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?
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 The Limey 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 The Limey 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 The Limey 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 The Limey 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 The Limey 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
How sad this day is that your government has condoned the right to openly discriminate against people who aren't like them.
Jake has made a good point that you should not be ashamed of being Bermudian but you should be compelled to take a stand as a united group and let your lawmakers know that they have done a great disservice to you and your country.
Ask your religous patriots how it is that they can pick and choose what part of the Bible to enforce and what parts to ignore.
Posted by Charles on 26.05.06 at 19:15
I do not know if any of you listen to the Everest DaCosta Radio Show. I caught the end of the radio program on my way home from Hamilton and could not believe what I was hearing. The majority of the callers were homophobic to the extent that the vitriol was mind boggling. It included remarks suggesting that all homosexuals were child molesters, that it was similar to a disease and should be treated, etc. You get the picture.
The hatred was palpable.
Bermuda has outdone itself. It truly is another world - certainly not one to be proud of. The narrow minded, bigoted homophobes have won the day. How can any well adjusted, educated person feel comfortable in such a society.
We should all hang our heads in shame.
Posted by chapa on 26.05.06 at 20:23
As a Gay Bermudian now living in the States, I am terribly dissapointed as this was the exact reason why I left Bermuda (Discrimination agaist Gay's) and I'm not even noticeably Gay, I feel sorry for the people who are.
Posted by BdatoUSA on 26.05.06 at 20:57
I like to see a healthy debate, but I'm delighted to see that for once on this blog there is unanimity.
Posted by novote on 26.05.06 at 21:20
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
What's really frightening is how few people government is not allowed to discriminate against. As someone pointed out on the bible thread, expats get a rough go as well, especially if people find out they are gay. I knew a few who were out like a shot as soon as the wrong people found out.
I agree with the general sentiment. Not much else to say about this. It's sad.
On a lighter note, I can't wait until the first openly homosexual government takes office and refuses to answer "Bath house Questions".
Posted by silencedogood on 26.05.06 at 22:14
Can anyone offer an opinion on what is right and what is wrong when it comes to human behaviour? One of the things that strikes me about this discussion is that the core position is that gays are being discriminated against. But for the discrimination argument to have merit, doesn't there have to be a very clear argument for what is right and wrong? If you really think about it, most of the world's sexual rules are governed by religion or other social norms. What then is absolutely wrong with other forms of so called 'perverse' or 'deviant' behavior? Should necrophilia be outlawed? Exactly what is wrong with incest, polygamy, or pedophilia? Heterosexuality and homosexuality are only two classifications of sexuality, and I don't see how anyone can rule out things like beastiality. If I want to get whipped by a dominatrix or fuck a cow, then that should be my right. So what if the cow can't consent to it. They don't consent to getting slaughter to become a Big Mac or a leather jacket either. Who is anyone else to tell me that I can't get busy with Buttercup? Why can't I have that freedom, and am I not being discriminated against too?
Posted by Just Me and Buttercup on 26.05.06 at 22:44
No. Your intrinsic mistake is likening homosexuality to perversion, thus likening HETEROsexuality to it. Homosexuality is a sexual preference, a GENDER preference. There are only two sexes that I know of, thus there are only three preferences. One, the other or both.
Necrophilia, paedophilia and bestiality are not sexual preferences as dead is not a gender, animal is not a gender.
Polygamy is a whole 'nother issue to do with marriage, which isn't part of this discussion.
Bondage/Domination/Sadism/Masochism are, at the least, style choices and at the most, lifestyle choices. They don't fit, as you cannot be discriminated against for that.
The consent thing is about the only thing you got remotely right. Paedophilia (and bestiality... and, I suppose, necrophilia) are done without consent and are therefore rape. Are you going seriously going to argue FOR rape?
To make the argument you do here, you are classifying homosexuality as something it's not and trying to lump it in with perversions. Now, you may THINK it's a perversion, but it is simply a case of who you are attracted to as a partner. A cow cannot be your partner. Sorry, Buttercup.
Posted by Uncle Elvis on 26.05.06 at 23:14
"On a lighter note, I can't wait until the first openly homosexual government takes office and refuses to answer "Bath house Questions".
Ok.. coffee squirted out of my nose.
And I'm not even drinking coffee!
Posted by Uncle Elvis on 26.05.06 at 23:15
"Your intrinsic mistake is likening homosexuality to perversion, thus likening HETEROsexuality to it."
It wasn't a mistake. I'm questioning what is right and what is wrong, who is discriminated against, bore, bore, bore. The point being that you really can't outlaw anything when it comes to sexual choice if your decisions are based purely on science. Let's say that I choose 2 sleep with a woman instead of allowing some surfer dude to drill me. That's my sexual preference, right? What about a cadevar then? If it's my choice to do a dead person, then what's the big deal? Am I not being discriminated against if necrophilia is against the law? If the whole idea is freedom, then why can't I have the freedom to fuck a cow? What's wrong with that? And what if a child actually says yes to having sex with an adult? You have consent there, but the rulez say that they have to be 16 in order to give consent. What's so special about 16yrs old? What makes heterosexuality okay, but all the other types of sexual activity subject to questioning?
