Of course it's flawed

"Judge finds Rights Act is flawed" said the headline in Saturday's Royal Gazette.

A Supreme Court judge has blown the whistle on “serious” flaws in the Human Rights Act which have prevented at least one complaint of discrimination being heard for over five years.

Relatively speaking, however, this complainant should consider herself lucky. The Act has other serious flaws which have prevented many complaints of discrimination from ever being heard at all. Just ask Bermuda's gay community.

Comments

[write on 21.08.05 at 20:50]

Don't change a thing. Bermuda is perfect. Well, except for a few little things, but do those things matter? We are making money; isn't that the most important thing?

[m on 21.08.05 at 21:15]

gays don't have rights...i swear i read that in the bible somewhere....

[Martin on 21.08.05 at 21:48]

Although "slightly offpost"...can someone answer this for me?

My understanding is that the Human Rights Act does not apply to none-Bermudians, i.e. ex-pats have to rely upon their individual contract of employment for certain rights.

What is the position with regards to SOB's? Are we covered by the Act?

[humble_bee on 21.08.05 at 23:29]

Some people don't have a clue what it’s like to be young black gay and outside the gay norm here in Bermuda. Though were not as bad as Jamaica the seeds are there growing. If we were to revamp these laws on this issue public view with time could change. The longer we wait the longer the healing process will take to go in effect. Such is life no one moves unless some high up politician’s child is involved in some way or the other. The bible has to be the oldest known form of wasted paper. There is no shortage of potholes in it for sure. I guess that’s why people call it the buy bull ;)

[on 21.08.05 at 23:46]

write

Don't change a thing. Bermuda is perfect.
If it were only so simple if making money was really the only important thing. Then serenity and a state of everlasting happiness would be so easy to achieve. Unfortunately for some it's not so and for the most idiotic of reasons at times. Some will get aggression for neighbours because of their sexual preference in 2005. Call the police many say but can the police really help you at 4.44am when a few brainwashed by the music they listen to coupled with ancient stupid ideas, decide to pay you a little visit.

I don't think we need to go hot pink all about it, but we definately need to change our old ass laws. Becoming a more humane society can only be good for us in the long run. The international sector has long frowned on us for our long outdated laws and gays have been in the shadows living like jews in germany long enough don't you think?
In-acceptance of others is ugly and playing god in people's lives with inhumane laws is even worse. It shames me to know that in 2005 we are nowhere to be found among those that are moving toward true democracy

[hotspur on 22.08.05 at 06:41]

Apparently there’s an international human rights law that states that anyone resident in a country for more than 7 years has a right to that country’s equivalent of status. Maybe this is the underlying reason these “flaws” exist.

A bloke down the pub told me this so it must be true.

[Tiger Bay on 22.08.05 at 08:18]

Want to save Bermuda's tourism industry? Legalise gay marriage!

[Ethiops on 22.08.05 at 08:30]

Wanna save the tourism industry legalise gay marriage and smoking weed. :)
If we take gays off the law books we better really think of relaxing the weed laws as many closed minded bermudians will need a smoke inorder to adjust.

[jake on 22.08.05 at 11:32]

humble_bee,

I support your right to have the same freedoms that I have as a heterosexual.

I would ask that you be so kind as to leave the bible out of it.

Many Christians are supporters of your right to equality, and I count myself among that number. I may not understand all the complexities of gay life, nor do I pretend to agree with everything, but I can endorse the right for you to determine your own lives outside of my judgment. I ask you to grant me the same.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 22.08.05 at 11:43]

Jake,

Very well articulated. I fully agree with you.

I am not judge nor jury, therefore, who am I to try to judge and condemn the lifestyle of another person.

[only sane person in bermuda on 22.08.05 at 11:52]

Gay marriage will never be legalized in Bermuda as long as the plp are running things. They get alot of support from the black churches, and they hate gays more than anyone on this island. The plp will not jepardize that support base.

[jake on 22.08.05 at 12:56]

I am also a PLP supporter and I support gay rights.

Gay marriage was never legalized by the UBP either, so that argument is not only one sided, but wrong.

Bi-partisan support and opposition was evidenced in the decriminalization of gay male sex. Leader of UBP (at the time) Sir John Swan: Against, Leader of the PLP (at the time, now deceased) L. Frederick Wade: For.

Dr. Stubbs (UBP) led the charge. Now we have Renee Webb (PLP) saying that if amendments to the Human Rights Act are not introduced she will put forward a private members bill.

Lois Browne Evans (PLP) supports gay rights. Dale Butler (PLP) supports gay rights.

Let's call a spade a spade here. The PLP are full of people who support gay rights and are led by a less progressive PLP Leader (Alex Scott) than we have had in the past with Wade and Browne Evans. Shame on us for that.

But don't loop every person into that basket. It is both unfair and untrue.

The majority of the UBP's black MP's and candidates would be the first to voice opposition to the rights of gays and the white MP's and candidates (who I suspect overwhelmingly support gay rights) are silent so as to win the support of the churches.

It is sad that they do this, and sad that Alex does not lead the PLP on this issue.

Sad for Bermuda that we have gone backwards. What made those early freedom fighters truly great was that they could openly disagree with the churches and STILL get their support because they were doing what was in priciple, right. The political arm must be informed by the church, but not dictated to by the church.

Political leadership demands a regard also for the wishes of those who do not seek the guidance of religion. They have a right to be heard and listened to as well.

Let's call the argument what it is: a Bermudian argument.

[The Limey on 22.08.05 at 13:09]

I agree with jake. The UBP have been completely spineless on this issue. When Dale Butler came out in supporting of adding gay rights to the Human Rights Act, and was then shot down by the party leadership, did any UBP MP speak out in support of him? No. At least both Dale and Renee have openly spoken out in favour of such a change.

[sandgrownan on 22.08.05 at 13:21]

There are striking similarities between this thread and the "improving race relations" thread from last week.

It seems that in both cases "old" viewpoints stand in the way of real progress. Here it's some in the church, and on race relations it's those hanging on to the pain of generations past as an excuse.

What do we have to do to get both to move forward? It's the same issue, only the names are changed.

[Nicolette on 22.08.05 at 13:27]

What's sad is that we have a party in power who had the first gay leader and nothing was done to improve the actions started by John Stubbs in apology to his son, Michael before he retired and died. We have at least 4 gay persons in senior positions in the current government and they
are handcuffed by the lack
of separation the PLP has
with the church.

I hope Renee Webb can accomplish equality for gays - it may help if the other 3 I know of came out more openly in support of their own lifestyles.

[only sane person in bermuda on 22.08.05 at 14:00]

I never said all black people were against gays. And despite what the ubp(who I am not a big fan of) did or did not do for gay rights, what I said about the plp and black churches is essentially true.

[ruby tuesday on 22.08.05 at 14:27]

Surely the church on the island isn't held hostage to a small number of feeble minded literal creatinists is it? Maybe if there were more gay black icons there would be less homophobia and acceptance of homophobia within the young male black population here - although before the knee jerkers start twitching not all young male Black Bermudians are bigots and praise the lord we're not in Jamaica.

One of my blacker siblings who is gay came here last summer to visit and was harangued in church by a couple of old bigots while the smiling minister looked on - if it hadn't been so funny it would have been creepy.

James Baldwin & Mabel Hampton and of course Malcolm are a few that spring to mind - any others?

[jake on 22.08.05 at 15:22]

only sane,

I never accused you of making any comments about black people, I was referring to plp supporters or members. As they apply to them your comments are still wrong, as I have demonstrated above. Are you saying that there was not bi-party support for and against the bill? If you don't know that (which appears to be the case) please look it up. It is all there for the reading.

Your comments about the black churches are interesting. What local white churches are progressive on this issue? Please point to one statement by a member or leader in a white church supporting gay rights or with a gay ministry. I am interested because I thought that had not yet reached the island.

nicolette, I think it is unfair for you to classify former leaders as gay. If they choose to classify themselves that way, then fine. I am not in support of forcing people to announce their private affairs. To me that is oppressive in the extreme. If you want that then we should have a register of members sexual partners. That way we can determine across the board what people do, and do not do in the bedroom and how it impacts us as a voter.

