Green Party says mural is hostile and divisive

The East Belfast Green Party is saddened a mural of football hero George Best depicting positive aspects of local culture in the area is being replaced by a hostile and divisive mural of a UVF gunman.

East Belfast Spokesperson Ross Brown said: “This mural is a step away from the good community relations we need to promote. 

"It is important we do not radicalise the next generation of young people in Northern Ireland or we risk condemning them to repeat the mistakes of the past.

“The Government needs to do more to create jobs and tackle the high levels of deprivation and inequality in East Belfast and the local community also needs to play its part by creating a welcoming and positive space for all.

"For many people, lack of employment and social deprivation, in addition to a breakdown in the sense of community, is generating a deep sense of insecurity.

"Images such as this mural seem to be a public outworking of the feelings of some sections that the peace process is failing because the community feels left behind.

“I understand the frustration that is felt by many in East Belfast on the issues concerning identity.

"But this mural is a backwards step for the promotion of an inclusive and positive culture.

"It degrades rather than improves people’s perception of loyalist identity."

Justice for Cody - Further thoughts on animal welfare

Animal welfare is something that I truly believe that we need to take seriously in our society and the infliction of cruelty towards animals remains a major injustice and is one in which we are obligated to tackle. We have all been touched by the atrocity of what happened to Cody. It was a senseless and despicable act of violence inflicted on a defenceless family loved pet. In the context of the reaction to this abhorrent crime, I believe however we all need to think a bit deeper about how the same lack of empathy, which allowed people to inflict this cruelty on Cody, is also missing from those who inflict cruelty on other people. In addition, I believe we all need to consider much more broadly how we treat animals in our society.

As Jonathan Safran Foer outlines, "cruelty is not only the wilful causing of suffering but indifference to it." He adds, "cruelty is dependent on having an understanding of cruelty and the ability to chose against it or chose to ignore it." The reality as we all know it is that our society is responsible for grievous inflictions of cruelty towards animals for pleasure in blood sports, through testing of cosmetics on animals and through our enslavement of animals in circuses and sea parks. 

As Foer further highlights our economy has been designed in a way where animals in the factory farming process are treated as simply another factor in the profit maximisation business model, which calculates how quickly they can be made to grow, how tightly they can be packed, how much or little they can eat, how sick they can get, and ultimately how close to death it can keep animals without killing them. It is not an exaggeration to say that the factory farming process pushes many animals well beyond their biological limits.  I for one don't blame farmers for the existence of this system. As the proportion of our income spent on food has fallen over the years the farmers have had no choice but to produce food at a reduced production cost. 

Within the natural environment it is also important to acknowledge that largely due to the demands that we place on our planet to fuel our endlessly growing economy, 200 species of plant and animal life go extinct every day. I'm sure I wouldn't be alone in considering this not only in the category of cruelty inflicted on the natural world but as a moral tragedy on an epic scale.

It is important to point out that I do not wish to be perceived as judging anyone or indeed ignoring the reality that I am not also implicated in acts of cruelty towards animals in my being part of the system. What I would like to do, however, is simply ask that we all consider whether cruelty, which is sequestered and hidden from our view and consideration is any more acceptable than the cruelty visible before our eyes. Surely it is only right that we ask ourselves what level of cruelty against animals is justifiable and on what basis do we justify it? Some say we should base our decisions on the level of intelligence. Yet, dog lovers out there know their animals have a sense of intelligence and experience emotions in uncannily similar way to us. And scientists know that such intelligence is not unique to dogs. The intelligence of other animals is well documented. Dr. Stanley Curtis for example has highlighted the increadible cognative abilities of pigs by training them to play video games with their snouts. And as Foer details scientists have even discovered intelligence in fish which enables them to "build complex nests, form monogamous relationships, hunt cooperatively with other species, use tools, recognise each other as individuals (and keep track of who is to be trusted and who not), make decisions individually, monitor social prestige and vie for better positions. They even use machivellian strategies of punishment, manipulation and reconcillation, have long term memories and are skilled at passing knowledge to one another through social networks." I agree with Foer when he says if intelligence is our justification for overlooking maltreatment of animals I believe that we need to ask whether our reasoning really stands up to scrutiny.