Posted by Just Me and Buttercup on 26.05.06 at 23:27
So... not only do you not get it, you don't read the posts.
You're still likening homosxuality to a perversion. It's a gender choice, so it has nothing to do with any of the other shit you're bringing up.
But, you keep on thinking how you do. You are quite obvious in your thoughts on the subject, with lines like "...allowing some surfer dude to drill me" (BTW, why a surfer dude? Are they known to be gay? That confused me.)
I'm guessing nothing I say will be listened to, so you keep on hating. Enjoy that.
Posted by Uncle Elvis on 27.05.06 at 00:33
"Is it possible to be the government minister responsible for equality while wishing in your heart to smite all sodomites asunder?"
The Sunday Times May 14, 2006
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,24393-2179283,00.html
Thought this might be an interesting read for you all considering the topic.
I agree this is 'round one' and I too disappointed in the result. We (Bermudians) as a people are the only ones that can change this and change will come but it may take some time yet. Education, education, education. Ask the BPHA about how long it has taken them to achieve even small steps. i.e. wheelchair access to public places.
I'm in to do all I can to end all discrinimation in Bermuda.
Posted by Bulb on 27.05.06 at 05:16
"You're still likening homosxuality to a perversion. It's a gender choice, so it has nothing to do with any of the other shit you're bringing up."
In discussing the concept of a free society, I choose not to limit my question to homosexuality. Extramarital sex was considered deviant at one point, as is promiscuity. Things like beastiality and pedophilia are still considered deviant. My only question is what makes sex between a man and a woman unquestionable, and everything else subject to debate. If I feel like having sex with a woman tonight, then I'm deviant and subject to discrimination. I say that I choose to sleep with a woman instead of a man, or I say that I was born a lesbian, and society has an issue. Is it possible that some people are born with an inclination to sleep with a cow in the same way that a woman might be born with an inclination to sleep with a man? Where is the clear line that decides what is acceptable and what is not? A really free society shouldn't be able to discriminate against sexual choice or preference of any kind, so why are heterosexuals allowed to have sex on any terms, but homosexuals, polygamists,bore, bore not allowed to choose. Who are you to say that I can't sleep with a cow? What's the real argument against any other kind of sexual preference?
Posted by Just Me and Buttercup on 27.05.06 at 08:11
"....A really free society shouldn't be able to discriminate against sexual choice or preference of any kind,....."
Buttercup - come on then.......... we are all ears to hear you argue the case for paedophiles - after all in your free society, they will be free to rape children.
So go on - pls explain.
pj
Posted by peter j on 27.05.06 at 09:18
Uncle Elvis,
For some reason it seems that you are having quite some difficultly comprehending the meaning of Buttercups questions. You seem like a pretty smart guy which leads me to believe that you are trying not to understand Buttercup because it doesn't fit with your line of reasoning.
In so many words, Buttercup is basically saying that when it comes to sex (i.e. ALL types of sex), should a line be drawn (if at all) between what is right and what is wrong when it comes to sex? Who should draw that line and why should it be there instead of somewhere else?
I will assume that your answer will be along the lines of "the line should be between two consenting adults, regardless of their gender". Many others will say "the line should be between two consenting adults of the opposite sex". That's their opinion.
Everyone,
Since you sound so genuinely upset about it and you feel like you want to "march up the hill", why dont you do it? If this is such a big issue to you and you feel that you have the local support to actually drive a decent protest, why aren't you doing it?
If you dont do it then it kinda shows that you'd rather go fishing on your boat this weekend than fight for gay rights in Bermuda. Venting yourselves on LIB isn't going to make any change at all.
Posted by Bermudian on 27.05.06 at 09:24
Bermudian, I understand his questions, but the questions are flawed. What he is doing is lumping homosexuality in with...
you know what, forget it. I've explained it. I am not going to repeat myself over and over. If you don't get that there's a difference between a preference for a certain gender over the other and fucking kids... that's your problem.
You guys conveniently ignore 90% of my post 'cuz you don't want to hear that homosexuality isn't a perversion.
I have answered his questions. Just 'cuz the answers don't fit with his mindset doesn't mean that I didn't.
Oh, and by the way...
at the most very basic, paedophiles, cow fuckers, necrophiliacs... they're breaking the law. Homosexuals aren't. Just so y'know.
Posted by Uncle Elvis on 27.05.06 at 10:03
The Bermuda department of tourism ran a television campaign in Ontario last year, which stated, at the end of the commercial:
"Bermuda, the height of human civilisation"
...how ironic.
