PASSING NOTES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 27092, 28 May 1949, Page 5

PASSING NOTES

“Old Student,” Timaru, points out a surprising omission in the United Nations Charter in that there is nothing about children’s rights “and the unforgivable social and legal injustice —illegitimacy—is not even mentioned. . . . Surely the first fundamental right of every man is the right to a name. . . . What a chance was missed here of taking the first step towards wiping away one of the crudest and least-merited of all man-made inequalities.” Our correspondent says: “I hope, whoever you are, you will comment on this letter at some length

. . .” In these Passing Notes, lengthy comment on any subject, however important, is impossible. In this case it is not necessary. “ Old Student ” is advised to read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights passed by the United Nations Assembly in December last. It is one of the few immortal human documents and in some respects the most important. All its clauses include everyone without distinction: Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. . . . Without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. ... To a nationality. ... To own property. ... To social security and . . the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality. . . . 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.

More serious thought and constructive debate were given to the Declaration of Human Rights than to any other international document. Fifteen commission members worked almost continuously for two years on the initial draft. Then representatives of all member States gave 85 meetings to testing and reformulation. The result combined many differing political, economic and sociological ideas, legal systems and cultures. This, together with the simple, precise phrasing, is what gives this first international declaration of the rights of man such a unique place in history. No nation voted against it. Andrei Vyshinsky, representing USSR, said that more time should be given to perfecting the declaration, and abstained from voting. The present purpose of the declaration is only fully realised if its terms become known and its significance apparent to every human individual. It is being widely circulated by every possible means in all languages. It is not yet binding on ahy nation. It is the first part of an International Bill of Human Rights. It is to be followed by a Convention on Human Rights and measures for implementation which are now being prepared. When these are passed it will be obligatory on all nations to guarantee the rights of every individual as set forth in the declaration.

Andrei Vyshinsky is now ‘ Soviet Foreign Minister. Physically plentiful, robust and genial, he has shown himself a better mixer than most of the Russian delegations in foreign lands. When not engaged in making official pronouncements for his Government he is reasonable, tolerant and a cordial conversationalist. In this week’s conference of Foreign Ministers he has been meeting for the first time in their official capacities Robert Schuman of France and Dean Acheson of the United States. The last-named is young, affable, scholarly and halfCanadian. Of course, as Jones said on the tram this morning, we can rely on Bevin and Acheson. They speak English. But you can never be sure of these foreigners! English commentators who know the men behind the news have been speculating on the kind of impact Schuman will make on Vyshinsky. SchTiman is a known quantity—frank, controlled, goodhumoured, with a grasp of essentials. Tall and spare, he has a face deeply marked by experiences in a Gestapo prison. He knows law, politics and, from bitter experience, Germany. He is devoutly religious. His close friends say that if he retired from political life he would become a monk.

The Press Association cablegram from London referring to a r.ew translation of the Bible by Monsignor Ronald Knox, says that “ simplicity and clarity of expression is typical of the whole translation. The chief criticism, as reviewers point out, is likely to come from those who prefer the well-known language and poetry of the authorised version.” Those who have not formed' the admirable practice, of reading the ancient writings in the modern wordings will probably gather from the cablegram tnat Monsignor Knox has done something unusual, and that the choice is between his translation and the authorised version. There are many others. For a century scholars of all denominations have been rendering the, Scriptures in modern English. A hurried circuit of the shelves yields nine sucn volumes (if friends returned borrowed books there would be,at least three more). Even non-specialists like myself would be most unwise to seek the meaning of a biblical passage without comparing the insights of Rotherham. Weymouth, Moffatt, Goodspeed, the Revised Standard Version, Montgomery, and others to which 'we now gratefully add Knox. There may oe “ the well-known language and poetry of the authorised version” in ‘‘the light shineth in darkness: and the darkness comprehended it not.” (S. John i, 5.). But there is simplicity and clarity in Goodspeed’s: “The light ip still shining in the darkness, for the darkness has never put it out.”

Those who have the official responsibility and the ability will no doubt give us sufficient instruction as to how to read Sacred Writ. But a civil scribe like Civis may be allowed to pass on a poet’s opinion as to how not to do it. Amy Lowell’s lines in “ Lilacs ” concern many more than Paradoxical New England clerks,

Writing inventories in ledgers, reading the “ Song of Solomon ” at night, So many verses before bedtime, Because it was the Bible.

Is a character like Bob Hope persona grata in a column like this? 0.K,. then, here it is. It is recorded, apocryphally I’m sure, that the briefest telegram received by President Truman at the time of the elections was: “Unpack. Hope.” More likely to be historical is the statement attributed to him when he heard that a plane had exceeded the speed of sound: “This means that I could tell a joke in Hollywood, realise it wasn’t funny and send a plane out to shoot it down over Chicago.” That the air force immediately put a squadron at his disposal is open to some question. But it was Hope, I feel confident, who was dining out with friends when he was encountered by a man who had met him years before. “ I remember you.” said the newcomer, “ in those days you always said you were going to become a great comedian.” “ Yes, that’s right.” said Hope enthusiastically. “Well, what went wrong? ” was the innocent query.

What parochial creatures of habit we are—even in reading the daily paper. There is undoubtable evidence that some read these Passing Notes as regularly as a tippler finds a pub. As for myself, I read the news conscientiously. It is my duty and delight. It is so human, revealing, concealing and so outrageously one-sided. Who could miss it and still claim to be alive? Then I read a selection of editorials, and even some letters to the editor, both chosen according to the subject and the quality of the first three lines. I never, on any occasion, read any of the women’s sections, the sporting pages or the weekly %ermon. This confession is due to readers of this column, so that they will know what deficiencies to guard against, lest they also be led into bad habits. By the way, I never miss the advertisements. Wasn’t it Henry Ward Beecher who said that we learn more of what is going on from the advertising columns than from all the rest of the paper? We do, but those who advertise without stating the prices of their wares are wasting their time and ours. Civis.