LGBT* in Ukip and Pride

There is a lot of hot debate going on at the moment about the decision of Pride London to reject LGBT* in UKIP application to march as a group this month in the parade. The Board of Pride London are citing "secuirty issues" as the reason for this rejection, something Peter Tatchell calls a "cop-out" which seems somewhat ironic as the same man had called for UKIP's exclusion mere days earlier.

Tatchell himself is appearing confused in his stance to LGBT* in Ukip's participation and I suspect that London Prides talk of direct action against the parade if they allowed the Ukip group to take part have led to similar confusion within LGBTory, LGBT Labour, LGBT+ Lib Dems and LGBTIQ Greens from taking an official position are they are not aware of the facts that Pride are stating are the security issues. With rumours of BME or immigrant groups threatening the action it is uncertain where the facts lie.

Therefore this is my personal opinion and not in any other capacity.

I think LGBT* within UKIP should be allowed to march in the London Pride Parade.

As for security fears when Pride first started out there were always security fears. In Eastern Europe and Africa there still are when a Pride march takes place. So in that that essence Peter Tatchell is right, it is a cop-out.

However, unlike Tatchell and others I do not think we should tar the LGBT+ representative group within any political party or organisation with the expressed view of the majority within that organisation. After all we have faith groups that are working hard within their groups who oppose same-sex marriage, actively campaign against it and all LGBT+ equality measures. These were all reason that Tatchell noted in his reasons to ban LGBT* within UKIP from marching.

I'm not sure when the predecessors of LGBTory, TORCHE (Tory Campaign for Homosexual Equality) or CGHE (Conservative Group for Homosexual Equality) first marched in London Pride but I suspect that it was probably during the time that the party policy was in favour of Section 28 and opposed to civil unions for LGBT people and other LGBT equality measures that are now in place. There were probably also concerns of how others within LGBT+ circles would react to the Conservatives marching in their midst at that time.

I would be ashamed if the security measures were a smokescreen from the Board of London Pride to give in the bullying tactics of some within the LGBT community to petition against the inclusion of LGBT* within UKIP from participating, and that includes high profile opponents to their participation like Tatchell. I would also be ashamed if any LGBT group threatens the safety of Pride because other LGBT people and supportive friends are participating because they disagree with the certain aspects of the politics of the group then shame on them.

I would love there to be an LGBT unionist presence at a Belfast Pride soon. Currently all three of the unionist parties in Northern Ireland with MLAs DUP, UUP and TUV have fair from exemplary LGBT voting records but there are unionist party members and supporters who are LGBT are lobbying those MLAs to change just as LGBT* within UKIP are doing to those politicians and candidates in their own party who are far from LGBT supportive and even overtly anti-LGBT. The LGBT and Pride community should be supporting such groups seeking change not excluding them from our parade.

Ethnic minorities under attack from UKIP

First the DUP came after those who are LGBT.

Now UKIP come after those not born in the UK.

Next?

Nigel Farage the leader of UKIP has say he would scrap most of the race relation laws in this country. The laws that protect ethnic minority workers. These laws are in place to protect the Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) population from unscrupulous employers, and yes the minority ethnic does cover white non-British with certain provisos.

One of those provisos of course is that EU citizens have the freedom to work in any other EU member state. That applies equally to Poles wanting to work here, British people wanting to run a taverna in Greece or German wives of British MEPs wanting to work as their husband's secretary.

Nigel Farage tries to say in his defence that the nation is colour blind, and that so is his party. Yet as I point out above while the vast majority of the country may well now be colour blind there are still racists in our nation, just as there are homophobes, misogynists and people who would at the drop of a hat start to use what they feel is their superiority over a minority grouping in the workplace or provision of services.

In Northern Ireland recently we have seen the DUP launch a challenge to allow an exemption to the equality act placing Christians outside having to give equal provision of goods, facilities and services to LGB people. Now we have UKIP also wanting to take apart the equality legislation to allow racists, who sadly do exist in our nation, to prohibit non-UK nationals from employment.

A large number of non-UK born employees in this country are the spouses of UK citizens, just like Mrs Farage. Because we are an eclectic mix. It is part of what 40 years of being European has resulted in. We are no longer confined by red tape to looking for work and education to the UK, many of us take the opportunity to work or study elsewhere and many of those fall in love and marry someone of a different nationality. If that other nationality is also within the EU there is no need for that person to take up citizenship in their spouses nation as the right to reside is part of what being European allows.

