Wednesday, 16 October 2013

Fisking UKIP Councillor Henry Reilly

Newry and Mourne's District Council's UKIP member Henry Reilly wrote and opinion piece in the Belfast Telegraph today. I have decided that the best way to deal with this is Fisking it line by line (as usually my comments are in red).

As a democratic and libertarian party definition of libertarian - a) an adherent of libertarianism b) a person who advocates civil liberty, UKIP believes the state should play only a minimal role in the lives of its people. Marriage for instance, happily existed for millennia without any interference from the state whatsoever so the 1753 Marriage Act where you had to be married in the Church of England was not interference for the Roman Catholics, dissenting churches, Jews, atheists, Hindus, Muslims was quite correctly lifted in the 1836 Marriage Act it was an end to state interference. While I personally cannot condone the 'gay' lifestyle Here we go with the lifestyle thing again. Is it my drinking coffee, going out to work every day, shopping on the street, enjoying time with friends, or falling in love that you cannot condone, or is it merely what I may get up to in the privacy of my bedroom you want to 'interfere' with which I believe is damaging to the individuals as I said before where is the damage in my lifestyle which doesn't differ than much from others involved I recognise that not all people have the same values and beliefs as me.

Civil partnerships are a recent development. UKIP recognises that they provide a way of allowing  people to formally register relationship commitments wonder if he calls opposite-sex marriage a way to register relationship commitments, this is about love is it not? and have a legal means of dealing with the problems that had been identified in the past like tax arrangements and the distribution of joint property assets legal means yes, but in a way of keeping that love commitment separate and compartmentalised away from those who object and do not condone the so called 'gay' lifestyle. The civil partnership  arrangement allows all people the same fundamental rights as married heterosexual couples not all as those LGBT people of faith who want to marry a same-sex partner are not allowed to be joined in a faith setting with hymns. prayers or God being mentioned, nor faith groups that currently want to the ability to fulfill this equality if they choose. Why? Because Northern Ireland currently is alone with in the UK in not lifting this prohibition.

A difficulty arises however when the state seeks to punish those for practising sincerely held principles or religious beliefs again there are those who religious beliefs differ on this issue of same-sex marriage and indeed homosexuality in general. I believe that it is profoundly unjust that Christian business people like B&B operators or printers should be subjected to the threat of jail for simply practicing what they believe or council staff and church ministers who believe that marriage is a sacred Christian rite between a man and a women. First up these people are providing a service. If you have advertised that you are providing a service and then refuse it merely because of the sexual orientation of the customer you are discriminating. No Blacks, no Irish ring a bell.

That’s what the Progressive Unionist Party effectively called for at the weekend, when it passed a motion to introduce homosexual marriage in both Northern Ireland without an MLA they cannot introduce anything, but they did pass a motion to support marriage equality twice debated in Stormont and are one of the first unionist parties to do so and the rest of the UK like UKIP the PUP have no elected representatives in the rest of the UK legislators. Admittedly, David Cameron promises those who object to homosexual marriage – most notably churches – in England and Wales will be protected from it. But like any of ‘Cast Iron Dave’s’ promises, they’re not worth the paper they’re written on in England, Wales or anywhere else I don't read of any churches having to marry Jews after 1836 lifted that prohibition, indeed the 1753 Act meant they had to, clearly the paper that previous marriage acts was written on was worth it.

For so long as the UK remains subservient to the European Court of Human Rights, it is inevitable the law will be challenged. It is similarly inevitable it will be deemed to be ‘unfair’ by a panel of judges in Strasbourg, which interferes in everything yet is accountable for nothing.

Consequently, there is a real danger that ministers, church officers, registrars and wedding venue owners could be jailed or heavily fined if they fail to agree with David Cameron or Billy Hutchinson actually if there is any forcing of ministers or church officers being forced he should come and see me, I don't feel that they should be any coercion but faith groups that wish do so can come to their own conclusion. As for registrars they already carry out the civil partnerships that UKIP apparently recognise and many refer to is as being like marriage and venues would surely love the extra revenue.

That’s wrong; no person or group can be allowed to force their ideas on society or compromise hard won personal freedoms there is a juxtoposition of ideas here. He is claiming that one group can not force their ideas on society while at the same time allowing another group to do just that. We are talking about two personal freedoms, allowing people of the same sex to marry doesn't affect anyone else, but denying them that equality certainly does so just whose personal freedom is worth more, a true libertarian would say nobody's personal freedom is worth more than anyone else's. Therefore, while I understand civil partnerships, I’m opposed to state-enforced homosexual marriage the state is not enforcing anything, but lifting an enforced prohibition. The motion passed at the weekend’s PUP conference is profoundly illiberal leader Billy Hutchinson said in his speech "However, it is also important to point out that the motion
adopted today does not discriminate against those who hold opposing views on this
just like the Act from Westminster and the Bill before Holyrood, even if it is regretfully consistent with the PUP’s apparent desire to become the foot soldiers of the European Union and a ruling, metropolitan, socialist elite. So nothing to do about being the same as the rest of the UK then, strange that a UKIP Councillor should want part of the UK to not be the same as the rest.

This is me:

In conclusion yet again you have somebody trying to argue for a liberal or libertarian approach that the removal of the prohibition, imposed by the state, is a state imposition of same-sex marriage. They are arguing for the case of personal freedoms but are placing some people's personal freedoms on a higher pedestal that others. The same was once said about women, before that non-caucasions, or Jews and before that slaves. 

