{"id":252,"date":"2015-05-07T16:43:46","date_gmt":"2015-05-07T15:43:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thedissenter.co.uk\/?p=252"},"modified":"2015-05-07T16:43:46","modified_gmt":"2015-05-07T15:43:46","slug":"stepping-forward","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www1.thedissenter.co.uk\/?p=252","title":{"rendered":"Stepping forward?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Step<\/a><\/p>\n

Progressive steps: the\u00a0regulatory hammer to hand.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Progressives\u00a0believe they are right. No. Progressives\u00a0know<\/em> they are right. And to reinforce that certainty the default position is to make sure they are, by law. First response to impose that ‘rightness’ is to reach for the regulatory hammer.<\/p>\n

In Northern Ireland we have had two examples of this in recent years.<\/p>\n

First was the collapse of Haass talks in December 2013. The Alliance Party\u2019s illiberal advocacy of flag regulation\u00a0went too far with the\u00a0proposal for a Political and Cultural Expression Facilitation Office<\/a>, which\u00a0was removed in later drafts, and Alliance\u00a0led by Naomi Long\u00a0rejected all that was on the table<\/a>. Not that that Alliance proposal would have been\u00a0the only threat to liberties in Haass:\u00a0thedissenter<\/strong><\/em> articles focused on the underlying threat to liberties in Haass<\/a>; looking at the three key strands here<\/a>, here<\/a>, and here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Some might ask if the proposal for a ‘flags commission’ could be considered is a measured response for the traducing of Alliance following the Belfast City Council flag vote<\/a> and subsequent street protests? Some might suggest that\u00a0the Parades Commission has hardly provided a positive model for the improvement of community relations, for addressing accommodation (other than creating no march zones, much to republican delight), or for assuring the triumph of the Rule of Law – a poor record of serving natural justice, for starters.<\/p>\n

Few seem to ask where such regulation (the Parades Commission) would exist in Europe (or any other continent) to legally control a culture,\u00a0a singular culture: because the intent of legislation has a deliberately disproportionate impact on a single culture in Northern Ireland, no matter what is said to the contrary. In Europe, probably no such example\u00a0since the 1930s.<\/p>\n

\"CEJoWX-W0AA-MZk\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Elsewhere, North Korea? Watch out for a second attempt at implementing some sort of ‘flags commission’ from the outworking of the ‘Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition<\/em>‘ within the\u00a0Stormont House Agreement<\/a>. It featured in Naomi Long’s election interviews<\/a>: and\u00a0the\u00a0Alliance Manifesto<\/a>.<\/p>\n

More recently, the Equality Commission\u2019s case against Asher\u2019s bakery is presented as out-of- date religious fundamentalism standing in the way of progressive advances in LGBT rights. In this, the dominance of \u2018civil rights\u2019 trumps individual rights<\/a>.\u00a0However,\u00a0the case for\u00a0individual rights, including the right to exercise (lawful) discrimination<\/a>\u00a0(in the original sense of that word), is regularly shouted down: that case needs to be made, and heard.<\/p>\n

The DUP response to the Asher\u2019s bakery case, the attempt to introduce \u2018conscience clause\u2019 legislation, is a \u00a0poor response in that it identifies \u2018Christians\u2019 in a group, in exactly the same way that LGBT is a group – two wrongs making\u00a0a rights’ mess. ‘Group rights’\u00a0\u00a0subvert the individual to a mere part of the greater whole \u2013 dehumanising the argument into a conflict for political dominance, with the Courts as the battlefield. That never\u00a0ends well. It may result in a legal ruling, where one side wins: but everyone loses as positions retrench.<\/p>\n

Nor are the issues at the core of the ‘cake’ debate able to be narrowed to\u00a0one solely between Christians and LGBT; though in Northern Ireland issues all too often are viewed within our own little fish bowl. Different identities can share similar views, even if each believes it has little in common with the other.<\/p>\n