Are Israel's values Canada's values?

[newyorican]

Earlier this month, in a speech delivered at the United Jewish Communities' General Assembly in Toronto, Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin said, "we have understood in Canada for some time now, that Israel's values are Canada's values."

-snip-

So let us stop for a moment and examine the top ten reasons (among many) why reality might paint a very different picture of the rose-coloured feeling our PM suggested:

1. Israel has no constitution. A constitution is a must for any democracy. Constitutions are needed to establish clearly defined physical, ethical, humanitarian and legal borders, recognizing the citizens living within them -- both their rights and their responsibilities. Since Israel has not made up its mind which lands it will grab from the Palestinians to include within its politically flexible borders, it has in effect no legitimate borders, no constitution, and no true democracy. This way of running a state does not reflect Canadian legal, political or philosophical values.

2. Israel is a self-declared Jewish state. Its army drafts almost exclusively Jews for military service. Compulsory and racially exclusive conscription by the armed forces does not reflect traditional Canadian values.

3. Israel's immigration policy discriminates on the basis of religion. Only Jews are allowed to live permanently in Israel, while any Palestinians (whether Muslim or Christian) are barred from ever returning if they leave. This is emphatically not a Canadian value.

Link

[Tom Joad]

1. Never figured out why a Jewish person, from anywhere, would automatically

be eligible to become a citizen, but a Palestinian who fled in terror in 1948 (or 1967) cannot return to his very home (and most of those villages remain uninhabited).

Course, if the Palestinians returned, Israel might be forced to become a State for all its inhabitants, rather than a state for one ethnic group.

Yeah, we know Arabs can vote in Israel, but that alone does not make it a democracy.

Would the US be a democracy if over 90% of the land were preserved for Protestants? No, it would not.

[Jim Sagle]

3. There are plenty of Protestant nations in Europe.

Plenty of Catholic nations as well.

Plenty of Muslim nations in the Mideast, too.

So I guess there can be a Jewish state also.

Even if some random Internet poster doesn't like it.

[Tom Joad]

4. creating refugees, and not allowing their return, is ok?

That is a war crime.

Do you believe in reparations for victims of war crimes?

Do you think it was correct to allow Jewish citizens to return to Germany, if they choose to do so?

I do. But we may disagree. Or you may think some states are *special*.

Also, no democratic country is just for Catholics, or Muslims, or Protestants, but they are shared equally with all that live there.

The last state that was declared a state for Protestants (White Protestants) was old South Africa. Such regimes do not last.

[Jim Sagle]

5. There are plenty of non-Jewish Arabs living in Israel.

And the birth of a nation, ANY nation, is neither entirely just nor bloodless - EVER!

[Tom Joad]

9. An Palestinian Arab can own any land he wants in Israel?

Or is most of it reserved for Jewish folks?

90% reserved for Jewish people. That is what is meant by Jewish state.

We are not just talking numbers here , but laws that make it so.

It takes a lot of work to dispossess a people from their homeland, but today preservers in that work.

For some, their motto is "injustice happens, deal with it".

Others see this injustice as the root of a terrible and tragic conflict for everyone involved, and resist acceptance of it.

[pelsar]

11. injustics happens....deal with it...

we call that reality..and not living in some fantasy land...and that country you live in...and the injustices to the those who were killed, tortured, dispossed to provide you with a nice job and home...how are you "righting the injustice?....

thats what i though.....ignoring it...pretending it never happened..."history" to be forgotten (or at least you prefer it that way....

what ever happened to "not accepting it"?

[Behind the Aegis]

16. Incorrect...

"An (sic) Palestinian Arab can own any land he wants in Israel? 90% reserved for Jewish people."

Let’s see…”Private lands. There are no restrictions on the purchase of private land in Israel. Israeli Arabs or non-citizens, including Arab foreigners, may freely purchase it. The Israeli authorities have placed no obstacles in the way of such purchases,…” and “In fact, state land amounts not to 91 percent of Israel's territory but to roughly 80 percent; neither Arabs nor Jews can buy state land; the Jewish National Fund holds no state land; and JNF land is leased, with some restrictions, to Israeli Arabs.” Of course, the “distinguished” authors could compare Israel land policies to the PA and Jordan, where if an Arab sells land to a non-Arab, he (the Arab) is sentenced to death. Although, the Jordanians have repealed that law in some ways, it is still not permissible to sell land to Israelis without high level government permission. (from:Can Arabs Buy Land in Israel?) first posting

[Violet_Crumble]

18. The problem with using crap sources like CAMERA...

...is that in their haste to peddle nonsense, they get things so badly wrong. The poster you replied to was much more correct than that nonsense from CAMERA. The fact is that legally until recently, Israeli Arabs were very limited in what land they were allowed to purchase. While now that's not legally allowed, in practice things may not have changed...

