How DUP define space for difference

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not quite so liberal and pluralist after all.

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

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

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

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

Isn't it Ironic #conscienceclause

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

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

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

He also said that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Making a messy bed for Peter Robinson #ConscienceClause

Paul Givan last night of BBC's The View and again on the radio during this morning's Stephen Nolan Show said he wanted to extend his conscience clause to allow B&B owners to deny unmarried heterosexual couples as well. The reason of course is because allowing them to share a bed, or room, or even the same establishment (people can move rooms or beds in the night you know) would conflict with deeply held beliefs.

However, I've just thought of one issue that he has just created for his own party's leader. When the time comes for Peter Robinson to replaced the tax payer funded marital bed (see the Daily Telegraph c. 2010) will he be able to get one from a Christian run furniture store. The issue of course lies not with Mr Robinson himself, but with Mrs Robinson. It is rumoured that some of the affair that led to her leaving public office and largely public life took place in said bed.

Could something like this mean no Robinson bed?

To replace this a Christian store owner could deny selling the Robinson's a new bed, not just for their marital bed but for any room of the house. The store owner may not have surety that the bed would not be used for purposes that conflict with their deeply held religious beliefs. After all there is someone who had admitted to adultery in the household and there is no guarantee that the new bed might not be used for adultery yet again. Because these Christian business owners that Paul Givan wants to protect can't seem to see beyond the label and consider behaviour. After all a same-sex couple looking to stay in a B&B may well be a married couple (elsewhere in the UK or other nations that recognise same-sex marriage), yet even the unmarried heterosexual could be turned away.

So I'm sorry to break the news to the First Minister but under the expenses scandal he has got himself a bed that he may have to keep unless he can a store owner with no conscience objections to selling him a new one. Maybe Ann Summers around the corner from Ashers could put him in touch with someone.

Is there genuine concern to lodge petition?

When you look up certain phrases on Twitter you can sure to find the odd surprise. Here is a Tweet that someone posted yesterday in relation to the conscience clause.

My straight forward answer is no.

And here is my reasoning why.

Firstly the name is Petition of Concern (PoC). So ask yourself "is one community adversely affected by the legislation that is proposed?". The answer is yes, in that the "conscience clause" is a bill that is only being appended to the Sexual Orientation Regulations of the Equality Act and only allowing people with a religion objection to refuse, without legal comeback, goods, facilities and services by that group on the basis of behaviour or belief. Therefore yes there is a concern that one part of society is being treated as inferior by a master society, this is a genuine concern.

It is not a Bill giving everyone the freedom to exercise their conscience, for in the DUP's eyes that would lead to MSM giving blood, Lesbian and Gay couples adopting, getting married, women having abortions and yeah also being allowed to refuse service to bigots who have been spotted outside their shop with anti-gay literature and then seeking to buy something from an shopkeeper who is LGBT or whose relative or friend is.

There is also the fact that once one group of people is allowed to use their individual conscience to refuse to serve others what other groups will argue they should have the same individual freedom. If we all had our individual freedoms honoured all the time there would be no collective responsibility and anarchy would rule.

But then we are Northern Ireland so it would have to be an even greater anarchy that we seem to have experienced.

Now of course the community affected immediately  is not divided easily into "us uns" and "them uns" on the strict basis that the petition of concern was originally set up. There are LGBT people in both the protestant and catholic communities as well as in other faith groups and of no faith. There are LGBT people who recognise as Unionist, Nationalist or Other in the terms laid out for a vote in Stormont. Just as those in the other group are deemed to not have a valid opinion when any petition of concern is launched so it is that there is a flaw in the system. However, those who recognise as other are allowed to sign a PoC

Now the original questioner seems to see nothing wrong with blocking "same sex marriage" with a petition of concern. This is despite the fact that people in Northern Ireland have had civil partnerships in other parts of the UK which they can now convert to marriages, or have or are planning to have a same-sex marriage carries out elsewhere in the UK. These are not recognised as such here.

