Guy Fawkes - Terrorist ???

[Elgama]

I was thinking about this last night because of the racism thread - it was bonfire night (well technically its the 5th November but the Saturday after is when most celebrate it) its when we light bonfires and let off fireworks, eat stew, Jacket Potatoes etc and celebrate the day that the Gunpowder Plot was foiled and parliament was saved. The fireworks are to represent the gunpowder and the bonfires to represent the beacons that told everyone that things were OK

The Rhyme goes:

Remember Remember

The 5th of November

Gunpowder treason and plot

I see no reason why gunpowder, treason

Should ever be forgot...

At the time Roman Catholics were terribly oppressed in the UK, and Guy Fawkes was the hapless chap that was discovered in the basement of the Houses of Parliament with the explosive. He was not the leader of the gang, but he did give all the other names after torture. Over the years he has become to be viewed more sympathetically and with more understanding in the UK, and it is now rare for effigies of him to be burned every year (he was not burned at the Stake - he actually managed to commit suicide by jumping from the scaffold and breaking his neck - the rest of the gang were less fortunate and were hung, drawn and quartered)

Question was he a terrorist striking at the heart of parliament or was he fighting for his rights? Was he any different to Oliver Cromwell just a few years later that began the road to real democracy in the UK? And had he succeeded would Roman Catholics have been treated much better and allowed full rights much sooner?

-Charley

Edited November 9, 2008 by Elgama

[Moksha]

He was a symbol of freedom in the movie V for Vendetta.

[Elgama]

He was a symbol of freedom in the movie V for Vendetta.

I haven't seen it do you know when it came out? I know now he is seen in general as a very mixed character here and not entirely with derision. I just thought oddly this tied in with a number of issues being discussed on the board and can't help but feel how they may be seen very differently if the issue was being discussed in just over 400 years time

-Charley

[austro-libertarian]

I haven't seen it do you know when it came out? I know now he is seen in general as a very mixed character here and not entirely with derision. I just thought oddly this tied in with a number of issues being discussed on the board and can't help but feel how they may be seen very differently if the issue was being discussed in just over 400 years time

-Charley

V for Vendetta came out in 2005. (It is rated R in the US; Mature 15 in the UK.) "V" is somewhat glorified in the movie and it is quite different from the Fawkes story (but I don't want to spoil it for you).

I would say that, when possible, civil disobedience is the best practice.

[Aesa]

Guy Fawkes was far from a terrorist. He was fighting for the right to fairness, justice, freedom of opinion, etc,.

V for Vendetta, (wow! R in the U.S., why am I not surprised? ) is an amazing film. So poetic and full of great things to learn. We're going to see revolution in the future so it might be a good idea to watch that film. ;p

"But 400 years later, and idea can still change the world.

I've witnessed first hand the power of ideas,

I've seen people killed in the name of them,

and I defending them.

But you cannot kiss and idea, you cannot hold it,

Ideas do not bleed, they do not feel pain, they do not love.

And it is the man that I remember,

the man who made me remember the 5th of November"

(may be slightly paraphrased, not sure if exact)

The film is absolutely wonderful. But don't watch it if you're the sort that would prefer to go along for the ride, wherever it goes, and not rock the boat.

The film was clearly created to inspire people to social change because it was advertised as a "grim look into our future..."

In V for Vendetta the real terrorist is the government. What an image of our society today.

I found a trailer, me and my friends can quote this film. By far the best film of this century so far...

YouTube - V for Vendetta / trailer

Edited November 9, 2008 by Aesa

[AnthonyB]

I don't know if terrorist would be appropriate for Guido and his conspirators. Terror attacks tend to be designed to cause more damage by the terror inflicted on the public by them than they do directly. Guido wasn't attempting to terrorize the British public more to remove in one stroke the entire ruling class. In the hope of effecting political change.

The following is my personal opinion based on my reading of european history and I hope it doesn't cause to much offence. Catholicism at that stage in history and due too its own internal design was largely supportive of absolute monarchy not democracy. Do you have any reference that Guido supported democracy, I would rather think he hoped for an absolute catholic monarchy. Since a democratic Britian would have remained an avowedly protestant state. If you look at the Cavalier parliaments following the restoration (or post revolutionary France), democratic states at that stage could be quite savage to minorities. (Or even the treatment of "Tories" in the US post the Amercian Revolutionary war.)

