When is an answer not an answer? #SexualOrientationStrategy

Earlier this year we finally had a consultation of Northern Ireland's sexual orientation strategy (SOS) but seem to have heard nothing since.

So I decided to see when was the first question to OFMDFM about it delivery. I think I have found it here on the 8 October 2007

Sexual Orientation Strategy  and Action Plan5. Dr Farry asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to detail what progress has been made towards presenting and launching the sexual orientation strategy and action plan.    (AQO 380/08)The First Minister: A consultation on the draft sexual orientation strategy and action plan was carried out during direct rule under the former Secretary of State Peter Hain. The draft strategy has yet to be considered by Ministers and the Executive.Dr Farry: I thank the First Minister for that answer, even though it was rather brief. Can he assure me that all Ministers are working in harmony on sexual orientation issues and that this draft strategy will be brought forward as soon as possible? Does he agree that sexual orientation issues need to be seen through the prism of good relations? Will consideration be given to placing sexual orientation issues within the wider remit of the shared future strategy and, in particular, the second triennial action plan?The First Minister: The First Minister and deputy First Minister have made it clear that the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister is totally committed to promoting equality and human rights and is completely opposed to any form of discrimination or harassment against any citizen.Mr Storey: Will the First Minister inform the House who approved the current funding package, and has any further funding been agreed?The First Minister: Mr Peter Hain approved the package; neither I nor my colleague across the way has since approved any funding.Mr McCartney: Does the First Minister agree that, in order to be effective, the draft sexual orientation strategy needs the full and total support of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister?The First Minister: That is a matter for negotiation. I can say only that we have to face the facts that are before us, and the facts are that the money that is now being provided is based on the undertaking made by the then Secretary of State Peter Hain and that the draft strategy has yet to be considered by Ministers or the Executive.

Yet tomorrow one of the First Minister's party colleagues intends to lodge a Private Members Bill for consultation on introducing a conscience clause into equality legislation. When you bear in mind that Peter Hain left the Northern Ireland department on 27 June 2007 and it was he who started the talk of a sexual orientation strategy this shows the level of procrastination that the DUP have on dealing with sexual orientation.

Of course we are still in talks about the past, parades and symbols at the moment which is another procrastination from the time that powers were first devolved. Therefore the speed with which the DUP can dismantle something considering the length of time they fail to come to an agreement on building things for a truly shared future.

Later questions on this issue:

• In June 2008 determined that the draft would be presented to ministers that Autumn
• In February 2009 that a refreshed SOS would be presented to Ministers for consideration by early summer 2009
• In May 2010 the needs analysis had yet to be carried out before presentation to OFMDFM
• In September 2010 we were told that the recent Cohesion, Sharing and Integration indicated that ministers were committed to publishing the SOS 
• In a verbal question that month we told it would not be published sooner than 2012
• On 21 February 2011 the minister opened that he "was not aware of any significant delay in publication" despite most of the times scales above being missed
• In October 2011 draft proposals were about to be made available to the OFMDFM committee for publication and public consultation in early 2012
• In February 2012 it was confirmed that is would be published during that year
• In June 2012 we were told that the draft SOS would be published in December 2012
• In October 2012 December was replaces with the more vague "near future"
• In January 2013 with no publication we were told they remained committed to publication (again)
• In July 2013 when asked why it had failed to be published and when to expect it deadlines were not in the answer
• In October 2013 a consultation document was under consideration at the departmenr
• In January 2014 there was mention of a draft consultation document being prepared for public consultation
• In February 2014 when asked about publication of SOS the Minister said he had asked officials to launch a public consultation on which to base the SOS

The development consultation document was finally published in March 2014, we are once again approaching the end of another year waiting the results of that consultation to form the basis of the draft Sexual Orientation Strategy and Action Plan.

On the 13 November Stewart Dickson tabled the seemingly annual question since 2007 "To ask the First Minister and deputy First Minister when the Sexual Orientation Strategy will be published." because we are still waiting for the actual strategy and action plan eight years on.

