Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics: The DUP number game

The DUP are claiming that their 9 MPs being greater than the SNP's 9 and Plaid Cymru's 3 puts them in a position to be at the leaders' debates ahead of these other regional parties.

But look at it another way the DUP will be fielding between 16-18 candidates (the number is variable as they are still talking about possible deal(s) with the UUP), this is against the SNP who will be standing 59 and Plaid who will be standing 40.

Of those 59 and 40 they will all face a Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat and a high proportion also facing a Green and UKIP candidate. Of the DUP candidates there may be a handful who face Conservatives, UKIP and Green candidates. Not one will face a Labour or Lib Dem candidate (although they may be facing a member of one of those parties under a different label).

So does the DUP on the numbers game they are playing deserve a podium at the debates? In my opinion no.

However, I would love to see Peter Robinson up there as to actually debate real issues would show up how backward the DUP actually are. I've long been of the opinion that even many third and fourth placed candidates in the rest of the UK have a greater grasp on reality, people and working for all people than the DUP. So I dreamt last night of Peter Robinson having to face questions for the other UK party leaders having to justify the conscience clause and his parties anti-LGBT and anti-abortion agenda while claiming they wanted to be British.

Of course both Sinn Féin, the SDLP and Alliance are now all saying that they too have as much right for representation with the inclusion of two parties who don't stand across all of the UK in these debates. And the DUP are saying that Naomi Long of the Alliance is represented by the Lib Dems, when she is not on my membership list and has said she is not a Liberal Democrat many times and the SDLP by Labour.

Have DUP criminalised lap dancing?

Today there was Further Consideration Stage on the Human Trafficking and Exploitation Bill but there were some very loosely worded amendments from Lord Morrow to his own Bill.

I beg to move amendment No 5:

In page 9, line 13, at end insert

(1A) In the heading to Part 5, after "PROSTITUTION" insert "AND PAYING FOR SEXUAL SERVICES OF A PERSON".". The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 6: In page 9, line 23, at end insert

"and A knows or believes that the payment is made or promised by a third party."

No 7: In page 9, line 26, leave out "level 3 on the standard scale" and insert "the statutory maximum".

 No 8: In page 9, line 29, leave out "not exceeding the statutory maximum". 

No 9: In page 9, line 33, after "services" insert "(other than sexual services)". 

No 10: In page 9, line 38, after "sexual" insert

; or(d) B touching B in a sexual manner for the sexual gratification of A, B being physically in A’s presence.".

The last of this is particularly vague. Something that Alliance MLA Stewart Dickson picked up on and asked:

If we are going to legislate as loosely as to say that person A commits an offence if they obtain sexual services from person B in exchange for payment and that this includes circumstances where person B does not touch person A but touches themselves for the sexual gratification of person A, would that not also make it an offence to, for example, watch lap dancers or strippers or purchase a strippergram or kissogram for a party? While many would regard such activities as morally questionable, I doubt that many think that they would be illegal. However, it appears that this amendment would make their purchase illegal. 

We could even go further: what about cases in which someone goes to see a play with sexually explicit scenes? Some people may go because they consider it art, but what about those who go to enjoy particular scenes for sexual gratification? If my reading of this amendment is correct, then when an actor or actress touches themselves in a sexual manner in the presence of an audience member who has paid to watch it for the purpose of sexual gratification, that audience member has technically committed an offence. For example, are we to have 'Lady Chatterley's Lover' banned from the stages of Northern Ireland once more? 

This highlights the type of problems which will inevitably arise when we try to use the term "sexual services" without a proper statutory definition. We simply cannot draw clear parameters of the offence. It might be useful to share an example from Canada, where the Supreme Court struck down its prostitution laws last December. A lawyer who was involved in the case said that: 

"I think it's both a key thing and an example of a bigger problem with the bill when the thing that's being regulated — it's described as sexual services, [but] the Bill doesn't contain a definition of what it is. That's a real vagueness problem." 

That Bill was not dissimilar to this one.

Instead of answering these concerns Lord Morrow simply said:

If there are some who, even after this debate, feel that they cannot support some of the amendments, that is a matter for them, but I urge them to rethink. I can say, without a shadow of a doubt, that, when I was dealing with amendment No 10, I spoke to the Attorney General. If someone can direct me to a higher court or a higher authority on these matters, I am ready to listen. If so, that person can tell me, "You shouldn't have gone there with it; you should've gone somewhere else". If so, I would like to hear from you; maybe you will come to me privately afterwards. 

First, the Attorney General is very clear that amendment No 10 will address the need to cover demand for the scenario where a person is exploited to provide sexual services in the form of the sexual touching of themselves observed by the client. Secondly, he is very clear that amendment No 10 will not criminalise lap dancing and stripping, as some have tried to insinuate here today. 

Mr Dickson said that the amendment would cover that type of activity and even watching films. I suspect that, no matter what I say, Mr Dickson will be of the same opinion when he walks out through the door today, because there is none as blind as those who will not see and there is none as deaf as those who will not hear. There are some who, no matter what I say today, have their minds made up that this measure will not be effective or that it will go into other territory. As I said, I cannot go anywhere else for advice, other than the channels through which I went. Amendment No 10, and I urge the House to consider it, is crucial.

It is shocking that an Attorney General can allow such loose terminology without definition to enter into law. But then the Northern Irish Attorney General has already shown that his understanding of the law is lacking in areas. So for him not to realise that judges and lawyers prefer to have a clear definition of the law, firstly so they can determine if it has been broken, second to consider if there is a case to be answered to.

But then for there to be concerns about the wording on an accelerated passage bill, in other words one that isn't getting that much scrutiny. So yet to amend at this stage when there is only an hour of consideration for this group of amendments shows that the DUP are slipping in loosely worded definitions into law without proper scrutiny or sane advise.

The interpretation is potentially wide and far outside the remit of the Bill. It is not clear where the boundary ends. The touching merely in the presence of someone else for sexual gratification. This is wishy washing and the DUP managed to get the UUP and SDLP to back it as horrifyingly it passed 52 votes to 35.

We live in times that moralists are narrowing the definition of what is allowed and too many people in Northern Ireland would be shocked to find just how loosely they are going about it, opening up a great many seemingly innocuous activities open to the vagueness of new law and the interpretation of the court.

As Stewart Dickson said and I'll add slightly "I am not sure whether the consequences are simply not appreciated by the DUP[, UUP and SDLP] or whether it is trying to drag us back to a Victorian era in which we will all have to cover up our piano legs. 

A simple choice says Peter

"Flag-lowering, parade-stopping, gay marriage supporting, pro-water charging, holier than thou Alliance Party".

Was the recommendation that Peter Robinson made of the Alliance Party in his speech this afternoon, so let me take those epithets that raised raucous applause from the small minded, one directioned, homophobic, financially irresponsible, holier than God himself DUP delgates found so humourous and look at them one by one.

