"It is meaningless having unionist unity unless it is a unity based on a common strategy with common principles and common values."Earlier on this week, Senator David Norris, the first openly gay elected politician on the island of Ireland delivered the Amnesty International Belfast Pride Lecture.
It was followed by Pride Talks Back, where Norris joined local politicians and Rev David McIlveen of the Free Presbyterian Church on a panel chaired by the BBC's William Crawley.
Fair play to Rev David McIlveen, bearing in mind that most of the audience were of the LGBT persuasion, it took bottle to turn up and defend his beliefs. Basil McCrea also deserves credit; as he admitted himself his appearance won't have done much to persuade the Ultras within his own party to support him in his campaign (now public apparently) to become UUP leader.
All the main parties were represented except the DUP.
They got an invitation like everyone else, so what was their excuse?
Simply forgot about it, or perhaps it was down to those "Principles" and "values"?
* The origin of this saying is actually quite appropriate. Apparently an 18th Century English General expressed his opinion on homosexuality amongst his troops, saying it wasn't a problem as long as it "didn't frighten the horses".
7 comments:
And if they'd went and rejected the gay rights agenda what would you have put on the thread? Would you have preferred some sort of public slanging match? Is it not better for a minister of religion to present the moral arguments rather than a politician? I sense whatever the DUP did it would have been spun negatively.
I'd kindly remind you you complained about the Unionism pandering to the OO too much:
" as I get older, I’m becoming steadily more crabby/intolerant/libertarian and I don’t see why my representatives’ time and, more importantly, my tax money should devoted to other peoples’ cultural and religious pastimes."
You argued:
"it was more the removal of culture and religion completely from the governmental domain and (back) to the individual."
Why the differential attitude from one interest group to another?
Bigotry and homophobia are too rife in the DUP for me to touch them.
Lee
And if they'd went and rejected the gay rights agenda what would you have put on the thread?
I put on record my admiration for McIlveen’s attendance here and I can’t imagine he would have been that more favourable towards the "gay rights agenda". If the DUP had sent someone, I would have been pleasantly surprised because it would have proven me wrong on the DUP on a number of levels. I think I would have been surprised enough to have still done a post.
Would you have preferred some sort of public slanging match?
Why need it have been a slanging match? Again, the presence and treatment of McIlveen proves it need not have been so. And the DUP consistently send a rep to the West Belfast Feile where the audience is potentially no less hostile. So, what’s the difference between arguing your case in front of a crowd of Republicans and arguing your case in front of a crowd of gays and lesbians?
Is it not better for a minister of religion to present the moral arguments rather than a politician?
Not all of the potential arguments are necessarily moral ones and in the end isn’t it politicians not ministers of religion who have the final say on issues like same-sex marriage, adoption etc.
I sense whatever the DUP did it would have been spun negatively.
If they’d turned up expressed their personal view/party policy with a respect for the audience and fellow panel members, I’d personally have found it difficult to spin it negatively- I may not even have wanted to.
You argued:
"it was more the removal of culture and religion completely from the governmental domain and (back) to the individual."
Why the differential attitude from one interest group to another?"
Firstly, your sexual orientation like your ethnicity and race is not, as you imply, the same as your cultural interests and (in western democracies anyway) your religion. You have chosen to be an Orangeman and a Protestant; to be Asian, black, gay or lesbian is not the same because it is not merely a life-style choice.
I wasn’t arguing interest groups based on religious or cultural beliefs should be banned; similarly I also acknowledged that there are occasions when government needs to get involved to set the broadest of parameters. My argument was emphasis, once those parameters are set up, then it's none of the govt’s business what you decide to get up to in your spare time. The DUP, in this case, are holding back from even discussing whether those parameters should exist or not.
As a group within NI society, I’d argue that they face a bigger problem re discrimination and attitude actually because they don’t have the disproportionate political influence and back up the Orange Order and the churches as whole have. That’s why I wish politicians would have, at least, a more sympathetic ear when they speak about their concerns and problems.
