Bullshittery

Despite being roundly condemned (here, here, here, here and here) for their failure to debate Renee Webb’s amendment to the Human Rights Act last week, Bermuda’s MPs continue to equivocate.

Paula Cox:

”Some clear, objective and factual discussion and consultation needed to occur prior even to any debate. If not, you contribute to a situation where in the absence of information there is a vacuum and in which fear and misinformation can flourish.”

You had a chance to contribute to some clear, objective and factual discussion in the House last week, Ms. Cox. Instead, your silence contributed to that “fear and misinformation”.

Trevor Moniz:

”Some people, like Nelson Bascome and Neville Darrell, say Renee’s amendment is already implicitly included in the Act. I don’t know if that’s correct or not.”

Come on, Mr. Moniz. Given your legal experience, you can do better than that. Is it included or isn’t it?

Michael Dunkley:

”I was very disappointed that Renee Webb didn’t take the opportunity to speak to our group about it... You could see how the debate went that she hadn’t really done her homework…

The people who supported the amendment didn’t say anything. Renee Webb was led up the garden path by some of her colleagues.

We thought one of the first people to stand up would be someone from the Cabinet — maybe the Minister responsible for the Human Rights Commission [Dale Butler]. He didn’t carry out his performance as a Minister as expected.”

Blame, blame, blame. What about your own responsibility, Mr. Dunkley? Instead of telling us where everyone else was at fault, why don’t you say why you didn’t you back the motion?

Wayne Furbert:

“I believe the current Human Rights Act covers sexual orientation. The UBP didn’t have a strategy.”

What sections of the Act do you think cover sexual orientation, Mr. Furbert? Part I, section 2 (2)(a) is very explicit about the categories that are covered, and I don’t see sexual orientation in there.

As for the UBP not having a strategy… please. John Barritt already told the Royal Gazette that the UBP caucus agreed that no UBP MP would speak on the motion unless a member of the PLP front bench did so first.

Jamahl Simmons:

“I voted no. At the end of the day I have to respect the wishes of my constituents.”

Well, that wasn’t what you told me the day before the vote last week.

And let's not forget Ewart Brown:

"I elected not to speak today. I intend to speak on this issue another time and another place."

When and where would that be, Dr. Brown? The bathroom?

The more I read about Friday’s debacle, the angrier I become.

Comments

[loki on 31.05.06 at 18:54]

The phrase, "a shower of arseholes comes to mind".......

[save d cut on 31.05.06 at 19:07]

Limey, I posted this earlier.....guess you are pissed off and I am simply confused. Does the truth lie anywhere?

Uncle,
Please help me here.....I feel like Chrissy Snow on Threes Company.
Iam so trying to follow this whole thing but everytime I think I've got it,.....
LaVerne Furbert is quoted as saying it is NOT a Human Rights issue. Wayne Furbert has said the current Human Right Act covers sexual orientation. Nelson Bascome and Neville Darrell say it is "implicity included in the Act".
Then there is quote from a "Conch" in the Sun that calls it a "sub culture"..... I dont even want to touch that one.
I guess you see how this is confusing.

Posted by save d cut on 31.05.06 at 16:58

[SmokingGun on 31.05.06 at 19:08]

Limey - Don't get angry. Get even. I think right about now's the time for a good little piece in the RG as only you know how. And you have the added benefit of being able to attack all sides of the government!

Not to blow smoke up your nostril but you might be surprised at how much it is appreciated when you have a go at some of the idiocies of our strange little world.

[WyrdSister on 31.05.06 at 19:35]

where may we find the Human Rights Act written in a language that the lay person may understand?

[loki on 31.05.06 at 19:37]

The Human Rights Act DOES NOT protect people from discrimination on the basis of sexuality, and anyone who says otherwise is:

(a) talking out of their ass;
(b) lying like an ass; or
(c) being as ass.

Really, I'd LOVE to hear from these people who even dare to suggest otherwise.

[save d cut on 31.05.06 at 19:50]

loki,
I have stated many times how confusing this is. What are the people talking about when the use terms like "blanket protection",
"implicitly included"?
To me either it is in or it is not....are they leaving it up to interpertation? If so which part?
I am dying to know!

