Dear Arlene Foster, This is Why you Need to Apologise

My current Face profile pic contains the words "I am Repugnant". It was a word a DUP MLA used 6 years ago to describe all involved in Pride.

He is a person I have meet in social and political contexts before and after he was aware of my sexuality. Last night Arlene Foster said that nobody is defined by their sexuality. During the break on the first debate on Marriage Equality in Stormont I was in the queue behind that MLA in the canteen. I greeted him, he turned around recognised me and then noticed the LGBT+ Lib Dem badge on my label.

His response was "Oh, you're one of them" and he turned on his heel. Until now I have not let the BBC journalist who was present 2 metres away use that story.

Today I feel it needs to be told. Jim Wells attitude towards me from the times we meet before he knew my sexuality and after has been markedly different. This is the personal face of the institutional homophobia that the DUP's elected reps present. Many of them block anyone who asks about LGBT+ issues on social media. Many refuse to answer any enquiry we ask as their constituents after we have raised an LGBT+ issue previously.

Arlene Foster has also said there is no need for her to apologise. Sorry Arlene, while many of us have always been respectful to our elected representatives from your party, being nothing but courteous in how we address them, they have blocked, ignored and shunned us in person. I have experienced this face to face on a number of occasions from Mr Wells and others.

THAT IS WHY the LGBT+ community in Northern Ireland NEED AN APOLOGY from the DUP LEADER. The ball is in Arlene's court.

Sammy it's not about scare stories but opportunities

I do love it when I get to school my one time Economics teacher Sammy Wilson especially when it is about economics. When I read that Sammy Wilson (my teacher for the final term of 1986-7) said Loyalists were applying for Irish passports due to Brexit scare stories I had to laugh.

Sammy should know all about cost benefit analysis especially when it comes to "opportunity cost". In economics this is the value of the next-highest-valued alternative use of that resource. In this case it the cost of time on travelling on holiday. Everyone born on the island of Ireland is entitled to apply for an Irish Passport and the Good Friday Agreement allows everyone in the Northern Ireland to identify as British, Irish or Both. So there is no need for loyalists to renounce their British citizenship to get and Irish Passport.

The other thing to look at then is what people in Northern Ireland use their passport for. As photographic ID to get on flights to the rest of the UK. The UK has promised that the UK/Ireland agreement on freedom of movement will not be changed post Brexit and neither have the Irish who also want a frictionless border.

Next there is holiday flights, most short haul locations that are popular would be in the EU so there is an potential opportunity benefit in being able to go through the EU passport holders queue rather than the non-EU queue. I once had to bring a group of largely non-EU residents into the country at Dover. I whizzed straight through but as the leader of the group hung around in case there was any issues with the members of the group, all but one of the other leaders also being non-EU. I was there long after the majority of EU passengers were safely on their way. Post Brexit going to Spain, Greece, Amsterdam of anywhere else will see more scrutiny of an UK passport or at least be in a queue with people who face more scrutiny no matter what the best outcome is.

Finally there is longer-haul flights and in recent times with the improved road to Dublin and the express bus from Belfast to Dublin Airport a lot more people in Northern Ireland will fly from Dublin to America that maybe catching a flight to London and transferring. So having an Irish passport at Dublin Airport would be a breeze.

Sammy Wilson, the DUP and their Conservative friends have yet to give firm answers as to what will happen post Brexit so many people are looking at it objectively. The costs of having an Irish passport instead of a British one are negligible in monetary terms, but the benefits in terms of time outweigh any additional cost. Therefore it is economically opportune to take up an Irish passport ahead of Brexit, if things aren't worse afterwards they can always get a British one when it is time to renew but that will be based on experience rather than promising utopia in all things post-Brexit. As no matter how much Sammy et al are in cloud cuckoo land about Brexit not everything will be as it is now.

Suicide, the DUP and Me

Today I head that a friend, fellow LGBT+ activist and member of another political party has been suspended from a suicide prevention charity because of comments he posted linking suicide with the DUP. Just under a year ago a member of my close extended family committed suicide. Looking back at the draft I attempted to write at the time a number were trying to address that subject in a relevant way but they never really hit the mark or passed my standards for pressing publish. This time I hope this is different*.

I first considered taking my life in the 80s when I was 15/16 it was a grey day down by the docks as I contemplated jumping in the cold waters off the pier. It was during the period that the DUP were still attempting to safe Ulster from Sodomy. It was a phrase I had heard often, it was a phrase that even at that time I knew was directed at me although at the time I was attempted to fight who I was. 

I didn't jump as you can tell as I am here writing this but that was far from the last time I half felt depressed because of my sexuality.

I went to tertiary education in Kingston starting at the Polytechnic but graduating with a University degree in total I spent 10 years learning to be and to love me, but at the same time still fighting being me. I had grown in confidence, I had grown into an adult me, I was more in control of who I was and more able to defend what I stood for. Something that happened very early on in an Economics tutorial being able to defend a position that was opposite to that of the tutor.

It was in the five years I was back in Northern Ireland that I first really came out. However, this was also a time when I became anxious once again over who I was. My parents reaction was good, as was that of those I worked with and played bowls with. However, before too long I was over in Scotland and away from Northern Ireland for another 8 years. 

However, let me tell you what still knocks me most, makes me most depressed and on occasion leads me to fight suicidal thoughts. It is the times politicians or church people run me down for being gay. The language they use, the assumptions they make about how I live and the way they keep doing it. Now I am mostly able to stand my own when facing these debates. Like a good student I am well prepared with all the background reading I would need and more. I know the facts, I know the etymology of the verses that clergy will quote at me, sometimes better than they do.

