MiniD - citizen/subject - the difference unveiled!

[beet1e]

Nobody seemed to know the difference between a citizen and a subject, in the recent rash of gun threads. I must admit, I wasn't at all clear on it myself. So I asked around, but no-one on this board could tell me.

Today I was reading about the Blair govt's latest crackpot idea - citizenship ceremonies for 18-year olds. WTF! For anyone born here before ethnic "impurification" developed a full head of steam c1960, it's a fatuous idea. No doubt taxes will have to be collected to pay for it.

I'm not looking for a flamefest here; I just quoted this article out of interest. The important bits are emboldened, but the whole thing makes for a good read. I like Tom Utley, the author.

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/01/21/do2101.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/01/21/ixopinion.html

A Guardian-reading friend points out an interesting choice of language in his newspaper's report of the Government's plan to introduce citizenship ceremonies for British 18-year-olds.
   
"Ministers believe the introduction last year of such ceremonies for new migrants has proved popular," the paper said yesterday, "and it is now time to consider introducing such services for those born in Britain when they reach voting age."

It was that word "services" that caught my friend's eye. From the context, it was clear that the Guardian reporter was not using it to mean services as distinct from goods, but rather in its religious sense.

Either consciously or subconsciously, he saw these ceremonies as acts of communal worship - although the object of veneration would not be God, so much as the Government and constitution of the United Kingdom, with particular reference to the Home Office's plans to improve racial integration and "community cohesion".

My friend found that decidedly creepy, and so do I. What makes it all the more so is that the Guardian seems to have got it plumb right. These proposals really do represent an attempt by the state to march into territory traditionally occupied in Britain by religion.

Fiona Mactaggart, a Home Office minister, gave it away when she said: "It's about a rite of passage."

In the past, such rites have been entirely the province of religion: baptism, circumcision, the Muslim aqeeqah, confirmation, bar mitzvah, marriage… True, as young Britons grow older, they pass certain milestones in their relationship with the state. At 10, they reach the age of criminal responsibility; at 16, they may marry or copulate, with a member of whichever sex they choose; at 17, they become eligible for driving licences; at 18, they can buy alcohol and vote.

But until this Government came along, nobody thought that there was any need for a state-sponsored ceremony to mark any particular stage in a youngster's development as a member of the body politic. For Britons, the accumulation of all these rights and responsibilities was just a natural part of growing up.

I should say at once that I have no objection to the ceremonies introduced last February for foreigners who take British citizenship. Those who take part in them seem to like them - and that is a very good Tory reason for carrying on with them. If something works, keep it up. But there is a world of difference between a ceremony designed to welcome those who switch allegiance from one sovereign authority to another, and a Blairite service for people who were born British.

A mantra repeated by old fogeys is that Britons are not citizens - we are subjects of the Queen. It is not easy to explain the distinction between a citizen and a subject, which is why so few of us fogeys attempt the task.

But it is quite clear that this Government doesn't understand the difference, and so I shall take a deep breath and try to spell it out. (Before you roll your eyes and say that the finer points of political philosophy have nothing to do with real life, all I can say is: Try telling that to the hundreds of millions who suffered under Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot.)

The difference between a citizen and a subject, as I understand it, boils down to a question of the legitimacy of a sovereign authority. A citizen is a party to a contract with the state. The state derives its authority to rule from that contract, which is at all times negotiable between the citizenry and the government.

In a monarchy, however - even a watered-down monarchy such as ours - the authority of the sovereign is completely non-negotiable. The Queen derives her right to rule, not from any contract with her subjects, but from a thousand years of very complicated history. From the moment of birth, like it or lump it, a British subject owes allegiance to the reigning monarch, just as his or her forefathers owed it to the ancestors of the Queen.

At first sight, it may look from this as if citizens get a much better deal than subjects. But every page of history tells us that the opposite is true.

It is more than 300 years since Britain suffered a civil war, a revolution or a dictatorship. What other countries in Europe can make the same claim?

