UUP manifesto contains an LGB&T section, but silence on marriage #ae16

You can almost knock me over with a feather as for the first time in history one of the two main unionist parties in Northern Ireland has launched a manifesto that has a very strong section on LGBT+ issues.

This is an extract from the UUP manifesto:

LGB&T 
We want to build a Northern Ireland that is inclusive and safe for all our people, and that includes the LGB&T community.  Our society should have no cold spots for anyone because of their sexual or gender identity. 

In the next mandate we want to see zero tolerance of hate-crime, tackle the high levels of depression, anxiety, suicidal feelings and self-harm and stamp out homophobic and transphobic bullying in the classroom.

We would: 

• Bring forward the long awaited Sexual Orientation Strategy;

• Equip our teachers to effectively deal with homophobic and transphobic bullying in our schools; 

•  Support the toughening of sentences for aggravated crime;  

• Support the introduction of a Gender Neutral HPV vaccine;  

•  Work with local agencies to tackle poor levels of mental health and wellbeing in the LGB&T community;  

•  Bring restrictions on the donation of MSM blood in line with the rest of the United Kingdom; 

•  Support age-appropriate sex and relationship education.

The only missing component is obviously the issue that has haunted the last mandate of the NI Assembly the issue of equal marriage. It is clear that the UUP are leaving this as a matter of conscience for its elected M:LAs which means that while it has a largely LGBT+ friendly manifesto, voters would be advised to ask their individual candidates where they stand on that matter before considering their preferences.

I have asked the three in North Down:

• Chris Eisenstadt is in favour and would vote for equal marriage.
• Alan Chambers considers civil partnerships are far enough, not realising that the fact these are marriage leaving some of the friends and associates he assumes are LGBT+ open to direct and indirect discrimination by certain portions of our community. But then as he never seems to enquire he probably hasn't heard about those incidents.
• Carl McClean responded positively but failed to address marriage directly telling me to await the manifesto (I have given him a further chance to answer that specifically).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

James Molyneaux, Baron Molyneaux of Killead 1920 -2015

Along side Ian Paisley one of the earliest politicians I knew about was James Molyneaux who from 1979 until 1995 served as leader of the Ulster Unionist Party. Indeed the two were the ever presents in my formative years of political awareness.

He had been a teenager at the outbreak of World War II and growing up near Aldergrove, which is now the location of Belfast International Airport he joined the Royal Air Force in 1941, and served through the war as was one of those involved in the liberation of Belsen concentration camp. 

He was first elected to a seat on Antrim County Council in the 1960s and in the 1970 General Election he entered Westminster succeeding his party colleague Knox Cunningham, who had served as a PPS to Harold Macmillan while PM, in the South Antrim seat.

After his second defence of his seat in the October 1974 election he became leader of the Ulster Unionists in the Commons, because the party leader Harry West had lost his Fermanagh and South Tyrone seat. However, after West failed to get elected to the European Parliament in 1979 and resigned as leader Molyneaux took over as leader of the party. His tenure as leader of the party of 16 years and 1 day is only exceeded in length by those of Viscount Craigavon and Viscount Brookeborough (the first and third Prime Ministers of Northern Ireland).

In the 1983 election with his seat split in two he became the MP for Lagan Valley, a seat he would hold until he retired in 1997. Through his leadership he was seen as someone who wasn't in favour of really reintroducing a new Northern Irish Assembly or Parliament but a supporter of direct rule with more powers devolved to the councils. However, he also started to see the loss of ground to the DUP. Although it appears his time as leader he was not doing much to advance Northern Ireland, he was using his diplomatic skills to keep the party together with factions wanting to head towards devolution and others for maintaining direct rule, something that soon came to the fore under his successor.

In 1995 he was challenged for the party leadership by a 21-year-old student from Coleraine, Lee Reynolds. Although he won successfully 15% of the party voted for the challenger with no experience and this was seen as a significant protest against his leadership. Two days after the result was announced the death of Jim Kilfedder, the one time Ulster Unionist but then Popular Unionist Party MP for North Down, on a train in from Gatwick.

The subsequent by election saw Molyneaux's party facing a tough challenge to return this seat to the Ulster Unionist fold from another former Ulster Unionist Bob McCartney standing and UK Unionist Party candidate. Possibly as a result of not challenging Kilfedder since 1983 or maybe as a sign of discontent with Ulster Unionism their candidate came a distant second with 26.4% only just beating the former Alliance Party leader Oliver Napier. This poor show lead to Molyneaux's resignation as leader, ironically being replaced by a North Down native, David Trimble.

Upon his retirement as leader he was created a Knight, and when he stepped down from the House of Commons in the 1997 election he was elevated to the House of Lords.

Molyneaus was vociferous in his opposition to the Good Friday Agreement and supported the three UUP MPs Jeffrey Donaldson, David Burnside and Martin Smyth when they resigned the party whip over the parties support of the Agreement.  In 2005 he along with Smyth backed the DUP's Jimmy Spratt over the UUP's candidate Michael McGimpsey in South Belfast, as well as his successor in Lagan Valley, Donaldson who had by then defected to the DUP, but he also supported some UUP anti-agreement candidates such as Burnside in South Antrim. Of these only Donaldson was successful and the South Belfast seat fell to the SDLP's Alisdair McDonnell but Trimble was no happy with his predecessor's interference though he reigned after losing not only his own seat, but every other incumbent Ulster Unionist MP or held seat, ironically the only Ulster Unionist returned for Sylvia, Lady Hermon in the same North Down seat that had played a part in the downfall of Molyneaux

Molyneaux never married, and as well as his role in politics was Sovereign Grand Master of the Royal Black Preceptory from 1971 -1995. Although seen as the leader of unionist for most of his career he was for a short while educated in the local Catholic primary school and helped to raise money when a Catholic Church near his home was burnt down by loyalist arsonists.

James Henry Molyneaux, Baron Molyneaux of Killead 27 August 1920 - 8 March 2015

No to the Conscience Clause

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If not Trojan Horse is equality an Achilles Heel? @mikenesbittni

The issue of equality is certainly high on the political agenda here in Northern Ireland recently. Though scarily it seems that far too many with responsibility for legislation seem not to realise it or understand how to exercise it and show it to all.

Last night there may well have been the calmest, non-shouting all party debate on BBC's The View I can recall for some time. But of course as ever there were issues in in and some of them I raised on Twitter and Facebook. Now when three of the panellists are known to you and haven't blocked you some of this involves linking to them directly, one such was Mike Nesbitt the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party. So I posted on Facebook.

Now for those of you not used to having bilingual discussions on your TV during political discussions let me explain something. Normally when you say something in Irish here the next phrase is the translation. Therefore it struck me that Mike Nesbitt was saying that "Tiocfaidh ár lá" is actually the Irish for "Brits out" which of course I know actually is "Our day will come". It is a rallying cry just like "Stand Up for the Ulster Men" is at Ravenhill in the Rugby, but in the heat of recent discussions over language those who, unlike myself, have no elementary understanding of the Irish language mlattight think from this that is what Mike meant.

