Hrhr, Vatican state, you’re funny, half a square kilometer in size and 800 inhabitants, all within the city limits of rome. It’s basically a house with a square owned by the catholic church which has state rights as a remnant from the past.
And where do you see the actual influence of the british monarch on anything besides tabloid headlines? All of her rights are only theoretical in nature and can be revoked by the parliament, she’s a mere representative figure. And the difference is, that the state religion in western states, if existent at all, doesn’t discriminate nonchristian faiths or atheists, quite contrary to the islamic states.
That is a common perception, but she still holds substantial power, not least being commander in chief of Britain’s military forces and being the only person in Britain with the power to declare war.
In practice these powers are exercised on advice from her government, but if it comes to a test she’s the one who makes the final decision.
THE ROYAL PREROGATIVE
A WHAT IS THE PREROGATIVE?
This note seeks to describe as fully as possible the extent of the prerogative. However, as will become clear, the exact limits of the prerogative cannot be categorically defined. The note goes on to describe the way in which the exercise of prerogative power is controlled by Parliament and the Courts.
There is no single accepted definition of the prerogative. It is sometimes defined to mean all the common law, ie non-statutory powers, of the Crown. An alternative definition is that the prerogative consists of those common law powers and immunities which are peculiar to the Crown and go beyond the powers of a private individual eg the power to declare war as opposed to the normal common law power to enter a contract.
Whichever definition is used there is no exhaustive list of prerogative powers. Some have fallen out of use altogether, probably forever - such as the power to press men into the Navy. It may be of more practical assistance to identify those powers which have been consistently recognised by the courts in the past, mindful of the encroachment into the prerogative as a result of the control exercised by Parliament and the courts.
Domestic Affairs
- Although this is the area in which legislation has increasingly been introduced thereby limiting the extent of the prerogative, some significant aspects of the prerogative survive in the area of domestic affairs. These include:
• the appointment and dismissal of Ministers;
• the summoning, prorogation and dissolution of Parliament;
• royal assent to Bills;
• the appointment and regulation of the civil service;
• the commissioning of officers in the armed forces;
• directing the disposition of the armed forces in the UK;
• the appointment of Queen’s Counsel;
• the prerogative of mercy. (This no longer saves condemned men from the scaffold but it is still used eg to remedy errors in sentence calculation) ;
• the issue and withdrawal of UK passports;
• the granting of honours;
• the creation of corporations by Charter;
• the King (and Queen) can do no wrong (for example the Queen cannot be prosecuted in her own courts)
Foreign Affairs
The conduct of foreign affairs remains very reliant on the exercise of prerogative powers. Parliament and the courts have perhaps tended to accept that this is an area where the Crown needs flexibility in order to act effectively and handle novel situations.
The main prerogative powers in this area include:
• the making of treaties;
• the declaration of war;
• the deployment of the armed forces on operations overseas;
• the recognition of foreign states;
• the accreditation and reception of diplomats.
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/public_administration_select_committee/pasc_19.cfm
Just because there are no public ripples doesn’t mean nothing is happening beneath the surface. British prime ministers have to consult with the monarch, who may attempt to influence them or, in extreme cases, threaten to exercise monarchical power, as happened during WWII.
It was during the last few days before the launching of Overlord th4 the King and his Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, were involved in a clash of wills. Usually the relationship between the two men was excellent. The King recognized and admired Churchill’s great leadership qualities, while the Prime Minister, who was an ardent monarchist, always treated the King with great reverence and respect. "The war, "Churchill once wrote to the King, “has drawn the Throne and the people more closely together than was ever before recorded.”
On 30 May 1944 Churchill, in the course of his usual Tuesday lunchtime audience with the King at Buckingham Palace, glibly informed the monarch that he intended to watch the invasion of Normandy from HMS Belfast. When the King announced his intention of accompanying Churchill, the Prime Minister was all in agreement.
Sir Alan Lascelles, the King’s Private Secretary, was appalled. For both the sovereign and the Prime Minister to risk their lives in this fashion seemed foolish in the extreme.
By the following morning George VI realized how foolhardy it would be for the King and Prime Minister to proceed, so he wrote to Churchill suggesting that he, too, reconsider the plan.
Churchill was not so easily dissuaded. Not even when the King backed up his letter by seeing Churchill personally the next day could he talk the Prime Minister round. When it was pointed out that no minister of the Crown could go abroad without the Sovereign’s consent, the Prime Minister answered that he would not be going abroad, since he would be on a British warship and therefore on British territory.