Flag lowering: Whilst this relates to Belfast City Council, for Derry City Council and many of the councils to the West of the Bann the Alliance Party policy on flying the Union Flag on designated days is actually a flag raising policy. Yes it is one that Sinn Féin and the SDLP need some work on to see it as being fair to the minority of unionists who live in the council areas that they live in. Some of those Unionists undoubtedly vote DUP but haven't seen the Union Flag fly from their civic buildings for years. Therefore where is the DUP call for the flag to fly on all public buildings to mark the Royal Birthdays, the Queen's Coronation Day etc? Of course designated days is what happens in most council areas in Great Britain, indeed some fly other flags Orkney flies the Norwegian Flag on Norway Day, and many the Rainbow flag for Pride.

So make that Flag Raising or Flag Equality

Parade stopping: No doubt refers to the Twadell Avenue stand off, but it was the Parade's Commission as voted for by 71% of the Northern Irish people in response to the Belfast Agreement who decided that one final part of their parade home on the Twelve in 2013 should not go past a parade of shops in a nationalist area. This was based on previous violence in the area from both sides over previous parades. The DUP of course are supporting the cost of policing the ongoing action there  in hundreds of thousands of pounds, while the PSNI this week announced some cuts to manning of police stations to try and meet budget constraints on top of suspending historical enquiry work.

So make that Police Supporting and People Respecting.

Gay Marriage Supporting: Of course marriage equality is not just about the gays (and lesbians), it also affects the bisexuals and those who are transgender and intersex. But then when you are used to attcking just the G of the LGBT+ spectrum you can't be expected to know the details of some of my potential partners I an marry but others I cannot, spousal vetoes and stolen years of "togetherness". Nor does it allow those faith groups that want to carry out same-sex marriages the same rights as their brethren in England, Wales and very soon Scotland. Of course when you defend the union and attack LGBT+ equality on a par with the rest of the Kingdom you make a certain section second class citizens in their own land.

So make that Equal Marriage Supporting or just Equality Supporting.

Pro-Water Charging: Water charging is just one possible way to increase government income. We do have a failing water and sewage provision infrastructure which needs a sizeable amount of work and replacement. One way this is funding in England, Wales and Scotland is through the water charge component in the council tax. So yeah while we have a financial crisis shouldn't we be looking at the various ways that we miss out on the revenue that the rest of the UK can call upon to actually do stuff with, but then doing stuff and the Assembly are two things that very rarely go together. Of course Peter Robinson is looking to get control of local corporation tax, but that is only so he can lower it to match the Republic of Ireland and therefore create more holes in budgets. Taxes and revenue need to meet expenditure not cause even more savings to be sought.

So make that Fiscally Responsible.

Holier than thou: Coming from a party that fails to take into account people of non-Christian, Roman Catholic Faith, or no faith into consideration this seems rather rich. When their definition of what is right is based on a rather narrow reading of the Bible which not even every Christian in Northern Ireland holds to 100%. When they cannot legislate for the state without reference to the bible it is clear who truly is Holier than thou, though I suspect that like the Pharisees and Sadducees before them are actually Holier than God creating extra laws and legislations to go on top of what Moses was given. This is why Jesus said that the greatest commandment was to love. For until you can live up to that one you cannot possibly start to consider the others and that is where the hate for certain sectors and failure to understand equality legislation leads to.

So finally I make that  Being a Good Samaritan for EVERYONE.

So in conclusion what Peter failed to see is that the Alliance Party is actually:

Flag Equality Everywhere, Police Supporting, People Respecting, Equality Supporting, Fiscally Responsible, Good Samaritan for EVERYONE

So yeah it is a simple choice for the people of East Belfast. If they want progress and normality that most of the Western World knows, loves and experiences then they can vote for Naomi Long. If they want to carry on with the bigotry, keeping others down and lurching from one financial crisis to another they can back Gavin Robinson.

Never in the history of Northern Irish politics...Part 2

...have the Alliance votes transferred so poorly to unionist candidates.

In 1979 the Alliance candidate was eliminated after the election of John Hume SDLP elected after stage 3 and all the last Independent nationalist Bernadette McAliskey who was eliminated at stage 4 so we have no idea how else the Alliance vote would have transferred.

In 1984 Alliance were eliminated along with UPUP candidate Jim Kilfedder but the only parties left after their elimination were SDLP and Sinn Fein so it is impossible again to guage the split in preference.

In 1989 we didn't get to the elimination stage and with DUP and SDLP elected on stage one the Paisley surplus was sufficient to elect Jim Nicholson UUP. The same thing happened in 1994.

In 1999 there was an option as to where the Alliance vote may have transferred to. At the time of elimination Sean Neeson had 14,391 votes. But he was eliminated as the same time as the PUP, UKUP and Natural Law candidates. Jim Nicholson UUP and Mitchell McLaughlin Sinn Féin were both left. But as only 1709 went to Sinn Féin and even if all of these had been from Neeson was only 11.87% of his vote.Over 50% of the Alliance vote that would have transferred therefore would have gone UUP assuming that 33% was non transferable.

In 2004 there was no Alliance candidate as they along with the Workers Party, Conservative and Labour parties were backing John Gilliland the outgoing President of the Ulster Farmers' Union.

To complicate matters in 2009 once again the Alliance were eliminated at the same time as another party. This time it was the Greens. Combined they transferred 38.44% to the SDLP but 43.78% to UCUNF, DUP and TUV unionist candidates. The Alliance had the bigger share of those transfers with 62.88% of the combined total that was reallocated.

That leads to this week, Anna Lo was eliminated by herself in stage 6. 44.58% of her vote went to the SDLP with UUP, DUP and TUV still in play. The unionists got only 21.25% of her vote.

Hypothesis 1

Taking this back to 2004 it would have equated to the SDLP getting 11,903 votes off Alliance of the 16,325, but would have left 23,012 votes to go of which 15,764 would have been a totally transferable Green vote. For the sake of argument let's assume that they did all transfer that leaves 4,422 Green votes left to fill up the SDLP vote and 11, 342 going to unionism. That would still result in 7,248 Alliance votes that could go unionist but even that is 27.15% of the Alliance transfers.

Clearly there would not have been 100% transferable votes from the Greens. Therefore there has to be an even bigger reduction in the proportion of Alliance votes than the mere 6% that this hypothetical scenario shows.

Hypothesis 1b

Lets assume that a universal 17.77% of non transferables for both parties (7,548 of the 42,463 combined was actually non transferable) of those Green votes were non-transferable, this would come off the resultant unionist vote. It would mean 8540 of their votes go to unionism, leaving 10,050 of Alliances vote or 37.64% heading to unionists.

Hypothesis 2

The Green Party candidate Ross Brown was eliminated at stage 4 along with NI21's Tina McKenzie. Their combined vote of 21900.53 at the time of elimination saw 8661.10 going to Alliance to we discount that  to leave 13,239.43.