Mike said that I hadn't heard him implying not just last night but on other days when he retold the same anecdote that he was implying that. So I rewatched the item and relistened to it on The Nolan Show and here is the verbatim of what he said on The View last night:

"And you get two Gerry Adamses; sometimes on the same night. I was in New York once, he was in a black tie in the Plaza in the Park at a $500 a plate dinner and that speech was about reaching out a hand to our unionist brethren. An hour later he was in Celtic Park in the Bronx, in jeans and an Arran sweater and his first words were, 'Tiocfaidh ár lá, Brits out'."

So it is not 100% clear, even to a trained ear that Mike wasn't inferring that the latter was not the meaning of the former. I've heard him use this anecdote a number of times since the incident in Enniskillen involving Gerry Adams. That was the speech where Adams say that equality was the Trojan Horse by which he sought to break them bastards.

So out of this Mike has also been saying that Equality is the bedrock of our society. So as he had been good enough to respond to my initial comment I decided to immediately replay with a follow up around the subject.

"Also Mike while I have you here. If equality is such a bedrock in our society how come you are keeping me less equal than if I lived anywhere else in the UK because of my sexual orientation by your constant votes against marriage equality?"

I think I've been gracious and not posted this immediately though I did remind him through another comment on Facebook and a couple of Tweets during the day today that he had yet to respond. However, I do go on to say that he is subject to that all to common disease amongst unionist politicians when they talk about equality and then are asked a question about such blatant inequality with the United Kingdom. That disease is mutism.

I notice that Mike has had enough time today to pay tribute to Jack Kyle, post pictures of Christmas lights in Newtownards and support Woman's Aid in the past 10 hours. But somehow does not and did not have the time to respond to my question after he came to my Facebook comment to defend himself on one aspect.

Is this because he is incapable of defending himself on such a matter of inequality and he knows it. Is it therefore true that while Trojan Horse is probably the wrong word for it that equality surely is the Achilles heel of unionism?

If he wants to answer either here, or via Facebook I will happily add his response.

Statement from the combined NI LGBT Communities

Seeing as the combined unionist parties have this morning issued a statement (vaguely based on the words below), I think it is time for us to seek our cultural expression as LGBT British subjects living in Northern Ireland to be recognised. Hereafter follows the statement:

The combined Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender commuities in Northern Ireland call upon the First Minister to establish a time-bound commission of inquiry with the necessary legal powers and resources to examine the equal marriage, gay adoption and MSM lifetime bloodban impasses and the wider issues these represent.

This is consistent with policy in the rest of the Union he holds so dear.

"The issue of LGBT equality will not go away after the Pride parades.

"This is a further part of our graduated response strategy, and follows on from our raising issues such as bakeries revoking on contracts, The Health Minister's so-called scientific evidence of unknown blood-borne diseases in gay men's blood and the steps outlined by gay agenda (which we have still yet to see evidence of and we're gay).

"In addition, the LGBT Communities are agreed that at every level - council, assembly, Westminster and Europe - the denial of LGBT expression, resulting from Unionist denial that we are less than equal and threats of eternal damnation, will have a consequence determining how our members towards each of these levels of government will participate.

"We intend to seek an urgent and fabulous meeting with the First Minister - the response of the First Minster to the participate in Belfast Pride and this commission of inquiry will dictate the nature and timing of those actions.

"We are mindful of the strong will in the community for all elements of LGBT activism to act in a united manner and channel the rightful anger at this unjust decision.

"We reiterate our call for peaceful and lawful actions."

Never in the history of Northern Irish politics...part 3

...have the pick three not dominated in European quota collection.

Many have passed comment on the length of time this European election has taken. But unlike in previous elections no candidate or pair of candidates has dominated enough in first preferences to make the transfer of their surplus more or less decide the election.

In 1979 Ian Paisley was elected on first preferences of 1.19 quotas, John Hume was second on 0.98 quotas and was swiftly elected with the exclusion of the various independent and smaller nationalist/republican votes in the third stage. The UUP actually had 0.87 of a quota in the first round but this was split between two candidates which had them sitting 3rd and 4th on first preferences and it wasn't until his running mate Harry West's vote pushed John Taylor over the quota.

In other words the big three had 3.04 quotas between them.

In 1984 Paisley sailed in with 1.34 quotas and the UUP putting up just one candidate this time also saw John Taylor in with 1.08 quota on first preferences. Hume for the SDLP was slightly further away this time with 0.88 of a quota, but was soon elected no the fourth stage with the exclusion of Alliance and UPUP.

However, the three who got elected had ensured that 3.3 quotas were theirs from first preference.

1989 saw Paisley in first with 1.20 quotas and Hume also sneaked in on first preference with 1.02. Jim Nicholson replacing Taylor on the UUP ticket was on 0.89 which was close enough to see him elected on the transfers of Paisley's surplus at stage 2. Between then the 3.11 was enough to ensure they were all elected without the elimination of another candidate.

In 1994 Paisley and Hume again sailed through on first preferences with 1.17 and 1.16 of a quota respectively. Nicholson was just under with 0.95, but once again it was enough for his election on the surplus of Paisley. The 3.28 quotas was just behind the peak of 1984 for centralising the vote within the big three.

Paisley's last European election in 1999 saw him once again top the poll with 1.14 quota. Hume also facing his last Euro electorate also was safely in with 1.12 and Nicholson posted at the time the poorest showing for one the big three with only 0.70 of a quota. It was still a respectable 2.96 of a quota. The elimination of all four of the lowest candidates made it a two person run off for the last seat, but it was only when Paisley's surplus was distributed in stage 3 that Nicholson was elected.

In 2004 we saw new faces for all but the UUP of the big four.But Jim Allister then still with the DUP carried on the Paisley legacy securing 1.27 of a quota to be elected top, Sinn Féin's Bairbre de Brún was also over the threshold with 1.05 of a quota. Nicholson faired worse still with only 0.66 of a quota which meant that the Allister surplus didn't see him over the line but the elimination of all bar the SDLP candidate did.

The top three parties were still polling 2.98 quotas. But there had been a shift in the nationalist vote and now the SDLP found themselves just behind the UUP in 4th.

Last time out in 2004 was the first time after 4 cycles that only person achieved the quota on first preferences. It was Bairbre de Brún who managed it with 1.04 of a quota a drop in the share she had last time. Nicholson rallied slightly to 0.68 but Diane Dodds replacing the defected Jim Allister only secured 0.73 enough to be ahead of the UUP but the DUP's worst ever showing in the European elections. The reason for this was the 0.54 that Allister himself secured for his new TUV party.

However, the net result was the that big three only had 2.45 quotas between then and only 0.04 of a surplus from first preferences. However, elimination of the Green and Alliance for stage 2, followed by the TUV in stage three soon saw the UCU-NF candidate safely over the threshold, and Dodds deemed elected due to the small surpluses not being enough to get the SDLP above her.

Which leads to this year, Martina Anderson of Sinn Féin was elected first round but with only 1.02 of a quota the smallest winning quota ever in Northern Irish European elections. Diane Dodds improved to 0.84 but Nicholson only just sneaked over half a quota on 0.53, the SDLP weren't far off with 0.52.