I do recall the days I got the first bus from Bathgate into Edinburgh for work. There were a great number of Poles on that bus with me. They got off at Broxburn to start a 7:30 shift processing chickens. There were very few Scottish accents getting of that bus at that time to join the chicken processors. More recently Northern Ireland's DUP health minister has spoken highly of the non-UK nursing staff who attended to his wife in the unpopular overnight shifts while she was recovering from her two strokes.

We tread a dangerous slope if we think we don't need protections for any sector of our society, especially those seen as minorities. Yes the majority may be fair and transparent in their dealings but there are some who would take that opportunity to discriminate and it they that such laws were brought in to prevent harming others they view as different.

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.

UKIP and (some) Tories prepared to lose £2bn a year from UK economy

Today's report on the net contribution of EU migrants makes for chilling reading, if you think that the Eurosceptics will have their way.

Some of the facts:

• Between 2001 and 2011, European arrivals contributed £20bn and those from outside Europe £5bn
• Since 2004 the arrivals from the 10 new EU member states added £4.96bn more in taxes in the years to 2011 than they took out in public services

Yeah it is another set of evidence that some Tories and certainly UKIP are failing to recognise exists. Indeed it comes to a £2bn net contribution to the UK economy (simply through taxation) that they are prepared to throw away. This does not account for the jobs that these people actually contribute to our well being and all the goods and services they purchase with their income outside of the taxes they pay.

The fact that those newer nations, some of which David Cameron was even wary to allow the full freedom of movement that all EU citizens (including us in the UK) are allowed to enjoy, are also net contributors to our economy. They are not spongers in fact quite the opposite, they are young, fit and healthy and willing to work, if the work is not there they move elsewhere to find more. The opposite is true of most UK emigrants to the rest of the EU. They are largely older, take up more of the public services in the warmer nations they reside in and contribute little through taxation.

Are UKIP Northern Ireland confused on social equality?

Yeah I have actually opened and read UKIP Northern Ireland's local government manifesto (even though my DEA does not have a UKIP candidate).

What most interested me was their section on social equality (page 8). It starts with a bold statement that most right minded people would not argue with:

As a party, which draws support from all ethnicities and from people of all faiths and none, we believe everyone is born equal. We oppose discrimination upon the basis of disability, race, denomination and sexual orientation.

Their second point emphasises this point saying that UKIP oppose any special treatment of any group upon the basis of etnicity, denomination or sexual orientation.

I have to admit such a sweeping general statement got my attention, but as with such things the devil is in the detail. But I wanted to test the rest of their statements against these high standards.

a) UKIP will end monitoring activities within councils, which institutionalise sectarianism.

Now the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) has this to say about monitoring:

Clause 74: Monitoring

This clause requires a council, and its community planning partners, to make arrangements for monitoring progress made on meeting the community planning objectives and the associated actions.  It also places a duty on a council to publish a statement at least every two years on the progress which has been made towards meeting the community planning objectives and undertaking the actions attributed to the various community planning bodies.

These council led planning objectives are part of the new powers to the super councils from the same act it says:

The reform programme will also see the introduction of a new ethical standards regime, and council-led community planning which will enable councils to act as the focal point for improving outcomes for people.  Overall, the aim is to establish a strong, dynamic local government that creates vibrant, healthy, prosperous, safe and sustainable communities that have the needs of all people at their core.

Now under Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act we have a definition of just what those communities are:

Section 75 and Schedule 9 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 came into force on the 01 January 2000 and placed a statutory obligation on public authorities in carrying out their various functions relating to Northern Ireland, to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity –

• between persons of different religious belief, political opinion, racial group, age, marital status or sexual orientation;
• between men and women generally;
• between persons with a disability and persons without; and
• between persons with dependants and persons without.

In addition, without prejudice to this obligation, Public Authorities are also required to have regard to the desirability of promoting good relations between persons of different religious belief, political opinion, and racial group.

So those monitoring activities from Northern Ireland councils have actions that affect more than just sectarian politics. It affects all minorities and ensures that they are not impacted negatively by plans.

Therefore UKIP fail on this one falling in a two dimensional green or orange shade of Northern Irish politics.

 

c) UKIP will work to terminated preferential funding arrangements for minority ethnic groups

d) UKIP support the withdrawal of financial  support for languages other than English

In the light of Northern Ireland politics this may have certain overtones. Does this return to the 1960s pre-Civil Rights movement basis of Unionist/British supremecy? Yesterday the party's European Candidate posted on his Facebook page a picture of Enoch Powell and how he admired Mr Powell's sense of nationhood.

There is also of course the effect this will have on the Irish language classes which occur in both loyalist and nationalist areas. It was a language which Protestants helped to keep alive as Ian Malcolm's excellent book (pictured right) points out. There are many protestants, myself included, who have taken to studying the language that many of our forefathers spoke.