The Netherlands, perhaps - if we overlook the Nazi occupation during the war. And Switzerland, of course, home of my favourite chocolate and the cuckoo clock. But that's about it.

The great thing about being born a British subject is that hundreds of years' worth of rights and liberties come free with our first gulp of breath. No rites of passage are required. Who would want to be a citizen, surrounded by millions of other citizens, all with the right to overturn the state and throw everybody's life into turmoil? How much happier it is to be born the subject of a benign constitutional monarch, who keeps the politicians, with all their sulky ambition, their prattle and spin, in their place.


One of the very reasons why we can get rid of governments that we dislike, with so much ease, is that ministers are subject to the same non-negotiable authority as the rest of us.

I cannot resist quoting yet again Disraeli's magnificent put-down of those who preferred the Continental model of a sovereign citizenry to the British way: "To the liberalism they profess, I prefer the liberties we enjoy. To the rights of man, the rights of Englishmen."

Why, when our own constitution has proved superior to any other in Europe, is Tony Blair so besotted by the Continental model? Why does he want to hand over so many of Parliament's powers to an unanswerable, virtually unsackable judiciary? Why is he so determined to surrender control of our laws and our currency to European institutions that have no place in our hearts?

We, who were born free, need no citizenship oaths or affirmations of belief in "social cohesion" to make us feel that we belong. Such humiliations are for the people of insecure countries, riven by revolution, or for nations such as Japan, with a long history of authoritarian rule. We Britons are free to think for ourselves, and to be as rude as we like about our political masters.

I am damned if I am going to chant from a text written by our bat-eared buffoon of a Home Secretary.
 

[GRUNHERZ]

Those are all very good questions beetle....

But what  I really want to to know is if you
survided another nigh without your home being invaded?

[lazs2]

I believe that the guy has a pretty good handle on it.   I would also like to tell him that I am one of those people who wishes to remain a citizen surrounded by citizens.

If your constitution guarentees that you can keep and bear arms you are a citizen.   If not... you are a subject.

lazs

[Sandman]

Originally posted by lazs2

If your constitution guarentees that you can keep and bear arms you are a citizen.   If not... you are a subject.
 

Damn straight. We really don't need those other 26 amendments to the Constitution.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
But what  I really want to to know is if you survided another nigh without your home being invaded?

Yes - thank you for asking!

Lazs!

If your constitution guarentees that you can keep and bear arms you are a citizen. If not... you are a subject.

It's not quite so simple. I have an English friend, living and working in Fort Smith,AR. He is not a US citizen, but a British subject and holder of one of your "green cards" allowing him permanent residence in the US. As a resident of Arkansas he is entitled to arm himself much as you have done, but chooses not to.

[lazs2]

there is only one that guarentees the the rest tho.   They thought it important enough to make it the next thing mentioned right after the right to speak up.

lazs

[Nashwan]

But what I really want to to know is if you
survided another nigh without your home being invaded?

I did, did you?

Home invasion is almost as high a  percentage of burglaries in the US as it is in England and Wales.

Robbery at home is far higher in the US than it is in England and Wales.

[lazs2]

no nash... england has way more hot burglaries (ones where the owner is home) than the U.S.

you may consider these hot burglaries to just be burglaries but I consider them home invasions... any logical man would.   What is the difference between a burglary where you are home and a "home invasion"?

beet... your friend is welcome to arm himself or not so far as I am concerned... he certainly isn't a subject of the queen of Arkansas.

lazs

[Nashwan]

no nash... england has way more hot burglaries (ones where the owner is home) than the U.S.

What's the source for that? Over the last couple of years I've learned not to trust the gun campaigners (on either side), who come up with fraudulent data to support their arguments.

So I went looking at the US Department of Justice site, and the Home Office site.

Both countries do vicitimisation surveys, in the US it's the NCVS (National Crime Vicitimisation Survey), in the UK it's the BCS (British Crime Survey).

