would have been long gone without the Constitution.  Most of them have already been gutted even WITH a Constitution.  I certainly hope your new growing muslim community will respect and cherish your anglo-saxon traditions you hold so dear. 

 

For the US clearly slavery was not a challenge to the Constitution or was conscription (due process?  certified letter OK).  Obscenity laws clearly are not allowed by the 1st amendment.  Also, why did it take an amendment to ban alcohol but a simple majority to ban marijuana?  It is illegal to be outside in southern california after 10:00 pm if you are under 18.  Figure that one out.  Police abuses regarded confiscated money or property in drug crimes would make the Founding Fathers roll in their graves I am sure.

Quoting the original 2

@ Van Hauwaert

I tend to agree with you on this subject. It would appear that 'Cranmer' likes to play wordgames.  He certainly displays some typical British 'excentricity' to which, of course, he is entitled.   Citizenship simply means that one 'belongs' to a certain 'polity'.  And it doesn't really matter whether that involves being a "subject" to an anachronistic royalty or belonging to a republican political entity.  In the modern - and dangerous - world, governments do need practical means that enable identification of any and all persons on their territory. 

However, Cranmer may have something of substance to say if his comments were to imply that traditions can be more important than formal legalistic texts.  Clearly, the quality of a democracy has little to do with fancy words in legal texts (e.g. constitutions and the like), but everything with actual implementation (of laws) and with 'practice'.   That means that it should be measured by practical things, like actual respect for freedom of opinion (or political speech) and with de facto  alternation of power at regular intervals.    

If that was his point

He should have framed it that way from the start. I only reacted to the part about not needing to prove identity, which is patently wrong. I even gave two totally different examples in which the UK government is exactly seeking that identity from its 'subjects'.

Regarding speaking in the 3th person it was just a request for the sake of a transparant discussion. From his reaction it seems he has no interest for whatever reasons. So be it.

'Something of substance'

Bart Vanhauwaert, Cranmer shall refer to himself as he wishes. You are no-one to presume authority.

Marcfrancs, thank you for being of such intelligence as to acknowledge the tension between UK tradition and EU modernity. Formal legalism has form in the modern age, but it frequesntly clashes with ancient statute law, and those many tensions have yet to be resolved in the UK. Bart Vanhauwaert fails to comprehend this, and similarly fails to comprehend that words have different meanings in different contexts and nation states.

precursor only

Fingerprints are only the precursor of the real stuff: the built-in chip with bluetooth and gps.

"The UK system is 'scary'

"The UK system is 'scary' because it is free. "

Your free system feels like a police state to me.  I suppose if you don't incite racial hatred or express your non-right to free speech and do everything the government tells you to do it might seem free.  For that matter the US is not much better except that the 1st amendment still only been partially eroded (FCC fines for "obscenity" yet the 1st amendment will not allow them to state what might constitute an "obscenity" until they issue the $320,000 fine).  Holland is pretty free it you have citizenship and your address is somehow misplaced by the government.

 

"Every forged passport is a crime; but it is not one that should affect my genuine passport" 

 

My point is that it WILL affect the value of your passport when you pass a checkpoint (lets say Serbia) where they have been barraged with handwritten Irish passports with a stapled on photo and you happen to be Irish.  On my first visit to europe in the mid 90's I was shocked that banks would not accept US $100 bills because most were counterfeit and they didn't have the means to tell the difference.  The several thousand dollars I had with me were completely useless. 

correct...the UK *was* free

Perhaps Cranmer should have said 'the UK system is scary because it was free, but now it is becoming a police state'.

You are quite correct. Ten years of Tony Blair has vandalised the UK's constitutional heritage. We are no longer the Land of the Free.

value of citizenship (if any)?

This seems to be a hot debate in the UK that I fail to understand.  How else do you prove your citizenship?  If your citizenship has no value then this is a severe imposition.  Every forged passport lowers the value of your citizenship.  How and when they check you ID is an entirely different matter.  The UK system really was scary but the debate seemed to center on the actual cards not when you could legally be asked to show ID.

