Can Peter Robinson please define bonkers?

So last night Northern Ireland's First Minister Peter Robinson said of the decision of the Equality Commission to consider taking legal action against Ashers:

"This kind of decision from the Equality Commission is bonkers. They really do need to wind their necks in. 

"In times when we are scrapping around trying to get funding for essential services for Northern Ireland, they are tossing it away."

No forgive me it I am wrong but there were recent cuts to services announced in health care provision, which is run by one of his party's ministers, whose predecessor has run up large legal bills to try and prevent gay couples from adopting, this was lost in the supreme court in October 2013. That department is also pursuing legal appeals against a decision that the lifetime ban on Men who've had Sex with Men (MSM) is irrational and should also come into line with the rest of the UK.

Yes, you see there is a department that is scrapping around trying to get funding for essential service that has been tossing it away trying to prevent equality.

So I ask Peter Robinson which is  bonkers?

Is it seeking a ruling on something that there is clearly some dispute on, or ignoring or refusing to acknowledge judicial rulings until all levels of appeal are expended at the public's expense?

Just who is too precious? #EdwinPoots

No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.

Thus states clause 29 of the Magna Carta one of three clauses that are still in effect in UK law without amendment or repel.The reason while I am starting this at the top of this blog post will be revealed at the end.

However, today Lord Chief Justice Sir Declan Morgan, Northern Ireland's most senior judge said that he expressed concern that comments made by the Minister for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the DUP's Edwin Poots, were detrimental to the rule of law. Those comments were made after Mr Justice Traecy had ruled that the minister's continuation of the lifetime ban on men who'd had sex with other men donating blood was "irrational".

What the minister said in the chamber of the Assembly was:

"The question is this:  will I appeal it?  I am very reluctant to appeal it.  Number one, it gives the larger parties in the Executive considerably more power.  Number two, it refers a lot of governance back to the national Parliament and, as a unionist, should I be that concerned about that?  Number three, do I believe that I would get fairness in the Court of Appeal or would there be a circling of the wagons?  I am concerned that that may not be the case."

[Official Report, Vol 89, No 2, p55, col 2]

Later of course his reluctance was lifted and he has in fact appealed the decision.

Earlier today Sir Declan Morgan said that he had written about his concerns to the OFMDFM that the Minister was doubting the impartiality of the courts and was also damaging to public confidence in the administration of justice. He added that he has yet to receive a reply to his letter of 18th January which he also release to the public. The text of that letter is below:

RULE OF LAW

Regrettfully, I am writing to you about the comments made by a Minister which I believe are detrimental to the rule of law in Northern Ireland.

In November the Assembly debated the issue of blood donations by gay men who had been sexually  active [sic]*. A challenge to a decision of the Minister, Edwin Poots, that there should be a lifetime ban on blood donations by such men had succeeded in a related judicial review in the High Court some weeks earlier. During the course of the debate the Minister strongly inferred that he would not get a fair hearing should he appeal to the Court of Appeal. While I have no difficulty with judicial decision being the subject of informed comments and criticism, I think it entirely unacceptable for a Minister to suggest that the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland is biased or unfair, Such a statement is not only untrue, it is inevitably damaging to public confidence in the administration of justice and ultimately to the strength of our democracy.

 This is quite a strongly worded letter to come from the most senior judge to the highest political office in the land. The fact that is has yet to receive a response shows a great lack of respect from either the First Minister or Deputy First Minister to his concerns. However, as the right to due process is outlined by that clause 29 of the Magna Carta which I quoted at the top of this blog post you can see why Sir Declan Morgan finishing with the ultimate damage to the strength of our democracy, Magna Carta is the foundations of it and due process is one of the keystones that survive.

 The only circling of the wagons would once again appear to come from the DUP (as well as many in the UUP) stopping due fairness and justice on matters of LGBT equality which even if won in a court of law are challenged by our own taxes, at our own expense by the Ministers who are supposed to uphold Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act (1998).

Paul Girvan, Mr Poots DUP colleague, who is chair of the Justice Committee, was present when Mr Justice made his comments and he laid down the law to the judicary that they "don't get too precious about their status".



So another teamster busy circling the wagons from a party with the word Democratic in its title with no idea of the history of democracy, its likes historically to the judiciary and fair process and how this is laid down before anything else that politicians have done afterwards.

Does anyone else think that Mr Girvan and especially Mr Poots with his constant appealing of High Court rulings that go in favour of the LGBT community in Northern Ireland are getting too precious about their position? Are LGBT people not freemen and freewomen who should not be denied or deferred either Justice or Right?

*  Sadly Sir Declan Morgan has fallen into the often repeated trap that ignorance about the blood ban leads to. It is not merely gay men who are banned from donating in Northern Ireland, but any bi-sexual man who has had sex with another man, or indeed any man who is straight but once gave a blow job to a mate in his youth. As the ban in on any man who has ever had sex either anally or orally with another whether with or without a condom. It is my one criticism about his wording of his letter.

Ping Pong between Westminster and Stormont over decision on NI MSM Blood Ban

You will have seen me blog in the past how sick I am of Northern Ireland Assembly ministers using tax payers money to fight equality measures (especially LGBT equality) here in Northern Ireland. So you can imagine my shock to learn that the Westminster Department of Health has decided to launch its own appeal against the High Court ruling in Belfast that said that the UK minister should decide the policy in Northern Ireland as Edwin Poots is challenging the whole ruling.

While the Department of Health in Westminster is saying it will fund it's appeal from its own funds, yet more Northern Irish funds are going to be wasted as yet again Edwin Poots is launching another appeal against the courts ruling.

Are people in England happy that the Department of Health is spending money preventing their minister being handed a decision that his Northern Ireland counterpart has been unable to make under any measure of equality as defined in the Belfast Agreement?

