National Day of Luxembourg

Today marks the national day of Luxembourg. Most countries’ national days mark an event of historical significance: the United States’ 4 July marks of course the declaration of independence, while Sweden’s 6 June commemorates the accession to the throne of Gustav Wasa – effectively the start of independence from the Danish-dominated Kalmar Union.

Today marks the official birthday of the Grand-Duke, but no Luxembourg sovereign has ever actually been born on 23 June. Grand-Duchess Charlotte was born on 23 January 1896, but the date of the national day was displaced by five months in the hope of better weather.

The choice of date therefore shows a mixture of pragmatism and respect for tradition which is perhaps not untypical of Luxembourg.

15 June 1215

On this day seven hundred and ninety-three years ago at Runnymede King John assented to the Magna Carta:

“No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.
To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.”[1]

What is wrong with that?
[1] Text from British Library: http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/translation/mc_trans.html

Not just 42 days

The resignation of the shadow Home Secretary has placed even further emphasis on the 42 days clause of the Bill currently before Parliament. Imprisoning suspects without charge for six weeks is a shocking development, but I wonder if the 42 days clause, appalling as it is, has distracted attention from some other unwelcome developments.

One provision that struck me was the power given to ministers to hold inquests in secret. Section 77 of the Bill which amends the Coroners Act 1988 provides in part:

“The Secretary of State may certify in relation to an inquest that, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, the inquest will involve the consideration of material that should not be made public—

(a) in the interests of national security,

(b) in the interests of the relationship between the United Kingdom and another country, or

(c) otherwise in the public interest.”

The idea of secret inquests – presumably held in camera without a jury – is an unsettling one. I cannot help wondering how wide the definition of public interest in (c) will prove to be. Will it be taken to mean anything embarrassing to the authorities?

Evangelism in Birmingham

I can add little to the chorus of (justified) condemnation of the West Midlands PCSO who abused two evangelists handing out tracts in Birmingham last week. Nonetheless, I would wish to call into question the concept of a “Muslim area” which apparently has formed in some quarters.

The United Kingdom is just that. Its laws apply equally in all parts of the kingdom, unless those laws provide otherwise. In particular, the Bill of Rights 1689 which refers to “this Protestant kingdom” has not been revoked. One may practice any religion in this kingdom, but the state itself is Protestant.

The Christian faith is a missionary faith. Our Lord has commanded us “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost…” (Matt 28:19). Those who decry proselytization are not obedient to this last command Our Lord uttered before His ascension.

Returning to RIPA

I see from the Daily Telegraph (22 May 2008) that Northampton Borough Council has “admitted using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act five times to catch dog owners who let their pets foul on grass.” The powers were also used in two cases of noise nuisance and two of anti-social behaviour (as well, admittedly, as ten fraud cases).

I looked at RIPA in some detail a little while ago. What puzzles me a little here is (if the report is accurate) into which of the Section 29(3) grounds anti-social behaviour could fall. Anti-social behaviour is not as such a crime to my knowledge in England and Wales. Unless public safety or public health can be invoked, one has to wonder whether the council was acting within its powers.

Whit Sunday

Acts 2:1
“And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.”

When the Church’s history begins, we find the people of God gathered in a single location. This fact gives little encouragement to those who think that belief is an essentially private matter: Christianity is a corporate matter and has been from its first day. Not only were they gathered in one place: they were of one mind. It is perhaps not a very adventurous interpretation of this verse to suggest that the unity of purpose among God’s people was a precondition for the coming of the Holy Spirit. If part of the message of Pentecost is that worship is a corporate public matter, the third of the Church’s major festivals is a holiday worthy of public celebration.

Family seats

So Ms Tamsin Dunwoody, a member of the Welsh Assembly from 2003 to 2007, is to contest the Crewe and Nantwich constituency formerly represented by her mother. One may well think that the writ for this by-election was moved with unseemly haste: Mr Hoon the Labour chief whip (both he and his opposite number Mr McLoughlin have Derbyshire connections) might have waited for Ms Dunwoody to be buried.

I am reminded of a by-election in 1944 in Mr McLoughlin’s constituency of West Derbyshire. The seat had been held almost without interruption by a member of the Cavendish family since 1885. When the marriage of Major Henry Hunloke and Lady Cavendish-Bentinck ran into difficulties, he was obliged to resign the seat, although with the excuse of Army service in the Middle East. Lord Hartington was adopted as the Conservative candidate at a selection meeting chaired by his father, the Duke of Devonshire, while Lord Hartington, on leave from the army, was waiting outside the room.

He was to lose the by-election, in spite of the wartime electoral truce between the major parties, to an independent Labour candidate, Charles Frederick White, whose father of the same name had also previously been elected to the same seat.

The Crewe and Nantwich by-election will be closely watched as by-elections usually are: I suspect for what it’s worth that the family connection may not be very helpful to Ms Dunwoody on this occasion.