Where Ulster Covenant fails the LGBT community

These are the words of the Ulster Covenant whose centenary people in Northern Ireland are celebrating this week.

BEING CONVINCED in our consciences that Home Rule would be disastrous to the material well-being of Ulster as well as of the whole of Ireland, subversive of our civil and religious freedom, destructive of our citizenship, and perilous to the unity of the Empire, we, whose names are underwritten, men of Ulster, loyal subjects of His Gracious Majesty King George V., humbly relying on the God whom our fathers in days of stress and trial confidently trusted, do hereby pledge ourselves in solemn Covenant, throughout this our time of threatened calamity, to stand by one another in defending, for ourselves and our children, our cherished position of equal citizenship in the United Kingdom, and in using all means which may be found necessary to defeat the present conspiracy to set up a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland. And in the event of such a Parliament being forced upon us, we further solemnly and mutually pledge ourselves to refuse to recognize its authority. In sure confidence that God will defend the right, we hereto subscribe our names.

And further, we individually declare that we have not already signed this Covenant.

Now for me a key line of that is our cherished position of equal citizenship in the United Kingdom. I admit it had different ramifications one hundred years ago. But let us not forget that the Unionist politicians are all joyously celebrating the retention of that equal citizenship on the one had while denying it to many whose forebears also signed those words.

I'm talking of course about the LGBT citizens in Northern Ireland.

If we had leaders who truly cherished a position of equal citizenship in the United Kingdom, we would allow gay and lesbian couples to adopt. We would allow men who have had sex with men to donate blood after one year and we would already have all the parties clamouring to get a consultation on equal marriage out to the public.

Of course sadly that is not the case, and rather ironically the Northern Irish health Minister is actually co-joined with the authority of that other Parliament in Dublin rather than the rest of the UK on the issue of blood donations.

So while members of the DUP, UUP and TUV seek to honour the covenant this weekend let us not forget that one of the things that those they celebrate did 100 years ago was cherish equal citizenship with the rest of the UK, something that for some sections of Ulster life is missing today.

So maybe in Stormont today's Unionists would rewrite the Covenant like this:

BEING CONVINCED in our consciences that Home Rule Devolution would should not be disastrous to the material well-being of Ulster as well as of the whole of Ireland, subversive of our civil and religious take on civil freedom, destructive of our citizenship, and perilous to the unity of the Empire United Kingdom, we, whose names are underwritten, men of Ulster, loyal subjects of His Her Gracious Majesty King George V Queen Elizabeth II, humbly relying on the God whom our fathers in days of stress and trial confidently trusted, do hereby pledge ourselves in solemn Covenant, throughout this our time of threatened calamity, to stand by one another in defending, for ourselves and our straight children, our cherished position of equal citizenship unless you are LGBT in the United Kingdom, and in using all means which may be found necessary to defeat the present conspiracy to set up a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland comply with LGBT equality legislation from the rest of the Union which digresses from the rest of Ireland. And in the event of such a Parliament legislation being forced upon us, we further solemnly and mutually pledge ourselves to refuse to recognize its authority. In sure confidence that God will defend the right, we hereto subscribe our names.

You think I am being harsh. Well the first test comes after the weekend when on Monday there will be a debate in Stormont on marriage equality.

SNP need precision in what Act of Union entails

So the SNP don't want the words United Kingdom to be used in the referendum question.

They argue that:

"We have been preparing for independence fo 75 years and we have our backs covered on all issues. It is about breaking up the political union, not the Union of the Crowns."

There is however a small issue to be considered; that of language.

The United Kingdom as a term came into being and usage in 1801, with the Acts of Union

The United Kingdom first became the name of the Country in 1800, when the Kingdom of Ireland joined the Kingdom of Great Britain.

