Oh happy [joyous/gleeful/gay] day!

Today is a great day for marriage equality even if it related to two court cases.

First in Belfast the High Court gave the go ahead for the judicial review into the ban on same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland going ahead. It is the first step of a long process. Seeing as some of the politicians on the hill and in a few of our council chambers are refusing to budge on this issue yet again the LGBT+ community of Northern Ireland have had to lean on the will of the courts once again.

Meanwhile in Washington the US Supreme Court has ruled that equal marriage is a constitutional right that should extend to all fifty states.

This latest verdict takes away one of the lynchpins of DUP opposition. There was always the argument that the largest nation in the free world did not have equal marriage across the whole nation so the UK did not have to do likewise. Well that has now changed and with the exception of Germany who like Northern Ireland have the largest party a union of fundamentalist Christians the rest of the Western World is now moving towards marriage equality.

Peter Lynas will no doubt to continue to argue that we should call Northern Ireland a backwater on the issue of marriage equality. But when your list of nations to compare us to now is largely Eastern Europe, Africa (where some want to lock up or kill all the LGBT community) and China. It is hardly the company that civilised society should aim to be keeping.

Leave a comment

Filed under Equal Marriage, equality

Ashers found to have discriminated

Today the full judgement of in the case of Gareth Lee v Ashers Baking Co. Limited, Daniel McArthur and Karen McArthur was handed down in court.

In her judgement Judge Brownlie found that the company and the McArthurs directly discriminated against Mr Lee on the grounds of religious belief and/or political opinion [paragraph 66].That Daniel and Karen McArthur directly discriminated against Mr Lee on the ground of his sexual orientation [para 46] because they had the knowledge or perception that Mr Lee was gay and/or associated with others who were [para 39]

She also stated that the company were not a religious organisation but a business existing for profit and therefore not exempt from the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006.

In concluding she made the following finding:

[93]  This compelling analysis of the necessity of the Human Rights and Equality jurisprudence articulates all I could have hoped to say albeit not so fluently to demonstrate that the law must protect all. It must protect the rights of the Defendents to have and to manifest their religious beliefs but it also recognises that the rights of the Plaintiff not to be discriminated because of his sexual orientation.

If the Plaintiff was a gay man who ran a bakery business and the Defendants as Christians wanted him to bake a cake with the words “support heterosexual marriage” the Plaintiff would be required to do so as, otherwise; he would, according to the law be discriminated against the Defendants. This is not a law which is for one belief only but is equal to and for all.

The Defendants are entitled to continue to hold their genuine and deeply held religious beliefs and to manifest them but, in accordance with the law, not to manifest them in the commercial sphere if it is contrary to the rights of others

Speaking of the decision Northern Ireland’s representative on the LGBT+ Liberal Democrats Executive Stephen Glenn said:

“This ruling shows the importance of the Human Rights Act and the equality legislation as it currently stands in striking a balance between the rights and responsibilities of conflicting opinions and beliefs. Something that our party has already stood up against the erosion of by the current Westminster government.

“It also champions the rights of LGBT+ individuals to be treated equally under the law as anyone else. We are not seeking to have special rights merely the same rights to go about perfectly legal activities without fear of someone denying us goods, facilities or services.

“While I hope this is the end of this particular matter, past experience is that Christian Institute backed cases of this type will be challenged to the nth degree through every level of appeal. I personally wish for the sake of Daniel McArthur and his family that this added pressure, scrutiny and attention is not allowed to continue and further hurt and heap pressure on them.

“The Northern Liberal Democrats also fear the reaction to this ruling by some of our politicians. The statement of the Judge that “this is not a law which is for one belief only but is equal to and for all” is something that I hope Northern Ireland politicians heed. There is no need for a conscience clause, indeed implementing one would eventually also open up the rights of people who oppose the views of people with genuine, deeply held faith to exercise their conscience.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Human Rights, law, Uncategorized

Jim Wells resigns as Health Minister

It is often said that a week is a long time in politics, today it would appear a weekend is a similarly long period for the Northern Ireland health department.

