First Minister plays gay and abortion cards in flag dispute

Earlier this evening the First Minister issued a statement, though it appears it has been issued as the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party or unionism and not as a leader of all in Northern Ireland.

It appears to be largely an attack condemning those that wish to see a return to direct rule as a way to protect Northern Irish sovereignty. However, what is telling is the language that the first minister uses to try to prevent people from seeking that road.

One thing he says is:

“This is the Direct Rule that left unionism powerless and put Sinn Fein in the driving seat with a Dublin government fighting the nationalist case while the British government remained neutral.”

Of course this cannot be him speaking as First Minister in an office he shares with a Sinn Féin deputy First Minister. A position that has been decided upon democratically by the people of the Northern Ireland to enable Sinn Féin to take on a power sharing role with the DUP. It does seem a rather strange argument to put, especially as under devolution the Westminster government also remains neutral on issues that are devolved, including what position each council takes on when to fly the Union Flag (which is devolved below Stormont level).

But more telling is in the last paragraph, the crescendo to end his appeal:

“Let them explain to the people the benefit of Water Charging and higher Regional Rates which would automatically follow Direct Rule.  And are they content to have Westminster impose same sex marriages and abortion on demand on our community?  Such folly.  Have they so quickly forgotten the decisions of direct rule in the past?“

So, not only is the First Minister wanting to maintain all services without taking a cut or looking at alternative revenue streams, such as the water rates in the rest of the UK, he is also playing two big cards. Remember his playing to a crowd here, he is talking to people who have already threatened elected representatives and spokespeople. So he stirs those people up further by saying that direct rule will lead to abortion and equal marriage.

There are already accusations that Peter Robinson was trying to make political gain out of this flag decision in a bid to win back the Westminster seat of Belfast East. He is now trying to make further political gain in unrelated areas without due care to the repercussions

It is not quite as direct an incitement to homophobic attacks as his wife made, but in light of the people he is trying to address in this issue he has placed another fear into the arena. Somethings which have no direct correlation to the flags protest women’s right to choose and LGBT rights are now what the First Minister has thrown into this debate debacle.

He is trying to fight fire with lighter fluid, this is the not the act of a leader.

Secretary of State opposes marriage equality

Cross posted from LGBT+ Lib Dems Northern Ireland

Owen Paterson – “together” for the national interest?

Maybe the Northern Ireland Secretary of State, Owen Paterson, has spent too much time in the presence of First Minister Peter Robinson and his DUP cohorts. Or maybe he was one of those very conservative Conservatives that David Cameron could foist upon Northern Ireland without upsetting the apple cart too much. Whatever the reason Mr. Paterson has become the first cabinet minister to speak out against the cabinet commitment to equal marriage.

In a letter to a constituent in his North Shropshire seat he wrote:

“Having considered this matter carefully, I am afraid I have come to the decision not to support gay marriage.

“However, the government is rightly committed to advancing equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and has already taken action to do so by allowing those religious premises that wish to carry out civil partnershipsto do so, erasing historic convictions for consensual gay sex and putting pressure on other countries that violate the human rights of LGBT people.

“The prime minister has made clear that he supports equal civil marriage and the government is rightly consulting widely on this issue before making any changes to the current position. I am worried that this will be a disappointing response.”

It is disappointing for those of us in Northern Ireland who are fighting for marriage equality to even be considered here in Northern Ireland, and for other LGBT equality issues that we are lagging behind the rest of the UK that the Westminster Government minister should say this. It could give the DUP a scapegoat to hide behind when they are pressured by other parties to look at various LGBT issues. They can say that not all Government ministers support the full slate of LGBT equality issues and not have to point any further than the Secretary of State’s office.

When Liberal Democrat ministers are taking a line of collective responsibility for decisions that can be upsetting our voters and are seen by some as a compromise it is a pity that Conservative government ministers cannot do the same. What is most upsetting is that under Labour we had a number of Secretaries of State who were willing to get under the cosiness of Northern Irish conservatism and shake things up a little for the political status quo. Now we have one that has given ammunition to that status quo to carry on in the area of LGBT inequality with his views.

Equal Marriage marching on except in Northern Ireland

Liberal Democrats at Edinburgh’s Equal Marriage March Picture copyright Liberal Youth Scotland

On Valentine’s Day our Lib Dem colleagues in Scotland joined others for a march to Holyrood in support of equal marriage. As you may be aware there has been a consultation process there into the subject and the Government are now considering those submissions. There will also be a consultation by Westminster covering England and Wales.

However, the week before in the Northern Ireland Assembly the subject of the Sexual Orientation Strategy once again emerged from the long grass it has spent most of a decade in to feature at the top of First Minister’s Questions. With the Junior Minister saying that OFMDFM do intend to publish this strategy and the revised Cohesion Sharing and Integration programme this year it fell on Green Party MLA Steven Agnew to ask about one specific.

