Bad news for Bermuda's gays

There was one important announcement in yesterday's parliamentary session that Bermuda's mainstream media apparently missed: the PLP will not be amending the Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Speaking in the House of Assembly, Cultural Affairs Minister Dale Butler said: “At the end of the consultation process gathering information and preparing it for debate, the PLP Central Committee decided not to debate the issue”.

The decision follows a year of speculation that Bermuda might act to bring its anti-discrimination legislation in line with other Western countries. Despite a recommendation by the Human Rights Commission (HRC) that the Government should introduce such legislation, and the efforts of Mr. Butler to bring it before the party, by deciding to not even debate the issue the Central Committee avoided the need to explicitly reject the HRC's recommendation. But let there be no doubt: reject it they did. Their reasons for doing so are unclear, but there is evidence to suggest that it may have been a result of opposition by church leaders, who were consulted during the information gathering process.

This is an unfortunate outcome, albeit not entirely unexpected. It now seems that the only hope that such legislation will be introduced any time soon is if an MP brings a private member’s bill. Renee Webb is widely believed to be considering this.

I’ll be keeping my fingers crossed.

Comments

[Big Bad Wolf ^..^ on 15.11.05 at 18:14]

I think none of us have human rights unless all of us have human rights.Dale was probably out voted in Cabinet.If I was in his position I would have tendered my resignation.

[SmokingGun on 15.11.05 at 18:22]

BBW - very true.

[Right Thinking Bermudian on 15.11.05 at 18:39]

Shame, Shame, Shame. I am disgusted by this outrageous choice ESPECIALLY considering the rumoured sexual orientation of many current and former ruling party members.

Shame, Shame, SHAME

[It Does Matter on 15.11.05 at 18:39]

If you were Dale Butler, you would have resigned because what you wanted got rejected by the rest of your Party?

I wish you were Dale Butler then.

[loki on 15.11.05 at 18:46]

"I am disgusted by this outrageous choice ESPECIALLY considering the rumoured sexual orientation of many current and former ruling party members."

Sorry, but it's not rumour. The simple fact is that there have been more gay men and women sitting in Cabinet and in the House of Assembly under PLP rule than at any time in Bermuda's history. That the PLP does not have the moral courage to even debate the issue is hypocrisy of the highest order. I am no Renee Webb fan, but she previously pledged to bring the issue of gay rights to the fore. If she does so, I, for one, will applaud her heartily. I hope that those that stifled this initiative can looks themselves in the mirror tomorrow morning.

[SmokingGun on 15.11.05 at 18:53]

"The decision follows a year of speculation that Bermuda might act to bring its anti-discrimination legislation in line with other Western countries."

It Doesn't Matter - It would be a sign of true leadership if someone did resign over an issue that truly does matter.

Our current leaders want to put Bermuda on the world stage? Well all I can say is there's one leaving in 5 minutes. They should all get on board as far as I'm concerned.

[jake on 15.11.05 at 19:02]

I know it is hard to discuss this without people following the normal course of claiming that people in the PLP are gay. In my opinion that is irrelevant. Gay people are everywhere and on both sides of the political fence. It is as wrong for a straight person not to support this.

In any event, Dale was not outvoted in Cabinet. The majority of Cabinet supported this. The Premier blocked this personally.

The PLP have failed. I hope the UBP call out on this, but I doubt they will. Renee is not afraid of the P or the fall out and will bring this forward. It may cost her a marginal seat. She will not care in the least.

One seat can lose an election. If they took this with the leadership it deserves, it would not be pinned on anyone in particular and her seat would be in no danger. Ironic.

I will be looking closely at the UBP members and the PLP members and who votes in what direction. I hope you do too Phil.

[loki on 15.11.05 at 19:19]

"I know it is hard to discuss this without people following the normal course of claiming that people in the PLP are gay. In my opinion that is irrelevant"

I just don't see how you can ignore it, I really don't. Look at Burch's "house niggers' comment (alleged comment, if that's less controversial) - it's apparently considered OK by the PLP hierarchy to call out blacks in the UBP for selling out, but it's OK for gays in the PLP to sell out and not speak out against a gross violation of human rights.

Incidentally, how can one person in Cabinet stifle it? I'm not saying you're wrong, but does the Premier have enough power to veto the majority?

[loki on 15.11.05 at 19:28]

"I hope the UBP call out on this, but I doubt they will."

