DUPs Jim Wells: gay pride parade participants 'repugnant'

Wolfe Tone

The Democratic Union Party has been criticised for snubbing a Belfast Pride event.

The event, held yesterday, was joined by politicians from all major parties – except the DUP.

Titled Pride on the Hill, it featured speakers from each party and was held at Stormont.

DUP assembly member Jim Wells reportedly told a Pride organiser that he would not take part in the “repugnant” event.

According to the Irish News, Mr Wells sent Pride organiser Simon Rea a text message which said: “Dear Mr Rea, I understand that you contacted my Kilkeel office regarding what is termed a ‘Belfast Pride’ debate.

“I find the behaviour of those who take part in this march repugnant. I do not wish to be associated in any way with this event.

“My position on this will not change in the future and I would politely suggest that any further requests of this nature will be a total waste of your time. Jim Wells.”

A DUP spokesman said: “Party headquarters only received a request for a participant in this debate on Thursday, 21st July. Given the busy schedule of our MLAs, such short notice did not enable us to supply a speaker on this occasion.”

The spokesman did not comment on Mr Well’s comments to Pride organisers.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/07/26/dup-criticised-for-refusing-to-attend-belfast-pride-event/

http://www.thejournal.ie/nis-future-health-minister-brands-gay-pride-participants-repugnant-186311-Jul2011/
Theres the journals take.


I read this today, and I was disgusted that in 21st century Ireland we still have leading politicians coming out with homophobic sh!te like the above.

Jim Wells will be the Health Minister in a few years.

I was gonna start this in the politics forum, but I thought it would be better suited here, if the mods want to move it I don't really mind.

Annasopra

Its the dup

rainbow kirby

mango salsa wrote: »

Its the dup

'nuff said, unfortunately.

It is a little worrying though that people with such views would be in a position to become health minister - suppose cuts are to be made, what's first on the chopping block, LGBT health programs because the minister apparently finds them "repugnant"?

Wolfe Tone

rainbow kirby wrote: »

'nuff said, unfortunately.

It is a little worrying though that people with such views would be in a position to become health minister - suppose cuts are to be made, what's first on the chopping block, LGBT health programs because the minister apparently finds them "repugnant"?

Yeah, I would like to point out that many people vote for the DUP, its the biggest party in the assembly, not because they agree with their policies but simply because they are pro union and not nationalist/republican.

At least I really hope thats the case!

wonderfulname

Wells told The Irish News that his comments “refer to the parade”, including the costumes and behaviour of the participants.

We tend not to use the word repugnant when referring to clothing... Besides, how would he know what the parade is like if he refuses to go? What a repugnant attempt to sidestep the issue, a public apology would be a nice start, followed by a bit of effort in educating himself. Of course as we learned from Creighton politicians are allowed their "beliefs"...

Annasopra

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Yeah, I would like to point out that many people vote for the DUP, its the biggest party in the assembly, not because they agree with their policies but simply because they are pro union and not nationalist/republican.

At least I really hope thats the case!

I don't think its that simple - I think that a lot of voters possibly do agree with DUP policies - There was some research a few years ago showing tolerance to gay and lesbian people - NI was very bad in this regard. Belfast pride parades attract much bigger groups of religious objectors than anywhere else on the Island. Nonetheless I think as with everywhere attitudes are slowly changing but again I am constantly surprised by people who are surprised by the attitudes of conservative politicians. This is just one more incident in a long line of anti gay incidents from the DUP

stephen_n

He is a fundementalist christian and in that context it could hardly be viewed as surprising.

EJLL

He is right. It is largely full of repugnant people who are the worst representation of the gay community. Pride Parades do awful damage to the public perception of the homosexuality population. It's a 'repugnant' joke of an event. I dont mind the park events where everyone gathers in celebration. Thats a good laugh. But its the parading through the streets with a pile of creepy looking people in tacky stereotypical costume that should be banished from gay culture.

wonderfulname

EJLL wrote: »

He is right. It is largely full of repugnant people who are the worst representation of the gay community. Pride Parades do awful damage to the public perception of the homosexuality population. It's a 'repugnant' joke of an event. I dont mind the park events where everyone gathers in celebration. Thats a good laugh. But its the parading through the streets with a pile of creepy looking people in tacky stereotypical costume that should be banished from gay culture.