Final question, if you’d been invited would you have gone?
"Bigotry and homophobia are too rife in the DUP for me to touch them."
It's not a problem exclusive to the DUP, what is exclusive is the reluctance of those that are not bigotted or homophobic in the DUP to even get involved in discussing possible solutions.
SO Free P and DUP on a panel and they say similar things will change your opinion of the DUP? Hmmm.
"You have chosen to be an Orangeman and a Protestant;"
Not entirely true there is a level of inheritance to identity and family upbringing with choice coming later as you grow up but that is a minor quibble.
"because it is not merely a life-style choice."
The role of nature and nurture has not reached a conclusion in terms of human development. I believe it is incorrect to present it as set.
"I wasn’t arguing interest groups based on religious or cultural beliefs should be banned;"
Where did I say you did?
I would make the broader point also that you would have time for the criticism of how the human rights industry and its expansionary approach. I would argue this is case book example of it.
I must admit I find your definition somewhat self-serving - group you don't like is to be ignored, group you are supportive of aims of to be listened too.
"The DUP, in this case, are holding back from even discussing whether those parameters should exist or not."
The media obsession on the issue and the DUP makes it near impossible for the DUP to have a 'discussion' on parameters. It just becomes a means of digging out their DUP and gays greatest hits collection and fills talk radio for another day. With its usual attempt to treat social conservatism as a thought crime aka homophobia.
There is not a comparable media response when the feile is attended. Basic media management teaches that if you can avoid an unnecessary crap storm then do.
Also the parameters have already been pretty much set - homosexuality is legal with a series of legal, equality and rights protections.
"Final question, if you’d been invited would you have gone?"
As I said above media management means it is probably a bad idea and it would be up to the party to decide if it sends a rep.
Asides from that, personally, I'd have no great difficulty with going other than boredom (nothing to do with the issue rather I just such things dull for two reasons - most of these interest group discussion events tend to be plus in such a context it's about parroting of the party positions rather than a genuine debate.)
Again the example you use of the West Belfast feile is not a direct comparison and covers a range of topics. Instead of a singular focus event were a shift towards or endorsement of an agenda is the real goal.
"SO Free P and DUP on a panel and they say similar things will change your opinion of the DUP? Hmmm."
My opinion of McIlveen as an individual changed, yes. My opinion of the DUP is that there is an accepted culture of homophobia within the party- if they decided to send someone to an event like this it would surprise me, yes.
The media obsession on the issue and the DUP makes it near impossible for the DUP to have a 'discussion' on parameters...etc
To go back a generation, there started to emerge on the mainland a "media obsession" with race issues; that embarrassed, in particuliar the Tories, but it also succeeded (and eventually helped the party) in pulling the more un-reconstructable racists in the party into the daylight. Unless you're happy to tolerate the kind of crap Iris came out with then I honestly think you need to do the same with the DUP on this issue. And again, McIlveen did not get the hostile reaction on would have expected because, I suspect, nothwithstanding his problem with homosexuality, he treated his audience with respect.
The main point about the Feile was concerning the inherent hostility of the audience, not so much the media reaction but even so a DUPer having to courage to "engage" with a likewise inherently hostile audience of gays has as much chance of making an overall positive impression as a negative one.
If the gay lobby ever manages to provide 66% of Unionist reps at Stormont (;)) then I may start to suspect that they too are wielding too much power but until then,to be honest, I do treat certain interest groups differently.The Orange Order's main gripe (and the one all the politicians spend so much time on)is presently the right to parade. In my hierarchy, discrimination on the basis of colour, religion and sexual orientation is a more serious matter than being allowed to parade where you want. If an Orangeman is denied a job because of his religion, then it becomes the same importance as an Asian or gay being denied a job because of who or what they are. The Orange order complaining because they are denied the right to parade somewhere is a human right peripheral at best.
Finally (!), the human rights industry, I do have problems with. Human rights as a genuine concept and groups that try to promote or push their version of human rights I can live with.
Post a Comment