From the British Crime Survey, detailed breakdown of domestic burglaries, 1998, 46% of all burglaries (attempted and completed) occured whilst someone was at home, 54% whilst everyone was out (all "don't knows" removed)

From the NCVS, 2002, 15.1% of domestic burglaries occured whilst someone was asleep in the house, 11.2% were carried out during "other activities at home", with "other" and "don't know" covering 22.8%.

That gives a rate of 32% of domestic burglaries in the US being carried out when someone was at home (and that's assuming the "working or on duty" category doesn't include working or on duty at home)

you may consider these hot burglaries to just be burglaries but I consider them home invasions... any logical man would.

Not really, because the definition of burglary in both the US and UK includes attempted burglary, and theft from outbuildings (garages, sheds etc)

So if someone steals a spade from my shed in the middle of the night, I don't really count that as "home invasion".

However, what I would count as "home invasion" is being attacked or robbed in my home, and here the US has a much, much worse record.

From the same sources as above, 6% of all robberies from the person in England and Wales were carried out in "residential" locations, ( Includes home (or hostel) of victim, suspect or third
party, and associated points of entry.)

In the US, 8% of robberies were carried out whilst the victim was sleeping, 15.7% whilst the victim was carrying out other activities at home. That's 24% of US robberies were carried out in the victims home, compared to 6% in the UK.

[beet1e]

LOL Nashwan! Play fair, now. All this quoting of the FACTS - well, it just isn't Cricket!

[lazs2]

so... in the U.S. there is 15% while someone is asleep at home...  Other activities at home equal 11%  Considering the farms and large homes and acrage owned by U.S. citizens... it can mean the same as someone messing with the equipment or... someone burgalaizing the family car... In the U.S. if the car is in the driveway it is a burglary in a lot of cases

even at the worst case scenario... that is like 26% worst case compared to allmost 50% for england.  

I don't think there is any stats that seperate the owner knowing if the burglar is there or not but if they do... then that is a home invasion to me.   In that case I simply want the option to defend myself from whatever is on his mind with the best tool available

that is what it boils down to.   I am a citizen with the ritght... you are a subject with no choice in the matter.    No thank you.

I also don't understand your conclusion where you state that there is 46% rate in england of roberies where the people are home yet later you state that only 6% of the robberies were in "residences"  are you saying that burglars go into... what?  businesses while the owner is there and burgalrize it?   maybe the employee lets em in and watches em burglarize?  maybe they don't notice?

what I find most amusing about the whole thing is your steadfast defense of your government taking away your rights as it somehow being a good thing and "worth it".

lazs

[beet1e]

Originally posted by lazs2
that is what it boils down to.   I am a citizen with the ritght... you are a subject with no choice in the matter.

Lazs - again, you ignore two facts. I have already mentioned that my English friend has a right to arm himself without being a US citizen. Tom Utley's definition of "subject" means being subordinate to a sovereign - in our case HM the Queen.

And remember, about half of EU countries are not monarchies - places like France, Italy, Portugal. And yet these countries are essentially unarmed societies, but as can be seen from Utley's definition, their people are not subjects - they have no Monarch.

[lazs2]

Ok... I don't get it I guess.   He may well be a subject but while he is here he will live by our rules or lack of them.   I truly believe that if your government thought they could get away with it they would tell that guy what he could do in Arkansas.    They would probly make him drive on the wrong side of the road.

lazs

[patrone]

Guns are fairly common in Sweden and Norway. Most households posses atleast a shotgun. Fullautos are actully common as well, as the Goverment has themselfs armed a big portion of the citizens in Sweden, in case of "un-peace". I would think that about 2 million households have access to a gun( 9 million people living here in total.)
Home-invasions are not common here.............and we are a Monarchy, that didnt have a civilwar or dictatorship, in 300 years

[Mini D]

Hehehehe... it's better to be a subject because the queen will always do what's right for you and none of those pesky citizens can interfere.  Hehehehe.

If you're spoon fed **** for long enough, you learn to love it.