Human Rights, Human Wrongs

This week Bermuda is commemorating the 56th anniversary of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights with a host of events including talks, music and poetry readings.

The celebrations are to include a ceremony on the steps of City Hall on Friday, at which Premier Alex Scott will read the Human Rights Proclamation.

Unfortunately, unless the Premier also takes the opportunity to commit his Government to outlawing discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, there's going to be more than a whiff of hypocrisy about the whole thing.

Comments

[Steve on 06.12.04 at 09:57]

Bermudas 'human rights record' for sexual discrimination places it right up there with many 3rd world countries.It's the main reason I don't recommend Bermuda to my friends, it's embarrassing.
It's time to stop the discrimination, Bermuda.

[Cedar Hill on 06.12.04 at 10:13]

The Bermuda Human Rights Act appears to ban the use of apprenticeships while the Ministry of Labour promotes them. Which is correct?

[Martin on 06.12.04 at 10:43]

A whiff of hypocrisy? So what is new?

How can any 'modern' government consciously set out to knowingly discriminate against any minority? Beats me.

[shipstones on 06.12.04 at 11:29]

Below are treaties that Bermuda has ratified

ICCPR - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
ICESCR - International Covenant on Economic and Social Rights
ECHR - European Convention on Human Rights
CAT - UN Convention against Torture
CRC - Convention on the Rights of the Child
CERD - UN Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

This is the one Bermuda hasn't ratified

CEDAW - UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women

[big bad wolf on 06.12.04 at 13:44]

Talk is cheap--until all forms of discrimination are dealt with under the Bda Human Rights Act, we are pretending to be a fair and just society.The PLP have a number of MPs in the house that are gay, I would think they would be strongly supporting the changes to the Bermuda Human Rights act.

[shipstones on 06.12.04 at 13:51]

Why don't they "come out" in support of such changes?
It must be crowded in the PLP closet!

[ace on 06.12.04 at 14:49]

"The PLP have a number of MPs in the house that are gay, I would think they would be strongly supporting the changes to the Bermuda Human Rights act."

It's called politics...surely it doesn't need explaining?

They may be gay...but they aren't "openly" gay.

If they were openly gay the churches could not support them.

If the churches could not support them then "bye bye" election.

By not coming out and being openly gay it allows the churches to be their normal hypocritical selves and turn a blind eye to the fact that they are helping gays to get elected.

It is totally backwards and nonsensical...politics incarnate.

[big bad wolf on 06.12.04 at 17:11]

I think in a small place like Bermuda if someone is in public life and also gay,it is not exactly a secret to the general public. The Human rights act must cover all types of discrimination in order to be a real shield for justice and fairness. I would think that the PLP MPs that are gay would step up to the plate on this issue.

[Tiger Bay on 06.12.04 at 19:32]

The whiff of hypocrisy is very strong these days. It's unusual how easily the Union rolled over regarding the Sonesta layoffs.

[shipstones on 06.12.04 at 20:51]

I don't get the connection Tigger!

[Steve on 07.12.04 at 07:00]

I went to Warwick Academy, where teachers, such as Robert Chandler, used to call me faggot, queer, sissy and homo....wonder why Bermuda society is so bigoted? It's part of the curriculum.
Anyone seen Mr Chandler lately? ;)

[J Galt on 07.12.04 at 09:56]

Can any one tell me what they think human rights actually are? Or what is the point of having humans rights?

[Coleman on 07.12.04 at 11:48]

I think one of the main reasons is to protect the ability of the democratic machine to function. Without human rights in some idealised form or the other, the ability to ensure the one man, one vote agenda is compromised. People will get marginalised and potentially rendered incapable of casting their vote in any given situation. Then you have armed revolution looming, which gets expensive.
That's just a starter. We could be here all day long.

[jake on 08.12.04 at 01:51]

Ace, Graeme, Steve

1. You don't socialise with PLP MP's so if you "know" they are gay it must be in the open.

2. Several PLP politicians have come out in support of this legislative change. Renee Webb. Dale Butler. Several prominent members supported the Stubbs Bill. Name one UBP or NLP member who has? But Graeme, don't let your comments be restricted to the truth. You certainly don't restrict them to the boundries of sanity.

3. Ace, the churches are helping MP's get elected. Isn't that what we want? Is there some other way you would like them to act toward gay politicians? Have you no quarrel with the UBP on this subject?

Leave the church out of it. The true hypocracy lives right here on the website. Not one of you mentioned Renee Webb's private members bill. NOT ONE OF YOU. But it is fair to condemn the PLP and its members.

[Slowhand on 08.12.04 at 06:58]

There must be more than one Graeme...(how do you spell that anyway?) can we stick to the names we know? I'm getting a headache!

Hey Steve,
I see Chandler all the time. How about our favorite Magistrate? He used to call my sister Jew girl because we worshipped on Saturday. He was very outspoken then as he is now.

[Steve on 08.12.04 at 07:38]

Do you see Chandlers body piercings as well? ewww.

"1. You don't socialise with PLP MP's so if you "know" they are gay it must be in the open."

You know nothing about me, don't speculate, son't assume.

[ace on 08.12.04 at 08:19]

You don't socialise with PLP MP's so if you "know" they are gay it must be in the open.

Name ONE time where a politician has been quoted on television, radio or newsprint as saying "I am gay".

Just one.

The won't, because if they do they will lose the support of the churches. These same churches take a "don't ask don't tell" type policy with politicians as long as they don't come out and openly admit their sexual orientation in the public then everything is hunky dory.

Ace, the churches are helping MP's get elected. Isn't that what we want? Is there some other way you would like them to act toward gay politicians?

That might be what YOU want but not what I want at all. Organised cult-like religions like the ones we have hear have far too much influence on politics in Bermuda.

How would I like them to act towards gay people...be they politicians or otherwise? With respect and dignity. Not with contempt and openly condemning them as immoral then hypocritically inviting them into their churches to further their own political agenda.

I'm sorry for not bring up Renee's private members bill. Funny that she waited until she was on the back-bench to table it though. Why did she wait until then?

[shipstones on 08.12.04 at 15:33]

Jake,
The party in power right now is the PLP. I repeat in power! UBP has no power!
Thats why all focus is on PLP. Get it! Not discrimination against PLP, its focus on the Power. You have to take the licks with it.
Answer the question "which MP's have said openly they are gay?
As you know them very well, why don't you tell us?
Until gay people come out in the open and support a bill for gay rights there will be no action.
There are a few on UBP side as well and they should come out "bugger the consequences" if you will excuse the pun!

[jake on 09.12.04 at 11:15]

Ace,

Why does anyone have to announce their sexuality to you? Have you announced what you like in your bedroom to your co-workers? Employers? Employees? Family members? Of course not. It is none of their business, like it is none of yours. So no, I will not name people that I think are gay, or who have indicated that they are gay. It is a matter entirely for them. Not you. Not me.

Their obligation is to enact and support fair legislation. It is of course probing that you consider the religions in Bermuda cult like. That speaks volumes about your own inner beliefs and your own tolerance.

There is no good that the PLP can do in your eyes. I wonder why that is?

[ace on 09.12.04 at 11:59]

"That speaks volumes about your own inner beliefs and your own tolerance."

MY tolerance...LOL.

Please. I'm not the one stating that being gay is immoral and wrong...they are. But, they will turn a blind eye for political reasons.

