Some thoughts on the violent protests around the decision to fly the union flag on designated days and responses to some of the reactions in the media and social networking sites.


Firstly, I 100% support the right to peaceful protest or other democratic ways of making one's oppisiton felt to a political decision, but completely condemn the attacks on Alliance party offices, homes of councillors and now death threats against Alliance and Sinn Fein elected politicians.

To those who say: 'well, what did they expect' need think about the following:

1) the decision to fly the union flag over city hall on designated days was a democratic decision, some may not agree with it, but nonetheless it was a democratic decision taken by those empowered to do so.  Therefore to violently protest against democratic decision is an anti-democratic act and a threat to democracy.  It sends out the message that it does not matter if a decision with which you disagree with has been made democratically, you reserve the right to violently protest and therefore threaten democracy.  The message of such implied threats is to prevent and bully decision-makers into making decisions that the bullies want.

Every week on North Down Council decisions are made by the majority on council with which I disagree, sometimes very strongly disagree.  That's democracy - or at least majoritiarian democracy in action. If those who object to the decision by Belfast City Council want to reverse that democratically made decision, well rather than bully and threaten the Alliance party, they should work towards making sure that at the next local council elections there are more unionist councillors there to constitute a democratic majority to implement their wishes.  That's the democratic way.  

2) there is an implicit or explicit threat in the 'well what did they expect' line of argument.  Basically, it's the same argument used by criminals who say 'well, what did she expect, she was wearing a short skirt' or they left their wallet out.  That is, to blame the victim and accept no responsibility for their own actions and it is completely abhorrent that this line of argument should be used by anyone, least of all elected unionist politicians.  It explicitly communicates the view that what those councillors who took the decision should have done on Monday was thought, 'well there may/will be violence if we decide to fly the flag on designated days, so that's what we'll do, give in to the threat'...this way violence and the threat of violence wins, democracy loses.

Democracy is about having to live with decisions you don't agree with. Democracy is also about non-vioenelty disagreeing.  Real leadership at this time is about reinforcing both of those basic points.

There are also issues I have raised in relation to the connection between the flying of the union flag and identity or celebration of a particular culture.  As I put it in a press statement I put out this week (but which has not been taken up in the media)    

“A confident sense of identity should be based on the Good Friday Agreement which established that the union is secure and underpinned by the consent principle, and the international legal obligations of this are accepted by both the Irish and British governments. 

“I look forward to the day when as a society we can develop a more positive sense of identity based not simply on the flying of a flags, but for example on celebrating and defending the key principals  of democracy such as healthcare free at the point of delivery and defence of the most vulnerable society through fair welfare benefits.”

Statement on Union flag and protests at Belfast City Hall

Statement I've just put out in relation to the Union flag issue and protests at Belfast City Hall



"Following the debate on flying the Union flag on designated days at Belfast City Hall and the associated scenes of violence which followed, the Green Party has labelled the incident as party politicking by both Sinn Fein and the DUP.


“This episode can hardly be described as supportive of good community relations,” Green Party Councillor Dr John Barry said.


“When this came up for debate in North Down Borough Council at the end of last month, I voted against this motion on the grounds that it is for Belfast City Council to determine how to proceed on this issue and not the business of North Down Council to dictate to them.


“But also because we can see that the big power block parties of Sinn Fein and the DUP are manipulating the situation to protect their own voting base.

“Therefore, they must take some responsibility for inciting bitterness and hatred which saw violence on our streets.


“I also think this is a piece of cynical political posturing by the DUP to win back the East Belfast Westminster seat having lost it at the last election.


“The Green Party’s view is we have more important issues to be discussed other than flags such as the economy, health and education.


“How has this debate improved the lives of anyone?


“In fact, this has been a major step backwards on the road to a shared future showing a clear lack of vision and political leadership.


“A confident sense of identity should be based on the Good Friday Agreement which established that the union is secure and underpinned by the consent principle, and the international legal obligations of this are accepted by both the Irish and British governments.


