Human Rights Amendment Act debate
I've been informed that the debate of Renee Webb's amendment to the Human Rights Act is likely to begin shortly after 2pm this afternoon. If you're thinking of going along to watch, that's the time to get there.
» The bill was defeated - on a voice vote, in the committee stage. There was no opportunity to call for names so it was impossible to tell who voted in favour and who voted against.
The difference between a committee vote and a vote in the House seemed pretty academic to me - it was all the MPs who were present that were voting.
Unfortunately some - Jon Brunson, for example - were in the back room listening to the debate on the radio when the committee vote was moved. As a result, they did not participate in the vote. Whether this was deliberate, or they did not expect the bill to be defeated in committee, I couldn't say.
The "nays" definitely had the "ayes", but the "nays" shouted their response, while the "ayes" were much more timid.
Most of the "ayes" came from the UBP side of the House, but in my view neither party emerges from this with much credit.
Very disappointing.
» Nelson Bascome was the only member of the PLP to speak on the bill. He justified his opposition to it by saying that in his opinion the Human Rights Act already protected everyone.
He also trotted out the old line about "love the sinner but not the sin". Quite how discriminating against a sinner amounts to loving them, I have no idea. I wonder how he'd feel if every employer in Bermuda refused to hire his son because of his drug conviction?
Archives By Date
Debate is now being broadcas on AM 1240
Posted by debate on 26.05.06 at 14:05
No radio, keep us up to date!
Posted by Full Fullish on 26.05.06 at 14:10
In a similar predicament here...it would be of much use if the web stream was working, but that does not appear to be the case.
Posted by Cicero on 26.05.06 at 14:28
Rene has been speaking for an hour now discussing international precedent, the church, family values, humanity, etc.
Posted by debate on 26.05.06 at 15:00
She had me at international precedent....
Posted by SmokingGun on 26.05.06 at 15:05
One wonders if speaking about it for an hour will actually sway a decided vote. Are there any undecided?
Does anyone not understand the issue? I guess it's debate.
Posted by JJ on 26.05.06 at 15:11
I'm stunned that this is even a debate. They're debating whether or not to discriminate against a section of the community!
Bermuda is an utter disgrace sometimes.
Posted by sandgrownan on 26.05.06 at 15:14
I suppose that debating about discriminating against a portion of the community is better than actually discriminating against a portion of it.
I still haven't forgotten Renee's comments about 'people that look like...' etc.
However, I support 100% what she's doing in this case.
Can't help but wonder whether this is all out of her self-interest though....rather than as a matter of principle as it should be!
Posted by novote on 26.05.06 at 15:21
Novote - wasn't she talking about creating an environment where all could succeed rather than positive discrimination? I agree though, that this does seem like a double standard whne expressed that way.
Posted by sandgrownan on 26.05.06 at 15:27
Speakers have now concluded their comments.
Ms. Webb has now moved that the entire bill be accepted.
Posted by debate on 26.05.06 at 15:35
"I'm stunned that this is even a debate. They're debating whether or not to discriminate against a section of the community!
Bermuda is an utter disgrace sometimes."
Totally agree.
Not only is there going to be a debate on it, the outcome is a foregone conclusion IMHO. There is no way the PLP will allow this to pass and risk losing the support of the bible thumpers.
Posted by ace on 26.05.06 at 15:37
I must say I like Renee a lot more now she is on the back bench. She's able to speak against the govt and has raised some important issues, this one on human rights and also critising the education system and the PLP's crap recaord.
Posted by JJ on 26.05.06 at 15:37
Sandgrownan - my recollection was of positive discrimination being the intent...but either way it's still discrimination.
Anyway - not what this thread's about.
My real point was to question whether Renee's actions are really that principled and altruistic.....irrespective of how right (IMO) they might be.
Posted by novote on 26.05.06 at 15:39
There is no way the PLP will allow this to pass and risk losing the support of the bible thumpers.
Do the Bible punchers all support the PLP? How come the UBP can vote for it ? Do they care less about the religious vote?
Posted by JJ on 26.05.06 at 15:39
Well?? Don't leave me hanging, debate, you said she moved the entire bill be accepted ... What did they do?
Posted by SarahT on 26.05.06 at 15:41
Novote - It's a valid question, and I don't know. She has certainly become more argumentative since moving to the back benches, as per JJ's comment.
JJ - if you follow the other thread where the PLP has, largely, black support, it's also largely black churches and their huge congragations being most vocal in their opposition to this bill.
Posted by sandgrownan on 26.05.06 at 15:44
At the request of her fellow committee members Rene proposed an amendment to her Amendment in order clarify what is meant by "sexual orientation."