One can't help think that if it was successful it would have ensured an even more virulent anti-catholicism was driven into the hearts of the British.

The fact that a warning note sent to a Catholic peer was passed on by him to the authorities and helped to lead to stopping of the plot, it is clear that the plot did not have universal approval by all Catholics in Britian.

As to the comparision to Oliver Cromwell, I am quite gobsmacked by the comparision.

***Warning personal rant****

I have a personal belief that the English Civil Wars should be an essential topic of study for children of any democracy, especially those based on British representative democracy. For instance "Representation without taxation" is a phrase bereft of its historical context without knowledge of the Civil Wars. Let alone that the much of the US founding fathers convictions and thoughts are drawn straight form the ideas and beliefs develpoed during the Civil Wars.

Guido decided to murder hundreds including innocents without any process, legal or otherwise, without notice or warning.

Oliver dispatched Charles, after the Kings repeated false promises, unwillingness to be bound by any oath or committment, willingness to wage war continously until he got his way (even thought the previous wars had led to the deaths of a large percentage of the country) even plotting to resume hostilites whilst in negotiations, after a public trial. Charles's execution was quick and merciful beheading. (Not hung, drawn and quatered which is just about the most painful way of being killed imagineable.)

[a-train]

If a person is charged with a crime, they should stand trial and are innocent until proven guilty. To say that someone is a "terrorist" without a trial is either a foolish name-calling game or a pronouncement of guilt without a trial, neither is desirable nor a sign of prudence in the accuser.

Let the accused be tried for their crimes and the meaningless scare tactics of threats of "terrorism" cease.

-a-train

[AnthonyB]

Asea,

What source are you using for your views on Guido Fawkes wishes?

"He was fighting for the right to fairness, justice, freedom of opinion, etc,."

Just choosing one of those "freedom of opinion", in which state of Europe at that time was freedom of opinion allowed or espoused in any great measure? Catholics in Protestant lands were mistreated, Protestants in Catholic lands were mistreated and both sides mistreated non-conformists. There were small pockets of civility but the harsh rules of international politics tended to irridicate those annoiances to the general rule of mercilessness.

I think Monty Python summed that part of history up well, "Beware the Spanish Inquisition!"

Edited November 10, 2008 by AnthonyB

[Aesa]

AnthonyB,

Sorry for the mis-understanding, I should've elaborated with freedom for himself and those of his own creed. Which is really the same thing anyway, but related to a specific group (Catholics).

If a person is charged with a crime, they should stand trial and are innocent until proven guilty. To say that someone is a "terrorist" without a trial is either a foolish name-calling game or a pronouncement of guilt without a trial, neither is desirable nor a sign of prudence in the accuser.

Let the accused be tried for their crimes and the meaningless scare tactics of threats of "terrorism" cease.

5 stars.

[AnthonyB]

Asea,

Excepting that in those days one man's freedom often meant the oppression of others. The oppressed side often wailed for liberty but once they had power oppressed as mercilessly as they had been oppressed. Often conviently claiming that they didn't want to but were forced to by external threats, internal rebellions etc.

Fawkes was planning an indiscriminate mass killing, sure he may have got the targets he wanted but a lot of innocents would have been killed/injured in the process. Whether that kind of action is done by the state or by individual(s) it is nearly always counter productive to the cause espoused by its initiators.

Sometimes it is necessary to take up arms against an oppessor but IMHO it must be undertaken with two things in mind. Firstly minimize innocent suffering to the bearest minimum at all times and in all ways possible. Secondly be fully aware of the corrosive nature of such actions on your own soul, the worst monsters are bred through violence, especially when they feel justified in committing it.

Fawkes clearly failed to act in a way that would have minimized innocent suffering and therefor IMHO, no matter how just his cause might have been I could never laud such actions. His willingness to shed blood indiscriminately makes me think that if his rebellion had have succeded no less blood would have flowed through the streets (in fact maybe more) but it would have just been the blood of those espousing a different creed.