Paul Givan is going to put his Conscience Clause out to consultation after he lodges it tomorrow. Can you think he's be happy waiting over 8 years for something to come out of that initial consultation? Yet this is why the people he thinks people of faith need protecting from are still waiting to have their concerns properly addressed. 

It is time for the DUP to actually sort things out. Provide the Sexual Orientation Strategy. And the Race Strategy and Gender Strategy and all the things that link into Equality that they have been constantly procrastinating about since they took over the role of First Minister following the St Andrews Agreement. They need to do more than draw their salary they need to do things and not let things constantly get to a crisis point before they consider action and that often the wrong actions.

We need politicians who are not suffering from myopia but are far sighted enough to make plans and strategies for the future. When I word in DETI there was an Economic Strategy for the forthcoming 10 years called Strategy 2010. A subsequent strategy is now in place, but if DETI had taken 8 years to come up with a 10 year strategy there would be major questions asked.

So I'm asking one today. How come all the equality strategies have not being actioned expeditiously? 

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.

Are 'progressive' DUP looking to turn back the clock

The DUP at their annual conference handed out to their members a survey.

According to Slugger O'Toole there are the usual things you'd expect to see on a membership survey. Opinions on level of subs, views on merger with the UUP, how the party should change, women representation in politics and views on quota of female candidates. None of this stuff would generally look out of place in any survey of party members anywhere.

Image by Alan in Belfast CC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs

The DUP has taken to calling itself the party of progress, though many of doubt how far that progress has got apart from agreeing to form an administration with Sinn Féin.

However, in this survey there is also then a section seeking opinions on various issues of the days.

• view on academic selection for entry to secondary education - a Northern Irish hot potato since the state exams have been done away with yet the Grammar schools are largely using their own sets of unregulated tests now instead
• view on legalising abortion - with the opening of the first private abortion clinic in Northern Ireland another hot potato
• view on the UK adopting the Euro - as Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK with a land border with the Eurozone and many shops accepting both here another live issue

The final 'issue' in this section is three words:

homosexuality is wrong

In each case of the four above respondents are asked if they Strongly Agree / Agree / Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree strongly. Now I'm wondering how the last of these can be viewed as progressive.

For the last one to be interjected into that section screams out as just the contrary to the progressive image that the party keeps talking up about itself. For a start the Belfast agreement means that respect has to be given to each community and minority in Northern Ireland, that includes based on sexual orientation. Also the hot potato in that area can either be marriage equality, adoption by same-sex couples or the blood ban. But the DUP is asking instead if the decision 30 years ago to legalise homosexuality here in Northern Ireland is wrong.

It is a rather pointed and short statement. It harks back to the debate on equal marriage in Stormont where the only person to take the debate on equal marriage back steps was Sammy Wilson, who alone said he didn't think Civil Partnerships were a good idea. Is this question a bid by the DUP to take the situation back to pre-1982 if they feel they have the support. 

If they do it would be bizarre after a question about the UK adopting the Euro as its currency to go against and European Court on Human Rights ruling. Considering the party is also considering taking the unusual step here in Northern Ireland of running two candidates for the European Election in 2014 they are seeking to be sole Unionist voice under our STV election it would appear they want Europe but only on their terms.

However, when part of those terms is to say that any of the groups covered by section 75 of the Belfast Agreement are wrong, whether that is by sexuality, by involvement in the troubles of whatever how can they claim to be progressive?

Equal Marriage marching on except in Northern Ireland

Cross posted on LGBT+ Lib Dems Northern Ireland

Liberal Democrats at Edinburgh's Equal Marriage March
Picture copyright Liberal Youth Scotland

On Valentine's Day my Lib Dem colleagues in Scotland joined others for a march to Holyrood in support of equal marriage. As you may be aware there has been a consultation process there into the subject and the Government are now considering those submissions. There will also be a consultation by Westminster covering England and Wales.