It meant that the three largest parties had dipped even further down to 2.39 and the battle was entered to secure almost double their first preference between the UUP and SDLP. Allister for the TUV had 0.48 of it and would not be eliminated until stage 7 and the three non-designated parties (Alliance, Grenn, NI21) had 0.42 of their quota their highest ever. This is why the election went so deep, there wasn't masses of other naturally unionist votes to be transferred until a late stage.

Never in the history of Northern Irish politics...Part 2

...have the Alliance votes transferred so poorly to unionist candidates.

In 1979 the Alliance candidate was eliminated after the election of John Hume SDLP elected after stage 3 and all the last Independent nationalist Bernadette McAliskey who was eliminated at stage 4 so we have no idea how else the Alliance vote would have transferred.

In 1984 Alliance were eliminated along with UPUP candidate Jim Kilfedder but the only parties left after their elimination were SDLP and Sinn Fein so it is impossible again to guage the split in preference.

In 1989 we didn't get to the elimination stage and with DUP and SDLP elected on stage one the Paisley surplus was sufficient to elect Jim Nicholson UUP. The same thing happened in 1994.

In 1999 there was an option as to where the Alliance vote may have transferred to. At the time of elimination Sean Neeson had 14,391 votes. But he was eliminated as the same time as the PUP, UKUP and Natural Law candidates. Jim Nicholson UUP and Mitchell McLaughlin Sinn Féin were both left. But as only 1709 went to Sinn Féin and even if all of these had been from Neeson was only 11.87% of his vote.Over 50% of the Alliance vote that would have transferred therefore would have gone UUP assuming that 33% was non transferable.

In 2004 there was no Alliance candidate as they along with the Workers Party, Conservative and Labour parties were backing John Gilliland the outgoing President of the Ulster Farmers' Union.

To complicate matters in 2009 once again the Alliance were eliminated at the same time as another party. This time it was the Greens. Combined they transferred 38.44% to the SDLP but 43.78% to UCUNF, DUP and TUV unionist candidates. The Alliance had the bigger share of those transfers with 62.88% of the combined total that was reallocated.

That leads to this week, Anna Lo was eliminated by herself in stage 6. 44.58% of her vote went to the SDLP with UUP, DUP and TUV still in play. The unionists got only 21.25% of her vote.

Hypothesis 1

Taking this back to 2004 it would have equated to the SDLP getting 11,903 votes off Alliance of the 16,325, but would have left 23,012 votes to go of which 15,764 would have been a totally transferable Green vote. For the sake of argument let's assume that they did all transfer that leaves 4,422 Green votes left to fill up the SDLP vote and 11, 342 going to unionism. That would still result in 7,248 Alliance votes that could go unionist but even that is 27.15% of the Alliance transfers.

Clearly there would not have been 100% transferable votes from the Greens. Therefore there has to be an even bigger reduction in the proportion of Alliance votes than the mere 6% that this hypothetical scenario shows.

Hypothesis 1b

Lets assume that a universal 17.77% of non transferables for both parties (7,548 of the 42,463 combined was actually non transferable) of those Green votes were non-transferable, this would come off the resultant unionist vote. It would mean 8540 of their votes go to unionism, leaving 10,050 of Alliances vote or 37.64% heading to unionists.

Hypothesis 2

The Green Party candidate Ross Brown was eliminated at stage 4 along with NI21's Tina McKenzie. Their combined vote of 21900.53 at the time of elimination saw 8661.10 going to Alliance to we discount that  to leave 13,239.43.

Of that 3107 (23.46%) went nationalist and 5809 went unionist (43.87%)

Applying that to their 2009 vote 3,699 votes went nationalist and 6,916 unionist.

The impact this would have on 2009 would be that 12,626 (47.29%) Alliance votes were nationalist and 11,674 (43.62%) unionist at a 91% transferability rate.

As it is I suspect that the Green vote would have had a higher proportion of nationalists to NI21 which means that the proportion of Alliance votes going Unionist would actually have been higher in 2009.

The Alliance has for a while not transferred toward DUP in large numbers and as a by product TUV. But has been relatively happy to go UUP. However, this time that has not been the case.

The reasons are pretty clear. The outright attack on Naomi Long even before the vote in Belfast City Council on flag and the lack of timely or outright condemnation of the attack on Alliance party office or elected reps homes that resulted from the Unionists. There is also the issues of equality on which the UUP have been as intolerant as DUP but the SDLP and Sinn Féin more liberal. This could be borne out by those who campaigned for equal marriage saying if your not prepared to vote for us and ours you'll not get our vote.

As I also said there was 17.8% non transferable from Alliance and Greens in 2009, but 33% non transferable on this occasion. So even those that would not transfer to SDLP have not transferred to unionism.

Hardline unionism may well benefit them in FPTP Westminster elections (providing they work on the pacts) but it is damaging the unionists on getting transfers from Alliance in other elections in Northern Ireland.

DUP seeking to disempower voters by limiting choice

During the election campaign we heard the DUP leadership complaining about the split vote in unionism. For these elections that would have less impact as both our councils and European elections are determined by STV. However, as soon as these elections are over what do we learn but that the DUP are in discussions about forming an electoral pact with the UUP ahead of next year's Westminster elections.

They have only themselves to blame however. Three years ago they came out very strongly against the use of the Alternative Vote (AV) in Westminster elections indeed they viewed the referendum as an "unnecessary additional cost", while calling on other issues to be put to a referendum. They also said that AV "does not treat all votes equally and will further disempower voters by increasing the likelihood of hung parliaments". They also joined the rhetoric about deals being done behind closed doors as a result of those hung parliaments, but they appear to have no qualms about making those deals before the voter even has a say.

Is is this second statement that I want to look at. They said that AV would disempower voters, but as I said at the time when I was running the Northern Ireland Yes to Fairer Votes campaign the unionists themselves often disempower voters by forming their electoral pacts in seats.

Not every voter who votes for a unionist politician is going to support every other unionist politician and there are various reasons for this:

1. They may not agree with them on their stance of working with Ireland and/or Sinn Féin

This was particularly true in the early days of devolution. Indeed I know I wasn't the only person who refused to give a preference in the first Assembly elections to those parties or individuals who were opposed to the Agreement. That meant that the DUP didn't get a vote from me and others, also some individuals within the UUP also did not get my preference for their equally vehement opposition.

2. They may not agree with them on a specific issue

There are some hardline stances that the DUP take that the UUP allow as matters of conscious. These are common in the areas of LGBT legislation and abortion. There will be others but these are headline issues. On the former we know that some UUP individuals have been more in favour of LGBT equality and that is something that voters will be able to ask their candidates at the time of election and may well determine how they would vote.

However, if the two largest Unionist parties form a pact they take away the power of the individual voter in whatever seat they live in to make their own mind up about which of the two they prefer. Those people's votes have not been treated equally. They may be unable to vote unionist if they also disagree with the TUV who are likely to run a full slate or other smaller unionist parties if they have that option.

