Still no equal rights for gays

One of the most notable omissions from last Friday's Throne Speech was a pledge to extend the Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

"I don't see an immediate demand for attention to the subject," said Premier Alex Scott, who presumably has his hands full dealing with public demands for independence and a Government TV channel.

"The subject would have to go before the party for them to reflect to us their position on it," continued Mr. Scott. "But at some point I am sure the minister will bring it to Cabinet's attention."

His statement struck me as odd because a couple of weeks ago Community Affairs Minister Dale Butler told me that the research information necessary to allow the Government to decide on the issue was being reviewed. “A formal statement will come when the cabinet has considered it," Mr. Butler said. “If it is accepted or rejected it will be made known November 4th in the throne speech.”

It seems that I misunderstood him. "The Premier is correct," said Mr. Butler when I asked him about the apparent discrepancy between what he had told me and the Premier's statement. "We have reports from the human rights commission from stakeholders and what other countries have done. I have taken it to the backbench and will table it to the central committee for consideration as well. The central committee will then provide direction. Once I get direction from central committee I will be able to act. If they say no...there is nothing I can do. If they say yes, then cabinet will take that into consideration. The research took a long time and now I have to follow the next step after the backbench and that is to take it to the party.”

Mr. Butler said that he gave the information to the backbenchers on Wednesday 2 November, and would be giving it to the PLP’s central committee yesterday. “Once a decision is made the public will be informed," he said.

I’m not holding my breath. I wonder how long Renee Webb is prepared to hold hers?

Comments

[J Starling on 08.11.05 at 19:28]

Human rights must be extended to all peoples. If it does not protect us all, then it protects no one. As long as one group is unprotected it is possible to stealthily roll back protection from one group, and then another, and so on ... well, we all know the history of Nazi Germany. Protection for homosexuals will help achieve total human rights in Bermuda, and might also go a long way to dispelling the ignorance perpetuated in Bermuda by certain groups. The main obstacle is obviously the Churches whom the PLP is heavily dependent on and is manifested in one of the main party factions.

[Tiger Bay on 08.11.05 at 20:29]

Partisanship aside, I hope this is done. It's the right thing. The dissimulating by the leadership is weak. What's the PLP central committee got to do with it? I thought Cabinet ran the country.

[Big Bad Wolf ^..^ on 08.11.05 at 20:55]

The Government just gave the whole issue of human rights another blow job...all talk and no action.

[Princess on 08.11.05 at 22:16]

Progressive? No. They don't deserve to use that word.

[J Galt on 09.11.05 at 09:14]

"If it does not protect us all, then it protects no one. As long as one group is unprotected it is possible to stealthily roll back protection from one group, and then another, and so on ... "

Human rights are individual rights, not group rights, as an individual a gay person is protected just as everyone else is, they are free to live the life they see fit, just as every other rational individual should be able to.

[Curried Goat on 09.11.05 at 09:25]

I am sorry but this is starting to sound a bit like a sketch from Monty Python's Life of Brian. "Where's the phoetus going to gestate? You gonna keep it in a box?"

What equal rights do "gays" in Bermuda not have?

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 09.11.05 at 09:47]

Curried Goat,

I agree with you fully. There are no human rights in Bermuda that gays do not have, as far as I am aware.

Maybe I'm slow but could someone please explain to me what specific rights gays are looking for?

How can one discriminate against one's sexual orientation if the sexual orientation is not known? How do we know someone is gay unless he/she expresses that he/she is gay? Then the question to be posed is, "Why would someone express that he/she is gay?"

According to www.aworldconnected.com te definition of human rights is as follows:

"Human rights are those basic standards without which people cannot live in dignity. To violate someone’s human rights is to treat that person as though she or he were not a human being. To advocate human rights is to demand that the human dignity of all people be respected."

Are gays in Bermuda being treated as though they are not human beings?

[Swordfish on 09.11.05 at 09:48]

Gay people are and have been in high up places in Government, exempt companies, the regiment, Cabinet, Parliament, the legal profession, UBP, PLP, NLP. You name it! Some would argue that under certain administrations gay people have enjoyed more perks and upward mobility than heterosexuals. I'm not trying to trivialise people's rights but is it that much of a priority now? Are gays being disadvantaged in Bermuda?