Another factor about the legislation on equal marriage that has been debated three times before Stormont is that each time it came before the floor of the chamber it had a built in conscience clause for all faith groups to make their own decision on whether they wanted to carry out same-sex marriages or not. The assumption may be that all faith groups here are opposed to the idea, that is not true. The petition of concern against opening up civil marriage to same sex couples and faith groups to have the option is a petition against people's freedom from religion as well as some faith groups freedom of religion.

Some people of faith have a conscience that allows them to marry people of the same-sex. Their conscience was actually denied by so called people of faith, speaking for all faith groups. Despite what the DUP say some people will use the conscience clause as a get out of jail free card when it comes to discrimination. I doubt that the questioner has ever experienced the looks and stares from Northern Irish business owners when you are in their establishment with a same-sex partner. I am not saying being overtly flirtatious, kissing or for that matter holding hands but clearly in a relationship and intimate through eye contact, words etc.

Currently the Equality Act means that under such circumstances protects all consumers from being refused. There is an issue with how certain messaging is handled, it is a grey area, something that can only be determined by case law, not by changing the law. I've heard the argument that same-sex marriage is illegal in Northern Ireland so they were right to refuse it.

However, it is not illegal to be a married same-sex couple in Northern Ireland, you are just re-labeled as civil partners. Also if the argument is that that no group can campaign on anything in the law being changed there would be no such thing as lobbying, indeed the camp at Twaddell Avenue set up to protest the legal decision made by the parades commission would also be something that nobody should campaign about under that logic of legality.

Having said that I don't like the petition of concern process. But while the DUP use it to block progress, on LGBT issues or integrated education or something else that doesn't appeal to their core. When it is being used to ensure that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law I think that is the correct usage. The shame of course is that the process has been abused too much by those on both sides that we fail to see it as serving a purpose to protect equality of opportunity (at least if you identify as Unionist or Nationalist).

Conscience Clause: What the people say

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No to the Conscience Clause

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can the DUP answer a simple question?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today's letter in the Newsletter

This morning the following letter of mine was published in the Newsletter.

I read Rev Kirkland's letter (11 December) with dismay. He claims it is right to bring balance to an unbalanced provision with the conscience clause.

The Sexual Orientation regulations within the Equality Act in 2006 were the means to bring that balance to a then unbalanced provision. This conscience clause is step back to how things were for LGBT people in Northern Ireland before that time. It was the reason I and many other LGBT people left Northern Ireland as soon as we were able as adults to find more tolerance in Britain.

However, this conscience clause uses some pretty strong language and some pretty open interpretation of three key words. It states:

"Nothing in these regulations shall make it unlawful to restrict provision of goods, facilities and services...to avoid endorsing, promoting or facilitating behaviour or beliefs which conflict with the strong held religious convictions."

I not that this is added solely to the Sexual Orientation Regulations and not the Equality Act as a whole. So matters of conscience that the bible mentions far more than same-sex relationships are clearly not a matter of conscience that people of faith want to restrict provision to. This therefore makes it only an anti-LGBT change to the Equality Act.

But what is meant by endorsing, promoting and facilitating those beliefs and behaviour?

Part of most people's behaviour is to go out and enjoy a meal in a restaurant. Are a same-sex couple enjoying a romantic dinner to be turned away by restauranteurs for they are endorsing same-sex romance?

If I walk into a store wearing a Pride T-shirt could I be refused service as the owner would not want to be seen endorsing Pride and the LGBT community?

Could a Christian landlord throw an LGBT person or couple out from their flat as he does not want to facilitate what he thinks is happening under his roof, while he legally cannot do the same to an unmarried couple without just cause?

This is not about the conscience of those of faith, as some of them are actually supportive of LGBT people, this is blatant direct discrimination that actually removes the balance in the Equality Act.

It is giving people of faith the right to come up with a reason to refuse one group protected under the act, that is LGBT people, goods, services and facilities with full protection under the law. 

Correspondence with Gordon Dunne

I wrote to my MLA Gordon Dunne after his question in the Assembly this week. It is somewhat of a shock that I actually heard back so promptly, this is an MLA who has failed to answer me on a whole number of previous correspondence. I do not think I am breaching any confidence by publishing his full response:

"Your comments are noted!"