THAT speaks volumes about THEIR beliefs...not mine.

As far as my beliefs go...I find it disgusting that many of the cult-like churches take 10% of the income from low and middle class families and then form their own captive insurance companies to "cover" their VAST assets on this island. THAT is why I call them cults.

"There is no good that the PLP can do in your eyes. I wonder why that is?"

Sure there is good that they CAN do...they have chosen not to.

Your question hints at racism which is typically the card you always seem to play. I'm not surprised at all.

[crow on 09.12.04 at 12:07]

"That speaks volumes about your own inner beliefs and your own tolerance. "

..as jake loudly proclaims his racism.

[Cedar Hill on 09.12.04 at 13:12]

"There is no good that the PLP can do in your eyes. I wonder why that is?"

Because they suck.

[jake on 09.12.04 at 13:34]

Ace,

Do you feel the same way about the Jewish faith, and the Muslim faith who also tithe 10%? How about the Anglicans and the Catholics? Or is it just the AME you were hinting at, the only ones with a captive insurance company? Now what do the AME and the PLP have in common Ace? Are the hints too subtle? Should I run to the HRC over that too?

I like phil's site because it reminds me that many of the people who hide as well meaning actually harbour some hatred for things that don't hurt them in any way. Why would you care what middle and lower class blacks reinsure and how? Why should we not seek coverage for our buildings, Ace? Why can we not have a church and seek out interpretation on what we see as holy? Why is that a cult? Who do you know that is forced to attend?

I am not hinting that you have racist views. I am saying it.

[ace on 09.12.04 at 13:50]

I see I've struck a nerve.

How many Jews do you know Jake? I know lots...they have never had to pay a tithe.

I know lots of Anglicans and Catholics (don't get me started on the latter) who likewise pay no tithe.

I know quite a few Musilms who pay no tithe either.

So, I'm not sure where you are going with that.

lol...yeah run to the HRC over a bullitin Board discussion. That should give them a good chuckle. I didn't realise I could get in trouble for having an opinion, which is that the Seventh Day Adventist and AME churches take advantage of their congregation. I don't hate anyone...unlike yourself. I feel sorry for those of you who continue to give your hard earned money to a church that is way too involved in politics and who feel they should be the dictators of MY morals.

Church and State should be separate. Many people have shed lots and lots of real blood to ensure that this is the case.

THAT is why it affects me.

Now, stop throwing stones in the glass world you live in.

[jake on 09.12.04 at 14:13]

What planet are you on? why should members of a church not also have a political voice?

Also, if you do not know ANYTHING about religion, you could not have expressed it more clearly by saying that you know people who do not pay a tithe. All of those religions require a tithe - whether someone you know pays it or not is irrelevant. How else do you think they support their organizations?

Exactly how is the AME church and the SDA church - other than being black majority organizations - dominating the state? Most of the politicians are secular. Trying to frame Bermuda's religious communities with the language of the US is ridiculous. Bermuda's religions - or excuse me, the black ones since that is what you are referring to - do not play any more of a role than anyone else. Except of course the Anglican religion which is the official religion of the state. But strange you don't include them in this castigation.

crow - get an opinion - or don't bother.

[bob freeman on 09.12.04 at 14:29]

crow,

How is it that Jake is bigoted when he asks for more support for an attack on Black churches? Can you or Ace explain why it is bad for Black churches to get money from members and not wrong for all other religions?

Ace, can you explain why it is bad for the AME members and the Adventist members to be members of Parliament but not the Anglican, Pentecostal or other churches? I am not getting it.

[The Limey on 09.12.04 at 14:33]

Crow - Please read this before posting any more comments. Thanks.

[ace on 09.12.04 at 15:05]

Donating money to a church voluntarily is fine, no matter what religion you are a member of.

REQUIRING your congregation to pay 10% of their income to the church is cult-like.

If the churches have no influence on social policy on this island why are we discussing the fact that gays are not permitted the same human rights protection under law as heterosexual people?

This is not a black vs white issue, as much as Jake wants you to believe it.

"Ace, can you explain why it is bad for the AME members and the Adventist members to be members of Parliament but not the Anglican, Pentecostal or other churches?"

Yea...and I was the guy on the grassy knoll too I assume. Please show me where I said this.

[Bob Freeman on 09.12.04 at 15:45]

Sorry, I did not mean to misrepresent you. I was trying to understand what the connection between Church and State was that you mentioned.

Oh and a tithe is not required, in the sense that you lose membership if you don't pay. It is clearly in the bible in Malachi - for those who choose to believe - "Bring me all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in my house, and prove me now herewith, sayeth the Lord of Hosts, that I shall not pour you down a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it."

It is used to support the church salaries for ministers and bible workers. It is not used for buildings or the organ fund, as many people may think. It is certainly NEVER used for political support of any kind.

Is it that there is a set amount that offends you or is it the perceived mandatory nature of it?

Many people in those congregations do not tithe. Those who choose to be regular tithers seem to do better on average however. Same of the Mormons in Utah - the wealthiest church in the world they say. Perhaps there is something to this? I don't know, but it seems to me that if people want to spend their money this way, it should be ok.

Also, I don't think the AME infulence over the PLP is anymore than the local business over the UBP, is it? You can always vote against the PLP anyway and vote them out. Then where would the church support go?

I don't mean to be argumentative here, just wondering out loud.

Oh and by the way, many SDA's are UBP blacks, not PLP blacks. They are big supporters of John Swan and have been for many elections. Lots of family ties in there you know. So they would probably be the ones keeping the UBP silent on this issue.

[shipstones on 09.12.04 at 18:31]

Jake, Bottom line is this do you think gay life style is sinful as a devout AME christian (by the way its not a black religion - we invented that one too! Its a seperate church i.e. congregation). Or do you you think they should have equal rights as the rest of us.
MOST GAYS ARE BLACK IN BERMUDA. Because there are more black people in Bermuda and for no other reason. I that a racist statement.
I think most people on this thread think gays should have equal rights. It just seems to be the Black AME people who disagree.
Is that a racist statement?
ACE may have gone a little too far on his point about the AME church.
But, I do think bringing the AME church's involvement in gay rights and their influence on the government's decision is a valid one.
By the way the white church vote in US is credited with George Buswh's re-election. They think gays are sinful too!
Jake my pal,
Back to the issue of gay's. I know it isn't your position to "out" gays in the PLP or any other party, but you said it was common knowledge as to who was and who wasn't.
My main point is that if you want rights as a gay person you need to stand up and be counted. If they are not proud of themselves and feel they are deserved of equal rights and express it opnely, we won't know who we are talking about. You need to put a face on any cause.
Jake, your rhetoric assumes everyone that criticises anything thats black is a racist. Right now in politics the PLP = Black Bermudians have the power. That is why they are getting stick. Proactive got stick because they were incompetent not because they are black.

[big bad wolf on 09.12.04 at 18:59]

Oh Jake I do socialize with PLP Mps and also UBP MPs ...Just because I Do not agree or like either party does not mean I do not get along with individual party members or representatives. Regarding my stance on Human rights I am concerned about the rights of Bermuda's gay community as I am everyone else. One more than a few occasions I have stopped gays from being victimized and in one case protected a gay individual from being beaten up.On a political level I have always spoken up for the Human rights of all Bermudians and residents and that includes the Bermuda Gay community. My sanity....I would say that I have a firm grasp on reality. So thanks for returning fire but your personal shots this time are way wide of the target....Yes it is Graeme....it means the Gray house in Galeic Sp. Sorry the dictionary is missing. To all a good Night Xmas ^..^

[jake on 09.12.04 at 19:07]

I agree that Proactive got stick because they failed, and not because they were black.