As recently as Saturday after the first calls that the NI Health Minister, Jim Wells, should resign because of comments he made in a hustings on Thursday evening he was adamant that he would not be stepping down as Health Minister.

Yesterday in an article in one of the Sunday newspapers there was the revelation that on top of his wife’s recent health issues he himself had been diagnosed with narcoplesy.

However, news yesterday also appeared that Jim Wells while out canvassing in Rathfriland has taken offence to a lesbian couples lifestyle on their doorstep before, as with the hustings, he tried to go back allegedly to apologise. This latest incident is under police investigation.

It appears that overnight he had approached Peter Robinson to tender his resignation which was formerly announced at 7:00am.

His time as health minister had continued to follow the ill informed objections to LGBT and abortion issues of his predecessor. The DUP say that they will announce his successor on 11th May.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Jim Wells’ comments in last night’s hustings

Firstly all of those at LGBT+ Liberal Democrats Northern Ireland want to say we are glad to have read the news in the Belfast Telegraph the other day that Mrs Grace Wells is recovering from the rare condition that affected her a short while ago. We wish her all the best in the future and understand the strain this may have put Jim Wells under.

However, if he was really under a lot of stress looking after his wife it should surely have been grounds for him not to put himself under further stress on top of being an MLA and Health Minister to seek election to Westminster. We are putting this up front as Jim Wells in a statement issued last night (see below) mentioned personal stress in recent weeks.

It is this series of comments from last night’s hustings in South Down that has brought this to a head:

Jim Wells

The comments can be viewed in video clips online.

Must horrifying of all with a raucous crowd to the last part about abuse, he immediately sets out to repeat his comments as clarification that he had said them and wanted them to be heard

The last of the sequence is that one that caused the uproar but comments have been made by members of the DUP that they have been taken out of context to the early comments about haranguing Christians and being insatiable lead up to the one about abuse of children by those in homosexual relationships.

There are over 1,200 children currently in care in Northern Ireland as the result of being victims of abuse. Is Mr Wells therefore saying that over 600 of these are from the result of having two carers of the same sex? Note we did not say parents as currently he is not allowing same-sex couples to adopt here despite a court ruling that the law should be changed to allow this. The facts of course are that very few of those children are there as a result of same-sex parents from come from homes with a father and mother involved in their upbringing.

In context of course Mr Wells had previously said that all who took part in Pride were repugnant, this was long before his wife’s current illness.

Mr Wells comments about abuse also seem to flow his comments about the victim of a rape who becomes pregnant in 2014 he said:

“That is a tragic and difficult situation but should the ultimate victim of that terrible act [rape] – which is the unborn child – should he or she also be punished for what has happened by having their life terminated? No.”

There seems to be no realisation that the ultimate victim of any unwanted sexual encounter is the woman who has suffered. It is her body that has been violated, her emotions that have become distraught, her rights that have been abused. It leads to the question does the Health Minister really understand abuse in any situation.

Mr Wells also during the break between the first debate and vote on equal marriage in Stormont was in front of one of members, whom he had meet before, in the restaurant. When the member said hello and was about to ask how his wife and family were, was shunned by Mr Wells with the comment “Oh, you’re one of them!” before he turned heel and ended the civil on the part of our member’s conversation.

Here is Mr Wells’ response after the hustings debate last night:

“The last few weeks have been extremely difficult for me personally. I had just come from a hospital visit and my focus was not on the debate. Indeed, during the event I received several messages from the hospital.

“I have listened to a recording of the relevant part of the debate. I accept that one line of what I said caused offence and deep concern amongst members of the audience and beyond. I regret having wrongly made that remark about abuse and I’m sorry those words were uttered. The comment did not reflect my view nor that of my party.

“Within seconds of realising this error, I asked the Chairman to let me back in and twice corrected my remarks before the debate moved on. This clarification has been confirmed by the journalists present at the event. Partial clips, spin and selective reporting regrettably miss this.

“The neglect or abuse of children is awful and happens in unstable relationships whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. I make no distinction between anyone who neglects or abuses a child regardless of their sexual orientation. I trust people will accept my explanation and my apology.”

