Ashers Roadshow audeince don't care about impact on ALL Christians

So I see that this evening in Portadown a hall was full with people apparently to raise concern about the impact on the life of the owners of Ashers ahead of the Supreme Court ruling on this case.

This I will keep short and sweet. Have any of the 100s who were gathered ever taken a stand for any member of their church community who has come out as LGB or T? I know I am not the only Christian in Northern Ireland who has been condemned by their own church for their so called "lifestyle" and yes that was the word used to me. Something that I never brought up in the church environment in a public platform but always discussed on a one to one basis, when needed or asked. Something that was brought to an emergency Session meeting that took many elders, especially one my mother, totally by surprise.

This is happening all the time and sadly happening to people who unlike me aren't as prepared for what will happen. People who don't have a network both of fellow Christians and others who will provide the support. People who haven't come to their own peace with their faith and sexuality.

The roadshow rolls on and tomorrow will be in my home town within site of a place I once considered taking my own life because of the condemnation of comments such as this from Christians. That is the impact that these people should be thinking of.

PS as far as I am aware none of the locations that are hosting these meetings this week are actually endorsing the message of the Christian Institute, the McArthur family and Ashers bakery they are just providing them with a means to express their view.

Ethnic minorities under attack from UKIP

First the DUP came after those who are LGBT.

Now UKIP come after those not born in the UK.

Next?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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).

DUP selective British rights: The Driver's Licence Clause

Yesterday DUP MP for Lagan Valley Jeffrey Donaldson said:

"British Citizens in Northern Ireland deserve the same rights as the rest of the UK."

However, this was not about the rights of NI LGBT people to have the right to marry whom they choose. Nor is it to defend the Equality Act in full, in face of his colleague Paul Givan's conscience clause. Nor it is a freeing up of abortion legislation, no a whole gamut of rights issues that the people of Northern Ireland are the only ones in the UK to have equally with the rest of the UK.

No. This was about the change in driving licence design that in England, Wales and Scotland will not display the Union Flag alongside the European Union Flag, but in Northern Ireland will retain just the flag of the EU.

Of course this comes mere weeks after once again the main parties failed to come to any agreement on symbols and flags (amongst other issues) once again, and merely passed this on to another commission. So it is hardly surprising that flag controversy once again hits Northern Ireland when it is an issue that after over 16 years of talking we have yet to reach a consensus on.

But once again the argument from Donaldson shows the duplicity of the DUP. They use the argument of British Citizens having the same rights as the rest of the UK when it suits them, but with the other hand will argue that Northern Ireland is different from the rest of the UK when it comes to things like LGBT rights, abortion and other issues if it suits them politically with their base.

Sorry Jeffrey I'm not going to let you, or any member of the DUP, get away with playing the British rights card when you deny me the same rights as I would experience elsewhere in the UK because of my sexual orientation. Especially in light of Cllr Maurice "gays caused Hurricane Katrina" Mills becoming a Member of the British Empire in the New Year Honours, while LGBT British citizens are seen as less than full UK citizens with the same rights by the DUP I shall continue to hold institutional homophobia from Mr Donaldson's party to account.

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. 

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."

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.

Givan's Conscience Clause

Paul Givan MLA has said he is planning to bring forward a private members bill to introduce a conscience clause into Northern Ireland legislation, saying that it will enhance "equality legislation".

He goes on to say:

"Equality is about ensuring that everybody in society is allowed to live out their lives.

"We now are heading towards a community where it's not just about live and let live - people are now saying, 'you need to affirm my particular lifestyle and if that goes against your conscience, you have to do that'.

"That's not equality; that's intolerance."

Now the word affirm means:

1. To declare positively or firmly, maintain to be true
2. To support or uphold the validity of, confirm

This is obviously a knee-jerk reaction to the Ashers case, because Givan goes on to say that introducing this Bill will avoid other similar legal cases. But in Northern Ireland that is also the role that is served by case law, it sets the precedent and determines the boundaries of existing laws. 

Concerning of course is that once again, as with most homophobic legislation, it reduces being LGBT to a lifestyle, therefore implying it is a choice. We don't call being Chinese a lifestyle or being disabled a lifestyle yet these are among the other groups that are covered by equality legislation.

Polygamy is a lifestyle which you can legislate either against or for: being LGBT is not. Of course there is the matter that some argue that the Ashers cake is not about the fact that it was an LGBT customer, but supporting a LGBT campaign. The case law from the Equality Commission will set out to determine if this is indirect discrimination of LGBT people or merely refusing a political message. That is a fine line and a grey area that needs to be established independently and not by politicians with personal conflicts of interest.