Personally I find the whole kiss and tell mentality - in any sexuality - pathetic and voyeuristic.

[smith on 22.08.05 at 15:28]

" What local white churches are progressive on this issue?"

The one opposite Whale bay road in southampton.

[jake on 22.08.05 at 15:30]

What is their position?

When did they make such an announcement? Who made it?

[smith on 22.08.05 at 15:34]

It's a secret...look for the rainbow flag, and follow the yellow brick road.

It's a shame that Bermuda's so backwards.

[Bill Cook on 22.08.05 at 15:59]

How can anyone advance equal rights for homosexuals when no one has ever been able to explain what exactly creates a homosexual or causes one to become one.

Surely understanding comes with knowledge.

Does one have to be a homosexual to indulge in a homosexual act ?

Surely one may be acting possibly unlawfully by committing a homosexual act but if one is a homosexual not by choice but by being born that way then they are in no way to be blamed.

Behaviour may be unlawful but not orientation in my opinion.

Frankly I have never ever heard homosexuality satisfactorily explained but just being an ordinary heterosexual is tough enough but to find out that you were different from all your friends must be pretty rough.

Most of us I am sure have friends who are probably gay but more than likely never discuss it.

I think a persons sexual preference like his religion or lack of it is strictly their business.

I would be more interested in their values as a human being.

I am fairly conservative but I feel churches should not be involved in ones sex life unless one breaks the law.

I would oppose any special categorisation by sexual identity race or nationality.

[spliffs on 22.08.05 at 16:08]

"How can anyone advance equal rights for homosexuals when no one has ever been able to explain what exactly creates a homosexual or causes one to become one."

I'm not sure what that has to do with equality.

[ruby tuesday on 22.08.05 at 16:14]

Bill sweetie - homosexuality is not a lifestyle affectation nor is it as complex as cold fusion. One does not indulge in a homosexual act as you quaintly characterize it in the same way that one indulges in a spot of needlework or alcohol fuelled wife beating. With your neanderthal sensitivities I'm not surprised your friends choose not to open up to you.

[Raptor on 22.08.05 at 16:16]

Bill Cook:

Recently there was an excellent cover article in the Sunday Magazine section of the Boston Globe called "What Makes People Gay." It details the latest research and is quite fascinating on physiological (in-utero) conditions that can affect a fetus.

As the article was published the 14th of August, there is now a small charge to access it, but it is worth it, as it would answer a lot of your questions.

Go to the Boston Globe (boston.com) to look for "What Makes People Gay," by Neil Swidey.

It would be worth posting the whole thing on this thread for everyone to read, but it's a bit long.

[Ethiops on 22.08.05 at 17:44]

only sane person in bermuda

It's not like the ubp didn't have enough time to change the gay laws. They where in power how long lol. I wouldn't put blame on plp so quick they only just got the ball.

[red_rum on 22.08.05 at 17:50]

spliffs

Last time I heard the only requirement needed to make a homosexual was a man and woman. As for the cause its the same dynamic that creates tall or short people, you know that thing called life...

[smith on 22.08.05 at 17:51]

" I wouldn't put blame on plp so quick they only just got the ball."

Theyve had 'the ball' for 6 years...what are they waiting for?

Do you know what an apologist is?

[spliffs on 22.08.05 at 17:52]

"Last time I heard the only requirement needed to make a homosexual was a man and woman. As for the cause its the same dynamic that creates tall or short people, you know that thing called life...
"

You're not following the conversation very well...have someone explain it to you, please.

[humble_bee on 22.08.05 at 17:56]

Jake

I don't recall saying I was gay, not that it matters much. On religion i've had a life time of having jesus stuffed down my throat while chain to the rock so to say. Your right though and there can't be any real humility in me taking pot shots at this religion. You have my pardons.

