MEMBERS of the House of Lords have voted to suspend the Unionist peer who claimed he was being "victimised by queers" after being accused of homophobia.
Back in January and after forgetting his pass, Lord Ken Maginnis called a member of the Parliamentary security staff “crooked”, a “little git” and a “jobsworth” as they wouldn't let him in.
The independent Ulster Unionist shouted at them and questioned why they did not know who he was after 46 years in parliament.
The SNP’s Hannah Bardell, who witnessed the peer’s temper tantrum, told Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle it was “one of the worst cases of abuse of security staff that I have seen in my time here”.
In an extraordinary tirade, the Lord then told the Huffington Post: “I was a major for 12 years in the Ulster Defence Regiment in Northern Ireland, I survived 10 assassination attempts, so I’m not altogether a softie if you know what I mean by that.
“Queers like Ms Bardell don’t particularly annoy me.”
Macginnis then went on to attack a number of other MPs. When he wasn't called to ask a question at an event, he emailed the host, claiming he was facing "discrimination by homos".
Last week, the Lords Conduct Committee recommended Lord Maginnis be suspended for 18 months.
He was found to have breached the Code of Conduct in his behaviour towards four complainants, including the security guard, Bardell and two other MPs.
The Lords Conduct Committee said he should also take "behaviour training".
The ban should be extended beyond 18 months if Lord Maginnis did not "engage constructively" with this, it added.
Initially, the Lords Commissioner for Standards, Lucy Scott-Moncrief, recommended a ban of nine months.
He appealed against this, but the committee found he had shown "very little insight into the impact of his behaviour on the complainants, and no remorse for the upset he had caused".
Instead, it added, he had "portrayed himself as a victim of a conspiracy… and continued to refer to the complainants in a disobliging and sometimes offensive manner".
Jonathan Mance, the Chair of the Conduct Committee, told the Lords the offending peer could be kept out of parliament for longer than 18 months unless he showed some contrition.
He said: "Lord McGinnis breached the Code of Conduct by bullying a parliamentary security officer, and then by harassing three members of parliament on the basis of sexual orientation, and homophobic comments on a number of different occasions spread over some two months."
He added: “The conduct committee underlines in our report that the issue of concern in this case is not Lord Macginnis's beliefs, but his behaviour. Lord Macginnis is entitled to hold beliefs he does and to express them freely in Parliament or outside, but at the same time he is required to treat others with courtesy and respect and not to engage in what were here repeated instances of bullying and or harassing misconduct.”
Mance said the committee wanted to see Macginnis suspended for a period of at least 18 months, and until he has successfully completed a “designated course of bespoke behaviour change training and coaching.”
“At the end of this period the Conduct Committee will consider whether it's appropriate to end the suspension and will take into account whether he shows he's engaged with the training, and has gained insight into why his behaviour was inappropriate.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel