Allister benefits as he lets the papers make a meal out of the Robinsons

Cast your eye over some of the comments attached to the Belfast Telegraph report on Peter and Irish Robinson and you might notice something that I did.  

It was not just public disgust.  It was anger everywhere.  I believe that we are in for something of a watershed in the European Elections.  Labour will be hit by it.  So will the Conservatives.  There may even be an additional dimension to this in Northern Ireland.

Until last year, the leader of the DUP (previously named the “Protestant Unionist Party) was Revd. Ian Paisley.  This is the man for half a century managed to mix religion and politics.  He was despised by many from the Catholic community.  There was no shortage of bigotry in his speeches.  There was plenty of distortion of facts in a lot of the things he said.  Was he ever found to be dishonest?   

I am not aware of any allegations of dishonesty against Revd. Paisley. It looks very much as though he remains the non-smoking, non-drinking, bible-adherent fundamentalist Protestant.   

One of Paisley’s legacies is that orthodox Protestantism seems to form part of the DUP’s ideology.  That is apparent from some of the things that their politicians say on matters such as creationism.  I am therefore wondering if the impact of the Robinson’s expenses claims will be far greater than just a couple of weeks of embarrassment.  Will a lot of people not feel too let down to forgive or will they more easily forgive?  

One politician who may be wondering if divine intervention is going his way is Jim Allister. Allister is a chip off the old DUP bible-thumping block.  The timing of the scandal could not have been much better for Allister.  In fact, he seems to be so confident about the impact of the story on the Robinsons that he has not even named them directly in his latest post.  He also uses his post to highlight his good transparency in that his expenses are posted on his website.  

There’s only one good piece of news that would top what has already happened – An expense claims scandal against Nigel Dodds. Casting my eye over the table that I published on 31^st March, lo and behold, he is the Northern Ireland MP with the second-highest aggregate expense claim.  Hmmm.

Conservatives suspend homophobic Councillor

If you thought that overt Homophobic bigotry was confined to DUP politicians, here is a wake up call.  A Conservative councillor, Mr. Patrick Clark, has publicly referred to gay people as “sexual deviants”. 

Pink news has reported Mr. Clarke’s defence of his views following his suspension for making those comments.  It is noted that Mr. Clarke bases his views on his religious teaching.  The references in the Old Testament of the Bible, to homosexuality being an abomination, will always be an obstacle to complete humanism for Christians and Jews.  

When it comes to politics, a Conservative politician or official is obliged to behave as a humanist, no matter what his or her religious beliefs.  That requires tolerance and sensitivity on matters of race, religion, sex, culture, disability and sexual orientation.  The Derby Conservative Party has, quite rightly, taken action against Mr. Clark for his comments.    

When it comes to human rights, the DUP is not a party to be trusted

Iris Robinson will not be prosecuted over remarks that she make last year about Homosexuals. 

Reports about what she said are well documented elsewhere and I will not repeat them here.  I am not surprised that there will not be a prosecution.  I thought that when I heard there would be an investigation, thinking with my Lawyer’s hat.  That will be of little consolation to people from the Gay community who see this as an injustice.  

I wish I could say that in some way, Iris Robinson will pay a significant political price for her remarks. Most of those who support her do not disagree with what she said.  Her husband, the First Minister, Peter Robinson has since defended her remarks using references to the Bible, particularly in the Old Testament where the practice of Homosexuality is referred to as an abomination (e.g. Leviticus 18:22).  

By contrast, discrimination laws, whether about employment or Human Rights, have developed and by-passed the Bible as a moral starting point for making law.  It is as if we need a new equivalent of Charles Darwin to take religion out of the dark ages on this subject. 

For anybody who would like an authorititave scientific understanding of homosexuality, I recommend a book entitled “Why men don’t listen and why women cant read maps” by Alan and Barbara Pease, two famous psychologists.  The book is easy for a lay person to follow.  It provides a wonderful insight into the differences between male and female brain-wiring.  People I have talked to who have read the book have acknowledged the positive impact of the book on their own prejudices, not only towards the opposite sex, but towards homosexuals too.  

There are many who do not agree with the laws against discrimination, particularly DUP politicians.  Indeed, the DUP do not like Human Rights, full stop.  Last summer, they supported the Labour Party over the 42-day bill despite Labour’s failure to put a case to Parliament that a longer detention period was needed to deal with terrorism.  Last November, Sammy Wilson MLA, once again demonstrating his tendency not to appreciate the bigger picture, called for a debate in Parliament on Human Rights.  This was because he could not accept reporting restrictions in relation to alleged drug trafficking.   