“I look forward to the day when as a society we can develop a more positive sense of identity based not simply on the flying of flags, but for example on celebrating and defending the key principals of democracy such as healthcare free at the point of delivery and defence of the most vulnerable society through fair welfare benefits.”

'Save Ulster from Ignominy': Support for Equal Marriage speaking notes

Below are the speaking notes I used in moving my Nortion of Motion for Equal Marriage on North Down Borough Council, Tuesday 13th November 2012



Thank you chair.

Mayor, aldermen, councillors, offices and members of the press and public.

It is my honour to put this Notice of Motion before you this evening, my first one as a councillor.

The subject of equal civil marriage for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered (LGBT) citizens is one that will raise concerns and strong debate in this chamber. But it is the right thing to do. And we as politicians must at times take tough decisions, to lead change as well as listen and follow.

I fully understand the some members will have strong, and strongly and sincerely held views opposing this motion, perhaps seeing it wrongly as an attack on the institution of marriage in society. However, this is not the intention behind this Notice of Motion. This Notice of Motion extends rights to Christians and should not be seen as pitting Christians or other faith communities against the rights of the LGBT community. The extension of marriage to those whose sexual identity currently is a barrier to their enjoyment of it, is one that will strengthen not diminish the institution of marriage.

No faith organisation who doesn’t wish to carry out marriages between same-sex couples will be forced to so. (However, those faith organisations – such non-subscribing Presbyterians, liberal Quakers and Jews, Buddhists and others – who wish to carry out these same sex ceremonies should be allowed to).

Equal marriage is recognised in 11 countries worldwide and indeed the current Conservative Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and former President of the Republic of Ireland have both recently come out in support of equal marriage.

This debate is not a question of the morality of same sex marriage, or making moral judgements about specific sexual identities, but about how the state arbitrates between the claims of all its citizens and to manage competing moral viewpoints in as equal and as fair a way as possible.

In a free and equal society no one section of society, not even a majority, can impose their particular interpretation of morality on all citizens. To do so would be unjust and unconstitutional. Crime is a matter for the law, sin a matter for religion, and the two cannot coincide within the sphere of politics and legislation.

This debate is about freedom, equality and the principle of the state as protector and guarantor of the rights for all citizens.


It is also important to note that this motion does not require any individual to change their own personal view of the morality or value of same sex marriage.


Equality in a society is not a finite resource that means when one element of the community gets equality it means less for others. Rather equality is like a muscle the more it is extended and used and stronger it becomes and the result is greater equality for all. Equality is not something to be feared, though I accept that for some the changes equal marriage will require will be However, it is not for the state to judge one form of sexual identity to be superior to another, and it violates the very notion of state impartiality in law for a majority sexual orientation or definition of marriage to be the legal norm to the exclusion of all other possible understandings of what marriage entails.

We all know LGBT citizens – though given the homophobia still marring our society it may be that we are not fully conscious of this – they are as loving, caring and as human as anyone else. That their sexual identity is different should not mean they are excluded from any of the rights and responsibilities that are accorded to others of a different though majority sexual orientation.

I would ask those who object to this motion from a Christian perspective to reflect upon the comments from Jurgen Moltman, a German Lutheran theologian, who said: “Christianity is about the Gospel and not about sex ...Christians believe in justification of human beings by faith alone, not by faith and heterosexuality”.

I'd like to share with you a quote from one of our Stormont politicians:

“We want to see respect given to our varied and colourful traditions. We want people to be able to express their culture with tolerance and respect, mindful of those who don’t share those values. And we want people who don’t share those values to show tolerance and respect to those who do. Help us build a new Northern Ireland. Not just for some, but for all.”

No, not an excerpt of a speech from Green Party leader, Steven Agnew, but from DUP leader Peter Robinson at his recent party conference.