Let's use a more reliable source to correct that 80% claim.

From the Israel Land Authority:

"93% of the land in Israel is public domain; that is , either property of the state, the Jewish National Fund (J.N.F) or the Development Authority."

http://www.mmi.gov.il/Envelope/indexeng.asp?page=/static/eng/f_general.html

Now for some information on the JNF:

"Against the background of the recent public dispute surrounding the connection between the government and the Jewish National Fund (Keren Kayemet LeYisrael), the subject of the historic land transactions, termed "the transactions of millions," is once again on the public agenda. The issue involves a series of transactions that resulted in about half of the land owned by the JNF having been confiscated or seized from Palestinian refugees of the 1948 War of Independence.

The JNF purchased the land from the state starting in 1949 and early 1950. Then prime minister David Ben-Gurion initiated the sale of land to the JNF to prevent any possibility of international pressure forcing Israel to restore it to the Palestinian refugees."

and

"Since 1961, the state has administered the JNF lands through the Israel Lands Administration (ILA). Until recently, only Jews were permitted to participate in the tenders for the leasing of JNF land, but Attorney General Menachem Mazuz decided last week* that the ILA could not continue this policy because it discriminated between Jews and non-Jews."

Take note that 'last week' was February this year. Look at the date the CAMERA one was written - 1997..

"Almost all the JNF lands are located in areas of high demand in the center and north of the country, whereas over 60 percent of state lands are located in the Negev, Golan and Arava, which are in relatively low demand. In the central district, for example, the JNF holds almost 40 percent of state land, and in the country's three largest cities, its holdings average about 30 percent.

Dr. Michal Oren notes that in the areas of high demand, the JNF made sure to obtain better lands than those that remained in state hands. "The JNF always knew how to choose the lands best suited to farming and settlement, la creme de la creme," she says. "The state was left with uncultivated and rocky lands."

http://www.jafi.org.il/papers/2005/feb/feb10hz.htm

Some information on the various land agencies in Israel:

"The JNF is a nonprofit worldwide organization established at the end of the nineteenth century as part of the Zionist movement. Its major goal was to purchase land from local landowners for the settlement of Jews. Until the early 1960’s, the JNF managed its own land holdings. In 1960, it signed a treaty with the State of Israel whereby it agreed to place its land holdings, without transferring title, under the administration of the Israel Lands Administration and its governing body – the Israel Lands Council. The JNF appoints half (less one) of the members of the Council, while the government appoints the other half (plus one). JNF lands constitute about 13 percent of the total of Israel lands.

Viewing itself as a custodian of land for the Jewish people, the JNF incorporated into the treaty with the State of Israel a further and highly controversial condition: the Israel Lands Administration would be allowed to lease JNF land to Jewish people only, whether to those living in Israel or residing abroad. Theprohibition on Arab Israelies to buy or lease land in certain areas that were designated for Jews only was challenged at the Supreme Court that decided in the year 2000, in the landmark case of Kaadan, was discriminatory and impermissible. Allocation of State Lands to the Jewish Agency for the Settlement of Jews only, the Court decided, was illegal, due to the discrimination of citizens on the basis of religion and nationality. The values of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, the Court declared, prohibit discrimination in the allocation of lands between Jews and non-Jews. Read More.

The third source of national land pertains to the remaining 12 percent, the most politically sensitive type of national land. A statutory body established in 1950, the Development Authority, received its holdings from the Custodian of Absentee Property, a governmental body that took charge of land owned mostly by Arab residents who left or were expelled from their place of residence during the 1948-9 war. Most of these lands have been leased or sold."

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/land.html

I think the best that can be said is that while until recently there was discrimination against non-Jewish Israelis when it comes to purchasing land, legal barriers have now been removed...

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

19. And yet...

...that "crap" source says: "The land-owning situation in Israel today is as follows: 80.4 percent is owned by the government, 13.1 percent is privately owned by the JNF, and 6.5 percent is evenly divided between private Arab and Jewish owners. Thus, the ILA administers 93.5 percent of the land in Israel.14 Put differently, 93.5 percent of the land is unavailable for private ownership; such land is sold neither to Jews nor to Arabs but is leased out by the ILA. Thus, while it is true that Israeli law prevents the sale of state—owned land to Israeli Arabs, this alone is extremely misleading, for it is equally unavailable for sale to Jewish citizens of Israel."