[loki on 31.05.06 at 19:58]

save d cut

There is nothing left to interpretation, I assure you. The Act is very explicit as to what is, and is not protected. I wish I could tell you what these people are basing their statements on, but I can't: there's no way to interpret the Act otherwise than as not covering sexual orientation. Perhaps, if you took the Act, ran it through babelfish and translated it into Hebrew, then translated the Hebrew into Mandarin and then back into English again, then handed the result to a room full of monkeys with typewriters and asked then to copy it 20 times, you might be able to come up with a wording that suggests the interpretation put forward by some individuals but, otherwise, no.......

[Phil on 31.05.06 at 19:59]

save d cut

I don't understand your confusion. As loki has said, the Human Rights Act does not include sexual orientation, and anyone who implies otherwise is lying or misinformed. Plain and simple.

You can read the Act yourself here. In particular look at Part I, section 2 (2)(a).

[Bundy & Coke on 31.05.06 at 20:09]

So those parliamentary salaries don't actually cover them turning up for discussions or taking part in votes? They are not paid to express their opinions? Remind me again, what are those politicians paid for?

[save d cut on 31.05.06 at 20:24]

Limey,
Thank you. I actually just visited the "equal rights for gays" tread and found where you have posted it before...I actually read the whole thing. Its amazing to read that and see what has transpired since.

Thanks again.
Ps I might add, that particular tread is of the most popular......

[save d cut on 31.05.06 at 20:26]

loki,
I have read it and I see your point.
I was simply trying to follow the leaders of the country and their reasoning.
I know where I stand and I will be there tomorrow to give my support.

[Jamaican Q on 31.05.06 at 20:45]

I have to agree with Ioki...It does not protect people based on sexuality, gender etc. The UN's human rights is a universalistic approach to what every human being is entitled to as an individual. You can view it here:http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

[save d cut on 31.05.06 at 21:00]

JQ,
I noticed that it repeats the word "Everybody"
Seems simple enough to me.
Thanks

[Jamaican Q on 31.05.06 at 21:09]

Save D Cut....as you can see...there is no mention of what homosexuals are entitled to. I am not anti-gay because i believe what people do is their business. However...i have a problem with them wanting extra special.

[save d cut on 31.05.06 at 21:40]

JQ,
I did go back and read and old post that said something like...they dont want special they just want equal. Becareful not to get yourself executed over that.
After reading both Acts I can compare. The UK did not really state anything about homosexuals, however simply using the word "Everyone" means everyone!
simple

[Full Fullish on 31.05.06 at 22:20]

Bullshittery indeed. This whole thing reeks. I've had numerous emails with Wayne Furbert, who admitted that had he voted for or taken action on this topic he would have been voted out of office. This leaves SUCH a bad taste in my mouth, I can't even begin to describe. Now I will bet money that they are going to hide behind Neville Darrell's unique interpretation of the human rights act (Second time this month, go figure), in order to circumvent any blame. Apparently Renee Webb has more testicular fortitude than the lot of them and she's a woman!

[save d cut on 31.05.06 at 22:30]

Holy shittery!

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 31.05.06 at 22:30]

Bullshittery! This may be my new favorite word!

It's better than wishywashy, better than waffling, better than flipflopping.
It describes perfectly the doublespeak that has been flowing since this, the covering of ass, the "It's the UBPs fault" (Huh? I'm not quite sure how that works, but I guess a catch-all is a catch-all).

Bullshittery, indeed.

Much like some of the hotels here, we need another lobby.

I am completely ashamed of myself for that pun and apologize to the families of those that it injured.

[Phil on 31.05.06 at 22:44]

Full Fullish

I've had numerous emails with Wayne Furbert, who admitted that had he voted for or taken action on this topic he would have been voted out of office

I'm glad to hear he at least did you the courtesy of replying to your mails. Oh well, perhaps mine were a bit stroppy again. Hmm, gotta work on that. :)

[KHD on 31.05.06 at 23:04]

1) Is it Possible that Sexuality is covered in the act as a belief?

2) Is it possible that sexuality is covered under the act under sexual harassment?

I don’t know if this is what ministers such as Bascome and Darrell are on about?

Given that the Act does not include the words sexual orientation in section 2 (2) (a), If I had a complaint I think I would attempt to file it under these two sections.

Given ministers have said that the act does include sexuality implicitly, if I had a case to file I would put their word to the test. When I read the act these are the two elements that I chose as possibilities although others more knowledgeable than myself may identify more and better options. I think if even just one case of discrimination of a person because of sexuality, hetero or homosexual discrimination, as it is possible for discrimination to go both ways, it would affirm the act as it is and provide the protection that we all need in the spirit of basic human rights.