However, there are times that continually doing so, or just having a tough time standing up for myself does lead to depression. I reckon it I weren't stronger I would not still be here. If I didn't have the support of many good friends both of faith and without I would be just another statistic. There are certainly some members of the DUP who may prefer that I was a statistic rather than a thorn in their side a constant reminder in their inbox for them to ignore. 

The thing is that the DUP in my experience tend to ignore when anyone raises LGBT+ issues with them. So I am please that they are meeting with the Equal Marriage campaigners here. However, while their representatives may block me out the same cannot be done for them or their supporters. I need to stay abreast of the news and current events and often we here the hateful comments about LGBT+ people on our TVs, Radios or Newspapers. It is something I wish I could avoid but at the same time know I have to respond to, stand up to and be heard. This is not just for me but for those who are the shy me that I was in my teens, the insecure me, the scared me and the suicidal me.

So while the DUP are ignoring reports that do show that LGBT+ people are more likely to have self-harm and suicidal intentions, someone who points out that they don't take action is suspended for doing so. I certainly feel more suicidal when I'm being called abnormal, an abomination or have a deviant lifestyle. This mostly comes as a direct result from Northern Irish politicians and Northern Irish Christians, when people accept me strangely I don't feel like that.

So is there a direct link between the institution homophobia for the DUP and self-harm and suicide?

Considering the party not only have never voted for any positive LGBT+ legislation but have petitioned of concerned every bill that has come before the NI Assembly. Their elected representatives are amongst the most vocal in belittling LGBT+ people with words whether in political chambers or debates on media. 

In my personal opinion there certainly is a constant straw attempting to break the camel's back. It has not yet got all the way through but on occasion it has been close. Whether from the DUP, religious leaders or ordinary members of the church I was born into all have at times come close to me committing suicide.

*Even after writing that at the start there are still parts of this I have not included in the above despite the length.

EU Court rules definition of Marriage now includes same-sex marraige

One of the leading arguments the pro-Brexit, anti-Equal marriage unionist DUP have used to say that the marriage laws in the rest of the United Kingdom do not apply here is that the EU don't define marriage that way.

Until now.

Today the Advocate General of the European Court has said the "definition of marriage has now evolved to include same-sex couples". He also calls on all member states to recognise same-sex marriages that have taken place in other member states. The word spouse most now not only apply to opposite sex couples.

This may course interesting IF the Northern Ireland Assembly can get back up and running. Currently same-sex marriage from other parts of the UK are relegated to civil partnerships. However, if the right of spouses of any marriage have to be recognised that will have to change. It means that same-sex marriages would have to be recognised as marriages in Northern Ireland and takes us one step closer to hopefully allow same-sex marriages to take place here as well.

No doubt the DUP will try and come up with some other excuse quoting their rapidly shrinking list of countries that do not recognise same-sex marriage. Saying after years of quoting EU court definitions that we are about to leave and that should now apply to us now. Bear in mind that the DUP have uses Great British law when it agrees with them, over marriage they used Irish law after the British didn't along with EU. Now that even the EU laws are changing where next?

The DUP are losing the argument and soon and very soon I hope to see marriage equality, not just same-sex marriage come to Northern Ireland.

Trump Horcrux unearthed by Northern Ireland election #AE17

Let's face it yesterday was a disaster for unionism in Northern Ireland politics. The Assembly shrank from 108 members to 80 but the Unionist members shrank in number from 56 to 40! Yes that is right 18 seats were taken away and the unionists lost 16 of them, 10 by the DUP the other 6 for the UUP.

Now last night time after time DUP representatives came on and talked about the media being the reason they were doing badly. Some even blamed it directly on the BBC while being interviewed by the BBC. Arlene Foster at her count was even hidden away in a room and refused to speak to the BBC all day. This is the so-called "leader" of Northern Ireland skulking away in a room and blaming it on one of the major television news channels. It's all sounding rather Trump-like.

The BBC were the local news that investigated the RHI scandal, they were also the same station that investigated Arlene's predecessor Peter Robinson over property speculation and his wife's affair. Yet through all of that Robinson still spoke to the BBC. The DUP were also claiming that people were still responding to their message, that it was transfer policies of other unionists that were costing unionism and that is was a nationalist surge that was doing them out of seats.

Let's look at some of those claims.

Was it what the media said. A lot of the time the BBC has reported exactly what Arlene and her team have said. They have been in debates not just for the election but in other mediums through the last 10 months. Of course there are also times they are invited unto The Nolan Show or The View or other shows and refuse to turn up to put their case. When they do turn up they talk about being progressive yet their policies by many are viewed as anything put. When they are challenged on this they become all defensive.

While they say that they lost seats because of what Mike Nesbitt said about transferring his vote to the SDLP is it not just possible that they did'y gain as many of that 10% higher turnout as the other parties because of what Arlene and her colleague more that what anyone else said? Maybe that 10% that came out to vote this time for parties that were prepared to break from the sectarian trenches. Maybe they wanted to stand up against Brexit. Maybe they wanted to stand up for equality. Maybe ther did want to send a message about the Renewable Heating Initiative or maybe it was a combination of all of these.

But yeah there are 40 Unionists, 39 Nationalists and 11 Others in the new Assembly. The DUP have lost their ability to lodge a Petition of Concern with just their own MLAs signing it.

But with all of the excuses and actions coming from the Donald Trump book How to Win Elections and Govern, maybe the DUP have been turned into a Donald Trump horcrux. There are only six more to find but I think the following is probably another of them. But the DUP horcrux has not been destroyed just yet, but it has taken damage.