Just because personal freedoms have historically favoured one part of societies personal freedoms giving those same freedoms to a group denied them doesn't mean that group lose their own freedom, they merely have respect for others to move at the same level as themselves.

How can removing a state interference be seen as state interference? Especially for a so-called libertarian such an argument is pure nonsense. How can increasing personal freedom and indeed faith groups freedom to operate as they want be seen as restricting them?

There is somewhat a catch 22 situation here. Giving some people the personal and religious freedoms that you yourself have seems to be seen as taking away those freedoms from you. Surely that is not right.


  1. Gay Lifestyle?

    Lets see, would that include sex with a consenting adult?

    Does that not normally mean a male placing his penis in the anus of another male and rubbing around in the excrement?

    Excrement, that's the bacterial ridden waste matter that causes the repulsive smell in the toilet when a human evacuates their bowels.

    Nature made it smell like that to warn us to stay away, or are we saying evolution, or God, did not make it that way?

    Even an uneducated, innocent infant is repulsed by the smell and knows to stay away.

    On that basis, I and every other adult have the right to be repulsed by Gay Lifestyle as its hard wired into our brains from birth.

    We are the vast majority and we have the right to state that we reject Gay Lifestyle when it requires that sexual stimulation occurs as a result of penetrating through the anal sphincter to where human excrement is stored.

    Are we wrong to be repulsed, put off, sickened by, the smell of excrement in a toilet?

    I say no and on that basis, why would I not do all I can to discourage Gay Marriage in a Christian Church, where traditionally marriage has been an act undertaken between a man and a woman before engaging in intercourse.
    The natural result of intercourse between a man and a woman is conception and the gift of children and the beauty of childbirth.
    Why would anybody want to associate all of this, with two gay men having anal sex together (gay lifestyle) and its repulsive nature, that the vast majority of humanity do not engage in or want?
    To associate gay marriage on the same terms as heterosexual marriage is really sick, if you can't understand why, just sniff the air the next you are in a toilet just after somebody has evacuated their bowels!

  2. I was going through the list of awaiting moderation comments and decided to publish the above so set a few things straight.

    Commenter "Gay Lifestyle?"

    My response: Yes that was a phrase that was mentioned by Harry Reilly, I did fisk it above to some degree.

    "would that include sex with a consenting adult?"

    Yes it may to, but not ever LGBT person is having sex with consenting adult(s) every day of the year. Like with heterosexuals some of us are not in relationships and some of us are also waiting for the right person to settle down with for life before engaging in sexual activities.

    "Does that not normally mean a male placing his penis in the anus of another male and rubbing around in the excrement?"

    There is a fascination with the mechanics of gay men's sex. Now there is an LGBT spectrum so it wouldn't cover the Lesbians, nor necessarily the Trans* people or the bi people all the time. Now of course heterosexual sex takes place between the two areas that male and female urinate out of mostly (though anal sex is also possible and practiced). Most people who have normal bowel movements and clean themselves after using the toilet do not leave excrement lying around. There are also such things as enemas and dousing which can actually make the anal cavity very clean. So it you are going to judge the mechanics please check all the mechanics.

  3. "Are we wrong to be repulsed, put off, sickened by, the smell of excrement in a toilet?"

    Learn to flush, the smell of excrement in the toilet soon leaves after flushing, don't leave it hanging around in the bowl.

    But on a serious note if you are sickened by the smell of excrement in the toilet after you have gone and before you flush I would seek medical advise.

    "The natural result of intercourse between a man and a woman is conception and the gift of children and the beauty of childbirth."

    Actually if the natural result of every intercourse between a man and a woman were the above all heterosexuals would only have intercourse in total about 2.4 times during their lifetimes (equivalent to the average number of children). Mostly the natural result of intercourse is that nothing actually comes of it except maybe the man ejaculating and possibly (though not always) the woman will also orgasms.

    "why would I not do all I can to discourage Gay Marriage in a Christian Church"

    You can discourage that if you want within your own group of believers, but you can no more aim to discourage that amongst that you can upon their believes about communion, baptism, predestination or any of the many other differences in practice and believe that have lead to the vast array of how Christians come together to worship, live and serve together in so many different guises. Anf yes some of those other gathering of Christians are welcoming of LGBT people and want to be able to allow them to marry. Their reading of scripture may look at the original Hebrew or Greek word stems that some have translated to condemn all homosexual activity when it is actually often more specific than you seem to imply.

    You have the right to be repulsed about man on man sex that is your right, but that does not make up the totality of any gay man's lifestyle just as I trust the sex you have with you wife does not form the totality of your lifestyle. But I am not asking you to watch gay porn, or to come into a bedroom where I and any future partner (being currently single nothing is going on) would have sex.

  4. Nor am I insisting that your church carry out same-sex marriages. If they want to that would be great, but if not that is their right as we allow freedom of religion in this country. However, I expect my politicians of which Harry Reilly is one to remove obstacles to members of society being treated as equal. As there are people who discriminate against loving same-sex couples because they are not married but only civil partners there is a need to do away with the two-tier approach, even though legislation currently condemns and outlaws such discrimination. It still allows you to make the statements you make above with freedom, no matter how ignorant some of them actually are, but it does not allow you to deny services to someone because of their sexual orientation. After all God says "All men are created in my image" he makes no caveat for those who are gay. He tells those who follow him to "love all mankind as you love your Lord" again there is no caveat.

    Yes you can be repulsed if you want to think about the mechanics of part of what it means to he gay, but you are still to love them just as you are to love sick, the homeless, the downtrodden all of whom probably also smell something horrid.