[Jake on 09.11.05 at 09:50]

They don't have protection from discrimination on the basis of sexuality, and in fact, no one has this.

The people of Bermuda need to decide whether or not it is ok to discriminate on the basis of one's sexual orientation in terms of housing, education, and emplyment.

The reason it is styled as 'gay rights' is because today it is only gay people that are discriminated against on the basis of their orientation. But let's pause for a minute - could that ever change?

Can any of you contemplate a world where one group was victimised and the victimizers later became the victims in return? With the incidents of racism against white people I would think it would be obvious.

As a society we have decided that black or white it is wrong when people are discriminated against on the basis of race. Those are the rules, notwithstanding our success at enforcing them.

We should apply the same rules against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

[Jake on 09.11.05 at 09:55]

Guilden,

Why should gay people not be free to disclose who they are?

George Takei the long time actor Sulu on Star Trek recently announced that he was gay. He is unlikely to be discriminated against because of his wealth, but what about the gay couple that came to rent my apartment the other day. Should I have a right to turn them away because of their relationship? Help me to understand why?

I don't think we can pretend that gay people are not discriminated against in Bermuda. If it were not the case, why would there not be any public gay couples in prominent positions? They hide because of the discrimination.

An enlightened Bermuda would stop this. We are moving in that direction, thankfully.

[Nicolette on 09.11.05 at 09:58]

I think that there is no recourse in Bermuda for people discriminated against because of their sexuality. There is recourse for race, gender, age and disability discrmination so that's the missing piece. If someone is fired for "coming out" or refused housing etc then there is no protection in the law for them, whereas if someone was terminated because they got preganant etc and there was evidence to support this, the law will provide a remedy.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 09.11.05 at 10:15]

Jake,

"Why should gay people not be free to disclose who they are?"

So tell me, do you go around stating that you are heterosexual? I just do not understand why someone feels they have to "come out". So what if someone is gay, they are first and foremost human, being gay does not change that. But what is with all this "coming out"? I don't know about you but I don't care to know what someone's sexual orientation is, as far as I am concerned that is personal information.

How do you know that the couple that came to rent your apartment was gay? Did they tell you they were gay or did you assume that they were? If you assumed, why did you assume this?

Maybe as you say gay people are discriminated against in Bermuda but unless they tell you they are gay how would you know? Heterosexuals do not openly state they are heterosexual why do homosexuals feel this pressing need to do so?

[H Reardon on 09.11.05 at 10:22]

"..but what about the gay couple that came to rent my apartment the other day. Should I have a right to turn them away because of their relationship? Help me to understand why?"

Posted by Jake on 09.11.05 at 09:55

Because it is your property--you should have the right to do with it as you wish. If they can demand you rent the property to them, their status is elevated above yours in the eyes of the law, and hence your rights have been diminished.

What if you were gay and a gay hating heterosexual came to rent your apartment. Don't you think you should be able to deny him the apartment simply because of his heterosexuality? Isn't it your property to do with as you please? Did you work to earn that property or did the renters?

[Nicolette on 09.11.05 at 10:34]

Reardon - but why should it be ok to discriminate against a gay person and not a woman or minority under the same rental scenario? Just like an accent on the phone can lead people to assume the person is a minority, so can certain mannerisms and clothing lead people to assume sexuality - both assumptions can be used to forms judgements and then discriminate - only one assumption can be challenged in the courts.

[Jake on 09.11.05 at 10:41]

Reardon:
I already cannot discriminate on the basis of race. Are you are in favor of turning back the clock on that one?

Guilden
You as a married man make a statement about how you would like to be perceived. You project a heterosexual relationship in much the same way that a gay couple project a gay relationship.

People who choose to declare their partnership to the world are not harming anyone. Elton John is set to marry his long time partner in the UK. Who does it hurt - he has been with the guy for 18 years.

The problem I have with your stance is that it pretends that straight couples don't seek to declare their dedication to another person prominently, when in fact, they do. The Wedding industry is a billion dollar industry of people doing just that.