On the issue of same-sex marriage for example take away a supportive UUP option and the only way a voter might be able to express an unionist opinion would be if the PUP were to stand as they are the only unionist party to have adopted a policy in favour. No offense to the PUP but their chances of being elected are considerably less than most UUP candidates and certainly all DUP candidates would be. Therefore that person who wants to vote unionist but wants to show support for such an issue would find that their vote is not treated equally.

The DUP seem to think that all unionists don't care who they vote for as long as they can vote for a unionist. That of course is not the case and is making assumptions of the electorate. Also if they were to enter a pact with the UUP they would surely have to give up one or two of the safe unionist seats, which currently bar North Down the DUP hold exclusively, to make the offer enticing. So which of the DUP MPs is prepared to give up their seat for this electoral pact to work? Because if they only offer the UUP candidates in SDLP and Sinn Féin facing seats there would be nothing in it for the UUP.

Of course we all know the one seat that the DUP really want a pact with the UUP for. The crown in their view and the thorn in their flesh when they lost it in 2010. A seat they have tried to do everything to undermine the party that has held it since then, a party that they said was dead in the area but that this week's election results have proven is not the case.

So I conclude the DUP are prepared to disempower voters and limit their choice for their own petty political ends. That is not democracy that is despotic in behaviour.

Banbridge Oktoberfest denied beer

Someone in Banbridge came up with the good idea of holding an Oktoberfest in Solitude Park. It would have brought people to the County Down town to sample beers and hospitality in a controlled way before the winter rolls in.

However, the puritans (AKA the Democratic and Ulster Unionist Parties) have stepped in to keep the temperance movement alive and well in the 21st Century and banned any temporary license to serve alcohol in the park for the weekend festival. Initially the DUP were against the whole event but Alliance, Sinn Féin the SDLP and two of the UUP group voted down the objections to holding the event. However, an Oktoberfest without any amber nectar defeats one of the cultural points of the festival.

DUP Councillor Junior McCrum said:

"We spent £1.5m on Solitude to turn it into a space for people to walk and enjoy the park without being subjected to verbal abuse.

"Does everything have to revolve around drink?"

Not according to  event organiser Neil Loy, who said that along with the beer tents there would be yodelling competitions, German singalongs, traditional Oompah-pah bands, a visiting performance from one of BBC's The Voice contestants and traditional German food such as bratwurst sausages from an open charcoal swing grill.

Maybe Mr McCrum should visit some places where there are temporary licensed outdoor premises, like the Christmas and Continental market in Belfast, Belfast Pride or similar. People still are able to enjoy themselves and the drinkers are disrespectful to others using the area. Indeed such events, as they often charge a premium for their alcohol are actually usually a better behaved crowd than you would see weekend in, weekend out in most of our town centres.

Earlier I'd called those unionist councillors opposed to this temporary alcohol license puritans. You'd almost expect them to stop dancing, Christmas or kids playing in parks on a Sunday. Of course there is one thing that the modern day Northern Irish puritan differs from his English forebears, unlike Cromwell et al, they don't want to get rid of the monarchy as well as jollity, enjoyment and fun.

Council vote not synonymous with progress

The following are taken from the websites of two Northern Irish political parties:

First:

"We want to normalise our institutions and political arrangements to demonstrate that democratic standards apply and fairness and equality of opportunity is the right of all.

"We wants to strengthen our relationship within the United Kingdom.  Our representatives in Westminster dedicate themselves to involvement in the affairs of the Nation and in partnership with their Stormont colleagues maximise Northern Ireland’s contribution to the United Kingdom.  We will work to increase the respect and status of our region within the Union....

"We want the name of Northern Ireland to be synonymous with progress." 

Second:

"We recognise the value of culture, arts and leisure in encouraging economic growth as well as maximising quality of life for the people of Northern Ireland. Cultural identity is an important aspect of our make-up."

I'll give you no prizes for guesses that these are the two Unionist parties, first the DUP then the UUP.

Well this evening being synonymous with progress, maximising the quality of life for all people, normalising institutions to bring about fairness and equality of opportunity for all saw these two parties, along with the independents and Adam Harbinson the co-opted Alliance Councillor for Bangor West, all feel this meant voting down an equal marriage motion in the chamber.

As a result North Down's contribution was defeated as giving fairness of opportunity to all to get married. The DUP may want "the natural beauty and the friendly character of our people to be promoted to make Northern Ireland 'the place to visit'". However, they have shown once again that they don't really want it to be the place that the LGBT community in Northern Ireland can see the friendly character.

Of course I know of a number of North Down residents who want to have the option of same sex marriage. What would happen should we go to Scotland, England or Wales once they introduce same-sex marriage and have a ceremony there? Should we come back to Northern Ireland we would not be civil partner and civil partner, but husband and husband or wife and wife.

Of course the people here in Northern Ireland including one of our MLAs who during that debate last month said this was a Scottish issue are ignoring the fact that without recognition that Northern Ireland will not be recognising legal UK marriages if they carry on in mindless opposition. The Equality Minister Maria Millar at the weekend said that laws would be introduced that would prevent same-sex couples suing churches that refused to marry them. Of course civil marriage or allowing churches that want to would not be affected by this, indeed these were the areas that tonight's motion was actually outlaying.

Sadly the DUP or UUP cannot bring about normalisation of politics here while they continue to legislate for only one narrow world view of what should be allowed. While they continue to put up the blinkers and barriers to LGBT equality legislation and only pay lip service to anti-sectarian or anti-racist measures they are only going so far. Once against they show myopia about what equality actually entails.

Update meanwhile normalisation in Belfast means distributing a leaflet in Alliance Party colours over flags from the DUP.

How did the Northern Irish parties respond to adoption judicial review

I'm leaving this blog post largely in the words of the various parties in their own words as to how they have responded to today's judicial review on adoption here in Northern Ireland.

The DUP have nothing on their own website but speaking to the BBC the Health Minister Edwin Poots has said:

"It is my intention to urgently appeal this judgment and I am taking this action with a heavy heart.

"I have already publicly declared my intention to reform Northern Ireland adoption law because reform is much needed and long overdue.

"This judicial review has already delayed plans to introduce a new Adoption and Children Bill in the Assembly and I fear that this will lead to further delay."

Sinn Féin said:

Sinn Féin MLA Sue Ramsey said she is disappointed by the Health Minister’s decision to appeal a High Court ruling that a ban on gay and unmarried couples is unlawful.

The West Belfast MLA and Chair of the Health Committee at the Assembly said:

"This is a disappointing decision by the Health Minister Edwin Poots considering that our laws on adoption where out of date and not reflective of modern society and life-styles.

"The primary focus when it comes to adoption has to be the welfare of the child. It has to be the determining factor and guiding principle when it comes to anyone adopting a child.

"A single person or unmarried couple should be able to adopt a child, regardless of their sexuality, providing they can provide a stable, caring home with the child’s best interests at the heart of that decision.

"This extension of the eligibility criteria in line with modern society will significantly reduce the number of children in care." 

 SDLP said:

SDLP Health Spokesperson Conall McDevitt has welcomed this morning's ruling that the current bar on unmarried couples and civil partners adopting is unlawful and has called for a legislative remedy.