Accordingly it has been defined as "sexual orientation towards a person of the opposite sex; sexual orientation towards persons of the same sex; and sexual orientation towards a person of the opposite or same sex."
However, even after inclusion of the amendments of her own committee, the same committee has just rejected the Bill.
Finito
Posted by observor on 26.05.06 at 15:46
Just to clarify the committee was comprised of members and was chaired by Nelson Bascome. It would appear the Bill has to go through committee before being present to the whole house for a vote.
However, even after acquiescing to the committee's recommendations regarding the inclusion of a definition of 'sexual orientation' they still shot it down.
Rene requested whether a roll call of yeahs and nays could be taken and Jennifer said no.
Pathetic ...
Posted by debate on 26.05.06 at 15:51
This is all Sybil's fault....
Posted by SmokingGun on 26.05.06 at 15:51
Unbelievable.
And they want us to go independent on national pride? Being 40 years behind the rest of the world on an issue like this is not something I am proud of.
Where oh where have all the LEADERS gone!
Speaking of which, who was on the committee?
Posted by SarahT on 26.05.06 at 15:52
SarahT - don't know. Presumably PLP members as they are the government but I don't know much about Parliamentary procedure to be sure.
Posted by debate on 26.05.06 at 15:53
From politics.bm:
"Renee Webb's bill proposing the inclusion of sexual orientation under the Human Rights Code was resoundly and swiftly defeated moments ago. It appeared that no-one other than Ms Webb was willing to speak on it, although I did miss a little bit of the debate, if we can call it that.
The Bill was defeated in committee, therefore there was no formal vote in the House and therefore - no names.
Profiles in courage indeed."
Posted by debate on 26.05.06 at 15:55
That's disgusting.
I'm ashamed to be Bermudian.
Posted by spoint on 26.05.06 at 15:56
I should know if such a committee is bipartisan or not but unfortunately appear to have mentally blocked out all my experiences in the House of Assembly and with politicians in Bermuda in general.
Can't imagine why!
Did they not give a reason for why the committee rejected it? Don't they have to have a reason, why didn't they put it to a vote??
Aaarrgh I wish I was there ...
Posted by SarahT on 26.05.06 at 15:58
Doesn't surprise me in the slightest!! Rather sad that the administration had to kill this at the Committee stage, and not let it get to the house.
Posted by Pitts Bay on 26.05.06 at 16:01
Who are the members of the committee?
Posted by Tiger Bay on 26.05.06 at 16:01
Jennifer wouldn't allow it to go to yeah and nay? Ace girl, waz up?
2 to 1 odds this gets on Oprah......
Posted by SmokingGun on 26.05.06 at 16:05
I'm starting to get House flashbacks. Does anyone know if the committee considering the bill was a whole house committee - in which case it's every single one of our politicians who can take responsibility for deciding that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is ok - or a standing committee, which just reflects each party's standing in the House and wouldn't include every member?
Posted by SarahT on 26.05.06 at 16:10
Damn, you lot are fast. I've just got back from the House only to discover I've been scooped by the commenters on my own blog!
Yes, the bill was defeated - on a voice vote, in the committee stage. There was no opportunity to call for names so it was impossible to tell who voted in favour and who voted against.
The difference between a committee vote and a vote in the House seemed pretty academic to me - it was all the MPs who were present that were voting.
Unfortunately some - Jon Brunson, for example - were in the back room listening to the debate on the radio when the committee vote was moved. As a result, they did not participate in the vote. Whether this was deliberate, or they did not expect the bill to be defeated in committee, I couldn't say.
The "nays" definitely had the "ayes", but the "nays" shouted their response, while the "ayes" were much more timid.
Most of the "ayes" came from the UBP side of the House, but in my view neither party emerges from this with much credit.
Very disappointing.
Posted by Phil on 26.05.06 at 16:11
These people are a blight to humanity. I am disgusted.
Posted by novote on 26.05.06 at 16:17
If you're gay, don't pay. If Bermuda isn't willing to protect your rights then stop paying any taxes.
Dumb-ass politicians might as well tell Dr. Brown to cancel the contract with GlobalHue. The ramifications of this decision could be costly.
Posted by SmokingGun on 26.05.06 at 16:19
This should be on Oprah.....so some poor unsuspecting person, with lots of disposable income, doesn't make the mistake of spending it here.
Posted by spoint on 26.05.06 at 16:19
Shame on them all. What a fucking disgrace.
Posted by sandgrownan on 26.05.06 at 16:23
Nelson Bascome was the only member of the PLP to speak on the bill. He justified his opposition to it by saying that in his opinion the Human Rights Act already protected everyone.