Your source says: "93% of the land in Israel is public domain; that is , either property of the state, the Jewish National Fund (J.N.F) or the Development Authority."

Wait! They say same thing!!! That's right!!! 93.5% of Israeli land is NOT for sale, but for rent! Both sites confirm that! However, there is a .5% difference.

Also from the same "crap" source: "State-owned lands. Israeli Arabs have equal access to state-owned land—four-fifths of the entire country—both in theory and in practice. Indeed, about half of the land they cultivate is directly leased to them by the Israeli government through the ILA".15

Furthermore, the 'crap' source says: "JNF lands. The purpose of the JNF, according to both its original charter and its 1953 Israeli charter is to purchase land for the settlement of Jews, and this has been interpreted to mean that JNF land should not be leased, at least on a long-term basis, to non-Jews.18There are, thus, formal restrictions on the lease of JNF land to Arabs. That JNF lands are now administered by a government agency does not change this restriction, for JNF land is privately owned and to lease it on exactly equal terms to Jewish and Arab Israelis would violate the 1960 agreement that placed JNF lands under government administration.

So much for official restrictions. In practice, JNF land is leased to Arab citizens of Israel, for both short- and long-term use. Thus, the ILA has leased on a yearly basis JNF-owned land in the Besor Valley (Wadi Shallala), near Kibbutz Re'em, to Bedouins for use as pasture.19 Arab citizens have also leased JNF-owned land for housing purposes via a legal device that evades the restrictions against precisely such long-term use: The land in question is traded to the government so that it can be leased out and the JNF receives other land in return.20Such swaps have sometimes taken place under threat of court action."

Then, the 'crap' source continues with, "Private lands. There are no restrictions on the purchase of private land in Israel. Israeli Arabs or non-citizens, including Arab foreigners, may freely purchase it. The Israeli authorities have placed no obstacles in the way of such purchases, which are proceeding, as Israel's Deputy Housing Minister Meir Porush recently noted:..."

So, you say; "The poster you replied to was much more correct than that nonsense from CAMERA. The fact is that legally until recently, Israeli Arabs were very limited in what land they were allowed to purchase. While now that's not legally allowed, in practice things may not have changed..." is not quite correct since both your sources and my "crap" source say the same thing! Furthermore, you say that "...until recently, Israeli Arabs were very limited in what land they were allowed to purchase. While now that's not legally allowed, in practice things may not have changed..." You continue with, "I think the best that can be said is that while until recently there was discrimination against non-Jewish Israelis when it comes to purchasing land, legal barriers have now been removed..." Yet the poster I was responding to said: "We are not just talking numbers here , but laws that make it so."

So, when I said he was "incorrect," I was correct and your post just provided additional information to verify that my information was correct and his assertion was incorrect.

[Violet_Crumble]

36. Missing the forest for the trees...

As someone who lives in a part of the world where no residential land is sold, but leased, but where everyone talks about how they bought their blocks of land, I find the whole 'Israeli land is NOT for sale, but for rent' argument just a bit on the pedantic side when it comes to the issue of discrimination against non-Jews...

Any crap source that claims back in 1997 that there was no discrimination against non-Jews when it came to land ownership is displaying quite clearly the sheer silliness of their argument. I posted links to information about laws being introduced only as recently as this year that are aimed to remove the discrimination...

So, if yr assertion is that there has been no discrimination against non-Jews in the matter of land ownership and my post backed that up, then I can assure you that my post did nothing of the sort...

Violet....

[Behind the Aegis]

42. Quite simply....

Post #9 said:

An Palestinian Arab can own any land he wants in Israel?

Or is most of it reserved for Jewish folks?

90% reserved for Jewish people. That is what is meant by Jewish state.

We are not just talking numbers here , but laws that make it so.

His assertion was wrong. 90% is not reserved for Jewish people. My post to him showed him that he was incorrect in his assertion. You came along, didn't like the "source" and posted the same information in another format; also proving his assertion was wrong.

His first question: "An Palestinian Arab can own any land he wants in Israel? No. But, neither can Jews, or Christians, or Druze.

Question two: "Or is most of it reserved for Jewish folks?" Also a wrong assumption. Again, proved by both sources.

