Oaths taken by those who make our laws, and those who enforce them (UK only)

by Veronica Chapman, July 1^st, 2006

These oaths make very interesting reading. As far as Americans and others are concerned this discussion could be considered to be an education, in terms our how your ‘allies’ are considered and consequently treated, within their own country. As far as UK citizens are concerned, this discussion applies to you.

Patriot is defined (Chambers 21^st century) as

patriot noun someone who loves and serves their fatherland or country devotedly. patriotic adj. patriotically adverb.

(I think we can assume ‘motherland’ as well as ‘fatherland’ or, possibly, ignore ‘fatherland’ … leaving ‘country’)

Obviously most people are aware that there are three major ‘divisions’: the ‘Country’, the Government, and the Head of State.

‘Country’ means ‘We, the people …’ of course.

Now let’s check out two essential Oaths:

The Parliamentary Oath, which must be taken before a duly-elected member of Parliament can take his/her seat in the House of Commons, draw expenses and a salary, vote for/against legislative Bills, and … basically … operate fully as an MP:

I ………. swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.

(There exists a similar ‘affirmation version’ for Atheists, etc.)

Right. So a person puts their name down as a candidate in a General Election. (All candidates pay in a deposit, which is recoverable provided that a sufficient percentage of the total vote is obtained.) The candidates go canvassing, making promises to that segment of the ‘Country’. They state that, if elected, they will perform such duties as to uphold the majority will of that part of the ‘Country’, namely the Constituency. Polling Day arrives, votes are cast by that ‘segment of the Country’, and a winner is declared.

The winner then goes to Westminster, and swears allegiance to those who voted for him/her.

Oh no! The winner goes to Westminster, does not swear allegiance to those who voted, but instead swears allegiance to the reigning Monarch (Head of State).

Apparently that is called ‘democracy’.

This Head of State will open Parliament in the autumn of the year. She will read a prepared statement explaining what that session of Parliament proposes to do. During that reading, she will refer constantly to ‘My Government …”.

Apparently this is called ‘democracy’.

All ‘official printing’ that emanates for the Houses of Parliament are published by HMSO. Translation: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. (Not even “The Government Stationery Office” … and a far cry from “The State Stationery Office”)

Apparently this is called ‘democracy’.

If any UK Citizen falls foul of the laws made by these Monarchical-allegiance-swearers, they are prosecuted by the State Prosecution Service.

Oh no! They are not prosecuted by any State Prosecution Service, but instead by the Crown Prosecution Service!

Apparently this is called ‘democracy’.

Now let’s look at the oath taken by the enforcers of the laws made by these Monarchical-allegiance-swearers.

The Police Oath (varies between England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland … but is essentially the same ‘flavour’)

I, ……………, of …………. , do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve Our Sovereign Lady the Queen in the office of constable, without favour or affection, malice or ill will; and that I will to the best of my power cause the peace to be kept and preserved, and prevent all offences against the persons and properties of Her Majesty's subjects; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all; the duties thereof faithfully according to the law.

Does anyone see just a few little flaws in this oath?

Primarily (of course) it is allegiance to that ‘dear old Monarch’ once again. (Oh, how the British love their Monarch!). When it gets down to the nitty-gritty (bear in mind the Monarch has her own, private, protection squad), it babbles on about ‘preventing all offences against the person and properties of her Majesty’s subjects’.

Do you get the feeling that “We, the people …” is just not a concept that enters into this whole idea? One could quite easily substitute the word ‘toys’ for ‘subjects’.

Well … yes … but it’s all ‘tradition’ … see?

Errr … no … I don’t see.

I don’t see why Members of Parliament should not swear allegiance to those who actually put them in that position.

I don’t see why Police Officers should not swear to uphold the law, keep the peace, and swear allegiance to the Country they serve, and those who actually pay their wages.

I offer this little conundrum to our esteemed ‘Boys in blue’.

If the Queen were standing 10 yards away from you, and I was standing 10 yards away, on the exact opposite side of you … and both the Queen and I were in trouble … who would you rush to protect?

Me … the one who helps to pay your wages, and who you should truly be serving … or someone who does not contribute to your wages in any way whatsoever?

Apparently this is called ‘democracy’.

May I now return, in conjunction with the foregoing, to the definition of a patriot?

Is a patriot someone who swears allegiance to the Monarch, someone who swears allegiance to the Government … or someone who is prepared to defend “We, the people” come what may?

And, in the circumstances where either the Monarch, or the Government (or both) appear the have a malevolent agenda toward “We, the people ...” (as they certainly appear to do in this year, 2006) where, exactly, does a patriot stand?

And where, exactly, does someone who has sworn allegiance to a (possibly) malevolent Monarch or Government stand?

QED.