08/14/2008
Downing Street Refuses to Rebuke Anti-gay MP Iris Robinson
A petition calling for Prime Minister Gordon Brown to reprimand Ulster Democratic Unionist Party MP Iris Robinson, whose remarks that gays should seek therapy to be cured were met by outrage earlier this year (she also compared gays to murderers) have been met by a collective shrug from Downing Street. The office responded:
"There is no constitutional role for the Prime Minister to reprimand individual Members of Parliament who are accountable to their electorate for their own comments. The Government is committed to strong equality legislation in Northern Ireland and citizens in Northern Ireland are protected against discrimination on grounds of race, religious belief or political opinion, gender, sexual orientation, age or because of a disability. If anyone in Northern Ireland believes that they have been discriminated against on any of these grounds they may be able to bring a complaint to a tribunal or to a county court."
15,073 people signed the petition. Earlier this month, Robinson was hung out to dry at Belfast's Gay Pride parade.
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 8:50 AM EST by Andy in Gay Rights, News, Northern Ireland | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Much as I hate Iris Robinson (hell, I created a Facebook group devoted to hating the bigoted cow), Downing Street has a point. It isn't the prime minister's constitutional role to discipline MPs.
It would make more sense to petition the House of Commons itself, which has the authority to discipline its members. Alternatively, they could report Robinson to the police for violating hate-speech laws - as long as she wasn't speaking in Parliament, she's not immune from prosecution.
Posted by: Ben | Aug 14, 2008 10:18:44 AM
Isn't the prime minister's constitutional role to discipline MPs? Yeah, right. She could come out supporting the Holocaust and Brown wouldn't make a peep. If he made any kind of move against her, he'd have one less vote for 42 day detention without charge, which only passed in the House of Commons because the Democratic Unionists made up for the lack of support within Brown's own party.
Posted by: daveb | Aug 14, 2008 10:43:07 AM
DAVEB, the Prime Minsters role is to gvern the country, which is dependent on the support of the elected members of his party, i this case the Labour party. Niether he, nor the labour Party have no say in what a member of ANOTHER party says. They can and should criticse the member, but beyond that ther eis little that can be done.
The problem is that the Democratic Unionist Party is full of religus bigots. Luckly, they have very little influence on civil rights in the UK (though they do cause troble in Northern Ireland).
Posted by: EvilEuropean | Aug 14, 2008 12:41:13 PM
She's a complete harridan, but Evil European, you do need to use 'spellcheck' on your postings!
Seriously tho', while Brown does not have a role in the goings-on in another political party, it is crucial that homophobia is condemned by political leaders. I suspect, however, that he has more on his mind - like a leadership challenge from within his cabinet!
Posted by: SeanR | Aug 14, 2008 8:01:16 PM
At the time of the first controversy Iris said that a a Christian adviser in her office could cure homosexuality.
Well, he must have finished curing everyone. He's resigned.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-8684.html
Or there wasn't a demand for his curing services. Or perhpas he just doesn't see Iris to Iris with her on that issue.
Posted by: MikeR | Aug 14, 2008 9:30:21 PM