Because that is probably part of the reason that Justice Tracey had passed the decision back into Jeremy Hunt's lap in the first place. The judge had ruled it "irrational" that Northern Ireland Mr Poots would retain the lifetime ban on MSM blood donations in Northern Ireland while accepting GB blood which had the 12 month deferral whenever there were shortages.

This means that MSM in Northern Ireland are clearly less equal when it comes to being able to donate than elsewhere in the UK. In fact I know of some from Northern Ireland who after a 12 month period of refraining from sex with other men are travelling to the UK to donate blood. So there is actually the possibility that Northern Ireland may be importing blood from men who've had sex with men greater than 12 months ago who reside here while denying them the right to donate here!

In November the Department of Health said, "“in England, we have made a different decision on the actual issue. In considering any health policy issue that affects all countries in the UK, we will focus on the implications for devolution." Part of the implications of devolution here in Northern Ireland was Section 75 which recognised various minorities, including the LGBT community. The implications of devolution failing to meet those requirements of equality is something that Jeremy Hunt needs to look at as well, although it seems that he has decided to appeal being given the decision to help enact part of the DHSSPS remit on equality when they themselves fail.

So now we have two health Departments playing ping pong over taking a decision which the LGBT community here in Northern Ireland see as an example of the institutionalised homophobia of the largest party. A party by the way that has Ministerial responsibility over the areas of blood donation, adoption and marriage, three major equality pushes that LGBT people in England, Wales and Scotland are taking for granted or see coming.

What is Edwin saying? part 456

Today in Stormont the Health Minister was taking questions, this one came from the Alliance's Trevor Lunn MLA for Lagan Valley.

Mr Lunn asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, given his responsibilities, whether he still holds the view, expressed by him and by members of his party, that homosexuality is an illness treatable by medical or psychiatric means. 

Mr Poots: I do not think that I ever said that.

Maybe his comments back in 2005 that is was unnatural in the first instance and abominable in the second instance are the comment that sprung to mind.


Mr Lunn: I will try to find the reference for him.  I will ask the same question again:  does he think that homosexuality is an illness treatable by medical or psychiatric means or does he think that, as has been expressed by another Member of his party, it is an abomination? (Editor: Actually Trevor was being polite here as the minister himself said it while he was only a councillor)

Mr Poots: I do not think that it is an illness, in the first instance.  (Editor: Just immoral and an abomination, eh?) I think that many people have various elements to their lives.  When it comes to sexuality, many people who are heterosexual desire lots of other folks, and those of us who are married should not be doing that, so people can resist urges.  I encourage people to take a sensible, rational view on these issues.  I know that there have been a number of challenges about me and the various stances that I take.  I will make it very clear that my stance on blood safety is purely about safety. 

When it comes to my stance on adoption, I have just come from a midwifery-led unit in Lagan Valley, and all the people who were giving birth in that unit were women, and all those women were not impregnated by other women.  So, whether one believes in God or in evolution, the natural order is for a man and a woman to have a child.  (Editor: Can he be sure that non of them were the result of IVF therapy or that some of them weren't in a same-sex relationship to raise the child?) Therefore, that has made my views on adoption and raising children very clear; it should be a man and a woman who raise a child.  People can criticise me for that, and they can challenge me for that and say that it is backward.  The truth is that still today, in this modern era, it is only a man and a woman who can produce a child.  Therefore, it is in the best order for a man and a woman to raise a child.

Now the sentence:

"When it comes to sexuality, many people who are heterosexual desire lots of other folks, and those of us who are married should not be doing that, so people can resist urges."

 throws up a number of interesting questions as to what does the minister mean.

Is it saying that homosexuals should resist their urges? Is he saying that all married heterosexuals are faithful? Is he saying that all homosexuals are promiscuous? What is also interesting that when being asked about the medical or psychiatric state of homosexual, Poots immediately transposes that into adoption. That is almost as if he is subliminally linking the two.


There is a lot of stuff that is left unsaid. There is also a lot in there that is not actually an accurate reflection of the heterosexual community which clearly Mr Poots has more personal experience of. This therefore casts doubt on his ability to understand fully another section which he claims to not have interaction with and is solely relying what he reads or hears about that community. 

The other thing is his 100% assertion that all the women in the Lagan Valley hospital were not impregnated by a woman. If they were giving birth as a result of IVF it is possible that a woman may have introduced the sperm to the egg and  implanted the fertilised egg into the womb. This is a scientific possibility these days. I have no doubt that all the people giving birth in that unit were women. However, I would suggest that not every woman in that maternity unit every day will be rising that child with the child's sperm provider. 

Indeed I reckon that if Edwin Poots looks through his own family history he will discover that not everyone in it was consistently raised by a man and a woman. There will have been times that the mother died in childbirth and the father raised the children, or maybe the father died before the child was born and maybe the child was raised by its widowed mother and her widowed mother. This is what is perfectly natural and has happened throughout history.

What is in the best order for a child however, is that is it raised in a loving family from as early a stage as possible. The longer a child remains in the care system the more it will suffer academically and developmentally. By delaying dealing with the promised children and adoption bill because of his fight over allowing unmarried and same sex couples to adopt he is hurting those children. Northern Ireland is proportionately slower at placing children the UK average is 69% within 12 months but only 55% in Northern Ireland.

That figures needs to come down, the 4% of adoptions that take place with same-sex couples in the rest of the UK may not be matched here in Northern Ireland, but when you add in unmarried couples adopting together that figure probably would be surpassed and make inroads into the suitable homes for placements.

I will however return to the fact that Mr Poots immediately turned this question and the supplementary into a answer about adoption. As I said above he almost makes a subliminal link between the two. It is almost as if the reason he will not allow same-sex couples to adopt IS because he thinks homosexuality is an illness treatable by medical or psychiatric means and therefore until treated those individuals should not be allowed to adopt.

To therefore start with a first instance of "I do not think that it is an illness" before going on to blood and adoption something that was not asked in this instance is a case of the Minister answering what he thought he was being asked not what he actually was. By carrying on he has actually accentuated his own prejudices, his own lack of understanding of what is going on in heterosexual relationships and in birthing methods. All of which come under his remit.
 

