The National Party (Also known as the Lets spread some hate party...)

Cabaal

http://www.thejournal.ie/the-national-party-merrion-hotel-3084352-Nov2016/?utm_source=facebook_short

Some of you might be wondering why I'm posting about this party in this forum, well because they have links to Youth Defense if you go back a few years.

The party’s release says that the key speakers at the launch would have been its president Justin Barrett, a Tipperary man formerly of action groups Youth Defence and the Mother and Child Campaign, and James Reynolds, a former chairman of the Irish Farmers Association in Longford and current national treasurer of the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers Association (ICSA), and proclaimed deputy president of the new party.

Some joyful reading on Justin

https://spotlightontheright.wordpress.com/2016/10/05/no-2-justin-barrett-michael-quinn/

During the 1990s, Justin Barrett and Michael Quinn were leading members of the militant anti-abortion group Youth Defence.

They were arrested together, along with six other Youth Defence associates, during a violent picket in May 1998 outside the Adelaide Hospital in Dublin.

Both men, while retaining links with Youth Defence, went onto become dedicated and committed far-right activists.

Though the two have dropped out of public activity, it is still useful to trace their political careers. Also pose the question as to why such a number of leading Youth Defence members have become active in right-wing politics ranging from Catholic Irish Nationalism to White Power neo-Fascism.

Makes me wounder how many other Youth Defence members might be involved

Qs

I was going to post this in the "gay cake" thread because Merrion cancelled the meeting. Seems like a good example of the flip side of that argument I think.

A friend posted about this today on Facebook. And I remembered making a Frisbee out of Justin Barrett's head from his election poster way back.

Even then people were talking about him going to neo-nazi meetings. Didn't know about the YD connection until today though.

Cabaal

Qs wrote: »

I was going to post this in the "gay cake" thread because Merrion cancelled the meeting. Seems like a good example of the flip side of that argument I think.

Not really,
You can be arrested for hate speech, you can't be arrested for saying gay marriage should be legal.

They are not equal at all

Cabaal

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/11/16/this-justin-5/

Dublin agitprop specialists Rabble discussed today’s announcement (and subsequent cancellation on foot of a massive public outcry this morning) of tomorrow’s launch of the National Party at the Merrion Hotel in Dublin. Rabble sez:

Supposed to be speaking at the launch were Justin Barrett (ex Youth Defence, Mother and Child Campaign, and No to Nice) and James Reynolds, the party’s deputy president.

Their message is of a similar rhetoric to that of Trump: anti-elitist, anti-immigration, anti multiculturalism, and of course speaking on behalf of the “silent majority”.

endacl

Justin Barrett is an anagram of 'turban jitters'.

recedite

We'll never know if their message is similar to Trump's if your mates keep "no-platforming" them and beating them up outside the venues.

From your link;

This new formation, the National Party, has all the hallmarks of a fascist party. Wherever fascism rears its ugly head, there’s violence, unfortunately,” he said, adding that the party and its followers are free to voice their opinions elsewhere.
The latest controversy comes following a string of attempts to establish Irish political movements which represent far-right ideals over the last year.
Gardaí were called to the Jury’s Inn hotel on Dublin’s Parnell Street to break up scuffles between rival factions at a launch event for the Identity Ireland group, headed by anti-immigration campaigner Peter O’Loughlin, in March 2015.
Mr O’Loughlin was later injured in clashes with self-proclaimed anti-fascist protesters in Dublin earlier this year when he attempted to attend the launch of an Irish arm of the German anti-Islam group Pegida.

Where is this "elsewhere" by the way?

As for those "clashes".....

The chairman of Identity Ireland who was hospitalised after being hit in the head with a blunt object while travelling on the Luas has condemned the main Government parties for failing to be unequivocal in their disdain for the attack.

Mind you, they are right about one thing. Its not all that dissimilar to the hate and violence that seems to follow Trump supporters around.