Yes there is an explanation mark at the end of his short reply so I am taking that to be a terse reply.

For the record here is the email I wrote to him.

Dear Gordon,
I was rather disappointed in your question during topical questions to OFMDFM yesterday.

Firstly the Equality Commission have to operate independently of political interference from any Executive Department or the Assembly as a whole, as they may have to make decisions on actions from within the Assembly. Therefore you were quite rightly told that this is the case.

On the matter of legal proceedings these have to be based on the law as it stands at the moment and the time of the incident in question. Proceedings cannot be halted while any Government is in the process of changing the law. 

But there is no Assembly Bill to change the law, there is a private member's bill which is at the consultation stage. Has yet to be assess for an equality audit under the conditions of Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act or be voted on in the chamber.

I know that the history of consultation on matters that concern LGBT isn't great, the first on a sexual orientation strategy occurred in 2006 under direct rule and we are still waiting for the imminent publication of the actual strategy and action plan.

In hindsight, it might have helped if at some point in the last 8 years such a strategy and action plan had actually been published to supplement the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regualations (Northern Ireland) 2006. It may well have be able to help the Equality Commission to determine where the regulations stood on the expression of something promoting a topical political discussion and people of faith running a business for commercial purposes.

I have read the consultation document on the conscience clause with all its leading questions and narrative. I'm also rather shocked at how badly drafted it appears to be, relating commercial enterprise to regulation 16 which relates directly to religious bodies, rather than regulation 5 which relates to goods, facilities and services. I shall be making a formal response in due course.

However, I am wondering if the wording of your question is an indication of shift in DUP policy and practice. Is your party trying to stall members of the LGBT community seeking recourse through the courts by introducing legislation; claiming such governmental proceedings should have precedence over legal action?

As with my points above:

(a) legal proceedings should be free from political interference(b) legal proceedings must be based on present law, not hypothetical changes in future(c) legal proceedings must be timely and not subject to delays caused by drawn out legislative process.

Therefore I hope this is not the case of a DUP strategy. It is interference in legal proceedings and like the conscience clause is not about freedom of conscience but about the right of some to find ways and means to act homophobically with the protection of the law.

I hope that you do read this and will actually take time to respond.

Yours Sincerely
Stephen Glenn 

Gordon Dunne yesterday in Stormont

Yesterday in Stormont one of my MLAs for North Down Gordon Dunne (DUP) asked the following question to OFMDFM:

Mr Dunne asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether they believe that, given the launch today of a private Member’s Bill to include a conscience clause, the Equality Commission should now withdraw legal action against Ashers Bakery pending the outcome of the legislative process. (AQT 1861/11-15)

The response seeing as it was the Deputy First Minister answering the questions (although he deferred to his junior minister was actually better than if it had been left to the unionist side of OFMDFM I suspect.

Mr M McGuinness: With your permission, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, junior Minister McCann will answer this question.
Ms J McCann: I thank the Member for his question. I am aware that some discussions took place between the Equality Commission and the bakery prior to the civil case being taken. The main issue is the extent to which suppliers of goods and services can refuse service on the grounds of sexual orientation, religious beliefs or political opinion. I think that the civil case will determine whether any discrimination has taken place.
Mr Dunne: I thank the junior Minister for her answer. Does she agree that the Equality Commission should withdraw its legal action pending against Ashers Bakery at this time?
Ms J McCann: It is not up to OFDMFM to agree or disagree with the Equality Commission. It is its own body and it has an independent role to advance fairness and equality for all. It is also responsible for implementing legislation on all those cases and challenging discrimination. We have to leave it to the Equality Commission because, at the end of the day, that will be where it will see whether discrimination happened. I am sure that the Equality Commission will have taken whatever measures it could have before entering into that case.

The point is that no matter what anybody's political persuasion the Equality Commission has to be allowed to operate independently as it is often testing the Assembly's own adherence to equality. Plus they have to act on the law as it stands at the moment.