More than 2 years ago, Peter Hain, then Northern Ireland Secretary, pushed through regulations on sexual orientation in order to prevent them being blocked by the DUP.  When it comes to Human Rights, the DUP is not a party to be trusted. 

Spare a thought for Jim Allister and the TUV

Spare a thought for the leader of the Traditional Unionist Voice, Jim Allister. 

Having left the DUP following the St. Andrews agreement, which he maintained was a “u” turn by them after they promised not to go into government with terrorists, he is now scratching his head as he watches Peter Robinson and Martin McGuiness stand shoulder to shoulder condemning the terrorists.

The head-scratching becomes more furious as he reads that unionist supporters are praising Martin McGuiness.  Shock horror, one unionist supporter even said he was proud of Mr. McGuinness.  They have not only forgiven the godfather of yesterday’s terror, they have made him into a hero.  Can this really be part of God’s plan?

Not surprisingly, the TUV is doing its utmost to persuade potential supporters that there is no difference (in terms of evil wrong-doing) between what has just happened and what happened in the past.

“the murder of David Johnston by the IRA in June 1997 was just as wrong as these recent killings. This is a point which Martin McGuinness will not be making”

One political point which the TUV is trying to exploit is Sinn Fein’s opposition to the stepping up of security with the use of the Army.  Jim Allister says this

“Sadly, I fear, the political expediency of not offending IRA/Sinn Fein sensitivities will fetter such an essential response and, therefore, more brave policemen and soldiers will be sacrificed.”

That point is slightly inaccurate.  There probably will be more murders but that will have been nothing to do with Sinn Fein’s opposition to the use of troops.  Sinn Fein does not make any decisions on security.  So long as that remains the case, Sinn Fein’s anomalous view of security is unlikely to have any political impact.  

Whatever happened to the puritanical protestant community?  It is still there but it has now become much more adaptable.  Political views have been reconciled with moral consciousness.  There are now very few who have not come to terms with the trade off that was necessary to obtain peace.  

Most DUP supporters are quite content to draw the line under the distinction that today, Martin McGuinness and Sinn Fein are no longer part of an organisation which conducts terror.  As long as no evidence turns up to the contrary, Jim Allister and the TUV will not be able to gain any political capital out of the recent atrocities.

McGuinness use of the word “evil” a political own-goal

On Friday, 23rd January, Martin McGuinness, Deputy First Minister, speaking in Derry/Londonderry where he attended a meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council said “There are a number of tremendous evils in society. One is racism, the other is sectarianism, and I think an evil also is partitionism”. His comments caused outrage amongst unionists.” 

Many complaints were directed towards him for calling partitionism “evil” but it was his use of the word “evil” itself which caused most of the controversy.  

“Evil” is a word that should be used sparingly by politicians.  Provided it is used to describe man’s worst inhumanity to man, it is not controversial and the overwhelming majority of society can buy into a politician’s comment.  For example, last year, when the story emerged about a father (Fritzl) in Austria who abused and imprisoned his daughter and grandchildren, none of us would have battered an eyelid had any politician reached for that adjective.  However, once an atrocity is scaled down from those sorts of levels, any demonizing by politicians doesn’t sound right.  You would not expect the Home Secretary, when announcing crime statistics to describe it as the latest litany of “evil”.  

The real problem with using words like “good” and “evil” in politics is that they are part of the language of morality.  Politicians are elected to provide political analysis and solutions rather than make moral judgment.  When they take up their political office , they bring into the job their own personal moral values but they are not the final determinant of good political judgment.  They are only a starting point. A politician’s job often involves making a choice between the better of two alternative “goods” or the lesser of two alternative “evils”.  In the end, it is pragmatism which drives the best political decisions.  Politics and morality never fit properly together all of the time and they rarely mix at any time.  How, then are people likely to view the remarks made by Martin McGuiness?  

Looking at it from one angle, he was using a new way to express his well-known political viewpoint.  On the other hand, his remarks were at best inappropriate for the reasons outlined above.  At worst, his remarks were offensive.  Since he entered politics, voters of his political party have turned a blind eye to his past.  However, by using the language of morality, McGuinness has strayed onto territory where he has not previously set foot.  He may not have intended it but he has fused, in the minds of  in many people, including republicans, a link between the adjective “evil” and the fact that he was once one of the leaders of the IRA at the height of the troubles who planned killing and probably killed people by his own hand.  Mr. McGuiness has scored a political own-goal.