I am not an AME. To the extent that ace criticises them however, I am trying to understand how they are different from the other churches he has no problem with. If there is some AME activity that is different let me know. Tithing can't be it because (a) it is not mandatory and (b) it is a concept followed by Islam, Judaism and most of Christiandom. Oh, it is also in the Bible as shown above.

How do you determine what white christians in Bermuda think. I am curious because you seem to use some method to say what blacks think, and I would like to understand how you arrive at those conclusions. Be that as it may, I agree, most black Christians in Bermuda do not agree with a homosexual lifestyle. That is why I havea rgued that the PLP leadership needs to take a look at its own history on dealing with this subject in the form of Fred Wade. He was against the discrimination, and took abuse, but did what he thought was right - and was not turned out of the church for it. (probably because he spent more time at sporting events anyway).

I disagree that the church leaders should not seek to influence policy. They are entitled to speak on policy if they wish. I disagree with them on this issue, mind you. But I am happy to hear their side of it because I think that most of the congregation will support what I think is right, and still go to church and still vote PLP. that is democracy.

As for your question on whether I think it is sinful or should they have rights - are the two mutually exclusive? I have no idea how God looks at homosexuality because for the life of me I cannot imagine why he would create these people who seem to have their preference at birth - and then say no no no. What I do understand is the concept of fairness and equality, and having been on the short end of the stick on that one I think people should not have to say anything about their sex lives to me or anyone else. And they should not be discriminated against because of what others perceive or know.

What also bothers me is the tendency on this sight for people to attack black institutions with reckless abandon, saying the AME and SDA are cults, and the PLP and its members are zealots and that more gay people are in the PLP than the UBP - The first two are untrue, and the last one unknown - and irrelevant anyway.

What is hypocracy is the way I am called a coward if I don't want to run to the HRC with everything that happens to me, and called a bigot and a racist when I say something about race on this post.

If you don't want me to view things as racially divided, give me a reason for your criticism of black instituions that act in the same way as white ones. Tell me why the UBP as politicians have no obligation to speak to the issue of homosexual discrimination. Tell me why someone can write that no one in the PLP has taken a stand, when the debate is very publically between the conservative members and Renee Webb/Dale Butler.

If you cannot bother to look at it from our perspective when we read your comments, then expect us to draw the appropriate conclusions.

[shipstones on 09.12.04 at 20:56]

As to your own personal stance on gays I take my hat off to you.
But Black Institutions, another slip of the tongue. I will repeat again Jake. PLP in Power = Black Bermudians in power.
THat is why criticism is all in their direction.
Get it! Perhaps not!
If the other churches or religions get into this debate I will criticise them too.
I never called any religion a cult nor the PLP zealots, just not very good at their job.
I said there must be more gays in PLP because they are the majority in Bermuda and that is only reason, not because they are black. Stop twisting people's words!
AS for noone announcing they are gay would mean there were no gays that we know of.People have to fight for their rights as black people did and still continue to do. But we know who they are.
As for being gay at birth. Nonsense when you really think about what you said Jake.Why would god create blind babies, ones with deformaties, all kinds of stuff. These people are just different to you Jake. If God created us perfect you wouldn't be arguing about this! We would all agree with each other!

[jake on 09.12.04 at 22:06]

My apologies. It was ace who said that the AME and SDA churches acted like cults. It is massively intolerant to say that.

I don't really understand your point on God and homosexuality. I do not have a clear view on what God thinks about homosexuals, and I am comfortable in saying that I don't have to. I just think that they catch far too much hell in the secular world because we have not done the right thing and made it illegal to discriminate against them. That is the case if it is genetically or socially determined.

[shipstones on 09.12.04 at 23:18]

We agree Jake. I feel the same way. Gays should be afforded equal rights. No further argument.

[ace on 10.12.04 at 09:24]

"It is massively intolerant to say that."

Is it massively intolerant of the churches to discrimminate against gays? ANY churches?

[jake on 10.12.04 at 10:47]

How do they do that Ace? Do they keep gay people from attending? Do they have a questionaire at the front - ehm, if you are gay please leave?

The church has its views on homosexuality. It is viewed as wrong. That is what they preach.

Discrimination is an act of commission or omission on the basis of some criteria. In the area of housing, education, work there should be no discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. It should be the law.

Ace, I don't know why your views of the AME and SDA are so polarized. I have no idea why their members financial activity offends you, and I have no idea why it is specific to them and not to other churches, but I am not going to go at it with you over it. You obviously have a reason, but since you will not say what it is, I will leave you to it.

[ace on 10.12.04 at 11:36]

"Ace, I don't know why your views of the AME and SDA are so polarized."

My views on organised religion in general are fairly polarised. Their crimes against humanity are vast and varied. Compared to the Roman Catholic Church the AME and SDA are "saints". But I thought you had it all figured out when you openly called me a racist.

"I have no idea why their members financial activity offends you, and I have no idea why it is specific to them and not to other churches,"

It is NOT specific to them at all as mentioned above.

Also, it isn't the members of the church (congregation) that I have a problem with AT ALL. It is with the "elders" who dictate their hypocritical policies and who draw hefty salaries out of the collections.

I feel sorry for the congregations, not hatred or malace in any way.

[jake on 10.12.04 at 12:05]

"I find it disgusting that many of the cult-like churches take 10% of the income from low and middle class families and then form their own captive insurance companies to "cover" their VAST assets on this island. THAT is why I call them cults.

I didn't realise I could get in trouble for having an opinion, which is that the Seventh Day Adventist and AME churches take advantage of their congregation."

Your words Ace. The AME Church is the only one locally to have a captive insurer, so that is who you were speaking of. Calling them saints, and in quotations is your way of taking refuge from your extremism. You single out the churches primarliy made up of black members, and now, after some reflection and others saying that you went too far, you try to kick the Catholic church in as a compromise. The activities of the Catholic Church were not criticized by you at any point prior on this thread. On the issue of homosexuality, money into the Church, senior people taking huge funds...nothing. Refer to your explicit statement about the SDA's and the AME's. Stop being evasive and explain why they came to your mind first, having perpetuated no atrocity. Why it is - in your words - that "Donating money to a church voluntarily is fine, no matter what religion you are a member of." How does that work with your comment above that "My views on organised religion in general are fairly polarised. It is NOT specific to them at all as mentioned above."

So is it that you think it is ok to donate money, just not as a tithe? OK to donate, but not where there has been a history of atrocity or captive insurance? OK to donate, but not where the elders get paid huge salaries?

Don't bother ace - I think you and I already know the answer.

[ace on 10.12.04 at 12:19]

Those are my words and I don't feel bad about them at all.

They back up EXACTLY what I said in my last post.

All you need to do is look up some of my previous posts and you will see where I have condemed the Catholic Church.

Nice try.

[ace on 10.12.04 at 12:22]

I meant previous posts in other threads.

[ace on 10.12.04 at 12:27]

I'll help you...this was from the Imagine thread a while ago:

Interestingly enough I had a long conversation with a staunch Catholic recently who is from Peru. She is bringing up her children as staunch Catholics also.