If we give Mr Wells the benefit of the doubt over the first sentence we would like to ask why has he made the past few weeks and next couple even more difficult for himself by standing for election in another legislature at this difficult personal time. Clearly this thought wasn’t to the forefront of his mind when he signed the papers allowing himself to be nominated as the DUP candidate for South Down.

But on the matter of an issue such as abuse which falls under his Health and Social Care remit he should surely be aware of the sensitive nature of his comments and the facts about the situation here in Northern Ireland. While he has the right to say he is opposed to same-sex marriage he does not have the right to make up statistics, facts and vilify every lesbian, gay or bisexual person in Northern Ireland in doing so.

Leave a comment

Filed under Equal Marriage, Health, NI Assembly, Westminster, young people

What does the Liberal Democrat Manifesto say about LGBT issues?

Here is what the LIberal Democrat manifesto has to say about LGBT issues:

A fair society should treat its citizens equally and with dignity. In this Parliament, thanks to Liberal Democrats in government, there have been key advances in the fight for equality – like introducing same-sex marriage and banning age discrimination. But we must continue our work to fight prejudice and discrimination based on race, age, religion or belief, gender, sexuality, and disability. We will enact the remaining unimplemented clauses of the Equality Act 2010

To promote equality in relationships and for LGBT+ individuals, we will:

  • Give legal rights and obligations to cohabiting couples in the event of relationship breakdown or one partner dying without a will.
  • Permit humanist weddings and opposite sex civil partnerships, and liberalise the rules about the location, timing and content of wedding ceremonies.
  • Support schools to tackle homophobic and transphobic bullying and discrimination, and to establish a tolerant and inclusive environment for all their pupils. We will remove schools’ exemption from the bar on harassment in these areas while protecting the right to teach about religious doctrine.
  • Promote international recognition of same sex marriages and civil partnerships as part of a comprehensive International LGBT Rights Strategy that supports the cause of decriminalising homosexuality in other countries.
  • Seek to pardon all those with historic convictions for consensual homosexual activity between adults.
  • Enhance the experience of all football fans by making homophobic chanting a criminal offence, like racist chanting.
  • Ask the Advisory Committee on Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs periodically to review rules around men who have sex with men donating blood to consider what restrictions remain necessary.

We also take our responsibility as an internationalist party seriously and also say the following.
Liberal Democrats believe British foreign policy and international aid should seek to advance human rights and democracy throughout the world. We believe all people – regardless of ethnicity, disability, age, belief, gender or sexual orientation – deserve a freer, fairer and more prosperous world.
We will:

  • Develop a comprehensive strategy for promoting the decriminalisation of homosexuality around the world, and advancing the cause of LGBT+ rights.

While we appreciate that the party are not standing here in Northern Ireland and therefore have not laid out specific Northern Ireland policies the above lays out the ethos that the Liberal Democrats in Northern Ireland will also work towards as well as the various inequalities we currently experience with the rest of the UK and indeed the rest of Ireland.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Summary of the Ashers court case

Today ended the third day of the court case of Gareth Lee v Ashers Ltd. in Laganside Court Belfast. A good source of in court reporting was the Tweets of Belfast Telegraph Deborah McAleese. It is largely from there that we have pulled the following facts from the proceedings.

The facts of the purchase:

The first thing to note is that the order was placed at the Royal Avenue branch of Ashers six stores. For those who do not know Belfast this is the main shopping street in Belfast City Centre. The store is only slightly down the road on the other side of the street from Tesco and the Castle Court shopping centre is across the street on the other side. This location is also less than 5 minutes walk from the LGBT Centre on Waring Street where Queer Space who were ordering the cake and Gareth Lee was based, also Gareth had used them many times before, which ought to shut up conspiracy theorists.

The order was talked about with Karen McArthur, the mother of the general manager and herself a director of the company. She did not tell Mr Lee that there would be any issues with the cake but took full payment along with the order. There was no design work having to be done by Ashers as the artwork was provided with the order.

The cake was to have the name of the campaign organisation Queen Space and the message Support Gay Marriage. No mention of Ashers on the cake.