My former Teacher hasn't learnt #SammyWilsonMP #WorldAIDSDay

Once upon a time Sammy Wilson and I shared a classroom. One of our Economics teachers started a new job and for the last weeks of our first A'Level year Sammy Wilson stepped in.

Just over 15 months later I was at Kingston Polytechnic (as it then was) studying for my degree in Economics. In those early months I met a young man who was the first person I knew who was living with HIV. This was that dark old days of the 80s and ignorance was still rife about how HIV was transmitted with rumours about shaking hands, or sharing cups or toilet seats.

A couple of years later that young man moved into the house that I was living in. I shared many a chat into the small hours of the morning, listening to his concerns about the stigma he was facing, the life that he would be missing out on and the opportunities he felt he would never be able to fully realise. Those were tough, heart wrenching conversations. With hugs, cups of tea and the rest showing that the stigma was only from those who were ignorant.

Sammy Wilson has said he refuses to support World AIDS Day because "HIV is a result of lifestyle choices". The friend that I learnt my first lessons about HIV and AIDS about would snort at Sammy Wilson for saying that. His lifestyle choice that lead to him contracting HIV wasn't really a choice, he took drugs. Without the drugs he would have died. He was a haemophiliac and he had to take those drugs, it wasn't a choice. Like half of all haemophiliacs at that time he actually acquired HIV not through a lifestyle choice but though a desire to live and not bleed to death.

Of course Sammy Wilson has shown his ignorance of LGBT+ people in the past. He really thinks that the young man who sat in his A'Level class that year was happy with the realisation of his sexual orientation. The fact is that he had contemplated taking his life before Sammy stood before him in a classroom. The reason being that he couldn't chose to ignore the feeling he was having and it didn't fit with his Northern Irish, Presbyterian upbringing. That young man couldn't chose to be other than gay or bisexual. His orientation was there despite his upbringing and culture he grew up in. It was unhappy, full of bullying and a lonely place to be. It was something that back then he didn't speak to others about but he bottled it in.

Of course that young man back then is me. The message then was don't die of ignorance. The message is still the same today, sadly it is the ignorance of some of our politicians here in Northern Ireland that is the greatest risk.

Please Sammy don't let others gay, straight, children or adults die because of your ignorance about HIV.

Jim Wells to sue BBC over Homophobia claims #TheTruth

Apparently Jim Wells MLA told the Belfast Telegraph is the sue the BBC over reporting the story about the Lesbian couple he encountered while out campaigning for the 2015 Assembly elections. He claims that the comments were "doctored" and "misrepresented what he said"  He goes on to say that he will "stop at nothing to clear his name".

Well if he is to do that I cannot hold back on some truth that I have promised members of my family that I would not ever disclose. I also am lifting the gentleman's agreement I have with one of the BBC journalists who witnessed one of the events that I am about to unfold.

It is a little know fact that Jim Wells actually invited a leading Northern Irish LGBT+ activist the wedding of one of his daughters. I happen to know this to be true, because it was I who received the invite, you see said daughter's husband is part of my family. I had a quiet conversation with Jim on that occasion he shook my hand, spook to me and looked me in the eye. He was also close enough to smell my cologne and not one of these sensory seemed to be repugnant to Mr Wells.

I can only therefore surmise that later when he said all those who took part in Belfast Pride he found repugnant that the only sense that would cause that reaction would be if he tasted me!

However, this wedding and meeting took part before the first debate on marriage equality at Stormont. On that day I was attending the debate and there was an interlude between the debate and the vote for questions. It was during this time that I encountered Jim Wells as a homophobe for the first time. Homophobia is described as having an irrational fear of homosexuality and/or homosexuals. Which I think describes what actually happened in the the restaurant that day. I was in the queue beside the Rev Chris Hudson and across the way was the BBC journalist. Ahead of me was Jim Wells.

I started with a friendly "Hello Jim" at which he turned around, I was about to ask after the health of Grace his wife and the rest of the family but after a quick look at who I was, I happened to be wearing my rather large I'm Liberal badge with a rainbow Lib Dem bird, he said "Oh you're one of them" and quickly turned heal. Rather an irrational, fearful reaction if you ask me.

Even before that however, I was at a hustings in the Black Box about international development was as I was working in a politically restricted role at the time I couldn't of course at my name to this piece on the Liberal Democrats NI website. Today I feel we have to disclose that this was my first hand account. Jim Wells assistant who at the time was dating a member of family looked straight over at me and mouthed, "You can't possibly blog that".

A number of years later and that assistant actually married that member of my family. His boss was invited to the wedding, as was I. This was a much stranger family gathering Jim was actively seen to be looking in my direction and actively avoiding me at the same time by my mother and others. I even saw this myself from out of the corner of my eyes. I'm not sure what he was expecting if I ever went anywhere near him, but it was yet another example of what I can only describe as the actions of someone who has an irrational fear of something, the fact that that something was me a politically astute campaigner who amongst other things is gay may well indicate that there is homophobia as an undercurrent and not in the glib way which that word is used at times, but a genuine actual fear.

I feel sorry for Jim that he suffers from such fear. But if he wants the truth to come out I am more than happy to help in that happening.

When the DUP quote Peter Thatchell...

Peter Thatchell[s comment piece in the Guardian has suddenly started to appear in DUP politicians time lines. When this starts to happen you know that something is seriously wrong with what he has said.