Statement one: "90% reserved for Jewish people. That is what is meant by Jewish state." Again, he was incorrect and both sources showed his assertion to be wrong. The second part of that statement was not addressed by either source, but it is also an incorrect assupmtion.

Second statement: "We are not just talking numbers here , but laws that make it so." Once again, both sources showed that current laws do not permit what he is claiming.

Finally, you say: "So, if yr assertion is that there has been no discrimination against non-Jews in the matter of land ownership and my post backed that up, then I can assure you that my post did nothing of the sort..." But the topic was not has "there has been no discrimination against non-Jews in the matter of land ownership." The topic was "can anyone but Jews purchase/lease land in Israel?" Both our sources confirm that, yes, laws permit non-Jews to purchase and/or lease Israeli land.

The only "assertion" here was made in post #9 that non-Jews could not purchase/lease Israeli land like Jews could. Past discrimination of land laws was not the assertion.

[Violet_Crumble]

49. I'm not the slightest bit interested in adversarial quibbling about %'s

I'll continue this discussion with eyl, now that he's kindly offered to give me a source which I'm absolutely positive won't be some lacking in credibility garbage like CAMERA...

I said what I had to say in my first post on this topic: 'I think the best that can be said is that while until recently there was discrimination against non-Jewish Israelis when it comes to purchasing land, legal barriers have now been removed...' Nothing I've seen so far's changed my thinking on that...

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

50. Much ado about nothing!

[Violet_Crumble]

51. Yep, that's what I've been trying to say...

n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

52. Sure you have...we all know that.

:eyes:

[Violet_Crumble]

53. Obviously 'we all' don't know that...

n/t

[eyl]

45. The issue is somewhat misleading

While it's true that the 18% (not 90%) of land owned by the JNF could not formally be leased by non-Jews, the situation is quite different in practise - JNF lands have been linked leased to Arabs (I should be able to get you a source tomorrow if you want), and there are other mechanisms to do so (for example, swapping land with the ILA and leasing the newly-owned-by-the-ILA land).

[Behind the Aegis]

46. Not misleading.

The assertion was land could not go to Arabs, and two sources have shown that not to be the case; one, a "crap" source, the other one of respect, both saying the same thing.

Somehow, I doubt you will be called upon to provide sources.

Now, if the assertion was that discrimination had occurred in the past, I am sure the both of us could provide examples of that evil.

[Violet_Crumble]

47. Thanks, eyl...

I wouldn't mind you getting me the source on that one :)

[Jim Sagle]

29. Every single word CAMERA writes is true.

And everybody goddamn well knows it.

Those who call it a crap site destroy their own credibility.

[Violet_Crumble]

35. Every single word CAMERA writes is false...

And everybody goddam well knows it.

Those who call it a credible site have no credibility.

[Jim Sagle]

37. Prove it. Or retract what you said.

[Violet_Crumble]

38. You first...

n/t

[Jim Sagle]

39. You can't even find ONE lie from CAMERA. Case closed.

[Violet_Crumble]

40. I sure can. Now it's case closed...

n/t

[Jim Sagle]

41. Won't your share your findings with us?

Pretty please with horsecrap on it.

[Violet_Crumble]

43. I'm still waiting for you to share yr findings with us...

Y'know, about every word being true...

[Jim Sagle]

54. That's my assertion. Easy to disprove if it's not true.

But you haven't done so.

This exchange has a serious point. You tried to get away with slandering a world-renowned fact-checking resource. You got called on it.

Oops!!!!!!!

[eyl]

44. Is that so?

every single word?

[Violet_Crumble]

48. Read the post I'm replying to...

..and ask Jim that same question ;)

[newyorican]

6. I didn't know that...

Which nations in Europe define themselves as a "Protestant State" or a "Catholic State"?

Aside from that exercise, the OP is about Canada and Israel (neither of which isn't, ummm, in Europe).

[Jim Sagle]

7. Check it out yourself. I'm not your Jeeves web service.

[newyorican]

8. Hmmmm...

www.ask.com/web?q=protestant+nation&o=0&qsrc=1&qid=B12B153F9A00D780708AF9EA8C7A73B9&page=1

Didn't find anything, placing your assertion in the "made shit up" catagory.