Why should gay people not be able to declare who they are in the full knowledge that who they are privately will not harm them publically.

Why do we need the right to discriminate against them?

[Yet Another Limey on 09.11.05 at 10:42]

Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. - “do you go around stating that you are heterosexual?”

Yes, on several occasions my Wife and I have been spotted around town holding hands and even kissing.

Shouldn’t gay people be allowed to do the same without feeling the fear that they could be attacked (both verbally and physically) for doing the same.

[Jake on 09.11.05 at 10:43]

Reardon:

If I were gay and a gay hating heterosexual came to rent my house my problem would be with the hate, not the heterosexuality.

In the same way a white person can come to rent my house, but not a white person who hates me. Nor can a black person who hates me.

There is a huge gap in your logic.

[J Galt on 09.11.05 at 10:50]

"Why should gay people not be free to disclose who they are?"

They are free to do that.

"Should I have a right to turn them away because of their relationship?"

Yes

"Help me to understand why?"

Because you should be free to live your life as you see fit, they want to be free to live the gay lifestyle, you should be free to live as a bigot or homophobe.

[Yet Another Limey on 09.11.05 at 11:00]

J Galt, Should I also be free to live my life as a racist or white supremacist?

[J Galt on 09.11.05 at 11:02]

"I already cannot discriminate on the basis of race. Are you are in favor of turning back the clock on that one?"

Yes,

"but why should it be ok to discriminate against a gay person and not a woman or minority under the same rental scenario?"

the discimination laws are unjust and put a groups rights above the individual's.

"Shouldn’t gay people be allowed to do the same without feeling the fear that they could be attacked"

The laws protecting an individual from attack protect all individuals. So I'm not sure why you think the law doesn't apply to or protect a gay person as it protects a heterosexual.

[SarahT on 09.11.05 at 11:08]

Just when it was getting quiet again, Galt is back ...

[J Galt on 09.11.05 at 11:10]

"J Galt, Should I also be free to live my life as a racist or white supremacist?"

Yes you should, as I should be free to live my life as a defender of individual freedoms.

Don't assume that becasue I think you should be free to live life as a supremacist I agree or support the lifestyle, It doesn't mean you should be free to go and hang people or burn another's church or property, once you start infringing another individual's rights : (right to life, liberty and property,) thats where we need government to step in.

[Yet Another Limey on 09.11.05 at 11:32]

J Galt, According to your libertarian principals I should be allowed to preach that being gay is wrong and those gays should be killed as long as I don’t actually act upon what I say.

However if a more gullible person were to listen to and believe my preaching and act upon it, do you think I should be held accountable for their actions?

[Bill Cook on 09.11.05 at 11:33]

Surley if human rights were applied they would cover everyone period.

Human sexuality is very diverse and complex.

There are not just homo and hetero and many of all the other categories think they are right.

Paedophilia is very widespread and has networks and magazines world wide, to name but one.

Common sense should tell us that decisions have to be made and legally enforced to safeguard minors.

Other than those exceptions I tend to agree with Guildens viewpoint.

In some ways I also agree with Galt but he needs some flexibility as things are not as logically simplistic as he thinks in my opinion.

As I understand it it is not illegal for two same sex individuals to kiss and hold hands but it will certainly raise some eyebrows.

Personally I think anyone should be allowed to rent or not to rent to anyone without giving any reason at all,as long as they are the owner of that property.

I think that is democratic and plenty of property owners refuse to rent to anyone period.

Should they be forced to give a reason ?

[Curried Goat on 09.11.05 at 11:34]

Jake,

Actually, if you were lucky enough to have a "gay" couple come to see your apartment you should be offering them incentives to rent it. In my experience, "gay" people (men in particular) are some of the nicest, most polite people I have ever met. They are clean and look after their suroundings. Your apartment could not be in better hands.

Mind you if people took a preferance for "gay" couples renting their apartments maybe we need a law protecting heterosexual rights.