As PC's signature quotes,"Power corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." However the victim of such corruption is not only those against whom it is unleashed but also the soul of the perpetraitor. Even the noblest man amongst us can become a bloodthirsty tyrant, a soul disfigured and twisted by their own actions. A man who is willing to sacrifice innocent people by blowing up an entire building with no warning is clearly IMHO well down the path to becoming a monster, if given the chance.

Edited November 10, 2008 by AnthonyB

[Aesa]

Excepting that in those days one man's freedom often meant the oppression of others. The oppressed side often wailed for liberty but once they had power oppressed as mercilessly as they had been oppressed. Often conviently claiming that they didn't want to but were forced to by external threats, internal rebellions etc.

This is the nature of politics, in special reference to an oligarchy, monarchy or democracy.

[AnthonyB]

Undoubtedly that is true of any political systems that people are involved with, but we must at all times call to our better selves and strive to be better people then what we are. To look to heros who reached out in love and mercy to grasp some of those attributes that can only truly be found in the domain of God and bettered mankind by their reaching.

Fawkes IMHO was not such a man and to elevate him, diminshes not only the best of mankind but us all. Unless you can show that every person in the building when it was to blown up was guilty, had been justly tried or even given warning to alter their ways then he stands as a failed mass murderer.

Edited November 10, 2008 by AnthonyB

[austro-libertarian]

Unless you can show that every person in the building when it was to blown up was guilty, had been justly tried or even given warning to alter their ways then he stands as a failed mass murderer.

I can't resist: What does that make President Bush with regard to Iraq?

Edited November 10, 2008 by austro-libertarian

[Aesa]

I can't resist: What does that make President Bush with regard to Iraq?

More like, what does that make the world's elite, in general?

[Elgama]

I don't know if terrorist would be appropriate for Guido and his conspirators. Terror attacks tend to be designed to cause more damage by the terror inflicted on the public by them than they do directly. Guido wasn't attempting to terrorize the British public more to remove in one stroke the entire ruling class. In the hope of effecting political change.

so blowing up the White House, Senate and Congress in the US on one day would not cause terror? Blowing up the World Trade Centre did?

-Charley

[Elgama]

If a person is charged with a crime, they should stand trial and are innocent until proven guilty. To say that someone is a "terrorist" without a trial is either a foolish name-calling game or a pronouncement of guilt without a trial, neither is desirable nor a sign of prudence in the accuser.

Let the accused be tried for their crimes and the meaningless scare tactics of threats of "terrorism" cease.

-a-train

Guy Fawkes was found guilty at trial of treason along with one other member of the gang, the others plead guilty so did not stand trial

-Charley

[Elgama]

I don't know if terrorist would be appropriate for Guido and his conspirators. Terror attacks tend to be designed to cause more damage by the terror inflicted on the public by them than they do directly. Guido wasn't attempting to terrorize the British public more to remove in one stroke the entire ruling class. In the hope of effecting political change.

You don't think removing the President and all his chief aides, All of Congress and the Supreme Court in one day would cause panic and terror? It was the State Opening of Parliament - it would have removed everyone, and their plan was to put a Catholic Queen Elizabeth II in place after Bloody Mary you don't think that in itself would cause panic or worse create vaccuum in which Phillip of Spain could take over.

The following is my personal opinion based on my reading of european history and I hope it doesn't cause to much offence. Catholicism at that stage in history and due too its own internal design was largely supportive of absolute monarchy not democracy. Do you have any reference that Guido supported democracy, I would rather think he hoped for an absolute catholic monarchy. Since a democratic Britian would have remained an avowedly protestant state. If you look at the Cavalier parliaments following the restoration (or post revolutionary France), democratic states at that stage could be quite savage to minorities. (Or even the treatment of "Tories" in the US post the Amercian Revolutionary war.)

One can't help think that if it was successful it would have ensured an even more virulent anti-catholicism was driven into the hearts of the British.

