How does the UN universally declare marriage rights? #factcheck

Cardinal Keith O'Brien in his Sunday Telegraph article said:

"In Article 16 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, marriage is defined as a relationship between men and women."

and

"The Universal Declaration on Human Rights is crystal clear: marriage is a right which applies to men and women, 'the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State'."

So let's take at look at how crystal clear that is. Article 16 which applies to marriage states:

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

So that doesn't as the Cardinal stated say that it is between one man and one one woman, merely that men and women of full age are entitled to the right to marry without limitation, providing there is free and full consent. It is not as crystal clear as he had made out, it doesn't define who the spouses in each marriage should be, indeed the language is rather neutral in what it actually says on the make up of the spouses, for the record it doesn't even specify monogamy.

The thrust of the Cardinal's message was the impact that equal marriage would have on children but other articles also mention family:

Article 12:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Therefore surely calling families that don't have mixed sex parents a grotesque subversion is surely attacking the honour and reputation of those family members.

Article 25:
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Hang on the Cardinal said:

"All children deserve to begin life with a mother and father;"

and

"Same-sex marriage would eliminate entirely in law the basic idea of a mother and a father for every child. It would create a society which deliberately chooses to deprive a child of either a mother or a father."

So the Cardinal appears to be picking which parts of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights he wants to adhere to. All children are entitled to the same social protection.

If the Cardinal should not pick and choose Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to make a point, just a Christians shouldn't pick and choose verses to prove their point. Now should he try and interpret them by adding words that aren't there into them.

Cardinal may have a point about slavery and equal marriage

Speaking on Radio 4's Today programme Cardinal O'Brien when asked wan't equating equal marriage with slavery a bit too far said:

"it is a very, very, very good example as the what might happen in our own country at this time"

So let us look at what happened in the lead up to the abolition of slavery. As you may know the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 brought and end to Slavery in the UK. What you may not be aware of is that they could have been a abolition some 26 years earlier when there was the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act 1807, however the Lords were rebellious including some of those who were Lord's Spiritual who spoke against the end of slavery. Some of those Bishops are recorded as saying slavery was indeed biblical and had provisions laid out and nothing in the Bible calling for its end.

The abolitionists started out with the non-conformist Christian people like William Wilberforce, a Quaker, like nine of the original committee of twelve for the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade. Mehtodists like John Wesley joined their cause, along with Baptists and other denominations who joined behind the call to end slavery.

The established Church dragged its heels on this issue and indeed even spoke out against the changes. Does that sound rather familiar to the cause that Cardinal O'Brien wishes to draw our attention to now? The Church of England much later in 2009 apologised for its implication in the slave trade. This was both through its ownership of slaves as part of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, and through Henry Phillpotts, Bishop of Exeter who received compensation for the 665 slaves he owned in 1834. That compensation equates to almost £1million pounds worth in today's money for the Bishop and around £500,000 for the Church itself.

So if the Cardinal's analogy truly is a reflection of where our society is heading where are the Quakers who were at the forefront of ending slavery on equal marriage?

The answer is simple, they are at the forefront of wanting to offer equal marriage, not merely civil marriage but the same religious celebration they offer to any Quaker.

So before we get to harsh on condemning the Cardinal for linking the case of slavery with equal marriage. Let us consider whose stance we in the UK followed on slavery. Maybe what might happen in this country at this time is once again to follow the path of those who worship by waiting on God, rather than hearing the sounds of their own voices repeating liturgy.

histRORY now the World's Best Golfer

This mug, or some very much like it may well be swamping the local market in Northern Ireland tomorrow morning. Though I suspect that many will actually have a picture of a certain young man from Holywood.

Not even a final day surge from Tiger Woods who shot -8 for the day, including two eagles, could take the lead off Rory on his day, even temporarily. Woods the youngest ever World Number One though was the leader in the club house as Rory completed his round alongside Tom Gillis of the USA.

All Rory had to do this week, as last, was to win. This week it was strokeplay at the Palm Beach Gardens, Florida for the Honda Classic, rather than having to play a second tough matchplay of the day after beating the only man who could have denied him the honour.

The Northern Irish man shot a steady round with only one bogey on 12 which he recovered immediately on 13, to go with the other birdie on the 8th. Shooting -12 for the tournament was enough to overtake Luke Donald at the top of the World Rankings that will be announced officially tomorrow.

So here is the World's Best Golfer and he comes from just up the road.

The World's Best Golfer
Picture by Getty Images from the BBC

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.