"That it be the First Article of the Union of the kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland, that the said kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland shall, upon the first day of January which shall be in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and one, and for ever after, be united into one kingdom, by the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and that the royal stile and titles appertaining to the imperial crown of the said United Kingdom and its dependencies, and also the ensigns, armorial flags and banners thereof, shall be such as his Majesty, by his royal proclamation under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom, shall be pleased to appoint." from the Union with Ireland Act 1800

The Kingdom of Great Britain itself only came into being in 1707 following the Act of Union, that is the political union. Before that from 1603 when James VI of Scotland inherited the crown of England through his grandmother being the sister of Henry VIII, it was a personal Union of  the Crowns of England and Scotland. They were still known as the Kingdom of England and Kingdom of Scotland. This is why both King James are known by both their regnal numbers; James I of England and VI of Scots and James II of England and VII of Scots.

"The Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next [1707] ensuing the date hereof and forever after be United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain. And that the Ensigns Armorial of the said United Kingdom be such as Her Majesty shall appoint and the Crossed of St. Andrew and St. George be conjoined in such a manner as Her Majesty shall think fit and used in all Flags, Banners, Standards and Ensigns both at Sea and Land" from the Act of Union 1707

So as always the SNP a forgetting that there three crowns, or parts thereof that pledge fealty to their crowns, the term United Kingdom did come about as as aspect of the political union, not just the Parliament of (then) Great Britain. Those two are actually entwined in legislation. The Parliament of Scotland could in effect remove the protestant inheritance rights from the Princess Sophia Electress and Dowager Duchess of Hanover.

They actually are by wanting to tear up the Act of Union tearing up the United Kingdom. Her Majesty would therefore, if they were successful, become Queen Elizabeth II of England and Northern Ireland and I of Scots as she would return to being Queen of England and loyal parts of Ireland one one hand and Queen of Scots of the other.

Chambers Knew the Law

In 1992 I still held some hope of getting fit again to possibly challenge for Olympic selection. That was also the year that the British Olympic Association passed their eligibility bye-law which renders any athlete found guilty of a doping offence, from that date on, ineligible for selection to the Team GB.

Dwain Chambers in 1992 was 14 and therefore was yet to consider just how close he may have been to senior, never mind Olympic selection for his country. Therefore throughout his entire senior career he knew that the bye-law he is challenging in court this week was in place. Even when he was taking performance enhancing drugs he was aware that if found out his eligibility would be taken away.

Over the weekend we held the 2008 Olympic trials and chambers won the 100m in 10 seconds flat. A less than 3 years after he was banned by the IAAF. Sue Barkers two sparring partners Colin Jackson and Jonathan Edwards had their own opinions on the ban and these weeks inevitable court case after Dwain's success. Colin was of the opinion that the bye-law was clearly known by all including Chambers. It wasn't protested before by anyone who might be affected and then only rarely by those who have been affect. David Millar accepted his fate and knew he would never be able to pull on an Olympic vest again. Millar, the cyclist, was far more voluntarily forthright about drugs than Chambers was who almost at the last minute helped with further enquiries when he saw it as a a way to possibly sway a judgement in his favour.

Edwards on the other hand argued the case for a redemptive second chance, but only with a condition that the IOC (International Olympic Committee) and the other international bodies came down harder themselves of offenders. He argued for a 4 or 5 year initial ban, which as he pointed out would act as far more of a deterrent than the current 2. It would show that the world of sport really wanted to get clean. Then after that period if the athlete still wanted to compete, and was still good enough to qualify there should be nothing in their way to prevent it.

Despite all the drugs-free toil I went through I would have to agree with Edwards. A longer initial ban would act as an initial deterrent. It would also make it harder for someone caught cheating to maintain their level of fitness for the period of the ban to get back. They really would have to be determined to come out fighting. However, it would give a chance for the truly repentant people like David Millar to have a chance to make amends, I can see him still racing in 2012 and possibly up for being part of the GB team in London. He is an example of user turned advocate against in the best sense, I'd rather see Millar given a second chance than the chancer Chambers.