So you believe that he is talking about the event rather than the people? Sure...

Pride debate thataway>>>

EJLL

wonderfulname wrote: »

So you believe that he is talking about the event rather than the people? Sure...QUOTE]

Both. That was clear in my post.

Thanks for the link though. It was intersting to see the poll results.

wonderfulname

I'm sorry I should have made that clearer, you believe it wasn't a remark about gay people rather a remark about gay pride?

EJLL

wonderfulname wrote: »

I'm sorry I should have made that clearer, you believe it wasn't a remark about gay people rather a remark about gay pride?

I would like to think by 'repugnant' he is referring directly to the people within the parade itself who dress in a garish way (drag queen, tank top, hotpants, chaps, etc) and act overly camp, loud, sexual etc.
His comment in that context I can relate to.

He probably should have said "it's just not for me to be seen as a politician in that sort of situation". Had it been a more subdued gay event, with less of the people mentioned above, then he might have shown face.

I would like to think he is not referring to all gay people.
I hope :-/

wonderfulname

Wishful thinking is all well and good but I doubt very much the man meant as such, as has already been discussed the DUP is pretty backward about gay people:

Despite its advances in recent years, the issue of gay rights regularly returns to haunt, and even define, the DUP.

The latest spat over the party's failure to find a speaker for the Pride on the Hill event at Stormont suggests it is still not comfortable dealing with the issue.

Already named as the party's next choice for Health Minister, MLA Jim Wells (below) in particular was criticised for his reluctance to meet gay and lesbian organisers.

Sinn Fein's Daithi McKay asked on Twitter: "Would he meet them in his capacity as Health Minister? The DUP (are the) odd party out."

A DUP spokesman said party headquarters only received a request for a participant last Thursday and given the busy schedule of its MLAs could not supply a speaker "on this occasion."

Of course, feelings of unease, embarrassment - and, for some, disgust - about homosexuality is not an exclusively DUP problem.

In the run-up to his election, Ulster Unionist leader Tom Elliott also made a point of making it clear that he had no inclination to attend gay pride events.

But the DUP under Peter Robinson has been portraying itself as a more broad-based entity than the Ian Paisley-led party that wanted to 'Save Ulster from Sodomy'.

However, it was Mr Robinson's wife Iris who, before her fall from grace last year, was well known for her stance against homosexuality.

The former MP sparked controversy after stating in a Parliamentary debate that homosexuality is "viler" than child sex abuse.

Later she told the Belfast Telegraph she had meant homosexuality and child abuse were "comparable", and argued her comments had been inaccurately transcribed in the record of a Grand Committee debate. However, after reviewing its tapes, Hansard, which publishes transcripts of all Westminster debates, said it was happy that the transcription was accurate.

But with the return of devolution, taking power also meant staying within legal boundaries.

The annual Gay Pride Festival was boosted by a £2,000 grant increase from an incoming DUP minister's department. Culture Minister Edwin Poots, a member of the Free Presbyterian Church, explained: "There are laws that have to be observed, whether we like them or not."

But Free Presbyterian minister and former colleague, Rev Ivan Foster, used the issue to launch an attack on power sharing.

"If it turns out that financial support for a celebration of sodomy is sanctioned by a member or office bearer of the Free Presbyterian Church, then it will underscore the utter futility of the powersharing agreement that has been put together by the DUP and Sinn Fein," he argued.

"Far from the DUP elevating the morals of society, it seems that the DUP is going to come down to the level of morality that society demands."

Belfast Telegraph - Comments are bloody depressing.

L1011

Thats a bloody long and well formatted text message....

