Assembly on the Brink

Get the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies along with the Dail to foot the welfare reform bill at Stormont – and save the Northern Assembly from meltdown tomorrow.
And in return, Brit Prime Minister Dandy Dave Cameron gives more tax-raising powers to Scotland and Wales, and increases the clout of the cross-border bodies in Ireland.
Ever since the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, the people of Ireland – and especially the North – have been subjected to constant brinkmanship from the Stormont parties.
The prophets of doom take us to the very edge of chaos and collapse, only for a last-minute magic solution.
None of the Stormont parties want to implement the austerity which approving welfare reform will unleash.
At the same time, refusal will spark a Stormont election, which neither the DUP or Shinners want, and possibly even the total shutting of the Assembly with all powers going back to London.
The Shinners don’t want another Northern poll this year as their primary focus is getting into power in Leinster House.
Robbo’s DUP equally don’t want a poll given the resurgence in the rival UUP under Mickey Nesbitt.
With all the sabre-rattling, no one seems to have picked up on a wee announcement by the new DUP health boss at Stormont, Simon Hamilton.

He quietly unveiled that his new health department has reached a deal in principle with the nationalist-run Scottish Parliament that payments to the Independent Living Fund (ILF) in the North will be administered through the Scottish ILF infrastructure it is setting up.
While this will only affect about 600 Northern citizens, Unionists sources are hinting this will be a dry run for the Scottish National Party to have a bigger say in helping Stormont pay its way.
Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP boss, the Welsh nationalists of Plaid Cymru and a few folks On The Hill may have been listening to my solution of a Celtic Alliance involving Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
There will also be a pay-off from the English royal heir, the new bonnie Prince Charlie and his missus, touring Ireland last week.
The historic handshake between Prince Charles and Shinner boss Gerry Adams could well have been the grip which sealed the deal on another era of Anglo-Irish relations.
It’s a trial run for bigger things to come. If the SNP can make a good job of running the North’s ILP, the nationalist reward for Scotland will be increased tax-raising powers.
If the Scots get these, so will the Welsh. It could also prove to be a tempting carrot for any future English regional assemblies.
The deal is simple – you help the Irish out of their cash crisis at Stormont, and you get more control over you own finances. This means Scottish and Welsh Home Rule as well as English regional devolution by the back door.
It also prevents a dangerous political vacuum emerging in Ireland which could be filled either by dissident republicans or militant loyalists.
So what does the Dail get out of this? Okay, Leinster House doesn’t have the dosh to pump into the Stormont welfare reform rescue plan.
But the Brits could squeeze a few million quid here and there to increase funding to the cross-border bodies.
Dave may even be able to screw some extra cash out of the European Union before the crunch 2017 In/Out referendum to boost the powers of the British Irish institutions.
If the ILF works, I wonder what other schemes the Tories have to keep Stormont in business? Watch this space!

John Coulter

The Ashers Verdict: Becoming “Generous Minorities”

I am offering my comments on the recent Ashers legal case, and subsequent “guilty” verdict, because I believe that both have consequences for community relations here in Northern Ireland, and also because I have a broader interest in what a diverse, tolerant society might look like.

The events which preceded the court hearing, and yesterday’s decision, have already begun to polarize opinion, with some heaping blame upon those with an “aggressive gay rights agenda” and other, socially conservative Christians, framing themselves as victims of “political correctness gone mad”, and perpetuating the idea that modernity, secularism and liberalism are incompatible with religious tolerance.

Such perceptions, whether misplaced or otherwise, should give us little cause for celebration. If the aims of the LGBT ’community/communities’ are respect and equal rights, the Ashers verdict might appear to be an all-out victory, but in the broader scheme of building an inclusive society, I believe it might represent a long-term, strategic failure.

Of course, as is often the case in Northern Ireland, the loudest voices aren’t the only voices. Some others, who may describe themselves as fairly liberal, and who support equal marriage, are troubled by the verdict, and its implications for religious tolerance, and are quietly questioning the logical limits of the legal decision.

Whichever side you fall on, I believe that the 19th May 2015 may have been a short-term victory for equality, but one which simultaneously created a long-term obstacle to tolerance and understanding. The case has been dissected multiple times, and my own analysis adds little to what has already been said.

However, it is worth considering how an order for a cake has caused such deep, social and political tremors. Tremors which might become fault lines if they are not critically addressed.

From what I can gather from their official website, Asher’s market themselves as a bakery, with the only discernible evidence of any religious leanings being found in the ‘About Us’ section of the site. They state this:

“Why Ashers? Well, contrary to popular opinion we are not called Mr. & Mrs. Asher. Our name comes from the Bible. Asher was a tribe of Israel who had many skilled bakers and created bread fit for a king.”(Ashers online).