Carry On Upping Khyber Troop Numbers

George W. Bush is in the UK, possibly seeking sanctuary from the attacks from John McCain and Barak Obama. However, with the American President in the area Gordon 'Tim'rous Beastie' Brown took the opportunity of his moral support to announce an increase in British troop numbers in Afghanistan; as is typical of such announcements under Labour the House of Commons will only get their announcement from Defence Secretary Des Browne later at 15:30.

The announcement will take UK troops in Afghanistan to their highest since deployment following 9/11 and shows a sort of pendulum effect as Gordon Brown has been cutting numbers in Iraq. However, it doesn't make it any easier on our forces who will still be being deployed with regularity between the two theatres of conflict. As the commander of our troops in Helmand province said last year we are facing a 30 year marathon mission in Afghanistan.

When you consider that both World Wars took a total of ten years and not even Northern Ireland took 30 years to come to a peaceful settlement it makes you wonder just who is winning this so called war on terror.

Have DUP Paved Way for Nationalists Future?

Iain Dale, that'll be the Tory one rather than my Scottish colleague and friend, raised an interesting quandary over the Democratic Unionist Party's support of Labour in the lobbies on Wednesday night.

If the as yet unsubstantiated rumours that some deal has been done, no matter how surreptitiously, could it help the nationalists? No, not the SDLP or Sinn Fein but the Scottish variety.

Like the DUP the SNP lead a devolved executive within the UK. Like the DUP the Scottish Nats are seeking leverage over financial packages for their part of the union. So what happens if at some point in the future Gordon Brown needs more than the 9/10 Unionist votes to secure a crunch vote? What if Alex Salmond makes an approach to Gordon to shore up what he needs and names his price?

If Gordon has as he said yesterday not made a deal with the DUP he can stand up to Alex, however if it comes to light that some preferential treatment is heading the way of Northern Ireland how can he turn down some quid pro quo concession to Scotland.

Could it be after years of defending the Union and standing up to Nationalism that in one moment of seized opportunism the DUP have manged to aid the process that may unravel the Union that they hold so dear? We live in interesting times, and will look out for developments.

To Talk or Not to Talk

There is of course a world of difference between keeping channels open with terrorist groups and giving in to their demands. In the past, Northern Ireland, Palestine and others have seen the former terrorist come within the fold and actually have some share of power over some regions.

It appears that Tony Blair is not averse to keeping communication channels open with terrorist groups. He had previously wanted to hold talks with the IRA Army Council, to keep the Northern peace talks on track. Now one of his senior aides, Jonathan Powell, is calling for the UK to start talks with Al-Queda. Although the Government is rejecting the calls to keep communication open with Al Queda. But the Security Minister Lord West says not talking is silly.

So who is right? One thing we're constantly hearing from Al-Queda seems to be that they hold a grudge that the West does not understand them. Surely to reach some understanding both of the wests leaders to them and vice versa is to have some sort of conversation going.

Who would ever have thought that Ian Paisley would ever have sat down with Sinn Fein, or that Nelson Mandela could reach and agreement with the National Party or that the PLO would ever have reached an agreement with Isreal. Admittedly that conversation still needs to be ongoing to resolve things but they all started to reach some sort of conclusion by diplomacy.

Our government seems to by rejecting the sensible call to talks taking an altogether gung-ho attitude, that is alien to the great triumphs of British history. Yes there have been times that war has been used, but all the time there was a hope of negotiation to resolve things, often with furtive meetings behind the scenes.

Maybe the government is calling our bluff. However, judging on current performance I doubt that, they just haven't got the poker face to do so.

The Army Says No!

Well as I wrote yesterday the US Army said the situation in Iraq is too unstable to foresee a withdrawal of troops before 2010. Well British Army Cheif General Sir Richard Dannatt can tell them why. It's because we are there!.

This is most forthright statement from inside the allied forces military which says that far from being the peace makers in Iraq our troops are seen as occupiers and a cause of the tension, which will only continue the longer we stay.

So not only has he called for an immediate plan for an exit strategy, but he has also hinted that the way we went into Iraq, i.e. not invited, may be affecting how we are viewed in certain parts of the world.

President Bush wants us to stay until 2010. The British Army says no.