Aard

Meh, he's entitled to his opinion, text-message-expressed or otherwise.


And who cares if he "snubbed" the parade. "Hi, you're welcome to spend your time and possibly money marching and making speeches for something you don't agree with." Come on, his absense was preferable.

easychair

Aard wrote: »

Meh, he's entitled to his opinion, text-message-expressed or otherwise.


And who cares if he "snubbed" the parade. "Hi, you're welcome to spend your time and possibly money marching and making speeches for something you don't agree with." Come on, his absense was preferable.

I tend to agree that he is entitled to his opinion, even if we disagree with it.

It's slightly ironic that many are intolerant of opinions with which they find they don't agree, but many of those same people are outraged if someone has the temerity to disagree with one of their own opinions or views.

wonderfulname

I'd disagree, politicians shouldn't have "opinions" where there is a right and a wrong answer, they are representing all of society (this is especially true in the north) so they have a duty to know the true state of affairs rather than blindly assume that their hardened prejudices are right because these prejudices damage the very people they represent.

Annasopra

wonderfulname wrote: »

I'd disagree, politicians shouldn't have "opinions" where there is a right and a wrong answer, they are representing all of society (this is especially true in the north) so they have a duty to know the true state of affairs rather than blindly assume that their hardened prejudices are right because these prejudices damage the very people they represent.

But that's just not workable - people have differing views of what is right and what is wrong and what exactly determines prejudice - culture changes societal views over time - you can't tell people they dont have the right to express their thoughts just because they are elected! and you certainly cannot dictate what elected people are allowed to say or not.

wonderfulname

Differing views are all well and good but they are not the same as valid ones, prejudice is defined as "An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts", I am saying I expect an elected representative to base decisions or comments made in their post on something concrete.

I didn't say it was workable, nor did I say it should be forced upon anyone, but there is a moral obligation where politicians are concerned, why else would this be news? Why else would we be disgusted at the handling of our economic affairs during the boom years? Because we feel that politicians should be held morally accountable to do the best thing as opposed to the most popular or what suits them.

I have to say you read that post in a very interesting manner mango...

stephen_n

wonderfulname wrote: »

Differing views are all well and good but they are not the same as valid ones, prejudice is defined as "An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts", I am saying I expect an elected representative to base decisions or comments made in their post on something concrete.

I didn't say it was workable, nor did I say it should be forced upon anyone, but there is a moral obligation where politicians are concerned, why else would this be news? Why else would we be disgusted at the handling of our economic affairs during the boom years? Because we feel that politicians should be held morally accountable to do the best thing as opposed to the most popular or what suits them.

I have to say you read that post in a very interesting manner mango...

Politicians also have the moral obligation to represent the views of those who elect them!

Wolfe Tone

stephen_n wrote: »

Politicians also have the moral obligation to represent the views of those who elect them!

This is the DUP we are talking about, not known to care about minorities!

stephen_n

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

This is the DUP we are talking about, not known to care about minorities!

I was referring to the Free Presbyterians who voted for him!

Annasopra

wonderfulname wrote: »

I am saying I expect an elected representative to base decisions or comments made in their post on something concrete.

What if the concrete fact is that the majority of DUP supporters are anti gay (this is entirely a what if question)

wonderfulname

mango salsa wrote: »

What if the concrete fact is that the majority of DUP supporters are anti gay (this is entirely a what if question)

That would be but one concrete fact, a lot more should come into play than just the beliefs of one subsection of the population, at the very least the beliefs of the population of the country as a whole should be taken into account but this is Northern Ireland we're talking about...

In this particular situation the man should have politely declined if he wanted to stay out of the issue, regardless of whether it was for political or personal reasons, would you respond to a work related invitation by insulting everyone involved?

But for the sake of argument; In a wider political context, considering being anti gay is akin to being anti divorce in that there is no logical argument against but rights arguments for, I'd point you towards our divorce referendums, certainly didn't fit bruton the second time round, risky move for a party more used to opposition, highly contentious issue, high percentage of the country against, but yet important for society as a whole.