[Uncle Elvis on 09.11.05 at 11:37]

See, I had a real problem with J Galt about this the last time it came up. I figgered it out. I thought he was just against the addition of gays to the Human Rights act. He's not. He's against the Act itself.
That's fine. He's an Objectivist. They believe that you should be able to do whatever the hell you want whenever the hell you want to.
Cool. Personally, I think it's asinine and selfish and completely naive, and I thought Alas Shrugged was mindnumbingly boring, but you go for it if it works for you. I'm now not gonna get into it with him, 'cuz I understand where it comes from.

Now, on to the subject at hand.

Guilden,

In Bermuda, in 2005, in this amazing, open-minded, forward-thinking society, a person can still be fired, simply for being gay. 30 years of service? Sorry. You're gay. Get out. Best employees ever? Get out, you're gay.

Gay couples have no legal rights together.
Remember when Britney Spears was married for 8 minutes a couple years back? Let's say her husband got sick in that 8 minutes. She had more say in his treatment than a gay person who had been with his or her partner for 40 years.
This seems fair?
Now that's about marriage, but it also comes under these rights as well, as there have been many cases of a partner's wishes being ignored out of spite.

You ask "do you go around stating that you are heterosexual?”

Yeah. Yeah I do. I'm married to a wonderful woman. I hold hands with her and kiss her in public. I announce loudly and publicly that I love her. I throw my arms around her. I live with her.

And I do all of this without fear of losing my job or being thrown out of my apartment or of someone on the street yelling profainities at me, or calling me a "breeder" (a wonderful derogatory for stright folks that I learned a while ago!), or, worse, getting my ass kicked.

You ask how one would know if a couple renting was gay.
If they were loving together, holding hands, kissing and giggly, like newlyweds are, when they showed up to look at the house, wouldn't that tell you?
Or should they hide that so your sensibilities aren't offended?

Galt, Reardon, I agree with your theories. We SHOULD be allowed to rent to whom we want to, we SHOULD be able to do whatever we want.
I SHOULD have a million bucks, too. I SHOULD be able to afford a house. I SHOULD have a face like Brad Pitt.
What should and what is are miles apart.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 09.11.05 at 11:40]

Jake,

I may disagree with the homosexual lifestyle but that has nothing to do with the person. Just because I do not agree with someone's lifestyle does not translate into my dislike for the individual. Which means that I would not and do not discriminate against someone who is homosexual.

Do I feel that persons should be discriminated against for any reason? No, I do not believe that discrimination for any reason is acceptable.

[Uncle Elvis on 09.11.05 at 11:47]

Bill, I dig where you're coming from, but...

What if you've already rented to the person?
You've rented to this guy and he meets the man of his dreams. They move in together. (It doesn't say in your rental agreement that he can't have someone move in... or, better, it's a two bedroom, but they're using the other bedroom as a den or whatever. The point is, they've done nothing to break the rental agreement.)

Should you be allowed to kick them out? Just because they're gay?

Guess wha-at?

As for the "As I understand it it is not illegal for two same sex individuals to kiss and hold hands but it will certainly raise some eyebrows."

It's also grounds for being fired. Even if it's not in the workplace. Even if it's not in the country. If a closeted man is caught kissing and holding hands with another man, and his boss finds out, BOOM. He can be fired.

And the paedophilia thing? Come on. That was just offensive. You're (not-so-subtly) linking homosexuality to paedophilia. That's not right and it's not fair.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 09.11.05 at 12:10]

Bill,

You raise a very interesting point regarding paedophiles (sexual orientation), although I think the laws protecting minors takes care of this.

Uncle Elvis,

Your points are well taken. You are correct, one should not be fired due to sexual orientation or for any other discriminatory reason.

Just because I do not agree with homosexuality does not mean that I believe homosexuals should be discriminated against. From my original post, I was asking the question, "What specific rights are gays requesting?" If the answer to that question is the right not to be discriminated against than I have no problems with that. Anything more than that surely goes beyond the principles human rights, does it not?

Bill pointed out that it is not illegal in Bermuda to be homosexual or to engage homosexual acts. However, legislation does not and cannot change the way people view certain activities. If one believes that homosexuality is immoral how do you legislate that? As long as the beliefs of immorality do not extend to discriminatory practices there is nothing that the law can do.

The same is applicable to racism, laws protecting persons from racial discrimination do not extend to one's racist beliefs as long as those beliefs do not translate into racist practices.