First minister Robinson went on to state,

“We are the first generation of peacetime unionists for many decades. No longer under siege. Moving forward with confidence and able to reach out. Traditional unionism was never about prejudice, sectarianism, wrecking and division. That was never what Edward Carson (a fellow Dublin-man like myself by the way) stood for. His unionism was about sharing the freedoms, security and bounty of the Union to every citizen, regardless of a person’s religious belief. That’s the kind of society we want to build. I tell you now is the moment”.

To those here in the chamber from the Ulster Unionist Party, I would like to quote from Ulster Unionist MLA Basil McCrea’s speech to the Assembly where an equal marriage motion was proposed by Steven Agnew Green Party MLA. He noted,

“I want to live in an open, tolerant and pluralist society that celebrates diversity, accommodates difference and protects individuals who happen to be different… An important thing in a way forward and a shared future is to accept that we are all different, yet we depend on each other.”

And the sentiment both expresses here is one I would fully endorse and hope the members of those two parties here will follow the spirit of their desire to create a new Northern Ireland. We cannot have a new Northern Ireland where some citizens are unequally treated, where some institutions are the preserve of some and others excluded. So I would urge you all to support this Notice of Motion. And if, for reasons of conviction I fully understand, you cannot bring yourself to support the motion, I would ask that you abstain.

• By prohibiting same-sex marriage and denying its validity, we create a class of citizens who are unequal and of a lower status than the rest.

• By keeping same-sex couples out of marriage, the government is suggesting that one sexual identity is superior to another, the higher standard being that of heterosexual status, this is as problematic and wrong as suggesting unionist or nationalist political identity should be superior to the other.

• The government should neither condone nor condemn any form of sexuality because it creates two classes, insiders and outsiders, and thus furthers inequality between citizens. By prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying, we are essentially supporting the discrimination against a specific group of citizens in our society.


I would like to deal with two of the most common arguments against equal marriage. The first is that it threatens the traditional understanding of marriage as being the union of a man and woman. I think tradition is a very weak ground for any argument, since tradition has historically served to justify great injustices and inequalities from slavery to viewing women as not fit to have the vote. And as that great Irish politician and writer Edmund Burke wisely noted, “"A tradition without the means of change is without the means of its conservation.”

The second, and often linked, is the view that this traditional view of marriage is what the majority in society support. Firstly there is evidence that it is a vocal minority not the majority in society who holds the view. Secondly, rule by the majority, like rule by tradition, is a weak, and indeed a dangerous basis for defending a particular issue. If nothing, the history of Northern Ireland demonstrates the dangers of majority rule without adequate protection and inclusion of minority rights.

In concluding I would like to dedicate this to all those who have worked so hard in our borough and elsewhere to combat the daily neglect and oppression experienced by gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, from groups such as the Rainbow Project, courageous Church leaders such as the Rev. Chris Hudson from All Soul’s Church, Canon Charles Kenny, retired from Belfast’s St Anne’s Cathedral, the Rev. Simon Henning, from Ballyblack Presbyterian Church near Newtownards, and organisations such as GLAD (Gay and Lesbian Across Down) and the trades union movement .

In particular I would dedicate this motion to two inspirational and brave citizens of our borough, Dr. Richard O’Leary and the Rev. Mervyn Kingston, who through their tireless efforts with the Church of Ireland group Changing Attitude Ireland have done so much to raise the issue of equality for the LGBT community within and beyond faith organisations.

In both bringing forward this Notion of Motion on Equal marriage, and hopefully it passing, North Down council will be sending out a strong and positive message to those members of the LGBT community within the council, our borough and beyond, that they are viewed and respected as fully equal citizens under the law, and therefore fully equal members of the community. What this Notice of Motion asks for is, to borrow a phrase, one small step for North Down but a giant step for the LGBT community in Northern Ireland and a great stride towards greater equality and the building of a truly shared society in Northern Ireland.

Let us in supporting this motion save Ulster from inequality, save Ulster from injustice, and save Ulster from ignominy.

I urge you all support his motion.

Thank you.”