However, as well as the usual Northern Ireland context imagine you have conversational French, Spanish or German and face arrest in one of those nations. Like here the language of courts is above the standard of most conversational speakers. I learnt some business Spanish as part of my learning at University when it was geared to our requirements, as those are words that you don't pick up in conversational classes normally. So does this mean that providing support for people for whom English is a second or third language is to be withdrawn? What about the support provided for people accessing services that is translated to ease their access?

UKIP will not discriminate against you based on ethnicity providing you speak official and legal level English.

 (e) UKIP will continue to oppose homosexual and lesbian marriage, upon the basis it unacceptably compromises personal freedoms and represents unacceptable intrusion by the state in matters of personal conscience.

I think I need this translated into a language that I understand, and I have grade B English Language O'Level. For a start opposing something compromises the personal freedoms of those who want the thing that you oppose, surely? So clearly your personal freedoms don't count if you are LGBT, that is clearly the argument here.

Also surely lifting the state's ban on marriages between people of the same sex does away with state intrusion in that area? As it stands by the end of this year, the state will have stopped intruding into who can form a couple through marriage in every part of the UK except Northern Ireland, where state intrusion will still prevail. Also except for the Church of England and Church in Wales who will need secondary legislation denominations or faith groups can come to their own autonomous decisions on this matter, again but not in the Northern Ireland.

Therefore I have to ask is the use of "personal conscience" actually a cover for "perceived group religious conscience" not personal at all, not showing no discrimination based on denomination, as even here in Northern Ireland there are some churches that want to be allowed the option to marry same-sex couples.

Does not descriminate on the basis of sexual orientation as long as your are straight, or bisexual seeking to marry an opposite sex partner, or on basis of denomination as long as you agree with the Evangelical Alliance and Catholic Church and not prepared to enter a conversation like Steve Chalke wants.

(f) UKIP will ensure public sector appointments are made solely on the basis of merit

Now this may relate to the 50/50 recruitment policy in the PSNI which actually ended in 2011. But from last years application figures the number of Catholics and indeed women at only a third of all recruits in each measure is below the level that would have a force that reflects society as a whole.

Indeed UKIP in Northern Ireland with only 2 women out of their 20 council candidates are clearly selecting candidates on merit as long as they are male.

That being said I cannot argue with this point, although you do wonder what is behind it.

(g) UKIP will restrict state interference in our everyday lives and in matters of conscience

Now I can sense another dichotomy here. Which is borne out by the last of their common sense policies for local government page 4 which is "The Judeo Christian values which have served our country well for centuries". It does make you wonder how they are going to represent those of all faith and (more interestingly) none, also are group Judeo Christian matters of conscience going to interfere in matters over which state and local councils have control.

In mind with their common sense principle of tackling political correctness head on (again I refer you to Section 75) there are sections of Northern Ireland society that have not been properly recognised or dealt with until devolution and even then there is some way to go to get full equality for many of these groups. In the Northern Irish narritive this correcting political wrongs from our two dimensional past far more than mere political correctness.

Appears to discriminate on the basis that only Judeo Christian principles need apply forgetting civic duty to those of all faiths and none.

(h) Support and exclusively scientific approach to the issue of blood donations from high-risk groups, recognising patient safety must never be compromised.

This is worded carefully to avoid referring directly to MSM (men who've had sex with other men) blood donations. It also refers to high-risk groups, but latest scientific evidence accepted in England, Scotland and Wales in that men who have not had sex with another man in the last 12 months are not a high risk group.

I have searched for and found nothing else from UKIP NI on this matter. Indeed on the only occasion that this subject was debated in the Assembly their MLA David McNarry didn't contribute and it went to an oral vote only.

But the strong wording of patient safety must never be compromised makes you wonder if that means that the one extra case of at risk blood getting through the system by 3215 be too much of a risk for UKIP to lift it?

Unclear, the second part is the language of the DUP health minister while the first part is correct approach.

So if Homophohia can't be a word...

So the former UKIP donor Demetri Marchessini took out a full page ad in The Telegraph which included the argument:

Firstly, it has already been repeatedly explained to her [Libby Purvis], that there is no such word as "homophobic". It cannot be found in any dictionary, nor does it have any meaning. One can tell that it is a phoney word, (invented by the homosexual lobby) because the first half of the word "homo" has a Latin root, while the second half "phobia" has a Greek root. It is like having a word that is half Spanish and half Croation. Anyone who uses it is uneducated.

