Owen Polley: The suspension of elected councillors by Northern Ireland watchdog sets a dangerous precedent for free speech

As the News Letter reported extensively last week, the DUP politician, Colin Kennedy, made his remarks at Ards and North Down Borough Council in 2023, during a debate about the war in Gaza. “Do not be surprised,” he said, “when those who enthusiastically endorse the LGBTQIA alphabet soup agenda in the West are the very same people who are now seeking to defend Hamas.”

It is encouraging that this case is now receiving attention from a national body, which is committed to defending rights that are too often neglected in modern Britain. (Click here to read the FSU criticism of the decision)

In fact, it is even more important that political representatives are allowed to challenge left-wing wisdom on Palestine and other issues, at a time when these doctrines are helping fuel anti-semitic attacks, like last week’s stabbing in Golders Green.

Unfortunately, in recent years there have been an increasing number of free speech controversies right across the UK, including the police’s use of ‘non-crime hate incidents’, arrests for social media posts and job dismissals for expressing personal views. These were almost invariably directed against people who challenged fashionable ideas and voiced conservative opinions.

Even set against those examples, this decision, by our local government standards watchdog, was disturbing and illiberal, particularly because it meddled in democratic politics.

As this paper’s editor, Ben Lowry, pointed out on Saturday (click here), it is not the first time this body has made absurd and censorious decisions. I want to add my voice to those speaking up against the verdict, spearheaded by the News Letter (click here to read the paper’s editorial which says that it is Ms Kelly who should be suspended).

The irony that fiercely pro-Palestinian views, bordering on sympathy for Hamas, are often held by people who support radical theories on gender and sexuality, has been pointed out repeatedly by commentators on the right, and even left-wing supporters of Israel.

Mr Kennedy’s comment was investigated by the PSNI, which decided that it did not amount to ‘hate speech’.

Nevertheless, some members of the public and rival councillors lodged complaints with the Northern Ireland Local Government Commissioner for Standards, Margaret Kelly.

In a press release announcing her verdict, Ms Kelly claimed that Kennedy’s comment, “conflated the LGBTQIA+ community with support for the aims of Hamas” and “overstepped what may be regarded as acceptable political speech”.

She effectively decided this justified depriving the councillor’s voters, from the Newtownards electoral area, of representation in the council chamber.

This was an extraordinary punishment that could have a devastating effect on freedom of speech and local democracy, if it is allowed to become a precedent.

Explaining her reasoning, Ms Kelly claimed that Mr Kennedy’s remark, “affected individuals who have protected characteristics in Northern Ireland law”.

The implication was that he intended to attack the gay or trans community, rather than dispute a political point of view.

This interpretation is hard to defend. It was clear from the reference to an ‘LGBTQIA alphabet soup agenda’ that he was directing his criticism at campaigners, many on the hard left, who latch on to every radical cause from gender extremism to support for Islamists in Palestine.

The addition of seemingly endless new letters to LGB is in fact a powerful symbol of how far this movement has strayed from seeking fair treatment for gay people. It is absolutely legitimate to describe it as an ‘alphabet soup’, particularly because it now encompasses all kinds of disputed and dubious categories.

It is also beyond doubt that some of the people who espouse these views in public life have become increasingly pro-Palestinian, especially since the war in Gaza began. Their statements have at times verged on expressing sympathy for Hamas.

Green Party candidates in the local elections in Great Britain have been accused of and even charged with anti-semitism, as their statements were scrutinised during the campaign.

We are only too aware that self-styled ‘progressives’ in Northern Ireland have repeatedly cast Palestinian militants as freedom fighters.

The DUP’s councillor’s remarks were not carefully crafted, but that does not mean that they were unacceptable or inaccurate. It is clearly ironic that activists with radical opinions on sexuality and gender often defend Islamists, who support highly oppressive societies and would happily kill them.

If we are not allowed to point out that contradiction, then we cannot properly test those ideas, or tease out their absurdities.

Admittedly, it is also ridiculous that local councillors spend time and ratepayers’ money debating international politics. The tendency of councils to lapse into something like a student debating chamber gives local politics a bad name.

It is a habit that voters can and should punish at the ballot box. If political representatives are to do their job properly, though, they must be free to make blunt and sometimes controversial points during debates, whatever the topic.

For that reason, the FSU’s involvement in this case is heartening.

The DUP defended Mr Kennedy last weekend and this newspaper called for Ms Kelly’s resignation. Unfortunately, many other reactions to her decision, from politicians and the media, implied support, acceptance or indifference.

That response should worry us all.

This suspension should be regarded by anyone who cares about politics, whatever their party affiliation, as a dangerous precedent and a blow to free speech.