Government in Turmoil

The events of the today with the Government in meltdown has become an embarrassment as hour upon hour rolls on. Last night after a day of talking to her Cabinet Ministers one by one the Prime Minister presented her agreement for an Exit from the EU to the Cabinet as a whole. This morning resignations and then questions asked of her in the House of Commons show she has lost control of Brexit.

Here in Northern Ireland of course the DUP have returned to the word we all associate with them most. No! No! The DUP have propped up the Conservative Government since the 2017 General Election, but have failed at every step to recognise and acknowledge that the majority in Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU. They have also failed to come up with anything constructive to make an Exit from the EU palatable to the majority here in Northern Ireland.

The Liberal Democrats have consistently fought Brexit from the beginning. We warned of many of the things the Government has now realised cannot be achieved outside the EU. After the referendum we have always insisted that the people have a vote on the final deal that the Government come up with, a People’s Vote.

Here in Northern Ireland when we had a referendum on the Good Friday Agreement every household had a  copy of the agreement sent to them. Across the see before the people of Scotland voted on whether they should leave or remain in the UK there was a 612 page book laying out what that would me. The referendum on Brexit was held before anybody actually knew what it was about. All the promises, supossition and blue sky thinking from the Leave campaign were not agreements and often not factually possible. This agreement now shows what can be achieved.

We need to now have an informed People’s Vote. Unlike Jeremy Corbyn said this week it is not too late to Exit from Brexit. Write to your MPs and sign the Liberal Democrat petition asking them for a People’s Vote and a right to Exit from Brexit.

Life after Tim

It has just been announced this evening that the leader of the Liberal Democrats Tim Farron is to step down as leader at the end of the current Parliamentary session so that a successor can be elected in line with the party rules over the summer months.

In his resignation statement Tim said:

“A better, wiser person than me may have been able to deal with this more successfully, to have remained faithful to Christ while leading a political party in the current environment.   “

This was in light of a lot of media spotlight based on his faith and his position on gay rights especially in the lead up to last Thursday’s general election.

Our current local party chair Stephen Glenn was a prominent early supporter of Tim when he stood for the leadership of the party. Today he has said:

“It is a sad day for our society and our Liberal Democrat party if someone of faith does not consider he is able to lead the party and be true to both. Before Tim stood as leader I did have discussions with him about his faith and the work on LGBT+ issues that I was working on.

“As a fellow Christian but also a gay man I was convinced then, as I am now, that Tim Farron is no homophobe and in no way stands in the way of LGBT+ rights. Indeed at every step of the way he has backed every reform wholeheartedly.

“For the past 2 years I have been proud to be one of the Lib Dem cockroaches that Tim mentioned early in his leadership. One of those who would be hard to kill off as we started to fight back.

“I am sad that he felt the need to step down and list his faith as one of the obstacles he saw in leading our party. I wish him well in the future and for the moment will be encouraging all members to think carefully about who can continue to lead the fight back our party still needs.”

Statement on death of Martin McGuinness

Northern Ireland Liberal Democrats Chair Stephen Glenn writes about the death of the former Deputy First Minister

Today was a day that all of us involved in Northern Irish politics had seen coming since the announcement in December that Martin McGuinness was cancelling a trip to China because of health reasons. When we last saw him in public it was his resignation as Deputy First Minister but the frailty we saw in him then contrasted to the images of him as a young man during the troubles.

These images also showed the trajectory of the man from commander of the IRA in Derry/Londonderry to the respected elder statesman and one of the architects and sustainers of the peace in Northern Ireland. The tone of his words from his first appearances before the Northern Irish public to those at the latter stages of his political career also reflect the passage of Northern Irish politics.

While there have been some today who have only looked at the early part of his life as his legacy that have failed to realise that only a person from his position within the Irish Republican Army and Sinn Féin could have used his influence not only to bring about the ceasefire bit to sustain that. While at the start of his career he spoke about armed conflict being the only way forward, he ended it talking of reconciliation.

As the son of a man born like Martin into a community on the Cityside of Derry, although raised in the other working class community on opposite sides of the walled city, I’ve seen the change brough about by Martin.

The Rev David Latimer minister of the Glenn family church First Derry Presbyterian which overlooks the city walls into the Bogside has often spoken of Martin’s influence. This was a church that overlooked the site of the Bloody Sunday shootings, where shots, petrol or paint bombs were fired towards the church. It meant that in my early years when I entered the church even in the morning or afternoon it was dark because of the shutters protecting the windows at the front. When the roof needed replacing due to rot, Martin McGuinness was one of those who was reached out to even though he wasn’t elected for the area.

A hand of peace like that of the city’s famous statue was reached out and Martin was proactive not only in getting the support for the major building works but also in reducing the attacks on the church. He was there for the reopening of the building and the difference in brightness for me is a reflection of the hope he brought for a better future in Northern Ireland.

Yes the story of Martin McGuinness is a tangle of contrasts, but it is also proof that men are not leopards and can change their spots. But the legacy is his part, along with Ian Paisley, of making the impossible not only seem possible but turned it into a workable partnership of working together. We need that as much now as when they first stood side by side 10 years ago.

