Government minister "repulsed" by homosexuality
Plainly, it's not only churches who have to deal with homophobia. has that he is "repulsed" by gays and lesbians and believes homosexuality is "wrong". If Mr Paisley is replused, it won't come as any surprise to anyone. In 2005, he was formally censured by the Northern Ireland Policing Board for "homophobic" comments (he described same-sex relationships as "immoral, offensive and obnoxious").
If Mr Paisley was merely a social commentator or a tabloid columnist expressing a view, that would be one thing. But he is now a junior minister in the Northern Ireland government serving in the very department which bears responsibility for promoting equality and bringing forward the Single Equality Bill.
When a politician takes on ministerial responsibilities, certain consequences follow. He or she no longer speaks on contentious matters as a priviate individual; their public comments have added weight and significance given the role they have voluntarily assumed. Sometimes a minister will have to bite his or her tongue and defend a policy they do not find particularly agreeable. If that policy forces an issue of conscience, a politician may resign from the government in order to voice their opposition from outside the government. Perhaps these moral dillemmas now present themselves to Ian Paisley Jr. If a minister in a similar department of state in Westminster (or even a lowly Parliamentary Private Secretary) made a similar statement, one would expect that the minister's statement of apology or letter of resignation would be on the Prime Minster's desk the next morning. In fact, under the circumstances, an apology may be insufficient.
This debacle is the first clear case of a conflict between a DUP minister's personal religious and moral beliefs and his role as a member of the executive. It's also a significant moral test for any Assembly committed to the development of a tolerant and inclusive Northern Ireland.
Will Mr Paisley issue and apology and agree to keep his personal views to himself? Would that persuade anyone concerned by his comments that Northern Ireland's equality agenda is safe in his hands? Is it even conceivable that his father, the First Minister, would require an apology, let alone a letter of resignation? If Ian Paisley Jr simply avoids further comment in the hope that the story will disappear in the next news cycle, will other ministers or members of the Assembly allow the matter to end there? Do Ian Paisley Jr's comments amount to a violation of the , which includes a commitment to "operate in a way conducive to promoting good community relations and equality of treatment"? And what would it say about a government if it chose to do nothing at all in the face of such comments by a minister?
We will soon learn the answers to these and other questions; and the answers, when they come, will tell us a great deal about the moral climate of our new Assembly.
Programme Planner: On this week's Sunday Sequence we'll be examing the Presbyterian Church's controversial report on homophobia (which some critics regard as "") .
Comments
I'm not surprised by Paisley's views or his hurtful manner of expressing them. A political leader should not make comments like this about any section of our society. I am extremely angry that gay people in NI are yet again being abused verbally. This kind of verbal abuse helps to create a culture that permits physical violence. If he is not sacked, the assembly loses moral credibility.
Homosexuals "repulsed" by government minister. Well that is certainly the expected reaction and I am sure NI's homosexuals will be equally vocal talking to the press as Paisley was.
I'm not quite sure I understand exactly what the implications of this are but I suspect it is one more example of a flaw in the Parliamentary system of government where there is no separation of powers between the legislative branch where ministers are advocates for or against particular laws on behalf of their own local constituency who voted for them based on their views and the executive branch where the same ministers are charged with enforcing the laws on behalf of the entire nation. As an individual, as a politician, and even as a legislator, Paisley can and should express his views as openly, completely, and forthrightly as possible as he can no matter how reprehensible, after all the voters will know exactly what they are getting. You can't prevent voters from making a bad choice. On the other hand, the real question is whether or not his views will prevent him from exercising his duty to fully enforcing the laws including those he doesn't like. If that turns out to be the case, lawsuits and calls for impeachment may be in order. In our Federal Republic system in America, conflict of interest is also possible if not quite as built into the system. That is the issue confronting Attorney General Gonzales right now although of course the case has nothing to do with homosexuality. Was he exercising his privelege to fire the prosecuting attorneys in the DOJ on political grounds (allowed) or did he fire them because they were prosecuting friends of the Bush administration and not prosecuting its enemies (not allowed.) Of course he also damaged their reputations without warrant by saying originally they were fired for incompetence and he looked like he really wasn't in control of his department at all, having possibly deferred all such decisions to the White House.