I've emailed this thread to the news departments of those stations that ran the campaign....I think people should really know what they'd waste their money on, if they were to visit Bermuda.
Oh, Buttercup, If you're really that desperat to have sex with your cow....just do it in privacy...not in my face...I don't need to see that shit!
Posted by curious on 27.05.06 at 10:52
The only time society should have a right to draw a line is to protect some other person or animal's rights from being violated. Unfortunately this kind of philosophy is termed "liberal" and most people in the world do not subscribe to it. They feel that for some reason they need to legislate our sex-lives and morality.
Posted by Michael Taylor on 27.05.06 at 10:56
Elvis,
I see where you are coming from. Speaking for myself, I am still undecided on the issue.
I think most of us know that homosexuals aren't breaking the law... that didn't really need to be pointed out. It's kind of ironic in that you bring the law into your defence when in this post, you are clearly stating that the law isn't always right.
The point is that people have different moral values. To you (and me as well), having sex with an animal is morally wrong and pervertive (and repulsive btw). To some, it may be perfectly fine. To some, homosexuality is morally wrong and perverted (and also repulsive). To some, like yourself, it may be perfectly fine.
Posted by Bermudian on 27.05.06 at 11:02
What is it about "Consenting adults" that confuses you so much?
A cow = cannot consent.
A human adult = can consent.
Posted by Orangy on 27.05.06 at 11:21
That's not what I'm saying at all.
What I'm saying is that there is a MAJOR point of difference between homosexuality and bestiality. They are not in the same category and, no matter what you think about the repulsiveness of it, should not be compared.
I have explained this. Read the posts.
Posted by Uncle Elvis on 27.05.06 at 11:22
Elvis - dont waste yr breath on them - closed minds + they refuse to answer your v valid points in yr posts.
kids.
Posted by peter j on 27.05.06 at 12:01
Admittingly this ammendment to the HRA has had me torn in different directions. I was so hoping for a meaningful debate to help educate me on what exactly Ms. Webb was looking to accomplish. I also wanted to learn why people feel storngly against it. It was disgusting that it was not fairly debated. The Minister in charge did not even speak to it. It seemed as though everyone that normally has loads to say on issues that can be so petty held on to thier silence when the public really need to hear from them. Why was debate and responsibility to debate shuned away from? That in itself was discrimitory.
I now understand what gay people must encounter and yesterday's non debate told me that discrimination on sexual orientation is real and needs to be dealt with.
Posted by save d cut on 27.05.06 at 12:02
"The point is that people have different moral values."
Well some consider inter-racial sex immoral.
Does this mean we should consider the racist's feelings and allow a God fearing landlord to evict his white tenant because she gets a black boyfriend?
Many "moral values" are nothing more than basic prejudices cloaked as something more palatable.
Posted by Curious on 27.05.06 at 12:15
well put, curious.
How about unmarried people living together? That's immoral AND a sin!
It's a ridiculous argument.
Posted by Uncle Elvis on 27.05.06 at 12:24
As I stated in my earlier post, it would have been nice to have a decent debate. I believe it is a fact that gay people are discriminated against, but shouldn't they be covered in the HRA as it stands and we need to uphold already existing legislation? Is to single out sexual orientation really necessary? Will we then have to pass laws for every discriminated against group? Maybe someone was not hired because they have nose piercings or a landlord said they do not want people who die their hair purple living in their apartment? Again some education would have been helpful.
Posted by save d cut on 27.05.06 at 13:00
"Maybe someone was not hired because they have nose piercings or a landlord said they do not want people who die their hair purple living in their apartment?"
Having piercings, tattoos or purple hair is a choice the person made. Being gay isn't.
Posted by Uncle Elvis on 27.05.06 at 13:03
Shouldn't gay people that are discriminated against hold some responsibility in complaints against discrimination. Are their many who have documented their complaints in writing? What was the outcome?
Posted by save d cut on 27.05.06 at 13:07
Uncle Elvis - IMMHO your first response to Miss Buttercup was as far as you needed to go.
I'm all for equal rigfhts so I don't have a problem if a guy wants to fuck a cow. As long as the cow get's his turn. ;-)
Posted by SmokingGun on 27.05.06 at 13:09
Uncle, Thanks. That does help make more sense to the argument.
Posted by save d cut on 27.05.06 at 13:10
save d'cut - I agree wholeheartedly that our so called political leaders undermined their credibility by not making sure there was extensive debate on the subject. One little thing that people seem to forget is that a gay person is a human being. Someone who has a mother, father, brothers and sisters. So if people think this issue isn't important and only affects a small amount of people, think again.
Posted by SmokingGun on 27.05.06 at 13:14
How can they complain? It's not against the law to discriminate against them. Who would the complain to? The HRC has proven that they'll throw out anything not under their provenance, so that's a waste of time. The Government has shown time and again that they have no problem with people discriminating against homosexuals.