Indeed surely the Assembly which has taken over 8 years in some consultations and still no action on activity cannot delay the legal process. But does this mean that this consultation and possibly never enacted Bill are a new stalling tactic that the DUP are using to prevent LGBT people from getting a determination in law if they feel their rights have been violated. If so, this is a new low even for the DUP and proves that the Conscience Clause is nothing of the sort but a get at LGBT people by a different means.

Paul Givan's Conscience Clause

My first reaction to Paul Givan's Conscience Clause as someone who has drafted amendments to party policy is that he doesn't even know how to amend the existing regulations. Most of what he is proposing relates to provision of goods, facilities and services (which is regulation 5 of the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006). Instead he places his amendments under regulation 16 which is organisations relating to faith or belief.

So let us that a look at what he is proposing.

• deletions
• additions
• original
• notes

He is making paragraph 8

(8) This Subject to paragraph (9), this regulation shall not apply where an organisation —

(a)makes provision of a kind referred to in regulation 5[goods, facilities and services]; or

(b)makes provision of a kind referred to in regulation 12[public authorities], 
on behalf of a public authority under the terms of a contract for provision of that kind made between that authority and an organisation referred to in paragraph (1).

 (9) Paragraph 8 does not apply to a voluntary adoption agency or fostering agency that

(a) is an organisation of the kind referred to in paragraph (1); or (b) acts on behalf of such an organisation

Paragraph 1 mentioned in (9) (a)

16.  (1)  Subject to paragraphs (2) [where sole purpose is commercial, or in relations to regulations 9,10, 11 {all related to education}] and (8) [see above for the circular nature of this] this regulation applies to an organisation the purpose of which is —

(a)to practice a religion or belief;

(b)to advance a religion or belief;

(c)to teach the practice or principles of a religion or belief;

(d)to enable persons of a religion or belief to receive any benefit, or to engage in any activity, within the framework of that religion or belief.

The after Regulation 16 he wants to insert

Businesses: exception based on religious belief

16A

(1) This regulation applies to a person (“A”) whose sole or main purpose is commercial or anyone acting on his behalf or under his auspices.

(2) Nothing in these Regulations shall make it unlawful  

(a) to restrict the provision of goods, facilities and services; or

(b) to restrict the use or disposal of premises, 

so as to avoid endorsing, promoting or facilitating behaviour or beliefs which conflict with the strongly held religious convictions of A or, as the case may be, those holding the controlling interest in A.

(3) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(b), “disposal” shall not include disposal of an estate in premises by way of sale where the estate being disposed of is—

(a) the estate in fee simple absolute in possession; or
(b) the entire estate in the premises in respect of which A has power of disposal.

 Now there a number of worrying things.

Let us not forget that even faith based commercial enterprises were not allowed under regulation 16 to have been exempt from equality legislation. But from the wording of this commercial enterprises on behave of belief or faith based organisations are not exempt from equality legislation yet Paul Givan is letting bussiness which are not faith based to become exempt.

What can a person, or even just a majority share holder in a business do.

• Nothing in these regulations shall make it unlawful to restrict the provision of good, facilites and services.

Hang on a second? Nothing shall make it unlawful to restrict the provision of goods, facilities and services. Paul Givan has said that this would not mean that a shopkeeper could refuse to sell apples to a LGBT person. But this wording appears to mean that there is nothing to prevent him from doing so. Goods, facilities and services covers everything that any business.

There is a caveat so as to avoid endorsing, promoting or facilitating behaviour or beliefs which conflict with the strongly held religious convictions.

Now I do have concerns here.

Endorsement was a word that was used in the Ashers case yet only from the McArthurs family who run the company. Nobody who ever eats a cake thinks that the people who make it actually endorse it. But there does become an issue. What is one of the major papers in Northern Ireland has a majority control by someone with deeply held religious beliefs. Would they be within their rights not to cover news about LGBT events, or comments and letters in support of LGBT equality? What if that paper operated online, would they be able to censor debate if it was against their principles as they didn't want to be seen to be endorsing what is said?

Most media does say that the views and comments that they publish are not necessarily those of the publication, but is this a get out for people like them.