I don't think democracy was an issue at this point very few had a vote - we were only 1 step away from the Tudors who were to all intents and purpose absolute monarchs

The fact that a warning note sent to a Catholic peer was passed on by him to the authorities and helped to lead to stopping of the plot, it is clear that the plot did not have universal approval by all Catholics in Britian.

I understood there was a government spy in place.

***Warning personal rant****

I have a personal belief that the English Civil Wars should be an essential topic of study for children of any democracy, especially those based on British representative democracy. For instance "Representation without taxation" is a phrase bereft of its historical context without knowledge of the Civil Wars. Let alone that the much of the US founding fathers convictions and thoughts are drawn straight form the ideas and beliefs develpoed during the Civil Wars.

Guido decided to murder hundreds including innocents without any process, legal or otherwise, without notice or warning.

Oliver dispatched Charles, after the Kings repeated false promises, unwillingness to be bound by any oath or committment, willingness to wage war continously until he got his way (even thought the previous wars had led to the deaths of a large percentage of the country) even plotting to resume hostilites whilst in negotiations, after a public trial. Charles's execution was quick and merciful beheading. (Not hung, drawn and quatered which is just about the most painful way of being killed imagineable.)

The English/British Revolution is something I have studied in depth with some of the top Professors in the field. How many do you think were killed, how many innocent women and children were besieged and terrified in their houses?, believe me on both sides the war was bloody and nasty villages were burned etc Oliver was removing the governning institution for religious reasons, he then turned the country into a puritan hell punishing people for celebrating Christmas and playing football/soccer

Charles was beheaded because of his stature even stripped of title of King he was still a nobleman - and would hardly call being hacked to death with someone who was probably not the offcial executioner (might have been) painless and dignified. The fact it only took 1 blow rather than 5 or 6 is more in the hands of Heavenly Father than Cromwell. And even hang. drawing and quatering only lasted a short while compared to crucifixion or even the standard hanging - at this point the person was taken down before dead - it has been recording hanging of the variety practised at this time could last for several days, depending on the effciency of the excecutioner. A hung, drawn and quartered would be dispatched an awful lot quicker (us Brits are taught our history via our gory past its best way to keep a bunch of 8-10 year olds listening)

-Charley

Edited November 10, 2008 by Elgama

[AnthonyB]

Elgama,

I'm not sure were the line of terrorism is precisely. Is it any act that terrorizes even if that terror is a unintended byproduct or is it acts that have the prime motivation of creating public terror to acheive an end. I tend to the latter, so I would have reservation about calling it terrorism cause I don't see the motivation to create public terror being a priority. Rather they wanted to remove the ruling elite and hoped the populace freed of them would then support a catholic insurgency/foreign intervention. I could be wrong.

I'm happy to concede my knowledge of the events is merely based only on my own personal reading, but my rant was that I think the events of the Civil Wars molded the ideas and slogans of the system of democracy that many people now live in and kids should at least have some context to the freedoms we now enjoy.

Hmm cruxifiction or hung, drawn and quartered. This is a public forum and I would be happy to fully describe cruxifiction on it. I would be squeamish to go into a full run down on h,q&d. Did they really describe in full details of the horror (and stench) to 8-10 year olds of extracting innards whilst still alive and burning them? (My 60 year old English born mother-inlaw felt unable to read a book of mine on the regicides because of the description of h.q&d in it.)

As for Noll, I will not defend him on this forum, he certainly had warts and faults but few leaders in those times were "saints" (and those that were tended not to be terribly good leaders). However whatever the motivation and whatever the effect, Chas got a public trial and the bloodshed during the Commonwealth and Protectorate was considerably less then in many other revolutions. (eg French and Russian)

I'm going to regret this and it is OT but what were the options left to the victorious army?

Left alive Charles would have continued to agitate and would not hesitate to resume the war the first chance he had. Sent into exile he would have raised an army and if possible reinvaded.

