Renee Webb's private member's bill

I understand that Renee Webb's private member's bill to add sexual orientation to the Human Rights Act will probably be heard in parliament tomorrow.

If this is a subject you feel strongly about, you may like to write to your MP in advance to solicit their support. Contact details for many of them can be found here.

You can find out which constituency you live in here.

» Dammit - I've just seen today's Gazette story that the amendment has been delayed...

Comments

[TJL on 15.12.05 at 11:16]

What exactly will inclusion to the Human Rights Act entail? If it means that no-one may be discriminated against on the grounds of their sexual orientation by employers, landlords, retailers, etc, then I am all for it. If it opens the door for gay marriage then I support it still, but some individuals might draw a line between the two.

I don't think this issue is as simple as being pro- or anti-gay. Can anyone provide some informed feedback as to what this Bill really means?

[Phil on 15.12.05 at 11:22]

TJL

The Human Rights Act can be found here.

Here's what Part I, section 2 (2) (a) has to say:

"For the purposes of this Act a person shall be deemed to discriminate against another person if he treats him less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons generally or refuses or deliberately omits to enter into any contract or arrangement with him on the like terms and the like circumstances as in the case of other persons generally or deliberately treats him differently to other persons because

(i) of his race, place of origin, colour, or ancestry;

(ii) of his sex;

(iii) of his marital status;

(iiiA) of his disability;

(iv) he was not born in lawful wedlock;

(v) she has or is likely to have a child whether born in lawful wedlock or not; or

(vi) of his religious beliefs or political opinions"

It's my understanding that the amendment would be essentially adding "(vii) of his sexual orientation", and make some similar changes to 2 (2) (b).

[Yet Another Limey on 15.12.05 at 12:12]

"(ii) of his sex;"

Surely HIS sex would be male?

[Uncle Elvis on 15.12.05 at 12:21]

Now THAT is some funny shit, right there, YALimes!

Thanks for the giggle.

[loki on 15.12.05 at 12:26]

"Surely HIS sex would be male?"

I think you'll find that the definitions section at the beginning of the Act states that it is gender neutral: 'his' substituting for 'her', etc. At least, I hope.....

[Two Cents on 15.12.05 at 12:26]

"(ii) of his sex;" Surely HIS sex would be male?

Maybe not ...isn't that why they're adding the amendment??

[Bill Cook on 15.12.05 at 12:36]

This subject has been discussed many times already but still no clarification in my op.

How can anyone determine ones sexual orientation unless they tell you ?

Does it really mean one's sexual behaviour based on ones orientation shall not be discriminated against ?

If so is that not already protected by what one does in the privacy of their own home?

Also who determines the limitations and varieties of sexual orientation as there appears to be many not just the obvious two?

If behaviour is already covered that is behaviour in public what is the purpose of this amendment ?

What protection is provided for someone who enters into marriage with a person of the opposite sex, only to find out that unknown to them the partner was of an incompatible sexual orientation, ie a homosexual ?

It would seem to me that this amendment needs some further fine tuning prior to the next step.

[loki on 15.12.05 at 12:43]

"How can anyone determine ones sexual orientation unless they tell you ?"

By their actions? Why should they be afraid of acknowledging their sexual orientation or acting like normal human beings, who go out to dinner in public, have friends and colleagues over to their houses for parties, etc?

[Uncle Elvis on 15.12.05 at 12:58]

"How can anyone determine ones sexual orientation unless they tell you ?"

Who they get into a relationship generally lends a clue. Who they hold hands with walking down the street, who they kiss goodbye in the morning... loads of things.
For instance, I'm married to a wonderful, beautiful woman. This is generally a determining factor in my non-homosexuality.

"Does it really mean one's sexual behaviour based on ones orientation shall not be discriminated against ?"

No, it means that you can't fire a guy because he's got a boyfriend. Like you can now.

"If so is that not already protected by what one does in the privacy of their own home?"

See above.

"Also who determines the limitations and varieties of sexual orientation as there appears to be many not just the obvious two?"

Such as? I can only think of... heterosexual, homosexual and asexual. Are there others?

"If behaviour is already covered that is behaviour in public what is the purpose of this amendment ?"

It's not. See above.

"What protection is provided for someone who enters into marriage with a person of the opposite sex, only to find out that unknown to them the partner was of an incompatible sexual orientation, ie a homosexual ?"

None. This situation, while unfortunate, doesn't have anything to do with discrimination.
Think of it this way. You're Jewish. You marry a girl, thinking she's Jewish. Later on, you find out that she's not actually Jewish. OR, more in keeping with this sort of scenario, later on, she "finds God" and becomes a Born Again. There's no protection against that under this legislation either. Does this mean that we should take out the bit about religious beliefs?