Does my wearing of one of my many Pride t-shirts constitute promotion? Does my wearing a rainbow flag badge as some wear a union flag on their label count as promotion? Could I be prevented from eating in a restaurant or be served in a shop under this regulation of promotion if I am seen entering such a store. This all sounds rather Russian and worrying talking about promotion so glibly.

What if a high profile LGBT activist were to turn up for a service from someone. Like me who unlike some of the anonymous homophobes my name would clearly come up as someone who is a high profile LGBT activist through the letters I write, the speeches I have made, my blog and social media. Would serving me potentially with my boyfriend present be considered promotion. Especially if I am openly carrying my Liberal Democrat folder with all its LGBT badges on it.

What about wearing a red ribbon in support of HIV?even though this is not a gay disease, what if the business owner perceives it to be? 

What is meant by facilitating behaviour? If a same sex couple want to go out for a meal together, just the two of them, is serving them at a table counted as facilitating? Could you having booked a table be turned away, even if you do not kiss, cuddle or hold hands on the premises. What about a hotel? Yes we are back to the hotel situation which has already been judged by a high court as being a public service you have to offer the same provision for everyone. What about a landlord? Could a Christian landlord turn out tenants if he thought that his premises were facilitating same-sex activity? This is dangerous ground.

• Nothing in these regulations shall make it unlawful to restrict the use or disposal of premises.

Also later on in 2 (b) how are you going to determine the disposal of someone's estate. I mean could this mean that certain houses will not be available to be bought by same-sex couples or an LGBT individual if someone has died and stipulates no gays.

But more worrying is the use restriction. As above any space that is not a public space may be off limits to an LGBT couple or group if the owner deems that their very presence is somehow and endorsement, promotion or facilitation of behaviour or beliefs.

Now I terribly sorry to tell my Givan this. My existence is an endorsement that being gay and Northern Irish is fine, there is nothing wrong with that. Sometimes I have to talk to others over a coffee or a meal about issues that they and I are facing, this may well be promotion of that same belief. I also go on dates with boyfriends. Now in winter time I don't to hang around in car parks or parks, besides I'm 45 and enjoy good food, a variety of drinks, the arts and sport. So I will probably want a boyfriend who enjoys a lot of the same things and most of these take place indoors. So I'm going to have to use premises owned by other people.

One final thing. You will notice that the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations only came into being in 2006. We have only for 8 years as LGBT people in Northern Ireland had some protection as to accessing of goods and services. Before that anybody could turn us away for any reason, which makes it all the more disgraceful that Mr Givan has worded this so poorly that all manner of consequences can come from it. Earlier today he was talking about specific cases and tight guidelines, but this is not what he has delivered. 

Fisking Paul Givan

This morning Paul Givan MLA wrote in The Newsletter about his reasons for introducing a Private Members Bill allowing a conscience clause. It has been a while since I did a good line by line Fisking of something but this is just so full of holes I think it deserves the full treatment, my comments as ever are in

The decision by the Equality Commission to launch legal action against Ashers Bakery for refusing to print a slogan in support of gay marriage made headlines across the UK and beyond Whereas if the cake had been made there would have been no headlines just a cake, no self righteous purchasing of Ashers goods boosting the McArthurs profits. It has also highlighted the fact that some equality legislation is having an adverse effect nice little boost in profits don't forget on those with religious belief when it comes to the provision of goods and services.

The more recent case where the Catholic Church has had to end its relationship with an adoption services provider has caused further distress. Of course there is yet to be the Northern Ireland Children and Adoption Bill despite the final court ruling in December 2013, our last legislation on this issue was in 1987 and that still is in effect. So the church is actually ending its relationship before a change in legislation. A total of 89 Northern Irish children were adopted in the year 2013-14. Our average duration in care is 2 years 11 months in care compared to 2 yrs 5 mths in England and 2 yrs 4 Mths in Wales. Only 54% are placed for adoption within 12 months from best care decision being made compared with 74% for England. So it would seem even with Church support we have been failing the children who are most important in this decision in terms of time lag.