Another one, more obvious this time, people are anti tax, it's one of life's evils, so what did our politicians do for years? Lower it. What was the accepted worst method of dealing with tax in good times according to the economic community? Lowering it. Should our politicians have pandered to our ignorance and even worsened it or should they have informed us of what the best practice was, and why it was so, and then implemented it? Same with social welfare, would pointing to the cost of living and restricting it to necessities not have been better than "look, I'm giving money to babies, love me!"?

hotmail.com

I thought one of the traits of Britishness was tolerance of others?

The DUP have more in common with the Vatican than they do with British people.

easychair

wonderfulname wrote: »

I'd disagree, politicians shouldn't have "opinions" where there is a right and a wrong answer, they are representing all of society (this is especially true in the north) so they have a duty to know the true state of affairs rather than blindly assume that their hardened prejudices are right because these prejudices damage the very people they represent.

Well, we disagree. I wouldn't want to live in your world where politicians are only allowed say what you think they should say. The problem with representing "all of society" is that all of society had hundreds of different views. there is no one "true state of affairs" and they have every right to assume what they want about what youi refer to their "hardened prejudices" as you have about your own "hardened prejudices".

Thankfully we live in a free society where we still have free speech, and we are not told what to say and banned from saying what we think.

Your intolerance towards views you don't like is revealing, and I don't share your intolerance of views with which I happen to diasgree.

wonderfulname

Easychair, I've already addressed that interesting interpretation, it's not like the thread has exploded since your last visit, seriously, what was the point?

easychair

wonderfulname wrote: »

Easychair, I've already addressed that interesting interpretation, it's not like the thread has exploded since your last visit, seriously, what was the point?

Whats the "point" of anything?

this is a message boards site, where we all contribute what we think is relevant or interesting or illuminating. If you don't find someone's post interesting, there is no compulsion to respond to it.

Alopex

Interesting fact. Gay pride is the biggest cross community parade in Northern Ireland.

Aard wrote: »

Meh, he's entitled to his opinion, text-message-expressed or otherwise.


And who cares if he "snubbed" the parade. "Hi, you're welcome to spend your time and possibly money marching and making speeches for something you don't agree with." Come on, his absense was preferable.

They didn't snub the parade, that would be fine. He snubbed a political forum where the concerns of the gay community in Northern Ireland are addressed and debated. Even the equally conservative UUP were there. So unless they think gays are not citizens he should have been there. DUP are the biggest party and their leader is the first minister of the country.

mango_salsa wrote:

I don't think its that simple - I think that a lot of voters possibly do agree with DUP policies -

It actually is that simple. Bizarre as this sounds I have a mate who's lesbian and votes for them. Plenty more non-homophobic friends who vote for them too.

There was some research a few years ago showing tolerance to gay and lesbian people - NI was very bad in this regard. Belfast pride parades attract much bigger groups of religious objectors than anywhere else on the Island. Nonetheless I think as with everywhere attitudes are slowly changing but again I am constantly surprised by people who are surprised by the attitudes of conservative politicians. This is just one more incident in a long line of anti gay incidents from the DUP

Its a low income state that is just recently out of conflict, and some would argue still enduring a more minor conflict. It cannot be compared to Ireland. Also there's a lot of deep south american style evangelical christianity prevailent there which isn't common in ROI.

Annasopra

Alopex wrote: »

It actually is that simple. Bizarre as this sounds I have a mate who's lesbian and votes for them. Plenty more non-homophobic friends who vote for them too.

Im sorry but your lesbian friend does not represent all DUP voters - people have differing views on why they vote for parties and to say that quite a lot of people voted for them just because they are pro union is really an over simplification

wonderfulname wrote:

That would be but one concrete fact, a lot more should come into play than just the beliefs of one subsection of the population, at the very least the beliefs of the population of the country as a whole should be taken into account but this is Northern Ireland we're talking about...