Cabaal

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/national-party-leader-espouses-creation-of-catholic-republic-1.2870955

In his 1998 book - 'The National Way Forward!' - Justin Barrett espoused the creation of a “Catholic Republic”, where immigration would be greatly restricted, divorce and abortion banned, and patriotism elevated to the highest of public virtues.

This is his wet dream,

Qs

Cabaal wrote: »

Not really,
You can be arrested for hate speech, you can't be arrested for saying gay marriage should be legal.

They are not equal at all

You can't punish people for hate speech until you let them speak.

robindch

Cabaal wrote: »

In his 1998 book - 'The National Way Forward!' - Justin Barrett espoused the creation of a “Catholic Republic”, where immigration would be greatly restricted, divorce and abortion banned, and patriotism elevated to the highest of public virtues.

Patriotism? I defer to Ambrose Bierce:

Ambrose Bierce wrote:

Patriotism, n. Combustible rubbish ready to the torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name. In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit it is the first.

Cabaal

Qs wrote: »

You can't punish people for hate speech until you let them speak.

Nobody has tried to silence him,
The hotel merely don't want to be associated with a organisation that has a leader associated with hate speech. Pretty logical really.

This man is against many things in this country that the majority have no issues with, he lives in a hate filled la-la land.

recedite

Was he actually convicted of perpetrating hate speech?
Or is it just that you hate the idea of letting him speak?

George Washington -Patriot wrote:

“If men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences that can invite the consideration of mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter.”

feargale

Let me say at the outset, as appears to be almost obligatory in these threads, that I could not envisage myself putting Mr. Barrett anywhere other than bottom on a ballot paper. Having got that out of the way:

Cabaal wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/national-party-leader-espouses-creation-of-catholic-republic-1.2870955

This is his wet dream,

Do you acknowledge or not his right to express his views and to be heard, or, as in boards, does that right only extend to "correct" views.?

"He espoused the creation of a “Catholic Republic”, where immigration would be greatly restricted (an “Irish Ireland”), divorce and abortion banned, and patriotism elevated to the highest of public virtues."

Let's see the "brave" UCD bullies kick the s***e out of those who advocate an Islamic republic with similar and further retrictions.

P.S. Do you believe the "lady" who first interrupted Barrett in UCD when she says she witnessed no violence? Do you approve of her refusal to condemn violence in those circumstances?

endacl

Cabaal wrote: »

he lives in a hate filled la-la land.

Tipparary?

Hotblack Desiato

He's No to Nice in both senses.

Qs

Cabaal wrote: »

Nobody has tried to silence him,
The hotel merely don't want to be associated with a organisation that has a leader associated with hate speech. Pretty logical really.

This man is against many things in this country that the majority have no issues with, he lives in a hate filled la-la land.

Of course he does, he's scum. I just don't think we need to silence scum like him. Expose them and defeat them on a level playing field.

Hotblack Desiato

Refusing to allow someone into your private venue* to spout hateful filth is not 'silencing' them.

Beating them up in the street and on public transport is, and I've posted before about my objection to that no matter how distasteful the recipients of said beatings may be. Opposing unfavoured ideas with violence is a very dangerous road to go down.


* Edit: I would exclude universities from this - both because they receive public funds, and because that although the spoutings of the likes of David Irving or Ken Ham are repulsive, if there is anywhere where ideas can and should be challenged it is at a university debate. So "no" to all this no-platform crap.

The Legend Of Kira

Cabaal wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/national-party-leader-espouses-creation-of-catholic-republic-1.2870955



This is his wet dream,

Barretts Comment about a Catholic republic + his past opposition to divorce + contraception would be issues Id strongly disagree with him on- as I think its people,s own business if they get divorced if the marriage doesn,t work out & its a couples own business if they use contraception to avoid an unwanted pregnancy,, having said that even though I disagree with the guy on those issues I strongly disagree with attempts to silence him which is what that online campaign to get the Merrion hotel to cancel his meeting was all about, you know the whole left wing no platform policy thing- we saw a similar online campaign the previous week regarding Katie Hopkins appearing on the Rte late late show,, to do an analogy here a sec Justin wrote about a Catholic republic in his book etc , & in 2004 was assaulted by self appointed thugs a debate in Ucd, however Anjem Choudary who favours + supports Sharia law spoke at a debate in Trinity his appearance was unopposed by the left there was no campaign to try to stop him speaking nor was he assaulted by anyone,, I think its great hypocrisy from the left to target Justin Barrett for his views but completely unoppose Anjem Choudary making an appearance at a debate in Ireland .