Yes redefining marriage has led to polygamy

There is a lack of irony in senior members of the Church of England and others arguing that a redefinition of marriage now, to allow same-sex couples to marry, will lead to polygamy. It already did in 1533.

As Matthew 19:6 says about marriage "So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." but this is precisely what Henry VIII had to do in order for him to make his mistress Anne Boleyn become his Queen.

Ah, but say the Church of England, God did allow divorce in the bible. Well he certainly did as Jesus went on to say in Matthew 19:9 "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery", that is her sexual immorality not his. The innocent party is allowed to remarry not the guilty one, from what the bible says.


However, we look at the order of events that led up to Henry VIII setting up the Church of England

• Winter 1532 on return from meeting with Francis I of France Henry marries Anne Boleyn in secret
• 25 Jan 1533 Henry marries a pregnant Anne in a second public ceremony
• 23 May 1533 Archbishop Cranmer convenes special court to look at validity of marriage to Catherine of Aragon
• 28 May 1533 Marriage between Henry and Catherine declared null and void (which again is a selective leaving out parts of scripture)

Therefore there were two people who were believed to have been married to Henry VII for over four months. Marriage was redefined and polygamy took place. As stated above divorce for any other reason other than sexual immorality is also seen in the eyes of God as adultery. Therefore there are an awful lot of polygamists around and it is not down to opening marriage to same-sex couples. By the biblical definition which the Church of England Archbishops and Bishops have spoken so adamantly about adhering to polygamy has been going on the this country for almost 500 years, but they decided to turn a relatively blind eye to it.

Therefore the redefinition of marriage came in 1532/3 and it did lead to polygamy. Don't blame it on those of us who are LGB.

1924 Summer Olympics Paris: VIII Olympiad

Nations 44 (+15)
Competitors 3089 (+462)
Sports 17 (-5)
Events 126 (-28)

4 May - 27 July hosted by Paris, France


These were the final games to he held under the IOC Presidency of Baron Pierre de Coubertin how having held the role for 29 years stepped aside the year after the second games to come to his home city.

There were also the second Olympic Games to be held in France that year, the inaugural Winter Olympics had finished in the Alpine resort of Chamonix just 3 months before the opening of the Summer Games. There were officially at the time just a winter week of the Summer Olympiad though when a second week of winter sports became part of the programme in 1928 they were to be recognised as the first Winter Olympics. But the Winter Games are a different story and one I may tell in the lead up to Sochi and the XXII Winter Olympiad in February 2014.

This is Paris in the Summer of 1924, the Olympics of Chariots of Fire.

Citius, Altius, Fortius


The motto translated as "Faster, Higher, Stronger" was first used in the 1924 Games. It had previously been used by a French sporting Federation one of whose members was Baron Pierre de Coubertin. It exemplifies the major aspects of most of the sports still in Olympics movement. Archery and Shooting present then and from the start not really fitting any of the three, but how does one add most accurate.

Olympic Village


The Games were now increasing to involve over 3,000 athletes never mind the officials and team coaches etc for them all. In past Games Olympians had had to book space in hotels along with anyone else who wanted to be at the Games. But in 1924 a new innovation came to the Olympics a specific village of accommodation to house the athletes and officials.

As you can see from the picture the accommodation then was rather basic looking cabins. But there were built close to the stadium and were the first to be termed Olympic Village. It wasn't replicated in 1928 but has been at every Games since 1932.

New Nations

The newly independent Ireland were amongst the new teams taking part. So the taking part under protest and protests of the previous three Olympiads were now a thing of the past. They were not to medal in their debut, having had 'Irish' medalists in the past the closest they came to a medal was in the boxing, the event that they still have over half their medals in.

It was in the Semi Final of the Welterwight contest that the Referee Stopped the Contest to protest the Irish boxer Patrick Dwyer from the Argentine Hector Mendez, but he was unable to take to the ring the following day for the Bronze medal match which went to Douglas Lewis from Canada on a walk over.

Also present for the first time were Ecuador, Haiti, Lithuania, Philippines, Mexico and Uruguay. Latvia and Poland had both made their debuts at Chamonix in the Winter Games and sent teams to the summer as well. Poland would take a silver in the men's team pursuit cycling and a bronze in the individual show jumping, and Haiti would take bronze in the team rifle shooting.

Sports some goodbyes, some familiarity and some champions


Rugby made its last appearance in the Olympics as a full 15 a side event. It will be returning in Rio 2016 as a Sevens event. Polo was also making one of its occasional visits to the game, its fourth out of five. Tennis was also to make its last appearance from the early Games roster until it returned as a full Olympic sport in 1988.