In this particular situation the man should have politely declined if he wanted to stay out of the issue, regardless of whether it was for political or personal reasons, would you respond to a work related invitation by insulting everyone involved?

But for the sake of argument; In a wider political context, considering being anti gay is akin to being anti divorce in that there is no logical argument against but rights arguments for, I'd point you towards our divorce referendums, certainly didn't fit bruton the second time round, risky move for a party more used to opposition, highly contentious issue, high percentage of the country against, but yet important for society as a whole.

Another one, more obvious this time, people are anti tax, it's one of life's evils, so what did our politicians do for years? Lower it. What was the accepted worst method of dealing with tax in good times according to the economic community? Lowering it. Should our politicians have pandered to our ignorance and even worsened it or should they have informed us of what the best practice was, and why it was so, and then implemented it? Same with social welfare, would pointing to the cost of living and restricting it to necessities not have been better than "look, I'm giving money to babies, love me!"?

Personally I am very far from a libertarian free speech supporter who insists that anything and everything should be freely allowed but on the other hand I think that your view that politicians shouldn't be allowed express personal opinions is excessively restrictive. If politicians couldn't freely express their opinions then they would all be carbon copies of one another and they wouldn't actually reflect any public opinion whatsoever.

Alopex

mango salsa wrote: »

Im sorry but your lesbian friend does not represent all DUP voters - people have differing views on why they vote for parties and to say that quite a lot of people voted for them just because they are pro union is really an over simplification

No offense but I don't think you quite understand the madness that is Northern Ireland. DUP have been the most popular party since 2003. They made huge gains this year and got 30% of the popular vote. They have more MPs than the nationalist parties put together.

They won the last assembly election out of unionist fear Sinn Fein would become the largest party. Hilariously they won the 2007 election on a promise they wouldn't share power with Sinn Fein.

My point in saying the non-homophobic vote for them is to back up WT's claim that the unionist stance comes before all other matters. Hell pot-smoking fornicating college students vote for them.

I'm sure there's plenty agree with their stance on homosexuality, but I can assure you plenty vote for them who don't give a toss about homosexuality.

Annasopra

Alopex wrote: »

No offense but I don't think you quite understand the madness that is Northern Ireland. DUP have been the most popular party since 2003. They made huge gains this year and got 30% of the popular vote. They have more MPs than the nationalist parties put together.

They won the last assembly election out of unionist fear Sinn Fein would become the largest party. Hilariously they won the 2007 election on a promise they wouldn't share power with Sinn Fein.

My point in saying the non-homophobic vote for them is to back up WT's claim that the unionist stance comes before all other matters. Hell pot-smoking fornicating college students vote for them.

I'm sure there's plenty agree with their stance on homosexuality, but I can assure you plenty vote for them who don't give a toss about homosexuality.

I do understand - I just don't think you can completely oversimplify peoples reasons for voting reasons to - "they vote for x party because they are sectarian" - the reality is much more complex than that

Alopex

mango salsa wrote: »

I do understand - I just don't think you can completely oversimplify peoples reasons for voting reasons to - "they vote for x party because they are sectarian" - the reality is much more complex than that

I'm not saying its sectarian. Its not. Just unionism is the biggest issue. Go back to the initial quote:

Yeah, I would like to point out that many people vote for the DUP, its the biggest party in the assembly, not because they agree with their policies but simply because they are pro union and not nationalist/republican.

This is completely factual.

Annasopra

Alopex wrote: »

Yeah, I would like to point out that many people vote for the DUP, its the biggest party in the assembly, not because they agree with their policies but simply because they are pro union and not nationalist/republican.

Fair enough but as it is also clearly acknowledged that many people vote for other reasons as well including policy

easychair

Alopex wrote: »

They didn't snub the parade, that would be fine. He snubbed a political forum where the concerns of the gay community in Northern Ireland are addressed and debated. .

It seems no matter what we do, there will always be those who tell us that, because we are gay, we belong to something called the gay Community, and that someone else will speak up on our behalf, and those same people who speak on my behalf know what my concerns are.