Looking at Poots' preferred Blood Banning nations - The Truth

"The same legislation that applies today in Northern Ireland applies in the USA, Canada, Singapore, Hong Kong, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark.  I will pose a question.

"The vast majority of countries apply that legislation.  So are all those people prejudiced or is the question that is being posed by others that I am prejudiced just a stupid one?"

Now that was a question posed by Edwin Poots, Northern Ireland's Health Minister, yesterday. However, if is possibly the wrong question. All of these nations brought in such legislation during the 1980s when it was believed that HIV was a disease that only affected gay men and also at a time when testing for the virus was not as good as it is now. 

So while politicians in these countries maintain this ban what have the medical advisers in some of the countries listed by Poots have actually said:

USA: The American Medical Association earlier this year has advised the Food and Drug Administration who oversee blood donations there that:

"The lifetime ban on blood donation for men who have sex with men is discriminatory and not based on sound science. This new policy urges a federal policy change to ensure blood donation bans or deferrals are applied to donors according to their individual level of risk and are not based on sexual orientation alone."  

Canada:  On May 22, 2013, Health Canada approved proposals from Canadian Blood Services (CBS) and Héma-Québec (HQ) to change the blood donor deferral period for men who have sex with men (MSM) from a lifetime deferral to five years. This regulatory decision came as a result of proposed licence amendments submitted in December 2012 from both blood operators.

Germany: The German Medical Association (BÄK) earlier this year has also said that it will do everything “within its means” to remove the blanket ban on men who have sex with men, those with lots of sexual partners and prostitutes, from donating blood.

France: A Government report earlier this year stated that prohibiting gay donors is now unnecessary because all donated blood is effectively screened for HIV. One of their advisers said:

"There is still this stereotypical image of all gay men having AIDS, which comes from the 1980s. People simply thought AIDS was a gay man’s disease and we are stuck with that view today.

"Most gay couples are simply like any other heterosexual couples in terms of their sexual practices.

"Allowing homosexual men to give blood will take away the risk that people lie on the questionnaires. People who give blood are normally responsible people. They do it for the benefit of someone else and will not do it if they think they pose a risk."

Netherlands: In the government's LGBT  equality plan it says: "The cabinet will consult the Sanquin blood bank and explore the possibilities for amending the rules regarding blood donation so that for men, sexual contact with other men will no longer lead to life-long exclusion from donating blood. In this regard, needless to say the safety of the recipients of blood products has the highest priority."

Sweden: Actually are rather erroneously on this list. MSM have been allowed to give blood after a 12 month deferral period there following a change in the rules as far back as 2010.

Luxembourg: In June 2013 the Minster of Health said "sexual orientation cannot be a reason to ban blood donation.Sexual orientation is not a risk in itself." However, he is awaiting the results from the UK and France (see above) before making his own decision on this. Meanwhile the study in their country found that homosexuals with a single partner were no more likely to contract HIV than heterosexuals, while homosexuals with frequently changing partners were indeed found to be at a higher risk to contract the disease.

Singapore: It is still a criminal offense under the old British imposed penal code to consensually have sex with another man in Singapore. It therefore seems a little remiss of Edwin Poots to compare this nation with Northern Ireland as for a man to admit to having sex with another man while donating blood there (instead of counseling could face a 2 year jail term)


Mr Poots also fail to mention Australia (12 month deferral), New Zealand (5 year deferal), Spain, Portugal, Italy.

In opening his remarks yesterday Mr Poots said:

"There is no ban on blood donation by gay men per se.  The lifetime ban is based on sexual behaviour, not sexual orientation."

Actually this is contrary to the SaBTO report and many of those reports carried out in other nations that are cited above. A monogamous homosexual couple in a long-term relationship are no more susceptible to acquiring a blood borne infection than a heterosexual couple. Nor is a man who had sex with other men over one year ago, any more at risk than another individual bases solely on that one criteria. Also not all MSM are gay men. From the criteria still used by the Northern Ireland Blood Tranfusion service it involves any man who has had any sexual contact either anally or orally, with or without a condom at any point in their life. For some men this may have been a one off in their youth that excludes them, if could also exclude their wife of x years for a 12 month period beyond the time they stop being sexually active.

When actual behaviour is taken into consideration, number of sexual partners, casualness and anonymity of those partners, risks of the sex involved with that individual, then Mr Poots can really say that the ban is based on sexual behaviour not orientation. I'll even allow a deferral period on MSM.

But he is also insulting nations such as the USA, Canada, France, Germany, Netherlands and indeed the Nordic nations especially Sweden when he says that they maintain the same prejudice as that which he claims he is merely echoing. They have commissioned reports which find broadly similar findings to that of SaBTO. The recommendations may vary from 6 months, through 12 to one year, for the deferral period but that recommendation has been made by those medical professionals. The same has recommendation has been made by SaBTO.

Three of the four health ministers acting swiftly in their deliberations on the findings of SaBTO. Only one is lagging and has attempted all manner of legal shenanigans to first fight the move to lift the lifetime ban. Secondly the prevent the information he based his judgements on being released. Most of the countries that Mr Poots listed are looking to see how and when they can lift the lifetime ban on MSM giving blood, unlike him who has spent the last two years working out how he can avoid doing so.

Northern Ireland Health Minister 'irrational'

This afternoon the High Court in Belfast has ruled that the maintenance of the lifetime ban on men who have had sex with other men (MSM) in Northern Ireland by the Health Minister Edwin Pots is "irrational".

After the ban was lifted and replaced with a 12 month deferral period in England, Scotland and Wales pressure has been placed on Mr Poots to follow suit in Northern Ireland. Twice he appeared to have reached a conclusion that he would not do so. On both occasions when I raised a Freedom of Information request with his department to find out what additional information he had received and meeting he had had with his opposite numbers about this I was told this was still a live case the final decision not yet being reached.  Therefore not all the information was not forthcoming.