I asked her why, as a native Peruvian, she was a Catholic. She answered that it was because she was brought up that way, to which I pointed out that there is a VERY good reason why her ancestors practiced Catholicism. It is because the Spanish forced her ancestors to convert at the pointed end of a sword.

She didn't like that at all, but it is fact that she could not dispuite. I guess it kind of takes the edge off one's belief that their religion is the RIGHT religion.

[jake on 10.12.04 at 13:09]

ace,

I acknowledge your earlier posts. I may be wrong about you, and so I withdraw the allegation on racism. I would urge you, however, to not be so hostile to people's beliefs, particularly where you offer no better or deeper truth in trade. It is ok for people to practice their faith sincerely or with hypocracy, and for the rest of us to do what we do too. We are in no way better and in no position to judge.

[ace on 10.12.04 at 14:52]

"I would urge you, however, to not be so hostile to people's beliefs, particularly where you offer no better or deeper truth in trade."

Fair comment.

Jake, I think we should have a beer or two together, you'd see that I am not a racist and I'm sure I'd see the same in you.

We need to stop bickering with each other...I'm as much to blame as you are (maybe more), but I'd very much like to bury the hatchet.

I have alot to learn from you, and I expect you from me.

[shipstones on 10.12.04 at 16:35]

Ace let you off the hook there Jake but I am going to prod a little more.
I thought it was the AME church that made statements against gays. Aren't they the ones making a judgement about a group on the basis of sexual preference!!!!

"Discrimination is an act of commission or omission on the basis of some criteria. In the area of housing, education, work there should be no discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. It should be the law."

More to the point why aren't you criticizing them Jake?

[jake on 10.12.04 at 16:57]

First of all, the Bishop making those statements is not an AME Bishop. So no they did not make that statement.

Secondly, there is a huge difference between a church teaching what it thinks is right and the current state of the law. I am not arguing for the church to do anything outside of what it thinks is right, and I do not condemn them as zealots, bigots, fundamentalists, or otherwise. I merely seek rights for those discriminated against.

Finally, I have made my support for gay rights very clear. I do so in the knowledge that the lifestyle is seen as wrong by the church. I am ok with both statements.

Come and have a drink with ace and me. I am sure we could all use it.

[shipstones on 10.12.04 at 17:33]

OOPS! Ace you shouldn't have singled AME out if that is the case. Sorry Jake.
But I digress!
You mean to say that if any church believes that gays are sinners and are doomed to Hell are not to be criticised for their beliefs?
Racists belierve they are rignt too! and can probably point tyo somewhere in bible to prove it. I will criticize in fact castigate them for that belief because it is absolutely unfounded and disgraceful. I feel the same way about people that think gays are sinners and their way of life is against God's wishes.
If we all fall back on that one we will be back in the days of Germany!
If we do not agree with the churches we should say so and pursuade them otherwise. You know like the way they try and convert non-believers.
I think truth be known you would castigate Catholic church for their acquiescence to German genocide or support for IRA.

A beer sounds fine! I offered you my name before! Who's buying first round?

[ace on 10.12.04 at 18:32]

Shipstones, I never made the suggestion that that Bishop was a member of the AME..you made that connection.

Regadless -

First round is on me.

Name the time and place.

[shipstones on 10.12.04 at 23:01]

OOPS Again!

[J Galt on 11.12.04 at 00:28]

The problem I have with the gay rights issue, is that the rights the government are or are not tryng to impose, infringe on the other rights of individuals. When you give one group rights over another or put one groups rights before anothers thats not just, fair or equal. Its wrong.

[jake on 11.12.04 at 13:43]

Have we heard this before?

[J Galt on 11.12.04 at 14:59]

Yes it’s the same theme, if you exchange the groups I stay the course, where you are more than willing to compromise your values if it will forward your own black centric ideals.

I take an idea and apply it to all situations, not just the ones that are a benefit to myself, that doesn’t mean I couldn’t be shown any flaws in my way of thinking, I just haven’t heard a logical argument from any one as to how this way of thinking is wrong.

[shipstones on 11.12.04 at 17:31]

Galt,
You are way off the mark here.
Everyone should have equal rights.
But you are twisting that into: There should be no enforcement of those rights where it is clear that there is discrimination and prejudice.
You would not have race, gender, nationality etc. legislated as having equal rights, presumably because they already exist in day to day society. NOT!
For 400 years now blacks have been abused by whites, particularly by Americans and Brits. I am ashamed of that history. It is only right that we should have laws to ensure they are treated as equal.
The same goes for gays who have been treated as outcats since the beginning of time and so have women.
Try and look at things from another perspective, you may see a different world.

[ace on 12.12.04 at 09:26]

Jake,

Your Hotmail account bounced a message I sent to you.

If you are serious about hooking up for a drink could you contact Phil and he will give you my e-mail address.

Thanks.

[big bad wolf on 12.12.04 at 09:39]

Heah Guys don't forget to invite the Wolf ^..^...I like Jack Daniel's srraight and no get together when the wolf shows up with his pack.Just to be sure I'll wear my muzzle! Party ^..^

[J Galt on 12.12.04 at 10:12]

Shipstones,

No I am not saying there should be no enforcement I'm saying you can't give rights to one group that removes rights from another. Case in point by saying I cannot refuse a gay person access to my apt because they are gay, you are the one deciding how I dispose of my property. If I don't like a person because of "blank" I should have the right to refuse them, because it is my property, not theirs.

Blank could be becasue they our smokers, petowners, have kids, not married, white, black etc... The fact of the matter is we have a right to property, if you didn't then what would you work for? If all the time you invested could be taken away from you on the whim of mob rule, why would you work? To force someone to work for nothing is the same as the slavery you seem to feel responible for.

You can't make thought a crime, who are you to say sleeping with memebers of the same sex is right or wrong. That is for each individual to decide. If you are free to choose your path in life then respect that freedom and grant it to others to follow the path that they choose even when you don't agree. If someone chooses to think that same sex relations is wrong, why would you FORCE them to work, rent or interact with gays.

[big bad wolf on 12.12.04 at 10:47]

Galt you could make the same argument for the Klan using this argument.I think human rights is a basic requirement for any society that aims to be just and fair. In any given society this in constant flux. If you track something like the death penalty over generations it is a slow realization that state sanctioned killing had great potential and in some cases killed innocent people.If Human Rights are to mean anything it has to evolve through individual cases that set a pattern of what any given society will tolerate. There is always going to be a struggle between the rights of an individual and society.I think in in a free and open society not accepting a tenant because he or she smokes is ok but rejecting them because they are black or gay or female ect is not ok.

[Calvin on 12.12.04 at 13:03]

Galt,

Let's try to get to the bottom of this. There are a few fundamental human rights, two of which are very important to your input to this conversation, namely the property rights of individuals and equal protection under the law against discrimination. You argue that these two are incompatible in extreme circumstances and I agree. But you go on to argue that my property rights should trump your protection against discrimination -- and this is where you seem to disagree with many posters on this site.

My argument simply is that as a member of society I gain more from the whole working as a well oiled machine than I could as an individual. Y'know, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts and thus we profit more being a part of a society. That's why we pay monetary taxes -- and my inability to exercise my discriminatory beliefs with my property is just another tax.

Why is this unsound? Even more importantly, why is your argument more sound?