He felt bound by no oath or commitment and believed himself above the law. As was said at the time, after every defeat Charles remained King, after defeat his opposition would have been h,d&q'ed and had there families destituted. He was happy to shed the blood of the entire islands to get what he wanted. IMHO they had to do something to stop the war from being fought continously. (Of course they could have given Charles what he wanted, an absolute monarchy without parliamentary impediement. I'm amazed at the numbers of fans of Charles, I sometimes wish they could all be removed to a country were they can bask in the horror of an unrestrained absolute monarchy bereft of any of the rights that were so hard won through that period of history.))

I must admit that my reading has included Antonia Fraser, Winston Churchill and Geoffrey Robertson, so it probably has biased me to the parliamentary side. I love the story that Winston in WW2 wanted to name a ship after Cromwell, but the King objected and I must admit that HMS Cromwell does sound oxymoronic.

Edited November 10, 2008 by AnthonyB

[AnthonyB]

I can't resist: What does that make President Bush with regard to Iraq?

I can think of several immensly unwise things President Bush did in regards to Iraq. I also think that several of those actions were clearly not aimed at minimizing civilian deaths.

Just because an ideal is almost impossible to maintain in the real world, does not mean that we are free from striving to obtain. I think few people live up to the "sermon on the mount" (I certainly don't always) but that does not absolve us from trying.

[Elgama]

Elgama,

Hmm cruxifiction or hung, drawn and quartered. This is a public forum and I would be happy to fully describe cruxifiction on it. I would be squeamish to go into a full run down on h,q&d. Did they really describe in full details of the horror (and stench) to 8-10 year olds of extracting innards whilst still alive and burning them?m

of course they did lol why shouldn't they its what happened- we even had magazines at the time teaching this kind of history and there is the Horrible History books.... also went into full details about what exactly happened with thumb screws, racks etc and then branding, the full details of beheading... then there was the delightful practice of gibbeting and hanging the body out in a field, etc there is a lot to learn about horrible histories, the Romans were just as much fun from that perspective.

I worked in a Museum Education role for a short time and remember my curator being amazed at how captivated young children could be and interested with such subject matter.

Charles remained King, after defeat his opposition would have been h,d&q'ed and had there families destituted. He was happy to shed the blood of the entire islands to get what he wanted. IMHO they had to do something to stop the war from being fought continously. (Of course they could have given Charles what he wanted, an absolute monarchy without parliamentary impediement. I'm amazed at the numbers of fans of Charles, I sometimes wish they could all be removed to an country were they can bask in the horror of an unrestrained absolute monarchy bereft of any of the rights that were so hard won through that period of history.))

Well Cromwell became an absolute monarch - but the puritan restrictions he placed on people were far worse than the heavy taxation of Charles I, they weren't that far removed from the Golden Reign of Elizabeth I, it was much more comfortable to live under her reign than that of Cromwell, its not as if he was advocating democracy as we know it now, majority of people were disenfranchised. - also I know I am intensely proud of the Monarchy as an institution, I am sure people where in those days, even more so. And technically Charles was right - he could not be removed without signing the piece of paper himself, the courts were his even today the Armed Forces, Police Force and Judiciary are Her Majesty's.

-Charley

-Charley

[austro-libertarian]

I can think of several immensly unwise things President Bush did in regards to Iraq. I also think that several of those actions were clearly not aimed at minimizing civilian deaths.

Just because an ideal is almost impossible to maintain in the real world, does not mean that we are free from striving to obtain. I think few people live up to the "sermon on the mount" (I certainly don't always) but that does not absolve us from trying.

Before I misinterpret what you are trying to say, can you tell me what you mean in the last paragraph?

[AnthonyB]

Before I misinterpret what you are trying to say, can you tell me what you mean in the last paragraph?

I apologize if you found me obtuse. I would have thought it quite straight forward. People often fail to live up to the best ideals but that we all so often fail doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to try to live up to them.

President Bush failed at times IMHO to live up to the fullness of the ideals that the US has generally upheld over a long time. Some of his decisions limited rights ( eg habeas corpus) that are buried deeply within our societies. Some of his decisions increased the suffering of people needlessly. However being a ruler is tough and I doubt any leader/ruler has not at some point failed to live up to the highest standards

[a-train]

Guy Fawkes was found guilty at trial of treason along with one other member of the gang, the others plead guilty so did not stand trial

-Charley

I understand, but your question about whether he was a "terrorist" or a "freedom fighter" brings up the issue of perception. Governments have long made pronouncements regarding a given person in order to control public perception. We can choose to fear or adore based on those pronouncements, or make our own decisions.