Homophobia was first used in 1971 by George Weinberg in Society and the Healthy Homosexual. For the record as to education Weinberg has a Masters in English before doing advanced training in Mathematical statistics. So hardly an uneducated man.

Mr Marchessini is also ignoring the fact that while "homo"actually has a Greek root, as does "phobia". However, "sexus" the root of sexuality is actually Latin. So therefore homophobia is a combination of two Greek roots and homosexuality is actually a hybrid. Homosexual was actually first used in English in 1892, in  C.G. Chaddock's translation of Krafft-Ebing's Psychopathia Sexualis from  the German useage of homosexual, homosexuale by 1880, in Gustav Jäger. 

So clearly the word automobile derived in French in 1895 from the Greek "autos" and the Latin "mobilis" is a made up word by the French car industry. So clearly the is a dysfunction in language that goes far beyong Mr Marchessini uneducated comments.

Dysfunction itself comes from the Greek "dys" and the Latin "functio"first used in 1916.

But before Mr Marchessini gets too het up about the bigamous use of language to come up with new words he should be aware that bigamy is another hybrid from a late Latin mix of "bi" being their own word for double and "gamous" the Greek word "gamos" meaning married. The Greeks themselves used the word digamos for twice married.

And before he goes unto television to show his stupidity he should be aware that by his logic that doesn't exist. Yes you guessed it the word first used in 1907 comes from the Greek "tele" far and the Latin "visio" seeing. Just as long as he doesn't have to rely on the Chinese to provide his satellites to watch it as their people in space are Taikonauts from the Chinese "taikong" for space and the Greek "nautes" for sailor.

However, he will be glad to know that he cannot be a Europhobe as that comes from the Latin "Europa" and the Greek "phobos". Nor for that matter can UKIP truly believe in creating a monoculture, yeah you guessed it "monos" Greek and "cultura" Latin.

These are just a few examples but he can go to the back of the class for now, as this argument is false for a start and based on an incorrect premise and language has always borrowed words and put them together as those that speak see fit.

Surprised at Godfrey Bloom

I'm surprised that Godfrey Bloom's attempt at un-universal suffrage on LBC Radio this morning stops at just the 5.665 million public sector workers and the 2.49 million currently out of work and seeking work.

Surely with his views the more than 50% of the population who are women should also be denied the vote as should the 480,000 who actually identified as gay or lesbian in the last census and the 245,000 who identified as bisexual. No doubt the 7.5 million people born outside the UK should also be removed from the electoral role, even if they are Boris Johnson or Cliff Richard, some of course cannot vote in Westminster elections, but providing they are EU residents could vote against UKIP and Bloom.

Now of course some of these groups would overlap. But for the sake of fun let's just assume that they don't. Godfrey Bloom if all his prejudice came to the fore would disqualify at least 39.18 million people. Take out another 100,000 for the prison population and that is 39.3 million people. Which out of 45.6 million people is quite a lot.

However, even without adding in his other prejudices he is denying 17.8% of the population the vote. Of course he is saying he is not denying everyone the vote just generationally socially inactives. However, how is he going to work out who those people are?

As for the public senctor workers who he says:

"Another thing I think perhaps we need to look quite closely at is those in the public sector because those in the public sector naturally vote for increases in pensions and benefits in the public sector."

That is over 1 in 10 voters. However, the workers at Grangemouth recently who were in a dispute over pensions and benefits were in the private sector now. So surely that definition shows how stupid he is being. It also means he is denying Her Majesties Forces the vote along with Doctors, employees of the BBC and what about Members of Parliament and Civil Servants.

Fisking UKIP Councillor Henry Reilly

Newry and Mourne's District Council's UKIP member Henry Reilly wrote and opinion piece in the Belfast Telegraph today. I have decided that the best way to deal with this is Fisking it line by line (as usually my comments are in red).

As a democratic and libertarian party definition of libertarian - a) an adherent of libertarianism b) a person who advocates civil liberty, UKIP believes the state should play only a minimal role in the lives of its people. Marriage for instance, happily existed for millennia without any interference from the state whatsoever so the 1753 Marriage Act where you had to be married in the Church of England was not interference for the Roman Catholics, dissenting churches, Jews, atheists, Hindus, Muslims was quite correctly lifted in the 1836 Marriage Act it was an end to state interference. While I personally cannot condone the 'gay' lifestyle Here we go with the lifestyle thing again. Is it my drinking coffee, going out to work every day, shopping on the street, enjoying time with friends, or falling in love that you cannot condone, or is it merely what I may get up to in the privacy of my bedroom you want to 'interfere' with which I believe is damaging to the individuals as I said before where is the damage in my lifestyle which doesn't differ than much from others involved I recognise that not all people have the same values and beliefs as me.