I hope it does not appear that I am making excuses or trying to find a cop out for our ministers, but I learned a long time ago that when the system isn’t working for you, you have to work the system; push it until the system itself is backed into a corner and made to look discriminatory.

I hope that all the efforts breed a just result. It is believed by some of the populous that it is just what occurred on Friday, and the remainder, a travesty to mark the ages. I do not believe I have the omnipotence to define an absolute truth, but I do believe that we should fight for what we believe in on both sides. The fight should not be called off because of unfair play. When your back is against a wall, you have a sturdy place to push off from.

It is mentioned that the reason the gay rights amendment failed is because gays themselves did not support it. Perhaps because of fear of outing themselves, or fear that the system does not give them a leg to stand on. Maybe mixing the hetero and homosexual faces tomorrow will offer an opportunity for supporters to come out in support without fear of outing, I hope the visible support encourages others to come out with their accounts of discrimination and put this system to the test. (Thank You Alex Cabral and others whom have dared to live a free life)

We either all know right from wrong or none of us do. If we take the road of humbleness and assume we know nothing we are left with only opportunity to learn, to try and to appreciate new things. I know these are light words and I apologise for not wielding the anger and malice of many a passionate supporter, but for some reason, in my acknowledgement of ignorance of right and wrong I still believe that in the end, right will come to pass.

We are each in need of an individual moral compass, and the protection to explore different paths in life. It is not possible to share one compass amongst us all, but we can be careful not to soil another’s path when we cross it.

[stuart J Hayward on 31.05.06 at 23:28]

Michael Dunkley:

”I was very disappointed that Renee Webb didn’t take the opportunity to speak to our group about it... You could see how the debate went that she hadn’t really done her homework…

On radio today Renee Webb said she not only spoke to MD's group (and he was there), she also spoke to MD one-on-one. Who's telling the truth?

She went on to describe the numerous meeting she had and reminded listeners of the content of her hour-and-a-half speech, To hear MD suggest she didn't do her homework is also beyond belief.

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 31.05.06 at 23:32]

"1) Is it Possible that Sexuality is covered in the act as a belief?"

I don't think so, as it's not a belief.

"2) Is it possible that sexuality is covered under the act under sexual harassment?"

This is probably closest to where it MIGHT be covered, and there might be an argument there, but it is WAY too vague and WAY too easy for a bigoted judge to throw out, setting precedent.

[Cicero on 31.05.06 at 23:32]

Devi's advocate here guys (and it's a cruel devil to side with):

The churches in Bermuda exert enormous influence over our MPs and they used it to great effect last week. This is a place where a public condemnation from an influential pastor or bishop could easily cost an election. Wayne Furbert admitted as much today when he called his Hamilton constituency the 'Biblebelt of Bermuda' - which was not at all an exaggeration. One must respect him for his candor, if not his courage.

To understand just how influential the Church was last week, take a look at who DID vote for the ammendment. Most of them represented the more 'secular' areas of Bermuda (that's a term used relatively here): Paget, Devonshire and Smith's; Gibbons, Barritt etc. Meanwhile, those representing the parishes of Hamilton and Sandy's were vocal in their opposition. It is, as someone once said, 'all about the demographics'

[novote on 01.06.06 at 00:45]

Limey - Slightly off subject, but you may be interested....and, if not now, will certainly be interested in a couple of years time when you're wondering where Limey Junior will go to school.

I've just read the Human Rights Act in detail and realised that the admissions policy of Saltus actually contravenes the Act.

There is an exemption for single sex educational establishments so BHS would not be impacted, but by allocating a fixed - albeit equal - number of places to boys and girls per its published admissions policy for its entry year group Saltus must almost by definition be discrimating on grounds of sex.

Once it has, for example, allocated all of the places designated for boys, any remaining places can under its policy only be allocated to girls. Hence discrimination against any remaining boys wishing to gain entry will occur.

I bet the school hasn't thought of this!

[tilti on 01.06.06 at 00:52]

Limey,
To give you credit you are attacked so often as a blanket UBP supporter. But here you have not been afraid to call it as you see it and I really appreciate your resoltion on this matter.
Unfortunately I am away this Friday, but I adamently support you on this.