[Jake on 09.11.05 at 12:16]

Curried Goat,

They did not rent the place because of the price, but I was happy to offer to rent to them. I have no idea if gay people are more neat, but I am happy to consider every application on the basis of can they fulfill the terms of the rental agreement. If I think they will and they put down the deposit they are in.

[Jake on 09.11.05 at 12:22]

Guilden,

I do not believe anyone has called for a legislation of thoughts or beliefs. People are asking to be protected from those who would actively discriminate against them (and currently do) if such a bill is not passed.

To my understanding, the entire HRC is in favor of this, and have made that clear to the Government. It is a mark of the Man that P has refused to listen to them, or Dale Butler his Cabinet Colleague.

[blovator on 09.11.05 at 12:24]

Actually paedophilia and homosexuality are not directly connected. Paedophilia is statistically most strongly connected to men who are otherwise hetrosexual. Its actually not that common among homosexuals. Which of course goes against everything people tell you.

[H Reardon on 09.11.05 at 12:27]

Elvis,

you should be allowed to do what you agreed upon in the lease (the contract). If you have the right to kick him out on a month to month basis, then yes. If you rented to him for 3 years and he just moved in, you can only kick him out for breaking the lease (not paying, trashing the house, ect).

"Galt, Reardon, I agree with your theories. We SHOULD be allowed to rent to whom we want to, we SHOULD be able to do whatever we want.
I SHOULD have a million bucks, too. I SHOULD be able to afford a house. I SHOULD have a face like Brad Pitt.
What should and what is are miles apart."

Posted by Uncle Elvis on 09.11.05 at 11:37

Let me paraphrase--ideals are all well and good, but must be sacrificed as they aren't practical. Elvis, for someone who found Atlas Shrugged boring, you are doing an excellent job of portraying the antagonists in the book.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 09.11.05 at 12:29]

Jake,

Is what I am saying really in opposition with what you are saying? I am saying that I agree that any form of discrimination is wrong but you cannot prevent someone from holding a personal view as long as they kep it as a personal view and do not exercise any discrimination.

As far a the comments made by the Premier, I know nothing about them but if what you are saying is accurate than I fully agree with you. I think as PLP supporters both you and I are very unhappy with the current leadership and would truly like to see a change.

[Uncle Elvis on 09.11.05 at 12:31]

"If one believes that homosexuality is immoral how do you legislate that? As long as the beliefs of immorality do not extend to discriminatory practices there is nothing that the law can do."

I agree with you up to a point, but history teaches us different.

In some places in the world, it's considered immoral to marry outside of your race. Or religion.
Y'see what I mean?

[blovator on 09.11.05 at 12:39]

The idea that just because there is a law protecting a class of people, those people are protected is wrong. Laws are a protection when they are enforced. Rape is against the law in Bermuda but until very recently, if you minded your Ps and Qs you could get away with it pretty easily. We still don't know if the new legislation is going to work. So women, in that circumstance are not protected even though rape is against the law. The problems come from faulty police procedure and a embarrased indifference on the part of the public.

Homosexuals are protected by law, but in practice it is very difficult to maintain a life and be openly gay in Bermuda. So the laws are not enforced.

They have to get a parade going. Nice big Gay Parade right down Front Street. Hey Bermuda - WE EXIST.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 09.11.05 at 12:41]

Uncle,

"In some places in the world, it's considered immoral to marry outside of your race. Or religion.
Y'see what I mean?"

It may be considered immoral but not illegal as morality cannot be legislated.

[blovator on 09.11.05 at 12:51]

It is a common convention in providing a service or a good that it must be available to anyone with money no matter who they are. Justice Smith is not served in several bars in Bermuda (when he's not in jail) because bartenders loathe what he did. Technically, he could sue.

The practice of selling and buying is protected from interuptions like crime by the government. Commerce takes place because it is protected. The whole notion of ownership is impossible without the legal frame work and the man power to enforce those laws.

Since everyone pays taxes and everyone is a citizen then everyone is entitled to equal participation in that commerce which our government makes possible. And that includes renting property. If you don't like it, move to Russia. There everyone has a gun and they protect thier property personally.

