Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 117674	2011-04-28 22:14:00	Sick Of The Royal Wedding.	Trev (427)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1198188	2011-05-02 03:10:00	Gosh Terry, you must have been brought up in England or somewhere else where they habitually tug the forelock. There isn't anything magical about the monarchy you know. The queen has said that she regards it as entirely an internal matter for Commonwealth countries whether they retain the monarchy or not. Newsflash for you. It doesn't require any Kiwi to leave the country if they don't want to continue to tug the forelock and bow and scrape like the Pongolians do. We could simply change the law that recognises the English queen as being the NZ queen, and set up a new constitutional arrangement. This arrangement is totally within the power of the NZ voting public, no treason required. Unfortunately, it appears at the moment that not enough of us want to see NZ grow up and finally throw off the shackles of the old empire and paddle our own waka. Equally unfortunately, it appears as though William has generated enough hysteria to save the monarchy. Why do people get worked up about posts that present the facts?? The fact is that New Zealand citizens are subjects of the Queen. I am not presenting an argument as you and Metla seem to think, or raising issues of forelock tugging :) It is also a fact that if you do not want to be a subject of the Queen as the law now stands, then you would have to renounce your citizenship. It should be simple enough for anyone to understand ?	Terry Porritt (14)
1198189	2011-05-02 03:14:00	I did answer the question about your presumptive question about a list and voting. You just can't read. Regarding the other part of your question, it isn't anyone's responsibility to educate you. However, if you can't do it yourself, here is a source of answers for you (I don't agree with all that they say, but this might start you thinking - a dangerous assumption on my part, I know, given your track record on other threads on this forum): www.republic.org.nz BTW, are you and KenSmith the same person, because he asked the identical question about a list and voting? I answered him already on that question. Well the reasons for a Republic are laughable and still do not address my main question which is how will NZ becoming a Republic benefit New Zealand or the citizens and or residents of New Zealand. The reason for a Republic mostly just say that we should have a NZer as head of state. Why? For the record I am not KenSmith.	Snorkbox (15764)
1198190	2011-05-02 03:57:00	Why do people get worked up about posts that present the facts?? The fact is that New Zealand citizens are subjects of the Queen . I am not presenting an argument as you and Metla seem to think, or raising issues of forelock tugging :) It is also a fact that if you do not want to be a subject of the Queen as the law now stands, then you would have to renounce your citizenship . It should be simple enough for anyone to understand ? Quite untrue Terry; you are not presenting facts once you go beyond saying NZ citizens are subjects of the Queen (whatever that means) . 1 . When Bruce Jesson, who was the originator of Campaign on Royal Tours (CORT) was fighting an almost solo battle against the monarchy in NZ and fighting for a republic, the worst that could be done to him by the state was to prosecute him for disorderly behaviour, or something like that, for destroying a flag . However, the magistrate at the time said to him in court that he (the magistrate) could not see how Bruce could take the oath of allegiance to the queen required of people submitting themselves to be a member of the bar (Bruce was a law student at the time) . That was true - even though Bruce qualified, he could not be admitted to the bar because he would not take the oath of allegiance to the queen required of all barristers and solicitors . 2 . There is no law that requires all people to make an oath of allegiance . Some classes of people like lawyers, police officers, MPs, the armed forces have to take an oath of allegiance . See S27 Oaths and Declarations Act 1957: Oath of Allegiance not to be taken except under this Act and other specified Acts - No person shall be required or authorised to take the Oath of Allegiance, or any oath substituted for that oath, or to make any affirmation or declaration to the same effect as that oath, other than the persons required to take that oath by this Act or the Acts mentioned in Schedule 4 to this Act . The Acts in the Schedule tell you who has to take the oath . There is an Oath of Allegiance and Judicial Oath that has to be taken by certain classes of judicial officers, like judges . 3 . There is equally no law that says that we are all deemed to have taken an oath of allegiance . 4 . There is certainly no law or practice that requires Kiwis who won't take an oath to renounce their citizenship - that is pure fantasy . Perhaps you are drawing a long bow based upon an imperfect understanding of old English legislation now repealed by the Oaths and Declarations Act 1957 and the Constitution Act 1986?	John H (8)
1198191	2011-05-02 04:01:00	The SIS should have arranged an accident for him, I dont know something like falling in front of a B train would do.	prefect (6291)