[J Galt on 12.12.04 at 18:12]

Calvin,

"There are a few fundamental human rights, two of which are very important to your input to this conversation, namely the property rights of individuals.."

I agree 100%

.."and equal protection under the law against discrimination."

Here I disagree and this is why, when slavery was legal, (on a side note you can use that as an example of a thing being legal, but not right) that was the government removing freedoms from individuals based on their racial group. Everyone would agree that it was wrong. The important point to note it is the removing of freedoms from individuals by government that is wrong, not the fact that it is based on racial group, sexual group, belief system.

eg if you kill me, because you don't like me, my beliefs or by accident. The end result is the same, I am dead, the reason for it doesn't change that.

"My argument simply is that as a member of society I gain more from the whole working as a well oiled machine than I could as an individual."

I agree 100% as an individual I gain more by working with others. If I didn't then it wouldn't be in my best interest to do so. But lets see that for what it really is, "I gain", "my best interest" not the groups, as long as its benefical to me as a individual I and other individuals will come together for mutual benefit.

"Y'know, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts "

No the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, in math, but you are applying that to people not numbers and in the end if the group is put ahead of the many individuals that make it up, it is each and every individual who pays the price. Answer me this Calvin, who decides which parts can be sacrificed for the whole? What if it was you who was chosen to be sacrficed?

"and thus we profit more being a part of a society. That's why we pay monetary taxes"

We pay taxes for services so that we can benefit from society, ie the roads we use to get to work, the police to protect your property while you are at work, the weekly of removal of garbage etc.. That money is also being used to pay for the education of other's children, the reablitation of addicts, housing for those who are unwilling or unable to pay there own way. To quote you " I gain more from the whole working as a well oiled machine" It would appear the machine needs to be tuned.

"-- and my inability to exercise my discriminatory beliefs with my property is just another tax."

No that is the government removing your freedom, which I think we already agreed in point one is wrong.

So I beleive my point of view to be a better one because It protects the freedoms and rights of all individuals, and at the end of the day we are all individuals.

[Calvin on 12.12.04 at 18:56]

Galt,

"[W]ho decides which parts can be sacrificed for the whole? What if it was you who was chosen to be sacrficed?"

You've posed this question several times always with the same flavor, and I don't think anyone ever bites. I think this is because you artificially narrow the arugment by suggesting that rights that apply to groups are second-rate with respect to individual rights and somehow unworthy.

But, I still miss why the right to equal protection under the law should not be classed as the right of an individual. You seem to argue that it is only a applicable to groups -- and therefore second-rate -- because mostly these arguments are posed in terms of blacks, whites, gays, women, etc. I just don't see who this precludes it being applied to an individual. When I am discriminated against, it is me, first and foremost, who is affected, regardless of the reasoning. As you said, I'd be just as dead.

So, again, why should a property owner's rights trump my own to equal treatment?

If we agree that both equal protection under the law and property rights are fundamental human rights that are at odds in certain respects, we reach a decision point where one must have precidence over the other. I argue that since we gain more from being members of a society and ARE in fact members of a productive society, equality under the law for all individuals should come first in this running.

PS. I don't mind my taxes being used for purposes that do not directly affect me since I hope that I will recieve some indirect benefit from a healthier society.

[big bad wolf on 12.12.04 at 20:13]

Ok then Calvin...do we as individual beings have the right to terminate our life when we so desire? Or does society have the greater right over your own existence? Does free speech mean that you can scream fire in a crowded theatre? and ownership could we say like the Indians that there is no property really only things we are using while we exist? Where is Plato or better Aristotle in all this? Could some Philospher Kings join the fray by posing some more intelligent questions to solve our quest for universal human rights!

[shipstones on 12.12.04 at 20:18]

Galt,
I know you are trying to keep this on a level of principal, but I think you are arguing that any individual has a right to be discriminatory, predudiced or for instance a down right racist! period!

Nobody has a right to do this! If they do they should suffer the consequences.

If Delta etc. banned white Bermudians from their flights, which apparently they should have a right to do, what would you do then Galt.

If no bar served white Bermudians what would you do?

If no doctor would look after you because you were white Bermudian what would you do.

By the way, based upon your philosophy of life, you are not welcome in my house!

[big bad wolf on 12.12.04 at 20:32]

Easy Shipstones your getting rather Wolfy with Gault....We want to get him out to drinks to work on his head...We need your ballast for reason not strong emotion...Infact I think Gault is just trying to get his head around Human rights and were it fits with individual rights.Hence why I brought up the freedom of expression issue which in some ways sets up the society versus individual rights battle in many western societies.On smoking it is important for health reasons pure and simple. I think a private smokers club is the way out...if a non smoker wants to work at such a club it is a given that he or she would have to put up with the second hand smoke as it is after all a private club with a smokin membership.later ^..^

[shipstones on 12.12.04 at 21:00]

I thought human rights were for the protection of the individual!
I do agree with you on your smoking comments.
We may have freedom of speech which I still don't get, but we definitely don't have freedom of action. i.e. do what you like where you like.

[big bad wolf on 12.12.04 at 23:11]

Collective and individual.....as they are now playing with in the UK..check this out the Labour Government is suggesting law that would ban using excessive force in protecting your home or property against theft or tresspass. So maybe social collective rights are starting to lean on individual rights. What so you think?

[J Galt on 12.12.04 at 23:31]

Calvin,

"So, again, why should a property owner's rights trump my own to equal treatment?"

Your life, your property.
My life, my money.

As two rational human beings we come together to trade, my money for your property. If we can agree on the terms we have a deal, the trade is made. If we don't agree, then there is no trade I go my way, you go yours. No force is applied no one forces you to deal with me, I am not forced to deal with you. Its the application of force you not being allowed to reject me for what ever your reason, (this is the hard part for you all to understand) by forcing you to trade with me I am infringing on your right to your property, that which you have earned with your life. If you earn $10 a week and that house cost you $1000, me forcing you to part with it is no different than taking 100 weeks of your life, which in principle is no different than the weeks, months, years, lives taken from others who where forced to work (read slave here)for the benefit of others.

I agree all people should be treated equally, but if you have a law protecting women, gays, blacks, whites etc...how is that law fair or equal when it doesn't protect the other individuals who aren't part of that group. In this case a homeowner who is not gay, canot turn away a gay tenant please please forget that the homeower is a bigot first and formost he is an individual and its the individual we need to protect, even if we don't like him or the way he thinks, how is your dislike for the bigot any different than the dislike he has for gays??

In short why should a property owner's rights trump your own to equal treatment? because you have no right to the life, property of other human being.

Shipstone,

how old are you?

"I think you are arguing that any individual has a right to be discriminatory, predudiced or for instance a down right racist!"

No I am saying that any individual has a right to his life and to live it as he see's fit, a right to be religious, nonreligious, hetrosexual, homosexual, who am I, who are you to decide otherwise??

"If no bar served white Bermudians what would you do?

The bars here are afraid to ban smokers, I don't think they are going to try and ban 45% of the population, but if one did, and I think that the owner has a right to do that if he wants, (though I don't agree with it). I would expect that it would go out of bussiness, and the bars that did take all clients would flourish. Its called the invisble hand let the market decide the fate of the bar, not government.

Wolf

"Does free speech mean that you can scream fire in a crowded theatre?"