I really don't see what good an apology would do. It would not mean his views had changed. His public statement is now subject to becoming evidence in any future legal trial where the enforcment of law is claimed to have been executed with prejudice. Isn't his party concerned that this could cost them votes? Good politicians don't deliberately go out of their way to push voters into the arms of their opponents or to provide those opponents with ammunition for the next election. The issue also raises the question of what other groups of people Mr. Paisley is repulsed by. Well you know what they say, people get the government they deserve.
I'm not offended by knowing what people believe. I know they believe them anyway, and so it doesn't offend me to hear them verbalised (in fact it can be quite entertaining when they do). There are plenty of things that I do in my life that may offend or 'repulse' others, and that fact, or hearing them say it, doesn't bother me in the slightest. That's a free country.
I'd suggest that gay people would do well to employ the same approach with regard to what they hear from people like Paisley Jr. He believes it, so why should it bother anyone to hear him say so?
As for whether or not he should be fired from government, I would certainly have liked to hear first whether or not he would legislate those beliefs of his against gay people in his role of office. That is the real barometer of whether or not a politician is a good member of government. Since we can't know for sure, fire him anyway; it may set a good precedent.
John,
I also believe in free speech. Paisley Jr has a legal right to say whatever he thinks about a moral or religious issue. This isn't really an issue of free speech, it's a political responsibility issue.
If Paisley Jr was just another elected MLA or MP, I wouldn't care. The problem is that this guy is a minister with a brief to defend equal rights for gay and lesbian people in our society! There's a conflict of interests here. I think he needs to step down.
I see where you're coming from here John. If the public are so opposed to Paisley's antics, they can vote him out of office. That certainly applies to his role as an MLA and I wouldn't expect him to resign from the assembly simply for stating these archaic and homophobic views.
When it comes to a minister with responsibility for a new equality bill that affects gay and lesbian people, what can we say?
First, it's astonishing that P would be so daft as to say these things given the sensitivities of his position. The executive is a coalition, and its very early days. I bet his father is furious with him for expressing these comments and putting that coalition under pressure already.
The new style DUP will not be happy about these comments. They are very concerned to hold the unionist middle class voters and those voters have no time for this kind of nonsense.
If I was a member of the Assembly, I would be calling for Paisley Jr's resignation - simply as a way of expressing solidarity with gay and lesbian citizens. I would be looking to the press and other parties to put him under pressure.
Meanwhile, if he doesn't resign and his father doesn't sack him, I think he's damaged his reputation even further. This will mean that everyone pays a lot more attention to the progress of sexual equality legislation.
If he doesnt resign it will seriously harm the reputation of the assembly and the government too.
It's great to see so many people coming forward to challenge this politician's anti-gay comments.
I defend his right to say these things. I also see that society is changing and people like this man are more and more unacceptable to more people.
David (Oxford)- I agree with every word of that.
I think the problem here is that Paisley Jnr represents the younger side of the party and yet his comments are even more right wing than what the likes of William McCrea would come off with. The only hope for young gay men like me to ever vote DUP is if they change their outdated and bigoted policies. I had hoped that their younger members would be more willing to embrace all sections of the NI community, obviously I was wrong.
Again this worrying, unnatural obsession with gays...
I agree with John in giving my support to David(Oxford).
Good to hear sensible comments.
Should politicians not be open & transparent about their personal views? If people don't like them, vote him out next election - that's democracy.
JW - what else should politicians legislate other than what they believe to be right?
LB #10 asks: "JW - what else should politicians legislate other than what they believe to be right?"
I don't wish to sidetrack this post, so I'll answer your question briefly and then if you wish to discuss it further I invite you over to my own blog which is devoted to this topic.
I'm a libertarian. Libertarians believe the legitimate role of government should be limited to only those issues which infringe upon equal individual rights. Morality is therefore the domain of the individual over their own lives, not the domain of government legislation. It is the role of those elected to government to uphold liberty and rights, not to legislate in ways which would infringe upon those rights. In the case of homosexuality, I would object to Paisley Jr. voting in ways which would curb, coerce or infringe upon the rights of gay people because I believe that ought to be outside the remit of government. And I, in his position, would thereby set aside my own moral judgements of homosexuality and instead vote to uphold their freedom in my government role. (For the record, of course, I don't judge gay people to be doing anything immoral by virtue of their being gay, so it wouldn't be an issue for me in any case.)