Civil partnerships are a recent development. UKIP recognises that they provide a way of allowing  people to formally register relationship commitments wonder if he calls opposite-sex marriage a way to register relationship commitments, this is about love is it not? and have a legal means of dealing with the problems that had been identified in the past like tax arrangements and the distribution of joint property assets legal means yes, but in a way of keeping that love commitment separate and compartmentalised away from those who object and do not condone the so called 'gay' lifestyle. The civil partnership  arrangement allows all people the same fundamental rights as married heterosexual couples not all as those LGBT people of faith who want to marry a same-sex partner are not allowed to be joined in a faith setting with hymns. prayers or God being mentioned, nor faith groups that currently want to the ability to fulfill this equality if they choose. Why? Because Northern Ireland currently is alone with in the UK in not lifting this prohibition.

A difficulty arises however when the state seeks to punish those for practising sincerely held principles or religious beliefs again there are those who religious beliefs differ on this issue of same-sex marriage and indeed homosexuality in general. I believe that it is profoundly unjust that Christian business people like B&B operators or printers should be subjected to the threat of jail for simply practicing what they believe or council staff and church ministers who believe that marriage is a sacred Christian rite between a man and a women. First up these people are providing a service. If you have advertised that you are providing a service and then refuse it merely because of the sexual orientation of the customer you are discriminating. No Blacks, no Irish ring a bell.

That’s what the Progressive Unionist Party effectively called for at the weekend, when it passed a motion to introduce homosexual marriage in both Northern Ireland without an MLA they cannot introduce anything, but they did pass a motion to support marriage equality twice debated in Stormont and are one of the first unionist parties to do so and the rest of the UK like UKIP the PUP have no elected representatives in the rest of the UK legislators. Admittedly, David Cameron promises those who object to homosexual marriage – most notably churches – in England and Wales will be protected from it. But like any of ‘Cast Iron Dave’s’ promises, they’re not worth the paper they’re written on in England, Wales or anywhere else I don't read of any churches having to marry Jews after 1836 lifted that prohibition, indeed the 1753 Act meant they had to, clearly the paper that previous marriage acts was written on was worth it.

For so long as the UK remains subservient to the European Court of Human Rights, it is inevitable the law will be challenged. It is similarly inevitable it will be deemed to be ‘unfair’ by a panel of judges in Strasbourg, which interferes in everything yet is accountable for nothing.

Consequently, there is a real danger that ministers, church officers, registrars and wedding venue owners could be jailed or heavily fined if they fail to agree with David Cameron or Billy Hutchinson actually if there is any forcing of ministers or church officers being forced he should come and see me, I don't feel that they should be any coercion but faith groups that wish do so can come to their own conclusion. As for registrars they already carry out the civil partnerships that UKIP apparently recognise and many refer to is as being like marriage and venues would surely love the extra revenue.

That’s wrong; no person or group can be allowed to force their ideas on society or compromise hard won personal freedoms there is a juxtoposition of ideas here. He is claiming that one group can not force their ideas on society while at the same time allowing another group to do just that. We are talking about two personal freedoms, allowing people of the same sex to marry doesn't affect anyone else, but denying them that equality certainly does so just whose personal freedom is worth more, a true libertarian would say nobody's personal freedom is worth more than anyone else's. Therefore, while I understand civil partnerships, I’m opposed to state-enforced homosexual marriage the state is not enforcing anything, but lifting an enforced prohibition. The motion passed at the weekend’s PUP conference is profoundly illiberal leader Billy Hutchinson said in his speech "However, it is also important to point out that the motion
adopted today does not discriminate against those who hold opposing views on this
issue." just like the Act from Westminster and the Bill before Holyrood, even if it is regretfully consistent with the PUP’s apparent desire to become the foot soldiers of the European Union and a ruling, metropolitan, socialist elite. So nothing to do about being the same as the rest of the UK then, strange that a UKIP Councillor should want part of the UK to not be the same as the rest.

This is me:

In conclusion yet again you have somebody trying to argue for a liberal or libertarian approach that the removal of the prohibition, imposed by the state, is a state imposition of same-sex marriage. They are arguing for the case of personal freedoms but are placing some people's personal freedoms on a higher pedestal that others. The same was once said about women, before that non-caucasions, or Jews and before that slaves. 

Just because personal freedoms have historically favoured one part of societies personal freedoms giving those same freedoms to a group denied them doesn't mean that group lose their own freedom, they merely have respect for others to move at the same level as themselves.