Ar dheis Dé go raibh a anam.

Reflections on the 2017 Election #AE17

So as the dust settles on the count of the 2017 election what does the future hold for Northern Ireland?

First lets look at the facts:

1. DUP did secure the largest vote but only by 12oo from Sinn Féin
2. Of the 18 seats that the Assembly lost 16 were Unionist (10 DUP, 6 UUP)
3. There is a virtual dead heat in the parties who will form OFMDFM (28 DUP, 27 SF)
4. No party by itself can lodge a petition of concern (30 votes required)
5. The Unionists are not in a majority in Stormont for the first time EVER (40 Unionist, 39 Nationalist 11 Other)

Whatever the reasons for going into the election the unionists have done themselves no favours. Whether it was the DUP support of Brexit or their involved in the Renewable Heat Initiative (RHI) debacle or they abuse of power with PoCs being just one part of that, unionism has lost big.

Does this mean we are moving to a normalisation of politics? Well listening to the debates before and the comments after it is clear that maybe the politicians especially in the big two parties are far from ready for that, but elsewhere it is possible. UUP to SDLP transfers and vice versa along with those party that designate as other means that these could actually form the largest bloc with 33/4 MLAs . It may mean that a progressive centralist agenda might stand a chance of being advanced especially with the difficulty of others lodging a petition of concern.

There are still a lot of question marks that the next three weeks of negotiations may not provide full answers for, if they provide an answer at all. So we shall have to see if an era of progressive politics may actually have finally arrived in Northern Ireland, if policy commonality rather than community are more important.

We live in interesting times. Watch this space.

Maybe even join us.

Can’t stand the heat: “defending” unionism

So the resignation of Martin McGuinness as Deputy First Minster this evening has sparked all sorts of accusations from the DUP.

Arlene Foster now totally unable to speak for her ministerial office has said:

“Let me make it clear the DUP will always defend unionism and stand up for what is best for Northern Ireland.

“It appears from the deputy first minister’s resignation letter that is what annoys Sinn Féin the most.”

Now let us look at just what Mr McGuinness said. Before even addressing the current Renewable Heat Initiative (RHI) crisis he says:

“The equality, mutual respect, and all-Ireland approaches enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement have never been fully embraced by the DUP. Apart from the negative attitude to nationalism and to the Irish identity and culture, there has been a shameful disrespect towards many other sections of our community. Women, the LGBT community and ethnic minorities have all felt this prejudice.”

This attack goes far beyond sectarianism, indeed it was only last week when Arlene Foster was mocking the attacks on her as being misogynistic, she also dug up the past. In his resignation letter while acknowledging the past say he has worked with those “diametrically opposed ideologically and politically” to work on a peaceful future.

The thing that has pushed him over the edge is the way the RHI has been handled by the Mrs Foster. He states that it is the public that are demanding “robust action and accountability” on this matter despite all the distracting and denial from the DUP. It is the DUP leader who has a conflict of interest as the scheme was drawn up on her watch at The Department of Enterprise Trade and Investment (DETI).

The way that Arlene and her DUP colleagues have dealt with this is in isolation, lacking humility and thinking the people who left the barn door wide open are the only people who should be allowed to sort out all the slurry that has escaped and put it back in the bottle. The are claiming they can keep the scheme at zero cost to the tax payer, something that the Finance Minster’s former economics professor has called  ridiculous.

The heat is on in Stormont. The public are tightening the noose. RHI could bring the DUPers down the public outrage on this and the other issues that Mr McGuinness has mentioned means that defending unionism as the DUP may not be as important as defending the public coffers.

RHI is certainly not doing the latter and that means that as Sinn Féin will not nominate a replacement within 7 days that we live in interesting times.

Opinion: Self-determination post-Brexit

The following is a personal opinion piece looking at some of the issues Northern Ireland face it is not a policy position of Northern Ireland Liberal Democrats. Other members may well post alternative views on this issue.

We believe that sovereignty rests with the people and that authority in a democracy derives from the people. We therefore acknowledge their right to determine the form of government best suited to their needs and commit ourselves to the promotion of a democratic federal framework within which as much power as feasible is exercised by the nations and regions of the United Kingdom.

…

Setting aside national sovereignty when necessary, we will work with other countries towards an equitable and peaceful international order and a durable system of common security. Within the European Community we affirm the values of federalism and integration and work for unity based on these principles.

–Extracts from the Premable of the Liberal Democrat Constitution

The Referendum on Thursday was allowed that sovereignty to rest with the people, but as Liberal Democrats we also recognise that decision making power should lie with the nations and regions of the UK. Thus is was that on Friday when the result was known Northern Ireland had voted to remain while the national vote as a whole was to leave.

The issue in Northern Ireland is further frustrated as the result on Friday now means that the border which some of those who argued for Brexit want to control is largely unprotected for 300 miles from Lough Foyle in the North West to Carlingford Lough in the South East. While there are already controls that an be established at airports, port and even the Channel Tunnel there are 300 miles of open countryside that in the past 2 decades we have taken down control points, reopened some access routes and made almost unrecognisable from the time of The Troubles.

