Dialogue: Discriminatory laws prop up the British monarchy

By DAVE GUERIN*

The monarchy is an institution that most people see as part of the wallpaper of society, without thinking about its bigoted approach to human rights - an approach protected by some rather unsavoury legislation.

A legal challenge in Britain to address this problem was opposed by the Monarchist League chairman, Noel Cox, in an article on this page.

Our outdated monarchy is under legal threat because it discriminates on the basis of gender, family status and religion. This is in conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights, recently ratified by Britain.

The Guardian newspaper has developed a legal challenge asking the courts to reconcile the legislation with the 1688 Bill of Rights and the 1701 Act of Settlement.

This case affects us because we share the same monarch with Britain, along with nearly a third of the Commonwealth. Thirty-eight out of 54 members are republics or have their own monarchy.

If the law changes we will need to hurriedly change our laws or end up with a different monarch from other Commonwealth countries. For instance, we could have King Charles, while Britain may have King William.

Any such law change will be resisted by the monarchists because it will emphasise that New Zealand is not as independent as we pretend. We simply borrow Britain's monarch every few years or so for a visit. Even then, the Queen cannot visit New Zealand unless the British Government approves.

Of course, we should check out the facts before jumping ahead to changing the law. The 1688 Bill of Rights includes some very useful clauses, such as the rule of law, the right to jury trials and free speech in Parliament. It also specifies who should succeed to the throne after a king or queen dies or abdicates.

That is where the problem starts, as shown in this quotation: "All and every person and persons that is, are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold communion with the See or Church of Rome, or should professe the Popish Religion, or shall marry a Papist shall be excluded and be for ever uncapeable to inherit possesse or enjoy the Crowne and Government of this Realme."

Noel Cox defended this by saying that it was a consequence of the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The bill was written after major conflicts between Catholics and Protestants and obviously seemed appropriate at the time. But would we accept this legislation in New Zealand now?

The bill is not simply anti-Catholic, either. All religions other than Protestant religions were a problem and the monarchy has since become associated exclusively with the Church of England. Discrimination on the basis of religion has no place in our (supposedly) secular state.

A second part of the monarchy's succession rules relate to gender. As Noel Cox put it, women can succeed but men are preferred. It sounds like a job advertisement from the 1950s.

Mr Cox justified this seniority for men because it was the result of more than 1000 years of legal and cultural development. Sexism certainly does have a long legal and cultural history but that does not make it any more acceptable now.

Mr Cox argued that a newspaper should not decide this sort of issue. Rather, it should be left up to the people, through their duly elected representatives.

But the Scottish Parliament has passed a unanimous motion to change the Act of Settlement, and the British Parliament has passed human rights legislation that the monarchy flagrantly ignores. The people have moved on and the monarchy has not kept up, and cannot.

The republican debate exposes social conservatism in the monarchy and in its supporters. The succession rules that Mr Cox characterised as being flexible have not changed for 300 years.

If the Guardian had not taken a stand, there would be no debate over change. Monarchists are willing to point out simple changes to improve our system but are not willing to push to enact those changes.

The Queen indicated she would accept change three years ago, but nothing has happened since. So whether the Guardian's legal case succeeds, it highlights important issues and keeps change moving.

Putting aside the British situation, the monarchy does not comply with our own Human Rights Act either and a complaint to the Human Rights Commission is a real option.

Protection of human rights is seen as a major aspect of a civilised society. The fact that the monarchy fails three of those tests casts doubt on its future. A legal challenge here is likely.

We should consider the issue and ask our own elected representatives whether they support the status quo. Let's ask Helen Clark and Jenny Shipley whether they really support sexism or religious discrimination.

They may say that we've always done it that way or there are more important things to deal with. But haven't we heard that before when debating human rights?

* Dave Guerin is president of the Republican Movement.