My second concern is how our treatment of animals is reflective of our broader treatment of each other. For is it not exactly the same lack of empathy which enables those who inflict senseless cruelty towards animals which also enables people to inflict cruelty towards the elderly or children or people from different races and religions. While everyone rightly demanded justice against the perpetrators of the horrible crime against Cody it is also important that we remember the many people in our society who have been victims of violent crime and who have suffered result as a consequence of the cruelty of other people. This link between cruelty towards animals and the infliction of cruelty on vulnerable people is widely acknowledged. As the philosopher Immanuel Kant stated, “We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals. He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men.” We must recognise that animals belong to the most vulnerable of all the downtrodden in our society and animal rights represents the purest form of social justice. Tackling this injustice and understanding the causes of animal cruelty will enable us to better understand and reduce cruelty in our society overall.

As individuals I believe that we can make a difference to this world. We not only vote come election time but each and every time we purchase a product and all of us have the ability to set examples and influence the behavior of our friends and family. It is also important that our elected representatives take action to reduce the cruelty prevalent in the system. As Jonathan Safran Foer states, “It shouldn't be the consumer's responsibility to figure out what's cruel and what's kind, what's environmentally destructive and what's sustainable. Cruel and destructive food products should be illegal. We don't need the option of buying children's toys made with lead paint, or aerosols with chlorofluorocarbons, or medicines with unlabeled side effects. And we don't need the option of buying factory-farmed animals.”

In addition to our work at the Assembly against Animal cruelty the Green Party in the European parliament has been active in bringing in legislation and campaigning on a wide range of animal rights issues including:

• Ensuring that the regulation on the treatment of animals in live exports is strengthened and enforced with the objective of banning live exports.
• Brining in a ban on the cruel and unnecessary practice of animal testing of cosmetics.
• Supporting events to highlight the horrific reality of the foie gras industry.
• Pushing to ensure that the EU ban on confining pregnant pigs to sow stalls for their entire pregnancy is enacted.
• Calling for radically reform the Common Fisheries Policy to tackle the by-catch of birds, dolphins and porpoises.
• And Ending the imports of wild birds for the pet trade.

The ability of politicians who believe in pushing for animal welfare depends on your support and I would encourage you to take animal rights into consideration the next time you make your choice at the ballot box.

I hope that we can all find it in our hearts to open our eyes to injustices that exist in this world. Let’s employ the gift of humanities unique sense of reason and consider if what we are doing is right and ask ourselves how we can all change to make the world a better place.

Lifting the Ban on Same-Sex Marriage is not a Harm

The decision on Monday by the Northern Ireland Assembly to maintain a ban on same-sex marriages strikes me as an odd position for an Assembly built on democratic values to take. It is odd because the arguments which informed the votes of those against the motion entirely undermine the very project of democracy. I want to quickly reiterate the mechanics of such arguments. Religious voices in this debate take as their core concern, a worry about the spiritual well-being of the people of Northern Ireland. I appreciate the sincerity of such voices, and I do not wish to dispute the validity of this view, but I would like to point out its consequences, with an aim of showing how their views on ‘harm’ are sorely misplaced and carry very certain ramifications. 

Homosexuality is only viewed as a ‘harm’ within the scope of a particular religious framework. Yet, in the process of claiming that homosexuality is ‘harmful’, these voices cause harms that everyone - in or outside the Judeo-Christian tradition - agree are harmful. Articulating same-sex marriage as a catalyst to the steady erosion ‘of centuries of societal norms’ (Presbyterian Letter to MLAs) contributes to the fear that underpins the hatred and denigration of LGBT persons, for it suggests that they are a threat. Moreover, it suggests that same-sex relationships are ‘wrong’, thus  eroding the ‘value of respect’ by  suggesting that someone’s capacity to make to sexual choices is mistaken or inferior. It suggests that we should do what we can to eradicate the possibility of engaging in same-sex relations. Although the idea of ‘civil partnership’ has received the ‘green-light’ from those arguing against the motion, it is not enough. Not only is a civil partnership not equal in content to the state-sponsored institution of marriage, but the very idea that these institutions can be ‘separate yet equal’ marks a subliminal effort to demote same-sex relationships by keeping homosexuality at arms-length.