I am not off to put on my blue jumper, and go out to start a protest on behalf of the blue jumper wearing community to address the concerns of the blue jumper wearing community.

Sir Ophiuchus

easychair wrote: »

I am not off to put on my blue jumper, and go out to start a protest on behalf of the blue jumper wearing community to address the concerns of the blue jumper wearing community.

Don't be facetious. If you feel your sexual orientation has no important bearing on your politics, identity, or life then that's fine. I happen to disagree. When people are beaten up, made to feel like ****, or spoken against in public by politicians for wearing blue jumpers, go right ahead.

Alopex

easychair wrote: »

It seems no matter what we do, there will always be those who tell us that, because we are gay, we belong to something called the gay Community, and that someone else will speak up on our behalf, and those same people who speak on my behalf know what my concerns are.

I am not off to put on my blue jumper, and go out to start a protest on behalf of the blue jumper wearing community to address the concerns of the blue jumper wearing community.

Ha in our wee country that's how it works for everyone

"Braadly speaking that is dee over-whalming view amungst the majaarity of the nashnalist cammewnity"

"The Asian cammewnatty acrass tha pravince are catagoricklee appalled in light of this incident"

"My cammewnity is here to be offended"

easychair

Sir Ophiuchus wrote: »

Don't be facetious. If you feel your sexual orientation has no important bearing on your politics, identity, or life then that's fine. I happen to disagree. When people are beaten up, made to feel like ****, or spoken against in public by politicians for wearing blue jumpers, go right ahead.

Whether or not I feel my sexual orientation has any bearing on my life, politics or "identity" is not the same thing as someone else claiming they can speak on my behalf. I'm not sure what people being beaten up has to do with someone else claiming they can speak on behalf of the "gay community". I don;t claim to be able to speak on your behalf, or on anyone elses's behalf apart from my own.

Sir Ophiuchus

easychair wrote: »

Whether or not I feel my sexual orientation has any bearing on my life, politics or "identity" is not the same thing as someone else claiming they can speak on my behalf. I'm not sure what people being beaten up has to do with someone else claiming they can speak on behalf of the "gay community". I don;t claim to be able to speak on your behalf, or on anyone elses's behalf apart from my own.

I understand where you're coming from there. But claiming that gay people have nothing important in common - which I feel is what you did with the sweaters - undercuts your argument. Because gay identity (or queer identity, or trans identity) is very important to a lot of people, and there are elements we have in common that are due to that. I don't think it's too much of a stretch, for example, to say that gay men, as a group, are probably in favour of anti-homophobic bullying campaigns in school, or that trans people are most likely in favour of being granted protection under the Equal Status Acts.

I agree that no-one can speak for all the members of some idealised "gay community", but there's a difference between saying "I think some members of the gay community would find a politician describing a gay march as 'repugnant' offensive" and saying "The gay community finds this offensive".

Solair

If Northern Ireland voters would look past sectarianism, they might actually realise that they are voting for some rather weird and extreme parties.

Is there really no demand for less extremist parties up there?

They're WAY out of step with politics in the Republic of Ireland and Britain.

From what I can see, NI voters seem to select their candidates purely on the basis of the constitutional question of whether they're loyalist, unionist, nationalist or republican. Many of them seem to really not have all that much interest in any other aspects of politics.

I mean, what are any of the NI parties policies on economics, social affairs, equality, education, transport etc?

I know they get vaguely mentioned, but it seems when it comes to an election it's very much a question of Green vs Orange up there with little debate on the kinds of issues that actually impact on day-to-day life.

I mean, does everyone who votes DUP really express homophobic tendencies or, do they just really want to state their unionist identity by voting for what is perceived to be the most extremely unionist party?

Annasopra

easychair wrote: »

Whether or not I feel my sexual orientation has any bearing on my life, politics or "identity" is not the same thing as someone else claiming they can speak on my behalf. I'm not sure what people being beaten up has to do with someone else claiming they can speak on behalf of the "gay community". I don;t claim to be able to speak on your behalf, or on anyone elses's behalf apart from my own.