[Suzanne Mayall on 01.06.06 at 01:18]

Another area of dispute - some MPs have stated that they received no emails/letters in support of the Bill. I have heard several cases to the contrary. Hopefully on Friday we will have a chance to ask these questions.

[JJ on 01.06.06 at 07:23]

I think maybe Christian Dunleavy's article in the RG yesterday is probably the closest to the truth.

[jake on 01.06.06 at 09:10]

Jamahl Simmons - quoted in the Gazette before the debate:

"I don't think people should be discriminated [against] for what they do in their private lives although I am not a fan of the whole thing."

Jamahl Simmons - quoted after the debate: “I voted no. At the end of the day I have to respect the wishes of my constituents.”

Res ipsa loquitor.

[sandgrownan on 01.06.06 at 09:13]

Fuckwittery.

[Two Cents on 01.06.06 at 09:41]

Jake,

"Res ipsa loquitor" indeed. In fact it speaks volumes regarding the power of the church in Bermuda's political arena.

What a shame there were very few politians willing to take their balls out of their purse and vote with their conscience, as opposed to following the churches wishes.

[Rossini on 01.06.06 at 09:59]

Could this be any more entertaining. Headline : "New UBP meets old UBP....windex works on mirrors!" Welcome to Bermuder Limey.

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 01.06.06 at 10:24]

ohhhh... 'cuz it was the UBPs fault that no-one talked about it. Thaaaat's right. I forgot. Funny.

As for the power of the church:
As I said above, I've come to the realization that they are working it the way we all should be working it. THIS is how to work the system properly. Lobby, force, threaten and cajole our Government to do what we want them to. While I disagree with their stance on this, we shouldn't be decrying them. We should be taking a page from their book... no pun intended... and following their lead. We NEED another power base here, one of people who believe in fairness and secularity.
If BANS can get that stupid smoking ban put in under the lie of protecting people (Which, by the way, has been roundly denounced and NOT been embraced by bar owners, as predicted by many), surely WE can get legislation that ACTUALLY protects people! It just needs to be organized, like the church lobby, like the BANS lobby.

[Wickering Banker :-) ---: on 01.06.06 at 10:24]

As a straight guy I am outraged at this whole episode. Next time I try and rent a place from a gay landlord - he could quite legally tell me to sod off for no other reason than he doesn't like me fancying women.

Just think about that.

[denning on 01.06.06 at 10:32]

Jamaican Q writes:

"I am not anti-gay because i believe what people do is their business. However...i have a problem with them wanting extra special."

Have no fear - the amendment that was proposed would not have given gays "extra special" rights. The Human Rights Act does not confer rights on people, or on groups of people. All of us already have those rights. All the Human Rights Act is intended to do is to give a legal remedy to those among us most likely to see their human rights tromped on. The Act isn't about 'granting rights' -- it's about 'granting remedies'.

Had there been a proper debate, perhaps this point would have been made, fears may have been calmed, and the result may have been different.

[Lovemany on 01.06.06 at 13:07]

Will this amendment support polyamory?

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 01.06.06 at 13:31]

Is polyamory an orientation? No. It is a lifestyle.
This specifically says "Sexual Orientation".

[Lovemany on 01.06.06 at 13:42]

Fair enough Uncle Elvis, but the term Sexual Orientation itself is debatable and can be pulled into different catagories. Further, the term itself changes in meaning over time. Here are a few extensions of the term that perhaps maynot become more mainstreme from lack of support, but make it clear as mud why people are scared of the term.

Extensions of the term Sexual Orientation from www.wikipedia.com

Hani Miletski, a sexologist and author, argued in a "monumental"[3] and "pioneering"[4] reference work and analysis combined with fresh research, that zoosexuality should properly be understood as a sexual orientation, rather than being confused with 'zoophilia' (a paraphilia). Miletski concludes that all three criteria for a sexual orientation proposed by Francoeur (1991)–affectional orientation, sexual fantasy orientation, and erotic orientation–as well as reciprocity of emotion, are met by zoosexuals.[5] This view is supported by Beetz (2002), Donofrio (1996), and others. Beetz adds[6] that zoosexual bonding is "experienced and not chosen" and does not function as a "surrogate", also citing Masters (1962) observations that other than in violent scenarios, animals have often appeared to thrive in relationships with humans.

Some individuals, such as Dr. Fred Berlin, have postulated that pedophilia can also qualify as a sexual orientation.[7][8]

p.s. I love www.wikipedia.com

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 01.06.06 at 14:06]

Then keep reading.

