Re: taboos

From: Douglas Brooker (dbrooker@clara.co.uk)
Date: Sun Apr 08 2001 - 22:00:00 BST

  • Next message: Douglas Brooker: "Re: taboos"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id WAA14874 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 8 Apr 2001 22:15:53 +0100
    Message-ID: <3AD0D14F.7C39909F@clara.co.uk>
    Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 22:00:00 +0100
    From: Douglas Brooker <dbrooker@clara.co.uk>
    Organization: University of London
    X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I)
    X-Accept-Language: en
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Subject: Re: taboos
    References: <E14j0vU-000GsE-00@gaea> <002901c0bbb0$f2000660$b902bed4@default><3AC8E1B1.33BCD878@clara.co.uk> <001101c0bc77$1fa65b20$0307bed4@default><3ACA3B58.F9D77350@clara.co.uk> <002101c0bd40$443d5280$820abed4@default><001101c0be06$a97a0000$1908bed4@default> <3ACEC8A4.5444C707@clara.co.uk> <000d01c0c03a$1398efc0$5508bed4@default>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Hi Kenneth, fascinating story about the King here,

    Kenneth Van Oost wrote:

    > Good afternoon Douglas,
    > You wrote,
    >
    > << Indeed, I agree here also with your comments.
    > An example in which even the conservative side breached a tradition of
    > consensus was when King Boudewijn I refused to sign a law concerning
    > abortion.
    > As a convinced catholic he was against all kinds of abortion.
    > The government, in deep mess because by the kings refusal the king made
    > a difference between and in his people. Something what he as the king
    > could do not.
    > The government, in order to refute a constitutional crisis and for that
    > matter
    > a civil war ( it was that close due to the fact of the already existing
    > split
    > of the country in three seperate parts) came up with the idea that the king
    > was " in a position by which he could not rule ".
    > In fact they stated a coup d' état, the country was for at least 24 hours
    > without the king as king. The government signed the law in the kings
    > place, set the poor man back on his trone and went on with their business
    > like nothing happened.
    > In writings and analyses after this accident it became clear that the king
    > was
    > willing to step aside for 24 hours in order to refute a civil war... and to
    > be
    > in the clear with his conscience.
    >

    This is very interesting, one of the reasons I'm looking for a good Belgian
    political history covering the past three hundred years.

    The convention in the UK and Canada is that the monarch must always given assent
    to bills passed by the legislative chamber. The 'strict' law is that the Crown
    has the right to say no to every bill (or so the courts say), the reality, if
    even one was refused, would be the kind of crisis you mention.

    What year did this happen?

    A very creative solution, the 24 hour 'coup'. Belgium sounds much much more
    complex than Canada, though.

    best wishes

    Douglas

    ===============================================================
    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
    see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 08 2001 - 22:18:48 BST