[jake on 22.08.05 at 18:02]

thanks, humble_bee.

My assumption on your sexuality which I based on your comments. Re-reading them I must have inferred it.

It only goes to show how easily these misconceptions can be made, and how irrelevant to a point of view someone's sexuality even is.

Thanks again for responding.

[on 22.08.05 at 18:08]

ubp had the ball for how many years?

[Bill Cook on 22.08.05 at 20:39]

Hi Ruby,

I hope you are not a guy !

You may have misunderstood or I may have not explained very well.

I have always believed that people were already equal regardless of their sexual persuasion religion or lack of it or nationality and must be treated identically and judged only by behaviour.

I may look a bit Neanderthal but I am booked for a professional defoliation next week,cant do much about the jawline.

[carol ann on 22.08.05 at 22:27]

Then again why would gays need to talk of their sexuality we don't feel the need to tell people how hetro we are, those of us that are. Yet its like some of us are waiting for gays to create their own shame feeling the need to justify their existence. It sickens me to know that these laws exist. What a joke we are.

[bboy on 23.08.05 at 09:35]

I listen to ragga and maybe 80 out of 100 songs sing about killing gays. I never thought about it untill I tried to put myself in the shoes of gays damn we suck.

[Bill Cook on 23.08.05 at 09:55]

Raptor,

Thanks for the lead on the article in the Boston Globe.

Actually I went to Google and asked the question "why are people gay?" and they referred me to the Boston Globe.

Its a bit long at 11 pages and will require another read but it is the most comprehensive article that I have read to date.

It confirme what I always thought that the cause is inborn not enviromental as the study of identical twins illustrated.

There is no data as to how this happens only that it does.

Of course there may be other complications to the puzzle but it seems clear that one has no more control over orientation than the size of ones feet.

The dilemma we face is behaviour which unlike orientation is not private and while demonstrations of affection kissing holding hands by heterosexuals is ok up to a point the same actions by gays may be less ok.

While the situation has been with us for ever it seems we have yet to come to terms with it.

I have no easy answers but I found the article very educational.

[on 23.08.05 at 10:06]

"The dilemma we face is behaviour which unlike orientation is not private and while demonstrations of affection kissing holding hands by heterosexuals is ok up to a point the same actions by gays may be less ok."

This is a dilemma that straight people face, and it's not justifyable. Straight people like to beat up on gay people for expressing affection....how many of your straight friends have been attacked by groups of gay people for simply showing affection?

It seems the straights are the problem, not the gays.

[Nicolette on 23.08.05 at 10:35]

I personally do not care what a person's sexual orientation(s) is (are) as long as they do not cause harm and create victims - however, classifying someone as gay is no worse than classifying them as black or white in my opinion - however, as long as a group is discriminated against it's important that members of it stand up for themselves, especially when they are in positions of power.

Jake, the only reaons it may be unfair to state the obvious is because it would wrongly lessen that person's stature and that is unfair.

[Bill Cook on 23.08.05 at 11:10]

"I"

You look for simplistic answers to complicated questions.

The problem is OURS collectively not departmentalised by category only as human beings.

I face reality and I am quite certain that if gays were to openly kiss and embrace in public you would find an outcry in my opinion.

Whether it is fair or unfair is irrevelent but our culture has traditionally been not very tolerant and my point was/is that we still have to come to grips with that reality before acting out in public at this point in time.

[desperado on 23.08.05 at 12:02]

"What local white churches are progressive on this issue? Please point to one statement by a member or leader in a white church supporting gay rights or with a gay ministry. I am interested because I thought that had not yet reached the island."

Actually, the Anglican Church in Bermuda is pretty progressive on the subject of gay rights. Both the priesthood and the congregation are pretty well racially integrated these days, so it would be wrong to classify the Anglican Church as strictly "white". But from the Bishop on down there have been positive noises both in terms of accepting openly gay ministers and eliminating legal/traditional prohibitions against gays in the broader community. This has upset some of the older, crankier members of the congregation but the majority of Anglican worshippers seem happy (or at least tolerate) the leadership's stance. Interestingly enough, the then Roman Catholic Bishop of Bermuda joined the Anglican Bishop prior to the passage of the Stubbs Amendment in publicly calling for the decriminalisation of homosexual activity between consenting male adults.