Of that 3107 (23.46%) went nationalist and 5809 went unionist (43.87%)

Applying that to their 2009 vote 3,699 votes went nationalist and 6,916 unionist.

The impact this would have on 2009 would be that 12,626 (47.29%) Alliance votes were nationalist and 11,674 (43.62%) unionist at a 91% transferability rate.

As it is I suspect that the Green vote would have had a higher proportion of nationalists to NI21 which means that the proportion of Alliance votes going Unionist would actually have been higher in 2009.

The Alliance has for a while not transferred toward DUP in large numbers and as a by product TUV. But has been relatively happy to go UUP. However, this time that has not been the case.

The reasons are pretty clear. The outright attack on Naomi Long even before the vote in Belfast City Council on flag and the lack of timely or outright condemnation of the attack on Alliance party office or elected reps homes that resulted from the Unionists. There is also the issues of equality on which the UUP have been as intolerant as DUP but the SDLP and Sinn Féin more liberal. This could be borne out by those who campaigned for equal marriage saying if your not prepared to vote for us and ours you'll not get our vote.

As I also said there was 17.8% non transferable from Alliance and Greens in 2009, but 33% non transferable on this occasion. So even those that would not transfer to SDLP have not transferred to unionism.

Hardline unionism may well benefit them in FPTP Westminster elections (providing they work on the pacts) but it is damaging the unionists on getting transfers from Alliance in other elections in Northern Ireland.

DUP take the tortoise and the hare too far

Today in the Northern Ireland Assembly in their final plenary session of 2013 discussed this Alliance Party motion:

That this Assembly notes that a sexual orientation strategy was subject to consultation in 2006; further notes that public commitments to publish a document by the end of 2013 were made by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister in Together: Building a United Community; expresses its deep concern that this document does not appear to have progressed to date; and calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to publish a cross-departmental sexual orientation strategy as a matter of priority.

Now you'd have thought that seven years after consultation would be enough time to bring forward any strategy document. I know that when I was working in the Department of Enterprise Trade and Investment my branch was responsible for the economic strategy document going forward 10 years. It was published in 1999 less than a year after devolution and was covering all the complex issues of Northern Ireland's economy going forward. One of its recommendations was to produce and Information Age Initiative, this was done in 2000 less than a year later. Both documents were critically received and although some felt they could have gone further in certain directions they were a path finder for what was arguably the most important of the devolved departments.

Now this brings us to the issue of the Sexual Orientation Strategy (SOS). As Anna Lo said when moving the motion:

A consultation took place in 2006, and a strategic action plan was drafted to identify and tackle human rights issues relating to sexual orientation.  Following devolution, it was shelved in 2007, along with the shared future and racial equality strategies.  It is not unreasonable for OFMDFM to want to take ownership of these strategies under devolution, but seven years is too long to produce our own version.  Let me explain.

In 2010, the cohesion, sharing and integration strategy consultation indicated that Ministers were fully committed to publishing a sexual orientation strategy.  At the end of that year, it was confirmed by junior Minister Newton that a strategy would be published.  In 2011, junior Minister Bell told the Assembly that the final consultation process would take place in early 2012, with a view to publishing a strategy before the end of 2012.  In October 2012, the Department outlined that a draft public consultation document was under consideration and would be published in the near future.  In February 2013, Minister Bell outlined to the Assembly that the Department remained committed to publishing a strategy and that it was currently under consideration.  The announcement of the Together: Building a United Community strategy committed OFMDFM to publishing a sexual orientation strategy once the consultation process had been completed.

However, the only speakers and in the end the only MLAs who had objections to publishing a strategy were the DUPO. First Stephen Moutray said:

It is simple:  consultation must take place before the strategy can be brought forward.

Now forgive me for being dumb but the consultation started in 2006. In both 2012 and 2013 we were promised by the Junior Minister for OFMDFM at the time from his own party that the SOS would be published by the end of the year. On both those occasions it was implied that consultation was complete and it was down to drafting. So why has the strategy not been brought forward?

He went on to say:

if the Alliance Party cared to speak with the sector, it would ascertain that that sector is broadly content with the way in which the Assembly is dealing with the matter.

 Now I wonder has Mr Moutray spoken to the LGBT sector, he certainly hasn't been at any of the LGBT consultative forum meetings that have time and time again talked about the frustration that the assembly have failed to publish a SOS. Now was he there when they discussed the lack of SOS being mentioned but in passing in the ludicrous Draft Cohesion Sharing and Integration strategy, which has also since to resurface in the light of day since 2010.

His colleague George Robinson said:

I hope that those who tabled the motion will see the benefit of supporting the current work in progress to achieve the workable solution that I see as critical to a successful outcome.  Clarity, not haste, is the essential factor in producing a workable strategy.  It is for those reasons that I cannot support the motion.

The LGBT do not want a work in progress. Nor do we want a document that has been promised take over what would have been two terms to come to the table if it not published within the next twelve months. The delay in publishing this is already longer than the period that an LGBT teenager is expected to spend in secondary school, without any consideration, nor any mention of homophobic bullying. As we heard in the debate 85% of LGBT youth in Northern Ireland contemplate suicide and 35% have attempted it.

Is it really so awkward to develop a strategy especially when documents exist in the rest of the UK already laying out best practices in the workplace, accommodation, health care and education that can be adapted to the Northern Irish situations? Or is it just awkward for the DUP to face up to their Section 75 obligations and acknowledge that something needs to be done of the LGBT people in Northern Ireland who do not feel save to outwardly express their love for a partner in public as they would do in Glasgow, London, Cardiff and even small provincial towns.

'For Everyone' caveats may apply

In my humble opinion when you say you stand For Everyone you'd better make the right adjustments to make sure you do stand for everyone.That is what I think the Alliance Party's amendment so today's motion on the constitutional convention and equal marriage aimed to do*. However, it appears that three of the Alliance Party's own MLAs couldn't even do this (Trevor Lunn voted against his party's amendment and Keiran McCarthy and Judith Cochrane abstained by voting in both lobbies). You may recall back in October that these three either voted the same way or were strangely absent. To do so once voters can excuse to do it twice on the same issue loos like a habit.

I have no issue with the three Alliance MLAs who then, after the amendment was defeated, abstained on the substantial motion. However, with Cochrane and McCarthy joining Lunn in the No lobby it makes we wonder if all of the Alliance Party is for everyone, or whether some add too many caveats. As many will know from my past the reason I hadn't up until December last year joined the Alliance was because as I said too often they weren't liberal enough for me, but don't panic I'm going anywhere just yet (well not apart from being the member from Kirkwall).

But then there was the party that brought the motion Sinn Féin. Unfortunately they had ignored one important fact in putting that motion before the Assembly this time around. You need to bring with you those of faith who are on your side, by ignoring part of the motion from October that did that they were not going to get as much support as October, all other things being equal. That is why there were only 42 votes for this time.

