Over the last few days I have noticed whilst on Facebook and other social networking sites, that I am often urged to 'Give Blood, Not Excuses' by the Blood Transfusion Service. I am staunchly in favour of the organ donor scheme, and I proudly carry an Organ Donor Card. If anything were to happen to me, I have always said that I would want my organs or tissues used to help someone, or save someone's life. (My eyes wouldn't be much use for I am as blind as a bat!) I could donate my liver, heart, lungs, and any other organ from beyond the grave. However I cannot, under the current law in Northern Ireland, donate any of my blood.

Why? Because I'm a gay man.

I have committed no crime, I have not contracted any virulent or bacterial illnesses that would affect my blood (such as Hep C or HIV/AIDS) but because I am openly gay, I am unable to donate blood. I want to, I feel that anybody who can donate blood should donate blood. Northern Ireland is suffering a severe shortage of blood to be used for transfusions and operations, yet the NI Health Minister, the DUP's Edwin Poots MLA, refused to lift the blanket ban on men who have sex with men from donating blood in September 2011.

Does this make sense to anyone?

I have volunteered for some time with the HIV Support Centre in Belfast, and I know first hand the impact of HIV/AIDS on Northern Ireland. We are 'lucky' to have a relatively low rate of HIV/AIDS prevalence for the size of our population. 2 people are diagnosed every week with the disease, which is still 2 people too much.
But the stigma attached to HIV and the LGBT community is one that the Health Minister, despite what the scientific and medical communities are saying, fails to overcome and look past. For Mr. Poots removing the blanket ban would mean opening the floodgates for homosexuals (10% of the population according to a 2008 Rainbow Project report) to infect and destroy the good natured heterosexual Christian population of Northern Ireland. It comes down to sheer bigotry and malice on the part of the Minister, an irrational phobia of the LGBT community and a denial of their right to donate blood. It's as simple as that.

We can donate organs, we can even accept blood donations from England & Wales, where the blanket ban on MSM has been removed, so essentially we can accept 'gay blood' as long as it isn't from our own LGBT population. It's moronic.

I hate to think what will need to happen before the Minister reconsiders his decision, but I fear that it will be something tragic. The law needs to change and it needs to change now, before lives are lost.

Unless you have been living under a rock for the past number of weeks you would have been unable to avoid the mention of the word 'Titanic' around Belfast or any other part of the world for that matter. As we mark the 100th anniversary of the sinking, it is important not to get lost in the hype surrounding the commemoration of the disaster. We must remember the real message behind the sinking of the doomed liner, and pay tribute to the many men, women and children who lost their lives in the early hours of April 15th, 1912.

I have seen, rather shockingly over the past few weeks, a sizeable amount of 'Titanic Tat' as some have dubbed it. Tea towels, key rings, calendars, DVDs, stationery and even food an drink branded with the name 'Titanic' . While I may be lambasted by those go declare that items such as these drive tourism, profit and are useful to the economy, I personally think they are horrific reminders of the lessons we have yet to learn in the 100 years since Titanic sank.


The 1,500 people who perished needlessly on the night were the victims of profit, of the need or headlines and attention by the likes of White Star Line and it's owners. Having disregarded the ice warnings that evening as irrelevant, J. Bruce Ismay urged Titanic's crew to press on full steam ahead and reach New York a whole day ahead of schedule. it was a decision that cost more than anyone could have imagined. We must never forget those who lost their lives, and how their loss encouraged developments in sea-faring safety such as the Radio Act of 1912, the International Ice Patrol and lifeboat regulations.

With the centenary of Titanic Northern Ireland can finally showcase the level of workmanship and local talent that we had to offer in 1912, and how much more we can offer here and now as we mark the passing of an almighty vessel, a product of Belfast's own hands. We can celebrate the innovation and craftsmanship that brought the world ships such as Titanic, and her sister ships Olympic and Britannic. We can watch as the once derelict Harland and Wolff slipways become a centre of tourism and trade once again for the city and an attraction on a global scale.


I feel now, however, that the world should move on with its fascination with the disaster and allow those who perished to finally rest in peace, away from the eyes of profiteers and those who would seek to diminish the tragedy to the front of a crisp packet (below). Belfast can finally let go of the last 100 years and move on as a city with much more to offer, and I look forward to seeing it grow and develop on an international stage.

While 2012 might the be year for Northern Ireland to finally display what we have to offer, whether it be our centenary commemorations, our golfing ventures or our musical talent, our vibrant and energetic cities, but one thing we can't put on show is our flag. Because we don't have one.

With the deadline passed for Syrian forces to withdraw its military presence from Homs, President Assad shows no signs whatsoever of letting up the genocidal campaign against opposition forces. With news that the violence has spilled over into Turkey and possibly Lebanon what are we doing to stop it? Nothing.

The UN have failed to stand up to Russia and China's abhorrent disregard for human life, having blocked an earlier resolution condemning the massacres, and now it seems that Kofi Annan's ceasefire plan has fallen to pieces. So what will happen?

It seems unlikely that NATO will enact a similar operation as the one undertook in Libya, primarily as it is a logistical nightmare. Assad'd forces are mostly ground based, hunkered down in suburban areas and in close proximity to residential and commercial centres. To enact a no-fly zone and target Syrian tanks and ground units would definitely result in massive civilian collateral and an eventual resentment of western intervention.
Putting troops on the ground is also a no-no as Foreign Secretay William Hague has said time and time again that British infantry would not be deployed on the ground. Whilst I agree we need to do something to halt the genocide, the fallout from British troops coming home in coffins could jeopardise the coalition and result in a backlash against the government. Besides, would Cameron risk deploying our already watered down Royal Navy to the Gulf or the Mediterranean and risk weakening the defences in the Falklands? I doubt it.