He also trotted out the old line about "love the sinner but not the sin". Quite how discriminating against a sinner amounts to loving them, I have no idea. I wonder how he'd feel if every employer in Bermuda refused to hire his son because of his drug conviction?
Posted by Phil on 26.05.06 at 16:33
If Bascome thought that the HRA already protected everyone, then what is the harm in including this amendment - i.e. for the avoidance of doubt, you can not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
What a fucking cop out that is.
Posted by Pitts Bay on 26.05.06 at 16:36
"I wonder how he'd feel if every employer in Bermuda refused to hire his son because of his drug conviction?"
Isn't it illegal to do this now?
Posted by ace on 26.05.06 at 16:38
You could refuse to hire him becasue his dad's a fucking idiot?
Posted by sandgrownan on 26.05.06 at 16:40
Yes, has been since 2000. But as Mr. Bascome was keen to point out "you can't legislate morality".
Posted by Phil on 26.05.06 at 16:40
It would be easy to avoid employing Bascombe junior.
Just make it a requirement for him to be able to travel to the US for work.
If you had to hire him, you could send him to the US for a training course...and then fire his ass when he didn't turn up!
Posted by discriminationRus on 26.05.06 at 16:43
Although two wrongs do not make a right, I think it would be great if every homosexual employer in Bermuda now refuses to hire heterosexuals, and if every homosexual landlord refuses to rent out their apartment to straight people.
Moreover, when doing so, they should write a letter to the editor trumpeting what they have done.
Perhaps that's the only way to persuade some of those pricks up at the House and in the church that discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation can be a real bitch, and make them realise that this legislation would have protected them too.
Posted by Phil on 26.05.06 at 16:45
Limey, Did Renee do a good job?
Posted by JJ on 26.05.06 at 17:09
Right did not win out today, but that does not mean we should follow wrong.
Renee's Bill failed to pass, but we will have one in the future - there is no doubt about it. The world is moving toward greater freedom, and we cannot stop it here.
I am not ashamed to be a Bermudian. This setback will only make the inevitable victory that much sweeter.
I have no doubt that tactically the Sybil issue hurt the chances of success, but I welcome her inclusion in the debate. I want to win this one when the support is prominent, not sneaking through the back door.
Fundamentally we are right and right does not need to sneak. Right walks upright and is proud while humble. A candle held in the midst of a dark room cannot be hidden.
This is but round one.
Posted by jake on 26.05.06 at 17:12
Very philosophical Jake, but I still want to march up the hill and beat some sense into them all!!
Posted by sandgrownan on 26.05.06 at 17:14
Two words: Mother. Fuckers.
Sadly, I'm not surprised but, Jake's right. This is but round one. Right will win out in the end.
Posted by loki on 26.05.06 at 17:17
"A candle held in the midst of a dark room cannot be hidden."
Well it can, until some bright spark comes along and lights it. ;-)
Posted by SmokingGun on 26.05.06 at 17:18
I thought she did a great job. She spoke extremely well. She addressed the comments of the church lobby head-on, but wasn't rude to them (although I laughed when she made a show of ripping up a pamplet attacking homosexuals that one member of the church lobby had been distributing).
She did, however, walk out of the chamber just as Nelson Bascome was starting to respond to her, which I didn't think was particularly tactful. After everyone had spent over an hour listening to her (well, most people - some seemed to be dozing), I thought she could have returned the compliment.
I did try to take detailed notes, but was told by a clerk that that is not permitted in the public gallery unless you're a member of the press. What a bullshit rule that is.
Posted by Phil on 26.05.06 at 17:19
"I did try to take detailed notes, but was told by a clerk that that is not permitted in the public gallery unless you're a member of the press. What a bullshit rule that is."
Particularly when Government does not post transcripts of Parliament and does an extremely poor job of communicating what goes on on the Hill.
Posted by Tiger Bay on 26.05.06 at 17:22
Didn't you let them know you were The Limey?
Posted by SmokingGun on 26.05.06 at 17:24
"I did try to take detailed notes, but was told by a clerk that that is not permitted in the public gallery unless you're a member of the press. What a bullshit rule that is."
"Oh. Press! I thought you said, 'Opress'. Carry on, sir..."
Posted by Adjustah on 26.05.06 at 18:42
"... not sneaking through the back door."
I apologize for my childishness, but...
BWAH HA HAAAAAAA! Now THAT is funny.
Sorry. Childishness over.
It frightens me that we're allowed to discriminate against a sector of our community. Allowed by law. Brilliant.
Posted by Uncle Elvis on 26.05.06 at 18:54