I intend to put this very question to Jamahl later in the week: if the PLP have failed, that doesn't mean that it's OK for the UBP to fail, as well.

[Tim Taylor on 15.11.05 at 19:49]

Can I direct everyone's attention to a crucial part of this whole decision making process? It was almost cetainly (actually it was almost probably 99.9% certain, but that would be begging for litigation - you lawyer posters will have to advise - just don't charge me) the CHURCH VOTE that killed this one. Just like, back when, Bermuda had an International Triathalon, worth millions in advertising dollars (I know, I worked with some of the people who aired the event on U.S. and international TV). The churches (and this was under a UBP Government, who buckled under just like the PLP are doing now) pulled the plug because - believe it or not - they said that their congregations would be inconvenienced getting to church on that one Sunday out of the whole year because some of the roads were closed for the race.
The event was promptly taken down to one of our brother CARICOM islands, to the huge benefit of THEIR advertising push.

These same Churches, you will recall, would vote anyone out of office for even suggesting a well-run Monte Carlo style casino for our Guests, whilst running weekly Bingo games and raffles themselves.

Religion. You gotta love it.

[jake on 15.11.05 at 19:51]

As I said earlier, it is equally bad for a gay or a straight person not to support this. I never said it was selling out to join the UBP and be black. Accordingly, I don't see why the concept is relevant here.

Secondly, you have no idea if they plan to support an individual members bill. We will all know because they will have to vote on it in the House. Then you can say whether they are not supporting the change.

Finally, I am telling you what happened, not what could have happened. A majority support the change. Short of a revolt, the P can block stuff I guess. I do know that he is imposing his own view over what is right. Political expediancy is not worth not doing the right thing. If I could vote him out twice I would do.

Perhaps the misguided view is that they will demonstrate their support when the members Bill is brought.

[jake on 15.11.05 at 20:01]

Tim,

In all fairness, I don't balme the Churches.

You have your views on Sunday activity and they have theirs. You can vote. So can their members. That is democracy.

Politcians (UBP and PLP) I blame.

It is fair to listen to the electorate, and the Churches make up a significant proportion of the electorate, but they should be one voice among many. Every decision should involve allowing each constituency (in the ideological sense) to make their views heard, and then the Politicians should make the decision in the best interests of the country without regard to their personal electoral consequences. The best interests of the country.

If the Churches are not allowed to advocate for what they think is right, then we are not a free society. It is the political response that concerns me.

The blame is with the politicians (UBP and PLP).

[Tim Taylor on 15.11.05 at 20:15]

Dear Jake,

Errr, yes, actually you're right, forgive me. I had momentarily lost sight of the fact that, although I may not agree with them in terms of of the county's good, the Church Vote are entitled to vote their opinion. That, as you quite rightly point out, is democracy.

I guess I was confused by the declaration of the Government (today's paper) that they were in charge and would steer the ship of state where they wanted it to go, regardless of what the common people thought they wanted.

[loki on 15.11.05 at 20:22]

" never said it was selling out to join the UBP and be black. Accordingly, I don't see why the concept is relevant here."

You misunderstand me. I wasn't suggesting that you did say anything of the sort. My point was directed at gays in the PLP: they have no problem implicitly supporting the several comments that have been uttered by those in the PLP hierarchy to the effect of Burch's "house niggers" comment, which implies that blacks who join the UBP are sell-outs, and yet they are willing to completely sell out themselves over the gay rights issue. Renee Webb is the only PLP MP that I have heard publicly state her support for gay rights.

[The Limey on 15.11.05 at 20:33]

This was a decision of the PLP Central Committee, not Cabinet.

However, I have to confess to not being very familiar with the way the CC operates. Who sits on it and how does it decide policy? Whose decision will it have been to not have a vote?

[Pitts Bay on 15.11.05 at 20:48]

Jake, you clearly have some insight or knowledge re. the workings of either Cabinet or the PLP Central Committee. Surely a Premier only holds that position at the pleasure of a majority of the members of the House. You imply (or maybe you stated) that he does not have that majority support. If he no longer commands that support, he should be replaced by someone who does.

I do agree that there are only a couple that I can think of that should take such a position, but WHY don't the sitting PLP members do something about it. The issue of the incompetant P is an internal PLP matter, that should be dealt with by the party, from the Cabinet/Central Commitee level, down to MPs and the general membership.