It is not a coincedence that the population of Russia is actually declining.

Yes you have to rent to homosexuals.

[Uncle Elvis on 09.11.05 at 12:55]

Blov,
"Homosexuals are protected by law"

Wellll... yes and no. It's still not illegal to fire a gay person, simply for being gay. And it was only VERY recently that it was illegal to be gay in Bermuda.

Guilden,

"It may be considered immoral but not illegal as morality cannot be legislated."

It's not illegal any more. But it was once. This is what I'm trying to say. Morality and legality are intertwined in society and have been for a long time.
In the past, marrying a 13-year old girl was considered acceptable and not immoral at all. Nor illegal.

I just want to ask something.
"I may disagree with the homosexual lifestyle but that has nothing to do with the person."

Why do you "disagree with the homosexual lifestyle"?
I'm just curious. I understand that you're straight and it's not for you, but why do you disagree with it for others?

[Curried Goat on 09.11.05 at 13:00]

This morality issue is interesting and it all comes down to religion. I recently read of Emporor Tiberius. Not a terribly nice bloke. He basically ruled the world for a good few years. He used to send his men to Napoli to bring back adolecents for his pleasure. When they had served their purpose he would throw them off the 1200 foot cliff outside his villa.

He was infamous for his orgies that would last for days. Men with men, women with women, sometimes even men with women. Sex was seen as a pleasure to be had by all, not just an act of procreation.

The understanding I get from the readings of the time was that this was the way of the world. The morels of heterosexual relationships came about mainly with Christianity. That is not to say at the time of Christ but with the teachings that were 1000 years+ after Christ. You see Tiberius and Christ lived just decades apart.

Are we now so moral with the teachings of Christ that we cannot accept what had gone on for 1000s of years before him?

[Uncle Elvis on 09.11.05 at 13:00]

"Yes you have to rent to homosexuals"

Can we get a call on this from a lawyer-type?

I dig what you're saying blov. I really do.
The problem is...

"Since everyone pays taxes and everyone is a citizen then everyone is entitled to equal participation in that commerce which our government makes possible"

See... gays aren't included in this. It is allowable to exclude them from "that commerce which our government makes possible." This is what this is all about. Dig?

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 09.11.05 at 13:03]

Uncle Elvis,

I guess we could go back and forth on morality and illegality.

As for why I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle, why do I need to justify my disagreement with it especially as I do not feel they homosexuals or anyone else should be discriminated against?

[Uncle Elvis on 09.11.05 at 13:05]

Jeez. I was just asking.

[Rincewind on 09.11.05 at 13:09]

"whereas if someone was terminated because they got preganant etc and there was evidence to support this, the law will provide a remedy.

Posted by Nicolette on 09.11.05 at 09:58 "

Hah, have you ever had to fight that battle?

[Nicolette on 09.11.05 at 13:14]

"In Bermuda, in 2005, in this amazing, open-minded, forward-thinking society, a person can still be fired, simply for being gay. 30 years of service? Sorry. You're gay. Get out. Best employees(e)ever? Get out, you're gay." and that is exactly what has been happening - look at one of the large banks on Front Street as a major offender....
and Guilden
"It may be considered immoral but not illegal as morality cannot be legislated." - I agree but governments are always trying to legislate morality by moving the dividing line between the two - the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in response to dishonest, immoral corporate plundering (I have always argued that you can't legislate character...but they try), the anti-slot machine act here to curb the "immoral" gamblers who use machines (but not those who bet on horses); giving tax breaks to married couples furthers a specific social result (and it could be argued is a move against homosexuality and living in "sin".... so it's pitiful that our government (UBP and now PLP) never furthered what John Stubbs started when it finally made homosexual sex legal to create the equal playing field - equal, at least in theory. All laws etc are ideals - so the ideology argument holds no water....

[Straight2dpoint on 09.11.05 at 13:19]

I don't understand why some heterosexual people feel that it is beholden on them to 'approve' or not of what they call 'the gay lifestyle'. What _is_ a gay lifestyle? The gay folk I know have lives much the same as mine. And who cares whether GG or I 'approve' of what 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home?

