Previously published in Examiner on March 12, 2013
The Queen signed an historical document yesterday. The London Evening Standard published yesterday reported the charter that was signed on Mar 11, 2013 is a step forward. “Human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said the charter was “a step forward” but claimed much more needed to be done to protect gay rights in Commonwealth countries. He said: “It is an important document but it does not include any explicit commitment to gay rights.
I can see where that could be a problem if left to discretion of individual governments to decipher.I don’t think the charter is strong enough; but then the Queen cannot be political nor force any legislation on sovereign countries. Each country such as Canada have their own government who creates the legislation for their country’s human rights concerns.
According to SheKnows Entertainment Queen Elizabeth II, is taking a big step for equal rights in her country by signing a document that is meant to define core values for all 54 of the Commonwealth’s member states.” However, some groups are not happy about the wording. Even the charter reads, “We are implacably opposed to all forms of discrimination, whether rooted in gender, race, color, creed, political belief or other grounds.”
I think it is a great leap forward regardless of the wording.I wish the USA would also adopt such a policy. There is much too much ill feelings on both sides of the homosexuality issue.
On the other hand, Mail Online reports, “There appears to be a clause in the charter to prohibit discrimination on ‘other grounds – this could be interpreted to cover homophobic discrimination but it will be down to the discretion of individual commonwealth countries.”
I don’t like that it comes down to the individual countries. I would like to see it endorsed everywhere. Human rights are human rights; is a homosexual a greater or lesson person for living in one country or another. I do not believe there should be a difference.
Can the feminist movement benefit even more from Elizabeth II?
Since I am a proclaimed feminist I checked it out. According to pickled politics, “The succession to the throne is weighted in favor of males, so that any male child is automatically closer in line to the throne than his sister(s), whatever their ages. This arrangement made sense five hundred or more years ago when this was the norm in most households. If the monarchy had attempted to reform it then, it could well have led to civil war, as many would have flocked to the banner of a male pretender to the throne, angry at the change in customs or simply to exploit the situation.
Yes the times would not allow a female queen as long as there were male heirs that could reign.But we live in the 21st century now and the monarchy is somewhat archaic.
But since then, the diminishing power of the monarchy in relation to other institutions has meant this is no longer a concern. In the 16th century, there were real worries about whether a woman could rule properly. It was not [until the reign of Elizabeth I] that people realized that a woman could be Queen of England without ruining everything. Not all of our female monarchs have been brilliant, but on average they have been no worse than the men (perhaps even a little better).
As a feminist and champion of women’s rights I feel we showed the monarchy could be run very well by a woman.
Now new legislation will support the reign of females. Prince William and Princess Kate’s baby will be monarch regardless of gender. According to the Australian News, the landmark charter with the “particularly strong stance on gender equality, follows International Women’s Day, which was celebrated on March 8.”
I wonder if the signing of the charter was deliberately chosen to fall just after International Women’s Day.Or perhaps it was signed because Princess Kate inadvertently spilled the beans that she is having a girl.