There was a leaflet displaying Ashers cake service which the members of the McArthur family admitted doesn’t mention any limitations to graphics that can be provided.

The evidence of Karen McArthur

She said she knew in her heart at the time she took the order that the company could not complete the order. She said that the reason she did not tell Mr Lee this at the time was because she didn’t want to embarrass him or cause a confrontation in the shop.

The reason Mrs McArthur knew she would be unable to complete the order was the message was contrary to her Christian belief. However, he also acknowledged that they leaflet also carried pictures of a Halloween cake with witches on it.

She also when asked, “Do you not think you should have immediately told Mr Lee (the order would not be fulfilled)?” she replied no.

The evidence of Daniel McArthur

The son and managing director, admitted that after the issue was brought to his attention he raised it with a elder in his church for his view. He also admitted that he had never really thought about the witch imagery being contrary to the same Christian belief, though said he was unaware of that image being on the leaflet as another member of staff had designed it. However, it was pointed out to him in court that the literature had been available for about 2 years.

He also said “We doing it in defiance of the law. Before God it’s not something we could do.” in relation to turning down the order.

The conclusions

The lawyer for Ashers said that this wasn’t a case of sexual discrimination and that a heterosexual ordering the same cake would be turned away. But the lawyer for Mr Lee said that with the word gay on the cake and the messaging it was clearly intended for a group that would involve gay people and supported them, even if the plaintiff wasn’t, therefore it was indirect discrimination.

The lawyer for Mr Lee also said that the reason given in public by the McArthurs for their refusal was based on their religious views. And therefore it was impinging his political and sexual orientation rights. It was also he argued breaching contract law as the payment was taken upon the full conditions being expressed.

The lawyer for the McArthurs argued that they shouldn’t have to put a message they felt unable to endorse unto a cake, but the lawyer for Mr Lee claimed that they weren’t being asked to endorse the message and nobody would ask if the bakery had done on seeing the cake. He finished with the fact that once a barrister enters into a contract to represent someone he doesn’t necessarily have to agree with gay marriage to defend a client over their views of it.



Filed under Equal Marriage, equality, faith, Human Rights, law

Statement in support of Paul Finlay-Dickson

When somebody is grieving and in the run up to the death of a partner they deserve respect and understanding. But for Paul Finlay-Dickson and his late partner Maurice that was not to be. They were receiving threats and intimidation for being who they are in North Belfast, even while Maurice was going through the last years of his life with cancer.

Intimidation is wrong in every context.

Yet, it has been used in Northern Ireland too often to remove what one section of society considers are undesirable from their midst. We live in a society where our largest political party seem to continue a rhetoric that people are allowed to have objections to people who are LGBT. The problem is that this language leads to people thinking it is alright to intimidate their neighbours whose sexuality or gender story is different to their own.

The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We call on other parties in Northern Ireland to seek the same so that such intolerance and fear is not propagated through our communities. The language our politicians use at times stirs up some sections against members of our society and more care is needed to promote tolerance and not objection to people who are different.


Filed under attacks, equality, safety

Response to Conscience Clause Bill

Response to the consultation on the Northern Ireland Freedom of Conscience Amendment Bill
on behalf of
Northern Ireland Liberal Democrats
LGBT+ Liberal Democrats

The following is the response of the Northern Ireland Liberal Democrats, which was also endorsed by the UK-wide executive committee of LGBT+ Liberal Democtats on 17th February 2015, to the above consultation. In light of the fact that this response is being sent to the headquarters of just one of the Assembly parties and not to a Department as with most public consultations we have also sent copies to the other parties and individuals represented in both Stormont and Westminster.

Question 1 Do you believe that it would be appropriate to amend the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 as proposed in Appendix 1 to ensure that individuals are not put in a position where as a result of this legislation they are forced to choose between either acting in violation of their faith conscience, by affirming same-sex relationships, or losing their livelihood?