When the Liberal Democrats formed their motion which subsequently became party policy and the skeleton of the policies in the rest of the UK, we made sure that faith groups were not compelled to do anything, but also recognised that some were ready right now to carry out same-sex marriage and that others may follow after dialogue within themselves. But you cannot oppose church government from government and the same should be true in reverse.

However, whatever the outcome of today let us not lose sight of the true villians of the piece the Unionist MLAs. With only one exception, East Belfast's Michael Copeland, from the biggest two groupings all the rest voted no. You would imagine that there were no LGBT people in the protestant/unionist/loyalist population the way this group carried on, thank goodness for Copeland along with Basil McCrea and John McCallister.




The DUP have signed up to the St Andrews Agreement adjustments to the Good Friday Agreement. They are still meant to promote equality of opportunity to all, without prejudice to sexual orientation. The more they continue to deny any advance to the LGBT community the more we have to consider that they are not fulfilling their obligations under Section 75 of the Belfast Act.

The conclusion of today is that all parties in Northern Ireland are somehow or other signed up to equality of opportunity for all, yet each is bringing their own caveats to the table on what is, no matter what Sammy Wilson says, a matter of equality.

* However, our churches are exempt from certain areas of equal employment legislation. No woman has ever challenged the Roman Catholic Churches right to not ordain women, and churches are at liberty not to employ LGBT people should they so choose.

The Alliance Party share vision for future

OFMDFM say that releasing the Cohesion, Sharing and Integration strategy, that has been ongoing, through consultation on the draft then review, almost as long as I have been back in Northern Ireland, at a time that all three are breaking down is the wrong timing. However, today the Alliance Party have issued they vision of what that shared future should be.

The main points, as highlighted in The Executive Summary, that they look to cover are:

• Economics of a Shared Future
• A Shared Approach to Education
• Sharing the Spaces in which we Live, Work and Play
• A Shared Culture

Yes flags are part of what they have to say but they have placed it after the economy, our young people and their education, housing and public space.

They have said that public space does not mean neutral space, in that there should not be no go areas for anyone. Now currently for those that are respectful of other cultures, and that is something that the document also points out there being more than two, are able to freely go about wherever they choose. Of course the Belfast Agreement allows anyone to identify as British, Irish or both (there has since been an increasing growth in those that identify as neither).

On the subject of cultures the Alliance Party lay out that:

The language of "two communities" or "both communities" always ignored people who either could not, or would not, be simply labelled as unionists or nationalists, Protestants or Catholics. Some come from mixed marriages, are part of ethnic minorities, or simply choose not to be described in such terms, preferring a more complex, multicultural and pluralist self-identification. Many Protestants and Catholics, and unionists and nationalists, often have more in common with people across the perceived 'divide' than they do with each other. Above all, violence in support of the 'two communities' idea has forced generations of people into choices about security which have embedded hatred and condemned others to silence and marginalisation.

Our community is becoming increasingly diverse. The old simplicity that there are two sorts of people here, where Protestant = British = Unionist, or Catholic = Irish = Nationalist, can no longer be the basis of progress. The emerging vision of a united community, based on both equality and good relations, allows for a society at ease with its diversity. We recognise within this context that some people may adopt multiple identities. The increase in the numbers of people describing themselves as 'Northern Irish' in the 2011 Census is indicative of this rapid change.

The arrival of new minorities has changed the visible face of our towns and cities and brought new opportunities and challenges. The emergence of other identities, such as the vibrant Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community, which cut across the traditional divide, has marked a clear and positive shift in attitudes, and the importance of change to address issues of disability now shapes public policy and
expectations. Society stands to benefit in a situation where people can hold open, mixed and multiple identities, can experience different cultures and express their individual creatively. We now have a new opportunity which we cannot afford to miss.

Therein lies an issue that the majority of our parties do not find it easy to step away from. Their politics, and political thinking has been defined in purely them and us opposites. But I know from being part of that LGBT community most especially that in order for those types of situations that do not fit into the historic them and us situations that people are able to work together to achieve what they need to.

This should apply to the lack of jobs in our inner city working class areas, whether on the Newtownards Road or off the Falls Road. The should apply to housing which has become ghettoised since the late 60s. Growing up in the area of Bangor I did with a Catholic Church and school nearby and Catholic neighbours meant I knew they were no different from me. They bled from football injuries, just as they would go in hard for the tackle like us. They also served in the RUC (as was) just like my great grandfather had in the RIC in often tense situations where their lives where in danger sometimes from their own community.

Some things are certain though. If we cannot work out a way to live together, we cannot maximise our economic potential. If we cannot live beside each other, we will only further entrench our fears and not move on from our past. If we cannot let our children learn beside each other before they turn up at University, it will be another generation that reaches adulthood in ignorance of the diversity of culture that we live in.Without respect for our differences we are nothing.

Where is the integrity of leap into DUP bed for Harbinson?

So the unelected Councillor for Bangor West, Adam Harbinson, has hardly surprised us with the announcement today that he has joined the DUP. When he

In his letter to the Belfast Newsletter explaining why he thought he had no need to resign his seat he said;

"It is they who will vindicate me on the principled stand I have taken and on my record as I continue to seek to serve them – regardless of race or creed, political affiliation or sexual orientation."

If that is true he will possibly be the only DUP Councillor on North Down Council he actually does serve his constituents regardless of sexual orientation. I have had no acknowledgement of any correspondence to most of my correspondence to my DUP representatives, bar one on the issue of equal marriage. It basically said that the Cllr would not change his mind on this issue and it was pointless me writing to him about it. So if that is the record of how my DUP representatives serve me in a neighbouring DEA I wonder how the voters of Bangor West will fare.

One of the reason that I believe Cllr Harbinson has given for leaving the Alliance was on the issue of equal marriage. The reason behind it would have something to do with his faith.

In his newspaper column in the Larne Times in August Cllr Harbinson started by saying:

"Did it ever strike you as odd that the Christian religion, which in the beginning was all about transformation, has become so impervious and resistant to change?"

Now I know that the church is always more reticent to change, it was something I blogged about in the past.

Before going on to say when talking about turning away the unchurched:

"Some find it surprising that Jesus had little time for the religious leaders of his day and they had no love for him.

"Pointing to them on at least one occasion he described them thus: 'They crush people with unbearable religious demands and never lift a finger to ease the burden'.

"Jesus makes no such demands. To him only one rule is called for and it applies equally to us all: 'I give you a new commandment,' he said. 'As I have loved you, you should love each other.'"

I imagine the same it true today. But this stance on a policy that has every time it has come forward seek to protest religious freedoms of groups who object as well as those that are open to the idea shows a lack of understanding and integrity.

I rarely play this card but today I have and will again now. The Liberal Democrat policy on equal marriage, on which the Scottish and Westminster (for England and Wales) Bills are grounded, were not formed without taking into account religious groups and individuals on both sides of that divide. I know this first hand, having had many discussions about the drafting of the Scottish policy which was largely copied for Federal. I also met with Steven Agnew to express the importance of religious and individual freedom to choose being in the Northern Ireland Assembly motion.