Who would you suggest they complain to?
Posted by Uncle Elvis on 27.05.06 at 13:22
Thanks, Smokes.
and I agree. The cow SHOULD get his turn!
Save D., I just reread my post above and I can see it may come off as a little confrontational. Please be assured that that wasn't the intent.
Posted by Uncle Elvis on 27.05.06 at 13:26
I agree! God made all, and all are different. Some are born blind and some are born with no limbs. No one should be less loved. All deserve to be treated equal.
This goes back to mu original question. How or how not is the current law protetcting them? Nelson bascome said they should already be covered under existing legislation. Is that true? Has it been put to the test?
'
Posted by save d cut on 27.05.06 at 13:26
Save d,
As far as I know, they are not protected at all.
You can still be fired for being gay. Not for "letting some surfer dude drill you" (a phrase I still don't get, but now love for the sheer bizarre randomness of it), but for being gay. You can be chaste, celibate, a virgin, whatever, but if you let slip that you're gay, you can get kicked out of your rented home with no legal recourse.
Posted by Uncle Elvis on 27.05.06 at 13:34
"Bermuda, the height of human civilisation"
Wow! I bet Dr. Brown had a hand in that one. No wonder people don't come in the same numbers anymore if this is the attitude portrayed abroad. How embarrassing.
Elvis,
I wouldn't make the argument about legality. Sodomy was illegal for a long time and in some places still is. Legislated morality is just a snap shot of a particular culture's views at the time its enacted and has little to do with the intrinsic right or wrong of an issue.
BTW, I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body. It's time I came out! ;)
Posted by silencedogood on 27.05.06 at 13:40
Sorry to be such a pest on this beautiful day, but I do have one more question.
I know two women that have lived together for years. They are a couple. If the politicians did not chicken out yesterday and the ammendment passed,
would these two women ever get to be treated equally, really? Could one collect the others pension if a death occured? Could one be put on the others health insurance? Is it discriminitory according to sexual orientation not to allow such benefits?
Shame on Dale..... Cocka a doodle doooooo
Posted by save d cut on 27.05.06 at 13:43
I think in the context of discrimination, it does have some validity.
I never liked John Stubbs as a man, nor a doctor, but he did do at least one good thing and that's get the bill put through.
Now that it is not illegal to be gay, it only seems to follow that anti-discrimination legislation, to come in line with the rest of the legislation, is in order.
Posted by Uncle Elvis on 27.05.06 at 13:48
From the RG:
"The Royal Gazette attempted to contact every Government Minister last night. All except Deputy Premier, Dr. Ewart Brown refused to comment or could not be reached.
Dr. Brown said he did not vote for or against the motion in the House of Assembly.
"I am a firm advocate of human rights for all, including homosexuals," he said last night after the House had finished. "I elected not to speak today. I intend to speak on this issue another time and another place."
When asked if the House of Assembly was not the best place for the country's second in command to state his opinions and move the debate forward, he said he would not comment further."
Looks like someone's wanting to become #1 by treating people like #2. Smells like snake oil to me.
Posted by SmokingGun on 27.05.06 at 13:49
Save d, that is a whole 'nother can o' worms, couples rights and gay marriage and, and, and...
*grin*
I think the legislation that they were working on for yesterday is a baby step towards equal rights for all, where a couple that have dedicated themselves to each other can have some legal rights.
But for now, they just want some job security, the knowledge that they can't be turfed out onto the street and some recourse if someone spits on them and calls them a fag.
Posted by Uncle Elvis on 27.05.06 at 13:52
Homosexuality is the founding father of racism.
The economic policies are responsible for poverty worldwide. Liberals cannot take defeat they are illiterate in politics. Human sacrifice is the African way to deal with this according to Baba Tunde.
Posted by Oyo traditional ruler on 27.05.06 at 14:22
(Quote from the RG)
Human Rights Minister Dale Butler, who supported the bill, told The Royal Gazette he wanted to speak but missed his chance by going to the bathroom.
He said: "I came back from the bathroom and lo and behold we had moved to committee. I didn't have to speak but I wanted to speak but the thing moved so quickly. I had worked all afternoon on my speech."
How bloody pathetic can you get. I am disgusted.
Posted by Martin on 27.05.06 at 14:23
Nelson Bascome is a fool and Dale Butler is following the white man like a dog. This is why many rulers sold slaves to our white brothers to get rid of this evil and backwardness. this is not over under Independence Freddie Wade will be dugg up for his vote to insult the black man May 13th in 1994. throw his bones in pembroke dump pond and piss on them. Oduduwa peoples rise up! Black gay liberals go to hell!
Posted by Oyo traditional ruler on 27.05.06 at 14:29
the hell?
What was all that drivel about?
How about sentences that actually make sense instead of just words strung together.
Lucidity, baby. You might want to try it.