No you wave your right when you decide (freely choose) to go into the theatre, if you are going to disturb the other viewers management are well within their rights to remove you form the premises.

[big bad wolf on 13.12.04 at 00:16]

Alright I won't sream fire in the theatre --I'll go to bed instead. Goodnight All and to all a good night! HOhooooo!

[shipstones on 13.12.04 at 00:33]

Galt,
Clearly front street bars would go out of business, because along with white expats they are the majority of the trade. But what if back of town barsd banned white Bermudians? Is this OK.
But you didn't answer Delta airlines or doctors one assuming there are insufficient white Bermudians to make it an uneconomical move.
You see its the protection of minorities that we are talking about.
Your theory only works when it is in your favour.
I am not religious but "do unto others as you would have them do to you" works very well.

[J Galt on 13.12.04 at 09:31]

Shipstone,

You didn't answer my question of how old you are.

As for delta or any other bussiness, you will find it is the ones that operate based on the colour green, that thrive. The airlines are people movers, they make money by moving people, if you limit yourself to moving only certain people you limit your profit. The same with the doctor.

"You see its the protection of minorities that we are talking about."

Yes exactly the only smart thing you have posted, I agree 100% the protection of minorities. There is no minoritiy smaller than the individual.

You really are a clown, try to read the posts carefully then read them again, wait about half an hour for it to sink in, then another hour, before you reply, just the fact that you have replied incorrectly at least two different times to posts you thought where by other people shows your getting to excited, relax, calm yourself, try to pay attention. If you apply yourself you can do it, and who knows you might find a new rubber nose in your stocking.

[shipstones on 13.12.04 at 09:52]

Galt,
My age is of no concern to you.
But you ignorantly miss my point as I try to offer examples of what would affect a group of people if business owners were allowed to discriminate based upon their particular trait.
Business owners used to do that in Bermuda remember....its called segregation!!!!!!!!!
You think it would be alright to have a sign up outside your premises saying "No Blacks". Or "No Gays".
Your personal comments tear me apart! I don't know how I will get through the day!
By the way which establishment do you own?
Also Delta is going bust!
Mr. Wolf do you know.

But, I will play it your way. What if all airlines banned Mr. Galt just because of his philosophy on life. Which would be in order according to you. Would you support that?
You are truly an individual fighting for the right to discriminate against other individuals.
I have quoted the wrong person a couple of times and said sorry. Sue me!

[kim Young on 14.12.04 at 23:15]

Apart from the ommission of discrimination for sexual orientation from the Human Rights legislation, there is no mention of discrimination regarding age in our legislation.

During discussions regarding sexual orientation ommission in the legislation, a PLP gay MP, told me that he/she couldn't possibly go against the party view!

[shipstones on 14.12.04 at 23:32]

There should be no party whip on such issues. Should be totally bipartisan!

[J Galt on 15.12.04 at 08:03]

"You think it would be alright to have a sign up outside your premises saying "No Blacks". Or "No Gays" "

Personally no I don't think it would be alright. But I do feel that everyone should have the right to live their life as they choose. We can't take away people's rights because we don't agree with them. Sure a racist's belief system is flawed, but we can't punish him for his beliefs.

Now if a homophobe went out and tried to attack, kill, steal etc.. from a gay man, then he is initiating force agaist another human being, it shouldn't be his reason for the crime that we punish, but the crime, itself.

[shipstones on 15.12.04 at 16:42]

If someone was stupid enough to hang such a sign, I am sure he is within his rights to do so. But if he hangs it in front of a business property it is and should be illegal for the racial sign! It clearly should be for gays too!
If a homophobic picks a gay person to kill because he's a gay person he should get done for murder as a hate crime against gays and be sentenced to death.
By the way I am somewhat homophobic but I don't see how they should be discriminated against.
See the Bishop says you can be a gay person and be a priest, but you must be celebate. Just do it with little boys and make sure noone finds out!

[jake on 15.12.04 at 16:57]

That's interesting Kim. What do the gay members of your party think - I ask since their voice has been so noticable by its absence.

Better yet, what is your public position and why have we not heard it to date. Or perhaps I missed the RG article.

Please.

[shipstones on 15.12.04 at 17:18]

Yes Kim,
Where is the UBP on this issue?
Then have a go at age discrimination!

[curious2afault on 18.01.05 at 08:05]

just out of curiosity... where do you all, and especially you Galt stand on gay marriage?

Galt -- it seems like you'd pretty much have to believe that the government should have to sanction any union that any two individuals saw fit to enter into, exercising their right to self-determination? -- or is there a reason why they shouldn't?

[The Limey on 18.01.05 at 09:02]

For my views on gay marriage, have a look at this.

[akinola on 29.01.05 at 15:54]

This issue is about fear of politicans becoming victims of assasination more than anything. It is like giving rights to blacks in the south in America. you lose votes. Under Independence homosexuality will be made illegal. There was a lynching after the 1998 election of a black gay. this is a dangerous lifestyle on the island. That how blacks are.

[J Galt on 29.01.05 at 17:38]

"Galt -- it seems like you'd pretty much have to believe that the government should have to sanction any union that any two individuals saw fit to enter into, exercising their right to self-determination? -- or is there a reason why they shouldn't?"

Rational individuals yes, the government shouldn't get involved. I don't see why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, just as I don't see why a landlord should be forced to rent his property to a gay couple. It should be left up to individuals to decide.

[shipstones on 29.01.05 at 20:28]

It should be left up to individuals to decide.

Don't you get it. Galt wants to retain the right to "discriminate" against anyone he wants to! He believes its a human right to be able to discriminate! If he wants an all white bar he should be able to do that!

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 29.01.05 at 22:38]

I really do not care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes. I do not and will not support gay marriage, however. I am not homophobic because its not like I hate gay people. I was raised in the Christian faith and that faith clearly defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman for procriation.

I do not believe that anyone should be discriminated against. There I disagree with J. Galt when he talks about a landlord having the right to refuse to rent to a gay person. Someone's sexual tendency, straight or gay, has nothing to do with who he/she is as a person and therefore no one should have the right to discriminated agains a person because of sexual tendency.

What I despise is comparing Gay Rights to Civil Rights. You can look at a black man and see that he is black and becase he is black he is being judged by those who prejudge. Unless a man is overly efaminate you do not know by looking at him that he is gay. Even if the man is efaminate that does not necessarily mean that he is gay and conversely for a woman who is overly masculine. In most cases unless you ask you will not know for certain. I do not believe that we have the right to ask a person we suspect as being gay if he/she is gay anymore than we have the rght to ask a straight person if he/she is straight.

Outside of basic human rights that we are all entitled to I do not agree with giving gay people any special treatment.

I do not know or care whether people are born gay or it is a decision they make, as long as you are human you are owed rights as a human being but for me there is no such thing as gay rights.

Just my thoughts.

[J Galt on 30.01.05 at 12:18]

Let me try again:

Rational individuals yes, the government shouldn't get involved. I don't see why non-gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, just as I don't see why a landlord should be forced, NOT to rent his property to a gay couple. It should be left up to individuals to decide.

Guilden I agree with your statment "Outside of basic human rights that we are all entitled to I do not agree with giving gay people any special treatment."

but I take it a step further that I do not agree giving ANY GROUP of people any special treatment. Group rights trample on the rights of individuals.

Question for Guilden, If you own a home and a gay couple wish to rent it, would you turn them down?