[Nicolette on 09.11.05 at 13:25]

Rincewind

No - never had children... never liked myself enough to replicate...

This thread shows enough examples to prove that we do need all forms of anti-discrimination legislation in place because, unfortunatlely, if you left it up to individuals, sadly many still cannot be relied on to do the right thing and treat everyone fairly in the workplace or even the home. I wish we didn't need to have laws but some people need to be dragged kicking and screaming into humanity...

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 09.11.05 at 13:26]

Nicolette,

I have stated that I do not agree with any type of discrimination (including but not limited to termination for being a homosexual), the way someone lives their life is none of my business, nor is it society's buisness.

The point I am trying to make is that no matter what laws you put in place the personal feelings held by people will not be changed because of it. (practicing discrimination based on race is illegal but being a racist isn't and the legislation has not changed those who are racist, it only changes their actions, to some degree) If you can show otherwise than I would be very interested in that.

[Intrigued on 09.11.05 at 13:32]

Bill states:

"Human sexualtiy is diverse .."

and then goes on to talk about pedophilia.

The practise of pedopohilia is no more a sexual act than is rape. It is assault! Nothing sexual about it.

Just hate when people categorize these things as sexual in nature.

Perhaps a little more on point, I believe the primary reason the PLP are not acting on this legislation is that they are scared of their supporter's reaction (the churches) and are so choosing NOT to follow the right path, and instead doing what is politically expedient. Not a specific knock on PLP, I would say the same about any pary that takes such a cowardly approach while supposedly leading.

Guilden states:

"you cannot prevent someone from holding a personal view as long as they kep it as a personal view and do not exercise [it} ..."

Two examples of where this is wrong:

1. Assume that a Haulocaust deniar truly believes that the holocaust did not exist, but they don't actually physically discriminate against Jews, but simply publish and preach their views. By your definition that is OK. In many conuntries this is illegal (and rightly so I believe). Are these countries wrong?

2. Assume their is a pedophile who actually does not ever act on his/her impulses, but publishes stories about their fantasies. As they don't act that is OK by your definition. In many countries this is illegal (again I believe rightly so). Is the law wrong?

Hate laws have been legislated in many countries because they are the right thing for a civilized country to do.

There is no black and white in this world on many issues, we shouldn't try to argue that there are. Sometimes individual rights are ignored to take care of the majority and to accomplish what is morally right. It is OK in my books to legislate morality in its broadest sense.

Finally, I have been in several homes of gays that I would hate to have as tennants (because they are slobs, not because they are gay). The myth that gays are clean and fastidous is laughable. We really should try to avoid such stereotyping in this forum. It is beneath us all.

Again, one man's views, worth what you paid for them.

[silencedogood on 09.11.05 at 13:38]

For the record, I think discriminating against gays in housing is wrong but there is grey area here. Legally, I think even if gays were included in human rights legislation that the type of rental housing should and would affect the decision.

What I mean is that it is a very different thing for someone with a basement apartment or a cottage on their residence to be forced to rent to a gay couple than it is for someone renting out a condominium or house where they will have no contact with the tenant other than to collect rent and fix things.

In the latter case there is no way that not renting to gays, because they are gay, is justified.

Rental property on the residence is a different ball of wax because it creates a close relationship with the tenant. The landlord and their family would interact with the tenant every day (even if only in passing in the driveway. For that type of relationship to work there has to be a level of comfort with the tenant which alot of people will lack if the tenant is gay.

I would err on the side of the landlord in these situations, otherwise you would get into legislating thought which Guilden spoke to. Either the landlord would have to accept a certain line of thought or would incur a substantial financial penalty. Because the landlord is essentially opening their home they should have a great deal of leeway in who they allow in.

Some of you may be thinking "tough cookies for the landlord", but consider in this case how many religious people would rather lose money than face the possibility of renting to a homosexual. That's alot of units off the market. That would drive up rents and put even more political pressure on the government not to enforce those laws. Ultimately they would not be enforced or viewed as legitimate by a great deal of people in Bermdua with the end result being that gays had no more freedom while the general population has less. Enforcement is more realistic and fairer in the separate unit market.

Some people may use this leeway to discriminate, but that's the flipside to freedom.