Posted by Uncle Elvis on 27.05.06 at 14:39
"He said: "I came back from the bathroom and lo and behold we had moved to committee. I didn't have to speak but I wanted to speak but the thing moved so quickly. I had worked all afternoon on my speech.""
All those in favour of installing phones in the bathrooms raise your hand. Not that one you idiot!
Just a thought: One would have thought that in a country that is 70% black and has a government in power that is 100% black that there might be a little more sensitivity to the concept of discrimination.
Posted by SmokingGun on 27.05.06 at 14:43
Um, Elvis,
you seem so passionate about all of this...and you keep saying we are ignoring your answers...blah blah...
what about actually doing something about it? It seems to me that typing responses on LIB all day truly does trump mobilizing a protest ...or am i wrong?
...on another note, it seems we aren't the only ones
Banned Moscow gay rally
Posted by Bermudian on 27.05.06 at 14:54
I beg your pardon?
Do you know me? Do you have knowledge of what I do or don't do with regard to this?
I'm just curious. You seem to want to call me on this, but I don't know you, at least I can't tell if I know you or not.
And what does you guys pointedly ignoring my answers in order to make things fit have to do with my activity in this arena?
As for "typing responses on LIB all day"... you seem to think that it's useless, wasted time. I disagree. If I can get the point across, a point a do believe in and AM passionate about, to one person, and I think I have with at least Save d cut, then I think it's worthwhile.
Who exactly are you to try to call me on this? I'm really curious now.
As for the Moscow thing...
Now it's ok to discriminate because RUSSIA does it? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by putting that link up. Care to elaborate?
Posted by Uncle Elvis on 27.05.06 at 15:08
Bermudian - I too am a little lost as to why you seem to have a problem with someone like Uncle E posting his opinions on this blog as a way to express his dissaproval of the ruling other than having to lead a gay rights parade up the hill, even if you consider his views overly passionate.
I happen to have a few gay friends but I'm probably the last person that they would expect to be leading a parade. I might do all sorts of things to help protect or support their interests but that doesn't necessarily mean I will desire to be front and center on the issue. I'm the same way with many issues. However if I were a member of Parliament or an elected official I would most certainly be participating in the parade in this case.
Posted by SmokingGun on 27.05.06 at 15:26
I quite frankly am greatful for this site and those who take the time to write in. I read posts almost everyday and enjoy the opinions. I dont always write however I learn about the issues that concern our commuity from this site than from the people running the country.
As for Dale being in the bathroom that is bullshit! Someone else told me they were in the bathroom and missed their turn to speak. After Nelson Bascome it was thought a member of the opposition would take the mic, but I guess they were in the mens room too. They were all chicken shit and did not want to speak on this because they did not want to lose the church voters.....it was all about the votes!
Posted by save d cut on 27.05.06 at 15:40
Elvis,
I dont know you, nor do i care to.
I look forward to seeing what you have done with regards to this.
"And what does you guys pointedly ignoring my answers in order to make things fit have to do with my activity in this arena?"
Where did I make this connection? I'm sorry but whereever you got that from, that was not what I was implying. Even so, I've never ignored your answers. I was simply trying to tell you where Buttercup was coming from. I told you that I was undecided on this issue and I am simply trying to hear what both sides have to say about the issue. Your close-mindedness is ignoring what I have to say because you only want to hear what you want to say. I want to hear both sides. You only want to hear yours.
As for the Moscow thing, it's obvious your defensiveness is clouding your judgment. I simply added that to show that the struggle for gay rights is also a global issue... perhaps the struggle for gay rights should be on Oprah, but not as if it is a problem that is endemic to Bermuda.
I dont see much happening with this issue in the near future because most of the voters who support gay rights do not want to speak up about it and the opposition are very vocal about it.
Posted by Bermudian on 27.05.06 at 15:41
Bermudian,
Did a member of the opposition speak? I did not hear.
Oyo traditional ruler,
Did you know that English is normally used in this country. Have you been hanging out with Ras Mykal lately?
Posted by save d cut on 27.05.06 at 15:47
What is all the hype about. Homosexuality is no longer against the law. If one feels they are being discriminated against they can take it to HRC. You all have underestimated the power of the church lobby. Obviously the gay community never bothered to lobby the politicians, or if they did, they must have done so with small numbers. Majority rules! End of story, just like the cabbies had to do...get over it.
Posted by fifi on 27.05.06 at 16:08
"I dont know you, nor do i care to."
Wow... that was harsh. Ok. I'm actually a really nice guy. We'd have a laugh!
"I look forward to seeing what you have done with regards to this."
Well, that's really none of your business, is it? I don't really have to answer to you, do I?
"Where did I make this connection? I'm sorry but whereever you got that from, that was not what I was implying."
It may have been the phrase, "and you keep saying we are ignoring your answers...blah blah...". But if that's not what you intended, cool. Bygones.