[Two Cents on 15.12.05 at 13:04]

"This is generally a determining factor in my non-homosexuality"

If that's your story..I'd stick to it Uncle Elvis

LOL...Only kidding Great Post

[Bill Cook on 15.12.05 at 13:13]

How about Bi Sexual ? and there are many others
like the most difficult of all transexuals who in my opinion suffer most.

If a partner is not open about their homosexuality and the marriage progresses with the other partner in the dark only to find out by accident and the marriage ends and the children suffer?

I dont think this is as simple as we would like to believe.

There are many men who are homosexual married to attractive women the late Rock Hudson comes to mind, and he is now passed, but there are many more, so that analogy does not hold water.

[Uncle Elvis on 15.12.05 at 13:44]

You're right, I forgot Bisexual and Transexual.
My bad. Although Transexual is less about orientation and more about personal identity. Closely linked, I know, but still.

Plus, bisexual are just greedy bastards! *grin* (JK)

As for the analogy, I think it does hold water. In many of the instances you describe, the gay partner gets married because they think it's "The right thing to do". Kids, the whole nine yards. I know MANY people that have converted to the jewish faith, or, more often, to Catholicism, because their partner is of that faith, only to realize that it's not them and quit the faith, the marriage and the family. It really IS similar.

But I have a question for you on this.
Lets say that there are laws put in place protecting husbands and wives if their spouse turns out to be gay. Financially or whatever.
Here's the problem. What about people that come to the realization that they ARE, in fact, gay, later in life. I know of at least four people in my experience who, seemingly out of nowhere, said, 'Holy SHIT! I'm GAY!'
I'm sure it wasn't as sudden as that, but you get my drift. These people went into the marriage thinking they were straight, but, nope.. sorry... they're gay.
Here's the question.
Should they be punished by law, as well?
Does that seem fair?

[Bill Cook on 15.12.05 at 15:07]

As I said this needs a lot more work and fine tuning.

Nice to say I did not know when in fact you did know, but liked a nice out by wakening up one morning and Eureka um gay, or holy shit how did this happen ?

In my experience I have seldom heard such a load of misleading bullshit as this subject,when even homosexuals dont really know they are or are not or were but now are not but to be fair I am no expert authority, and am having difficulty finding anyone who is.

[Uncle Elvis on 15.12.05 at 15:33]

You know... On the one hand, it's really refreshing, Mr. Cook, that you seemvery accepting that homosexuals just are. Y'know? None of the usual "It's genetic"/"No it's not" stuff. I applaud you for that.

However, to say that it's "misleading bullshit" that people don't realize their sexual orientation by a certain point is a little... not refreshing.

In this society, where the stigma attached to homosexuality forces people into the closet for fear of their jobs, their homes, their family (no, not the husband/wife/kids type... the mother/father/siblings type), it should be no wonder that people are still confused about who they are into their twenties, thirties, forties and older. There are so many things saying "Gay is abnormal and you should try to be normal, no matter what", that, yes, people try to shove their feeling deep, deep down and force themselves to be "normal".

I'm not saying that it's right, and I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm just saying it is.

So. I re-ask the question:

If legislation goes through protecting someone in case their spouse ends up being gay, should people who realize it later in life be punished as well?

[tilti on 15.12.05 at 15:43]

Elvis, Why should they be punished? You aren't punished for divorve on the grounds of irreconcliable differences. you aren't punihsed if mid life you change religion or politics and grow away from your spouse. Why should sexual orientation be any different?

Bill, Elvis raises a good question. Watch the movie "Far from Heaven" it is excellent and shows confusion over sexual identity adn trying to remain status quo. Also see "Kinsey" or read his reports - as much as 30% of the American male population has acted out homosexual tendencies. Sexual identity is far more complex than you may initially beleive.

[Uncle Elvis on 15.12.05 at 15:48]

tilti, I'm not saying they should. I was asking for Mr. Cook's opinion.

[Yet Another Limey on 15.12.05 at 16:26]

If this law was changed…

As the UK has recently brought in laws allowing gays to marry in civil ceremonies, would a gay expat be allowed to bring their married partner onto the island as a non working spouse?

Or do expats not have human rights?

[Uncle Elvis on 15.12.05 at 16:40]

"Or do expats not have human rights?"

Hell no!
Jesus! What kind of question is that?
Expats having rights. Ridiculous. Come on, now... let's not go overboard!

[Phil on 15.12.05 at 17:26]

Bill

Sexuality may be complex; whether this bill should be passed is not.

It comes down to one simple question: if I tried to rent a property from you, and you knew that I was gay (or bisexual, or even straight), should you be allowed to decline to rent to me solely on that basis?

If your response is "no", then you should support this bill.

[Bill Cook on 15.12.05 at 17:40]

To talk about punishment without understanding would be an absurdity in my opinion.