Any bill coming before the Assembly would have to pass an equality audit to make sure it met the requirements of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act. The way this is worded at the moment would appear to be an Orwellian "all 'consciences' are equal, but some are more equal than other". I would fully expect any such bill to fail such a audit. But if it does pass and comes before the Assembly I expect there to be enough right thinking, equality supporting MLAs to table a petition of concern on the vote and then for it to fail on cross community support as it would undoubtedly fail to gain the required nationalist support.

What would happen if the conscience clause does come into being? Looking at the way that Givan's statement is worded and the way similar laws have operated in the Sourthern United States some Christian business owners will start to refuse to serve any obvious LGBT couples or people, because in the words of Girvan "they no longer have to affirm that particular lifestyle."

That Mr Givan is not equality, that is actually intolerance.

A simple choice says Peter

"Flag-lowering, parade-stopping, gay marriage supporting, pro-water charging, holier than thou Alliance Party".

Was the recommendation that Peter Robinson made of the Alliance Party in his speech this afternoon, so let me take those epithets that raised raucous applause from the small minded, one directioned, homophobic, financially irresponsible, holier than God himself DUP delgates found so humourous and look at them one by one.

Flag lowering: Whilst this relates to Belfast City Council, for Derry City Council and many of the councils to the West of the Bann the Alliance Party policy on flying the Union Flag on designated days is actually a flag raising policy. Yes it is one that Sinn Féin and the SDLP need some work on to see it as being fair to the minority of unionists who live in the council areas that they live in. Some of those Unionists undoubtedly vote DUP but haven't seen the Union Flag fly from their civic buildings for years. Therefore where is the DUP call for the flag to fly on all public buildings to mark the Royal Birthdays, the Queen's Coronation Day etc? Of course designated days is what happens in most council areas in Great Britain, indeed some fly other flags Orkney flies the Norwegian Flag on Norway Day, and many the Rainbow flag for Pride.

So make that Flag Raising or Flag Equality

Parade stopping: No doubt refers to the Twadell Avenue stand off, but it was the Parade's Commission as voted for by 71% of the Northern Irish people in response to the Belfast Agreement who decided that one final part of their parade home on the Twelve in 2013 should not go past a parade of shops in a nationalist area. This was based on previous violence in the area from both sides over previous parades. The DUP of course are supporting the cost of policing the ongoing action there  in hundreds of thousands of pounds, while the PSNI this week announced some cuts to manning of police stations to try and meet budget constraints on top of suspending historical enquiry work.

So make that Police Supporting and People Respecting.

Gay Marriage Supporting: Of course marriage equality is not just about the gays (and lesbians), it also affects the bisexuals and those who are transgender and intersex. But then when you are used to attcking just the G of the LGBT+ spectrum you can't be expected to know the details of some of my potential partners I an marry but others I cannot, spousal vetoes and stolen years of "togetherness". Nor does it allow those faith groups that want to carry out same-sex marriages the same rights as their brethren in England, Wales and very soon Scotland. Of course when you defend the union and attack LGBT+ equality on a par with the rest of the Kingdom you make a certain section second class citizens in their own land.

So make that Equal Marriage Supporting or just Equality Supporting.

Pro-Water Charging: Water charging is just one possible way to increase government income. We do have a failing water and sewage provision infrastructure which needs a sizeable amount of work and replacement. One way this is funding in England, Wales and Scotland is through the water charge component in the council tax. So yeah while we have a financial crisis shouldn't we be looking at the various ways that we miss out on the revenue that the rest of the UK can call upon to actually do stuff with, but then doing stuff and the Assembly are two things that very rarely go together. Of course Peter Robinson is looking to get control of local corporation tax, but that is only so he can lower it to match the Republic of Ireland and therefore create more holes in budgets. Taxes and revenue need to meet expenditure not cause even more savings to be sought.

So make that Fiscally Responsible.

Holier than thou: Coming from a party that fails to take into account people of non-Christian, Roman Catholic Faith, or no faith into consideration this seems rather rich. When their definition of what is right is based on a rather narrow reading of the Bible which not even every Christian in Northern Ireland holds to 100%. When they cannot legislate for the state without reference to the bible it is clear who truly is Holier than thou, though I suspect that like the Pharisees and Sadducees before them are actually Holier than God creating extra laws and legislations to go on top of what Moses was given. This is why Jesus said that the greatest commandment was to love. For until you can live up to that one you cannot possibly start to consider the others and that is where the hate for certain sectors and failure to understand equality legislation leads to.