Not being a PLP member I am not intrinsically involved, but if the PLP AS A WHOLE does not deal with this issue of the P, then the party, collectively, is, by their acquiesence or silence, responsible for the Man continuing to be in that position, to the detriment of Bermuda. Don't get me wrong, you are very clear on your position, but you are only one person out of ???? PLP members.

[Ethiops on 15.11.05 at 21:41]

Gay members of the PLP aren't to be either blamed or be the focus. This is just another prime example of the power the church lobby has. The lack of political will demonstrated by our leaders is sad. We need some agnostics and atheist to balance the house out it would seem. Lobbies the pawns of the dark force ever busy prohibiting progress! The sophisticated germs parasitically clinging on to our nerves! Oh, how I can’t stand thee! The self-centered, instant gratification based, self will completely run riot, riddled with lack of esteem, fake f@%k-ups with no scope, no depth, no courage, no conviction, no vision, no gratitude, no humility, no compassion and above all no goddamn idea.

[Big Bad Wolf ^..^ on 15.11.05 at 21:49]

The amount of ink written on this site regarding discrimination is amazing and in Bermuda it is at the seam of most social matters.Yet on something as important as fair humam rights for all Bermudians the Government throws in the towel.This is not a normal political cowardice...This act is by the party that fought for fairness and electoral reform and racial equality.It is beyond logic that the PLP would exhibit fear over a right that all Bermudians deserve and that is EQUAL human rights for all Bermudians and residents.Sometimes leaders must do the difficult thing and chose the higher principle.All of us deserve fair and equal human rights.Maybe a private members bill will define a new leader for Bermuda.The present leadership have feet of clay.

[SmokingGun on 15.11.05 at 22:00]

"It is beyond logic that the PLP would exhibit fear over a right that all Bermudians deserve and that is EQUAL human rights for all Bermudians and residents."

BBW - not really. Obviously according to the PLP Central Committee some people are more equal than others.

[island dweller on 15.11.05 at 23:10]

Good day All,

It is not a shame, nor is it sad.

The government you re-elected does not feel that this is an important issue, therefore you do not need to be discussing this.

In the Government's wisdom, gays don't deserve any special priviledges. Nor do they see them as different. Ask that dear Alex Scott, he will tell you. Trust him, he speaks the truth.

If and when the Government discusses this subject, you will be told what you should think on this matter and when you should talk about it.

Remember, you are good citizens of the Bermuda Government and you did directly or indirectly vote for the PLP. So you should be proud of the decision they made on your behalf.

[Tiger Bay on 16.11.05 at 08:12]

"So you should be proud of the decision they made on your behalf"

Oh, puke. Gag. Gimmeabreakpuhleeez.

[Chris Broadhurst on 16.11.05 at 10:37]

Like it or not, Island Dweller has a point. We are all responsible to a degree since we allowed this Government to be voted in.

[Big Bad Wolf ^..^ on 16.11.05 at 10:43]

Speak for yourself I never voted for them and actually ran against them.

[Uncle Elvis on 16.11.05 at 10:44]

Chris, I agree with you to a point.

First off, I'm just not sure what else we could have done. I'm not sure how much responsibility I can take for allowing them to get in.

Secondus, this Government wasn't really voted in, was it? THIS wasn't the Government that was voted in, the Smith Administration was. THIS Government was taken... stolen, from the one ACTUALLY voted in, by liars... well, liars because they have to be.

Nobody actually voted this administration in.

[D'Olivier on 16.11.05 at 10:45]

"The government you re-elected does not feel that this is an important issue, therefore you do not need to be discussing this."

Your comment reminds me of the novel "1984" - or better yet, any dictatorship that wants to control how people think.

There are a number of people on this site who disagree with the Government's position and through freedom of speech can actually say so. The Government serves the people, not the other way around, and if enough people disagree with its position, the party in power will find itself chucked out. Maybe you want to be a sheep, agreeing with everything the people in power say, but it is sites like this that allow the voters to hold the Govennment and Opposition accountable for their actions, especially when they say one thing and do another.

Unfortunately, the gay rights issue is something that the PLP can ignore, since there won't be any major public outcry over it. Does that say something about the people or the party?

[deep in st. georges on 16.11.05 at 10:49]

I can't believe that anyone expects the PLP to do anything about gay rights. It not only has to do with church support, but with the majority of black's views on gays which is very negative to put it mildly. It's that simple.