The judicial review was brought by one individual who claimed that the minister had displayed apparent bias that went beyond religious beliefs and into the realms of prejudice. Ironically one of the defenses used by Northern Ireland's Attorney General, John Larkin QC, was that the individual has in the past been paid for sex (which would have been a separate disqualification on him donating) which just heightened evidence that this was a prejudicial decision that failed to look at the full picture of case law.

The judge, Mr Justice Treacy, in making his ruling said:

"The minister has decided that MSM (males who have sex with other males) behaviour creates such a high risk of infection to the donor that such donors must be permanently deferred with the result that such blood cannot enter the Northern Ireland blood stock.

"Importing blood from other places which do accept MSM donors, even in limited quantities, leaves the door open for MSM blood to do just that.

"There is clearly a defect in reason here."

 Adding that the decision was irrational and that:

"If there is a genuine concern about the safety of MSM-donated blood, such that the blood stock must be protected absolutely from such blood, then the security of that blood must actually be maintained absolutely." 

He went further to address the accusation that the Minister had breached the ministerial code as the lifetime ban was both controversial and cross-cutting, taking in equality issues, saying:

"As such the minister had no authority to act without bringing them to the attention of the Executive Committee which he failed to do.

"In doing so the minister breached the ministerial code and... had no legal authority to take a decision in breach of the ministerial code."

This is another decision in the High Court after the one that the ban on same-sex couples that has taken a step towards equality for the LGBT community in Northern Ireland. Sadly we know that Mr Poots was not happy with that previous decision and has decided to appeal it to the Supreme Court. I do not hold up hopes that he will not attempt to do the same again, even though he is criticised already for breaking the ministerial code.

However, the ruling that once again the personal prejudices rather than actual scientific evidence have clouded the decision making process of the Minister on a matter where equality comes into play is a welcome. We can only hope that in future cases will be based on their scientific merit rather than prejudice without one of the minorities supposedly protected in the Belfast Act having to take Departments to the High Court to ensure carry out "their duty".

Unfortunately I expect the LGBT community will have to go to court once again in Northern Ireland before they can get married in the morning.

Dear Edwin, What about the rights of the child?

I'm back on the subject of the Northern Ireland Health Minister, Edwin Poots, so soon after my previous comments. But then if he will say:

"It is not a human right to adopt a child for either a mixed-sex couple or a same-sex couple."

While this is not enshrined in any version of human rights anywhere the United Nations have a Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Article 3 (Best interests of the Child) states:

With regard to decisions that affect a child, his/her best interests should be taken into consideration.  This provision extends to legal and administrative decisions.  When parents, elected officials, and other adults make decisions, they should think about what impact their choices and actions will have on children.

Article 20 (Protection for Children without Families):

Governments should provide appropriate, alternative care for children who cannot be looked after by their own families.  Examples include guardianship, kinship care, foster placement, and adoption.  It is within the best interest of children to be looked after by people who respect their ethnic, religious, cultural, and linguistic background.

Article 21 (Adoption):

Children have the right to a family.  However, certain circumstances prevent a child from living with their families, such as children who have been orphaned or whose families are unable to care for them.  In these instances, children may be eligible for adoption.  Children should only be adopted if it is within their best interest.

So while Mr Poots may be right that nobody has the right to adopt a child, the child does have the right and the onus is on the Government to ensure that as far as possible the child has the right to a family, and that is achievable via adoption. No where in the UN Convention on the Right of the Child does it stipulate that the family has to consist of one father and one mother however.

So Mr Poots while you are arguing against people having the right to adopt, what about the rights of the children who languish unadopted in Northern Ireland to the right to a family.

Northern Ireland gay couple find a way to adopt

Edwin Poots, the Northern Irish Health Minister, must think of King Canute as something of a personal hero. There he is going through every layer of court that the land and Europe has to offer to try and stem the tide of change on whatever issue of LGBT equality he is trying to stop.

Well there is a little chink in his armour, a small wave has beaten through his defenses and there is a gay couple in Northern Ireland who have adopted two little boys. Their social worker helped them out, saying that while they wanted to adopt from within Northern Ireland that path was one that was closed to them, but there was other options. What they did was to go to England and adopt two boys from there which they did at the start of the summer and who have started primary school last month.

However, this does not deal with the hardship of the many children in Northern Ireland who are still looking for a family to adopt them. Nor does this route help those children of one partner in a same-sex relationship be adopted by the other spouse.

The irony as ever in Northern Ireland is that those who speak out loudest against same-sex couples adopting are also those who speak loudly against abortion. Therefore they are wanting to create a case of more unwanted children while at the same time not allowing some people who want those children the ability to adopt them. While both abortion and same-sex adoption are not allowed in Northern Ireland there are two ways hardship can hit children here in Northern Ireland. They can be unwanted when they are born, and find that those who want themThose who claim to speak up for the rights of the child should really look at what is best for the child who they so desperately want to keep alive.

The cost of the DUP's institutionalised homophobia

Most of the UK is aware of the austerity measures that are being imposed on them due to the financial issues we have faced since 2008. Cuts have been made to excessive and unnecessary spending in a whole manner of issues. Tough decisions have been made about what front line services are to be kept and front line services like education and health are afforded protection.

However, in Northern Ireland the Minister for Health has been using his limited, if protected budget, on the institutionalised homophobia. I am not mincing my words on this as I have called the way that the DUP have gone about preventing the LGBT population of Northern Ireland having the same rights as their peers in the rest of the UK is just that.

Earlier this week we heard that after the High Court in Belfast has found that excluding some would-be parents solely on their relationship status narrowed the pool of potential adopters and could not be in the best interests of children. Edwin Poots however was not happy after all the legal fees he had spent on fighting this, which came out of the Health Department's budget, and will be spending even more on Lawyers as he takes the matter of same sex couples adopting in Northern Ireland to the Supreme Court of the UK.