It is not so much the fact that he has changed his opinion on the Ashers case. Nor that his comments on that case are based on a lack of knowledge the various laws that the judge made judgement on and indeed gloss over the depths of the evidence that were cited in the judicial review.

No what the DUP are picking up on is the points that Thatchell is making about political discrimination and freedom of expression. They are turning these into the appearance that their views are the victim of political discrimination and that they are facing a limit on their freedom of expression. Both issues that negate the fact that only their MLAs have to step forward together to prevent political movement of any kind and indeed was used to block the last vote on marriage equality when a majority were in favour.

What Peter Thatchell fails toe recognise in his comment piece about Northern Ireland is the level of comments that LGBT+ people in Northern Ireland can be the equivalent to what the rest of the UK heard in the mid 80s. These comments are almost repeated daily on our radios, certainly regularly within our hearing, and often from people who are family friends or even members of our families (nuclear or extended).

Some of the ideas that some people in Northern Ireland have about LGBT+ people should be unlawful, the fact that some of those ideas have oil heaped on their flames by the party that is now quoting Thatchell should be worrying. They are jumping on the fact that a gay rights campaigner thinks they should be allowed to espouse their ideas, to ignore the ideas of those seeking equality. That they will use his comments to protect people against discrimination as as means to allow homophobes to be able to avoid promoting ideas with which they disagree. In so doing he has given a rally cry for the DUP's call to bring in a conscience clause to protect businesses. I know this was not his intention but less than 24 hours in that is what is happening.

So in conclusion I'd like to thank Peter Thatchell for putting LGBT+ equality in Northern back a little this week by not thinking of the implication that stating those views in the way that he did will have to the fight for equality in Northern Ireland.

Dear DUP, Please read my email before responding

The following is the latest email I sent to all my MLAs ahead of the Equal Marriage debate in Stormont on 2 November:

Dear Steven Agnew, Leslie Cree, Stephen Farry, Alex Easton, Peter Weirand Gordon Dunne,

I understand that yet again on the 2 November this year the Assembly will be debating the issue of equal marriage.

I also know that from previous votes some of my MLAs have signed a petition of concern about this issue.

Therefore I would like to volunteer my expertise in this issue as one of the drafters of the Liberal Democrat policy on the issue first for the Scottish Party, then the Federal Party that became the backbone of the legislation that now exists in the rest of the UK to be able to address those concerns.

If you have any concerns on this issue I know that due to lack of time busy serving you constituents on committees, in the chamber and elsewhere you may not have specialised knowledge of the issues at hand.

Therefore as someone who started looking into this particular issue back in 2001 before Civil Partnerships even came in and has advised several leading politicians on this issue I would be happy to address whatever concerns you may have before you sign yet another one ahead of this vote on 2 November.

I do not hear back about specific concerns that my MLAs have on this matter I will be informing the Spectator that as far as I'm aware there are no pressing concerns that would warrant such a petition.

I look forward to hearing from you and am prepared to meet any of you to discuss your concerns more fully between now and 2 November.

Yours sincerely,
Stephen Glenn

Therefore I do not think that the response I got (which is being replicated across Social Media from almost every DUP MLA) goes anyway to answering the specifics. Here is that response.

Stephen

Thank you for your e mail. I would however indicate that the position of the DUP has not changed on this issue, and we will be voting against the motion. 

Yours sincerely,
Peter Weir MLA

Clearly the fact that there are concerns that the DUP are not prepared to table a petition of concern about, but not prepared to listen to the concerns of those of us who have opposing concerns about the hive mentality that appears to exist in their number opposing not just the rest of the UK but the rest of the island of Ireland. The DUP are running scared but they are not the Borg, because their resistance will be futile.

Why I and most LGBT activists are opposed to a NI referendum on marriage equality #MarRef

There is a petition going around demanding that, like the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland should have a referendum to bring about marriage equality.

I and the majority of LGBT+ groups in Northern Ireland are opposed to the idea, which was first muted by Sinn Féin in the run up the the referendum in the republic and here are the reasons why.

1. There is not need for a referendum to bring about marriage equality in any part of the UK. In the Republic of Ireland there had to be a constitution change to recognise marriage equality. The only way to do so, based on that constitution, was to hold a referendum. In Scotland a simply Bill was required in Holyrood and for England and Wales a Bill before Westminster was enough to bring about such change. Such a bill would still need to be brought before the Northern Ireland Assembly to bring about any change.

2. A referendum is not legally binding in the UK.  A referendum does not necessarily have legal binding on UK legislators to bring about change. Admittedly often they do bring about the change or endorse the decision of the referendum but there actually is nothing to prevent the legislative body with responsibility. Indeed if such a referendum were to come about in Northern Ireland there is nothing to prevent a petition of concern being used, by let's say the DUP, the prevent subsequent legislation coming into effect.

3. Public debate is not as mature on this issue in NI as the RoI. Despite legalising homosexuality later than the North the Republic of Ireland is at a far more mature level of debate on this issue than the North. Yes there are some stupid and ridiculous comments made by some of those opposed in the Republic, but the level of the political debate between the politicians, even those who disagreed with their parties stance, was far more civil and factually based than the largest party in Northern Ireland has shown again the recent election and aftermath to be able to carry on over issues of LGBT equality.