"Even so, I've never ignored your answers. I was simply trying to tell you where Buttercup was coming from."
I completely understood, before your post, where Buttercup's lover was coming from. In MY post, I pointed out the flaw in the logic of the supposition. And there is a flaw, as I explained. He (or she... I'm really not sure the gender of Buttercup's significant other) ignored what I said and kept going on about "sexual choice". I had already explained this, so I think I can safely assume that he, or she, ignored what I said. When you stepped up to try to explain their questions, which I had already answered, with your explanation of "Where should the line be drawn?", I figured that you either hadn't read my post or had ignored what I said, as I explained that there is a MAJOR difference between homosexuality and paedophilia and bestiality. They should not be put on the same side of the argument.
"I told you that I was undecided on this issue and I am simply trying to hear what both sides have to say about the issue."
No, you said you were undecided. You didn't say anything about trying to hear both sides.
"Your close-mindedness is ignoring what I have to say because you only want to hear what you want to say. I want to hear both sides. You only want to hear yours."
What? I'M closed minded? Buttercup's love slave (and, judging from your posts, you) can't tell the difference between finding someone of the same gender as you attractive and fucking a cow, but I'M the closed-minded one?
Jesus.
I've HEARD the other side. I KNOW the points that they're going to make and they're all bullshit. All of them.
"As for the Moscow thing, it's obvious your defensiveness is clouding your judgment. I simply added that to show that the struggle for gay rights is also a global issue... perhaps the struggle for gay rights should be on Oprah, but not as if it is a problem that is endemic to Bermuda."
And this is news to ANYONE? I wasn't being defensive. I simply asked why you posted that. It was posted on this blog earlier and I was curious why you brought it back up.
"I dont see much happening with this issue in the near future because most of the voters who support gay rights do not want to speak up about it and the opposition are very vocal about it."
It's less that they don't want to speak up and more that they just get shot down, continually. When a man is told by the (now former) head of the Human Rights Commission "Get the fuck out of my office, you faggot." and then driven off the island, fired for being gay... well.. it gets a little disheartening.
Posted by Uncle Elvis on 27.05.06 at 16:10
That's gotta be one hell of a bathroom that they got there, it seems almost everybody was "in the bathroom"....How Pathetic
Our elected 'leaders' should be ashamed of themselves, especially those who talk so passionately when it comes to equal rights.
It goes to show once again that in Bermuda as in Animal Farm, "Some are more equal than others".
Posted by Two Cents on 27.05.06 at 16:13
"If one feels they are being discriminated against they can take it to HRC"
Um.. fifi... this is the point. They can't take it to the HRC. It's not against the law to discriminate against them. It's perfectly legal to fire someone or throw them out of your house or refuse them service, simply because they're gay. They don't even have to be sexually active. A person who has been celibate for a decase, but happens to find someone of the same gender attractive, can still be fired from their job for it and there's NOTHING they can do about it.
Posted by Uncle Elvis on 27.05.06 at 16:14
"It goes to show once again that in Bermuda as in Animal Farm, "Some are more equal than others"."
Careful... you'll get Buttercup's partner all hot and bothered!
"mmmmm piggies!"
Posted by Uncle Elvis on 27.05.06 at 16:16
All together now:
"Why do you build me up (build me up) Buttercup, baby
Just to let me down (let me down) and mess me around
And then worst of all (worst of all) you never call, baby
When you say you will (say you will) but I love you still
I need you (I need you) more than anyone, darlin'
You know that I have from the start
So build me up (build me up) Buttercup, don't break my heart"
Posted by SmokingGun on 27.05.06 at 16:22
UE,
This is where I am confused. Nelson Bascome said they are protected. Are they or not?
Two Cents,
They were all in the bathroom because they are all full of shit!
Posted by save d cut on 27.05.06 at 16:23
Now I am going to have that song in my mind all day, but now you have ruined its meaning for me. lol
Posted by save d cut on 27.05.06 at 16:26
As far as I know, they are not. Hence the need for this legislation.
Posted by Uncle Elvis on 27.05.06 at 16:27
Seems to me to be open and shut, where do you think it went wrong....do you think it was who brought it to the floor? If someone "more respected" by both sides brought it it would have gone through?
Posted by save d cut on 27.05.06 at 16:31
Renee brought it to the floor because it is a subject she is obviously passionate about. It shouldn't matter who brings it up. The simple fact is that the request was for a clarification in that homosexuals were protected from discrimination. It should have been a no-brainer considering the fact that homexuality is not breaking the law in Bermuda.
Now we must wait to see what happens when the first gay person brings a case to HRC.