However, there was standardisation of two disciplines. From this games onwards the length of the Marathon was set to the 26 miles 385 years that first was run at the 1908 Games in London. Also the Olympic measurements for a swimming pools were set to the now familiar 50m. In the past swimming had taken place in pools of whatever length was available or in open water in lakes or the sea.

Liddell being carried aloft

Of course because of Chariots of Fire everyone knows that Harold Abrams won the 100m and Eric Liddell won the 400m. But did you know that they both contested one final together. In the 200m both qualified along with 4 Americans Jackson Scholz and Charles Paddock who were also featured in the film as losers to Abrams took gold and silver. But it was Liddell in bronze with Abrams behind in 6th. All three of the sprint disciplines were won in Olympic Records, Liddell's being a world record and Abrams running equal to the existing Olympic record of 10.6 secs in his QF, SF and Final.

But aside from the sprint guys who made the story of the Oscar winning film who else did well in Paris.

Well talking of films there was a future star fo screen and jungle doing rather well in that 50m pool. He took gold in both the 100m and 400m Freestyle as well as helping the USA to 4x200m freestyle gold. He would take a further two golds four years later but he also appeared in the USA water polo team which took the bronze medal. Eight years later and of course the sound of Johnny Weissmuller's Tarzan yell would first be heard on the silver screen. But then he was just a 20 year old American swimmer burn in what was at the time the Austria-Hungary Empire in what is now Romania in the town of Timişoara famous for being the seed bed of that countries revolution.

In the fencing there was a Frenchman, Roger Ducret, competing in his second Games. Having won bronze in the individual foil he went on to gold in his home games, adding to it the team foil and épée golds as well as silvers in the individual épée and sabre. He wasn't on the roster for the French team in the sabre the only men's event that the hosts failed to medal at in the fencing.

See also:

• I Athens 1896
• II Paris 1900
• III St. Louis 1904
• Intercalated Athens 1906
• IV London 1908
• V Stockholm 1912
• VII Antwerp 1920

Not every one in a public story is public property

Eric Joyce has made the news again today. I'm not going to be linking to any of the articles and here is the reason why.

The reason he has made the news was that he is accused of an affair with an at the time 17 year-old student at one of the high schools in his constituency. Someone who was working in his constituency office. She also co-chaired the debate at her high school, one of those at which I stepped in as agent because our Lib Dem candidate was working at the time and unable to get time off.

That was where I first met the teenager in question. Like Eric Joyce I was one of her friends on Facebook and mutual followers on Twitter and this is where the reason I am not linking to the story kicks in.

The Tabloid has used Facebook pictures of an intern working in an MPs campaign office and Tweets between the two as evidence of an affair. I think of all the young party activists who appear in campaign shots across all parties across Facebook all the time. Many of our younger members love to bag as many pictures as possible with the big names when they come to campaign, so it is hardly surprising that pictures of a young campaigner with big names appears on Facebook. She was a keen, politically knowledgeable and active teenager.

Like Eric I also asked via Twitter how the result of her exams went when they came through, I do the same for anyone looking forward to exam results on my feed every year, especially those I've met and know. I also wished her a happy birthday when she finally turned 18 after the election, one thing that emerged during the question on votes at 16.

However, there is an accusation that the affair has been going on for the last 2 years. But, the young lady in question has the right to move on without the baggage of such a story being around any current or future relationship she may have. I notice today that her Facebook profile has been taken down, her Twitter account has been protected for some time. Whatever the interest in the story this is someone who is still only 19 that has been plastered across the papers today, this is someone who through the interconnetiveness of social media has maintained friendships with a mixture of political people.

Yet this is someone who feels hounded today by the tabloid press.

While the rich and famous attempt to hide behind super injunctions young people can be preyed on by the press. In this case there are quotes from members of the Falkirk Constituency Labour Party. It is likely that the identity of that nineteen year old was given to the press by one of them in a final attempt to push the resignation or at least deselection of the MP. But in doing so they have made her collateral damage, seemingly without thinking of the consequences that have unravelled today. As someone who knows her reading my twitter stream today has made horrid reading.

As Johann Lamont the leader of the Labour in Scotland says: 

 "If these reports are true, [Eric Joyce] is a man who has abused his position of power and authority."

He alone has the case to answer to if he found to have abused his position of authority. It is not open season to spread lies, or even just dig scurrilously for any fragment of truth, if there is any, and potentially ruin someone whose live has moved on. It is not right to have slain down a 19 year-old as collateral damage.