No need to get snippy though.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jim Sagle]

30. It's called England. Check into it.

[Englander]

32. ~D'oh!~

'The strange death of Protestant England

Mark Almond
Tuesday April 5, 2005
The Guardian

Who would have thought the death of Rome's supreme pontiff would interfere with the marriage plans of the next Supreme Governor of the Church of England? Until now, the royal family, prime minister and the whole establishment - defined by the 1701 Act of Settlement's ban on anyone "reconciled to the bishop of Rome" - would always have put an English wedding ahead of any Roman funeral.

For all of Prince Charles's flirtations with theologians and fakirs of many faiths, his decision to go ahead with a civil marriage between the heir to the throne and a divorcee seemed to deepen the gulf created by Henry VIII's break with Rome's strict rules on marriage.

The Archbishop of Canterbury might be willing to bless it, but no Roman pontiff would - certainly not the last one.

Yet now Henry VIII must be turning in his Windsor grave. The first Defender of the Faith sent no condolences when Pope Clement VII died in 1534. The king was too busy with carrying through the Act of Reformation and trying to father a son on Anne Boleyn. Instead of putting himself first (as Henry VIII certainly would have) Prince Charles has postponed his nuptials so he can be at the papal obsequies. That does credit to his Christian feelings, but marks a clear break with this country's Protestant past.

>snip

Probably not. But Protestant England is dead nonetheless.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1452370,00.html

[Jim Sagle]

33. Thta's just one very personal POV.

[Englander]

34. If it helps any, try & imagine that it's from Camera.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=105415&mesg_id=105525


You'll notice in the Gu article that there's a few mentions of 16th
century history, that's the last time that England was a 'state for one
ethnic (religious) group', if such an entity ever existed.

Here's a profile of one of the last remaing believers in a 'Protestant
state, for a Protestant people';

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/northern_ireland/understanding/profiles/ian_paisley.stm

[Jim Sagle]

28. It's REALLY about Israel and the double standard applied to it and to no

other nation in the world.

[Coastie for Truth]

13. I never figured out why NO COUNTRY followed

the Customary International Humanitarian Law of ASYLUM with respect to Jews fleeing the Holocaust.

Not the US. Not the West.

You are referring to the "Law of Return" which - by law - grants ASYLUM with respect to Jews fleeing persecution.

Cause nobody but granted ASYLUM with respect to Jews fleeing persecution.

[madeline_con]

2. I'm no expert on Canadian history....

but is there a wall separating European Canadians from native Canadians?

Are military helicopters and tanks used to quell "unrest" in Canadian civilian neighborhoods?

I could go on, but you get the idea.

[pelsar]

12. no i dont...

didnt hear of any native canadians blowing up resturants.....going in to schools and shooting up the kids...going on to busses, and shooting up the passengers?

or did i miss that part on CNN?

[Coastie for Truth]

14. Not all sweetness and light

I used to work in Beauhornois Quebec (those ugly black smokestacks across the St Lawrence River from the airport).

Hint: If you want to order a "Grand Mac" in English - take your US passport with you.

[eyl]

15. The author (and poster) would profit from some fact-checking

1. Israel has no constitution. A constitution
is a must for any democracy.

By this standard, the UK (to name one example) isn't a democracy either.

2. Israel is a self-declared Jewish state. Its army drafts almost exclusively Jews for military service. Compulsory and racially exclusive conscription by the armed forces does not reflect traditional Canadian values.

Let me see the logic here...Israel drafts only Jews (and Druze, which seem to have fallen under Elmasry's notice). So is he saying Israel discriminates against Jews? Not to mention the fact that he leaves out the fact that other non-Jews have the option of volunteering for the IDF, as many of the Beduoin (who are Muslim Arabs) and Circassians dom as do other minorities in lesser numbers.

3. Israel's immigration policy discriminates on the basis of religion. Only Jews are allowed to live permanently in Israel, while any Palestinians (whether Muslim or Christian) are barred from ever returning if they leave. This is emphatically not a Canadian value.

Untrue; see this thread

4. Israel militarily occupies lands belonging to its neighbours. For nearly 40 years, it has subjected their indigneous populations to terror and deprivation through military violence.

Sort of. Except that he neglects to mention the circumstances under which the Territories were conquered, nor does he mention that the "terror and deprivation through military violence" was a response to violence aqainst Israel (I won't bother to give my opinion of the "terror and deprivation through military violence" characterization at the moment)

5. Israel has never admitted wrongdoing. After more than half a century of using arbitrary and often brutal methods to establish and maintain statehood, no healing and reconciliation process towards indigenous and diaspora Palestinian populations has been initiated. Israel has ignored strong encouragement to do so from the international community, from the UN and from Palestinians themselves.