There is little doubt that these views contribute to the everyday violence and marginalization LGBT persons face. At present, to be ‘out’ in Northern Ireland is to put oneself at risk of stigmatization or assault. I think all of us, those for and against this motion, can agree this is no way to live. I would like to suggest that we work with a broader conceptualization of harm, one grounded in respect and concern for physical and psychological well-being. The state cannot continue to uphold the religious view of harm, for in doing so it supports the very structures by which some of its own citizens are disrespected. We must rely on other systems of value, such as a concern for the respect and well-being. In the words of the philosopher John Rawls, ‘no society can include within itself all ways of life. .. [but] if a comprehensive conception of the good is unable to endure in a society [without] securing the familiar equal basic liberties and mutual toleration, [then] there is no way to preserve it [that is] consistent with democratic values.’

Sara Kallock, East Belfast Green Party

UUP want to spend time debating flags

Today the NI Assembly debated a Green Party motion on equal marriage and received criticism from the Ulster Unionist Minister Danny Kennedy who claimed that debating this issue was a waste of time in the current economic climate. During the debate Mr Kennedy stated: “At a time of economic difficulty and job losses, when people are worried about bills, their job security, fuel prices as we approach winter and their shopping budgets, why are we setting aside time to debate same-sex marriage?” Yet, in spite of these comments Mr Kennedy today put his name down in support of a motion to debate the issue of the union flag not being flown from parliament buildings on Ulster Day! Given the time dedicated to debating all the old sectarian issues of flags, parades, history etc etc in Northern Ireland, the Green Party is proud to have brought the first debate to the NI Assembly on LGBT issues to the Assembly.

Ross Brown
Chairperson of the East Belfast Green Party

State should respect diverse views of marriage

On Oct 1st the Northern Ireland Assembly will debate a motion submitted by the Green Party on the issue of Equal Marriage, which calls for state recognition of same sex unions and legal protection for any religious organisations, which do not wish to affirm such unions. Ahead of this debate I’d like to take this opportunity to explain the party’s stance on this issue.

The Green Party does not believe that this is a debate or should be a debate be framed around the morality of same sex unions. We all know that people within this society disagree on this question and recognise that this debate will continue.

However, the very disagreement on a moral issue between the competing groups is the reason why the state must treat people equally. It is our view that given the range of interpretations and disagreements around belief in the multi-faith and non-faith society, no one moral view should have the right to a superior and irrefutable elevated position. The state is there to arbitrate between the claims of all its constituents and to manage competing moral viewpoints in as equal and as fair a way as possible.

As has been recognised by Brittney Baker:

Those who oppose same-sex marriage claim that it is indeed an issue of morality, which falls under the category of public welfare, and therefore is within the realm of the state to interfere. In this case, the religious opposition tends to use their view of morality, which states more or less that homosexuality is a sin or against nature as God created it. Needless to say, this does not equate to a secular morality that all citizens can adhere to. Babst refers to the Wolfenden Report, which asserts that "unless a deliberate attempt is made by society, acting through the agency of the law, to equate the sphere of crime with that of sin, there must remain a realm of private morality and immorality which is, in brief and crude terms, not the law's business" (Babst 2002, 43). This suggests that the attempt of religious believers to impose their morality on all citizens is unjust and unconstitutional. Crime is a matter for the law, sin a matter for religion, and the two cannot coincide within the sphere of politics and legislation.

Opinions on the morality of same sex marriage are therefore not an issue for political parties and the Green Party has not asked that our elected officials endorse or oppose the morality same sex unions. It is important to understand that what the party is campaigning for is a change to the law so that the state is neutral on the issue to give individuals the right to make the choice for themselves.

This motion is also about more than simply tolerance - we're calling for a shift in attutudes so that people are respected and that the state supports the cultivation of respect. This is not to say that someone with a religious point of view must now change their moral opinions but rather that persons with a different sexual orientation are afforded respect in virtue of their humanity and respect for their choices of how to live their life the way they see fit in accordance with the law.