The King became alarmed at Churchill’s continuing obstinacy. “I am very worried about the PM’s seemingly selfish way of looking at the matter,” he confided to his diary. “He doesn’t seem to care about the future, or how much depends on him.”
Churchill received a second appeal from the King just three days before the invasion and just as he was setting out for Portsmouth to see General Eisenhower. He did not immediately reply to the letter so the King, by now very worried indeed, decided that there was only one thing left for him to do, he would have to drive to Portsmouth at dawn the following morning to ensure that the Prime Minister did not embark with the invasion force.
In the end, this proved unnecessary. The monarch’s latest pleas had proved successful. In deference to his sovereign’s wishes, the Prime Minister had given way. Not until six days after the successful D-Day landings did Churchill visit Normandy, and not until four days after that was the King able to follow him.
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=694
The British Parliament cannot make laws affecting the monarch’s powers unless the monarch consents.
There is a situation, however, in which a more direct monarchical assent is required for a bill. This is not Royal Assent, but is termed “Queen’s Consent”. In order for a bill affecting, directly or by implication, the prerogative, hereditary revenues —including ultimus haeres, treasure trove, and bona vacantia— or the personal property or interests of the Crown to be heard in Parliament, the monarch must first consent to its hearing. On rare occasions, such as for the House of Lords Act 1999, the consent of the Prince of Wales, as Prince and Steward of Scotland, or as Duke of Cornwall, must also be obtained where a Bill affects his interests. This is known as Prince’s Consent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Assent#cite_note-12
And how many millions of adherents all over the world, with its own primary, secondary and tertiary educational systems and hospitals in Western countries where it persistently interferes in secular politics to get the state to conform with its religious views, such as on contraception and abortion?
It’s all controlled from the Vatican State, which is just as bad as Saudi Arabia in exporting its religious views but a bloody sight more effective in the West.
We could just as easily demonstrate that there is a Catholic menace as an Islamic one, and there hasn’t been any shortage of people who have believed it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism_in_the_United_States
One brilliantly stupid current example
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uViQ0hVV57Q
Just in case you think Hagee’s views are limited to religious nuts, they’re not. They could well be accepted by the next president of the United States of America. Although I suppose there’s no reason he couldn’t be a religious nut too. Which strikes me as another sort of religious menace.
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_mccainhagee_connection_1.php
Um, that house of The Vatican is also a concern with enormous wealth a good deal of international influence --over areas of the Latin developing world especially…
Not the best panel show ever created by a long shot, but it achieves what it sets out to do which is to show that a lot of Muslims in Australia are just as Aussie as anyone else AND ARE NOT A BLOODY MENACE!
rugby cool man,… its like some prehistoric sport,…
some of my gay friends like the sport as they able to see some muscle rubs each other,.
when i was in Bali,. saw some aussie rugby team jogged along the beach,.
your comment on kiwis really proof that you are indeed an aussie mate,… 
Not the best panel show ever created by a long shot, but it achieves what it sets out to do which is to show that a lot of Muslims in Australia are just as Aussie as anyone else AND ARE NOT A BLOODY MENACE!
Jesus…how I hate scarved women. they are a menace, at list to the good taste in dressing.
Notably Our Sovereign, Queen Elizabeth II. 
Strewth! When did the Queen convert to Islam?:shock:
Well, the royalty seems to be always in trouble finding the correct headgear, beggining with crowns.
Strewth! When did the Queen convert to Islam
Maybe she should…it seems than soon there willl be more muslim subdits than protestant ones.
http://timesonline.typepad.com/faith/2008/03/mosque-goers-se.html
It ain’t all sweetness and light within the Islamic world, which in some respects is about where the Christian world was a few centuries ago, or maybe in the 1950s, tearing at each other for being untrue to the faith.
Indonesian sect members seek Australian asylum
Updated May 16, 2008 16:59:59
Six members of the Ahmadiya Islamic sect in Indonesia are seeking asylum in Australia, saying they can no longer live safely in Indonesia after being declared heretics and threatened with a government ban.
In July of 2005, Indonesia’s highest council of Muslim scholars issued a fatwa declaring the Ahmadiya sect of Islam heretical because they said the sect’s beliefs challenged Mohammad’s status as the last prophet.
Since then attacks against Ahmadis have increased.
In 2006 their mosques and houses were destroyed on the island of Lombok, and now six members of the group displaced by that violence have approached the Australian Consulate in Bali seeking asylum in Australia.