I believe that this is wrong and there should be legislation that strikes a balance between competing and at times conflicting rights We have this it is called the Equality Act. That is why I am consulting on a Private Member’s Bill as a remedy to this problem. There was consultation on a Sexual Orientation Strategy initially in 2006 which might have lead to guidelines to dealing with these conflicting rights. A second consultation on that was only held this Spring just for reference gerrymandering and procrastination on defining LGBT rights is part of the issue here.

Specifically what is required, and delivered by my Bill, is enhancing the sexual orientation goods and services legislation in order to protect religious service providers How is this enhancing if those of LGB sexual orientation are then denied access to goods and services by religious service provider? and those who want to access services in the context of a religious ethos The problem in Northern Ireland is too many service have different religious ethoses from schools to adoption services, however most high street concerns do not fall into this remit.

My Bill would mean that ‘reasonable accommodation’ would be made in certain tightly defined circumstances At present the Equality Commission case is to determine the rights or wrongs in certain defined situation. The problem is he appears to be tightly defining for certain religious beliefs to be those circumstances. . This would allow our society to make space for difference that encourages a tolerant society allowing people of faith equality of opportunity to contribute and participate fully in our community Can somebody tell me something that people of faith cannot contribute and participate in fully at present?.

It is important to highlight particular cases which would, and equally important, cases which would not be affected by the legislation I propose. I notice all of these are based on seven passages from the bible, but surely personal conscience on such issues should also apply to adulterers, or those living out of wedlock which have far more references in the text book on which this personal conscience is based. Do we need to ask why this is?

It would not mean that an evangelical grocer could refuse to sell apples to a gay man . Selling apples does not involve someone to endorse, promote or facilitate a same-sex relationship in violation of his or her faith identity so there is no conflict.

It would not mean that a Catholic photographer could refuse to take a photograph of recipes created by a bisexual chef. Taking such photographs again would not have the effect of endorsing, promoting or facilitating a same-sex relationship.

However, it would mean that a Muslim printer would not be required to print a book promoting same-sex relationships in violation of his faith identity. Similarly, it would mean that an evangelical photographer would not be required by law to choose between taking photographs of a civil partnership ceremony in violation of their deeply held beliefs or lose their livelihood. Yet at the same time his party is denying those of faith that want to and the state to not endorse such relationships and providing same sex marriages if they want to. His narrow definition of what people of faith want should not also at the same time infringe on what others want.

Given that the nature of faith is that it deals with higher loyalties to God Yes Jesus said give unto Ceasar that which is Ceasars so whoops! it is very likely that when confronted by such a choice many people would rather lose their livelihood than be pressured by the state into violating their faith identity.

By enhancing the law to make space for people of faith to provide services my Bill will respect the rights of service users who want to be able to continue to access services in the context of for example, an evangelical or Catholic faith ethos.

There is no equality for Catholics that want to access adoption services from their Church which will now be denied because it is more important to put the rights of same-sex couples accessing adoption services from everywhere than Catholics somewhere. Catholics can still access adoption services, I personally know of one Catholic couple who have two beautiful daughters through the normal adoption process without resorting to a Catholic only system.

Through this Bill I believe the Northern Ireland Assembly can strike the right balance by pushing equality legislation off balance and to a precipice and I strongly believe it is possible to navigate this difficult area much more effectively than is currently the case I refer the gentleman to the delay in producing a Sexual Orientation Strategy (see above). This Private Member’s Bill can contribute to creating a society that is tolerant and respectful by making reasonable accommodation for people to live their lives according to their conscience but only providing that conscience is based on a rather narrow faith based experience which is not inclusive of all of faith.

My problem with Paul Givan's comments

This morning Paul Givan MLA has issued his thoughts on his conscience clause in The Newsletter. Right in the middle of this I have a major issue.

"It is important to highlight particular cases which would, and equally important, cases which would not be affected by the legislation I propose.

"It would not mean that an evangelical grocer could refuse to sell apples to a gay man. Selling apples does not involve someone to endorse, promote or facilitate a same-sex relationship in violation of his or her faith identity so there is no conflict.