As for Fawkes, I am not making any determination.

-a-train

[AnthonyB]

of course they did lol why shouldn't they its what happened- we even had magazines at the time teaching this kind of history and there is the Horrible History books.... also went into full details about what exactly happened with thumb screws, racks etc and then branding, the full details of beheading... then there was the delightful practice of gibbeting and hanging the body out in a field, etc there is a lot to learn about horrible histories, the Romans were just as much fun from that perspective.

I worked in a Museum Education role for a short time and remember my curator being amazed at how captivated young children could be and interested with such subject matter.

Well Cromwell became an absolute monarch - but the puritan restrictions he placed on people were far worse than the heavy taxation of Charles I, they weren't that far removed from the Golden Reign of Elizabeth I, it was much more comfortable to live under her reign than that of Cromwell, its not as if he was advocating democracy as we know it now, majority of people were disenfranchised. - also I know I am intensely proud of the Monarchy as an institution, I am sure people where in those days, even more so. And technically Charles was right - he could not be removed without signing the piece of paper himself, the courts were his even today the Armed Forces, Police Force and Judiciary are Her Majesty's.

-Charley

-Charley

Charley,

Her Majesty is also my sovereign and I think she is a woman deserving of the highest esteem. I think that constitutional monarchy is a great gift, but if a monarch fails to follow the consititution they are being a tyrant.

I disagree that Charles was right.

Firstly international law (at that time) recognized conquest as a legitimate way of gaining soverignty. The NMA had clearly conquered England. The difference was that in the past that a conqueroring army generally had a leader that it installed as monarch to replace the existing one. (eg William replaced Harold by conquest.) The NMA initially passed sovereignty to the house of commons (and then later to Cromwell himself.) This IMHO gave "the house" soveriegnty through conquest.

I also think there is a case from English statute, that the "house of commons" was the de facto government and therefore had not just the right but the responsibility to create courts and to try law breakers. (Which in my view Charles 1 was)

Have you read, "The Tyrannicide Brief" by Robertson?

Edited November 11, 2008 by AnthonyB

[austro-libertarian]

I apologize if you found me obtuse. I would have thought it quite straight forward. People often fail to live up to the best ideals but that we all so often fail doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to try to live up to them.

President Bush failed at times IMHO to live up to the fullness of the ideals that the US has generally upheld over a long time. Some of his decisions limited rights ( eg habeas corpus) that are buried deeply within our societies. Some of his decisions increased the suffering of people needlessly. However being a ruler is tough and I doubt any leader/ruler has not at some point failed to live up to the highest standards

I think this is an interesting discussion--how much someone could be absolved of guilt because of their intentions or "best efforts." For example, a thief's intentions may be to feed himself or his family. Does this justify his actions? I think not. But what if a government bureaucrat takes from someone (taxes) and gives it someone who did not earn it or work for it, but needs it to feed himself? Is this any different?

I am not necessarily asking you these questions, but pondering over where your actions can be justified according to your intentions and where you have committed a sin (or crime). To be blunt, I think Pres. Bush is a mass murderer, despite whether he thought he was "spreading democracy" or "liberating" people (Thou shalt not kill); just as a thief steals and is guilty of a crime (Thou shalt not steal) despite his rationale for doing so.

Here is a great article on the subject by Elder Oaks called "World Peace," with the following quote:

We cannot have peace among nations without achieving general righteousness among the people who comprise them. Elder John A. Widtsoe said:

“The only way to build a peaceful community is to build men and women who are lovers and makers of peace. Each individual, by that doctrine of Christ and His Church, holds in his own hands the peace of the world.

“That makes me responsible for the peace of the world, and makes you individually responsible for the peace of the world. The responsibility cannot be shifted to someone else. It cannot be placed upon the shoulders of Congress or Parliament, or any other organization of men with governing authority.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1943, p. 113.)