British people not 'citizens'

The answer, Amsterdamsky, is that you do not comprehend British tradition or culture. In the UK we are not 'citizens'. The only 'citizenship' we have has been imposed upon us by membership of the EU, and it appears to be a citizenship that we may not reject. In the UK, people are subjects of Her Majesty. To be a subject is not to be a citizen. Only in time of war have we had a governmental system of control which empowers the state to demand that we 'prove our citizenship' (I would say 'prove our identity'). Our laws are framed by what is prohibited; not by what is permitted. On the Continent, the system is reversed. Therefore in the UK subjects of Her Majesty are traditionally free of all state interference unless either the law demands otherwise or they break the law. The growth of the former is antithetical to British culture.

There is no 'severe imposition' in a citizenship that has no value; on the contrary, the imposition is inherent in a previously free citizenship that is increasingly diminished by the accretion of powers to the state. Every forged passport is a crime; but it is not one that should affect my genuine passport, which is issued by Her Britannic Majesty and demands that I be given free passage while abroad, in her name.

The UK system is 'scary' because it is free. Our liberty has been gained through centuries of subtle constitutional evolution. The challenges posed by virtue of our membership of the EU are immense, and may yet create such tensions that we are forced to become 'associate members', trading happily, but free of all the bureaucratic and sinister governmental interference.

Angelsaxon tradition certainly knows citizenship

For example, when I enter the United Kingdom, I need to show ID and prove citizenship. Even in the free loving Angelsaxon countries. And vice versa if you travel abroad you'll also need to prove ID. I think you even need to show ID to be able to re-enter your own country!

Telling : from all of Belgium's neighbouring countries, Great Britain insists most of all on identification. I take the high speed train in Brussels regularly. When boarding for Paris, I just show an anonymous ticket. When boarding for London, my bags are searched and x-rayed, my ticket is cross referenced with my ID and most important of all : I need to prove my identy... And not just me, but my fellow British citizens travelling with me undergo the same procedure.

So please, reality calls. The United Kingdom is very big on citizenship and mandatory identification. I'd venture bigger than any other country around here. Witness her Majesties criminal DNA database, for another example, domestic this time. More comprehensive than anywhere in the world and perfectly adequate as a means of identification. (And not just criminals get burnt by it. If you happen to have a close relative in the database you could just as well be in there)

There is no push from national governments, be it in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, to make the identification process any lighter or require it less. On the contrary, on a national level, we hear more and more about stricter passport controls, thighter checks on borders. etc All in the name of combatting fraud, terror, illegal migration or whatever the latest excuse is.

The only supranational organisation that has been effective in massively reducing identification duties for private persons is ... the European Union. Now that's irony isn't it?

Definition

Since you have not understood what Cranmer said, he can only assume that others are speaking a different language. His Grace never said that in the UK one does not have to prove one's identity. He said the UK knows no concept of 'citizenship' - British people are 'subjects' NOT citizens. Where you deduce that proving one's identity implies citizenship is a mystery.

He is fully aware that 'citizenship' has become entrenched in modern culture, but the concept has no recognition in the UK's history. It is a modern construct. UK laws talk of the people as 'subjects', not citizens.

Quoting the original

To be a subject is not to be a citizen. Only in time of war have we had a governmental system of control which empowers the state to demand that we 'prove our citizenship' (I would say 'prove our identity').

So you (please drop talking about yourself in 3th person) make very clear that citizenship = need to proof identity. I showed by way of example that the UK government has all sorts of obligations and sneaky ways to check, verify and request proof of identity of its 'subjects'. And thus that the principle of proven citizenship is very well entrenched in the day to day practicalities of UK law.

The Mark of the Beast?

Cranmer emailed you about this story a few days ago, and is delighted The Brussels Journal has featured it. His Grace wondered whether the compulsory collection of biometric date from birth was a prelude to the compulsory insertion of microchips from birth...EU Children to be fingerprinted