How can removing a state interference be seen as state interference? Especially for a so-called libertarian such an argument is pure nonsense. How can increasing personal freedom and indeed faith groups freedom to operate as they want be seen as restricting them?

There is somewhat a catch 22 situation here. Giving some people the personal and religious freedoms that you yourself have seems to be seen as taking away those freedoms from you. Surely that is not right.

Is this why UKIP's MEPs voted against tacking tax evasion?

Do you remember how back in May UKIP's MEPs voted against tackling tax evasion?

You wonder if the latest news about their leader is the reason why?

Do UKIP really want Government to stop "meddling" in marriage? - a test of libertarianism

There has been so much in the media over equal marriage over the last week, where do I start?

How about UKIP first?

UKIP's David Coburn has a point when he said last week:

"If so, it [marriage] is clearly in the domain of the churhc and other faiths - and it is none of the Government's business to meddle with it"

When that it is marriage equality he has a point. It should be left up to each religious group to define marriage as they see fit, and also those of no faith to do likewise. Now I come to the test that shows just how libertarian he and UKIP claim to be (comments he made at the weekend).

You see other members of the party including the MEP Roger Helmer have in the past argued that it lead to incest. Yet it is the Government's "meddling" that stipulates which close relatives are not allowed to marry. So are UKIP wanting this "meddling" to be lifted so that whatever any church, faith or non-faith group decide is acceptable is allowed? Because according to Coburn Government shouldn't meddle, so are UKIP actually wanting them the remove the "authoritarian" legislation that prohibits siblings, cousins, parents and children from getting married?

I don't think so.

Just as the Government stipulates which relatives you cannot marry it also stipulates that marriage must be between one man and one women at a time. We have Government meddling against bigamy, you can go to jail for that. Yet Government meddling also allows the vow "to death do us part" to be broken by divorce, a bit of government meddling that Nigel Farage himself partook of in 1997. So if the Government hadn't meddled in marriage to allow divorce Farage would be a bigamist and should be in jail. Do UKIP want to remove one or both of those authoritarian measures in the pursuit of libertarian utopia?

But then there is another crunch issue. The meddling already in place by government is that it can only be between man and women. So if we lift that bit of meddling and leave it up to faith groups to do what they want about marriage equality there is one problem remaining. You see UKIP are arguing for Government not the meddle, allowing civil equal marriage and those faith groups that want to, to do so surely is the logical outworking of Coburn's comments, isn't it?

Finally something else for UKIP to consider,not all marriages in this country, no matter how much UKIP wish they were, is a religious marriage. Another bit of Government meddling allows them to be carried out in a civil ceremony by a registrar. Now sadly that bit of meddling has to be regulated not by a church or faith group, but by Government. So either UKIP are insisting that all marriages are carried out by faith groups or they also want the Government to do away with all civil union ceremonies as well.

UKIP can't have their selected "libertarianism" going only one way.

The other face of UKIP child care prejudice

Can't be good for Nigel Farage as he is attacked Rotherham Social Services for removing three foster children from members of his party in one by election constituency when in another, Croydon North, his candidate says:

"If you couldn’t look after your child and you had to put them up for adoption would you honestly want your child to be adopted by a gay couple?
 
"Would you seriously want that or a heterosexual family? Which would be more healthy for the child?

"A caring loving home is a heterosexual or single family. I don’t believe (a gay couple) is healthy for a child."

So, do UKIP really care about the fact that children will be brought up in a stable environment? Or are they really letting their prejudices rise to the fore?

There is of course no evidence that a child adopted or raised by a same-sex couple is any worse off for a child. The child's health is not at risk (even though I suspect this is a misuse of the word healthy). Indeed there has been studies done which indicate that there may actually be some advantages for the children adopted by a same-sex couple over those with natural parents who are unable to provide the care most of us would expect.

Mind you here is that same candidate standing as an independent for Croydon's Mayoral election 4 years ago:




Update: Mr McKenzie has since gone further and called adoption by same-sex couples child abuse saying:

"I am having you adopted by two men who kiss regularly but don't worry about it' – that is abuse. It is a violation of a child's human rights because that child has no opportunity to grow up under normal circumstances."

UKIP now has an MLA

In much the same way that UKIP managed to get short lived first representation in the House of Commons and also its three members in the House of Lords so it now has a Member of the Legislative Assembly sitting at Stormont.

David McNarry now of UKIP

Nigel Farage tweeted yesterday "Off to Stormont tomorrow and looking forward to welcoming David McNarry as UKIP's first MLA". So the former Ulster Unionist MLA would appear to set to become the first member of UKIP in any of the devolved Assemblies.