1198192	2011-05-02 04:13:00	Quite untrue Terry; you are not presenting facts once you go beyond saying NZ citizens are subjects of the Queen (whatever that means). 1. When Bruce Jesson, who was the originator of Campaign on Royal Tours (CORT) was fighting an almost solo battle against the monarchy in NZ and fighting for a republic, the worst that could be done to him by the state was to prosecute him for disorderly behaviour, or something like that, for destroying a flag. However, the magistrate at the time said to him in court that he (the magistrate) could not see how Bruce could take the oath of allegiance to the queen required of people submitting themselves to be a member of the bar (Bruce was a law student at the time). That was true - even though Bruce qualified, he could not be admitted to the bar because he would not take the oath of allegiance to the queen required of all barristers and solicitors. 2. There is no law that requires all people to make an oath of allegiance. Some classes of people like lawyers, police officers, MPs, the armed forces have to take an oath of allegiance. See S27 Oaths and Declarations Act 1957: Oath of Allegiance not to be taken except under this Act and other specified Acts - No person shall be required or authorised to take the Oath of Allegiance, or any oath substituted for that oath, or to make any affirmation or declaration to the same effect as that oath, other than the persons required to take that oath by this Act or the Acts mentioned in Schedule 4 to this Act. The Acts in the Schedule tell you who has to take the oath. There is an Oath of Allegiance and Judicial Oath that has to be taken by certain classes of judicial officers, like judges. 3. There is equally no law that says that we are all deemed to have taken an oath of allegiance. 4. There is certainly no law or practice that requires Kiwis who won't take an oath to renounce their citizenship - that is pure fantasy. Perhaps you are drawing a long bow based upon an imperfect understanding of old English legislation now repealed by the Oaths and Declarations Act 1957 and the Constitution Act 1986? The only point that you have raised that directly concerns what I have said and may have validity is No. 3. 1 and 2 have already been covered in the reference I previously posted: en.wikipedia.org No 4 you have dreamt up, but is most certainly correct. However I never suggested that. I will repeat, if you do not want to be a subject of the Queen, and you feel strongly enough, then the answer is to renounce your citizenship, and presumably become citizen of another country. Then if you wanted still to live here you would have to apply for residency. Otherwise it is an accident of birth that you are stuck with. Incidently, latest news Osama Bin Laden is dead......... Edit: forgot to add, en.wikipedia.org	Terry Porritt (14)
1198193	2011-05-02 04:17:00	BTW Terry, your reference to the Treason Felony Act 1848, 11 & 12 Vict, c 12 in an earlier post is irrelevant in NZ. It ceased to have effect in NZ by virtue of Schedule 4, Crimes Act 1961. We got rid of the English laws related to whipping and witchcraft at the same time. :D True. Just saw your post above. "I will repeat, if you do not want to be a subject of the Queen, and you feel strongly enough, then the answer is to renounce your citizenship, and presumably become citizen of another country. Then if you wanted still to live here you would have to apply for residency." Pure fantasy. The alternative that is available to all of us in a democracy is to set about changing the law.	John H (8)
1198194	2011-05-02 04:30:00	BTW Terry, your reference to the Treason Felony Act 1848, 11 & 12 Vict, c 12 in an earlier post is irrelevant in NZ. It ceased to have effect in NZ by virtue of Schedule 4, Crimes Act 1961. We got rid of the English laws related to whipping and witchcraft at the same time. :D True. Just saw your post above. "I will repeat, if you do not want to be a subject of the Queen, and you feel strongly enough, then the answer is to renounce your citizenship, and presumably become citizen of another country. Then if you wanted still to live here you would have to apply for residency." Pure fantasy. The alternative that is available to all of us in a democracy is to set about changing the law. I already said in an answer that the 1884 act did not apply in NZ, I said "no" in reply to the question of whether it applied here. Don't people recognise tongue in cheek ? Maybe I should have said "Then if you wanted still to live here presumably you would have to apply for residency." It is not pure fantasy, I would say if one renounces citizenship then all sorts of cans of worms are opened. THE LAW AS IT NOW STANDS.... forget about what may be or not at some future time.	Terry Porritt (14)
1198195	2011-05-02 04:48:00	The SIS should have arranged an accident for him, I dont know something like falling in front of a B train would do. Another odious post from our resident fascist.	martynz (5445)
1198196	2011-05-02 08:17:00	Another odious post from our resident fascist. Be a lame forum with just you commies.	prefect (6291)
1198197	2011-05-02 08:31:00	Another odious post from our resident fascist. Be a lame forum with just you commies.Now, now - behave. Keep it nice or don't post it.	Jen (38)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13