Again, I won't bother, at the moment, to discuss his description of "brutal and arbitrary methods". However, reconciliation takes two sides. The "invitation" from the Palestinians is basically demanding Israel start chanting ashamnu, bagadnu, but none of them are suggesting that possibly the Palestinians and other Arabs try to admit to wrongs they have committed against Israel.

6. Israel is a threatening nuclear power. Israel's nuclear capability is a potential weapon of mass destruction towards its neighbours and the world.

Israel has threatened to use nuclear weapons (or done so by euphamism, like threatening to wipe someone of the map) or threatened annihilation against whom, exactly? Unlike some of our neighbors I could name.

7. Israel refuses to see itself as part of Asia or the Middle East. Israel has always stood aloof from the international community,...Perversely, it maintains before the rest of the world a facade of uniqueness, fed by an ingrained siege mentality.

The author seems unaware that "Asia and the Middle East" aren't exactly welcoming of Israel, despite the latter's efforts to the contrary. See for instance, the reaction in Arab states and governments whenever it's suggested that government is warming up relations toward Israel, or the Arab boycott, ro the fact Israel wasn't accepted to the Asian regional group in the UN, or in soccer, etc.

And you know, I also wonder why Israel has a "siege mentality". I have no idea why that's so...

8. Israeli Jews are obligated to follow the Halakah. The Halakah (Jewish Law) rules in matters of divorce; there is no civil dissolution of marriage allowed. Halakah Law also forbids Israeli Jews from marrying outside their faith. This restrictive and discriminatory method of maintaining "racial purity" is not a Canadian value.

Partly true. He's correct that there's a problem in Israel that civil marriages and divorces are not available. However, there are any number of ways for Jews who wish to marry non-Jews to do so anyway.

9. Israeli towns with significant Arab populations are under-funded. Towns such as Kafr Kasem are significantly under-resourced in comparison to all-Jewish ones. While national equality in civic funding is a difficult ideal to attain, Canadian policy recognizes that the effort must be made in order to ensure a healthier and stronger future for coming generations. Deliberate municipal starvation that results from the under-supply or withholding of essential utilities and public services is not a Canadian value.

Since the author obliquely admits that funding equity does not exist in Canada either, he has to fall back on the claim - which he does not substantiate, and which ignores the fact that the funding gap has been closing in recent years - the Israel's policy (unlike Canada's, of course) is deliberate.

10. Israeli schools openly teach hatred towards Palestinians.

BS

[Englander]

17. Er, eyl? Have you heard of the Magna Carta?

The Uk does have a constitution, actually, it's an 'unwritten'
constitution, made up of common law, statute law and convention.

'Did you know?

Why doesn’t the UK have a written constitution?
The UK's constitution has evolved over many centuries. Unlike the constitutions of the United States, France and many Commonwealth countries, the UK's constitution has not been assembled at any time into a single, consolidated document. Instead it is made up of common law, statute law and convention.

Of all the democratic countries in the world, only Israel is comparable to the UK in having no single document codifying the way its political institutions function and setting out the basic rights and duties of its citizens. The UK does, however, have certain important constitutional documents, including the Magna Carta (1215) which protects the rights of the community against the Crown; the Bill of Rights (1689) which extended the powers of Parliament, making it impracticable for the Sovereign to ignore the wishes of the Government; and the Reform Act (1832), which reformed the system of parliamentary representation.

Common law has never been precisely defined - it is deduced from custom or legal precedents and interpreted in court cases by judges. Conventions are rules and practices which are not legally enforceable, but which are regarded as indispensable to the working of government. Many conventions are derived from the historical events through which the UK's system of government has evolved. One convention is that Ministers are responsible and can be held to account for what happens in their Departments. The constitution can be altered by Act of Parliament, or by general agreement to alter a convention.

The flexibility of the UK constitution helps to explain why it has developed so fully over the years. However, since the UK joined the European Community in 1973, the rulings of the European Court of Human Justice have increasingly determined and codified sections of UK law in those areas covered by the various treaties to which the UK is a party. In the process the UK's constitutional and legal arrangements are beginning to resemble those of Europe.

What was the Magna Carta?
The Magna Carta (Latin for ‘Great Charter’) is the UK’s best known constitutional document. In 1215 feudal barons forced the ‘tyrannical’ King John (1199-1216) to agree to a series of concessions embodied in a charter which became known as the Magna Carta. 61 clauses set out a clear expression of the rights of the community against the Crown. The contents deal with the ‘free’ Church; feudal law; towns, trade and merchants; the reform of the law and justice; the behaviour of royal officials; and royal forests.