McNarry is a former UUP party whip and ran for the leadership in 2005 when Reg Empey won and he pooled poorly. He was removed as Vice Chair of the Assemblies Education Committee by then leader Tom Elliott, after going to the press about talks with the DUP. He was to have had the whip suspended for a period of nine months but when new leader Mike Nesbitt took over he did envision a return of the whip even after the period of suspension. So in a week when the whole debate about the UUP sleepwalking into unionist unity flares up again one of the earlier whistle blowers is making his own news.

Bizarrely his defection to UKIP comes in the one jurisdiction of the UK that has land boundaries with another European Union member that his new party wants out to step out of. The amount of cross border trade and employment especially in our border regions can only be harmed by a United Kingdom outside of the agreements of the European Union. Yet this is the party that David McNarry has chosen to cosy up to. Also if he has to the £ page as part of UKIPs campaign to safe the pound would have have to avoid any local shops that say €uros accepted here. Just think he couldn't buy a paper at Belfast Central or use all manner of stores.

Bob Spink the only Member of Parliament that UKIP had following his defection from the Conservatives in 2008 only stayed with the party less than five months (including the summer recess) so we wait and see if Mr McNarry lasts as long as a representative of UKIP here in Northern Ireland.

The people of Strangford now after the Iris Rosbinson scandals have a MLA who wants them out of Europe, the leader of the party he has defected from, an Alliance member who cannot bring himself to vote for marriage equality and three members of the DUP representing them.

UKIP Libertarian unless if comes against the authority of The Church* #equalmarriage #fisk

With a former Conservative councillor defecting to UKIP over the issue of equalising marriage for same-sex couples up steps David Coburn of UKIP's National Executive Committee to promptly put his foot in it by clearly not understanding the first of the big words he used. As usual I shall fisk in red.

 "We are a libertarian party Libertian n. 1.One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state. 2. One who believes in free will. adj. of, relating to, or characteristic of a libertarian which doesn't believe in the government interfering in how people live their lives. We support civil partnerships, enabling gay men and women to register their long-term commitment to each other. I have fought for this all my life. 

 "But David Cameron seems to be saying that marriage is something else so much for maximising individual rights as true libertarians. If so, it is clearly in the domain of the church and other faiths – and it is none of government's business to meddle with it. Ok we come to a point here. The consultation before the people is currently for civil marriage nothing to do with how the churches conduct marriage. They are not meddling in religious marriage and have nothing to do with the church and other faiths.

Mind you on the issue of the church and other faiths, some of them want to be able to offer equal marriage (Quakers, Unitarians, some Liberal Jews, and others)  but the current consultation isn't letting them because it is only focusing on civil marriage. Should the government stop meddling there and let each faith group determine what it wants to define marriage as? Surely that is the Libertarian approach.

 "It seems that, through some kind of political correctness, David Cameron is picking a fight with the millions of people whose religious faiths do not recognise same-sex marriages I state again some faith groups do, but he isn't letting them recognise same-sex marriage David Cameron is only working in the civil sphere. That, in our view, is an aggressive attack on people of faith, and an act of intolerance in itself so being Libertarians only so far as it doesn't go against the authority of say the Church of England and the Bishop of Rome (and you thought UKIP didn't want Germans and the rest of Europe to dictate to us here in the UK). 

"In addition, if the government does legislate in this way, we believe that any criticism of same-sex marriage which may be expressed by someone on the basis of their faith could be classified as a 'hate crime' whereas only calling same-sex long term commitments by some second class name so that some can talk only about married couples and ignore that other classification isn't . That would be a grotesque assault on people's freedom of conscience. But not libertarian enough to look at everyone's freedom on conscience"

Of course the problem above has arisen from UKIP claiming to be Libertarian, however that is Libertarian with provisos and caveats. Murray Rothbard describes Libertarianism thus:

"a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should be free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another. What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism."

Therefore true libertarians should be allowed to be with whomever they want. If they want to marry they should be free to do so whether it is someone of the opposite or same sex, after all that does not invade the person or property of another. If someone wishes to marry someone of the opposite sex it is not diminished by the desire of someone to marry someone of the same. However, if the person married to someone married or desiring to be married to someone of the opposite sex denies someone seeking to marry someone of the same sex and call it marriage that is an invasion.


Walter Block adds:

"The non-aggression axiom is the lynchpin of the philosophy of libertarianism. It states, simply, that it shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another. That is, in the free society, one has the right to manufacture, buy or sell any good or service at any mutually agreeable terms."

So unless equalising marriage threatens to bring about violence against others it should be legalised by a libertarian.