The Liberal Democrats believe that nobody should be enslaved by conformity. This consultation sets out only a limited definition of faith conscience and ignores those of faith who are supportive of LGBT members and indeed wish to carry out same-sex marriage. Therefore it is assuming all religious believe conforms to one way of thinking on the issues over sexual orientation and enslaves some faith groups, prohibiting their freedom of religion as an outworking of this clause and other actions taken to prevent greater equality in sexual orientation issues rather than their lessening as this clause lays out.

None of the same sex marriage legislation debated in Westminster, Holyrood or Stormont failed to recognise the fact that faith groups should have the decision in their own hands as to whether to affirm such same-sex relationships. Indeed this clause appears to be primarily, from the narrative that accompanies it, against legislation that the party of the member opposed which actually included an inbuilt conscience clause when being debated before the Assembly. It does not allow a freedom of religious conscience for faith groups who wish to carry out same sex marriages and are supportive of it the same freedom of conscience that it is placing on a narrow definition of “religious conscience”.

The fact that the Bill seeks to append this conscience clause only to sexual orientation regulations shows it is not a full religious conscience clause as it is only targeting one type of equality. Faith is already protected within the Equality Act and faith organisations and their related groups, unless they exist solely for commercial purposes are already exempt from the sexual orientation regulations.

Indeed as well as the exemptions stated in the Equality Act for religious organisations there are also already exemptions for religious organisation from portions of employment and tax law. The formation of law in this country has a long tradition of not impinging on religious organisations to operate in a different way to the rest of civic society.

Question 2 Is it appropriate that goods and services legislation should be applied in such a way that it narrows diversity and choice for service users who wish to access a service in the context of a faith/particular faith ethos?

Unsure (because of the very poor wording of the question)

The wording of this question seems to think that diversity and choice is narrowed for those of faith. As far as we are aware no store or service provider in Northern Ireland is allowed to turn away someone of faith. However, what this clause is seeking to do is allow people of a particular faith ethos to turn away people because of their same sex behaviour or belief in sexual orientation equality. Therefore the narrowing of diversity or choice is going to come if this clause impacts upon the Equality Act, something that does not currently exist.

The wording to allow the right to refuse the provision of goods, facilities or services that endorse, promote or facilitate behaviour or beliefs that conflict with strongly held religious beliefs is too wide an area with lack of clarity. Despite protestations from the author of the consultation’s explanation there are situations that this can be used as a means to discrimination.

The clause currently acts to narrow diversity and choice and will lead to an even further narrowing of diversity and choice, possibly even to the point of adverse impact on those it claims to be helping. By only allowing one type of conscience the right to determine what behaviour and beliefs it can refuse it is throwing the equality and protections open to every type of conscience which could lead to discrimination against those of faith, race or allow paedophiles, polygamists or white supremacists the right to exercise their conscience in what they believe to be right.

The reason the Equality Act was created was to ascertain equality to various groups, not the ability for any one of them to gain control over another. Protecting them all from extremes equally. By placing one way of thinking above another as this clause is setting out would be open to challenge from those that do have other world views, something which the courts are likely to uphold.

Question 3 As an example: a recent High Court Judgement means that Northern Ireland’s Catholic adoption agency will now be required to either be willing to act in violation of its faith identity by endorsing same-sex unions and facilitating gay adoption (which means surrendering their faith identity if they wish to continue as a provider), or to cease service provision. Do you think that gay rights are more important than religious rights such that the need to ensure gay couples can access adoption services from every provider should be pressed even when the consequence is to remove from Catholic couples the right to access a Catholic adoption service from anywhere? Is this the right balance or is there a better balance to be struck?

You ask three distinct questions in this question. So we shall have to answer them all separately as the answer, from you list of options, is not the same for all.

No, gay rights are not more important than religious rights but at the same time religious rights are not more important than LGBT rights.

However, when it comes to adoption the most important outcome is not who provides the service but that the child is swiftly moved through the system and placed in a permanent situation as soon as they are released for adoption. The fact that Northern Ireland trails the rest of the UK in both average time and number successfully placed within 12 months is a dire statistic. Maybe this is due to the diversity of provision for the approximately 100 placements a year to such a small population and even smaller potential placement population.

We think we need to look at streamlining adoption services here for the best outcome of the child and not be so hung up about which caring, loving couple, of whatever gender mix, or individual is best placed for the child.