There is a certain irony here as the Health Minister had called for an all Island approach to adoption, and is taking it to the Supreme Court of the jurisdiction where there already is just what the High Court in Belfast have said. In all likelihood the Supreme Court will uphold the right of UK citizens to have the same rights as all the others, so will that mean more money being thrown after the £40,000 he has spent on this already.

Then yesterday the Belfast Telegraph reported that combined with the legal advise to prevent the lifting of the lifetime ban on men who have had sex with other men his total legal costs so far are £100,000.

The below are the answers received last week, costs are exclusive of VAT.

• Costs of appeal to adoption decision
• Costs to date of blocking lifting lifetime blood ban on men who have had sex with men

Minister sticks head in the sand #Flags @DUPOnline

Unbeleivable!

This morning instead of calling for a time out on the issue of flag the DUP's Health Minister has decided to throw more fuel on the flames by calling on a review of the days the Union Flag flies at Stormont.

He says we "need to identify a sustainable position" on the issue. At the moment we do not have a sustainable position across the whole country because of a decision made in just one Council area. How on earth can he think that bringing this issue before the Assembly in the next few weeks is going to diffuse the situation?

This is one case that the status quo is right.

Bringing that debate to the chamber of the Assembly could end up with a petition of concern being raised. It is a tool that the DUP themselves have used (including on marriage equality). But if it were to be used on this issue to ensure the status quo all hell would break out and we would most likely end up in some sort of civil war. How do I know this? Well I've just observed things in the last week, maybe Poots should do the same.

This is one vote that the DUP cannt stand a chance of winning in the Assembly because of that petition of concern option open to the other side. Therefore it deliberately confrontational, it is deliberately provocative, deliberately looking for trouble.

I repeat once again.

It is time for the DUP to show actual leadership for ALL the PEOPLE of NORTHERN IRELAND.

They must call an end to all these protests at the moment. That is not to prohibit free speech but to prevent mobs forming around these that can result in criminal attacks and damage.

They must shelve the idea of a heated debate on the flag over Stormont. In the current environment, with the current state of tensions this will not end well.

What the Department has revealed about the Blood Ban #FOI

I have this afternoon received a response to my Freedom of Information Request about the retention of the lifetime ban on Men who have sex with Men (MSM) donating blood. Here is the reply:

Q 1. For minutes of any meetings that the Minister has had pertaining to the SaBTO report "Donation selection criteria review - men who have had sex with men" 8-Sep-11

A:  No minutes held.

    

Q 2. For details of any information that the Minister has received that conflicts with or supports the quantitative and qualitative substance of the above report. Especially that of the two pieces of the evidence that the Minister announced on 17-Jun-12 that he had received in recent weeks.

A:  Two pieces of information may be released.  Please see relevant attachment to this letter and appropriate links later in this reply (overleaf).

    

Q 3. Minutes of any meetings the Minister has had with professionals in the health and LGBT fields, since receiving this new information, regarding their contents.

A: No meetings have taken place.

    

Q 4. Minutes of any meetings or information that the Minister has had regarding people who have had sex with prostitutes or someone from Africa that has led to his conclusion to lift their 12 month deferral period for blood donations to a lifetime ban.

A: No meetings have taken place and no information held.  

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 You wrote to this Department on 17th June 2012 seeking information under the Freedom of Information Act.  Your requests for information are copied below with specific italicised responses.      Q 1. For minutes of any meetings that the Minister has had pertaining to the SaBTO report "Donation selection criteria review - men who have had sex with men" 8-Sep-11 A:  No minutes held.      Q 2. For details of any information that the Minister has received that conflicts with or supports the quantitative and qualitative substance of the above report. Especially that of the two pieces of the evidence that the Minister announced on 17-Jun-12 that he had received in recent weeks. A:  Two pieces of information may be released.  Please see relevant attachment to this letter and appropriate links later in this reply.      Q 3. Minutes of any meetings the Minister has had with professionals in the health and LGBT fields, since receiving this new information, regarding their contents. A: No meetings have taken place.      Q 4. Minutes of any meetings or information that the Minister has had regarding people who have had sex with prostitutes or someone from Africa that has led to his conclusion to lift their 12 month deferral period for blood donations to a lifetime ban. A: No meetings have taken place and no information held.  Q 5. The number of meetings or conversations that the Minister has had regarding their positions and actions on MSM blood donations both before these two new pieces of evidence arose and since with his counterparts in: a) Westminster – none b) Edinburgh - none c) Cardiff – none d) Dublin – no formal meeting however Minister had a conversation with James Reilly, TD at a North/South Ministerial meeting.  Information requested in Q.2 is referred to below and a copy of a letter from Mr Reilly TD, is attached to this letter.      Q 6. Minutes of any meetings or information that the Minister has had regarding as yet undiscovered or undisclosed blood borne diseases that the Minister alluded to on 22-Sep-11. A:  No information held.

I wish to advise you that no Ministerial decision has been made as yet on the lifetime ban on blood donations by men who have had sex with men, and the position remains the same as when you were advised in a previous letter dated 15 November 2011 (FOI 140/2011 refers). Therefore Section 35 1(a) (Formulation of Government Policy) still applies.

It may be helpful if I advise that Section 35 is a qualified exemption, and we are required to assess as objectively as possible whether the balance of public interest favours disclosing or withholding information under this provision.  The Department recognises the general public interest in making this information available for the sake of greater transparency and openness.  However, final decisions have not yet been taken and the Department believes that in this instance, the public interest lies in protecting the policy-making process, and preserving the ability of officials to engage in free and candid discussion of policy options without apprehension that potential courses of action may be held up to scrutiny before they have been fully developed or evaluated.  A copy of the applied Public Interest Test is appended to this letter.