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/controversial-cleric-to-speak-at-trinity-debate-1.798171

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/assault-on-speaker-at-ucd-debate-25893151.html

Qs

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Refusing to allow someone into your private venue* to spout hateful filth is not 'silencing' them.

That is why I said its analogous to the cake situation. I think if you support Merrion here you should support the nordie homophobe bakers too. Or vice versa. Most people seem to be hypocritical one way or the other.

marienbad

Qs wrote: »

That is why I said its analogous to the cake situation. I think if you support Merrion here you should support the nordie homophobe bakers too. Or vice versa. Most people seem to be hypocritical one way or the other.

You can change your politics but not your sexuality . I don't think politics is covered by the relevant legislation .Probably too broad a category anyway

seamus

feargale wrote: »

Do you acknowledge or not his right to express his views and to be heard, or, as in boards, does that right only extend to "correct" views.?

Nobody has the right to express their views through a private venue or medium.

Let's just be clear on that.

Everyone is entitled to hold whatever opinion they wish. However, everyone is not entitled to have that opinion heard. Otherwise we could all rock up to RTE and demand five minutes of airtime.

recedite

I would not be too inclined to focus on "the private venue". We don't know what threats may have been made against them or their staff, indeed there is a rumour of a bombscare. Until the full facts are known and the Merrion hotel issues a statement saying why they cancelled the event, it cannot be compared to the gay cake controversy in which the equally private owner refused a service on the stated basis that the customer's message clashed with his personal ideology/religion.

Qs

recedite wrote: »

We don't know what threats may have been made against them or their staff

Thats a lot of wild speculation.

marienbad wrote: »

You can change your politics but not your sexuality . I don't think politics is covered by the relevant legislation .Probably too broad a category anyway

That is true but as soon as you campaign to legalise something that isn't legal it becomes political.

I hate everything the National Party stand for but I think businesses have an obligation to society and that includes to the parts of society they disagree with. If you are a hotel that normally allows political groups to have meetings in your rooms then you shouldn't be able to refuse a political party even if they are right wing extremists. By all means monitor them and make sure everything is within legal bounds and report them if it isn't but if they aren't breaking the law they should be let have their meeting.

marienbad

Qs wrote: »

Thats a lot of wild speculation.



That is true but as soon as you campaign to legalise something that isn't legal it becomes political.

I hate everything the National Party stand for but I think businesses have an obligation to society and that includes to the parts of society they disagree with. If you are a hotel that normally allows political groups to have meetings in your rooms then you shouldn't be able to refuse a political party even if they are right wing extremists. By all means monitor them and make sure everything is within legal bounds and report them if it isn't but if they aren't breaking the law they should be let have their meeting.

I agree with you completely of the free speech and assembly issue . Whether you can compel business entities to open their doors to them when there is a real risk of violence is another thing though .

But they should be let speak as long as they are within the law .

Cabaal

recedite wrote: »

We don't know what threats may have been made against them or their staff, indeed there is a rumour of a bombscare.

How's that complete and utter speculation going for you?
:rolleyes:

I also heard a rumor about WMD's in the conference room,

recedite

Cabaal wrote: »

How's that complete and utter speculation going for you?
:rolleyes:

I also heard a rumor

As I specifically said, a rumour, I even included the "u" in it.
Nevertheless, a very plausible one.

marienbad wrote: »

Whether you can compel business entities to open their doors to them when there is a real risk of violence is another thing though.