You can find out more about what he asked and what implications is has on the LGBT+ Lib Dems Northern Ireland site.

Fisking the Stonewall Response To Ben’s ‘Comments’ #MoreBS #LDConf

Cross posted on Stephen’s Liberal Journal

A friend of mine following up on my comments about Ben Summerskill‘s comments at the Diversity fringe meeting at Liberal Democrat conference on Monday sent an email to Stonewall. He received a response which linked to this press statement. He forwarded it to me and I think it requires Fisking.

Press Statement from Stonewall Fisking by Stephen Glenn

The story published by PinkNews today is, sadly, a largely dishonest account of what took place at last night’s fringe meeting in Liverpool. I took my lead from friends’ comments and blogs who were actually there. Multiple sources. Also MPs and a former London mayoral candidate commented on it during the debate yesterday on equal marriage.

We deeply regret that PinkNews chose to publish the story late at night without double-checking a single fact and without having troubled to attend either the meeting itself or a party conference at which such an important issue was being discussed. Zoe O’Connell was at the meeting and blogged not once but twice the second time to pick on some inaccuracies in what others were saying but not in the context or essence of what I posted or what PinkNews said.

Ben made quite clear at the meeting that Stonewall is engaged in a process of listening and consulting with active Stonewall supporters, of whom there are almost 20,000, about the future of civil partnership. This is an issue affecting the broad church of the LGBT community not just the 20,000 members of Stonewall. Are they not also listening to that wider community? Many of that wider community are outraged that Stonewall, a so-called ‘leader’ on LGBT rights, had so far not said anything on this issue.

UPDATE: There is comment on the updated PinkNews report which says:

Oh and as a Stonewall “supporter” who has contributed financially over the past decade, I have never been consulted about anything from this organisation. The most I have ever received are a) requests for donations b) publicity on events and initiatives c) asked to purchase tickets for gala etc but never once asked for an opinion.

So just who has been consulted?

While some lesbian, gay and bisexual people fully support changing civil partnership into marriage Stonewall above commented on PinkNews not checking facts!!! Oops. The motion (now policy) is not a single option for marriage, there is the choice of CPs or Marriage open to ALL., there are others – including particularly some women – who do not want something that is either the same as or synonymous with marriage. Again using a feminist argument to deny others something they want doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. It they don’t want anything synonymous with marriage they they don’t have to same as with anyone else. This is a sensitive area of policy development and not one which is assisted by inflammatory media coverage.

The Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone, with whom we have discussed this issue privately, acknowledged in response to Ben’s remarks last night that as Stonewall is a supporter-based organisation it could not be expected to issue a response to such an issue until it had built the sort of consensus Ben had outlined. This issue has been being discussed since the introduction of CPs in 2005. The Equal Marriage Campaign is something I have been a member of for over 2 years. The failure of Stonewall to have come to a consensus in that time scale, not the 4 days that PinkNews asked for a mere 400 words, is scandalous.

Ben did not say for one moment that Stonewall objected to the motion that would be debated today because it would cost £5bn. Ah that’s all right then. But see what Zoe said in that second post.

Ben pointed out, factually, that there was a cost to including provision of civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples in the motion. He suggested that ministers should publish the Treasury Impact Assessment that will have been carried out. Well if cost is going to be a hindrance bringing equality, we should not have brought in Civil Partnerships for gays and lesbians. We shouldn’t have brought in minimum wage or equal pay. At a time when companies are downsizing we shouldn’t have brought in the law to prevent employees being fired because they are gay. We also shouldn’t have extended the franchise to women, or Roman Catholics or Jews either. GET REAL!!! When has cost ever, or should it ever be an excuse against equality.

This is a policy on which Stonewall expressed and expresses no view (campaigning to end heterosexual disadvantage is not one of its charitable objectives it may not be one of the objectives per se of Stonewall but why are they seeking just to support gays not achieve equality. If LGBT groups aren’t standing up for equality who can?, and Ben said that) however, with an estimated cost of £5bn over 10 years, people have understandably raised the question of whether it is likely in the current economic environment that such a policy would be implemented in the lifetime of this parliament. Hang on above you said this wasn’t a reason Ben had for objecting yet you appear to say he was doing so here.

Stonewall is determined, as Ben made crystal clear at the meeting, to build – as it has always strived to do on any issue – a policy and campaigning position on the future of civil partnership that has the support of the widest possible number of lesbian, gay and bisexual people in Britain. Yet you seem to be arguing for the small number of women having the right to deter it for others, how bizarre.

For PinkNews to publish and fail to correct a story in this way sadly brings the whole of the pink media, which serves our minority communities uniquely well, into disrepute. I have seen and heard numerous comments from friends who were there, I would have been myself if I’d been able to get to conference. I have read this statement in full I do not think that PinkNews got it wrong. I see no reason for them to correct their story as Stonewall have not denied any of the comments were made and indeed seem to try and defend a number of them here.