4. Both the two biggest parties are viewing LGBT equality as a political football. I'm sorry to say this but since it was first mooted that NI should have equal marriage Sinn Féin's support has become as much of a political football as the DUP's opposition to it has. This is no more evident than the poor timing of the last debate in Stormont and the call for this referendum now. Most LGBT activists were certain that the time to strike next in Stormont to seek marriage equality should have been after the referendum result in the Republic was known. But Sinn Féin decided that the 28th April (ie during the short campaign for Westminster) was the time to put the motion before the Assembly for the fourth time. This timing was poor and could only have come from a party that did not consider Westminster elections to be important. Most LGBT activists with party affiliation outside Sinn Féin were too busy with the election to lobby MLAs and get into a big campaign on this occasion. While the DUP have in the past picked on Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams saying that equality is a Torjan Horse by which to beat the DUP I would say that recent actions overlooking the views of the LGBT community shows they do not really understand the nature of this equality.

The DUP meanwhile use their opposition to LGBT equality as a means to shore up their core vote, although having lost Antrim South to a pro-marriage equality Unionist and seen the Alliance vote pick up a great deal of the UUP vote in East Belfast it would appear it is a tactic that only has limited appeal.

5. Should a socially conservative majority have a say on minority rights? In the Northern Ireland Act we actually have a statutory requirement for the public bodies to allow equality of opportunity for various groups, this includes marital status and sexual orientation. Would such a referendum actually fit within the statutory obligations of our public bodies? I do not feel it does. Even though recent opinion polls are showing that there is now a majority in favour of supporting marriage equality here, there is a danger that the most socially conservative part of the UK could be ground down in a particularly heated campaign to vote no on the day. Also many LGBT people already know the sort of vitriol that some politicians or campaigners already direct towards us when our rights aren't the focus of a campaign, we can only envision it getting ugly if they were the sole focus. Also if the social conservatives were to squeak a narrow majority, it would set back any hope of reform for 10-20 years, when we are only trailing a couple of years behind the rest of the UK and Ireland at present. People's rights for equality should not be placed in the hands who have privilege to determine the extension of those rights.

Thank you Mr Dodds for the encouragement

Yesterday in the House of Commons debate on the Queen's Speech Nigel Dodds said:

"He is certainly proof that if we work at and fight for an issue that we believe in, we will get there in the end, especially if the cause is right."

Now the comment was directed at Sir William Cash and in relation to the EU referendum that has been promised in Queen's speech, but as an LGBT campaigner in Northern Ireland I take this as encouragement. Because also later when responding to his colleague Sammy Wilson he said:

"My hon. Friend raises an important issue, which is one of those that arise out of the Belfast agreement. As he knows, equality provisions under section 75..."

Although he did continue "work against giving our armed forces veterans the same status as those in the rest of the United Kingdom." the fact is that a DUP MP has acknowledged the Northern Ireland Act/Belfast Agreement and knows about section 75 is something.

But back to that first comment in relation to William Cash. The wave of rightness is on the side of those supporting Equal Marriage. Yesterday Greenland became the latest state to legislate for it in a unanimous vote. Since the referendum result in Ireland was announced Austrialian Prime Minister Tonny Abbott said he wouldn't stand in the way of a conscience vote. Also Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi is about to fast-track the civil union legislation that has been stalled for a number of months.

Only Germany of the list of Western countries that Peter Lynas listed on Nolan as not having marriage equality the other day has not announced any plans to move forward on this issue since the referendum. Although there have been calls from the opposition Green/Alliance 90 leader Katrin Göring-Eckardt for Germany to move on this, Angela Merkel is remaining adamant it is not the goal of her CDU/CSU party (the only one in Germany opposed) in this Government.

Therefore the LGBT community should take encouragement that even Nigel Dodds that "if we work at and fight for an issue that we believe in, we will get there in the end".

DUP and UUP take power of choice out of voters' hands

In 2010-11 while I was running the Yes to Fairer Votes campaign I approached the UUP (who were somewhat receptive) and the DUP (who were less so) about introducing a fairer voting system for Westminster elections. The system that we were offering in the referendum was AV using a preference voting system to elect a single member to each seat.

One of the key arguments that I used to those who would listen to me (which included the now leader of the UU), Mike Nesbitt) was that in Northern Ireland with multiple parties it would mean the MP would have to secure the support of the majority of the electorate. So if people objected to an MP who refused to take up their seat in Westminster they could vote for the other candidates who would. Or if their preferred candidate didn't get the most first preferences their vote could transfer to another candidate within their comfort zone.

I also said that in Northern Ireland it would do away with the suspense of would there be pacts between parties before candidates were even named taking away the choice of individual voters for supporting a type of Unionism or Nationalism that they felt comfortable with, and leaving them only with one they were less comfortable with. Both parties in the end did not support us, although the Progressive Unionist Party along with UKIP did from the unionist side of politics here.

Therefore, sadly I am not surprised at the news this evening that the two largest Unionist parties have carved up four seats between them. The DUP will contest East Belfast and North Belfast with Gavin Robinson looking seeking to gain and Nigel Dodds MP to hold respectively, The UUP have been handed Fermanagh and South Tyrone and Newry and Mourne to two of their MLAs Tom Elliott and Danny Kennedy.

In these four seats there was potential that the vote could have been different under AV in 2010.

Belfast East of course was where Peter Robinson lost out to the Alliance's Naomi Long. The combined DUP/UCU-NF vote would have greatly out polled Naomi 5 years ago. It is possible that under AV Robinson would have held on in 2010. But the arrogance of the DUP that this is a unionist seat and the trouble that the DUP/UUP stirred up may actually mean that with the DUP being given the candidate here some moderate UUP voters instead of voting for the Unionist candidate may well transfer to Naomi. This is the grand prize the DUP wanted from the deal, it would be somewhat ironic if the way they have gone about trying to win it back backfires on them and this deal is the latest part of thier arrogance.