If faith groups are not secure in the respective guarantees that they are protected from carrying out same-sex marriage, despite them all including the Church of England being protected from marrying divorced people if they don't want to, they should work with the Government to strengthen those areas of concern. But each individual or faith groups that protests on the basis that they don't want to do it, is missing the fact that they are not being forced to.

Maybe Cllr Harbinson and others should pay attention to the essence of what he writes.

Now there some leap in terms of shared society from what the Alliance means to what the DUP means. n May 2011 I had them at different ends of my preferences, so hardly a easy transition. When he resigned Cllr Harbinson said "'if a man does not have integrity he has nothing", may I be so bold to ask where is the integrity in leaving behind the Alliance to join the DUP. I

Hillary comes as do the death threats

Today Northern Ireland is welcoming Hillary Clinton.

The first time she turned up death threats were a common occurrence to our elected representatives and other people who had got on the wrong side of the paramilitaries. Therefore it is with shame that all three levels of local representative today have announced that they have received death threats.

The Alliance MP for East Belfast Naomi Long spoke very calmly on The Nolan Show this morning. She was talking about those who had taken to the streets claiming that their rights were being chipped away at, but then came the telling statement:

"My right to life is also protected in law. But it is being played fast and loose with today"

 People claiming that they will fight for their rights while denying the right to live at home, or visit someone's own office is an attack on rights.

After Naomi the leader of the Sinn Féin group on Belfast City Council, Cllr Jim McVeigh, said that both he and North Belfast MLA Gerry Kelly has also received death threats.

The First Minister has this time reacted with alacrity in issuing a response:

"Such threats are an affront to democracy and an attack on us all. As someone who in the past has been visited many times by the police to be told of death threats issued against me, I know how difficult and testing a time this is.  My thoughts and prayers are very much with Naomi at this time and I would call upon all concerned not to allow themselves to be used by those who have very sinister motives.  Regardless of political difference, public representatives should not be attacked or threatened in anyway."

All death threats against the people's elected representatives are repugnant. They are an attack on our democracy as well as an attack on the people who voted for those representatives.

This morning the leader in The Belfast Telegraph appears on the front page under the headline "Today we all vote for the Alliance Party". Today we also stand for democracy, the rule of law and the right of our elected representatives to go about their business free of intimidation and threat. The ballot box and peaceful protest and discourse are where we should make out points.

We need to end the bullying on social media.

We need to end condemnations of the violence which end with a but. The but negates everything before it as it is given half heartedly.

It is time for a recall of Stormont. There has been a further escaltaion not a calming of the tension since yesterday. We the people of Northern Ireland cannot wait until Monday morning for our politicians to discuss this matter, there is a weekend in between and that is a bad time to leave things in limbo.

In which I join the Alliance Party

Don't panic I'm also still a Liberal Democrat.

That is a little constitutional anomaly with the Liberal Democrats not contesting elections here in this part of the UK. It means that members of our party here can join a local party that is in line with Liberal Democrat thinking.

There are already a number of members of the local Liberal Democrats who are also members of the Alliance Party.

I have never been a member of the Alliance Party, I only joined a political party when I went to University in Kingston, the first time I came back I wasn't aware that the Lib Dems existed locally, but also didn't want to get involved in local party politics at that time (late 90s) then I was working in the Civil Service. When I returned this time at the start for the sake of my job local party neutrality was a key factor while I worked for the Yes to Fairer Votes campaign. Then after that I felt that I could continue with my neutrality to work with whatever party was leading the way on liberal values. And yes that party wasn't always necessarily the Alliance Party.

However, in light of the events of this week. When there have been direct attacks on democracy following a vote in one council chamber which has erupted into violence, arson and other criminality I decided the time has come to stand and be counted. So I have joined the number of dual memberships.

Flag protest now leads to arson and terrorism

This is the scene tonight in Carrickfergus at the Constituency Office of Stewart Dickson MLA. He is the Alliance representative for East Antrim.

Stewart does not represent any part of Belfast, yet the protest against the decision made by the Alliance party to come with a middle ground between no flags and the status quo has not led to criminal damage being caused. There is probably outstanding case work that has been destroyed in the fire and Stewart will certainly be inconvenienced in working for this constituents while this mess is getting sorted out.

As Stewart has said:

"This is an outright attack on Democracy and cannot be allowed to continue."

The problem is that the DUP and UUP have been stirring up tension over the issue of the Union Flag at Belfast City Hall for a month. They dropped a leaflet into the protestant areas of East Belfast.

There are suggestions that they are using this issue to stir up support to regain the Westminster seat they lost to Naomi Long. But this protest has now reached criminal levels. There are calls nightly to met outside Alliance Constituency offices. Where are the calls from the DUP leaders or the UUP leadership for these attacks, because that is what they now are. This is no longer the threat against a Belfast Councillor but are not actual attacks.

Update No sooner had I blogged this that the DUP issued this. Although I think at the moment they should call on people not to protest outside Alliance Offices at all as there is too much tension.

UTV have published this picture of the inside of the office

Further update My own Alliance Party Councillor, Michael Bower, and his wife Christine also a Councillor have now been attacked at home, where they live with their infant daughter. This indiscriminate targeting of any Alliance representative has gone to new levels this evening, this is terrorism and intimidation. And yes attacking peoples homes in the dead of night is a form of terrorism.

Michael has now said:

"My daughter who is 17 months old had just gone to bed when I heard an explosion against the window.

"I guessed it was some sort of attack on our family home. I checked that my wife and daughter were okay. The paint bomb hit the corner of the room where my daughter usually plays.

"There is damage to the window, but it could so easily have been so much worse. If events had been different, a young life could have been lost. I would plead with people to calm down and to stop attacking representatives doing their best to support their communities."

Even further update Police have reported that petrol or another accelerant were poured on the front of the Alliance Party offices in Bangor. A passing patrol disrupted their attempts at arson and no damage was done.

Co-opted Councillor resigns from party

In Northern Ireland should a councillor (or for that matter a MLA) die or resign his seat there is no by election but a co-option by the party that held the seat. That change for Councillors came about in 2010.

So it was that in March this year Adam Harbinson, who had failed to get elected in May 2011 for Ballyholme and Groomsport was selected to replace the late Tony Hill in Bangor West. Hill had been the Alliance Councillor for 11 years since 2001, Harbinson hadn't even managed 8 months before this morning announcing he was resigning from the party while at the DUP conference. He has not said that he is changing allegiances, merely thinking about it.

Earlier this month Harbinson was the one Alliance Councillor here who had voted against the marriage equality motion before council. He was entrusted with the seat on behalf of the Alliance Party and now less than a year on he trod all over the legacy of that faithful and dedicated party man he replaced.

