In the British Parliament last week political frustration drove the debates on marriage equality and abortion.
Much of that frustration is directed at MPs from the Democratic Unionist Party. And yes, there is also frustration that our democratic structures are simply not working and therefore create a democratic deficit.
That deficit does not mean we should remain ungoverned. Or that we should not have necessary legislation passed. Or that we should be ignored. Campaigners for reform deserved political support and Westminster was their last refuge.
Frequent visitors to the House of Commons can witness the behaviour of certain DUP MPs when Lady Sylvia Hermon speaks. It is a spectacle which is silly, senseless and sexist.
This is not an accusation against all DUP members of parliament but is a regular feature of some. Other MPs see and hear it. Female MPs from all parties detest it.
Last year I watched in bewilderment as Sammy Wilson effectively stunned the Commons with an unnecessarily aggressive anti-abortion speech just after Tory MP Heidi Allen gave a very emotional and personal testimony about her own experience of abortion. His actions reinforced the view of many parliamentarians that the DUP were antiquated and out of touch.
The DUP's verbal assaults on the prime minister over the Withdrawal Agreement were not only at times offensive and rude but antagonistic. One Brexit supporting minister who resigned over the same Withdrawal Agreement told this columnist: ‘The DUP's treatment of the prime minister was appalling and won’t be forgotten by members on these benches’.
So the votes taken last week were not all about caring for the people of Northern Ireland and rights denied. The scale of victories also reflected the frustration of all parties within the Commons towards the DUP. The DUP style doesn’t go down well with the decorum of the House.
One of the problematic issues about last week was the conflation of two different sets of issues - abortion and marriage equality. (Why the overdue compensation to victims of historical abuse couldn’t have been added on is also baffling).
Marriage equality should never have been denied in the first place. Some of those opposing it were hugely hypocritical. Faith based groups are entitled to proper safeguards against vexatious attempts to use their properties/services. After that, the maxim is live and let live.
Remarks from some evangelical quarters that next we would see marriages between siblings are typical of the nonsensical claims made against marriage equality. There was a clear majority in the last Assembly (and therefore the public who voted for them) in favour of marriage equality. That’s the will of the people.
Abortion is a completely different matter. It is more complex. A simple motion however well intentioned is not the way forward.
The case for abortion reform is well made and the medical profession need clear guidance. It is not a black and white issue - it's an area with considerable grey. This writer is well aware that for some, men speaking on abortion is only acceptable if one supports pro-choice. I respectfully disagree.
But in the main for life to start it requires two individuals and where a relationship exists the decision to terminate should also require the input of two.
That said having an absolutist position on abortion is not the way forward either. Sensitivity and compassion should be the watch word on either side of the debate. Remember, those who for whatever reason opt for an abortion don't do it casually. They certainly don't use abortion as a contraceptive as some claim.
The Westminster motion passed on abortion is too general. It is clear that abortion on demand is not something people in Northern Ireland want. A majority in the Assembly were against it.
To put this into perspective, if the Westminster motion as proposed proceeds into law, it makes the abortion reforms of the Dail seem positively conservative. Change is good when crafted with compassion.