Posted by SmokingGun on 27.05.06 at 16:39
Interesting and provocative comments. Thanks for those who voiced supported or stated their position, for or against. I respect both. Would have been great if my colleagues did same. Re persons who question my motives, and used the "looked like me comment". It is true that I ofen have said that "I want more people to look like me to own more in Bermuda". I continue to fight for economic empowerment of same. By doing so, or saying what I say, is not a form of discrimination. I cannot understand that connection. It is like saying including the the sexual orientation clause in the HRA would lead to same sex marriage, both are a quantum leap. Enjoy the blog, and continue to stand up for equality. Renee
Posted by Renee Webb on 27.05.06 at 17:22
"I want more people to look like me to own more in Bermuda". - Renee
Safe to assume you mean't "who". Not that I don't find you attractive. ;-)
However, I do think you might want to clarify in your comment that it should be at no expense to anyone else who might not happen to be a woman of colour.
BTW - I think you garnered a lot of respect by taking your position and I hope you have another opportunity to push it forward again soon.
Posted by SmokingGun on 27.05.06 at 17:33
I take my hat off to you Ms. Webb. I think if there were more people in power with courage to stand up for the rights of the people who elected them, Bermuda would be in a better position. I think all know deep down in their heart, no one should be discriminated against for anything. It was just ashame no one from your party or the opposition wanted to take that gamble with the votes. Bermuda suffers at the hand of such cowards!
Posted by save d cut on 27.05.06 at 17:44
Ms. Webb (assuming it's really you)
You brave attempt to move Bermuda forward, has won you much esteem in my eyes. Keep up the fight for this & other worthy causes that allow equality for all, and generally make Bermuda a better place for all of us.
Posted by Two Cents on 27.05.06 at 17:45
Ms. Webb,
There has been something that has bothersome. It is, when someone(like you)lobby for something that will help a certain group( like the gay community), normally you will see more of them band together. In the US there is an immigration bill before the House and the illegal immigrants came out in support of their own cause. Where were Bermuda's gay population and why did they not stand behind you as well?
It is always great to blame Government, but should they have been more vocal in standing up for themselves as well?
Posted by save d cut on 27.05.06 at 18:04
" Where were Bermuda's gay population and why did they not stand behind you as well?"
They were hiding in the closet, because it's the safest place for them to be in Bermuda, as they have no fundamental protection against discrimination if they're outed.
Posted by curious on 27.05.06 at 19:15
Congratulations, Ms. Webb, for being the only person in the House to stand up for this badly-needed amendment to the Human Rights Act. Whilst it would appear that the Government benches ultimately crushed this (no doubt, putting their concern for the church vote above basic morality), I am appalled that no one from my side of the House (the UBP) bothered to speak on this issue and stand up and be counted. Sorry, but the reason given by John Barritt just doesn't make any sense. The UBP failed me and others that have remained loyal to them. Actually, I want to know why my MP (Jon Brunson) wasn't actually in the House for the vote and why he was silent on this issue. I'm not gay, but I believe in basic human decency, and the fact that my MP, for whom I voted, wasn't apparently in the House pisses me off IMMENSELY. This is but round one.......
Posted by loki on 27.05.06 at 19:16
If you wanted to really ruffle some feather, this could be thrown back at the AME church which has been so vocal in denouncing this bill:
The bible's explanation for black people is that Cham, one of Noah's sons, broke the command for celibacy while aboard the arc. The resulting offspring, Chus, was black. Thus, in the biblical explanation, blacks are the result of sexual transgression. I think we can all appreciate the irony here.
What I think we also can appreciate (including the members of the AME church that would find this objectionable) is that biblical scriptures need to be open to criticism and adjusted to the age we live in. The above explanation is ludicrious and demeaning to blacks; no one in their right mind should subscribe to it. As our attitudes to race have changed over the years, our stance to this passage in the bible has also changed. A similiar thing should take place with respect to sexuality.
Posted by Edward Rance on 27.05.06 at 19:22
Curious,
I understand that point. My reason for asking the question was simply, many people had to express courage in order to bring about justice for their cause. There are many examples through history. Rosa Parks for one. I just saw a documentary on women in sports where Billie Jean King had to stop hiding and display an act of courage to bring women to where they now are recognized. Gay and Lesbian families just spent Easter on the White house lawn in support of their ideals.
I think there are enough people in Bermuda who do not hide the fact they are gay. I know several that are gay and proud. Bosses, co workers friends and families know they are gay and still they were silent. I just thought she could have used a bit of help from the people she was fighting for.
Posted by save d cut on 27.05.06 at 19:35
"In so many words, Buttercup is basically saying that when it comes to sex (i.e. ALL types of sex), should a line be drawn (if at all) between what is right and what is wrong when it comes to sex? Who should draw that line and why should it be there instead of somewhere else? I will assume that your answer will be along the lines of "the line should be between two consenting adults, regardless of their gender". Many others will say "the line should be between two consenting adults of the opposite sex". That's their opinion."
That is the issue.
- You can argue that they were born that way. The counterargument is a request for scientific proof of someone being born heterosexual or homosexual. Is everyone who participates in homosexuality, really gay? A further counterargument is that even if someone was born gay that does not mean that they should be given equal rights any more than someone born with another type of sexual inclination.