I see no issue with this; it is not uncommon for businesses to explain their branding and provide some insight into their heritage. It personalizes the company, providing a Unique Selling Point in a competitive marketplace. However, nowhere on the website do Ashers suggest that this short, Biblical reference has any implications for the products which they are willing to offer.

Therefore, it is reasonable to assume, when visiting the website, that Ashers are a professional bakery, keen to solicit custom, as all for-profit organisations are, and who make only scant reference to the private values which might lie behind the branding. The same ‘About Us’ section ends with:

“It just so happens we love to bake. On any given morning, you’ll find our home kitchen filled with the aroma of freshly baked scones or cinnamon swirls as we try out new recipes or experiment with new flavour combinations.

So why not pop in for a visit, we’d love to see you.” (Ashers online).

Based on this information, placing an order for a cake, with the now infamous, pro-gay marriage “Bert and Ernie” decoration, from Ashers, should not necessarily have resulted in a legal battle. Ashers appear to specialize in hand-decorated cakes, and encourage would-be customers to get in touch:

“Looking for something more personal, why not order a custom-made cake in store with our friendly folk behind the counter or build your own at our online shop Build-a-cake.”

However, as has been outlined in various media discussions on the case, Ashers accepted the order, before contacting the customer to explain that they would be unable to fulfil the request. Following this, and, it appears, due to the connections and/or political persuasion of the customer, a lengthy dispute took place, with all of the associated claims around discrimination and tolerance which this sort of issue inevitably raises.

These are important, social and moral topics, and deserve our consideration. We are no longer a society with a clear majority, whose wishes could, under democratic, majoritarian voting systems, secure such wishes, and in doing so, perhaps oppress a range of minority groups.

Instead, Northern Ireland is a society of minorities. We all want different things, and have different, but equally firm, ideas about how best to organize society. Ashers was a small, tangible example of the new, Northern Irish pluralism, and all of the issues which that pluralism raises.  I’d like to offer a suggestion for how all sides, the “victors”, “victims” and concerned onlookers might move forward.

The verdict was met first with glee from some areas (DUP and TUV), who quickly re-adjusted their response once they realized that the “not guilty” rumours were unsubstantiated. It was then met with triumphant statements from others (LGBT groups for the most part), who celebrated the “common sense” approach of Judge Brownlie in recognizing discrimination when she saw it. This series of divergent, but equally passionate reactions, are what caused me to reflect on what the Asher’s debate might mean for Northern Ireland.

Ashers are a for-profit, professional business, operating in the centre of a capital city. Unless you know the family personally, it is nearly impossible to glean their religiosity from the company website. It is therefore, as I have said above, not unreasonable to expect that they would fulfil an order for a product which contains a pro-equal marriage message.

However, and this is a contingent statement, there have been murmurings that the customer in question was keenly aware of the family’s religious beliefs, and deliberately chose Ashers as a bakery, in order to provoke a reaction. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, as they are, as I have outlined, operating in a public space, as business. Indeed, provocation can often be necessary for encouraging uncomfortable conversations.

Yet I can’t help but feel there are more respectful, and less overtly combative, ways to progress LGBT causes. We now have a legal decision which prevents businesses discriminating against customers, and this itself is a positive step. Yet we also have a substantial number of Christians, and others, who feel threatened by the ways in which this dispute was conducted.

These Christians, and those ‘others’ who are uncomfortable with the Ashers case, do not, of course, have the right to prescribe how others live their lives, and this extends to the debate over equal marriage. Yet they do have the right to feel part of our society, and it seems that we are rapidly alienating many of our fellow citizens.

It is not for me to advise LGBT groups on how to secure rights and protections, nor do I wish to belittle the very real and ongoing cases of discrimination which many LGBT citizens unjustly suffer, but there is a general piece of advice which we all might take on board, as we adjust to the new, increasingly secular Northern Ireland.

Yesterday’s ruling means that pro-gay rights groups can order similar products from Ashers, and reasonably expect the order be fulfilled, lest another fine be levied. However, and this is my argument: just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.

Ashers, as far as I am aware, are not engaged in any actions which harm or threaten the rights of the LGBT community. They should obey the law, and obligated to comply with equality legislation. Yet the temptation to exploit yesterday’s ruling should be avoided. We would like to be respected as equal citizens in Northern Ireland.  We should extend the same respect to others.

“Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should” can be applied to a number of contentious areas of life in Northern Ireland. Just because you can parade up a road, doesn’t mean you should. Just because you can stop a parade, doesn’t mean you should. Just because you can vote to change a flag policy, doesn’t mean you should.

If we are to live together, in a genuine spirit of tolerance, we must transform the zero-sum attitude of “defeating” the other, in order to progress our own agendas. Justice matters, and the struggle should not end, but we should think in terms of twenty, fifty, one hundred years ahead, and build relationships, not future battles.

In short, to paraphrase a local Green politician, to move beyond such fraught, short-term battles, and create a tolerant, respectful society, we must all become “generous minorities” and consider the rights of all, not just the few, when we engage in these debates.

Sophie Long

You can’t have your cake and eat it- Critique of ruling in Gareth Lee v Ashers

A GOOD DAY IN THE RECLAMATION OF BASIC HUMAN MORAL DECENCY IN NORTHERN IRELAND.

Today in the courts sadly mistaken Judge Isobel Brownlie, drew a line in the sand from which the fight back for Civil and Religious Freedom and the defence of basic human moral decency, here in Northern Ireland begins. It took this Judge weeks to arrive at her, self proven flawed judgement, proved flawed by her statement that, “Baking a cake is merely obeying the law and providing the plaintiff with a service.”

Ashers bakery were not refusing to bake a cake, they were refusing to write upon that cake, a slogan supporting something which was spiritually and morally offensive, to both them and their sincerely held Christian Faith, as well as not being a legal practice here in Northern Ireland.

Regardless of this silly Judge and her flawed judgement, Ashers bakery have overwhelmingly won their case in the courts of Public opinion and in the courts of basic Human Moral decency. Thereby ensuring that the ordinary decent people of Northern Ireland, will no longer be willing to sit idly by, as their rights of Civil and Religious Liberty are trampled over by noisy, in your face, intolerant, minority exponents of an anything goes, morally bankrupt society.

Charlie Freel. 

(John Coulter, Irish Daily Star)

Irish republicans must follow their Scottish counterparts and form a single nationalist party if they want to snatch the coveted Stormont First Minister’s post from DUP boss Peter Robinson.

At the very least, republicans need to copy their Unionist counterparts and form a Pan Nationalist Front between the Shinners and Stoops.

Unionists have already proven in the recent Westminster election that a poll pact worked in Fermanagh South Tyrone and East Belfast.

And Tartan Nicola’s Scottish National Party romped to London with 56 of the country’s 59 MPs because nationalists fought under the banner of a single nationalist movement.

With the electoral rebirth of Mikey Nesbitt’s UUP in the Commons showdown, there’s already talk in Unionist branches of the need to reform the 1970s Unionist Coalition which represented at least four different Unionist parties.

 

But nationalists make take some comfort that while overall, its Westminster tally fell by one to seven MPs, Unionists are still split over the idea of electoral pacts.

Liberal Unionist Danny Kinahan’s victory in South Antrim was the result of a direct head to head between the DUP and UUP, while the UUP’s Tom Elliott and the DUP’s Gavin Robinson have the Unionist pact to thank for their seats.

Northern nationalism has to follow the SNP route – and that means Sinn Féin and the SDLP burying their rivalries and creating a single movement to represent all shades of mainstream nationalist thinking – The Nationalist Party.

Okay, for decades a party by that name was the lapdog to the Unionist majority government at Stormont.

But a merged SF/SDLP movement could mark the centenary of the Northern state in a few years’ time by becoming the largest party at Stormont, thereby laying claim to the First Minister’s post.

Maybe nationalists are a wee bit timid about suggesting a single nationalist party after what happened former SDLP MLA Declan O’Loan of North Antrim when he put forward that constructive idea in 2010.

The time has come for Shinners’ president Gerry Adams and the Stoops’ Big Al to initiate a Nationalist Forum with the long-term aim of a single party.

It’s only a matter of time before the Southern parties, especially Irish Labour and Fianna Fáil, begin contesting Northern elections.

With rumblings that the number of Westminster MPs and Stormont MLAs will be cut in elections to come, there is an urgent need for republicans to unite under the banner of a single party.

Such a single nationalist party could also have enough influence in the Catholic community to prevent radical republicans drifting to the political apologists for dissident republican terror groups.

The UUP’s Jim Molyneaux used to boast about it being a broad church. The new single nationalist party needs to be a broad chapel for all shades of republican thinking.

And it could spread into the Republic, swallowing up Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael to provide a majority Nationalist Party government in Leinster House.

But the real secret to making a single Nationalist Party project work is compulsory voting.

This article appeared in the May 18, 2015 edition of the Irish Daily Star.