However, the week before in the Northern Ireland Assembly the subject of the Sexual Orientation Strategy once again emerged from the long grass it has spent most of a decade in to feature at the top of First Minister's Questions. With the Junior Minister saying that OFMDFM do intend to publish this strategy and the revised Cohesion Sharing and Integration programme this year it fell on my Green Party MLA Steven Agnew to ask about one specific:

Mr Agnew: Will there be any mention of gay marriage (Editor's note: I will be sending a note off to my MLA to correct his language on this) in the sexual orientation strategy? Has any progress been made on providing full equal rights to gay couples?

Mr Bell (Junior Minister, Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister): Questions on those matters are the subject of much discussion and have been the subject of much discussion in the media over recent weeks. The issue is not under active consideration.

Now just what did the Junior Minister mean by that?

Is it simply that there is no active consideration of extending equal marriage legislation to Northern Ireland, even if the rest of the UK does. Seeing as we still lag behind on adoption for gay parents and blood donation, this would not be out of character for the Norther Ireland Assembly.

However, more problematic is what if the rest of the UK do accept equal marriage, what consideration then is there to recognise those couples so married should they choose to reside in Northern Ireland? Will their marriages valid and recognised in the majority of the UK not be recognised in Northern Ireland. If they are not civil partnered but married be offered protections under the law of a region that is only recognising marriage as between people of opposite gender and civil partnerships as between those of the same gender.

There could be knock on effects if Northern Ireland doesn't recognise equal marriages from the rest of the UK or indeed the world within its Sexual Orientation Strategy. There will be concerns as far as benefits go, health provision, wording and filling in of forms in all manner of ways.

The fact that there is no active consideration of the complications that carrying on a different approach to the rest of the UK again means that Northern Ireland will be reactionary in its response to this issue and is failing to be proactive in thinking there will be consequences. Not everyone born in Northern Ireland stays here, a lot of us do go elsewhere to study/work. Many of us fall in love with people from other parts of the UK, some of us may even bring that partner to live with us here in Northern Ireland.

So if an LGBT couple fall into that last category having been married elsewhere what position does that leave them in under Northern Irish legislation?

We need sexual orientation strategy because of bigots like Allister

This was asked in the Northern Irish Assembly on Monday:

"As there is already a plethora of statutory protections for the so-called gay community and generous financial provision from the junior Minister’s Department for various organisations therein, why do the junior Minister and the First Minister, who once campaigned to save Ulster from sodomy, now want to introduce a sexual orientation strategy? Why do they now think it necessary?"

The person asking the question was Jim James* Allister MLA for Northern Antrim. Now to be fair the when in points of order he did ask:

"If a Member asks a supplementary question that is patently not answered, as with the question that I asked Mr Bell, is that question also answered in writing subsequently?"

He was right the answer didn't cover any of his points.

For a start there is hardly a plethora of statutory protections, the OFMdFM website does list what has been brought forward and what is still to come. The point of a strategy is to protect the "sexual orientation sector" (this is OFMdFM parlance for the LGBT community) from prejudice that still exists around them here in Northern Ireland. For an example of such ignorance or why that is required look no further than Mr Allister's question.

First up he calls the LGBT sector a so-called community. Now either he is denying that people of non-heterosexual persuasion do not exist in Northern Ireland, or he is denying that such people have community spirit. If it is the former as the co-ordinator of LGBT Lib Dems here in Northern Ireland I'd better get together with the similar groups in other Northern Irish parties and start to work on a strategy ton contact all the poor deluded people on Grindr or other gay dating sites looking for same sex relationships. If it is the later maybe we should invite Mr Allister to Pride in Belfast at the end of July, to let him see the community spirit there.