So finally I make that  Being a Good Samaritan for EVERYONE.

So in conclusion what Peter failed to see is that the Alliance Party is actually:

Flag Equality Everywhere, Police Supporting, People Respecting, Equality Supporting, Fiscally Responsible, Good Samaritan for EVERYONE

So yeah it is a simple choice for the people of East Belfast. If they want progress and normality that most of the Western World knows, loves and experiences then they can vote for Naomi Long. If they want to carry on with the bigotry, keeping others down and lurching from one financial crisis to another they can back Gavin Robinson.

A poem for equality

I'd love to be regarded as just a person but in Northern Ireland I am not.
The DUP look on me as a dirty blood, my doctors have a different thought.
The DUP call me as promiscuous, but partners would tell them otherwise
The DUP say I'm not child safe, despite niece and nephew's smiles.
The DUP think I'm anti-Christian, yet I have a faith just like they themselves espouse.
Yet even my church can't judge me on faith alone because of being gay I suppose.
I've been called "one of them" by the new health minister to my face,
Yet when we meet at family gatherings it can be he looks ill at ease

Sadly not all people are equal with each other here in Northern Ireland,
Not just with those around you but 'cross England, Wales and Scotland
Those who claim to support the union and keep us all as British
When if comes to our equality they act with anger and are skittish.
Because from their view point as white and male, protestant heterosexuals
Though loyal they claim to the Queens, to queens they act abysmal.
They life a live of privilege tell us they stand for equality
Yet their failure to deliver on that is plain for all to see.

You see when you place a petition of concern and fight our equality in courts
It clear that those words are hollow, we look past such words to your thoughts.
And there the truth is all to clear, other words ring through our ears
Because you still want to save Ulster from Sodomy after all these years.
Yet what you fear is that we actually are normal just like you
Want families and weddings and to not to stand out in a queue
Unless of course we want to, but that's a valid choice as well
So don't cover up our frustrations as "everything's going swell".
We live, we eat, we vote, we sleep, we serve you and your kin
Yet to treat us as your equals when will that walk begin.

To tell us we should expect not to be served, for others freedom of conscience,
That fighting for our equality can be discriminated against. Hence,
When we face a hurdle, that you and some of faith place in our way
We'll reach out those those with a stronger voice to let us have our say.
To challenge privilege you want to hold on to for a few, elect, the chosen ones.
Yet some of us are friends, your servers, family, daughters, sons?

So while we wait for you to enact on adoption, allow us a family life,
We'll carry on the fight for husband to wed husband and wife to take a wife.
While you take the blood of anyone when supplies are running low,
It's irrational that when MSM meet criteria that's fine elsewhere you still say no.
By your actions they shall know you, is what the good book proclaims
Your actions aren't loving when on equality all there is is shame.

So listen to what we're saying, look at the evidence science lights upon,
You've not stifle our cries of "unfair" the fight for equality rumbles on.


© 2014 Stephen Glenn 

Footnote This poem started to write itself in my head during the whole Ashers debate, it came to a head when Nelson McCausland wrote this opinion piece in the Belfast Telegraph. Some of the words on this then became an adaptation of my own comments.


 ,

Can Peter Robinson please define bonkers?

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

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

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

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

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

So I ask Peter Robinson which is  bonkers?

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

Father Tim Bartlett's dichotomy of freedom of conscience

Today Fr Tim Bartlett, who to be fair is to be praised for engaging with Belfast Pride's Hymn and Us debate, issued a statement that doesn't 100% make sense.

"I will be writing today to those groups from the gay community, with whom I have had a very constructive and ongoing engagement in recent years, to say that I am withdrawing my engagement until the right of all people, in this case Christians, to freedom of conscience is vindicated and respected by the Equality Commission and the gay community. 

"I also want to know why the chief commissioner of the Equality Commission talked quite openly about the Ashers case during the Gay Pride debate in Belfast but has since claimed he is not free to talk about it in public debate."

Now he says he is withdrawing "engagement until the right of all people" to freedom on conscience is vindicated and respected. Of course in between those two cases he adds a caveat.

Having attending Hymn and Us as part of the panel the priest is no doubt aware that there are LGBT Christians, some of them within his own Roman Catholic Church. So will he also be disengaging with Rome and the senior clergy here in Ireland until the rights of all Catholics, in this case LGBT members, to freedom of conscience is vindicated and respected?