If someone had had an ongoing homosexual life but did not reveal it to the partner that would be another matter and yes I would think punishment was in order due to the possible devastating results on innocent people.

I once read about an army captain or sim rank and she had been married for like 25 yrs had children and to all intents seemed happy as was her husband.

Upon retiring from the army she decided or changed to the extent she divorced her husband and moved in with her partner.

You see that is not easy for the layman to comprehend and is one very upsetting situation.

One never knows what one would do if that happened to them.

I would like to think that at age 55 or whatever I would be reluctant to destroy my family and be less selfish but who knows.

My personal opinion is that love is more important than sex but of course sex with the one you love is the greatest, and in that regard I have been fortunate but I have no understanding of any other than heterosexual sex and very frankly no real desire to,but if it does not affect me then live and let live.

[Bill Cook on 15.12.05 at 17:48]

Limey.

I would reserve the right to refuse to rent to ANYONE that I did not want to rent to.

It is my property and my decision.

If I was getting assistance I may be obliged to follow some rule or other but if someone told me I had to rent to anyone I would tell them to Fuck Off.

[Phil on 15.12.05 at 18:05]

Bill

You're starting to sound like Galt. ;-)

So by the same argument, it would be OK for me not to rent to someone just because they were black?

In fact, aren't you arguing that we should tear up the whole Human Rights Act?

[John on 15.12.05 at 18:19]

Bill, I've spent the last 65 years years trying to convince people that the Irish are not all 'thick paddies', your efforts at understanding the Human Rights issue leaves me a little deflated I'm afraid

[Bill Cook on 15.12.05 at 18:21]

Limey

I am a bit like Galt.

Its not a black, white or gay thing its the infringement of MY rights.

I am basically an Agnostic Humanist so no I am not advocating tearing up the the whole Human Rights act ESP WHERE MY OWN ARE CONCERNED.

[SmokingGun on 15.12.05 at 18:23]

Um Um Limey.... I think I was trying to make that exact point with regard to renting to Burch.

He's black. No problem he can rent from me. If he is gay. No problem.

However he's also a person who has the ability to deride blacks and whites in a very vocal and brutish manner.

I'm concerned that his antics might end up getting some of my windows busted. Will I have to rent to him?

[Uncle Elvis on 15.12.05 at 18:47]

Mr. Cook,
We do agree that love is more important.

Smokes,
No, you wouldn't. They haven't added the "Asshole Clause" yet.
(Asshole Claus. That's the bastard that comes down the chimney and gives you socks for christmas, right?)

[Phil on 15.12.05 at 19:21]

Bill

I'm not trying to be argumentative (honest!), but I'm having trouble understanding your position.

You say you don't want to tear up the Human Rights Act, yet you say you should not be subjected to any obligations that infringe your rights to rent to whom you please. But this is precisely what the Human Rights Act does - it restricts your rights. How do you reconcile the two?

Let me ask another question: would it be OK for me to refuse to rent my apartment to you because you're Irish? After all, I know that all Irish people want to do is blow up Brits like me.

Would you honestly be happy for me to not rent to you on that basis?

[Bill Cook on 15.12.05 at 19:43]

Limey it would be fine with me if you refused to rent your apt to me and your reasons could be personal yes.

I was refused accommodation in London's Tufnell area boarding houses when 19 yrs old because the sign said no Colored no Irish no Dogs, so I had to keep trying until one accepted me.

All Irish may well indeed want to blow you up but that is probably because of your terrible sense of humour, but most of the other Brits they would be cool with I'd say !

[Bill Cook on 15.12.05 at 19:53]

John,

Maybe if it took you 65 yrs those you were trying to convince were considerably thicker than said Paddies ?

[ben on 18.12.05 at 11:46]

we are funny.

We have great public debate and comments about racism, and it goes on and on...and it's really all about the result of discrimination that took place in our history, and still exists today.

Am I the only one that sees the parellels in gay discrimination. A house full of politicians who are scared to discuss it, take a stand on it let alone legislate and pass it. (no data to support it, how lame..)

we are Not funny, we are homophobic, and its sad. How will we be judged in the future on this one. Lets copy our present to the future...imagine its 2040, and a public figure starts blaming his gay ancestors....House gays???..

The discrimination in this country on this subject is so strong, that the gay community will not stand up in public. why...because they will be struck down.

shame on Bermuda!!! and shame on the church teachings and all those that sustain it! shame on you parlimentarians that find excuses not to support it. If rainbow can support it, why cant you.

If you dont like gays, think about why, likely you've been taught not to like them, .....much the way people were taught not to like blacks, and others...

[Yet Another Limey on 28.12.05 at 09:35]

I know I asked pretty much the same question earlier about expats, but…

If a gay Bermudian were to marry (e.g. UK civil ceremony) a non-Bermudian would the spouse be a SOB, if not now would they be an SOB if Renee managed to get the law changed?