Belfast North is the only seat that has a defending Unionist MP in it. The margin of DUP/UCU-NF vote over the combined Sinn Féin/SDLP was a mere 1.6% lead, so under AV it would all go down to who would have swept up the Alliance's 5%. It was something similar the following year in the Assembly elections. So it is tight and the fact that the SDLP have not named a candidate here would be worrying for the DUP deputy leader facing the same fate as his leader 5 years ago.

Fermanagh and South Tyrone was the most marginal seat in 2010, Sinn Féin taking it from a single Independent unionist unity candidate by a mere 4 votes. The deal this time of course means that the unionist unity candidate will have a party name attached to them on the ballot as opposed to being listed as one of two independents, it is also one of the unionist MLAs for the constituency so has more name recognition than the candidate last time. Will it be enough to overcome 4 votes in a seat that Sinn Féin have held since Ken Maginnis stepped down as the UUP MP in 2001 (even against a single unionist on occassion)? Ironically when we went to Enniskillen and reran the poll as a sample of AV during the fairer votes campaign Michelle Gildernew still won and gained transfers from all fronts to get her there (so the MP has backing from strange quarters).

Newry and Armagh is the only seat that Unionists lost in the 1986 by-elections in protest to the Anglo-Irish agreement. It is also a seat that they haven;t come close to taking back ever since. Indeed in 2010 the combined vote was still 9% behind Sinn Féin and doesn't even need the further 23.4% that the SDLP polled to secure a nationalist majority.Most of the remaining vote has been squeezed so far that there is really nothing else up for grabs this time round. The UUP did badly in getting this as their second seat as part of the deal it is not likely to change hands even with the candidate using the naming of a play park after an IRA terrorist and Irish language as two rallying calls for unionist votes


In light of the almost impossible task in Newry and Armagh the shock is that they left out the more winnable:

Belfast South had the combined vote of DUP and UCU-NF a mere 16 votes behind the SDLP candidate. So it would have depended largely on how the Alliance Party vote would have transferred as to who would win there if there was an AV election. This time while Sinn Féin have named a candidate so too have the NI Conservatives. So some of that UCU-NF vote will go that way and it has to be seen what impact Sinn Féin will have on Alasdair McDonnell's vote. Maybe the expectation is that Belfast South will fall because of the split nationalist vote and perceived falling of McDonnell's standing, but it could be a risky game they are playing having made the pact in the four seats they chose.

However, as I point out in a couple of the examples above the need in the two Belfast seats that are part of this pact is for the DUP to bring across moderate unionists to their cause behind their unity candidate. The issue is what impact the DUP attacks on Alliance for trying to find a way for everyone will have on some of those votes. It is highly possible that by going over the heads of such moderate unionists in North and East Belfast that vote may find another home.

No doubt it is a risk that the DUP are prepared to take but the UUP would appear to do less well out of this deal than if they had backed a move to AV four years ago. The problem as I pointed out four years ago to making such pacts is that not all of your support will back the unity candidate. Some DUP vote may well head to TUV (if they stand) in the seats that the UUP are given and some UUP vote will also head elsewhere where the DUP have the candidate. It doesn't guarantee the result they want when the finishing line is not set and merely grabbing the most votes under First Past the Post rewards a "winner".

Editor's Note: Stephen was the Northern Ireland Co-ordinator for the Yes to Fairer Votes Campaign and attended UUP conference ahead of that year's Assembly Election to Lobby key figures in that party.

How DUP define space for difference

I see in the Larne Times today a report of the public meeting where "60" members of the public attended to hear about Paul Givan's conscience clause. I'm assuming that as the picture appears to be in the middle of the meeting that the other 20-24 had either left early, arrived late or all had to attend the toilet at the same time the photographer arrived.

However, what strikes me are the comments quoted of DUP councillor Gordon Lyons. He says:

"I do not want to live in a community where all have to conform to the same thoughts and ideals, but rather I want to live in one where there is space for difference."

You know reading that line in isolation it fits rather snuggly over the Liberal Democrat line in the pre-amble to our constitution where is says, "nobody shall be enslaved by conformity. Looks all nice and liberal.

However, here is the context in which it was said:

"Essentially this debate is about the kind of society we live in. Do we want to live in one in which people have to make a choice between continuing in their business or profession or following their conscience? That does not sound like a pluralist or liberal society. 

"I do not want to live in a community where all have to conform to the same thoughts and ideals, but rather I want to live in one where there is space for difference. That is what this legislation is about."

Not quite so liberal and pluralist after all.

On the essentials he is right this debate is about the kind of society we live in.

But when it come to continuing your business, we have seen the recent case where a printing business has decided he will not print the civil partnership invites of a long standing customer in Drogheda because of his conscience. The customer is now upset that he wasn't told about this objection to his homosexuality earlier, no doubt because he would not have give four years of trade from his own business to the printers had he known.

Gay people don't all live in the big metropolises of our nation some of them live out in villages or small rural towns where there may only be one printer, one baker, one store, one restaurant etc within easy reach. There may be no choice for a gay business owner to shift their business if turned down or spurned because of their sexual orientation. There may be no space in such circumstances under a conscience clause for their difference. Indeed one couple in England face someone threatening to drive them out of their village for being gay.

You see the conscience clause instead of allow space for difference, allows some people to designate their space as only for homogeneous conformists to their own ideals and thoughts. That is not the sort of society I want to live in.

Isn't it Ironic #conscienceclause

Today the Catholic Bishop of Down and Connor Noel Treanor met with Paul Givan to discuss the conscience clause.