However, the other thing about his question is in the language of Mr Allister, just as he refers to the Sinn Féin members of the Assembly with "terrorist" additions to their titles, party name etc, his comments are laced with vitriol to the LGBT community. He brings up the "save Ulster from sodomy" campaign, which is the equivalent to the troubles to the LGBT community here in Northern Ireland. This was were LGBT people were largely afraid to be open about who they were, were they skulked away, giving the impression that they did not exist, because putting their head over the parapet was too dangerous a thing to do.

Yes we still have people who think that way, they will be present at the Pride parade, although last year I counted more Christians in the parade for Foyle Pride than were protesting in such a way against it. However, this small group are very good at dragging their feet. Indeed it wasn't that long ago that DUP members themselves stopped using derogatory and non-inclusive language to the LGBT community in the chamber. Indeed they stopped calling Sinn Féin "IRA/Sinn Féin" long before that happened.

Later on in business looking at Government structures, Mr Alister said that the Belfast Agreement "is a living history and a living act that [the MLA who wrote to Newsletter on Saturday], as the Whip of his party, implements and enforces every day of the week". Yes it is also the first document, see Section 75, that specifically mentioned LGBT as one of the minority groups in Northern Ireland that should be recognised by public bodies, something that a sexual orientation strategy first consulted on back in 2006 would fully bring about. The fact that we are now 5 years on and still have at least another year to wait is yet another example of the heel dragging that is going on at the Assembly over this. Neanderthals like Mr Allister only emphasis the need for this.

Being almost at the point of committing a hate crime while talking about one of the recognised minority groupings in Northern Ireland in the chamber of the Assembly perfectly illustrates just why a sexual orientation strategy is needed in Northern Ireland to match the strategies in place for the other section 75 groupings. As the representative for North Amtrim he has to represent the people, even the LGBT people (and yes there are some of them there too Jim James*), so let's stop dragging our heels or digging up their past hurts and wrongs.

* We are at his behest only using proper names.

"Compelling" but Still Ongoing

Alistair Campbell is to appear just up the road from the Yes! to Fairer Votes offices in Belfast today to speak to students at Queens about his new book People and Power. Speaking in today's Belfast Telegraph he says Northern Ireland’s peace process was "one of the most compelling" issues of his Downing Street career.

Whilst for Alistair it is compelling for those of us who are living with the new threats of security alerts all over the province in recent days it is still ongoing. Admittedly what Campbell's boss, Tony Blair, enabled here in Northern Ireland has taken us a great distance, the people are wanting to live in a shared present (something that some of our political class have yet to realise) but there are still some resisting this is a violent way.

Some people only know objection as a armed conflict here. They seem unable to articulate their argument in a sensible non-threatening way. Others are still so obsessed with the past that they cannot look beyond events and actions in the past and work with those whom they historically were opposed to to move things forward.

Of course as in 1998 the people are ahead of some of the politicians once again. The recent Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) draft programme for Cohesion, Sharing and Integration was widely slated for being a management of division and not a programme to eradicate it. The fact that it only focused on sectarianism and racism and ignored other 'excluded' communities within Northern Ireland, in fact putting those other needs unto a back burner, showed a lack of vision.

There is plenty of talk about a 'shared future' in Northern Ireland but what the people want is a shared here and now, a shared present. So while the work of Tony Blair for Northern Ireland may well have been compelling to those who witnessed it firsthand it is as yet unfinished. It is up to the politicians in Northern Ireland to bring that task to such a natural conclusion. It may well be up to politicians that have yet to rise up and be counted, however what Northern Ireland needs is to be normal, not some unruly young nephew that is confined to the corner almost out of sight at parties.

Gladstone's Response to the TUV

My friend Michael has had some fun (tinged sometimes with righteous anger) looking in different ways at some of the Traditional Unionist Voice's approach to Northern Ireland. I think this excerpt from the 7 June 1886, from William Ewart Gladstone on the Second Reading of the First Home Rule Bill* is as pertinent today as then.