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 30.01.05 at 13:34]

When you rent your home you are earning an income from it, therefore, it is effectively a business and as long as the client (tenant) abides by the agreement that rent must be paid on a certain day each month and any other agreements set out in the contract then there should be no problems.

Renting a house is generally on a first come, first serve basis to a qualified renter, one who has te financial ability to pay the rent on an onging basis.

So the answer to your question would be yes, if the couple was the first to offer to take the house and they met the qualifications, I would rent it to them.

Just because someone is gay and I am straight does not make me better than them. Its not like their gayness is contagious and if they live in the house I will one day wake up gay.

Further, if two men or two women come to rent the house how am I to know they are a gay couple unless I ask? To ask and then deny them to rent is discrimination, is it not? Because remember to assume makes an ASS out of U and ME.

Imagine if everyone had your point of view, that would mean every gay person who does not own a home would be out in the streets.

The only difference between a gay man and me is his sexual tendency. Does that mean he should be excluded from society? I may not agree with his lifestyle but I a not responsibile for it so what right do I have to judge him. "He who is without sin cast the first stone"

J. Galt, do you also feel the same way about a married man seeing someone on the side. That too, according to Christian and society's principles, is wrong. How about an unmarried straight couple that co-habitate? Would you rent to them?

I was raised to believe that sin is sin one is no greater than the next I guess you view it differently and if you do that is your entitlement.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 30.01.05 at 13:53]

J.Galt,

"but I take it a step further that I do not agree giving ANY GROUP of people any special treatment. Group rights trample on the rights of individuals."

I do not understand what you are saying here. If you are referring to the Civil Rights movement than I woudl say you are higly mistaken. The Civil Rights movement was not about special right it was about equal rights. Plain and simple.

Some people may talk about reparations. I do not want any reparations all I want is not to be judged by the colour of my skin.

On another point, how would you react if you found out that your son or daughter was gay? Would you disown him/her and put him/her out f your house and you life?

[J Galt on 30.01.05 at 19:27]

Rule number 7: All animals are equal.

It amazes me that people read my post's then assume that I would discriminate on sexual, or racial grounds, or even that I think its morally correct to do so.

Guilden group rights are rights given to a group of individuals based on group characteristic. Gay, racial or religous when you give group rights, you infirnge on the rights of the individual. By saying you can't say no based on colour or sexual perferences, you are trampling on the property rights of the individual. You are in fact telling them what they can or can not do with their property.

I am all for equal rights, but you tread dangerous ground with group rights

Rule number 7: All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 30.01.05 at 21:47]

J. Galt,

In all that you said you conveniently ignored my last question:

"On another point, how would you react if you found out that your son or daughter was gay? Would you disown him/her and put him/her out f your house and you life?"

To go a step further, would you allow others to discriminate against your gay son or daughter?

I just do not feel that anyone shouldbe discriminated against. Neither a landlord nor anyone else should be allowed to deny someone something because of sexual preference or for any other discriminatory reason. If a landlord or any other person or establishment is found to be using discriminatory practices they shoudlbe prosecuted. Where have I proposed any group rights in what I have said? I have said all along that everyone should be entitled to the same rights. I will reiterate, Civil Rights was not about special rights for a group it was about establishing equal rights for a group, in this case people of colour. Are you implying that because Civil Rights was for a group it should not have been fought for? The rights that were fought for were rights that white people already had and people of colour fought to have the same (Equal) rights, was that wrong in your opinion?

[Pitts Bay on 30.01.05 at 22:13]

Guilden

I may not agree with many of your purely political views, but I absolutely agree with your analysis of social issues as set out in the last couple of posts on this thread.

As many of the issues Bermuda is facing are not, at the end of the day, political, one would have thought that when Bermuda has a pressing social issue, we all (including politicians) could put aside those political differences and find practical sensible solutions to those issues.

Unfortunatly, politics so often blurrs the issue until we no longer really know what the original problem was.

We can only hope that common sense prevails!!

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 30.01.05 at 22:51]

Pitts Bay,

Thanks for the comments. I guess you are referring to my many letters to the editor when you talk about my political views. You know, politics is a funny thing in that people tend you like or dislike you as a person, or think they know you as a person because of where you stand politically. The like or dislike occurs faster when you state your so-called political views and opinions in a very public way. Its amazing how people take these things personally.

Thankfully I am not one to get upset by how I am viewed. My so-called political views and expressions are my personal feelings as to what will benefit Bermuda as a country. Many people stop me when I am home or call or email me from time to time to tell me they like what I say and that I should continue doing what I do. Others say nothing or make passing remarks. Bottomline, my political views are just that, views.

The reality is that on most occasions what I am expresing is not political to me, especially because I have no political aspirations, it is a personal feeling that many take as being political. I love my country dearly and I want what is best for my country and for the people of my country. I take great pride and hold my head high in telling people I am from Bermuda.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with what I have to say, in fact, I wish more people who disagree with me would respond to my letters because it challenges me to justify the views I hold and why I hold them. I think Bermudians need to open up and discuss/debate issues facing Bermuda because by doing so I believe more positive ideas for the country will be presented. In opening up I believe the maturity will come when we can debate and oppose issues yet still remain friends.

[J Galt on 30.01.05 at 22:58]

"In all that you said you conveniently ignored my last question"

You are like Shipstones, you do not read the posts you skim through them.

The point of my posts have nothing to do with my feelings on gays. My posts are about individual rights.

"I just do not feel that anyone shouldbe discriminated against. " GMGJ

"I do not and will not support gay marriage," GMGJ

Thats a bit discriminatory isn't it Guilden?

"Civil Rights was not about special rights for a group it was about establishing equal rights for a group" GMGJ

No it was about establihing equal rights for all, not a group, it was saying hey there is no differance between niggers, crackers, jews (don't worry because if there is a hell below we're all going to go). It was about human rights applying to all individuals, not groups and that is an important distinction.

When you say a landlord can not turn away a black person (I AM NOT SAYING IT IS RIGHT FOR A PERSON TO TURN AWAY A PERSON BECAUSE THEY ARE BLACK)you are giving a group right and taking away a basic individual right, the right to property.

The problem most of you have with this concept is you believe or I should say you don't beleive in your fellow man, you see him as flawed and untrustworthy, you seek to limit his freedom and your own because you are afraid, afraid that he will make choices you don't agree or approve of. Well I say enough of that, I am not afraid I am willing to let everyone be free, Black, white, gay, racist. You are free to live your life, free to make mistakes, and the only thing I ask in return is allow me the freedom to do the same.

Life
Liberty
Property

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 31.01.05 at 09:23]

J. Galt,

I understand your position better now. You believe that under certain circumstances it is ok to discriminate. But I wish to point out that not allowing smokers in your house is not discrimination. If it were restaurants, hotels ad airlines around the world woudl be facing endless lawsuits.

"I do not and will not support gay marriage," GMGJ

"Thats a bit discriminatory isn't it Guilden?" . Galt

Some may indeed see this as discriminatory but for me its a moral issue based on my Christian upbringing. However, would I standin the way and protest or put dogs on a couple wishing to marry? No, it is how I feel. Just because I do no agree with it does not mean that I would treat the individuals with anything but respect.