They were told to direct their enquires to the Australian Embassy in Jakarta.
An influential Indonesian intergovernmental agency recently recommended the Ahmadiya sect be formally banned by the Indonesian government.
Adherents driven from homes
The group had travelled from Lombok, where they were part of a group of more than 100 people living in temporary shelters in the island’s capital, Mataram.
Members of the sect have been living in shelters since being driven from their homes by the 2006 mob attacks.
One of the six who sought asylum in Bali, Sulhaen, says the group was too frightened to return home.
“We’ve been living in terror, [and] it will get worse if the government officially bans Ahmadiyah,” he said.
“We are here to demand political asylum cause we don’t feel safe living in our own country.”
Sulahen says the six Ahmadis were unable to meet officials from either consulate, and planned to approach other countries, including the United States, for asylum.
The group is understood to have around 200,000 followers in Indonesia and has been in the country since the 1920s.
http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/printfriendly.pl?http://www.abc.net.au/ra/news/stories/200805/s2246232.htm
I can’t say I’m hugely in favour of granting them asylum, but that’s partly because some of the last exercises in humanity towards Islamic nutcases who are freer to practise their religion here than in Islamic countries haven’t turned out too well.
Not to mention the Irish Catholics we’ve been importing since the first convict shipment, and anyone can see how that’s turned out.
Arrested: a man apart who fought to stay in AustraliaBy Ian Munro with Barney Zwartz
November 9, 2005Abdul Nacer Benbrika fought hard to remain in Australia and, having succeeded, has fought just as hard to remain apart from it.
The Melbourne resident arrived in Australia from his native Algeria in May 1989 on a one-month visitor’s permit and extended this twice, and was allowed to stay a total of six months, after which he became a prohibited non-citizen.
Six years after his arrival he was still fighting, through the Immigration Review Tribunal appeals process, for the right to stay. According to tribunal records, among his reasons for seeking residency was his “love of the Australian lifestyle”.
Yet Benbrika, who has praised Osama bin Laden and defended the right of Australian Muslims to fight coalition troops in Iraq, is fixed in his view that Muslims like him should not disappear into the broader Australian community. He has one God, one law - sharia, laid down 1400 years ago - and for him, even fundamentalist clerics such as the controversial Sheik Mohammed Omran are too liberal.
The Islamic Council of Victoria board member Waleed Aly said Benbrika’s place in the Muslim community was hard to define because it was so marginal. His group is “a splinter of a splinter of a splinter”. “Most Muslims had never heard of him until he appeared on the ABC (7.30 Report),” Mr Aly said.
"You have got Mohammed Omran’s group - he found that was not radical enough. So he formed his own group with a handful of young men who he calls his students.
“As far as I am concerned, he has no more sway over the Muslim community in Victoria than any cult leader would have over the religious communities from which they are splintered.”
Benbrika told the Immigration Tribunal that he would be endangered if he returned to Algeria, a view he still holds. He has gathered around him a group of followers, at least some of whom were arrested yesterday. Some have trained in Afghanistan under the Taliban. They are united by their commitment to a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam.
Among those who spoke out for him in his bid to remain here was Fehmi Naji El-Imam from the Preston Mosque. Sheik Fehmi and Benbrika have since parted ways. “I knew nothing at that time, but he is hot-headed and has a mind of his own,” Sheik Fehmi said.
In 1992 Benbrika married a Lebanese woman who had become an Australian citizen and who tried to sponsor him. But the tribunal ruled he would have to leave Australia and reapply for entry. Earlier this year they were expecting their seventh child.
Until four years ago, Benbrika, also known as Abu Bakr, taught at Sheik Omran’s centre. “I attended his classes for a while, and there were only three or four people there,” a spokesman for Sheik Omran said.
He was identified by police as a key figure in the 16-month investigation that climaxed in yesterday’s arrests. But for Benbrika hardship and adversity are part of Allah’s way: the more you face hard times, the more you practise Islam.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/arrested-a-man-apart-who-fought-to-stay-in-australia/2005/11/08/1131407637648.html#
And here we are three years later. :rolleyes:
Terror trial witness heard voices
Gary Hughes
April 17, 2008THE star prosecution witness in Australia’s largest terrorism trial, who heard voices in his head and communicated with birds, was living the high life on the proceeds of credit card fraud at the time an Islamic terror attack was being planned.
A day after revealing he was privy to a plot by a group of Melbourne Muslim associates to attack a packed MCG on Grand Final day in 2005, Izzydeen Atik admitted employing a butler, driving a luxury car, renting a three-storey beachfront property and making repeated calls to a telephone sex line.
Mr Atik told the Victorian Supreme Court yesterday that he was receiving a $500 a fortnight disability pension at the same time the authorities were paying his brother an allowance to be his full-time carer.
Mr Atik, 27, said he used stolen credit card numbers and expiry dates purchased from taxi drivers to commit a large number of frauds, including obtaining airline tickets, mobile telephone SIM cards and a variety of other goods, which he sold.
In his second day on the witness stand, Mr Atik said he told people that he could obtain cheap airline tickets and charged $100 for a return economy class flight and $200 for a return business class ticket to anywhere in Australia.
He used the stolen credit card numbers to book the flights, he told the court.
He resold other illegally obtained goods and SIM cards purchased with the stolen credit card numbers.
Mr Atik testified on Tuesday that the alleged leader of a Melbourne Muslim terrorist group, Abdul Nacer Benbrika, had told him of plans to mount a terrorist attack on the 2005 AFL Grand Final at the MCG.
Alternative targets were Melbourne’s Crown Casino during Grand Prix week or the NAB Cup AFL football final in 2006.
During cross-examination yesterday by Mr Benbrika’s lawyer, Remy van de Wiel QC, Mr Atik said that in 2004 and 2005 he was making repayments of $500 a month on a three-year-old silver BMW 320 sedan, paying $450 a week rent for a beachfront townhouse in Williamstown and employing a $500-a-week butler.
Mr Atik said his brother was paid about $100 extra on top of unemployment benefits by the authorities to act as his carer, even though he was not physically disabled and was able to take care of himself.
Asked if he used the name “Eddie” to make 1900 telephone sex line calls during which he got excited and masturbated, Mr Atik replied: “That’s normally what a sex call is.”
The jury then heard a call Mr Atik made to a sex telephone chat line hostess in which he offered to fly her and her girlfriend to Melbourne business class “as long as you look after me”.
Mr Atik could be heard telling the woman he made a lot of money from property investments and owning McDonald’s restaurants and claiming that he always told the truth.
He told Mr van de Wiel that if you wanted someone to believe you when you were “talking a lot of crap”, you told them you always tell the truth.
Earlier, the hearing was told that Mr Atik had told psychiatrists that birds spoke to him and that he heard voices in his head from a man named Andrew and a female devil who loved him.
But Mr Atik said he could not recall telling a court hearing in September last year that Andrew talked to him regularly and told him to do “bad things” and commit credit card fraud.
Mr Van de Wiel read a 2002 psychiatric report to the court in which Mr Atik claimed birds often told him their problems.
Mr Benbrika and 11 Melbourne Muslim men have pleaded not guilty to a range of terrorism charges, including belonging to a terrorist organisation.
Mr Atik is due to continue giving evidence when the trial before Justice Bernard Bongiorno resumes today.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23552292-2702,00.html
It’s so much fun living here, a mere thread in life’s rich tapestry.
When she realised that Chuck was going to be the next head of the Church of England.
Only in recent times.
In earlier times some of them couldn’t even keep their heads.
Where do they get these figures?
That figure is repeated in several sources:
Practising Muslims ‘will outnumber Christians by 2035’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1936418/Practising-Muslims-'will-outnumber-Christians-by-2035'.html
That source actually casts as much doubt on the reliability of figures about the numbers engaged in formal religious worship as are put forward in the ‘Christian think tank’ report.
Which reinforces my question about where they get these figures.
It’s similar to a fire where police confidently assert that damage is about one million dollars. Like they’d know.
The figure might vary, but my point was that the general sensation in UK is that eventually churchs goers will be overwhelmed by Mosque goers, and like in every sensation there is a part of truth.
Folks…if you honestly think Islam is a force for evil, think again…
If we don’t do something about the resource shortfall, a lot of people are going to die.
Another global conflict may make World War 2 look tame…we are so much more efficient at killing people now…
Get set for a resource based conflict that begins with demand outstripping supply by a country mile…as governments struggle to meet the needs of ordinary people, industrialists panic, prices increase further, until Western military steps in to guarantee supply. Outraged Second and Third World governments then form a co-alition…and you have the makings of a conflict that may even cost as many as 2 billion lives…
I’m glad I’ll be off this ridiculous planet before the “poo” hits the fan…give it another forty or fifty years…when the oil runs out…