Now, Sir, I want to say a word upon the subject of Irish loyalism because we are obliged to use phrases in debates of this kind which cannot be explained from time to time when using them, and it is well that there should be little understanding beforehand. When I hear the speeches of the hon. member for South Belfast (Mr. M. Johnson) - and of some other gentlemen - it always appears to me that he is under the pious conviction that loyalty is innate in the Irish Protestants and disloyalty in (a slight pause) some other persons. I do believe that he is under the impression that at all times, in all the long generations of Irish history, that has been the distinction to be drawn between Protestants and persons who are not Protestants. (An Ulster Member - 'No, No!') Is Protestant loyalism a thing that has a date and origin, or is it not? Has the hon. member and the hon. and gallant member for North Armagh (Major Saunderson) inquired what was the state of Ireland in the 18th Century with respect to loyalty. As far as regarded the great mass of the population - the Roman Catholic population - they were hardly born into political life until the close of the century, and for a long period, in the time of Dean Swift, who described their incapacity of political action as something beyond belief, it would have been absurd to speak of them as loyal or disloyal. But at the close of the century the Protestants and Roman Catholics of Ireland were described in a short passage by Mr Burke, which I shall now read to the House. The date of it is 1796, and it is taken from a letter to Mr. Windham. He speaks of the subject of disaffection.

"It" - that is to say disaffection - " has deep roots in the principles and habits of the majority among the lower and middle classes of the whole Protestant part in Ireland. The Catholics who are intermingled with them are more or less tainted. (Home Rule laughter.) In other parts of Ireland, some in Dublin only expected, the Catholics, who are in a manner the whole people, areas yet sound; but they may be provoked, as all men may easily be, out of their principles."

What does that mean? That the Protestants, not having grievances to complain of, have become loyal, but in many cases the Roman Catholics, as Mr Burke says, have been provoked, as all men easily may be, out of their principles of loyalty. And these are words , and these are ideas, which show us whaat is the way in which to promote loyalty, and what is the way in which we can destroy it.

It would therefore, seem to me that the Grand Old Man had his finger on the pulse. The TUV's response to the OFMDFM's draft Cohesion, Sharing and Integration Strategy, shows the desire to let certain traditional sections of Unionist society to have no grievances, while ignoring the needs of any group that does not fit that perceived 'norm'.

*From Great Liberal Speeches (Politicos, London 2001) Ed. Brack & Little

Fisking Some of the TUV CSI Responses

The Tradition Unionist Vote has published its response to the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister's (OFMDFM) draft Cohesion, Sharing and Integration Programme.

Here are some telling phrases with my response:

"We strongly believe that respect for the Unionist/Protestant marching tradition is a key indicator of whether or not this country is genuinely moving forward."

I'm sorry to be truly moving on this should not be the be all and end all. We have people from different countries now living in Northern Ireland. We have people of multiple-identities and indeed family that cross over previous diversities in our society. The sooner our society here in Northern Ireland reflects this the better.

"TUV objects strongly to the commitment within the CSI Programme to publish a sexual orientation strategy (1.9).

"TUV is astonished that there is not one word of recognition of the contribution which nurturing the traditional family unit can make to a cohesive society within the CSI Programme while at the same time there is a commitment to publish a sexual orientation strategy.

"It is patently obvious that there is already a more than enough legislation to protect and promote this interest group. There is no statutory justification or requirement for the proposed strategy. It is an obvious sop to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) lobby demanded by Sinn Féin/IRA and meekly accepted by the DUP."

To call for recognition of a minority grouping, which happens to cross sectarian, racial, ability, with/without dependents lines is probably a true reflection from both the unionist and nationalist voices. To dismiss it as a 'sop' instead of seeing it as standing up even for Traditional Unionist people who are LGB or T (yes there are some in the LGBT community here) is a failure to speak out and use that voice.

As for the commitment, which the OFMDFM has said will not happen before 2012. The same department commissioned a harrowing investigation into homophobic harassment and violence in 2003 which has yet to be acted upon throughout the executive. This is a dragging of the heels that has gone on long enough. The 'commitment' is just another 'commitment to procrastinate'.