I hope this answers your question.
Dylan Dog,
"Again this worrying, unnatural obsession with gays..."
Are you talking about Crawley or Paisley?
I've been following this news story about Ian Jr in all the papers and on television. It's left me feeling a little depressed, I think that's the world, that a politician in NI can still apparently get away with speaking like this. When are we going to join the real world? English politicians have the capacity to limit their speak in public, with some consideration of the public. The DUP simply take their voters so much for granted that they think they can say this stuff and walk away smiling. Depressing.
Valery,
If the voters don't like what the DUP says then there is an easy solution isn't there? Don't vote for them again.
However, given that the voters pretty much know that many within the DUP hold to a literal/historical interpretation of the Bible and its teaching on homosexuality I'm surprised that you are surprised/depressed. I also imagine that many of them share his view on same sex sexual relationships.
Could you ever imagine a member of New Labour or the Conservatives coming out with a statement like this ?
There would be calls for resignation across the board.
Why should Northern Ireland be any different?
It's depressing to think of some of the people who are representing us at Stormont, but I suppose we get the politicians we deserve. And if our politicians truly represent the views of the wider population in Northern Ireland then that is even more depressing.
I though we were progressing, apparently not.
If Baby Doc had been a minister in Westminster (or indeed Edinburgh or Cardiff) he would have been ejected from the post in pretty short time for making comments such as these. What possible faith can gays and lesbians have that their legittimate interests will be furthered or their rights defended by Ian Jr?
Why should we accept lower standards here?
"When are we going to join the real world?"
"Why should Northern Ireland be any different?"
"Why should we accept lower standards here?"
I love that this is the response of thinking people in NI to what Paisley Jr. said. But I think a little perspective is important too. The reason the DUP (as all political parties in NI) were voted into office has nothing whatever to do with their approach to the issues of real politics. They were voted into office on the basis of the traditional NI unionist/nationalist struggle, from which NI is slowly emerging. In the manner with which we would treat a teenager in rehab, a little patience and and appreciation for the fact that some real issues are finally on the agenda may be required. As NI becomes politically 'normal', more can rightly be demanded of its leaders, as it should be.
Why is discrimination only an issue now? No one seems to minf that the Free Ps and other churches sexually discriminate against women all the time in a way which would not be allowed in public life. It's only that men can be homosexual as well as women which makes this an issue. Men always decide that discrimination against them of whatever kind is untenable but against women it is fine. That's why the sexual assault conviction rates in Britain are woeful. Not that I would wish it on anybody, but if men suddenly started getting raped and abused in large numbers prison sentences would increase I guarantee it.
When Paisley Jnr said that he was "repulsed" by gays and lesbians, he could have claimed that he was merely reporting an emotional reaction to a type of sexuality which he does not understand.
However, he went further than that when he said, "I think that those people harm themselves and - without caring about it - harm society."
That accusation - that homosexuals damage society - is entirely at odds with his role as a Minister dealing with equality issues. How could he possibly advance the rights of gay and lesbian people if he thinks that they damage society? Rather than advance their rights, he would be more concerned to "protect" society from the damage that he alleges.
The DUP have tried to cover his tracks by saying that nothing that Paisley Jnr said would give grounds for discrimination. But that won't wash. "Damage to society" is not something that can be ignored or condoned. "Damage to society" is a clear justification for taking action against the perpetrators - as in the case of drunk drivers. So the DUP cover-up will not stand scrutiny.
What a stupid remark! How revealing of DUP political incompetence!
The question now is: are there enough decent, liberal people in the Assembly to force his resignation? Let's hope so!
Rubberduckie,
I am referring to Paisley.
Regards
Dd
Anne you are right that discrimination against women continues all the time. Things have moved on for women in society and in SOME churches (not all, as you say). The key thing here is that no equality minister in government could say this kind of thing about women and stay in his job. Paisley Jr is a disgrace.
Stand firm Junior don鈥檛 let them grind you down. Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people. Martina Anderson and Martin McGuinness are hardly in a position to moralize considering their past.