The South Belfast MLA was speaking after Mr Justice Treacy's decision to grant the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission a judicial review into current arrangements regarding adoption.

He said:

"Mr Justice Treacy's ruling is very welcome and a positive move forward towards creating uniform equality on adoption across these islands.

"This ruling, however, is only one step forward. If full adoption equality is to be achieved and Northern Ireland’s arrangements are to be made lawful, in line with Britain, a legislative framework must be drafted and brought forward for ratification without delay."

The Alliance Party said:

Alliance Health spokesperson Kieran McCarthy MLA has welcomed the court ruling that stated that the ban on unmarried couples from adopting was illegal. He said that this was great progress and would allow unmarried and same sex couples to adopt.
 
Kieran McCarthy MLA said:

"This is a tremendous victory and a great day for progress. The ban on unmarried couples adopting was illogical and wrong. The only issue that should matter is the needs of the child and not a blanket ban on certain groups from adopting. This is an issue of equality, so I am glad that the correct decision was reached

"The previsous rules did not make sense. Only one member of an unmarried couple could previously have legally adopted a child which could have resulted in the other partner having no rights to the child if the legal parent died.

"We have far too many children waiting to be adopted for us to be picking and choosing who we think should be able to adopt.

"This ruling will obviously result in unmarried and same sex couple being able to adopt which I fully support. I would urge any unmarried or same sex couple who believes that they would be able to provide a stable home to a child to consider applying to adopt a child."

Traditional Unionist Voice have said:

Commenting on Treacy J's ruling in favour of same sex adoption, TUV Leader Jim Allister said he was disappointed with the outcome and hoped the Attorney General and Department would appeal.

"There was, in my view, inadequate attention to the paramount benefit to the child of adoption within a regular family unit of a father and a mother and unwarranted equivalence of such to the unnatural setting of a same sex relationship. Once more we see the human rights mantra being exploited to further divorce the law from the moral expectations and norms of the society it exists to serve."

The Ulster Unionist have said nothing on their website.

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.

The DUP*, Equal Marriage and Me

Whilst you may have read that I am upset about the Alliance Party's votes on equal marriage yesterday by far the biggest concern was the attitude of the majority of unionists. The obvious exceptions being Basil McCrea for his words and vote, plus Danny Kinahan and Michael Copeland. I would have expected to see long time friend of LGBT equality John McCallister on that list had he not been otherwise distracted by events yesterday.

Roy Beggs opened his contribution to the debate with the words "I declare an interest as a committee member of Raloo Presbyterian Church." Danny Kennedy also mentioned in his that he had "responsibilities as clerk of session and Sunday school superintendent at Bessbrook Presbyterian Church". I take it their interest came from the letter they received from their church about yesterday's debate and while they may be willing to support fracking and the demolition of the environment, they don't want to take a risk on demolishing society by letter people of the same sex enter into marriage like they have. It is bizarre then that two other Presbyterian Church elders David Ford and Stewart Dickson, both from the Alliance Party, did not feel bound by such advice from their church but voted yes.

Mike Nesbitt says that this is matter of conscience for his party, earlier in the day he had sacked John McCallister for seemingly disagreeing with him on something. So the fact that he is on record as also  saying there is no need for Equal Marriage may have swayed a few consciences for the fear of future exclusions.

Of course the main villains of the piece were the the DUP.

For a start they made sure that one of the movers of the motion and the Alliance couldn't affect the outcome from a petition of concern. In other words even if every non-Unionist had voted for the motion there was no way it would pass despite having a majority in the house. Last time I looked the LGBT community in Northern Ireland was catholic and protestant, nationalist and unionist. Our rights are hardly one that will adversely affect either community more than the other.

Then there are three personal stories of DUP elected representatives.

Of the three that represent North Down only one had bothered to write to me on the two occasions I have written to all my six MLAs on the subject of equal marriage. At 9:44 as I was getting off the train at Central Alex Easton sent me this:

There is no point in me dodging the issue I just don't agree with MLA Steven Agnew's motion on Equal Marriage and will never support it, this does not mean that I would be rude or mistreat anyone and will always try to help everyone that comes to me but on this issue I am unable to help, sorry

That is the full email bar the greeting and salutation at the end. I had linked the issue to the civil and religious freedoms fought far in the Ulster Covenant, both of which were present in this motion. I brought up the cherished rights of equal citizenship and how failing to address LGBT issues left me feeling second class not equal in my own land, yet nothing. No acknowledgement of these concerns.

Another Peter Weir and me have had a long 'dispute' over this since the vote, via Facebook.

He said things such as:

Got just 2 e mails from constituents in favour of gay marriage ahead of the vote. Ironically from 1 man and 1 woman 

Yeah that would be me again. As I said I got response from any MLA of his party. He went on to say later in the same thread:

my views wouldn't have changed, and I think that it was a little naive/going through the motions to e mail members of the DUP on the issue when our views are particularly clear, and also after we had put down a petition of concern to block it

Bingo! They you go an admission that they were out to block but also an admission that there is no point writing to the DUP to get them to change their minds about anything. Strange that I wrote to The Rev. Dr. I. K. Paisley many years ago telling him that he was fundamentally wrong to want to work with members of the nationalist or republican communities for the future of a peaceful Northern Ireland. I may have been a naive young student then, especially as I got a letter back saying "I will never enter in talks with IRA/Sinn Fein. You will never see the DUP under my leadership supping at the same table as those terrorists." But that is another story.

There was also another story about after the debate and before the vote while I was getting something to drink in the cafeteria at Stormont. I ran into a DUP MLA who I know would go to the same wedding as me, if not necessarily mine. The reason being that he did invite me to his daughter's wedding when she married a close relative of mine. I was in the queue behind him and said "Hello." He turned around and there was recognition there for a minute his voice started to speak before his eyes took me in more fully and said "Hel......oh, you're one of them!" and turned his back on me walking off. He had looked away from my face and spotted my LGBT+ Lib Dems I'm Liberal badge on its rainbow flag.

Now I am all for the DUP having an opposing view to mine but I'd at least like them to be civil about it, even those that aren't somehow related to me, or have been taught by my mother or taught me. Yeah my DUP connections are too often at first and second degrees of separation.

However, the way they went about things yesterday was far from civil. Sammy Wilson, for it was he who once taught me, said "I do not agree with the Civil Partnership Act 2004....Whether you accept it or believe that it was a correct piece of legislation or not, it encapsulates a range of protections for people who believe that they want to have same-sex relationships." Wow, talk about taking a step into the past. It is almost but not quite as bad as Mrs Robinson's comments. We only believe we want to be in same-sex relationships! 

But that is fine according to Miss McIlveen I am free to marry "everyone is free to choose to marry.  There is no bar or prohibition on marriage. People are free to marry provided they marry someone who is of the opposite sex." That would really be a bit of an upset for my wife-to-be, as it has been for many who have conformed to societal norms down the years especially before 1982 when it was illegal here to engage in active gay sex between men, to cover their tracks. 