Within hours of the decision Theresa Villiers, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, said that the “majority of people in Northern Ireland are content with the political
settlement established under the Belfast Agreement [sic] and Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom.” The problem is the settlement with which they were content shifted in the early hours of Friday morning.

Northern Ireland’s place with in the UK is passed primarily upon the Northern Ireland Act, which itself is entrenched within the EU and its institutions. Much of the rights and protections which the parties here spent years negotiating were backed up not only by the UK but also the EU. If we leave the EU and by default its protections the Northern Ireland Act is a void, it needs to be redrafted and readopted by the people. Therefore to start with the foundations of Ms Villiers arguments are crumbling.

The second issue is that the settled will of the people in 1998 was based on both Ireland and the UK having been members of the EU from the point in time. The people agreed that within the EU there was a wider settlement to the peace, a further layer of mobility, flexibility and security. The contentment of the people on Wednesday should not be assumed by anyone without further knowledge to have been the same by Friday. I have seen a number of friends already say that while before they would never have envisioned voting for reunification now they consider it the best option.

Not only did David Cameron take a gamble and lost, the DUP took a different gamble. The DUPs was to be vocal in supporting leave and the people of Northern Ireland would still largely want to be a member of the United Kingdom whatever the outcome. But a number are starting to say they would rather remain part of the EU rather than in an isolationist UK. There are a number of reasons for this and a number of reasons while small u unionists are starting to look elsewhere.

The economic unionists: These are the ones who look at the financial implications. During the 80s and early 90s many of these could have been persuaded to vote for reunification as a resurgent Ireland would have invested more in jobs and infrastructure in the North than the then Conservative government in Westminster was doing. The fact that the shortcomings of that Tory government came in a large part from EU peace monies is another reason why now these people might vote for a united Ireland.

The liberal unionists: These are the ones who would always have looked at which of the nations had the more liberal legislation. Historically these had always sided with the UK. They have not envisioned at any point to leave as previously the Irish government was dominated by the Roman Catholic Church. But this has become less of an issue now. Indeed the Republic is now more liberal than Northern Ireland which was not the case even in 1998. These people now could look at the change in situation as it being more likely to get improvements in liberal values not from the angry mob that controlled the Brexit message but by a more welcoming and inclusive Ireland.

The stability unionists: These are those who have always maintained what they felt was best for stability. These are the type who historically were nervous about the unknown of the Irish Free State and felt that they would keep as much of Ireland as possible part of the UK. The take a mix of a economic view and a security view into the situation. With the future of the UK uncertain we have to see where those who have considered the UK the most stable future will pitch there tent.

However, whatever you think of this argument nobody at present can know for certain if there is a desire or will within the people of Northern Ireland to have a border poll. The goal posts have been moved dramatically in recent days and nobody if currently certain by what rules we will play the game. Theresa Villiers cannot have determined as she did on Friday that there is no reason to call a border poll, similarly the DUP cannot know if that is not to be.

We live in interesting times, confusing times and changed times.

More heel dragging over Fatal Foetal Abnormality

Last night was almost 10 months after the Minster of Justice announced he would seek to introduce legislation to allow abortions in the case of Fatal Foetal Abnormality. This also came after some 18 months of careful examination of health and justice officials including a public consultation.

However, despite all this oversight an review the DUP proposed that the Health Minister set up another working group to look into this matter. This could take at least six months to report back, enough time for this issue not to be considered before the Assembly elections this May.

This is unacceptable and the 59 votes against making the change now from mainly Unionist* and SLDP* MLAs continue to fail to help the women in our part of the UK. They will for the next sixth months of longer still face the tough decisions about what to do if they are diagnosed with a Fatal Foetal Abnormality.

They will have to decide what they will do in isolation as health care professionals are not allowed to give them any advice. They will have to decide if they go somewhere over the Irish Sea where they possibly know nobody else to access services that are seen a medical procedure across Great Britain, to avoid all the trauma, illness, physical and emotional toil that carrying to term impart.

Our MLAs refused last night to take the tough decisions, so that the tough decisions that some of our women have to take remain tougher than elsewhere. They were not being asked to deny another life from existing, the clue is in the first word of extention that was being asked for.

These abnormalities are not ones that can be carried through into adulthood, or even much of childhood. They either don’t survive outside the womb or for a very short period. A short period during which there may be attachment before that is ripped apart.

The emotional and physical well being of our women was not a consideration of the delay of another 6 months by our elected representatives yesterday. The fact that we are almost 50 years behind the rest of the UK in not allowing our women to abort if there is a FFA means that 6 months is not just six months too much it is the 98th six month that is too much.

* Unionists in favour were Mike Nesbitt, Andy Allen and Michael McGimpsey UUP, Basil McCrea NI21 and John McAllister Ind.

** Claire Hanna of the SDLP Abstained by voting in both lobbies.

Statement on Ashers ruling

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.”

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 months 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.

Response to the Conscience Clause Bill

Response to the consultation on the Northern Ireland Freedom of Conscience Amendment Bill
on behalf of
Northern Ireland Liberal Democrats
and
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?

No

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?

Negatively

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?

Negatively

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