I will give him his due, while he did say it was widely supportive of the essence of the Conscience Bill he did add a caveat:

"any change to the law would have to be carefully defined, to prevent it from leading to spurious claims of religious conscience."

He also said that

"it would be wrong to swap one form of discrimination for another."

The ironic bit is of course the marriage equality debate that seems to have sparked this whole thing off.

The equal marriage motion, and the second (if amended thus) and the third time it has come before Stormont would meet both the Bishops caveat and his call not to swap one form of discrimination with another. In each of the three occasions as with the Acts passed by Holyrood and Westminster there was no discrimination on the basis on anyone's interpretation of faith, nor their freedom from those of faith. It replaced the discrimination of those in same sex relationships having a relationship, viewed by some (mainly those of faith) as substandard to marriage. It endeavoured to put in place legislation not to discriminate against people of faith.

But of course we know in Northern Ireland the DUP lodged a petition of concern, and again and again.

So the irony is that the Bishop is right there is a real problem that needs to be addressed. But those of us who have sought to bring about equal marriage legislation have done what we can to protect those with strongly held religious beliefs both those opposed and those in favour, as well as those who want freedom from religion. The issue is of course that the DUP, Catholic Church, Presbyterian Church, Church of Ireland and others didn't see it this way and have opposed it officially.

Yes we have an problem that needs to be addressed. The irony is that even when accommodating certain views from certain people of faith when it comes to LGBT equality isn't enough to appease them and they can't see beyond the fact that Northern Ireland has differing views both from people of faith and those without.

In the words of Alanis Morissette, "Isn't it Ironic"?.

 

Conscience Clause: What the people say

BBC NI have on their online news managed to cover the No Conscience Clause protests this afternoon without any quotes from the speakers who were present. This is kind of sad especially as the Belfast protest took place at City Hall, which regular viewers will know that the rear of City Hall is often a backdrop used for new reports as the back of Broadcasting House is actually at the other end of a street that leads straight to the site. For people not used to Belfast this is only a few minutes away.

Therefore to make up for the BBC's shameful omission here are some of the things that people said form the platform.

Brian Kennedy (singer-songwriter): "[The Conscience Clause] is an attack on LGBT human rights and ironically the only thing that’s truly in the closet is the hatred, cowardice and inhumanity of these people towards the LGBT community and their friends and families in Northern Ireland.

"Mr Givan and the DUP. Get out of my gay life!"

Naomi Long MP (Alliance, East Belfast): "I am a passionate advocate of freedom of conscience and belief but this clause will not advance that. In fact, this legislation will open the door for further exemptions to rights and equality, which will ultimately affect us all. Only by protecting the rights and freedoms of others can we defend and secure our own rights in society. This proposal, far from being a conscience clause, is a charter for discrimination against the LGBT community and an assault on wider equality provisions. The law already allows reasonable balance between rights of conscience and obligations under equality law.

"I say 'no' to this conscience clause because I say 'yes' to freedom of conscience and belief; I say 'no' to this conscience clause because I say 'yes' to equality and human rights for all; I say 'no' to this conscience clause and I look forward to the day when the Assembly will say 'no' to it as well."

William Ennis (PUP Belfast City Councillor): "Why to the people of Northern Ireland need a conscience clause, when the people of England, Wales and Scotland do not?"

"This conscience clause amounts to nothing other than the DUP's desire to mould an elite society rather than an equal one."

Patrick Corrigan (NI director Amnesty International): "This is not about freedom of religion, this is about the freedom to treat a section of our population as second class citizens.

"This change to the law is not welcome and it is not needed . . . The law already strikes a fair balance between the human right to freedom of religion and the human right not to suffer discrimination.

 "Northern Ireland's first minister should concentrate on eradicating the inequalities already faced by members of the LGBTI community, rather than lending his support to a further discriminatory law.

 "He could start by publishing the long overdue sexual orientation strategy, which could help tackle the underlying homophobia in this society."

As well as Naomi Long, Gerry Kelly of Sinn Féin, Alex Attwood for the SDLP and Claire Bailey of the Greens also spoke as did representatives of People Before Profit and PUP. The UUP along with the DUP were noted for their absence.

Rev Chris Hudson of All Souls Church and trade unionists and other activists also spoke from the stage before Dervla McGaughey who set up the change.org petition against the Clause which now has over 18,000 signatures to say how great it was as a success from the ordinary people. Chris Hudson actually called for other church leaders to stand up and speak out in public instead of just telling him things in private.

No to the Conscience Clause

Yes tomorrow it may be cold, but a lot of us are assembling at 2pm in Derry/Londonderry 3pm in Belfast and Newry to make our feelings heard about Paul Givan's DUP sponsored "private" member's bill that is currently out to consultation that seeks to rip apart the equality act.

It is a protest against the so called "conscience clause" from a party that has no conscience.

This Thursday we heard a DUP health minister tell BBC's The View that he would have to look at expert opinion on the number of hospitals that Northern Ireland needs. This is the same health minister who is backing the decision of his party colleague and predecessor who ignored expert advice to maintain a total lifetime ban on MSM (men who've had sex with other men) giving blood.

It comes from a party that have failed in over 8 years to publish and action a sexual orientation strategy that was first consulted on back in 2006. A strategy that if published would have dealt with the issues that their knee-jerk conscience clause should not have had to deal with. But then the reason why the delay is probably because the other parties, and public consultations, have not agreed to conscientious objection apart from those already laid out in the equality act regulations.