The King was forced to fix his seal to the Magna Carta in a meadow next to the River Thames at Runnymede between Windsor and Staines. It is said that he behaved pleasantly to the nobles at the time, but as soon as he returned to his own chamber he threw himself on the floor in a mad rage.

Since that day the Magna Carta has become part of English Law and established the important principle that the King is not above the law. Original copies of the charter exist in Salisbury Cathedral, Lincoln Castle and the British Museum in London.

http://www.i-uk.com/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1079976721617

_______________________________


'On this site you will find one of the British Library’s two copies of Magna Carta, issued by King John’s chancery in 1215. The original is on permanent display in the British Library’s galleries in London.'

The British Library;
http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/magna.html


:)

[eyl]

20. Yes, I have

have you heard of Israel's Basic Laws?

The OP was claiming a country without a specific written constitution was not a democracy. Since the UK's constitution is unwritten (and actually does not exist; instead, there are a colelction of documents which collectively serve a similiar function) it would not be considered a democracy by the standards the OP lays out.

[Englander]

21. I didn't say I agreed with the point of the op -

It appears yer making an assumption, there. All I was doing was
providing some info to counter yer false claim that the Uk doesn't
have a constitution, it does. It may not be a single document, that
does not mean that it 'does not exist'; it does.
The op didn't claim that a country without a 'specific written
constitution' is a must for a democracy, it appears the claim is that
Israel doesn't have a constitution, period. Which isn't correct, as you
say, the Basic Laws serve as the constitution. They're not a formal,
'written' constitution, that doesn't mean that Israel does not have a
constitution.

[Coastie for Truth]

22. I read English History

under a Rhodes Scholar at an American Presbyterian University - 2 semesters, 6 credits.

England does not have "A" constitution per se.

I know Professor Mohamed Elmasry from Waterloo. I will praise his knowledge of large scale integrated circuits and VHDL and Veralog. But as a political scientist he should stick to sources and drains and gates and collectors and bases and emitters and VLSI hardware design tools and electronic design automation.

[Englander]

23. Yer right. England does not have a constitution.

The Uk, however, does. Read more;

'Constitutional History of the UK

The British constitution is unique in being both unwritten and the product of many centuries of evolution, at times peaceful and at times set against a background of violent conflict. Its nature, and its many unusual features, cannot be understood without the knowledge of the forces, which shaped that evolution. This book provides an accessible one-volume introduction to the development of the British constitution from its earliest beginnings in the 7th century to the present day. It focuses on the political events, and social, religious and philosophical ideas, which have shaped the constitutions development.

http://isbn.sprintbooks.co.uk/1859417469_Constitutional_History_of_the_UK.asp

________________________________

'Welcome!

Welcome to the Companion Website for Constitutional History of the UK.

This site has been designed to enhance your copy of the book, and on it you'll be able to read further information on points raised in the book, find other websites of interest and put questions to the author.

http://www.cavendishpublishing.com/companion_sites/default.asp?edition=677

WikiBooks;
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/UK_Constitution_and_Government:_Contents

[Englander]

24. Here's a quick quiz on the Uk constitution -

Try it, it's fun, & yet educational also;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/asguru/generalstudies/society/27constitution/constitution07/constitution07.shtml

[eyl]

25. Which was precisely my point

cheers

[barb162]

26. PM Paul Martin (Canada) is no friend of Israel

http://www.israpundit.com/archives/2005/11/canada_is_no_fr.php

PM Paul Martin (Canada) is no friend of Israel
Alastair Gordon, Canadian Coalition for Democracy

Prime Minister Paul Martin is no friend of Israel. Even by the standards of politics, Paul Martin’s willingness to lie to a Jewish audience, especially when it is certain that he will be caught out a few days later, beggars the imagination.

snip

As discussed in CCD’s recent testimony before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs <9>, Paul Martin rewarded Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas for breaking every commitment he made. Abbas came to office promising (1) to disarm Palestinian militants, (2) to end incitement in schools and media, and (3) to end glorification of suicide bombing. On that understanding, Prime Minister Martin promised an additional $12.2 million in May of this year. Since receiving those Canadian tax dollars, President Abbas has reneged on all his commitments. Specifically, (1) Abbas's Foreign Minister publicly declared in June that the PA will not disarm Hamas and other terrorist groups under its jurisdiction; (2) Palestinian textbooks and PA-controlled media that deny the existence of Israel and preach the destruction of "the Zionist entity" have not changed <10>; and (3) Abbas himself, speaking to a group of high school students and educators in Gaza, glorified suicide bombing when he declared, "What has been achieved here is due to the martyrs". The consequences? In September, our Prime Minister rewarded Abbas's bad faith with another $24.5 million from Canadian taxpayers.