So UKIP and especially David Coburn are you Libertarian or against against equalising gay marriage? I put it to you that you cannot be both.


* Capitalisation of 't' in the in the title is because it is the State and Roman Catholic churches that are most vocal in their opposition (there are of course others), there are other smaller churches that are not opposed to equal marriage.

Putting the Yes! detracters straight - initial thoughts from Northern Ireland

Well okay only 43.87% did

There is nothing more frustrating while spending 15 hours on your feet than seeing friends throwing complaints about the campaign you have given up the last six months of your life for. Well maybe knowing that before one of the three constituencies that you were the agent on site for had declared that the national result was already a disaster.

Some of it was justified and some it ignored the fact that many of us involved in the campaign were fighting for some of the things and failings they mentioned. The eyes and ears on the ground my fellow regional/organisers were pointing stuff out since our first meeting together in November and on every conference call weekly meeting we had since then. There were even times in our monthly meetings in London that we did speak as one against the way things were done. But too often we were astounded about things that weren't happening or going to be happening or were happening too late.

Personally I'd like to give a big round applause to all the Regional and National Organisers Iestyn in Wales, Neil in Scotland, John, Jamie and Jane in NW and NE England, Yorkshire and Humberside, Richard and Michael in West and East Midlands, the other Stephen in East of England, Deborah, Becky, Jack, Tariq and Jon in London Tim, Ollie and James in the South West, Central and East. Together we knew what we were pressing for to happen, we may have heard the Yes! campaign say no too many times, yet we carried on pushing and sometimes got the answer changed and action taken. I'm sure all of them will carry on leading sucessful campaigns in the future, that group certainly knew what they needed to get done, just was frustrating that many times all those years of experience and knowledge was overlooked.

I'd also like to thank the excellent team that we did have in Northern Ireland, too numerous to mention but especially to Laura and Michael who were with me from the first meeting of the Northern Ireland team and stayed there to the end. Also to the many excellent interns who came through the door at Carnegie Buildings and many of them ended up going unto good jobs in fields they wanted. We may not have turned around years of Ulster saying No, but 43.87% of Northern Ireland did say yes.

To all my new friends in the Alliance, SDLP, Labour Party NI, Greens Party, UKIP, Ulster Unionist Party, Sinn Féin, Socialist Party, Dawn Purvis (sadly no longer and MLA), David McClarty MLA, plus my fellow Lib Dem NI members and many from no party background who said Yes! it has been a pleasure. I look forward to working with many of you on continuing to build a better future for Northern Ireland.

I may take on the specific points raised on a number of blogs over the last few days, but I'm going to calm down from my initial reading of most of them to give them due consideration in a balanced way in the cold light of day.

Party Election Broadcast Watch 8: UKIP #AE11

Over here in Northern Ireland we have a different set of parties, with a different set of policies and a different set of priorities to a lot of the rest of the UK. In the run up to the Assembly Election on May 5th they are going to be prodicing a series of election broadcasts. I intend to, if they are easily available (i.e. on YouTube), embed them here so that people outside of Northern Ireland can see what the parties here are saying. I personally won't be passing comment, but feel free to add you own in the comments thread.


I've been rather remiss at keeping this up during this week, but here is UKIP's first venture into Northern Irish Assembly elections.

UKIP Leadership Election Rules In Full

Now that Lord Pearson of Rannoch has stepped down as leader of UKIP after less than a year in the post it seems appropriate to review their leadership election rule. Here are the new rules to ensure that someone who is in Lord Pearson's words "not much good at party politics" fills the post again.

1. A returning officer shall be appointed.
2. A deputy returning office shall be appointed.
3. The returning officer shall withdraw to the corner of the room where he/she* shall have their his back to the leadership candidates
4. The returning officer shall press play on the music device that is located in the corner.
5. The deputy returning officer shall invite the leadership candidates to stand and walk around the room.
6. The deputy returning officer shall remove one of the chairs that the leadership candidates were sitting on whilst they continue to walk around.
7. The returning officer at a time of his choosing shall press stop or pause on the music device in the corner of the room.
8. The leadership candidates shall attempt to sit on the chairs.
9. The deputy returning officer shall eliminate the leadership candidate left standing once all chairs are occupied from the race.
10. Repeat steps 4 to 9 until there is just one chair and one leadership candidate Mr Farage remaining.
11. The remaining leadership candidate shall be asked to sign a pledge never to get in a plane trailing a banner on polling day.
12. Once the above affidavit has been signed and witnessed by the Returning Officer and Deputy Returning Officer the signatory shall be invited to lead the party.

Let the party games begin.

* There are no women in UKIP are there?