You hit the right word just at the end - "past". Which is where we are supposed to leave a lot of the unsavoury history of this "country".
Sinn Fein have moved on, why can't junior have a bit of maturity and realise how his remarks might cause offence.
Any way, I thought Hippys were about free love and peace. What does a Christian Hippy believe in? Just the long hair and sandals part?
THE BIBLE
That explains the Christian part, are you leaving the hippy bit off now?
Christian Hippy
From Wikkipedia:
"Hippies rejected established institutions, criticized middle class values, opposed nuclear weapons (especially in the United Kingdom), opposed the Vietnam War (especially in the U.S.), embraced aspects of non-Judeo-Christian religions, championed sexual liberation, promoted the use of psychedelic drugs to expand one's consciousness, and created intentional communities. Hippies opposed political and social orthodoxy, choosing a gentle and nondoctrinaire ideology that favored peace, love, and personal freedom, perhaps best epitomized by The Beatles' song, All You Need is Love."
Which part of this hippy ethos best describes you?
Doesn't really fit with your post on your blog about the "pink plague"
I have often thought that society has much more to fear from Christian fundamentalists than from homosexuals. I certainly have never heard the levels of hatred issue from the mouth of gays that I have heard from so-called Christians.
Closed minds rarely means closed mouths, unfortunately.
REF #26
I was called a HIPPY by a contributor on another for my non-conformist, pacifist views. Simply because I did not to the worldview of that particular contributor, and have used it ever since.
adj 1: not conforming to some norm or socially approved pattern of behavior or thought; "their rabidly non-conformist deportment has made them legendary"; "the old stubborn nonconformist spirit of the early settlers" 2: not conforming to established customs or doctrines especially in religion n 1: a Protestant in England who is not a member of the Church of England. Nonconformist,
2: someone who refuses to conform to established standards of conduct.
In English history, a non-conformist is any member of a Protestant congregation not affiliated with the Church of England. also dissenter. The earliest non-conformist groups included Presbyterians, Independents (Congregationalists), Baptists, and Quakers. Later non-Conformists included Methodists.
Paisley is just right! Sodomy is sinful and wrong, and to the above writer (gay christian) -no such thing! Repent of your sin!
JT - Being homosexual isn't a choice - you are either gay or you are not. So if you believe in god, then your god created homosexuals.
Taking the bible so literally is a very disturbing thing to do. Not only are we told that we should kill homosexuals but also adulterers, disobedient children, women who are not virgins on their wedding night, and anyone who works on the sabbath.
Most christians pick and choose their beliefs from the bible - I say, either believe it all or believe none of it.
An individuals choice on how they express their sexuality has no impact on your life what so ever, so why waste your time protesting about it.
After hearing what Ian Paisley JR had to say about gays and lesbians it makes me wonder about Christians in Government Ian Paisley JR claims to be a born again Christian and I am not going to dispute that but is this not a case of his personal beliefs colliding with his job as a junior minister? Can Christians be in Government and in this case when he has to uphold the rights of all the people is he saying that he can not uphold the rights of gays and lesbians? He has a personal right to hold these views and I believe that many people would agree with him about hating the act and not the Person but I do not believe he can turn off and on his job stats as he likes and if things get too hot say that it was a personal view.
By the way where is he? Is he hiding? He usually has a lot to say about everything he has become very quiet now!
Dear Christian Hippy,
You say,
"Stand firm Junior don鈥檛 let them grind you down. Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people. Martina Anderson and Martin McGuinness are hardly in a position to moralize considering their past."
Who do you think is in a position to moralize? Reminds me of a story about a plank and a speck of dust.
If you want to judge you "brothers and sisters" sexuality, mabey first you could give a detailed list of all your sexual immorality.
...
jboy,
IP Jnr had a piece in the Newsletter yesterday.
Les Reid,
I thought you didn't believe in right and wrong? You appear to be fairly dogmatic in your condemnation of Paisley. Where is all this free thinking humanists talk about or are you only tolerant of those who agree with you?
I thought it interesting that Paisley Snr observed that gay people neeeded more love, not rejection.
Incidentally, I would like to know why David Vance's views on this subject were not sought as he is a fundamentalist Christian who has appeared disproportionately on 主播大秀 Radio Ulster over the last few weeks?