Fair enough. You view your life as a complete individual and all of your life experiences as completely isolated from others, completely unaffected by any characteristic such as gender identity, race, nationality, class, sexual orientation. Others take a completely view and have recognised huge inequalities amongst people based on all those characteristics and identities. Social movements do not always represent and have not always represented the entirety of the views of those who they purport to represent but if they didnt exist then we would probably have a much unequal society that hugely disrespects women, people of ethnic minorities, disabled people, transgendered people etc etc. Im not sure what to suggest to address the problem that LGBT organisations don't represent you.

easychair

Sir Ophiuchus wrote: »

I don't think it's too much of a stretch, for example, to say that gay men, as a group, are probably in favour of anti-homophobic bullying campaigns in school, or that trans people are most likely in favour of being granted protection under the Equal Status Acts.

I agree that no-one can speak for all the members of some idealised "gay community", but there's a difference between saying "I think some members of the gay community would find a politician describing a gay march as 'repugnant' offensive" and saying "The gay community finds this offensive".

In my experience, many people are against anti-homophobic bullying, and that's not confined to gay people.

I don't find offence where none is meant, and I particularly don't take offence where it is meant. While I favour tolerance towards others, I find it ironic that some are intolerant towards views with which they they do not agree, at the same time demanding others, who find their own views disagreeable, feel they should not be allowed to express those views.

In my life, I exist happily beside some with whom I disagree. Disagreement is a normal part of life, and I rejoice that society has got to a point where someone can disagree with me about, for example, homosexuality, content with the fact that, legally, homosexuality is seen as a normal condition, and the rights of homosexual people enshrined in law.

Alopex

Solair wrote: »

If Northern Ireland voters would look past sectarianism, they might actually realise that they are voting for some rather weird and extreme parties.

Is there really no demand for less extremist parties up there?

They're WAY out of step with politics in the Republic of Ireland and Britain.

From what I can see, NI voters seem to select their candidates purely on the basis of the constitutional question of whether they're loyalist, unionist, nationalist or republican. Many of them seem to really not have all that much interest in any other aspects of politics.

I mean, what are any of the NI parties policies on economics, social affairs, equality, education, transport etc?

I know they get vaguely mentioned, but it seems when it comes to an election it's very much a question of Green vs Orange up there with little debate on the kinds of issues that actually impact on day-to-day life.

I mean, does everyone who votes DUP really express homophobic tendencies or, do they just really want to state their unionist identity by voting for what is perceived to be the most extremely unionist party?

Thats basically how it it.

What I don't think people realise is there's a lot more to being a nationalist than wanting the border removed and a lot more to being a unionist than wanting it kept. In fact statistically a big majority want to remain in the UK but far fewer describe themselves as British or Unionist.

The real issues are debated but there's always some constitutional slant on it. Like say with hospitals if it made logical sense for people in certain regions to go to hospitals in the roi the nationalists would be all for legislating for it but unionists would find some reason to be against it.

even alliance party do it they will often destract from the issue at hand by calling others tribal at every opportunity.

this is bit crude but a little graph i did on northern irish parties.



http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/824/polspec.jpg

easychair

mango salsa wrote: »

Fair enough. You view your life as a complete individual and all of your life experiences as completely isolated from others, completely unaffected by any characteristic such as gender identity, race, nationality, class, sexual orientation.

This is exactly what I mean. Here is another poster thinking he or she knows how I live my life, when in reality he or she has no idea about my life. That you claim "all my life experiences are completely isolated from others" is complete fiction. You have no evidence for that, and have just made it up.

That's why I say that no one else can claim to speak on my behalf, and I don't claim to speak on anyone else's behalf, because if I did I'd probably make the same mistakes that mango salsa has here, and completely get it wrong.

I think all that pop psychology in the Sunday supplements has a lot to answer for.....