There is no mechanism that can make Adam Harbinson resign his seat. Although as he himself does not have a mandate and is co-opted on behalf of the Alliance Party and vote for Tony Hill I believe he should do the honourable thing and resign his seat on council as well as resigning from the party, otherwise he is stealing the seat from both. He probably should have done that in the other order seat first and then party though.

How did the Northern Irish parties respond to adoption judicial review

I'm leaving this blog post largely in the words of the various parties in their own words as to how they have responded to today's judicial review on adoption here in Northern Ireland.

The DUP have nothing on their own website but speaking to the BBC the Health Minister Edwin Poots has said:

"It is my intention to urgently appeal this judgment and I am taking this action with a heavy heart.

"I have already publicly declared my intention to reform Northern Ireland adoption law because reform is much needed and long overdue.

"This judicial review has already delayed plans to introduce a new Adoption and Children Bill in the Assembly and I fear that this will lead to further delay."

Sinn Féin said:

Sinn Féin MLA Sue Ramsey said she is disappointed by the Health Minister’s decision to appeal a High Court ruling that a ban on gay and unmarried couples is unlawful.

The West Belfast MLA and Chair of the Health Committee at the Assembly said:

"This is a disappointing decision by the Health Minister Edwin Poots considering that our laws on adoption where out of date and not reflective of modern society and life-styles.

"The primary focus when it comes to adoption has to be the welfare of the child. It has to be the determining factor and guiding principle when it comes to anyone adopting a child.

"A single person or unmarried couple should be able to adopt a child, regardless of their sexuality, providing they can provide a stable, caring home with the child’s best interests at the heart of that decision.

"This extension of the eligibility criteria in line with modern society will significantly reduce the number of children in care." 

 SDLP said:

SDLP Health Spokesperson Conall McDevitt has welcomed this morning's ruling that the current bar on unmarried couples and civil partners adopting is unlawful and has called for a legislative remedy.

The South Belfast MLA was speaking after Mr Justice Treacy's decision to grant the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission a judicial review into current arrangements regarding adoption.

He said:

"Mr Justice Treacy's ruling is very welcome and a positive move forward towards creating uniform equality on adoption across these islands.

"This ruling, however, is only one step forward. If full adoption equality is to be achieved and Northern Ireland’s arrangements are to be made lawful, in line with Britain, a legislative framework must be drafted and brought forward for ratification without delay."

The Alliance Party said:

Alliance Health spokesperson Kieran McCarthy MLA has welcomed the court ruling that stated that the ban on unmarried couples from adopting was illegal. He said that this was great progress and would allow unmarried and same sex couples to adopt.
 
Kieran McCarthy MLA said:

"This is a tremendous victory and a great day for progress. The ban on unmarried couples adopting was illogical and wrong. The only issue that should matter is the needs of the child and not a blanket ban on certain groups from adopting. This is an issue of equality, so I am glad that the correct decision was reached

"The previsous rules did not make sense. Only one member of an unmarried couple could previously have legally adopted a child which could have resulted in the other partner having no rights to the child if the legal parent died.

"We have far too many children waiting to be adopted for us to be picking and choosing who we think should be able to adopt.

"This ruling will obviously result in unmarried and same sex couple being able to adopt which I fully support. I would urge any unmarried or same sex couple who believes that they would be able to provide a stable home to a child to consider applying to adopt a child."

Traditional Unionist Voice have said:

Commenting on Treacy J's ruling in favour of same sex adoption, TUV Leader Jim Allister said he was disappointed with the outcome and hoped the Attorney General and Department would appeal.

"There was, in my view, inadequate attention to the paramount benefit to the child of adoption within a regular family unit of a father and a mother and unwarranted equivalence of such to the unnatural setting of a same sex relationship. Once more we see the human rights mantra being exploited to further divorce the law from the moral expectations and norms of the society it exists to serve."

The Ulster Unionist have said nothing on their website.

David Ford issues apology for Monday

The leader of the Alliance Party David Ford has issued an apology following the way only half his party voted in line with the party policy on marriage equality on Monday and one actually voted against.

I would also like to apologise to anybody who was unhappy with the outcome of the vote on the Assembly motion on equal marriage. I recognise that many people, particularly those in the LGBT community, are disappointed that not all Alliance MLAs voted in support of the motion. At the September meeting of our Party Council, an overwhelming majority of 81% voted for our policy in support of equal marriage, with robust legislative recognition of the right of churches, faith groups and clergy to opt out of conducting such marriages if that is their wish. It is therefore the formal policy of the party.

Monday's vote reflects the fact that this has been a difficult issue for some party members and elected representatives. The Party will consider the decisions made by its Assembly Members through an internal process, but regardless of last Monday's vote the party policy will remain unchanged.

Notwithstanding what happened on Monday, the party will continue to promote support for its policy at every opportunity, and efforts will continue to persuade those inside the party who have their own concerns with the policy and those in wider society who are opposed to equal marriage.

Alliance Party censors criticism

One of the stories of yesterday's debate on Equal Marriage (I know there are more but I've yet to work out how to write this up) in the Assembly at Stormont was the non-appearance of three of the eight Alliance MLAs and the vote of one against the motion.

The Alliance are often called the Liberal Democrats sister party here in Northern Ireland and it often comes as a shock to many both in Alliance and the Lib Dems in the rest of the UK that I am not and have not ever been a member. Earlier this year when the Alliance abstained on the issue in Belfast City Council I openly attacked the Alliance Party, the so-called liberal and self-tagged leading change party, for not living up to either of these monikers. I got slapped down in the public forum of Facebook by their MP Naomi Long for not allowing them time to come up with a party policy position.

Since 1 September there has been a party policy position, it actually reads incredibly close to the motion that was up for debate in the Northern Ireland Assembly yesterday, even with the measures to ensure legal protection for faith groups to make their own position on what they should do. While my own MLA voted in favour and I meet my own Alliance Councillor at the demonstration in support for the motion, the party was seen by many to have failed them.

The biggest failing being in the seat that Naomi represents and Stormont actually sits in East Belfast. It returned two Alliance MLAs in 2011 neither of whom, Chris Lyttle and Judith Cochrane, were present to vote on this issue leading change for LGBT equality. Kieran McCarthy from the neighbouring Strangford constituency was also missing. Trevor Lunn the Lagan Valley MLA voted against meaning.

According to Hansard Mrs Cochrane and Mr McCarthy were both in the chamber both before and after this vote, though Mr Lyttle may have been absent from the house on other business. Update Chris Lyttle on Saturday did release a statement saying that ill health and personal reasons kept him from the chamber for a number of key issues including this. While is personal opinion in the tradional one man one woman his elected role gives him pleasure to support the decision of party council.

There was overnight a lot of criticism on the Alliance Party's Facebook page. Today there is none!

It has all been removed, but it hasn't been answered. Those four votes could have brought the vote up to one vote, indeed knowing what was going on behind the scenes those in support of the motion thought it was that close with about half an hour to go and were looking for one or two more votes.

