Why Northern Ireland is incompatible with woman's rights #abortion

When the High Court in Belfast ruled last month that Northern Ireland's abortion legislation was "incompatible" with human rights law, I expected there to be some objections. However, with both the Attorney General and Justice Minister lodging appeals against that decision.

Now the Justice Minister unlike the Attorney General admits that some change does need to be made to Northern Ireland's abortion laws, his words show a certain bias none the less. David Ford has said:

"The judgement from the High Court does not fully clarify the law and potentially leaves open the possibility there could be abortion on demand in Northern Ireland on an even wider basis than is the case in the rest of the United Kingdom."

Firstly the use of the phrase abortion of demand ignores the fact that many Northern Irish women already access abortion within the confines of the law in the rest of the UK. The way to stop there being legal challenges as to the compatibility with human rights law is to act in a positive direction to relax the restrictions not challenge a ruling that says you need to act.

What they need most is support prior and post the terminations which do happen. We need that support on demand! Hoiwever, with the current archaic laws in Northern Ireland they fear being arrested for taking whatever means they have done to terminate a pregnancy. The fact that future gynecological issues may arise because of earlier terminations, but such women in Northern Ireland may fear seeking assistance for these because of their secret, taboo, history.

I do not think any makes a decision for termination lightly. It is an emotive subject with heated arguments on both sides of the debates. But the people for who it is the most emotive are not the protesters outside the Marie Stopes clinic in Belfast, not are they the feminists who stand up loudly against just such protesters. Not the people for whom this is most emotive are of course the women carrying the foetus/unborn child (depending on your viewpoint) and those who care for them secondly.

So while we continue to fail to move any distance on abortion here in Northern Ireland we are incompatible with human rights law and that is we are enslaving many women to a live of fear of authorities finding out what they may have done in their past, or might have to consider in the future.

Personally I want to see the 1967 Act extended to Northern Ireland but I certainly believe we need to go some distance further than even the limited position that the Department of Justice has said it is prepared to move.

When an Attorney General fails to understand the law

The Northern Ireland Attorney General has come forth yet again with what seems a ridiculous position for any law officer that is meant to be upholding the law of the land, not the law of Judea.

Speaking at a Presbyterian Church in Ireland conference on Thursday he said:

Christians – and I think particularly in the period after Christmas – are, or should be, sensitive to the plight of persons who cannot find accommodation. It is one thing, I suppose, to find that there is no room at the inn. But disappointing as that may be, it is another to find that there is no room at the inn for you because of some characteristic that you possess.

In November of last year the UK Supreme Court held that Mr & Mrs Bull, a Christian couple who ran a small hotel, unlawfully discriminated against Mr Preddy and Mr Hall – a homosexual couple who’d booked overnight accommodation in the hotel – on the grounds of the sexual orientation of Mr Preddy and Mr Hall. It was held by the Supreme Court that the right of Mr & Mrs Bull to practice their Christian faith did not permit them to reserve double-bedded accommodation to married couples.

Bull & Hall is an immensely important case, and it is a very strong example of the clash of rights. The claim on one hand by Mr Preddy and Mr Hall founded in domestic law not to be discriminated against on the ground of their sexual orientation and on the other hand the right of Mr & Mrs Bull under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Section 6 of The Human Rights Act to manifest their religious beliefs in practice and observance …

Now I am rather shocked that a law officer should come to such a sweeping generalisation without fully checking the facts. For example did every mixed-sex couple that turned up to stay at Mr and Mrs Bull's Bed & Breakfast have to had over a marriage certificate (to each other) before they were allowed the luxury of not being turned away from the booking that they made?

Also the defense that Mr and Mrs Bull was to claim that it wasn't an hotel, but a business run from the house in which their lived. Legally that is guest house or bed and breakfast and not an hotel. Indeed as far as HMRC are concerned:

Accommodation for staff also qualifies for allowances as part of the hotel, even if it is in a separate building. The proprietor's domestic accommodation and accommodation for the proprietor's family is not included and, if accommodation like that is in the hotel building, is treated as a non qualifying part.

So the whole defense being based that this was taking place by people they were allowing into their home, would have falling at the first legal step if they claimed to be a hotel.


But he then went on to say:

I don’t know if Mr & Mrs Bull serve meals in their establishment. But if they did so, and if they were to refuse to serve food for example to Mr Preddy and Mr [Hall] on the grounds of their sexual orientation that would be not only unlawful I think – it’s a matter of domestic law – but also incapable I think of moral justification.

On the other hand, a Christian who wishes to adhere to traditional Christian moral principles cannot without committing serious sin make available premises to facilitate a purpose which that Christian believes to be gravely sinful. To do so, a Christian believes, is to be complicit in the sin that one thereby facilitates. 

Mr and Mrs Bull ran a B&B so there was complicit in the acceptance of provision of the service to Messrs Preddy and Hall that food was to be available. Not just a bed when they turned up as arranged. The Attorney General is ignoring the fact that the Bulls ran a business and had no disclaimer in their advertising that certain groups would not be allowed to stay there. There was was no code of ethics to sign up to that you can only share a double bed in this guest house if you are an opposite sex couple, married to each other. Or indeed how thoroughly they actually checked that all the couples that they put up actually complied to their traditional Christian moral principles.

Now there are 84 Hotels, Guesthouses of B&B in Marazion, Cornwall where the Bulls had their B&B, so there may well have been other room at other inns that night that Messrs Preddy and Hall could have availed themselves of, but that is not always the case when you turn up at some resorts in the height of the season. Or if there is a conference or other event on in the area.

But surely the Bible tells us about the inn keeper who welcomes in the unmarried pregnant woman about to go full term, and the the good Samaritan who helps the person who is his mortal enemy. The only case I see of any people turning people away or not welcoming them they end up getting punished for it, indeed that is the true sin of Sodom for which the people were punished, something that most "traditional Christians" seem to overlook.

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.