"Civil Rights was not about special rights for a group it was about establishing equal rights for a group" GMGJ

"No it was about establihing equal rights for all, not a group, it was saying hey there is no differance between niggers, crackers, jews (don't worry because if there is a hell below we're all going to go). It was about human rights applying to all individuals, not groups and that is an important distinction." J. Galt

You are wrong the Civil Rights movement came about because people of colour were not being treated equal to whites. Therefore, it was about leveling the playing field with regard to rights of a group, peole of colour. In the big picture, I agree it was about equal rigts for everyone, but in order to achieve that there had be a granting of rights to one group who had none, or very little, people of colour.

Hopefully we have cleared this up and can move on.

[H Reardon on 31.01.05 at 09:45]

Galt,

if I recite the pledge, can I see the motor?

Keep it up, you are right.

[J Galt on 31.01.05 at 10:41]

"In the big picture, I agree it was about equal rigts for everyone, but in order to achieve that there had be a granting of rights to one group who had none, or very little, people of colour."

The civil rights movement was called just that, not the black rights movement or the gay rights movement. It was about equal rights for all individuals. They where granted equal rights but not group rights, in other words no more no less than any other individual.

It most certainly was not about group rights.

Hank thanks for the support.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 31.01.05 at 12:30]

J. Galt,

We view it differently and I guess rather than continue to go backward and foward we can be adults and agree to disagree.

Our arguing over it is kind of silly as from a legislative perspective we have equal rights.

[J Galt on 31.01.05 at 14:59]

Yes we view it differently, I'll agree with that, you are wrong, if you support group rights. If you think thats what the civil rights movement was about, your wrong again. If you want to be adult about it, dig deeper, come with facts and logic or don't come at all.

It is not silly sir to call into question legislation that attemps to restrict the rights and freedoms of individuals, which exactly what group rights do.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 31.01.05 at 15:21]

J. Galt,

When did I ever say I supported group rights. Because I do not support discrimination of a particular group does not mean that I support group rights. You keep saying this but I have never said I support group rights.

From the original article above:

"Unfortunately, unless the Premier also takes the opportunity to commit his Government to outlawing discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, there's going to be more than a whiff of hypocrisy about the whole thing."

How is this about group rights, it is discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. Where are the group rights of which you speak?

Maybe you and I agree on this issue after all, or do we?

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 31.01.05 at 15:31]

J. Galt,

I must be missing something, but did I not, in my first post, say that I did not support gay rights (this is a group right?) only human rights?

Why are we arguing? Maybe we have misinterpreted each others posts. We do appear to be on the same page. I believe I was guilty of the misinterpretation, therefore, I offer you my sincere apology.

[ruby tuesday on 16.02.05 at 14:14]

I am not a homophobe and would hope not to be described as racist as would most people who post on here. The knee jerkers who object to me pointing out that the black community in general has problems with racism with the rejoinder that homophobia is prevalent in all communities are right but uttlerly miss the point in so much as it is not condemned or marginalized as it is elsewhere (I do a lot of work with a Japanese owned record label that owns a lot of rap/ dance hall prints and have been given considerable insight into this problem that way).

I don't "think the black community is the source of homophobia in Bermuda" I am just curious they have a problem dealing with it. Among the middle aged and older groups across all colours in Bermuda there are very conservative views - it is in the younger groups where there is still intolerance concentrated in the black community. I feel uncomfortable making generalizations but the lack of any condemnation of Beenie Man being invited to the island (who has made albums not just one song about battybwoys) and the popularity of Capleton, Buju Banton & Sizzla leads one toward that conclusion. Even on this site you have seemingly reasoned contribuors expressing their suspicion of gay men, and depising their claims for equality and for being efaminate (sic).

[jake on 16.02.05 at 14:26]

Ruby,

I challenge your premise that homophobia is concentrated in the younger black community. Are you telling me there is no ridiculing of homosexuals at Saltus and Warwick Academy?

I can tell you of teachers and comments, students and opinions. I am not gay, but I am not blind either.

Homophobia is a Bermudian problem. Your attempts to segregate it to blacks has escalated sad to dishonest and self serving. There are white people who are homophobic too, Ruby. You are embarrassing yourself on this point. Let it go.

[ruby tuesday on 16.02.05 at 14:48]

Jake

I realize that semantics might be your problem here - homophobia is a real problem across all communities in Bermuda as it is elsewhere and that is not what I'm saying (believe me). Homophobia is very prevalent in a lot of culture that is aimed at and created by the black community. That is not to say (again) that homophobia is absent in predominantly WASPy music/culture tastes. It is unlikely that the loathesome Toby Keith or Motley Crue would get the crowd chanting "Kill the battybwoy" as Elephant Man and Bounty Killer did in Kingston last year (I was in the crowd).

These are just offered as observations - you have to stop interpreting any slight critique of certain groups characteristics as an acclamation of superiority on behalf of the those making the observations. Do you think it is a problem that there is no backlash against dance hall/ ragga stars - would you be happy to have TOK, Buju Banton or Vybz Kartel on the island? I'm sure Saltus is as much a hotbed of bigotry as any middle class predominantly white institution.

[jake on 16.02.05 at 15:01]

I am happy to do so when you stop writing sentences that lead one to that conclusion.

I have no idea who Vybz or TOK are. I am very familiar with Jamaican culture and its Victorian roots ranting against homosexuality, oral sex, and Catholicism. It is Jamaican music culture that makes these statements. Not Soca or Calypso, and in many ways, not even rap. The exception to Rap would be Eminem, but he as you know is white.

Make your point carefully and do not link all black people or black music together.

That is my invitation to you.

[shipstones on 16.02.05 at 15:03]

Galt,
I read every word you write print it off, keep it by my bed at night and recite it in the morning. You are the man, god, guru all to me. Your word is the truth...Peace!
If I choose to skim others postings and get the wrong end of the stick, isn't this my right? Freedom from the non-believers! Amen!

[shipstones on 16.02.05 at 15:07]

Soca is totally sexist!!!!!!!

Donkeys come into it. Lift your leg up!

Calypso,
Is also very sexually orientated at time and full of inuendo.

[loki on 16.02.05 at 15:21]

Jake,

I'm sorry, but ruby's right here - yes, there's homophobia across the board in Bermudian society, but it is far more prevalent in the black community than the white. I have discussed this quite openly and repeatedly in the past with gay friends of mine, both white and black. I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that my black gay friends have experienced far more resistance, ostracism and open hostility from their family and community than my white gay friends. Again, this is something that I have noticed and asked those people directly affected about - this is not something I've pulled out of thin air and made up. Am I racist for relaying what I have observed and asked black gay friends of mine about? You may not like to hear these things, but try asking people who are black and gay and you might learn a thing or two.

I'm sorry, but is your anecdotal evidence of surveying your gay friends meant to be conclusive or dispositive of something?

The problem is homophobia, not black inspired homophobia. Am I to blame because I tell you (a) you are wrong and (b) you are warped for taking a discussion on collective history - where we began to have agreement - and turning it into a castigation of black people over a subject not raised or mentioned. Does accord bother you so much that you must sow the seeds of discord to remedy it?

At no time have I said homophobia was not a problem in the black community. At no time have I said it was nothing other than a Bermudian problem. I have a huge black family with gay members. Most people do not support the gay lifestyle, but can hardly be described a hateful, death wishing supporters of Jamaican reggae artists. Your comment links us all as a collective. That you loki - a worker of words - cannot see that tells me about you