This is a pertinent point. But does it matter from which side the risk of violence is coming from?
Ultimately, no because public safety is paramount. However if the "antis" are using violence, or the threat of it, to "no-platform" their opposition, then IMO it is incumbent on the state to provide some level of security in order to protect the principle of free speech.

FA Hayek

It appears that for the 'progressive establishment' to silence someone all they have to do is scream 'Hate Speech' even though the primary motive is often to not let them speak in the first place. So, how can it be hate speech if they actually say well, nothing.

I do not like many of his views but he should be allowed air them. In fact his views are pretty much the same as Dr. Ali Selim and he is given a platform on the national media all the time, without the enlightened virtuous left silencing him at every opportunity. In fact, if he was denied a platform in the Merion Hotel I can imagine an anti-islamiphobia campaign on Facebook. The regressive left, it never fails to disappoint.

Cabaal

recedite wrote: »

As I specifically said, a rumour, I even included the "u" in it.
Nevertheless, a very plausible one.

As are the WMD's, just as likely as they were in Iraq.
As I said, I heard a rumour about WMD's, that cannot be ignored,

recedite

Cabaal wrote: »

As are the WMD's, just as likely as they were in Iraq. As I said, I heard a rumour about WMD's

Good for you. I seem to remember that the proprietor in that case (Sadam Hussein) issued a clear statement saying there were none.
And a guy from some atomic agency went in and said he found none.
And even the UK guy who was supposed to say that they likely existed, instead said they didn't exist, and was found dead.

Some rumours are plausible and not denied by the subject.
Others are implausible and vigorously denied by both the subject and by impartial observers.
Its up to you to spot the difference.

Cabaal

recedite wrote: »

Good for you. I seem to remember that the proprietor in that case (Sadam Hussein) issued a clear statement saying there were none.
And a guy from some atomic agency went in and said he found none.
And even the UK guy who was supposed to say that they likely existed, instead said they didn't exist, and was found dead.

Some rumours are plausible and not denied by the subject.
Others are implausible and vigorously denied by both the subject and by impartial observers.
Its up to you to spot the difference.

Didn't stop the UK and USA believing they were right and WMD's existed
Some people just like to believe rumours, even if there's no basis to them

recedite

Cabaal wrote: »

Didn't stop the UK and USA believing they were right and WMD's existed..

Not really no, it was just a pretext they were using.

Trent Houseboat

FA Hayek wrote:

It appears that for the 'progressive establishment' to silence someone all they have to do is scream 'Hate Speech' even though the primary motive is often to not let them speak in the first place. So, how can it be hate speech if they actually say well, nothing.

I do not like many of his views but he should be allowed air them. In fact his views are pretty much the same as Dr. Ali Selim and he is given a platform on the national media all the time, without the enlightened virtuous left silencing him at every opportunity. In fact, if he was denied a platform in the Merion Hotel I can imagine an anti-islamiphobia campaign on Facebook. The regressive left, it never fails to disappoint.

Progressive establishment, sounds utterly terrifying

The regressive left certainly haven't let you down in the scenario you concocted in your head. What pleasure can you get from being morally superior to people you've made up?

Let me try:
I saw a brown man today and didn't abuse him like a right wing stawman brigade would've.
Nah, not doing anything for me.

If they had booked the hotel as a religious group, I don't think they would have been cancelled upon. But membership of a political party is not a protected class in this country as religion is.

Do you think political belief should be protected or do you think religion belief shouldn't be? I can see arguments for and against the protection of either. As beliefs, they exist only in the heads of the holders.

meeeeh

Hotel has every right to cancel the event. They are not charity providing platform to any looney group around. I think there should be no issue there.

But morons complaining about people like that forming a party are single handedly responsible for rise of the looney right. If you shut down any discussion, limit people to media, social media and message boards that are attended by like minded individuals, you shouldn't be really surprised when it turns out predictions were wrong and there is whole cohort of people who are afraid to publicly disagree 'acceptable thinking' but will gladly do it under cloak of anonymity. So yeah if people want to see more Trumps elected keep signing those fb petitions, send protest letters and shout everyone down.

Mancomb Seepgood

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

If they had booked the hotel as a religious group, I don't think they would have been cancelled upon. But membership of a political party is not a protected class in this country as religion is.

Do you think political belief should be protected or do you think religion belief shouldn't be? I can see arguments for and against the protection of either. As beliefs, they exist only in the heads of the holders.

If it had been booked by Scientology or another highly controversial religious group it probably would have been cancelled. If it had been booked by Methodists, probably not. A hotel would balance the revenue received against the negative publicity attracted. It's pretty understandable under the circumstances.

Whether the campaign to get the event cancelled or not was such a good idea, I'm not certain. It probably earned this group more publicity than they would otherwise have received. The Merrion is a very expensive hotel, the "National Party" appear to have deep pockets.

PopePalpatine

Come to think of it, I remember hearing about a guy who bet something like €10-15k in betting shops across Dublin on Trump winning. Maybe that's where their money comes from...

...or, it could be Barrett getting the money from Jugendschutz's ultramontanist patron Tom Monaghan under the guise of yet another fundamentalist Catholic group. After all, the National Party wasn't actually registered as a political party with SIPO, but rather a "third party" for referendums.

Peregrinus

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

Do you think political belief should be protected or do you think religion belief shouldn't be? I can see arguments for and against the protection of either. As beliefs, they exist only in the heads of the holders.

All ideas exist only in the heads of the holders, Trent. That's what makes them "ideas". The question is whether people's freedom to have, and express, ideas is something the law should protect.

Just a thought; atheism and agnositicism are ideas about religious questions. if people aren't free to express thoughts about religion, that could leave atheists and agnostics in a vulnerable position. Just sayin'.

recedite

Mancomb Seepgood wrote: »

If it had been booked by Scientology or another highly controversial religious group it probably would have been cancelled. If it had been booked by Methodists, probably not.

You're assuming the hotel always has a free choice to make a purely commercial decision. In the above religious scenario they would be constrained by equality laws and must treat both equally. In the actual political scenario, it was different. The constraining factor was more likely to have been the threat of violence and public safety.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

After all, the National Party wasn't actually registered as a political party with SIPO, but rather a "third party" for referendums.

Open to correction on this, but I think SIPO is only for public office holder's, so would apply after they got somebody elected. Up until that point they are more in the nature of a "third party" type lobby group, which is what they registered as. Third party in the sense of being neither in public office nor being the ordinary joe public.

Skrynesaver

recedite wrote: »

In the actual political scenario, it was different. The constraining factor was more likely to have been the threat of violence and public safety.

That's the second time you've implied anything other than a widespread expression of revulsion was the motivation for refusing to associate their (expensively maintained) reputation with fascism.

I strongly suspect the idea of seeing their name in shot with a fascist spokesman was sufficient for their brand manager to "open a discussion" with their bookings office.

Trent Houseboat

Peregrinus wrote:

All ideas exist only in the heads of the holders, Trent. That's what makes them "ideas". The question is whether people's freedom to have, and express, ideas is something the law should protect.

Just a thought; atheism and agnositicism are ideas about religious questions. if people aren't free to express thoughts about religion, that could leave atheists and agnostics in a vulnerable position. Just sayin'.

Thanks for the condescension, Peregrinus. I'm aware of ideas only existing in peoples' heads, that's why I said it. Religion is the only belief that is a protected class in this country. Age, race, membership of the travelling community, gender and sexuality exist outside of peoples' heads. My question was why one is protected and the other is not.

I don't think atheists or agnostics are a protected group in this country. So a hotel could gladly refuse an atheist group service and suffer no consequences.

I was talking about booking a conference room in a really don't understand what you're "just sayin'".

Hotblack Desiato

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

Thanks for the condescension, Peregrinus.

He's consistent if nothing else.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

You're assuming the hotel always has a free choice to make a purely commercial decision. In the above religious scenario they would be constrained by equality laws and must treat both equally.