But then when you quote 1866 legal precedence against polygamy, not homosexuality, because the 'divorce', as a result of his excommunication from the Church of Later Day Saints,as her first husband was not recognised by law. Well there couldn't be a dodgier piece of marriage legislation to bring up and pin your objections on. When only men could divorce on grounds of unfaithfulness, the whole issue of the Mormon Church back then, and the fact that it was her 'non-Christian' marriage that had fallen apart and didn't allow her to benefit from 'remedies'.

Update Below was the only unionist voice speaking in favour of the motion on Monday from Basil McCrea



 
* I know the title mentions only the DUP and I start with the UUP but I'd like Mike Nesbitt to be able to tell me and John McCallister just what is the difference these days.

Alliance sit on a fence somewhere off Donegall Street

The Alliance Party Councillor John Blair merely calling for calm on "all sides" in relation to parades and then the disturbance outside St. Patrick's Church on Donegall Street. He goes on to say:

"Following the controversy over the twelfth of July parade past the same area, we must now get agreement from all sides as to what happens in the future. We need engagement and negotiation; nobody wants to see a repeat of this violence again.

 
"There is a lot of tension over this issue, so I would urge everybody to take a mature approach to sort out future parades here; there is no need for any sort of inflammatory statement from any side."

Now lets get it clear what happened. In the run up to this.

The Young Conway Volunteers seen on Saturday

On July 12 one band The Young Conway Volunteers deliberately played the "Famine Song" outside St. Patrick's. Now there is no mistaking that this was  what they intended and not a Beach Boys tribute.

As a result the Parades Commission ruled that the band should not form part of the parade on Saturday. However, there were one of almost all the bands who played as the parade passed by St. Patrick's on Saturday.

There was a letter in the Newsletter on Saturday from all the Belfast DUP representatives in Westminster or Stormont and 4 of the 5 UUP representatives as well as Councillors calling for the Parades Commission to be scraped. Alex Kane wrote in today's Newsletter how the Unionists themselves have prolonged  the existence of the Parades Commission basically because they failed to reach agreement on what should be done about the hot potato of parades on their own.

I saw a tweet that Belfast's Grand Master actually tore up the determination of the Parade's Commission before the parade set off on Saturday. If so the bands were then responding to something that was done by the man who had responsibility for the parade making it a premeditated breach of those instructions. Does this make the Grand Master guilty of causing a breach of the peace? Does this leave him with the ultimate responsibility for heightening the tensions on Saturday that led to 7 PSNI officers being injured? Under the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 it is a crime to incite other people to disobey a ruling of the Parades Commission*.So will the Grand Master face arrest?

I notice that Alex Kane feels the need to include Pride in his list of 'provocation' from the parade and followers. Yet Pride always leave static stewards who are experienced at the flashpoints, who have been known to tell people they will be thrown off the parade for provoking the protestors. Yet in the TV footage from Saturday members of the RBI with steward sleeves on are seen geeing up the bands to play on, leaving it to the PSNI with a megaphone to try and ask the bands to stop playing.

Shockingly the area's MP condemns the acts of those who had assembled to ask for respect for St. Patrick's, and not those who breached a public order ruling for a single drum beat to be played as they passed by. That is until you realise that the MP is Nigel Dodds a member of the Loyal Orders.

Now I know I wasn't actually on Donegall Street, I was actually playing bowls at the other end of the Shankhill Road at Woodvale Park**, so I do not know exactly what went on that led to the disturbance as the last band passed. But the TV footage does show that bands played as they went past, marchers hurled insults and abuse at Catholics who largely stood by the road asking for respect outside St. Patrick's. This was a breach of the Parades Commission determination. This was a start of the tension that John Blair calls for calm on all sides, yet nowhere is there any condemnation for that obvious breach of the determination. It was obvious after the twelfth that there would be more observers there than on that day. The playing of The Sash and other songs outside St. Patrick's and the disrespect caught on camera was merely fueling the tension.

So where is the Alliance Party's outright condemnation for such an obvious breach of a legally binding determination? It is not inflammatory to call a spade a spade and get to specifics. Why haven't the Alliance condemned the bands for failing to adhere to the Parades Commissions determination? Why haven't they condemned everyone who was involved in the violence? It is all very well to be known as the party of sitting on the fence, but sometimes you need to come off the fence to make the tough calls that make the view from the fence better and safer all around.

Update It may come three days after the incident but Naomi Long the Alliance Party's sole MP has finally made a statement that points out that the determination of the Parades Commission is law saying:

"There is a requirement for people on all sides to avoid inflaming the situation, to take responsibility for those that are brought onto the streets, to avoid violence, and to fully abide by the determinations of the Parades Commission, even when there may be disagreement or anger at them."

* Thanks to a contact for digging up this fact for me.
** And getting there and back was a trek first due to numerous feeder parades and on the way back due to the police sealing off any chance of joining the West Link at Clifton Street, just above Donegall Street.

How to precis a ranty blog for the letters page

How do you manage to cut down my ranty blog post from Saturday into something short enough for a Newspaper to print in its letter page?

Well here is how:

I READ in the News Letter (August 18) that Mike Nesbitt has written to UUP members asking them not to dance to the republican tune on marriage equality.

I would like to assure Mr Nesbitt that, while I want to see marriage equality in all parts of the union, I certainly am not a republican.

He also says that marriage equality has no realistic prospect of coming about in Northern Ireland.
It wasn’t that long ago we were saying that about the IRA laying down arms, or Sinn Fein and the DUP being able to share OFMdFM together, yet these things came to pass.

He carries on to say that all members of his party should be careful with their language not to offend.
His email is just the tip of the iceberg as far as offending the LGBT community in Northern Ireland is concerned.

Our so-called ‘unionist’ politicians are happy to leave LGBT people behind as second-class British subjects on issues of adoption, the blood ban and now, it seems, marriage equality.
If Sinn Fein, the Green Party, Alliance or SDLP can bring about change for an LGBT community that is neither nationalist or unionist, Protestant or Catholic, then that is the sort of tune I want to waltz off to - into a shared future.

Is homophobia Northern Ireland's new sectarianism?

Canon Charles Kenny

Canon Charles Kenny is quoted in today's Belfast Telegraph as saying homophobia is the new sectarianism in Northern Ireland. But is this really the case?

We do have UUP leader Mike Nesbitt telling party members over the weekend urging them not to dance to the republican tune over the issue of marriage equality. A DUP health minister seemingly incapable of looking purely at the same science as the rest of UK when it comes to MSM* (men who have had sex with men) even if over 12 months ago giving blood.

The politicisation of the LGBT agenda by Nesbitt at the weekend is a sad movement towards a new sectarianism. As I pointed out on Saturday the campaign for equal marriage in Northern Ireland is not solely on one side of the old Catholic/Protestant divide, nor is it split between LGBT and heterosexual communities there are many straight people in loving relationships or singlehood who also support the right of same-sex couples to marry not merely be civil partners.

Looking at the way questions are put in Stormont on LGBT issues there is divide in how they are put. From the nationalists, Alliance or Greens they are looking at ways to extend equality for the sector, while the Unionist side (admittedly largely Jim McAllister) seem largely negative in nature. So there is a difference in the way the two sides (as defined by the Belfast Agreement) in Stormont do seem to be approaching LGBT issues.

