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.

Snowing out #LGBT #sport

Well there is snow in the air and the winter sports season is upon us once more, or course earlier in the year we had the Winter Olympics in Sochi under the anti-LGBT administration of Russia. At the time I pointed out the few LGB Winter Olympians that were present.

However, one we didn't know about actually won a medal.

Radford with partner Meagan Duhamel in Sochi

Canadian pairs skater Eric Radford (right) has recently come out as gay, or in his words the ultimate pairs boy as there is no danger of him forming an off-ice relationship with his partner. He told Out magazine:

"My concern was that I would be known as 'the gay athlete' if I came out at the Olympics, rather than 'Eric the medalling figure skater who happens to be gay'. And I felt uncomfortable with that title."

The guy is a strong competitor, during the short programme of the 2011 World he finished a routine with blood pouring from his nose after his partner Meagan Duhamel's elbow coming in contact with him. This was from here descent from a twist the first element in the routine. Despite his nose being broken he took part the following day in the free programme and the pair finished 7th.  He and Duhamel have apparently been practising a quad thrown Salchow to unleash this year to improve on their bronze medal in the last two World Championships.

His coming out adds a silver to the medal tally of team LGB from Sochi adding to the 2 golds (one for team) and 3 silvers of Ireen Wüst (NED) in speed skating.

Meanwhile elsewhere in the world of Winter Sport Australia have added a gay man to their bobsleigh team. Rugby player Simon Dunn is currently in Calgary training with the upcoming season and hoping to make the team for 2018 in South Korea.

He told SameSame:

"I love competing in bobsleigh. The adrenaline rush. Using my strengths from rugby and excelling in a different sport. I love representing my country. And I'm also proud of the fact that I'm the first out gay man in the sport to do so!"

He has even been spotted post pictures of himself in his skin suit (see left). Though I think it would be best if he did it up when competing not just to save the poor guy from an awful chill but also to enhance the aerodynamics.

Of course the cross over from running events to bobsleigh is not new as many teams search other sports for the explosive athletes that can give the push off the start blocks that are so important for sliding events.

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.

When is an answer not an answer? #SexualOrientationStrategy

Earlier this year we finally had a consultation of Northern Ireland's sexual orientation strategy (SOS) but seem to have heard nothing since.

So I decided to see when was the first question to OFMDFM about it delivery. I think I have found it here on the 8 October 2007

Sexual Orientation Strategy  and Action Plan5. Dr Farry asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to detail what progress has been made towards presenting and launching the sexual orientation strategy and action plan.    (AQO 380/08)The First Minister: A consultation on the draft sexual orientation strategy and action plan was carried out during direct rule under the former Secretary of State Peter Hain. The draft strategy has yet to be considered by Ministers and the Executive.Dr Farry: I thank the First Minister for that answer, even though it was rather brief. Can he assure me that all Ministers are working in harmony on sexual orientation issues and that this draft strategy will be brought forward as soon as possible? Does he agree that sexual orientation issues need to be seen through the prism of good relations? Will consideration be given to placing sexual orientation issues within the wider remit of the shared future strategy and, in particular, the second triennial action plan?The First Minister: The First Minister and deputy First Minister have made it clear that the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister is totally committed to promoting equality and human rights and is completely opposed to any form of discrimination or harassment against any citizen.Mr Storey: Will the First Minister inform the House who approved the current funding package, and has any further funding been agreed?The First Minister: Mr Peter Hain approved the package; neither I nor my colleague across the way has since approved any funding.Mr McCartney: Does the First Minister agree that, in order to be effective, the draft sexual orientation strategy needs the full and total support of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister?The First Minister: That is a matter for negotiation. I can say only that we have to face the facts that are before us, and the facts are that the money that is now being provided is based on the undertaking made by the then Secretary of State Peter Hain and that the draft strategy has yet to be considered by Ministers or the Executive.

Yet tomorrow one of the First Minister's party colleagues intends to lodge a Private Members Bill for consultation on introducing a conscience clause into equality legislation. When you bear in mind that Peter Hain left the Northern Ireland department on 27 June 2007 and it was he who started the talk of a sexual orientation strategy this shows the level of procrastination that the DUP have on dealing with sexual orientation.

Of course we are still in talks about the past, parades and symbols at the moment which is another procrastination from the time that powers were first devolved. Therefore the speed with which the DUP can dismantle something considering the length of time they fail to come to an agreement on building things for a truly shared future.

Later questions on this issue:

• In June 2008 determined that the draft would be presented to ministers that Autumn
• In February 2009 that a refreshed SOS would be presented to Ministers for consideration by early summer 2009
• In May 2010 the needs analysis had yet to be carried out before presentation to OFMDFM
• In September 2010 we were told that the recent Cohesion, Sharing and Integration indicated that ministers were committed to publishing the SOS 
• In a verbal question that month we told it would not be published sooner than 2012
• On 21 February 2011 the minister opened that he "was not aware of any significant delay in publication" despite most of the times scales above being missed
• In October 2011 draft proposals were about to be made available to the OFMDFM committee for publication and public consultation in early 2012
• In February 2012 it was confirmed that is would be published during that year
• In June 2012 we were told that the draft SOS would be published in December 2012
• In October 2012 December was replaces with the more vague "near future"
• In January 2013 with no publication we were told they remained committed to publication (again)
• In July 2013 when asked why it had failed to be published and when to expect it deadlines were not in the answer
• In October 2013 a consultation document was under consideration at the departmenr
• In January 2014 there was mention of a draft consultation document being prepared for public consultation
• In February 2014 when asked about publication of SOS the Minister said he had asked officials to launch a public consultation on which to base the SOS

The development consultation document was finally published in March 2014, we are once again approaching the end of another year waiting the results of that consultation to form the basis of the draft Sexual Orientation Strategy and Action Plan.

On the 13 November Stewart Dickson tabled the seemingly annual question since 2007 "To ask the First Minister and deputy First Minister when the Sexual Orientation Strategy will be published." because we are still waiting for the actual strategy and action plan eight years on.

Paul Givan is going to put his Conscience Clause out to consultation after he lodges it tomorrow. Can you think he's be happy waiting over 8 years for something to come out of that initial consultation? Yet this is why the people he thinks people of faith need protecting from are still waiting to have their concerns properly addressed. 

It is time for the DUP to actually sort things out. Provide the Sexual Orientation Strategy. And the Race Strategy and Gender Strategy and all the things that link into Equality that they have been constantly procrastinating about since they took over the role of First Minister following the St Andrews Agreement. They need to do more than draw their salary they need to do things and not let things constantly get to a crisis point before they consider action and that often the wrong actions.

We need politicians who are not suffering from myopia but are far sighted enough to make plans and strategies for the future. When I word in DETI there was an Economic Strategy for the forthcoming 10 years called Strategy 2010. A subsequent strategy is now in place, but if DETI had taken 8 years to come up with a 10 year strategy there would be major questions asked.

So I'm asking one today. How come all the equality strategies have not being actioned expeditiously? 

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."