REF: POST #32
BTW AM, I don鈥檛 judge any sinner that is not my remit, but those that advocate the sinful lifestyle of homosexuality or any other sinful lifestyle judge themselves as rejecters of God Holy Word whether they be homosexual activists or be it their supporters. He who is believing in him is not judged, but he who is not believing hath been judged already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
As for my own filthy sins in which I was dead, Jesus stood in my stead and bore the punishment that was due to me for my sins on the Cross at Calvary giving me new life, washing me in the Precious Blood of the Lamb and blotting out my sin, For by God鈥檚 unmerited favour I have been saved through faith.
"I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless.
"Hath" "Begotten"
Are you quoting directly from the bible? if not these are very unusual words to throw in to a modern conversation.
"As for my own filthy sins in which I was dead"
I'm sorry - you've completely lost me now.
Christian Hippy,
Do you obsess about gay sex all the time, because it does seem to occupy your thoughts.
BTW Do you like...gladiator movies?
come on DD
You cant accuse any poster here of obsessing over gay issues when it is never off will's agenda!
PB
Les Reid #19
"Enough decent, liberal people鈥????
Could you define 'decency' please Les from a humanist perspective; together with an explanation for your atheistic moral stance which essentially states: 'it is wrong, to say that it (homosexuality) is wrong, for there is no "wrong" '?
Is it just me, or is such a credo not embarrassingly nonsensical?
Humanism is, necessarily, self-refuting.
Can't have your cake & eat it Les!
PB,
It is the Bible-believing men who do obsess over this issue, Will is merely reporting topics of interest.
My view is homosexuality is not a moral issue-it's a matter of consenting adults and therefore no business of mine.
And you bible-thumpers should really stall with this unnatural, unhealthy obsession with boy's kissing!do you have nothing better to obsess about? ie., famine in the third world, war, disease, poverty etc?
LB
I am an atheist and very moral.
LB #40- Have you lost the stomach for the discussion on the thread about homophobia HERE? I notice my last highly coherent, intelligent reply to you has gone unanswered.
REF: POST #39
Here! Here! PB, I think the obsession is the making of the 主播大秀, who are trying to peddle their Pro Gay agenda, in trying to brain wash the licence payer to accept homosexual activity as the norm.
my my, DD and JW
you have some very elevated views of your own morals and arugments.
But self praise is no recommendation, as they say, so let your arguments stand or fall on their own merits.
DD, I think you will find Christian groups very much at the forefront of world famine and disease relief.
JW, I have a busy life to lead and as I said before, am not committing to regular blogs at this time, but will have a look at your entry - fro old times sake!
;-)
PB
BTW need I remind us that "homophobia"
is actually a meaningless word in the form it is used.
Is an Alchophobic someone who questions whether acohol is good for an alcoholic while offering them support and friendship?
A quite Orwellian tool deliberately engaged to close down gracious and logical discussion, ref the PCI report, on the grounds of emotive sentiment.
PB
dd
thats quite ingenious, when Will writes about gay issues he is "merely reporting topics of interest" but when Christians do they are "obsessing".
I would ask you by what standard you distinguish between the two...
;-)
PB
PB
My own morals are very high thank you very much.
You are right arguments do stand and fall on their own merits.
I am aware that their are a lot of Christian charities, however Bible-believers do have this unnatural obsession with gays and if fundamentalists would spend a fraction of their time on important matters the world would be a better place.
I would say homophobia is an irrational obsession with gays. Interestingly Orwell in 1984 also cited 'double-think' for which those of a fundamentalist disposition are infamous.
PB Will is merely putting up topics of interest, I do not recall Will commenting on this matter(I thought that was obvious). Compare and contrast with the unnatural obsession with boy's kissing that Bible-believers have.
I really do think you are protesting a bit too much.
DD x
PB- My comment #42 was addressed to LB, not PB, with whom my discussion on the other thread was conducted. I'd call LB a ''PB-like", though. By the way, posting here has nothing to do with how busy or not my life is... I too am extraordinarily busy from the time I get up in the morning until the time I fall asleep at night, but I make room for blogging here and elsewhere nonetheless.