We can however release some information pertaining to your request and to which the Minister referred in a recent interview for the Sunday Politics show, broadcasted on the 17^th June 2012.  These are:

1.      Copy of a letter dated 31 May 2012 from Dr James Reilly T.D. Minister for Health (ROI)

2.      Link to the technical memorandum outlining the results of the study by the Council of Europe

Here is the text of the meat of that letter from the Irish Minister for Health:

The Irish Blood Transfusion Service (IBTS) remit is to provide a safe, reliable and  robust blood service to the Irish health system. Blood, and the products derived from it, are an integral part of healthcare delivery. A major objective of the organisation is to ensure that is always has the necessary programmes and procedures in place to protect both the donors of bl;ood and the recipients of blood and blood products.

 The IBTS has the responsibility to ensure that there is a sufficient supply of safe blood to meet the needs of patients.  In order to supply blood for transfusion all decisions on donation criteria are based on a review of the evidence bearing in mind the desire of individuals, the safety of the recipient, and the tolerance of society in general of any transfusion infection occurring. The exclusion of men who have/or had sex with other men (MSM) from donation is based not only on risk factors from HIV but on other blood borne agents known to be associated with MSM behaviour.

For Ireland, the view of IBTS, is that taking all of these aspects into account, a permanent deferral for men with a history of MSM behaviour should remain in place. This and donor deferral policy in general will be kept under constant review.

So I am somewhat bemused that once again the Minister appears to have announced that he has come to a decision, yet the Department are saying that he has yet to come to one. However, I am grateful that the Department have realised that the public interest in how he has come about his own (if not the department's decision) deems a necessity to have some form of response.

It appears that the Minister has had no meeting with Health Care professionals about the decision comments he has made. He also appears not to have talked to or consulted with the other UK health ministers but has had a brief conversation which led to the above letter with the Republic of Ireland minister. This appears to match the NI Health Minister's earlier utterances about other blood borne infection. But the SaBTO report took those into consideration in its findings.

First up look at the proportion of new diagnosis by groups

Taken from the SaBTO report April 2011

Then consider the incubation and detection periods:

• HBV - 4-6 weeks
• HCV - 50-60 days
• HIV - 1 to 4 weeks (9 day window period 99.9% accurate)

Currently all the tests above ask you to come back after 6 months if you feel you have been exposed to infection to check whether there is infection or not. Of course the new occurence of new HIV infection are out of proportion with the size of that population but look at the rest of the breakdown; fairly in proportion. Then look at some of the detail in that report.

MSM who have Hep C are usually co-diagnosed with HIV which has a shorter window period, indeed the figure is as high as 96%. Hep B new detection is prevalent among migrants from high endemicity indeed this figure also occurs in 96% of cases, so there is some credence to the Minister's earlier comments about people coming from African countries where Hep B epidemic levels exist. So the chances of anyone having any of those infections after a 12 month deferral period is small to impossible and indeed the chance of MSM slipping through the hoop is even less due to concurrency of the majority of Hep C infection with HIV detection.

Also as I have mentioned before MSM, or indeed anyone who visits a GUM clinic, who have regular blood tests are offered a course of Hep B & C inoculation so those who look after themselves are even less likely to have the other infections. Yet this behaviour is not taken into consideration with the ban in place. Nor the fact that those sexually active who have their blood regularly checked are also included in the blanket ban.

The evidence from the SaBTO report has been enough to convince England, Wales and Scotland that a 12 month deferral period is the best option as non-compliance is more likely to happen if MSM have a lifetime ban. But Northern Ireland's health minister appears not to have discussed this issue with any of his counterparts. He is however, happy to take his advice from the IBTS whose quantitative .

FOI Request on MSM Blood Ban - Part Two

Strangely it is almost 9 months since I first sent a Freedom of Information request on this issue. I received two responses the first telling me that the Department of Health, Social Services and Pensions would not be able to respond to me within the required deadline. The second that as the Minister had yet to made a decision on the issue that they could not disclose any information to me at that point.

Well it appears that for the second time, the first is here, Edwin Poots has made a decision.

Therefore it was time to raise a new request both because my deadline for comeback to the previous response had passed and because there was new Information that needed to be requested.

Here is my new request:

 Retention of MSM Lifetime Blood Ban

Dear Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety
(Northern Ireland),

Further to my previous request, your ref FOI 2011/140

I understand that the Minster has now come to a decision which your
previous response, of 15 November, told me you could not disclose
information until he had come to one.

Therefore I'm writing to you under the Freedom of Information Act
2000 requesting:

1. For minutes of any meetings that the Minister has had pertaining
to the SaBTO report "Donation selection criteria review - men who
have had sex with men" 8-Sep-11

2. For details of any information that the Minister has received
that conflicts with or supports the quantitative and qualitative
substance of the above report. Especially that of the two pieces of
the evidence that the Minister announced on 17-Jun-12 that he had
received in recent weeks.

3. Minutes of any meetings the Minister has had with professionals
in the health and LGBT fields, since receiving this new
information, regarding their contents.

4. Minutes of any meetings or information that the Minister has had
regarding people who have had sex with prostitutes or someone from
Africa that has led to his conclusion to lift their 12 month
deferral period for blood donations to a lifetime ban.

5. The number of meetings or conversations that the Minister has
had regarding their positions and actions on MSM blood donations
with his counterparts in:
a) Westminster
b) Edinburgh
c) Cardiff
d) Dublin
both before these two new pieces of evidence arose and since.

6. Minutes of any meetings or information that the Minister has had
regarding as yet undiscovered or undisclosed blood borne diseases
that the Minister alluded to on 22-Sep-11.

Yours faithfully,

Stephen Glenn

I look forward to finding out how information received in the last couple of weeks can be so startling that it makes up the Minister's mind that has been contemplating SaBTO's very thorough report for over 9 months so rapidly. Not just for my sake but for all the men who have had sex with other men.

Poots taking his lead from Dublin not London on blood donations

Today is Father's day.