This raises questions about the boundaries between religion and politics and why nasty ideas can gain a freer pass under the guise of religion than they would under the guise of a mere political party.

I don't really think I need to elaborate further, save for saying I detest islamists equally as much as I detest fascists.

The idea of giving religion special protection is laughable, it ends up with supposedly secular states having to decide in their courts which ideologies of abuse and hate are 'valid religions' and protected and which are merely 'political' or 'invalid religions or cults' and are not protected.

Peregrinus

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

Thanks for the condescension, Peregrinus.

You're welcome! I make no charge for this.

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

I'm aware of ideas only existing in peoples' heads, that's why I said it. Religion is the only belief that is a protected class in this country. Age, race, membership of the travelling community, gender and sexuality exist outside of peoples' heads. My question was why one is protected and the other is not.

Nitpick: sexual orientation is a protected ground and, so far as we know, it exists only in people's heads - i.e. it's a purely mental phenomenon. And of course marital status is a legal construct which exists only in people's heads - there's no physical difference between married and single people; the difference lies entirely in how we regard the relationship they have chosen to enter into.

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

I don't think atheists or agnostics are a protected group in this country. So a hotel could gladly refuse an atheist group service and suffer no consequences.

You think wrongly, I'm happy to say; atheists and agnostics are indeed protected under the religion ground. Under the Equal Status Act it is forbidden to discriminate between people on the basis "that one has a different religious belief from the other, or that one has a religious belief and the other has not".

recedite

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

This raises questions about the boundaries between religion and politics and why nasty ideas can gain a freer pass under the guise of religion than they would under the guise of a mere political party.

Its a good point, and a common sense one IMO.
Take for example the "gay cake" case in NI where the judge said the baker "might elect not to provide a service that involves any religious or political message" - he was offering a common sense solution. But in strict legal terms he was wrong to add in the word "political" there, which is something I suspect will come back to bite him in some way when that case hits the SC.
The baker was always free to discriminate against political messages he didn't like (provided of course he felt safe doing so, which is by no means a foregone conclusion in NI).

Peregrinus

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

Thanks for the condescension, Peregrinus. I'm aware of ideas only existing in peoples' heads, that's why I said it. Religion is the only belief that is a protected class in this country. Age, race, membership of the travelling community, gender and sexuality exist outside of peoples' heads. My question was why one is protected and the other is not.

I think the short answer is that history has shown there is a need to assert and defend the freedom of religion. There’s a long history of abuse where the freedom of religion is not asserted and defended – from states trying to control the population through control of the established church, to states trying to force particular religious beliefs or practices on people in the wars of religion, to states taxing people to support churches that they do not belong to, to states victimising people on account of religion by, e.g, giving Protestants priority access to government services over Catholics (in Northern Ireland) or stripping Jews of citizenship (in Germany). This has been widespread enough, and has continued for long enough, right down to our own time, that it’s pretty well undeniable that the freedom of religion is a principle that still needs to be asserted and defended.

The question really is not “should freedom of religion be asserted and defended?” so much as “should freedom of political opinion/action/organisation be asserted and defended?” And while the answer “yes, it should” might leap to our lips, a moment’s thought shows that the cases are not quite on all fours. The view that the present Irish state is illegitimate, and that is is permissible and indeed obligatory to take up arms against it with a view to destroying it and reasserting the authority of the 32-county republic with the Army Council at its head is plainly a political position, but few of us would accept that the State is bound to accept that, and forbidden from penalising those who pursue it. Treason, rebellion, etc are all political stances; while a militant anarchist might argue that there is an inherent right to treason, etc, most people, and I think probably no states, would agree.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Its a good point, and a common sense one IMO.
Take for example the "gay cake" case in NI where the judge said the baker "might elect not to provide a service that involves any religious or political message" - he was offering a common sense solution. But in strict legal terms he was wrong to add in the word "political" there, which is something I suspect will come back to bite him in some way when that case hits the SC.
The baker was always free to discriminate against political messages he didn't like (provided of course he felt safe doing so, which is by no means a foregone conclusion in NI).