It is a sad state of affairs that a community that is neither nationalist nor unionist, protestant nor catholic should largely find advocates on the nationalist side of the chamber or through those that identify as other. There are few in the UUP, such as Basil McCrea and John McCallister, who have openly engaged with the LGBT sector for many years. However, the UUP are a party that all too often shows that a number of their members are not prepared to stand up for equality when it is an equality issue based on factors that should not be an influence on a representative for all.

What I find most bizarre on a number of LGBT issues is the fact that unionists look at what the rest of the island of Ireland is doing while the nationalists are arguing for Northern Ireland to follow the lead of the rest of the UK. If anything the LGBT issue has resulted in reverse sectarianism leading to those of us who are not republican or nationalist working closely with those from parties that are to seek to become equal with our LGBT family in England, Scotland and Wales.

The LGBT community in Northern Ireland is not being offered the same rights as the LGBT community in England, Scotland and Wales. Our pride marches may as well be put on a par with the civil rights marches in the 60s when Catholics in Northern Ireland were protesting that they were not on a par with Catholics elsewhere in the UK. In that sense it may well be that the denial of LGBT equality with the rest of the UK is some sort of new sectarianism.

In the fourteen years since the devolution of power to the three Celtic nations of the UK there has been a movement of greater LGBT legislation, the only part of this to have come into force in Northern Ireland was Civil Partnerships and that only while the Assembly was in suspension and Northern Ireland was returned to direct rule. In a sense the LGBT community of Northern Ireland may have been adversely affected by devolution coming when it did. Although even under Westminster we lagged 14 years behind on decriminalisation of homosexual acts (although the 1968 Act was during the time of the last Northern Ireland Parliament which ended in 1972).

Canon Kenny may have a point that the LGBT community may be becoming the new target either directly or indirectly as the new them and us situation from the Unionist politicians, although many of the LGBT community would self identify as unionist in outlook. Does this account for homophobia as being the new sectarianism?

Sadly there appears to be less ability in Northern Ireland to take action against hate speech against the LGBT community. The Iris Robinson case being a prime example where after 12 months the PSNI considered she had no case to answer. The reason being that all too often such language is lifted straight from the bible even if in 400 year old language, which appears to be reason enough to avoid being called hate speech even when it is used in a provocative way. Yet any attempt to reply by even one individual to a group waving such placards is often blasted by our elected representatives or seen as a way to try and shut us up altogether.

Maybe there is more to Canon Kenny's statement, after all he isn't the first to point to institutionalised homophobia here in Northern Ireland. If we are facing a fight against a new sectarianism we are going to have to show that we are right there in the midst of those who consider us repugnant, perverse, an abomination or whatever term they want to attach to us.

* The distinction is important as actively gay men are still banned for live from giving blood, even if they only are in a life long monogamous relationship and/or only practice safer sex.

Dear @mikenesbittni, it is my tune too and I'm not republican

I'm rather shocked by the statement from Mike Nesbitt the leader of the UUP sent to party members after the regret by Cllr Crawford using the word disease to talk about gay people (as I wrote about yesterday).

First up he says:
 

"[Equal Marriage] continues to give local political parties problems, even though there is no realistic prospect of it being introduced in Northern Ireland"

Wow! Most of the people of Northern Ireland remember when there seemed no realistic prospect of the IRA ending their armed struggle and giving up their arms. Many remember when there was no realistic change of council chambers or a devolved assembly working with Sinn Féin being allowed to be part of either. Even more recently many thought there was no realistic possibility of a DUP/Sinn Féin partnership in OFMdFM. Yet all of these things came to pass.

So lets not say that anything is not a realistic prospect. We are after all meant to be taking about a shared future and some in Northern Ireland want part of that future to allow couples of the same-sex to have the same marriage rights as mixed-sex couples.

He then goes on:

"Despite this, Sinn Fein are using this sensitive issue for self-interest and promotion. Please do not dance to a republican tune."

No when Equal Marriage Northern Ireland held its first meeting there were indeed Sinn Féin members in the room, but there were also members from parties an an apology from a member of Mr Nesbitt's own party. In fact there were republicans and unionists, protestants and catholics in that room. Something that I mae a point of in the comments that I made. This is truly a cross community issue, crossing the old divides that Northern Ireland is infamous for.

The tune Mr Nesbitt is therefore most certainly not a republican one.

He went on to say:

"I affirm that all members are free to offer their personal view on the concept, but there is no opportunity to vote, except those engineered by Sinn Fein."

Well here in lies the reason why there may be no realistic prospect of equal marriage becoming law in Northern Ireland. Despite as I said those affected by there not being equal marriage being from both the 'communities' historical of Northern Irish divide we have a situation where a simple majority in Stormont, whose gift marriage is under, may not be enough.

We have a mechanism call a petition of concern. If 30 MLAs (and there are 38 in the DUP alone) raise a petition of concern on anything before the Assembly it would require a 60% majority and 40% of both the unionist and nationlists present.

So while the UUP see marriage equality a solely a republican engineered, self-promotion exercise they are unlikely to help any vote get to the floor of the Assembly. The motion by Green MLA Steven Agnew on this issue already was timed out in the last session. So is Mr Nesbitt saying Mr Agnew is dancing to a republican tune. I've met Mr. Agnew's wife and child so I can assume he isn't wanting equal marriage out of self-interest. I've spoken to him about this issue (he is after all one of my MLAs) and I know that he is doing it for the greater good of the community at large.

As for the fact that votes are being brought by Sinn Féin, they are currently the largest party with representation on most councils who have made up their party's stance and the ability to table such motions. I hope that should the Alliance Party come to their own positive conclusion on this issue that they will bring motions in other councils where Sinn Féin maybe aren't represented (like my own). I hope that both do so with support from each other and any Green party Councillor that may be available.

Mr Nesbitt concludes saying he supports equality for all saying:

"For me, that means demonstrating compassion, being mindful of the sensitivities surrounding the issue and to being careful not to use language which might offend."

Currently we have three of the other nations that make up the Unite Kingdom some way along the path to introducing equal marriage it seems. Therefore I'm rather confused at how equality for all can leave the LGBT community of Northern Ireland not equal with fellow British Subjects or even just residents.

Back to the first point about marriage equality not being a realistic prospect in Northern Ireland. I've spent the majority of my adult live living elsewhere in the UK. Most of my adult relationships have been with people from elsewhere in the UK and taken place elsewhere in the UK. I'm not ruling out the chance of that happening again in the future (it all depends where I do end up finding work).

Therefore should I at some point get married in England, Wales or Scotland to someone of the same-sex and we return to Northern Ireland either on holiday or to live, would we be considered married or civil partnered, seeing as we would have never been the latter.

Of should a Transgendered person after they are allowed to remain married come to live and work in Northern Ireland, will they be forced to divorce their partner as currently happens in the UK and then go through a civil partnership only in this part of the UK.

There most certainly are questions of equality that need to be addressed on this. I for one appreciate the fact that Sinn Féin get it, that the Greens get it, that some of those I know in the Alliance get it, and indeed some people I trust in the UUP and SDLP get it as well.

