390
Comments (26)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
1
JimQPublic 1 point ago +1 / -0

You sure it wasn't 1689? My primary criticism of that document would be that it only protects the speech rights of parliament and only protects them in parliamentary sessions. Prior to that I believe the Magna Carta was the only major document outlining the rights of citizens.

I'm not exactly a scholar of British law though, so perhaps my understanding is too shallow.

1
Teapede 1 point ago +1 / -0

My apologies yes it was 1689, and yes it gives a lot of rights to parliament as at that time it was a less corrupt body meant to balance the king but the freedoms weren't extended fully to the people

1
JimQPublic 1 point ago +1 / -0

Aye, that was my understanding of it. The failure to protect that inalienable right of citizens is an unfortunate misstep in a national history full of exceptional people and documents.