[Stephen on 23.08.05 at 13:26]

Desperado's post is an interesting reminder that not all churches should be lumped together - the Methodist churches in Bermuda too have split on this issue - with a few following the gay-friendlier policies of the United Church of Canada (with whom they affiliate) whilst others have "seceded" from the UCC because of such policies.
This really isn't a black/white church issue - some of the worst homophobic stuff I've ever heard in Bermuda has been from white preachers who follow the style and teachings of the evangelical right wing in America.

[Trischia on 26.08.05 at 18:50]

There is one aspect of male homosexuality that I find confusing, and it is this:
If men like men, why is it that half of them, or some of them, dress up and or act like women, albeit overdressed and overacted (I don't know any women who act or dress like gay mens' portrayal of women). This conundrum, if it is one, seems to be evident in the lesbian community as well - in that one partner will be more 'masculine', as well as use dildo's for sexual gratification.

It seems to me a bit like vegetarians who don't want to or like to eat meat of any kind but dress up their vegetables to look like hamburgers, hot dogs, steaks, etc.

Any comments anyone?

[Cancundreaming on 26.08.05 at 19:15]

Trischia,

“Some gay men act like women.
Women don't act like gay men.”

You don't see a problem with your two statements?

I don't know, but maybe gay men aren't acting like women, but are acting like gay men.

As you somewhat lean too, it's not a conundrum either, if you think it is then it exists in male heterosexuality as well. Some men like football and beer. Some are scared of spiders, others like the opera and the ballet... the list goes.

Maybe it's not so much that they’re gay therefore they have this trait, maybe it's just the have this personality trait and they happen to be gay.

But maybe it could also be some societal reasons/pressure can contribute. If someone who has a background in the psychology of sexuality can speak on it would be interesting.

[SmokingGun on 26.08.05 at 20:58]

Trischia, I haven't got a clue about any of the gay stuff mentioned but I certainly do agree with you on the veggie stuff. What in the world are they thinking? Tofu hot dogs? It's a Tofu stick for goodness sake.
My girlfriend tried to wean me off my coffee habit by introducing me to some kind of "coffee alternative". The only alternative to coffee I know of is tea. Coffee is coffee. A burger is beef. A hot dog is .......well you know what I mean.

[Stephen on 27.08.05 at 14:56]

There seem to be a wide range of reasons why some gay men enjoy exploring their feminine traits and others don't. Cancun makes a good point - there's a wide sphere of sexuality and behaviour within all sexual orientations.

Two points for thought:
1)In the past one sociological reason given for gay men behaving as women was that it was one of the few ways of being safer for them. If you were gay in the past (and still in some places today) this could lead to severe penalties, even death. Some gay men seem to have adopted a "look at me - aren't I funny?" approach to life - parodying the female. It was a kind of survival mechanism - a gay man who was funny and effeminate could pass as "harmless". Far more threatening to society was the gay man who was masculine and powerful - "if he could be gay then, my god, who else could be??!"
The only alternative to that was to lead a completely double life - which many gay men did. Ironically this made the effeminate type of gay men the only ones that were visible and the therefore the "typical" gay stereotype was born - with all those other masculine gay men safely in the closet.

That gay stereotype still affects us today as that type of gay man is more visible. I think, Trischia, you'd find as a general rule that effeminate behaviour or female parody is not part of most gay men's lives.

2) A second reason may be that men who like to dress and behave as women can have an outlet for their feminine side. This isn't really about being gay. There's a famous British artist, Grayson Perry, who is heterosexual but loves to dress as a woman occasionally (one of the very few people who do this in public compared to larger numbers who do so in private). Perry gives his reasons as just loving to let go of the burden of masculinity - he doesn't have to be emotionally buttoned-up, in control, taking the lead etc etc. when he's dressed a woman.