I'm a liberal but I don't think the actions of Alliance this morning are very liberal. It may be that someone at party HQ thought it would in some way help the party to hide all the criticism, it just makes people angry and more sceptical of their party's liberal credentials.

Last night I asked Naomi Long on Facebook:

A few months ago you told me off for saying the Alliance Party had failed on Equal Marriage in Belfast City Council vote. You said you needed time to form policy.

Well today one of your colleagues and three of your MLAs were missing in action (including both from your constituency). Can I now say that some of the Alliance Party have failed on this without having my head chopped off?

I too have yet to get a response, but I know some within her party agree with me about this. Update she has since responded saying that her position is that as overwhelmingly endorsed by party council.

Update here is Stephen Farry speaking about this on The Nolan Show this morning.

Update 2  It may well be that the Alliance Party had read this blog post as the wording seems to address this post directly. This afternoon on Facebook they wrote the following.

Earlier today the Alliance Party removed a number of posts containing grossly offensive and obscene language. However due to a miscommunication in the attempt to remove these posts, a number of others were mistakenly taken down and the Party would like to apologise for that oversight. The Alliance Party does not believe in censorship and welcomes constructive debate on our Facebook site.

However, the first comment sums it up, the first is from former Chief Executive of the party Gerry Lynch

I didn't see any offensive language. If there was, it was buried deep in one of two very lengthy comments threads. Is there a problem with admitting you screwed this one up, and can we have an explanation for yesterday's debacle? 

Mike Nesbitt and his bigot question

Yesterday there was a rather bizarre tweet by the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party.

Especially when you consider that Mike Nesbitt is a media professional in his former life and this tweet came  over 5 hours after Nick Clegg's office sent a correction to it's earlier press release.

That earlier release said:

"Continued trouble in the economy gives the bigots a stick to beat us with, as they demand we 'postpone' the equalities agenda in order to deal with 'the things people really care about'. As if pursuing greater equality and fixing the economy simply cannot happen at once."

Corrected to:

 "Continued trouble in the economy leads some people to demand we 'postpone' the equalities agenda in order to deal with 'the things people really care about'. As if pursuing greater equality and fixing the economy simply cannot happen at once."

So what of the word in question:

big·ot  (bgt)

n.

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Definition from The Free Dictionary

From the way the question is phrased you expect that Mike wants to hear @allianceparty, who recently passed a policy in favour of equal marriage, come out and say yes, or give some indication that they lean that way. Even though the Lib Dem and Alliance Party's policies are both tolerant of those that disagree with equal marriage in not forcing anything on anyone.

But the headline grabbing word, even if later rescinded, itself is nothing without the full context.



Even if the first form of the words were used the caveat is there that pursuing greater equal and fixing the economy are what the 'bigots' that Mike is asking about think is impossible. There is never the intention that all who opposed equal marriage are in that category, if someone opposes marriage equality on religious grounds for example and sticks to that line that is not hiding behind economic turbulence.

Opposition to the idea appears to not be a issue, finding excuses to not face the argument would appear to have been the issue, that is from people who do not believe their argument is strong enough to face the debate and therefore want postponement probably to the end of time.

Now Mike Nesbitt himself has said that marriage equality is not in his opinion 'necessary', he went on to say there was no 'realistic prospect' of it coming to be in Northern Ireland and in fact called those in favour dancers to a Republican tune. Is he one of those advocating no debate on this until the end of time. Is that why the sentiement of the idea is cutting him close to the quick and why he decided to come unto twitter to ask such a question?

So maybe Mike should ask himself is he one of those who says that the equality agenda on this isn't one issue that should be pursued or is he prepared to back up his own objection to it in realistic terms that takes into account the views of everyone here in Northern Ireland. In other words is he prepared to look for a solution over this or is he prepared to take the side of the vocal objectors who may well contain bigots?

Reading and hearing some of the comments in Northern Irish media against marriage equality the opposition does show a lack of tolerance of people in same sex loving relationships even without marriage being an issue. Some DUP elected representative are even on record that they'd want to do away with civil partnerships if they had the chance. So there certainly is a lack of tolerance to people with opposing views. Therefore there probably is an element of bigotry.

Is this another case of Alliance fence sitting? #equalmarriage

Reading the comments from the Alliance Party leader David Ford on the front page of today's Newsletter I'm a bit confused by this one.

"It was made very clear that this would be party policy but on an issue of conscience such as this there will be no question of enforcement of the whip if someone cannot go along with it."

I posted in praise of their motion on Saturday, but now I'm a little less enthusiastic about they are presenting and talking about it. I already had an issue with the wording "robust protections" for faith groups and religious celebrants that don't want to, to not have to be forced to carry out same-sex marriages. Surely adequate protections by enshrining religious freedom in law on this is enough and the use of the word robust is already appeasing to those who don't want to have this on their conscience.

So with these robust protections in place what is there to still object to?

Well Trevor Lunn MLA for Lagan Valley is the first to raise his objections and a shows the same sort of failure to differentiate individual beliefs and representation of equality for all that he represents.

There is also the fact that the Alliance are saying they have no intention of bringing this motion before Stormont! Yet Stormont is the only body that has responsibility for bringing in Marriage Equality in Northern Ireland. David Ford is saying the Sinn Féin are not including the issue of churches (surely he means faith groups: Editor) in their council motions, but surely that is the reason to work with other parties to form a motion to bring to Stormont that does deal with these rather than to sit back. Does that mean that should a motion get before Stormont without those robust protections that the Alliance want that instead of working to change it they would vote against? Surely the time to work on getting those protections in place is while forming the original motion and not later on.

So the Alliance Party have a policy that they appear to not be actively doing anything about. Also one to which none of their elected representatives appear to be bound by. This is not just another case of fence sitting, but one of trying to appease people by appearing to be liberal, but being so conservative in outcome that they will not forcing the issue where it actually matters.

Update After having a few discussions with members of the Alliance and others I am seeking clarification of these issues from my MLA.

Update 2 I'm getting news of different responses from MLA's responses to me and others. Some are saying the whip will be used and others that pragmatism is required for those with personal difficulties with this so that they can be brought along. I'm none the wiser after a day of discussing what is being meant by this.

Alliance join call for equal marriage

Today we are glad to welcome the Alliance Party to the cause of marriage equality here in Northern Ireland. When Belfast City Council was the first to debate this issue they were behind the curve and caught on the hop, but after completing a consultation with members today they passed the following motion.

"That, in line with Alliance's core commitment to equality and to freedom of religion, party council supports the extension of civil marriage provisions to same sex couples, provided that robust protections are provided through legislation to ensure that faith groups and religious celebrants will not be forced to conduct same sex marriage ceremonies or to have them conducted on their premises.

"In recognition of the importance of freedom of religion, Alliance further believes that faith groups which, in conscience, wish to marry same sex couples should not be prevented by the state from doing so.