Except for the fact that in Northern Ireland political opinion enjoys the same protection from discrimination as religion (and sexual orientation)?

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

Except for the fact that in Northern Ireland political opinion enjoys the same protection from discrimination as religion (and sexual orientation)?

Is that in fact, a fact?
Mainstream UK law specifies certain grounds or "protected characteristics" similar to Irish law. If you are aware of some extra provision that applies in NI, please share it with us. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that I'd be interested to learn of it. If in fact, it exists.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Is that in fact, a fact?
Mainstream UK law specifies certain grounds or "protected characteristics" similar to Irish law. If you are aware of some extra provision that applies in NI, please share it with us. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that I'd be interested to learn of it. If in fact, it exists.

Yes, I believe that fact is, in fact, a fact. According to the The Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998:
“Discrimination” and “unlawful discrimination”
3.—(1) In this Order “discrimination” means—
(a)discrimination on the ground of religious belief or political opinion; or
(b)discrimination by way of victimisation;
and “discriminate” shall be construed accordingly.
(2) A person discriminates against another person on the ground of religious belief or political opinion in any circumstances relevant for the purposes of this Order if—
(a)on either of those grounds he treats that other less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons; or
(b)he applies to that other a requirement or condition which he applies or would apply equally to persons not of the same religious belief or political opinion as that other but—
(i)which is such that the proportion of persons of the same religious belief or of the same political opinion as that other who can comply with it is considerably smaller than the proportion of persons not of that religious belief or, as the case requires, not of that political opinion who can comply with it; and
ii)which he cannot show to be justifiable irrespective of the religious belief or political opinion of the person to whom it is applied; and
(iii)which is to the detriment of that other because he cannot comply with it.

recedite

That seems to be employment law, which is only a subset of equality law.
So it would not apply to either the gay cake scenario, or a political party booking a hotel.

Also I have to say, in terms of the usage of the English language, its possibly the worst draft I have seen in a long time.
No awards for the use of plain English there

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

That seems to be employment law, which is only a subset of equality law. So it would not apply to either the gay cake scenario, or a political party booking a hotel.

Well, the title seems to imply it's a little more than employment law "The Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998".
Rather than considering what seems though, it would probably be more relevant to read the Order, wherein we discover it is not in fact restricted to employment but also, for instance, the provision of services;
"Discrimination in provision of goods, facilities or services
28.—(1) It is unlawful for any person concerned with the provision (for payment or not) of goods, facilities or services to the public or a section of the public to discriminate against a person who seeks to obtain or use those goods, facilities or services—
(a)by refusing or deliberately omitting to provide him with any of them; or
(b)by refusing or deliberately omitting to provide him with goods, facilities or services of the same quality, in the same manner and on the same terms as are normal in his case in relation to other members of the public or (where the person so seeking belongs to a section of the public) to other members of that section."

Whether or not you consider it a subset of equality law, it certainly does, as I said, provide political opinion with the same protection from discrimination as religion, so the consideration of political opinion by the Judge's in the gay cake case might very well have been founded on a better understanding of the legislation than your own? Perhaps they simply had less difficulty with reading it.

Of course, two of the examples given for discrimination in the provisions of goods and services are
"(b)accommodation in a hotel, boarding house or other similar establishment;
(e)facilities for entertainment, recreation or refreshment;"
which would appear to rather rubbish your assertion about a political party booking a hotel as well.

recedite wrote: »

Also I have to say, in terms of the usage of the English language, its possibly the worst draft I have seen in a long time.
No awards for the use of plain English there

Apparently... so bad you couldn't even understand the bit about discrimination in the provision of goods and services?

recedite

Sadly I didn't have the attention span to get more than halfway through it myself, but yes you are right, and I stand corrected. Thanks for enlightening us.

Absolam

That would certainly explain it. You're more than welcome