With the violence having encroached upon Turkish soil (Turkey are already harboring 17,000 Syrian refugees and counting) are they likely to go it alone and intervene? That might very well be the case. Turkey have violated the sovereignty of Iraq previously in 2008 to pursue the PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party) after a string of confrontations. The PKK are also active in northern Syria, and it could work in the West's favour to allow Turkey to use a similar pretext to cross the border into Syria, however it would be an illegal invasion all the same. Turkey would face the wrath of Iran and could risk igniting social tensions in its own territory if it were to go to war with the Syrian regime.


The Turkish government woul need to have significant pretext to invoke certain NATO articles (Such as the USA in the wake of 9/11) to ask its Western military partners for assistance. But Obama and the toothless NATO leaders have already ruled out military intervention on their part (possibly in an effort to prevent tensions escalating with Iran) which leaves us with two clear outcomes:

1. Assad's forces will exterminate the 'opposition' and we will play witness to a genocide in 2012.


2. Ramp up sanctions and hope to God that China and Russia back them.

Syria will no doubt be looking to Russia to play the intermediary in any peacekeeping mission or treaty, however we have yet to look at the position of the Arab League.

With Syria having already been expelled as an AL member in November 2011, the League could potentially deploy peace keepers into Syria and force an end to the violence, but again this looks unlikely. With Saudi Arabia and Qatar keen to see an end to the violence, (even rumoured to be arming rebel groups) they are also anxious to prevent any intervention on their part being seen a a green light to Assad to stay in power whilst they clean up his mess.


With the deadline since passed, we are witnessing a moment of truth for Stria and the real power of the international community to adhere to the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine in the face of a televised genocide. We let it happen in Rwanda and Sudan, but we stepped in when it came to Bosnia an Libya. Why the difference in approach? Life is life, and if we don't do something then we may as well tear up the declarations upon which the UN was founded and hang our heads in shame.

The question of same-sex marriage has become a hot topic recently both north and south of the border in Ireland, but will it actually happen any time soon? At the beginning of March this year, the Green Party's Steven Agnew MLA submitted a private member's bill calling for the NI Assembly to introduce same-sex marriage legislation, and just this weekend Fine Gael approved a motion at their Ard Fheis  to support the introduction of same-sex marriage in the Republic of Ireland. So will all this motioning result in marriage equality being legislated on both sides of the border?


Well let's look at the facts:

The parties in the NI Assembly that support same-sex marriage include the Green Party and Sinn Fein, both their regional parties in both NI and the ROI state that they support the furthering of same-sex relationships having the ability to register as marriages, and not just civil unions. A number of members in both the SDLP (Seamas de Faoite, Martin McAuley) and the Alliance Party (Graham Scobie, Aaron McIntyre, myself) also support the introduction of same-sex marriage, however the bill will have significant trouble passing in the Assembly. Other parties not represented in the Assembly that support same-sex marriage include the Lib Dems in Northern Ireland, the NI Conservatives, the SWP and the People Before Profit Alliance.


So what do the electorate think?
Well in a recent survey commissioned by Queens University and carried out by Market Research Northern Ireland, 68% of respondents said 'yes' or 'probably yes' to the question  “Do you think that gays and homosexuals should have the same rights as everyone else, such as the right to get married and to adopt children?”

As the DUP and TUV together are opposed to same-sex marriage, our only hope would have been the UUP, but as both John McCallister and MIke Nesbitt both stated they were against the introduction of marriage equality legislation, I soon lost any interest in who would win the UUP leadership election.
While John McCallister and MIke Nesbitt have both been supportive of the progression of LGBT rights, such as speaking in favour of the removal of the gay blood donation ban in NI, their failure to see past the idea of 'standing for something' as Nesbitt put it, we can't pin our hopes on the new UUP leader to fight our corner.


With the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition pushing for the introduction of same-sex marriage despite the growing opposition from major religious institutions, this will only prove beneficial for LGBT couples in England and Wales. With the onset of devolution, both the Scottish Government and the NI Executive have the final say in whether to extend the introduction of such legislation to their respective jurisdictions.
When Civil Partnerships were introduced in 2004/2005, the Labour Govn't were able to finally mandate for equality without the interference of regional devolved Governments. While I am no fan of Direct Rule, I can't help but wish Marriage Equality had been on the agenda way back when.
Somehow, however, I'm confident that the DUP, UUP, TUV and the independent Unionists in the Assembly will toe the usual line of 'the gay agenda' and 'protecting traditional marriage' in order to kill the bill before it takes ground. With the DUP having the ability to lodge a Petition of Concern, significant cross-community support will be needed to pass the bill, and without either the DUP or the UUP on our side, this isn't going to happen.

While the introduction of the bill in the NI Assembly will certainly provoke debate, and no doubt heated debate at some points, between hard-line traditionalists within the major parties and those seeking to progress equality legislation in NI, it will only be a matter of time before same-sex marriage is legislated in the North. Such is the way of history. The more that Unionist parties beat the drum of traditionalist Christians, the more they seem out of touch with the modern electorate.

What about the ROI?

The Republic had been a bit behind the UK in introducing Civil Unions, having only legislated for such in 2010, however it passed without a vote in the Dail and in the Seanad by 48 votes to 4.
Fine Gael has also declared its commitment to introducing same-sex marriage legislation at its Ard Fheis this weekend in Dublin. With Sinn Fein and Labour both openly supporting the extension of marriage equality to same-sex and LGBT couples, it looks like the Republic could see LGBT couples marrying in the eyes of the Church well before the dupes in the UUP and DUP wake up and smell the equality.