What about the gay Presbyterians like myself, will he stop engaging with the PCI on the same basis? You see even allowing Christians to have a freedom of conscience the issue is which section of them have the right take on what their conscience tells them.

The whole issue of course stems from the refusal, after original agreement, to supply a cake with a Marriage Equality logo on it by Ashers Bakery. There is under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006:

Goods, facilities or services 

5 (1) It is unlawful for any person concerned with the provision (for payment or not) of goods, facilities or services to the public or a section of the public to discriminate against a person who seeks to obtain or use those goods, facilities or services —

(a) by refusing or deliberately omitting to provide him with any of them; or
(b) by refusing or deliberately omitting to provide him with goods, facilities or services of the same quality, in the same manner and on the same terms as are normal in his case in relation to other members of the public or (where the person seeking belongs to a section of the public) to other members of that section.

(2) It is unlawful for any person concerned with the provision of goods, facilities or services as mentioned in paragraph (1), in relation to such provision, to subject to harassment —

(a) a person who seeks to obtain or use those goods, facilities or services; or
(b) a person to whom he provides those goods, facilities and services.

(3) The following are examples of the facilities and services mentioned in paragraph (1) —
...
(g)the services of any profession or trader, or any local or other public authority.<
There is a difference between an individuals conscience and a public company's legal requirements.

For example a Quaker business owner cannot say I don't agree with war and therefore will refuse to pay my proportion of corporation tax and VAT that the Government will spent on funding such a war.

Nor can a Free Presbyterian business owner here in Northern Ireland without the proportion of expenditure on either the Catholic maintained or Integrated Education funding that they may not support.

The conscience of the business is to uphold the law of the land, Jesus himself when tested on this by the Pharisees said render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's. Ashers as well as their general bread and cake making business also make bespoke cakes.

Clause 5 (1)b clearly states "by refusing or deliberately ommitting to provide him with good, facilities or services of the same quality,in the same manner amd on the same terms as are normal in his case in relation to other member of the public" a company acts unlawfully. So is this what Father Bartlett really means? That he is withdrawing engagement so that firms that act unlawfully.

Dear Equality for all

Yes at the end of last week an anonymous letter writer to the Belfast Telegraph took umbrage at the decision at the end of July by Belfast Pride to award this years community partnership award to the Northern Ireland Equality Commission.

Thanks to the Belfast newspapers, we now know that the Equality Commission has been awarded a community partnership award by Pride – the LGBT lobbyists.

Does this mean the commission is now another wing of vociferous LGBT activists? As a neutral quango it must refute the award and sever its association with LGBT lobbyists. If it does not, its funding should be withdrawn.

EQUALITY FOR ALL

Lisburn, Co Antrim

Regular readers can probably accurately guess as to what my first course of action was upon reading those words. Yeah I opened my email account and started to compose the following response published in today's Belfast Telegraph:

It appears that your correspondent Equality for All (Write Back, August 28) is slightly misnamed and is only Equality for Some.

The community partnership award from Belfast Pride is, like the other eight awards, voted for from a shortlist by members of the LGBT community.

The winners of this year's community partnership, the Equality Commission, unlike your correspondent Equality for All, says on its website:

 "Our powers and duties derive from a number of statutes which have been enacted over the last decades, providing protection against discrimination on the grounds of age, disability, race, religion and political opinion, sex and sexual orientation. We also have responsibilities arising from the Northern Ireland Act 1998 in respect of the statutory equality and good relations duties which apply to public authorities."

So, yes, one of the groups that is there to provide protection against discrimination is satisfied with the work it has done and at a community award ceremony decided to say thank you for the work it has done and continues to do. I advise Equality for All to come out of the shadows of anonymity and actually become a real advocate for equality for all in our wee country. Who knows, maybe some day he/she will be up for the Pride Advocate of the Year award.

Of course unlike so much of the negative LGBT correspondence in the Northern Press my name and locality are printed at the bottom of my letter. Yes the equality commission is neutral is as far as it is there to gauge to need for action in the wide range of equality areas that are listed in Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act and other legislation. But sometimes in standing up for those minorities they will not be neutral is standing up to the status quo and conservative thinking people and politicians who do not see the need to change anything.

It is not mean the Equality Commission is a wing of vociferous LGBT activists any more that is is for the Feminist Network, Chinese Welfare, Disability Action, AgeNI or any of the groups working and acting for those other minorities.

Are UKIP Northern Ireland confused on social equality?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clause 74: Monitoring

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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