About 24 years ago just after I had turned 18 my father took me somewhere that in our family was somewhat of a right of passage, to the Good Templar Hall on Hamilton Road for a cup of tea and a biscuit. Of course before that I had to give a little something in return a unit of my O- blood. Like my father and grandfather I then had a little book showing that I was a blood donor. The last little piece of paper that was placed in that book shows that I gave blood in the week after the Omagh bomb, though I shouldn't have given it as I'd forgot to check the small print.

There was a question that I said no to, probably because my dad was with me and he did not yet know that the answer was yes. The question:

Have you ever if you are man had sex anally or orally, either with or without a condom?

Today is one of those days that I remember that father who gave enough blood through the Northern Ireland Blood Transfusion Service to earn his gold badge 100 units. Something he was in the Belfast Telegraph for as he did so at Hunterhouse College along with some of his pupils giving their first donation.

But it is also the day that Edwin Poots finally announced that he was going to maintain the lifetime ban on men who have had sex with men giving blood, rather than as the rest of the UK allowing a 12 month deferral period.

But he then went further to say that anybody who engages in risky behaviour should be treated the same. His listed two examples people who have sex with prostitutes who who have sex in sub-Saharan Africa.

Now it may surprise Mr Poots that there are already restrictions in the later two categories, on the Blood Transfusion Service website it says:

You should not give blood for 12 months after sex with:

A man who has had sex with another man (if you're a female).

A prostitute.

Anyone who has ever injected themselves with drugs.

Anyone with haemophilia or a related blood clotting disorder who has received clotting factor concentrates.

Anyone of any race who has been sexually active in parts of the world where AIDS/HIV is very common. This includes countries in Africa.

So there you have it these other 'risky' sexual practices are subject to as referral period of 12 months both here and in the rest of the UK already. The lifetime MSM blood ban ranks up there with people who have worked as a prostitute, injected themselves with drugs, or have ever had syphilis, HTLV (Human T - lymphotropic virus), HIV or hepatitis C.

So is Mr Poots saying that all gay men are as risky as those three?

For a start many gay men regularly get blood tests from the diseases mentioned in the final exclusion. Even in the medical examination performed before a donation a gay man could be asked when he was last tested. Seeing as one of the questions at STI testing is how many sexual partners you have had since the last test this is on the patient records of that individual. A failure for a gay man to have had a blood screen in the last 12 months could be a reason to deny them to donate blood, even though all blood donated is tested.


Is he seriously comparing the many gay men in monogamous relationships with prostitutes? Or intravenous drug users?


It does look as Sue Ramsey, the Sinn Féin chair of the health committee, suggests that he is pandering to his own prejudices and not making the decision based on facts.


Mr Poots did say that he had received two bits of correspondence in the last week. One came from his Irish counterpart informing him that Ireland did not have any plans to lift their lifetime ban. The other advising the the majority of the EU maintained a life time ban. Although Hungary, Italy, Norway, Poland, Spain and Sweden are like the rest of the UK operating a maximum of the 12 month referral period and not a lifetime ban, as do Australia and New Zealand (5 years).


Indeed Poland has a rather sensible policy based on sexual practice rather than orientation. There people of any sexual orientation involved in any kind of sexual activity are welcome to donate blood, if they are confident that their sexual behaviour is safe and does not expose them to sexually transmitted diseases by i.e. unprotected sex with non-trusted partners, whether homo-, bi- or heterosexual.

There is an cruel irony that the Democratic Unionist health minister is siding with Ireland on this issue while the Sinn Féin chair of his assembly committee wants the UK policy expanded to Northern Ireland. Just who is the unionist?

Update I've done a little further reading since yesterday. In the USA there are calls in congress to look at alternatives to their MSM gay blood ban (Poots cited the example of the USA as one he was following in keeping the ban).  France one of the EU's largest countries by population is about to lift its blanket ban on MSM blood donation, looking not at "nature of sexual relations or sexual inclination" but on the "multiplicity of partners" as the way to deal with risky behaviour.

In which the Alliance health spokesperson doesn't get it

I've been reading the reactions of the various health spokespeople on the position taken by the DUP's Health Minister Edwin Poots not to join his colleague in Wales and Scotland in following SaBTO's recommendations to introduce a 12 month deferral period on men who have sex with men (MSM) from giving blood.

However, I am shocked of the reacation of the Health Spokesperson of the Lib Dems so called sister party here in Northern Ireland. Kieran McCarthy has said:

"I am extremely annoyed that Edwin Poots is not going to lift a ban on gay and bisexual men donating blood. It is disgraceful that he is refusing to lift this ban. What sort of message does this send out?
"We must have a society based on fairness and this refusal to lift this ban is deeply troubling. This refusal sets a very worrying precedent.
"The Health Minister should be encouraging more people to give blood instead of maintaining this despicable ban."

For a start some of those currently banned would identify as straight, bi or gay. Some of those who would be allowed ot give blood after 12 months deferral would identify as gay, straight or bi. SaBTO's definition is MSM. The Blood Transfusion Services definition of MSM is men who have had sex with another man, either anally or orally, with or without a condom.

Let me explain to Kieran just who that covers. Of course there are gay men that is obvoious, it includes those who have been and are in monogamous relationships, which is part of the reason the Lib Dems voted this week that even the 12 month deferral period was not based on science.

There will be bisexual men. But the SaBTO recommendations will only allow those who over the last twelve months been with exclusively female partner(s) to give blood, those with a mixture of exclusively male partner(s) over that time would not be allowed to donate.

Then there are straight men who are currently banned from giving blood. They have have had an experimental MSM incident or period while they were younger and didn't like it. Therefore they know they are exclusively straight and would identify as such.

There are indeed even some gay men, who have not had sex for 12 months who will be allowed to give blood after 12 months either voluntary or involuntary sexual abstinence.