We've also had a DUP minister for Finance and Personnel, Sammy Wilson, say that he would even rather not have had civil partnerships, when Stormont was debating Equal Marriage in 2011.

The thing is the DUP don't want LGBT Northern Ireland citizens to have equality. In fact they'd far rather take it all away if they could. The UUP sleep walk behind them into the lobby opposing any LGBT equality motion before the Assembly and with only a couple of exceptions the two main unionist parties behave on LGBT issues as if there were no gay protestants, loyalists and unionists in Northern Ireland. They seem to vote on purely sectarian lines to prevent every move towards LGBT equality yet want to be on a par with GB, somewhere where LGBT people have more equality and less discrimination than here.

Many of us left Northern Ireland in the 70s, 80s and 90s because of the backwardness of the Unionists when it came to LGBT equality. But that is something that I am hearing once again from the young people LGBT and allies who cannot stand the way the DUP and UUP are not listening to people, but only listening to church leadership (who don not even reflect their entire memberships) on matter of LGBT equality and other issues.

We are a democracy not a theocracy, the people demos decide what happens not gods theos. 

I want to be able to go about my live as any other citizen would, entering businesses, shops or restaurants convinced that I will be served, not at the whim of the owner who may object to something I cannot change (like my hair colour), or remove (like a football jersey), or leave at the door (like smelly boots).

That is why I will be standing in the cold with hundreds of others saying No to the Conscience Clause this afternoon.

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.

DUP selective British rights: The Driver's Licence Clause

Yesterday DUP MP for Lagan Valley Jeffrey Donaldson said:

"British Citizens in Northern Ireland deserve the same rights as the rest of the UK."

However, this was not about the rights of NI LGBT people to have the right to marry whom they choose. Nor is it to defend the Equality Act in full, in face of his colleague Paul Givan's conscience clause. Nor it is a freeing up of abortion legislation, no a whole gamut of rights issues that the people of Northern Ireland are the only ones in the UK to have equally with the rest of the UK.

No. This was about the change in driving licence design that in England, Wales and Scotland will not display the Union Flag alongside the European Union Flag, but in Northern Ireland will retain just the flag of the EU.

Of course this comes mere weeks after once again the main parties failed to come to any agreement on symbols and flags (amongst other issues) once again, and merely passed this on to another commission. So it is hardly surprising that flag controversy once again hits Northern Ireland when it is an issue that after over 16 years of talking we have yet to reach a consensus on.

But once again the argument from Donaldson shows the duplicity of the DUP. They use the argument of British Citizens having the same rights as the rest of the UK when it suits them, but with the other hand will argue that Northern Ireland is different from the rest of the UK when it comes to things like LGBT rights, abortion and other issues if it suits them politically with their base.

Sorry Jeffrey I'm not going to let you, or any member of the DUP, get away with playing the British rights card when you deny me the same rights as I would experience elsewhere in the UK because of my sexual orientation. Especially in light of Cllr Maurice "gays caused Hurricane Katrina" Mills becoming a Member of the British Empire in the New Year Honours, while LGBT British citizens are seen as less than full UK citizens with the same rights by the DUP I shall continue to hold institutional homophobia from Mr Donaldson's party to account.

Can the DUP answer a simple question?

Yesterday on BBC Radio Ulster's Nolan Show (about 34:30) Paul Givan, the author of the conscience clause bill, was asked a rather simple question.

"Do the DUP still want to make gay sex illegal?"

He did all he could to squirm out of answering it, saying he was dealing in the real world, even saying it was irrelevant to his conscience clause. He said his party didn't want to go back 20 years, although his conscience clause does go some way back removing some of the protections established here only 8 years ago.

But it is a relevant question, there have been slips through the years. Sammy Wilson, then the Minister for Finance and Personnel on 1 Oct 2012 said:

"I do not agree with the Civil Partnership Act 2004. As Mr Allister pointed out, that was the toe in the door and a means for pushing the boundaries even further in a direction that I, and the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, do no wish them to be pushed as fas as changes in society are concerned."

It is hard to determine if the later Sexual Orientaion Regualtions to the Equality Act were part of this pushing the boundaries as these comments did come in the first Equal Marriage debate in the Assembly.

Today we have Edwin "Keep the Blood Ban" Poots trying to defend his party to claims of bigotry from Stephen Fry. Saying:

"While the debate takes place we can keep putting out a message that this isn't about an attack on people's rights, it's actually a defence of people's rights.

"I think that is part of the problem – every time someone says something it is put out there we are taking rights away from people but that's not what it's about."

There is therefore concern that I cannot recall one incidence of a DUP elected representative actually standing up and speaking in favour of any LGBT equality issue. By that I don't mean saying something like "the law says" in making a statement but actually saying "I or my party support the right of LGBT people to...". I also do not recall (and I have checked through Hansard both at Westminster and Stormont) a single DUP vote in favour of LGBT legislation.

There is a pattern of behaviour from the DUP of which Mr Givan's bill is just the latest manifestation, that at every step they have opposed LGBT equality. Whether the decriminalisation, civil partnerships, equality act provisions, blood ban, adoption, marriage.

So therefore a very relevant question for the DUP to answer is "Does the DUP still want to recriminalise gay sex?"

Because if so their conscience clause in the words of Sammy Wilson above is just a toe in the door and a means for pushing the boundaries even further in a direction that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland would have a conscience objection to if they were to know the end desire.

Parties cancel trip to brewery

DUP and Sinn Féin are sorry to announce that the planned piss up at Hilden Brewery this weekend has had to be cancelled.

Find out more here.