[Cancundreaming on 16.11.05 at 11:06]

Uncle Elvis,

Of course this government was voted in, no one voted for a 'Smith Administration', (As if the SA was some beacon of light!) We voted for individual members of a party who had at the time had certain leaders. (There might be some who voted for persons not even affiliated with a party, i can't recall if there were any non-affiliated candidates)

But i think we're smart enough to know that any leadership can change, and it's not the voters who choose the leader (or the premier) but the party itself based on whatever rules they have setup.... We choose the MPs.... this is how our system works, this I think you know...

Island Dweller,

I don't want to jump into what you wrote (As part of me still thinks you’re joking) other then to say that i don't see how someone who voted for the UBP, indirectly voted for the PLP? That seems counterintuitive to me, but i think that's a different question then whether the PLP has political authority over everyone regardless of who they voted for or whether they voted at all. I think this might be what you're talking about.

[loki on 16.11.05 at 11:14]

"I can't believe that anyone expects the PLP to do anything about gay rights. It not only has to do with church support, but with the majority of black's views on gays which is very negative to put it mildly. It's that simple."

St. Georges - I certainly think it's unfair for you to say that the 'majority of blacks' have a negative attitude towards gays. That issue has been addressed on this site previously, I and can't agree with your comments in this regard.

[jake on 16.11.05 at 11:16]

"Renee Webb is the only PLP MP that I have heard publicly state her support for gay rights." - loki

And Dale Butler as well.

[Uncle Elvis on 16.11.05 at 11:17]

yeah, but you dig what I'm sayin, yeah?

[Ethiops on 16.11.05 at 11:17]

I'm like wolf I didn't vote them in. So as George Carlin says we have the right to make the most noise. These cowards lack the political will to tell the church to bow on this issue. The church should have its right to express its views but, when those views have to do with the exclusion of members of society, shouldn't we be asking in a democratic society why should we want to even hear them? Its not societies fault that the church fails to upgrade their beliefs to fit the evolution of our species! Classic case of not being up to di time I’d say. I guess progress is a road to be trudged. Women in the church have come far, eventually I suppose the church will come around and accord to all peoples the right to so called sins as no one can be seen as perfect. The hypocrisy is at best comic. To hell with the church is what I think on this issue.
Implement change for Christ sake. So what you ruffle a few feathers, shouldn’t that be a part of the zest of life. No risk taking sissy ass politicians need to be put in check and fresh blood needs to fire their guns. Just do it and tell the church lobby this is a good time to practise love and tolerance of others, while thanking them for their support, then move on because there is so much work to do.

[loki on 16.11.05 at 11:20]

"And Dale Butler as well."

Ah, yes, that's true. And I like Dale a lot, actually. Always seems to speak his mind and tell it like it is without using tired political rhetoric or resorting to pussyfooting around an uncomfortable topic.

[bw&p?? on 16.11.05 at 11:31]

I lost respect for Dale when he threw his weight behind the 'integrity' of the BIC report. Otherwise I would have agreed with you loki.

[DaVinci Code on 16.11.05 at 12:04]

The church should stay out of it. They have done more damage to society than anyone.

[island dweller on 16.11.05 at 16:10]

Good day All,

Your thoughts and comments are good as this is a democratic society. However, it does not matter. The Government does not wish to discuss it at this time.

The public dialog is very good for you to feel empowered, but at the end of the day the will of your elected officials is important to the process, as they run the country on our behalf.

The issue is sensitive and always timely. And respect must be given to due process. Yes, some will be dismissed but it is for the greater good, as Mr. Alex Scott would state; if asked. You cannot deny his wisdom in these matters.

With regard to voting in your elected officials, your choice was evident on polling day. If you showed up to vote, your vote was counted. If you did not show up to vote, your vote was counted. It is very important to remember that there should always be something on both sides of the equal sign - the whole does not work without the parts.

Continue dialoguing on this very necessary subject. And when the Government is ready to hear from you, there will be consultation similar to the discussion on Independence. Have conviction and stand behind your choice for the Government you have elected.