In addition, this debate should not be framed one of the LGBT community versus the religious community. There is no consensus within the religious community with regards to the morality of same sex marriage. A range religious groups support same sex marriage such as Quakers, liberal Jews and some Anglicans and within Northern Ireland there are Christian groups such as Changing Attitudes Ireland actively campaigning in favour of changes to the law on this issue.

It must therefore be recognised that within our society there are presently individuals with faith living in this society from these religious groups who are denied the right to marry in accordance with their interpretation of religion. As such, this debate is not only about the issue of equality but also one of religious freedom.

Since 2001 eleven countries and some states in North America have legalised marriage for couples of the same sex and it is notable that in the peaceful and forward thinking nation of Iceland, the marriage equality legislation was so uncontroversial that not even a single MP voted against it.

These proposals are neither unreasonable nor radical and it is clear that contrary to the anxiety expressed by some marriage equality will not harm anyone nor lead to any damage to the social fabric of society. The party would encourage everyone to support this motion on the basis of freedom, equality and the principle of the state as protector and guarantor of the rights for all, and, on the basis that this motion does not require any individual to change their own personal view of the morality or value of same sex marriage.

Ross Brown, Chair of the East Belfast Green Party

Big Development Threatens Small Shops

It was somewhat ironic that on the same day that the Belfast Telegraph reported that one quarter of retail units were vacant in Belfast, the paper also reported Peter Robinson’s claim that planning delays such as for the development of the out of town multinational retailer John Lewis store are “costing millions in investment and jobs.”

Despite the blatently obvious connection between the development of out of town retail and the loss of our town centres, our politicians still havn't learnt to count and, when faced with the judgement of the merit of a proposed development, continue to simply add up all the positives and forget about any associated costs.

And the media does little to help. Despite the myths spread opening a second out of town supermarket in a town does not result in the creation of jobs - people don’t suddenly spend twice as much money or indeed suddenly demand twice as much food! Rather what happens is that jobs are displaced, as the locally run shops in the town centre which would serve local goods from other local businesses close.

The impacts of the loss of our small businesses cannot be underestimated. Compared to multinational retailers which pay the most basic wage to those at the bottom and extravagant wages to the very lucky few who manage to reach the top, small businesses provide people with a fair income and the self-determination and satisfaction of owning and managing their own family business. Small businesses buy more of their products from other local businesses which keeps the money in the local economy and they give a town centre character. They also provide a greater choice compared to the same goods which are sold at the same chain retailers nation wide. Moreover, the dispersal of retail to out of town locations makes it even more difficult to develop a public transport infrastructure resulting in greater levels of car dependency which hits the poorest in society the hardest. And lets not forget, when a town loses a business which has been run by a family for generations, it can never be replaced.

Unfortunately, rather than their being not enough retail development in this country, the total failure by the Government to consider the wider social, economic and long term costs of new retail development has resulted in a failure to administer any sort of development plan resulting in a free for all for the last two decades. This is no more visible than in East Belfast where an entire road of small businesses on the Lower Newtownards Road has all but been wiped out as a result of the continued expansion of multinational chain shops in Conswater Shopping Centre. Ironically today Conswater itself is now struggling as a result of overexpansion and now its anchor tenant Tesco is planning to up sticks and relocate to the Castlereagh Road with the likely impact that the many small businesses on the Cregagh Road will suffer a similar fate. 

While no one disputes that the building of a new supermarket or retail complex results in an initial injection of new money during the construction phase, no multinational company ever makes an investment without the expectation of a return. Lets not forget that once built the profits of multinational retailers are sucked out of the local economy and sent to the headquarters in London. As such, if Peter Robinson and the Government are actually serious about their proposals to make Northern Ireland less financially dependent on the rest of the UK, one of the best things they could do would be to devise a strategy to keep money circulating in the local economy and deter rather than encourage the development of multinational retailers. 

Our concern about these issues has meant that Green Party in the Assembly has submitted motion calling for an urgent publication of a NI retail planning policy for debate to the Assembly and we hope that other parties will recognise these concerns and endorse the Green Party’s call on this issue.

Ross Brown
Chairperson of the East Belfast Green Party