The Advocates believe themselves to have solid legal grounds for this endeavour, using a quotation from the Bill of Rights 1688 as a basis:
In their rush to justify their racist agenda, however, the English Advocates have grossly misrepresented the document in question.
Here is the relevant passage in full:
New Oaths of Allegiance, &c.
And that the Oathes hereafter mentioned be taken by all Persons of whome the Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy might be required by Law instead of them And that the said Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy be abrogated.
Allegiance.
I A B doe sincerely promise and sweare That I will be faithfull and beare true Allegiance to their Majestyes King William and Queene Mary Soe helpe me God.
Supremacy.
I A B doe sweare That I doe from my Heart Abhorr, Detest and Abjure as Impious and Hereticall this damnable Doctrine and Position That Princes Excommunicated or Deprived by the Pope or any Authority of the See of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their Subjects or any other whatsoever. And I doe declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God.
So, what the Advocates are quoting is part of a pair of oaths. Oaths are binding only to people who actually make them, and the Bill of Rights does not specify who is required to make these oaths.
In this day and age, of course, nobody is required to make either of these oaths - the fact that one of them mentions William III and Mary II indicates just how outdated this section of the Bill of Rights is. These oaths are historical artifacts, nothing more.
This is not the only fatal flaw in the English Advocates' plan. Notice that the second oath refers specifically to positions of religious authority; this is evident even in the section quoted by Ingram and company, who are apparently unaware of what the word "ecclesiastical" means.
As anybody with any knowledge of English history will tell you, the Bill of Rights was drafted at a time of great strife between Catholics and Protestants. The reference to "noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate" is not directed at immigrants or descendants of immigrants living in England, but rather to individuals and bodies based in foreign countries - it is an obvious allusion to the Roman Catholic Church.
Lee Ingram, the man behind English Advocates.
To recap, Lee Ingram and his comrades are making three fatal errors in their reading of this document:
1: That the oaths are legally binding to everyone in the country, even those who have not actually made them;
2: That "foreign" refers to ancestry, rather than geographic location;
3: That the second oath covers all positions of authority, rather than merely religious authority.
Nice try, Lee. But while the replies to your post demonstrate that your followers have fallen for your misrepresentation of the Bill of Rights, not everyone is quite so gullible. Any legal expert would laugh their socks off if you came to them with this nonsense.
This is not the first time that Ingram has expressed interest in removing the rights of ethnic minorities. Take a look at these posts he made at the now-defunct Cross of St. George forum back in 2007 (the thread is archived here):
The article he links to, with obvious approval, is hosted on the white supremacist website Heretical Press. Written by Kenneth McKilliam, a Nazi sympathiser who was closely involved with the BNP during its early days, the article argues that Jews should not be allowed to hold positions of authority in Britain:
Being prohibited aliens by the Edict of Expulsion Jews have no right to sit in our houses of parliament, nor on our local government councils. They have no right to be in the judiciary nor to hold office in the executive of government nor in the police force. All purported laws and purported acts of parliament in which Jews have taken part in the voting are illegal, unconstitutional: null and void.Stripping ethnic minority groups of their rights, it would seem, is a cause dear to Lee Ingram's heart.