 Does any of the other parties getting this issue make me any more likely to vote for them (well we use STV, and I vote down the ballot, so I may have to say rank more highly)?

Probably not.

But I already rank those individuals or parties who seem to only have a 2 dimensional view of the Northern Ireland communities, and only see issues as being between 2 sections of community rather lowly. It appears that Mike Nesbitt is not prepared to take a party stance on more than certain dimensions of a shared future and is willing to leave other aspects to conscious, even when it fails many, and makes them feel like second class citizens in their own country.

The language of 'no realistic prospect of equal marriage being introduced in Northern Ireland' of it being a 'Republican tune' of equal marriage votes being 'engineered' by one of the parties who gets it, and knows it is for all sections of our divide. This sort of language for a leader of one of Northern Ireland's parties offends me.

It offends me because it shows that he has given up.

It offends me because he is leaving LGBT equality issues to the nationalists and republicans and not standing up for unionist LGBT people.

It offends me that there is just a withdrawal of a word too late and no apology for any offense that has already been caused.

It offends me because it shows he lacks vision and kow tows too much to those that lack sensitivity in the areas of LGBT issues.

It offends me because I have a UUP MLA and no Sinn Féin MLAs an very little chance of the latter. Yet four out of my six MLAs (3 being DUP) seem to lack the ability to answer my questions on LGBT issues as if I do not exist within their electorate.

Is UUP Councillor against disabled people marrying?

Yet another UUP member has called homosexuality a disease, but unlike Lord Maginnis this one is an elected representative*, Magherafelt councillor Jackie Crawford. Two other DUP members also spoke in the chamber calling homosexuality an abomination.

Cllr Crawford's comments came before, during and since a Council Meeting on Tuesday which discussed Sinn Féin's proposal supporting Same Sex Marriage. Speaking in today's Irish times he said:

"I'm not against gays, it's a pity for them.

"It’s a pity they have that disease and they can't help it. It's the same as you being born with a disability. They can't help what they are.

"I know gay people and they are nice people and not bad people but they should not be getting married."

Wow!

There is rather a lot there. In saying it is like being born with a disability at least the member bizarrely recognises that being gay is not a choice, though it is not a disease. However taking his comments about people like that not getting married does that mean he is against people born blind, deaf or with a physical disability getting married to?

Looking at the context of what he says surely that is implied.

However, the UUP Councillor may notice in the Paralympics coming up there is no category for Gay sportspeople, although there are some gay people such as equestrian Lee Pearson in the GB team. There was also his opposite number Carl Hester also gay in the same event in the Olympics. You see being gay isn't a disability. No medical board will recognise it as such, so if Cllr Crawford, who is not a medical professional, were to have done his research he would have found that out.

It's a pity for him that is clearly ignorant on such matters.

It is a pity on the LGBT people in Magherafelt that one of their councillors considers them disabled.

The DUP use one of the 67 biblical uses of abomination (KJV), yet I don't see them attack Magherafelt's pork producers as the eating of swine is an abomination (Is 66:17), of those gormet Ostrich burgers (Lev 11:16) that come with continental markets, or of course prawns, or muscles or whelks (Lev 11:10-11). Do they stop their wives dressing in trousers, or their daughters looking like young men (Deu 22:5). Or how about all the lies that they themselves have told (Pro 12:22), or the discord they spread maybe by insisting on walking a certain route on the 12th (Pro 6:19), and I could go on.

Mike Nesbitt is going to speak to his councillor, I doubt that Peter Robinson will be doing the same to his. Indeed while the UUP leave it up to individual members as a matter of conscious the DUP say they are opposed to equal marriage and are allowing their members to quote whatever scripture they want even to argue against civil law. But while unionists continue to use archaic medical definitions or biblical language out of full context to protest against the groundswell of support for marriage equality they are failing to be representatives but merely reactionary zealots who are not fit for purpose as public representatives of a non-homogenised community.

* Apologies as this link is now no longer available, I hope the NewsLetter are merely updating the story, it was a software upgrade that has moved the link to here.

Update I notice that David Vance takes a hardly surprising alternative view on this issue, but he does raise four points that he says need sorting out.

First off, is gay marriage the pressing issue for this Council? Really? I would have though lack of jobs, a run down town centre and high rates would have registered before "gay marriage". The utter banality of local Government.

 First off I recently had an argument on Facebook with the Alliance's MP about the pressing nature of this debate. The words used as to why they had not taken a position on marriage equality before it was discussed in Belfast City Council in June was that it was a pressing issue. Yet with Scotland having said they will introduce legislation and England and Wales also about to announce their plans, there are issues about freedom of movement of same sex married UK couples that will be arising, so Northern Ireland do need to discuss these sooner rather than after legislation comes in elsewhere in the Union.


Second, homosexuality is patently NOT a disease. The Councillor concerned chose his words badly but then again he is a Councillor so perhaps that explains it!

Wow! Apart from Vance saying that homosexuality is not a disease there is a lot wrong here. If the words used were a one off they were chosen badly. Thing is he was asked by the Irish News to explain himself and dug deeper. Being merely a Councillor is no excuse, he is still a public representative speaking in a public domain. Such uninformed misunderstanding of some of those he actually represents and apparently has met is totally unacceptable. If he really is merely a Councillor who knows nothing about this issue (which is a fair point for Councillors on any number of issues) he is more than capable of staying quiet, or saying I need more time to research this. The thing is he did not do that and spoke his mind, not matter how uninformed or outdated what is in his mind happens to be.

Third, what about the DUP Councillors who reckon gayness "an abomination"? No media focus on them.  Oh my, our Pravda media playing up to Peter and Marty, again?

DUP elected representatives calling homosexuality an abomination is hardly news. It is something I have heard from that party since my teens. It is something that the First Minister's own wife was heavily slated for saying in a Radio Ulster interview a few years ago. However, what I do agree upon is that even though it is nothing new it is still something that we should not let slip under the radar, as indeed I haven't above.

Lastly, I notice this was a Sinn Fein motion. Once again we witness THEIR total detachment from reality and their self serving selection of topics to pursue even as the country goes down the drain!

Actually  David I think it is your total detachment from reality that is the issue here. You have missed the point that Equal Marriage NI is up and running. That they have recognised that within the devolved powers Stormont stands alone as not introducing any home grown LGBT equality legislation and therefore is working with whoever is prepared to take things forward. Steven Agnew of the Green Party has tried, and so far failed, to get this discussed at Stormont and now Sinn Féin are getting this unto the agenda in various council chambers. As the LGBT community is neither nationalist nor unionist that means we can work on a shared future with whoever is prepared to stand up with us.

Update 2: Sam McBride, political correspondent for the Newsletter has tweeted two updates at 2:37pm. 

UUP has just released a statement from Cllr Jackie Crawford saying that he regrets using the word "disease" when referring to homosexuality

Mike Nesbitt says he is happy that Cllr Crawford has "retracted the term ‘disease’" but he "affirms" his right to oppose gay marriage

But 90 minutes after he tweeted this the UUP Website has yet to publish this statement on their own website or on Twitter so it looks like they are hoping to bury the story.