The lies of Paul Martin and the list of anti-Israel actions by his government are more than anyone has the patience to read. The real question is, why? Why does this government have such a blatantly anti-Israel foreign policy, a policy so important that our Prime Minister is willing to sacrifice his own credibility to maintain it? There may be a number of factors, but the one unalterable reality is that there are over 650,000 Muslims in Canada and only around 350,000 Jews. In the crude calculus of electoral politics, that means that Jewish concerns will get little more than lip service, especially considering that the Liberals have historically retained the Jewish vote no matter how they undermined Israel.

If the Jewish community wants to change this government's complicity in the existential threat facing Israel, they must demand that our politicians -- from all parties -- not only mouth platitudes about Israel, but act with honour and courage to support our only democratic partner in the Middle East. Sermonizing to Jewish audiences about anti-Semitism and then endorsing through silence incidents of Jew-hatred and incitement endangers every Jew in Canada. Professing to be a friend of Israel, and then demonizing Israel at the UN and sending tax dollars to groups dedicated to Israel's destruction should no longer be acceptable to any Jewish voter. Paul Martin speaks the right words to Jewish voters, but his actions consistently undermine Israel and strengthen her enemies.

Enough, already! Paul Martin is no friend of Israel.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

References:

<1> November 13 2005 - Video of clip (31 seconds) from Paul Martin speech before the General Assembly of the United Jewish Communities, acknowledging “the annual ritual of politicized anti-Israel resolutions”

http://canadiancoalition.com/audiovideo/20051113MartinClip.wmv

<2> November 13 2005 - Video of Paul Martin’s complete speech (11 minutes) before the General Assembly of the United Jewish Communities

http://canadiancoalition.com/audiovideo/20051113MartinSpeech.wmv

<3>December 4 2004 - UN General Assembly adopts 6 anti-Israel resolutions

http://www.jerusalemites.org/press_release/4-12-2004.htm

<4> Index of official statements from Prime Minister Paul Martin

http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/news.asp?category=3


<5> Index of official news releases from Prime Minister Paul Martin

http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/news.asp?category=1&page=12

<6> Canadian funding of PA and Palestinian National Charter

http://canadiancoalition.com/forum/messages/9969.shtml

<7> Canada’s funding of UNRWA and evidence linking UNRWA to Hamas terror

http://canadiancoalition.com/forum/messages/10703.shtml

<8> Canada-Israel Committee calls for investigation of UNRWA funding and its links to terror

http://www.cicweb.ca/news/release_100404.cfm

<9> CCD presentation before Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs

http://canadiancoalition.com/forum/messages/10869.shtml

<10> Analysis of hatred and incitement in Palestinian schoolbooks – June 2005

http://canadiancoalition.org/forum/messages/10848.shtml

http://canadiancoalition.com/PalestinianTextbooks/PalestinianTextbookReport200506.pdf

Posted by Ted Belman at November 18, 2005 09:49 AM

[newyorican]

27. A politician? Lie?

I'm shocked.

[Coastie for Truth]

31. Knowing Professor Mohamed Elmasry and having several of his books

one has to worry if he is heading down the same primrose path as , the inventor of the transistor who later became an advocate of "dysgenics" and "eugenics."

[Coastie for Truth]

55. Are Quebec's Values Canada's Values? NO!

Are Quebec's Values Canada's Values? Are Parti Quebecois's Values Canada's values?

Having worked in Quebec, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia - and spent much time in all three - I say most emphatically NO - Quebec and Parti Quebecois do not share the Values of Canada.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lithos]

57. Locking per I/P guidelines

Please use discretion when referencing obviously biased or factually questionable material. Vanity websites are generally not as credible as the New York Times, the Washington Post or the UK Guardian and are likely to be locked. A good rule of thumb is to ask yourself is the author readily identifiable and likely to be cited by the mainline world press or encountered in an alternate format (mass-published book, academic journal, newspaper article, radio or TV show).