Yes the balance is right to allow both people of faith and same sex couples the right to adopt. There is nothing in the High Court ruling that is cited that will prevent people of faith from adopting. Indeed in the personal experience of one of our members as part of the initial set up of a new scheme, in the past few years, three children were adopted by two couples of faith, from both sides of our community, and those families having gone through the process together are maintaining links. The fact is that some of the children being adopted by same-sex couples will actually being the natural children of one half of the partnership.

But surely the balance must always be on whether a child is placed in a home with parents or a parent that will love it and bring it in a safe and supportive environment.

We are unsure as to whether there is a better balance to be struck as the Adoption and Children Bill has yet to be laid before the Assembly so we do not yet know what balance Northern Ireland is to strike between the issues raised in this question in light of the adjudication of the High Court.

Question 4 How do you think the proposed legislation will impact on human rights?

We need only refer you to Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Article 8
Right to respect for private and family life

1 Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2 There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 9
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

1 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2 Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 10
Freedom of expression

1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

This clause seems to not allow the right of respect for private and family life of all individuals in Northern Ireland. It is allowing one section of society to judge on the family life of some individuals as being something they can take exception to and as a result to lead to them denying good, facilities and services, this is not respect. It seems to seek to the lift the responsibilities that come with freedom of religion which limitations include the protection of rights and freedoms of others. Similarly in the freedom of expression the exercise of the refusal within the clause fails to protect the reputation and rights of others.

As mentioned in question 2 the wording in too vague to ensure that discrimination of LGBT customers or clients will not occur either before or during access to goods, facilities or services. Behaviour is also too inclusive a term and may range from holding hands, kissing or acting flirtatiously something that mixed sex couple may well be free to engage in within the same setting.

Also in a nation obsessed from symbols does the wearing of a rainbow flag label badge, or pride t-shirt fall within promotion? Something that an individual may not even have consciously thought about but someone with “strongly held religious beliefs” under this wording could take exception to.

Question 5 How do you think the proposed legislation will impact on equality of opportunity?


By opening up the Equality Act to conscience objection a whole can of worms can be opened and other forms of conscience will demand the same right to opt out of the Equality Act in part as this is doing. The end result would be no protection under the equality and much of our laws will be unenforceable once people claim their conscience allows them to take whatever course of action they choose.

The potential is also there that if introduced the right of individual conscience could be cited as a defence in a court of law on matters probably not intended by the drafter of the motion. With the wording of this bill it may prove difficult for a prosecutor to successful retort this claim as individuality of conscience would have been unleased into the realm of defence against actions undertaken.

As pointed out in the answer to question 4 regarding the Human Rights Act with the freedoms that the people of this nation have fought so hard to defend and protect through the years and two World Wars come responsibilities. Those responsibilities do not allow us to treat those with whom we have a different stand point to as inferior. Nor those that do not fit into our worldview norm. If we do we are treading unto a slippery slope such as the Cultural Revolution in China, the pogroms of Russia, the ethnic cleansing of the Balkans. Or the development of a supremacist way of viewing an elite such as in Germany in the 1930s and 40s.

Question 6 Do you have any comments on the likely cost / financial implications of the proposed legislation?

In question 5 we mentioned the fact that numerous challenges from people of consciences not covered by this conscience clause will probably result. As these would have to be challenges through legal channels the costs in legal fees alone will probably be substantial. Protecting one type of conscience in a pluralist society could lead to all manner of law suits against all manner of decisions made by the Northern Ireland Assembly, when it contravenes a different vision of conscience.

In light of the many court decisions that DUP ministers have lost in terms of equality and potentially opening the NI Assembly to the expense that has been accrued there while they are looking to tighten the budget is not fiscally sound.

Question 7 Do you have any other comments on the proposed draft legislation? Would you suggest any further amendments?