[J Starling on 16.11.05 at 17:00]

The Church vote is very powerful for the PLP - anyone bothering to do a walk about in their consticuency will see this immediately. The Premeir is afraid of the effects a 'gay' vote would have in the upcoming election because, as we all now, they social chauvinism of the PLP has cost them a lot of face for the working class. The labour faction has somewhat lost out to the church faction here, and the P is hoping this will allow him to pull through a majority. Renee and a few others will introduce a bill, if they feel they can must enough public support (petition?), and yes, such a move would cost them their right to run for the PLP, but they could run like Ken Livingstone in London in revenge.

[DaVinci on 16.11.05 at 17:12]

An unfortunate fact of life. The church cause way more problems than they solve, and they are the most crooked of the lot.

If there really is a judgement day, there are a load of so called Christians who are in for a hell of a shock.

[silencedogood on 16.11.05 at 17:23]

Will any of the PLP supporters who post on this blog change their vote because of this issue?

[The Limey on 16.11.05 at 17:31]

silencedogood

Change their vote to whom? The UBP have given no pledge to introduce such legislation either.

[island dweller on 16.11.05 at 17:33]

Silencedogood,

Change is good and all will be counted at the polls.

It is imperative that we reflect on this very important dialog and use our final deliberations to guide us in making a decision for or against.

Your thoughts on the matter and vocalizing your opinion is good. It will shape opinion and the character of the electorate.

You should not be easily swayed from making the right choice.

[silencedogood on 16.11.05 at 17:57]

Limey,

Good question. I suppose what I'm trying to get at is whether PLP supporters who feel strongly on this issue would choose not to vote at all and tell their representatives why.

I would ask UBP supporters the same question but the UBP appears unable to get elected hall monitor let alone to run the government regardless of who votes/doesn't vote for them or what initiatives they support/don't support.

[D'Olivier on 16.11.05 at 19:19]

It occurs to me that, reading through these posts, that Island Dweller hasn't offered an opinion on whether gays should be discriminated against in Bermuda. Judging from the posts, I would assume that he (she?) would basically say that he/she would trust the government's opinion on it.

Cancundreaming says that a part of him (her?) think's that ID is dreaming. Having skimmed through this site, I'm assuming that he's not. I've never seen this sort of naive condescension in any of the forums that I've read online. I certainly would not allow the governement to tell me something that I believe is flat out wrong. I'm not going to stand idly by whilst someone is openly discriminated against because of race, creed, nationality or sexuality...or anything else that differentiates us from them.

What you, ID, are saying in supporting the government is that you would happily stand by and do nothing if a gay or lesbian was denied a job, housing or even entry into Bermuda solely on the basis of their sexuality. Bermuda would (theoretically) not allow this to happen if the person were black. Or a Muslim. Or a woman. Or {insert minority here}. At the moment a section of the population can be discriminated against without fear of any legal ramifications. That's just flat-out wrong. Are you really comfortable with this?

I would love to see that private bill tabled in the House of Assembly and see who votes against if it is a free vote. In the 90s they had a free vote over the issue when Sir John Stubbs was still alive (I don't recall what the bill was about, but it was something to do with gay rights and there were some street protests against it). I don't know the details, but I would love to see the voting record of THAT vote and see who the naysayers are.

[Ethiops on 16.11.05 at 19:33]

D'Olivier

That is a good idea a private bill could stir up things a bit.

[island dweller on 16.11.05 at 19:38]

D'Olivier,

Thank you for participating. Your comments and shared though strenghten the dialog for a stronger Bermuda.

Although subversive statements against the Government you elected are contradictory to the democratic process you support. You should voice your concerns to your resident MP or dialog directly with the Minister of your choosing when you are golfing.

It is important that we all understand that the Government do not see gays as different or discrimintated against. If they did, they would do something about it. They promised to take care of the community to the best of their ability and they are.

They are men and women, who have a preference. If they were mistreated or physically harmed, they have a recourse in the law, which we live by and our Goverment supports.

I must admit, you do have a choice. You can tell your Government that you are unhappy to their choices and decisions they made on your behalf and go as far as supporting the alternative to make your point. The Government afterall is a business, if you do not like what they are doing you can use your voting power to make changes for the improvements your would like to see.

[Tim Taylor on 16.11.05 at 19:54]

Dear IslandDweller,
Please leave the humour to the professionals. Not enough people on this blog are getting your point.

As a general advisory, don't try this humour stuff at home folks, you may hurt yourselves - remember, we at NTUU are trained professionals and don't even need to use the weird-looking "satire mark" to indicate we're trying to be funny.

Sorry to have to point that out.

Carry on as you were...