"We would also support the extension of the authority to solemnise marriages to accredited humanist celebrants, which cannot currently do so."

This is very close to the policy that Lib Dems have had in position for a couple of years now. Although the addition of robust protection is obviously to appease the Northern Irish churches.

Now along with Sinn Féin, Green Party, Labour Party in Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland Liberal Democrats there is a stronger voice from our parties for fairness and end the discrimination that equal but different civil partnerships brought about.

Alliance sit on a fence somewhere off Donegall Street

The Alliance Party Councillor John Blair merely calling for calm on "all sides" in relation to parades and then the disturbance outside St. Patrick's Church on Donegall Street. He goes on to say:

"Following the controversy over the twelfth of July parade past the same area, we must now get agreement from all sides as to what happens in the future. We need engagement and negotiation; nobody wants to see a repeat of this violence again.

 
"There is a lot of tension over this issue, so I would urge everybody to take a mature approach to sort out future parades here; there is no need for any sort of inflammatory statement from any side."

Now lets get it clear what happened. In the run up to this.

The Young Conway Volunteers seen on Saturday

On July 12 one band The Young Conway Volunteers deliberately played the "Famine Song" outside St. Patrick's. Now there is no mistaking that this was  what they intended and not a Beach Boys tribute.

As a result the Parades Commission ruled that the band should not form part of the parade on Saturday. However, there were one of almost all the bands who played as the parade passed by St. Patrick's on Saturday.

There was a letter in the Newsletter on Saturday from all the Belfast DUP representatives in Westminster or Stormont and 4 of the 5 UUP representatives as well as Councillors calling for the Parades Commission to be scraped. Alex Kane wrote in today's Newsletter how the Unionists themselves have prolonged  the existence of the Parades Commission basically because they failed to reach agreement on what should be done about the hot potato of parades on their own.

I saw a tweet that Belfast's Grand Master actually tore up the determination of the Parade's Commission before the parade set off on Saturday. If so the bands were then responding to something that was done by the man who had responsibility for the parade making it a premeditated breach of those instructions. Does this make the Grand Master guilty of causing a breach of the peace? Does this leave him with the ultimate responsibility for heightening the tensions on Saturday that led to 7 PSNI officers being injured? Under the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 it is a crime to incite other people to disobey a ruling of the Parades Commission*.So will the Grand Master face arrest?

I notice that Alex Kane feels the need to include Pride in his list of 'provocation' from the parade and followers. Yet Pride always leave static stewards who are experienced at the flashpoints, who have been known to tell people they will be thrown off the parade for provoking the protestors. Yet in the TV footage from Saturday members of the RBI with steward sleeves on are seen geeing up the bands to play on, leaving it to the PSNI with a megaphone to try and ask the bands to stop playing.

Shockingly the area's MP condemns the acts of those who had assembled to ask for respect for St. Patrick's, and not those who breached a public order ruling for a single drum beat to be played as they passed by. That is until you realise that the MP is Nigel Dodds a member of the Loyal Orders.

Now I know I wasn't actually on Donegall Street, I was actually playing bowls at the other end of the Shankhill Road at Woodvale Park**, so I do not know exactly what went on that led to the disturbance as the last band passed. But the TV footage does show that bands played as they went past, marchers hurled insults and abuse at Catholics who largely stood by the road asking for respect outside St. Patrick's. This was a breach of the Parades Commission determination. This was a start of the tension that John Blair calls for calm on all sides, yet nowhere is there any condemnation for that obvious breach of the determination. It was obvious after the twelfth that there would be more observers there than on that day. The playing of The Sash and other songs outside St. Patrick's and the disrespect caught on camera was merely fueling the tension.

So where is the Alliance Party's outright condemnation for such an obvious breach of a legally binding determination? It is not inflammatory to call a spade a spade and get to specifics. Why haven't the Alliance condemned the bands for failing to adhere to the Parades Commissions determination? Why haven't they condemned everyone who was involved in the violence? It is all very well to be known as the party of sitting on the fence, but sometimes you need to come off the fence to make the tough calls that make the view from the fence better and safer all around.

Update It may come three days after the incident but Naomi Long the Alliance Party's sole MP has finally made a statement that points out that the determination of the Parades Commission is law saying:

"There is a requirement for people on all sides to avoid inflaming the situation, to take responsibility for those that are brought onto the streets, to avoid violence, and to fully abide by the determinations of the Parades Commission, even when there may be disagreement or anger at them."

* Thanks to a contact for digging up this fact for me.
** And getting there and back was a trek first due to numerous feeder parades and on the way back due to the police sealing off any chance of joining the West Link at Clifton Street, just above Donegall Street.

Belfast City Council Supports Equal Marriage - sort of

There was an historic moment in Belfast City Council this evening. Mary Ellen Campbell of Sinn Féin brought a motion before full council to support equal civil marriage. It was passed without any votes against, making Belfast the first council in all of Ireland to support same-sex couples seeking to have a marriage.

But that isn't all the story. All the Unionist Councillors walked out, except for the Lord Mayor Gavin Robinson (no relation to the first minister) while Ms Campbell presented her motion and did not return to vote. The Alliance party sat through the entire thing and then failed to vote either way on the proposal, because apparently they do not have a policy on the issue (correction one of their six Councillors Catherine Curran did vote in favour). The SDLP did have a couple of councillors who spoke in favour of the motion Tim Attwood and Nicola Mallon and those of their members who were still in the chamber voted for the motion.

The shame of the Unionist members not even waiting for the conclusion of business while not surprising is still shameful. But the action of the Alliance Party is what really shocks me. Last year in their party election broadcast they said that they were the party to help see society cherish and respect diversity. The said if we wanted change for a shared and properous future to vote for them. However, by sitting on their hands this evening they have show they are not really leading change at least not in all areas. If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got. A vote for the Alliance councillors in Belfast has this even was surely merely to keep things as they always were on this issue of LGBT equality.

I'll be seeking answers for the Alliance Party as to why this motion wasn't supported by them, Why the party has not yet got around to discussing this issue and coming up with a policy on it when the rest of the UK and many of the other parties here clearly already know why they stand. But most of all it they truly stand for a diverse society why are they hindering true equality, merely because it doesn't seem to cover the usual divisions which appears to be the only sense of shared future that they seem to know where they stand on.

I've long held doubts about how truly liberal the Alliance Party here is. I've felt they need division politics to survive as much as the Unionist and Nationist parties do. This evening seems to show me that I have been right not to join them, it appears that there isn't a natural liberal instinct in a lot of them when it comes to matters outwith the historic divisions in Northern Ireland.

It is a shame.

But I don want to end on an upbeat note and thank Mary Ellen Campbell and all those from Sinn Fein and the SDLP who did vote in favour of equal marriage tonight. There are only four words that are appropriate "go raibh maith agat". For those of you not fluent in Gaelic I'll summate that in two words "thank you".