Making a clause 16A when clause 16 relates to faith bodies (ie churches and charities thereof) when the provisions deal mainly with goods, facilities and services which come in clause 5 is sloppy legislative drafting and misplacing of the concerns. The fact that this claims to be about freedom of conscience for people of faith, yet is solely attached to sexual orientation regulations and not to other issues that people may have religious conscience objection to shows it up as clearly anti-LGBT and not pro-faith. Especially as those faith groups that are supportive of LGBT rights and same-sex marriage have so far not had their freedom of faith recognised in Northern Ireland.

The examples used, in the narrative of this consultation as to what the clause would and would not apply to seem far from the realities of life for most LGBT people in Northern Ireland. The issue of accommodation in a B&B could for example be expanded to include landlords or mortgage providers. Would a Christian landlord or mortgage provider for example be allowed to turn out an LGBT person because allowing them to use their service or accommodation would be facilitating same sex behaviour? Some taxi drivers in Belfast have already been known to turn out young LGBT couples on their way home from the City Centre to Elms Village because of their “behaviour” this would be allowed as a result of the clause, but is putting public safety at risk.

The long overdue and long promised sexual orientation strategy would surely have provided a framework within which such issues should have been addressed. The failure of OFMDFM to produce and implement this document after almost a decade since it was first raised has led to uncertainty within the LGBT community.

Therefore, instead of pursuing this needless piece of discriminatory legislation we call upon the DUP to call on OFMDFM to publish the Sexual Orientation Strategy by the end of this year.

Stephen Glenn
Membership and Policy Officer
Northern Ireland Liberal Democrats

Executive Committee Member
LGBT+ Liberal Democrats

Leave a comment

Filed under equality, Human Rights, law, NI Assembly, Stormont

No evidence for NI upholding Blood Ban

The Department of Health, Social Services and Personal Safety have revealed in a Freedom of Information request to the BBC that former Minister Edwin Poots and current Minister Jim Wells have not had any medical evidence to support the continuation of the lifetime blood donation ban for men who’ve had sex with other men (MSM).

After spending over £40,000 of tax payers money to appeal Lord Justice Treacy’s ruling that maintaining the ban was irrational this is galling news. We have ministers elsewhere having to make cuts to public spending when the DHSSPS have been frivolously throwing it away on this court case. Without scientific evidence what other basis could there be for the DUP Ministers in the Department continuing on a path that diverges from the other three health ministers in the UK? Even the minister in the Republic of Ireland has said he is considering following GB in lifting the lifetime ban.

The only reason that not one but two DUP ministers can have reached the same “decision” is that they are prejudiced in some way towards bisexual and gay men (even those who only had a brief dalliance with another man in their youth). This is nothing new for the DUP but it is becoming a worn record. I say it once again without any evidence this is institutionalised homophobia. There is an irrational fear amongst the DUP about all things LGBT, the latest incarnation of which is the conscience clause that would allow that institutionalised homophobia to spread out into shops, businesses and services.

The Liberal Democrats believe in factual based policy forming. There are no facts to uphold this policy of the DUP, there is indeed evidence that increasing the blood donation pool as in England, Wales and Scotland would have benefits in volume of units available with negligible increased risk, and even that risk is decreasing all the time with advances in testing.

Yesterday we learned that in Canada where there is a ban on giving blood for transfusion, MSM can donate blood for medical research. Which when you think that the point of donating blood is to save lives is still a valid reason for donation. It is one way that the DUP could allow the conscience of MSM who want to help others through blood donation, even if a referral period were to be introduced.

In the meantime we leave you with this thought from TVs own Dr Christian Jessen

Dr Christian

Leave a comment

Filed under Health, NI Assembly, Stormont

Ian Paisley and his legacy

There is no doubting that Ian Paisley was one of the biggest characters that Northern Ireland politics through the troubles and in the years of peace since the end has ever seen. He founded his own party which is now the largest in the Northern Ireland Assembly and also founded his own Church the Free Presbyterian Church in Ulster which maybe not surprisingly is disproportionately strongly represented within the DUP.

We do have him to thank for the return of devolution to Northern Ireland in 2007 and the longest continuous period of devolved power here since the abolition of the Northern Ireland Parliament and return to direct rule in 1972.

Today his wife Eileen has announced that he has passed on and therefore our thoughts are with her their two sons, three daughters and grandchildren for their personal loss.