[island dweller on 16.11.05 at 20:13]

Good day Tim Taylor,

I appreciate your comment and note the sincerity in your statments.

The topics discussed are real and of value. The dialog on discussions opens up thinking and provides an opportunity to share thoughts and varying view on a broad range of subjects.

If we are to progress forward, we should continue sharing our views even though they may not be in the majority.

Could explain what NTUU stands for?

Sincerely,

[SmokingGun on 16.11.05 at 20:26]

Tim, I thinks it's a bit of new fangled software that's got a bug. It keeps looping.

[Tim Taylor on 16.11.05 at 20:26]

Dear Island Dweller,

You've been here how long?

NTUU means Not The Um Um Show.

We've been doing comedy shows for twenty-plus years, mostly local, political and satirical humour.

We are almost famous here on the rock, and elsewhere (that big land-mass to the west - the U.S.)

We're a fun bunch of guys and almost never take the piss out of anybody.

Really.

[jake on 16.11.05 at 20:31]

DaVinci if there is a judgment day we are all in for a reckoning. You too.

As for the typical rants against people in the Church I have one question, with all the faults that you call out in them are you really any better?

Do you really need to trample on the freedom of religion in your quest to gain greater freedom from others? When you say the PLP Church vote don't you mean the black Churches?

Is it only the black community with issues with gay people? Have we forgotten the US and the white people right here in Bermuda who think the same way and who did not support Stubbs? Is Grant Gibbons not a white person? Has he come out in support here?

I am for the inclusion of sexuality as a human rights item, but it saddens me when the racist (and this time I really mean racist) comments come out as "supporters" on this issue. I seriously doubt you can support human rights in its full sense when you cast all black church people into a negative boat and set sail. There will be people who disagree with you. So what? Right is right and I am happy to continue to advocate for this change without pulling hatred and division out of my pocket.

I invite you to do the same.

[island dweller on 16.11.05 at 21:05]

Good day Tim Taylor,

Thank you for explaining what that meant.

Although I have lived in Bermuda for some time, The Um Um show is not a part of my world.

Despite what many may believe, there are people who live in the community who are not exposed to such activities. I guess good a example would be the tennis thing they have every year.

It is nice that you do something that you are pleased with.

I wish you continued success with your venture.

[Chris Broadhurst on 17.11.05 at 14:11]

Jake,

I am continually amazed at how you can take any comment and turn it into a race issue.

Check what Da Vici said. There was absolutely nothing at all written about race.

It's all in your head.

He has a problem with the church.

The church has no colour.

[JJ on 17.11.05 at 14:22]

Jake is suffering from Blogger's Palsy; the mixing up of issues. A common ailment when trying to comment on different blog topics at the same time! :-)

[Nicolette on 18.11.05 at 14:58]

Found this on Pondblog - can you believe that Jamaica and other Caribbean countries are actually ahead of us in the HR arena? Just shows how many steps backwards we are taking: Headline and link from LA Times or access through link to Pondblog

"In Jamaica, Gay Rights Now an Issue Worth Debating"
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-gayrights17nov17,1,1651419.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

[jake on 18.11.05 at 15:30]

Oh Chris, Defender of White people Everywhere:

Let's not pretend that the implication was Church as divorced from race. Look at deep in St. Georges above, and several threads on this blog. Last time it was someone saying AME and SDA as a short hand for black.

On this blog when people say the church vote do you think they mean whites too? Really. So the plp would be worried about the white church vote?

My comments were not restricted to DaVinci and the point is still valid.

It is not only black people who need to move forward on this issue.

[Nicolette on 18.11.05 at 21:57]

What white church vote?

[Rincewind on 19.11.05 at 00:14]

"When you say the PLP Church vote don't you mean the black Churches? "

would the PLP care if it was a white church vote, if there was such a thing?

[Tiger Bay on 20.04.06 at 11:39]

Caricom recently published a report on human rights in the community. It dodges the issue of gay rights as "politically problematic" but lays out the following:

"The Member States and other Parties to this [Convention/Charter] undertake to promote educational and other programmes aimed at reducing and ultimately eliminating discrimination and violence against persons based on their sexual orientation.

Again, as with the proposal on the death penalty, there is no prohibition ab initio. Instead there is a good faith commitment to take the social measures necessary to change the status quo."

http://www.caricomlaw.org/docs/Human%20Rights%20Treaty.pdf