- You can argue that it is a matter for consenting adults. Okay? at what age can someone give consent? The law is not an absolute arbiter, so is 16 really the dividing line? Is a teacher and her 15yr old student really doing something wrong? If you were born gay, then does 16 even matter? What is so special about 16? Consent isn't required to eat an animal or use its flesh for clothing, so why not sex?
- You can argue that the religious reasons for not changing the law are hypocritical. The counterargument is that (as shown) plenty of what the church professes is paper-thin, but proving that they are hypocrits does not in itself create an argument for seeing homosexuality in the same eyes as heterosexuality. There are strong scientific arguments for seeing the two as very classes of behavior.
The gay rights movement is their own worst enemy, because they have taken an absolute position on their "rightness". Take Sybil in the parade. Should she have been able to participate in the parade or not? The pro gay camp says that she absolutely is discriminated against when told that she can't be in the parade. Hmmm... Well, if not the parade, then why not the office? Is the pro-gay camp so sure of their position, that they believe that it would be perfectly right and normal for someone like Sybil to show up for a meeting at Ace insurance dressed in drag? How about RIMs? What's wrong with going to RIMs in drag? What if one of your tenants held a drag queen BBQ right on your front lawn? Does the landlord have any say about that? From being plain gay to full blown super queen, are you so sure that all of this is perfectly normal?
I don't support the religious right or the gay left on this issue. It's just not that simple, and both have taken extreme positions. I think there are people in both camps with a few screws loose, to be perfectly honest. While I think gays should have a degree of protection, I'm not willing to fling the doors wide open without real discussion on where the line should be drawn. I'm not the landlord who is going to be happy to have a drag queen BBQ on his front lawn, but I am entirely against someone losing a job for being gay. Who is right, and what is wrong? That's a very big question.
Posted by Just Me and Buttercup on 28.05.06 at 08:25
The religious community, as well as our PATHETIC elected officials should hang their heads in shame.
Posted by Wickering Banker :-) ---: on 28.05.06 at 09:05
save d cut writes:
Shouldn't gay people that are discriminated against hold some responsibility in complaints against discrimination. Are their many who have documented their complaints in writing? What was the outcome?
And where or to whom should such complaints be delivered? As the law now stands, there are no grounds on which such discrimination has standing; there is no arbiter to whom such a complaint can be addressed. Documented or not, there is no agency or agent authorised to hear such a complaint.
And as for whether someone chooses or is born with a particular sexual orientation:
The Human Rights legislation prohibits discrimination against someone because of their race, a trait one is born with.
The same legislation prohibits discrimination against someone because of their religious beliefs, a stance based on choice.
Whether one is black (or white), or one is Christian (or Moslem), I think we’d all agree that it would be improper to permit one to be subject to discrimination. We wouldn’t be saying that someone is wrong to be black, or wrong to be Christian.
I think we need to separate arguments about whether a particular sexual orientation is right or wrong from arguments about whether it is legitimate to allow someone’s sexual orientation be a ground for discrimination.
Posted by stuart J Hayward on 28.05.06 at 10:40
Fifi has had a change of heart on this. When you get right down to it, most of the opposition is based on this being a sin according to the Bible. However, if we honestly look at the ten commandments, I believe there are few of us without sin. I may not agree with everything Ms. Webb has to say, and her manner can be a bit abrasive, but you've got to give her her due, she has the balls to stand up for what she believes is right, which is more than we can say for most of our wishy washy politicians. I also believe that the majority of homosexuals are born with their sexual preference, and should not be penalised for something they didn't have a say about. This matter will come up again some day, and hopefully, next time around, they'll do the right thing.
Posted by fifi on 28.05.06 at 10:49
Martin writes:
(Quote from the RG) “Human Rights Minister Dale Butler, who supported the bill, told The Royal Gazette he wanted to speak but missed his chance by going to the bathroom….”
How bloody pathetic can you get. I am disgusted.
Martin,
I have been in the same boat. When the Clean Air Act was being debated, I worked for weeks on my speech on the Bill. Like many speakers (in parliament and out) I went to the bathroom prior to making my speech. While I was out of the Chamber, the Minister in charge cut off debate (with a procedural tactic) so that there was no chance for me to contribute. I was devastated, and took a public flogging for not taking part in the debate.
I would ask that you give Minister Butler some benefit of doubt. While sitting in the Chamber for hours, one’s bladder remains active. It makes sense to visit the bathroom before standing to speak. It’s a bit harsh to condemn him for that.
Posted by stuart J Hayward on 28.05.06 at 11:05
Very interesting reading about the proceedings in Parliament in connection with Ms Webb's amendment. One of the common threads through many comments posted was that the lobby for Ms. Webb's amendment was very weak while, and this w