"It would not mean that a Catholic photographer could refuse to take a photograph of recipes created by a bisexual chef. Taking such photographs again would not have the effect of endorsing, promoting or facilitating a same-sex relationship.

"However, it would mean that a Muslim printer would not be required to print a book promoting same-sex relationships in violation of his faith identity. Similarly, it would mean that an evangelical photographer would not be required by law to choose between taking photographs of a civil partnership ceremony in violation of their deeply held beliefs or lose their livelihood.

"Given that the nature of faith is that it deals with higher loyalties to God it is very likely that when confronted by such a choice many people would rather lose their livelihood than be pressured by the state into violating their faith identity."

This passage is the crux of the matter. For a start he is assuming that all of faith are opposed to same-sex relationships, do not wish to celebrate civil partnerships or for that matter not carry out same-sex marriages. That is simply not the case and I have been to civil partnerships where people of faith have been present as family or friends of the couple. 

But the problem also is that by blocking the desires of these people to carry out these same-sex services in a place of worship, or for the state in Northern Ireland to not carry them out some people of faith are imposing their opinions and views on those of different religious opinion and those of none.

The centre of this entire argument is now clear. It is the fact that Paul Givan is making it possible to block out same sex relationships from Northern Irish society. Promoting it or formalising it in any way. If he wanting people to opt out of certain aspects of what it means to be LGBT maybe he should allow those who are LGBT to have what they fully want.

As I wrote yesterday we have been waiting since 2006 for the publication of a Sexual Orientation Strategy (there was finally the latest consultation on it this year). The DUP have been the party blocking the rights of same-sex and unmarried couples adopting, MSM giving blood and of course others in civic (and faith) society who want it the ability to have a same-sex marriage. If you are blocking other people's personal conscience on issues like this in a public sphere you cannot expect to have the right to allow people to even opt out of what is already there.

I may do a full Fisking or Fact Checking of his statements in the full statement later.

Murphy's bakery is flour dilemma

This appeared in the Trumptonshire Times today.

This afternoon Mickey Murphy from Camberwick Green's only bakery went up to Windy Millers expecting to collect his latest supply of flour from the only mill in Trumptonshire.

However, after Fireman Cuthbert and his partner Private Lumley one of the boys at Pippen Fort had come in requesting a cake to support gay marriage which Mickey made for them without a quibble Mr Miller was up in arms. Miller a member of the DUP felt that it was against his personal conscience to supply flour for baking to people who wanted to get married in non-traditional ways. The announcement of the forthcoming marriage of Cuthbert and Lumley for which Murphy was going to be baking the cake may apparently be the last straw for Miller.

Windy Miller was spotted earlier this afternoon (see right) telling Murphy that he would not be providing him with any more flour. The Mayor had earlier passed a by-law for Trumptonshire that allowed people to avoid equality legislation if their conscience told them that what was being provided by them was going to support something they didn't agree with.

The Mayor said:

"It is not right that Fireman Cuthbert and Private Lumley can force their views on whoever they want in this village. We of course respect them for the jobs that they do, we have nothing against gays as such."

When asked about the refusal of the only mill in the council area failing to provide flour to the only baker the Mayor said:

"Mr Miller is a long established trade in this area. His is perfectly within his rights to decide who gets use of the flour that he mills. He doesn't want what he makes to go towards a cake for a same-sex marriage. As he is not certain that Mr Murphy will use flour from another provider he is perfectly within his rights to withold provision from his own stores."

Mr Murphy speaking from his bakery has said:

"I'm having a hard time obtaining flour from other mills at this time. There is a high demand for mince pies, Christmas cakes and puddings at this time and surplus flour is hard to come by. I doubt I will have sourced an alternative source by tomorrow. So I suspect that when the Lady Mayoress comes in for her regular bread purchase to make soldiers for the Mayor's boiled egg she will be must upset to find the shelves empty. It is a pity that a fireman and his soldier should put a dampener on the Mayor's breakfast but I cannot make bread out of nothing."