However, we know that he took decades to catch up with many in Northern Ireland to realise that the only way to end conflict in our wee country was to sit down with Sinn Féin and accept that the will of the people some 6 or 7 years earlier to accept the Belfast Agreement was the only way for Northern Ireland to progress. Sadly for the LGBT community there is some progress that he never seemed to make and for us the legacy within his party is that they are still fighting to “Save Ulster from Sodomy” which is another organisation that he set up.

Of course on 25th October 1982 he has his turn in Westminster to speak against decriminalising homosexuality here in Northern Ireland. Part of his speech was:

“I regret the fact that the Secretary of State and the Minister of State were not prepared to listen to the strong representations made to them by many deputations. Each person in Northern Ireland has a right to his own conviction and some people there believe that homosexuality is not only a defiance of human law but a defiance of divine law. [Hon. Members: “Oh”!] I make no apology. I shall maintain in the House, no matter what point of view shouts, the right to say what I think needs to be said.

“The things that have been brought into the order that need not have been are matters that the Secretary of State, when he heard these strong representations, could have given in to. Instead of that, he was prepared to go on and present this matter as it has been presented.

“The House should know the strong feelings in Northern Ireland, and that those feelings do not come from one particular party or one particular religion, but from across the whole strata of Northern Ireland society. The one thing that binds society together is the family unit. Those who say that the family unit is ignorance, are welcome to that sort of belief. I believe that the family unit is the basic cement of society. This order, legalising homosexuality, attacks the very cement of society. It weakens not only the moral but the social fibre of society. Those of us who believe in the sanctity of the home and in the strength and moral power of the home must voice their opposition to the order.”

However, in the same speech some 22 years before the introduction of Civil Partnerships in the UK and over 30 years before the introduction of same-sex marriages it may be that Ian Paisley was one of the first to raise the possibility of these happening. Of course he was anti when he raised the issue but in the same speech he did say:

“If the nations of Europe go further and say that points must be given for homes for those who enter into a homosexual relationship on marriage, what will the House’s attitude be to that?”

Paisley may well therefore have been one of the first MPs to allude to equal marriage in the House of Commons. But of course currently it is not the nations of Europe that have gone further and called for same-sex or equal marriage but those of the Union a word that appears within the name of the party he formed.

When Civil partnerships were up for discussion he said it wouldn’t prove significant in Northern Ireland:

“The census of 2001 found only 288 same-sex couple households in the whole of Northern Ireland. The Government say that only 5 per cent. of same-sex couples will commit to civil partnerships. Well, 5 per cent. of 288 is 14, so 14 couples in Northern Ireland will have the opportunity provided by the Bill, even though a majority of people who have a view on the matter across the political and religious divide oppose it. Their voices were not heard or taken into account. The basis of family law in Northern Ireland is to be changed for the sake of 14 homosexual couples.”

Well to the end of 2012 there were 727 Civil Partnerships carried out here in Northern Ireland, so clearly this was something that mattered to far more than the 14 couples Dr Paisley thought it was a concern for or the 288 couples who in 2001 were bold enough on the census to list themselves as in a relationship. But of course these people hadn’t just appeared since 2001 the situation in Northern Ireland since then has merely made them more likely to be open and honest about who they are. Most of those who were adults and cohabiting in 2001 would have been children or teenagers at the height of the Save Ulster from Sodomy campaign. Many of them will have internalised their identity or fled Northern Ireland to be able to live openly as who they are. With the change in Northern Irish society being more able to accept otherness they have opened up or returned.

The extended coverage on Northern Ireland television today is talking about his faith, his decision to come in from the cold and enter the executive but it is skirting around the elephant in the room. Sadly it is an elephant that still stamps through the DUP. While they are a party that believes now that Roman Catholics can be trusted in positions of power LGBT people cannot be trusted to not ruin families, society and Northern Ireland if they are allowed equality.

He turned around on working with Sinn Féin and though his language may have softened down the years, his presence protesting ever LGBT step out from behind closed doors no longer evident, he never really stepped

Leave a comment

Filed under equality, Westminster