There are also the straight female partners of bisexual men who will be lifted out of their lifetime ban (although it is really only their 12 month deferral from sleeping for an MSM) should they stay together in an monogamous relationship.

What the Alliance Health Spokeperson has got wrong with the basic language of which MSM groups are affected throws doubt on on much he really gets the depths of the issue. The refusal doesn't so much set the precedent but follows on the precedent of various DUP elected representatives in relation to LGBT issues. Personally I'm shocked that a Unionist politician such as Poots should want to take an independent look at science from the rest of the Union, surely that is sepratist talk!

See also Stigma not Science: Keeping the Blood Ban in Northern Ireland

Live Blogging: Those D'Hondt positions - now filled #NIAssembly

Today the Assembly is deciding the ministers for the next Northern Ireland Executive.

So just a reminder of the agreed order on Friday and I'll fill in who as we go along

DUP Department of Finance and Personel An Roinn Fiontar, Trádála agus Infheistíochta Sammy Wilson 

No surprise here having held the position in the last Assembly. However, Peter  Robinson has said that the position is only for two years for the MP and MLA and that he is to be replaced by Strangford's Simon Hamilton in two years time.

Sinn Féin Department of Education An Roinn Oideachais John O'Dowd

The Upper Bann MLA is taking over from the long line of Sinn Féin Ministers for Education. He replaces Catríona Ruane in the department that Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness initially held. The rumours that McGuinness has long wanted to replace Ruane with someone less controversial. The head of the Sinn Féin council group on Craigavon council we will see how hard the second term MLA will be pressing for the party policy of  Irish language education. DUP

DUP Department of Enterprise Trade and Investment An Roinn Fiontar, Trádála agus Infheistíochta Arlene Foster

A return to my old department for Arlene, who was moved there in 2008 from the Environment brief. The DUP had said they had campaigned strongly on the economy and once again they have secured the two offices that deal with the econimic issues that face Northern Ireland. If between Arlene and Sammy/Simon they don't give Northern Ireland as good if not better return out of the hard times the DUP maay well suffer at the polls in four years time as a result.

UUP Department of Regional Development An Roinn Forbartha Réigiúnaí Danny Kennedy

The only seat on the executive is for the Newry and Armagh representative. Danny for Minister for Employment and Learning in the last Assembly a position he took up when Lord Empey stood down as leader in 2010 after the disasterous Westminster elections. Before that he had been chair of the OFMdFM scrutiny committtee. He inherits the issues with Northern Ireland Water that caused mayhem last December, which is propably going to be the first issue he looks into when he gets to his new desk.

Sinn Féin Department of Agriculture and Rural Development An Roinn Talmhaíochta agus Forbartha Tuaithe Michelle O'Neill

The Mid Ulster MLA certain represents one of the most rural and agriculture based parts of Northern Ireland. She replaces her neighbouring Sinn Féin representative Michelle Gildernew in the Department. She is a keen supporter of rural regeneration and has recently been involved in the establishment of a Clonoe Community Regeneration group, expect to carry on the work that was well respected by Gildernew.Currently also the Mayor of Dungannon and South Tyrone.

SDLP Department of the Environment An Roinn Comhshaoil Alex Attwood

The West Belfast MLA moves from Social Development, where he succeeded Margaret Ritchie when she became leader. The sole SDLP representative takes on the Environment portfolio. The first nationalist to do so, it having been held by the UUP and DUP before him. Whether he will join his South Belfast colleague Conall McDevitt in cycling from the constituency office, to his Departmental Office in Adelaide Street and on to Stormont is yet to be seen.  

DUP Department of Social Development An Roinn Forbartha Sóisialta Nelson McCausland

Moves from Culture, Arts and Leisure where he called on the Ulster Museum to display creationist and anti-evolution displays alongside the other exhibits, and complained used of the f-word in the production of Black Watch, which sparked comments from former and serving officers that the use of the word was far less than in reality. As minister responsiblw for housing as well as urban regeneration, it has yet to be seen if he will help his colleagues in finance by moving towards integrated housing projects rather than carrying on the policy of secregation.  

Sinn Féin Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure An Roinn Cultúir, Ealaíon agus Fóillíochta Carál Ní Chuilín

A minister who is likely to get the sharp end of Jim Allister's tongue having served time for explosives offences. Again it is the first time that a non-Unionist has held this ministry. Key issues are how the promotion of all cultures will be represented by the Sinn Féin minister, who will obviously be pushing to implement what her party see as an Irish Act. Also the issue of a national stadium for all sports Football, Rugby and Gaelic Games falls under her purview, we will see if this is moved forward.  

DUP Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety An Roinn Sláinte, Seirbhísí Sóisialta agus Sábháilteachta Poiblí Edwin Poots

Previous experience at DCAL before he resigned from that post, but returned to Minisrterial responsibilty at the Department of the Environment in 2009. Health was seen by many to have been the poisoned challace, was held by the UUP in the last executive. The fact that it was taken ninth and last of the DUP's allocation may speak volumes about it. It is the deparatment with the biggest budget and therefore under current financial restraints probably the toughest balancing act of all. The DUP promised they would take this along with the Finance Departments so that the right balance could be struck. But it is the most emotive department to the average voter and any mess up here could be punished.  

Alliance Department of Employment and Learning An Roinn Fostaíochta agus Foghlama Stephen Farry

For the first time there is a fifth party represented in the ten departments allocated by d'Hondt. The Alliance have given employment and learning to Dr Stephen Farry.Whether a PhD in International Relations will help with employment relations and further and higher education has yet to be seen. But it is a reward for the man who is behind a lot of the policy making that has led to the Alliance party making significant gains in the polls this time. He does have the issue of student finance to deal with. His party didn't rule out any increase in student fees but will do what they can to avoid the situation that has happened in England and Wales.

Further to above as the DUP end double jobbing in two years time the two MPs with DUP ministerial portfolios are to be replaced. Sammy Wilson by Simon Hamilton and Edwin Poots by Jim Wells.