"The debate over whether zoosexuality should be seen as abberation or orientation is a controversial one outside the field and in popular culture"

It is not considered such within the field, only by a select few. There were, what, 4 or 5 studies cited? Less than a handful of sexologists cited? Come on. That's a stretch, put in and made popular for the shock value.

These are extensions. Not definitions.
I know you're playing devil's advocate, but it's really not that hard.

Should they change the wording to "based on which gender the person wants to be intimate with"?

This is nitpicking.

[Michael H. Dunkley on 01.06.06 at 15:33]

Interesting reading on this subject.
I look forward to seeing you and discussing this matter with those of you who show up tomorrow during the protest over the lunch break at the House of Assembly.

[Casual Observer on 01.06.06 at 15:45]

I have to admit that I don't fully understand the fears our public officials have over not being re-elected because of the way in which they choose to vote over this issue.

The reality is that we all could probably name at least a handful of members of government, and MPs who are gay/lesbian and have constantly been re-elected!! It's not rocket-science.

[Trebliso on 01.06.06 at 15:53]

Casual Observor - some are "unelectable" though.

[Bdacurler on 01.06.06 at 16:08]

Once you believe that a gay person is born that way (as opposed to choosing one's orientation), then there isn't much room for debate. How can you discriminate against someone based on how they were born? Very simple.

However, following on Cicero's post re: MP's in Sandy's and Hamilton Parish who did not support the ammendment based on the views of their constituents...isn't that what we always ask of our MPs? We always say that we have voted MPs into power to work for the constituents. If an MP does something that the constituents disagree with, then presumably the MP is not representing the population the way they should.

Personally, I certainly would support the ammendment if asked to but you can't call an MP spineless if they are simply working for the voting population and representing the wishes of the majority of the population of their constituency like they are elected to do.

Seems to me that once you change the collective view of the Bermuda population, the MP's will follow suit.

[Trebliso on 01.06.06 at 16:11]

whats the point of MPs then? why not just have an automated plebiscite linked to some electronic media?

[Casual Observer on 01.06.06 at 16:19]

So were they representing the wishes of the majority of their constituents when they voted themselves a hike in pay?

[Bdacurler on 01.06.06 at 16:24]

Trebliso,

Point taken.

However if, for argument's sake, 70% of the population of Bermuda was against independance and the governement kept pushing the idea, then we all say that the government is being selfish and not listening to the majority of the people.

If for example, 70% of a constituency is not in favour of gay rights, then we who represent the minority 30% say they should listen to us and not the majority.

Of course these figures are hypothetical to demonstrate my point, but it is my view that the majority of the population is rather closed-minded on this particular issue and more education is needed. MPs are simply the messengers...we shouldn't shoot them.

[SmokingGun on 01.06.06 at 16:25]

"Personally, I certainly would support the ammendment if asked to but you can't call an MP spineless if they are simply working for the voting population and representing the wishes of the majority of the population of their constituency like they are elected to do." - Bdacurler

You can when they won't even get up and state the reason why they have to vote one way or the other. The point is how will our leaders ever get themselves educated let alone the general public when they allow such excuses as "bathrooms visits", "listening on the radio", "I was waiting for them to speak first", "Now's not the time for me to speak" to stymie open debate. Get some back bone and say why you are voting a particular way and live with the consequences. That's what's important here.

[Bdacurler on 01.06.06 at 17:03]

SmokingGun,

You are 100% correct, my friend. You can't call yourself a messenger if you're in the can for the debate!

[Phil on 01.06.06 at 19:30]

I emailed Wayne Furbert to ask which articles of the Human Rights Act he believes covers sexual orientation, and why he said the UBP did not have a strategy. I have just received the following response:

"I do not have the article in front of me but it has been told us that it is included.

As far as strategy, John Barritt was correct. My saying that "we did not have a strategy" implied that we did not have a strategy to "stop the debate".

We anticipated that the PLP would have spoken, and we knew that Dale was gearing up for it as the Minister responsible."

More waffle and obfuscation.

[SmokingGun on 01.06.06 at 20:09]

"and we knew that Dale was gearing up for it as the Minister responsible."

Ah Ha so it's true! The bathrooms have been bugged.

[save d cut on 01.06.06 at 21:59]

"........ it has been told us that it is included."
Can you imagine!
Double Holly Shittery