Pro-democracy protest

Following the defeat of Renee Webb’s proposed amendment to the Human Rights Act last week, a rally is being organised to protest the lack of debate among MPs.

An email that circulated yesterday suggested that the protest was a show of support for Ms. Webb’s bill. Since then, however, the aim has shifted slightly. “We are not protesting the bill's defeat but the failure of MPs to debate,” says Suzanne Mayall, one of the protest organisers. “Parliamentarians' refusal to speak on a controversial issue for political expediency is not acceptable. So no matter what side you're on, you have reason to be there if you think you deserve to have heard the arguments of MPs.”

The lack of debate was indeed shameful. But was it really more important than the failure of MPs to pass the bill?

I can’t help but wonder if the organisers have made a tactical error here. Those who opposed the bill are unlikely to protest a debate which got them the result they were looking for, particularly if they think they might be mistaken for one of the bill’s supporters. Those who supported it may be less likely to turn out for a “pro-democracy” rally than they would to vent their anger at the result of the vote.

The rally will be held at 12.15pm this Friday, June 2, on the grounds of the House of Assembly. The aim is to provide a welcoming committee for MPs as they emerge from the House for their lunch break, and is expected to take around 15 minutes.

Despite my concerns, I’ll be there. A low turnout would make it easy for people to suggest that gay rights don’t have widespread support in Bermuda, after all. I encourage anyone unhappy with what happened last week to join the protest too.

Comments

[SmokingGun on 31.05.06 at 10:00]

"The lack of debate was indeed shameful. But was it really more important than the failure of MPs to pass the bill?" - The Limey

I would say that it is just as important when our laws can easily stymie any real progress by simply having too many people claiming they were in the bathroom.

[Zoom on 31.05.06 at 10:04]

Particularly when we all know that a few of them were actually in the closet.

[SmokingGun on 31.05.06 at 10:14]

Zoom Zoom ;-)

[observor on 31.05.06 at 10:25]

I've been wondering .... if the government of the day believes the current legislation provides sufficient protection from discrimination for all Bermudians (inclusive of sexual orientation) perhaps the declaration of members' interests forms should be updated to include a couple of check boxes to also reflect the respective members' sexual preference(s) ...

[Suzanne Mayall on 31.05.06 at 11:47]

Limey

I appreciate that you think the failure of the amendment is important - I do too. But this is a very contentious issue for Bermuda society - making debate all the more key. Someone may not feel strongly about the Human Rights amendment, but what about the next controversial issue that they do feel strongly about? Is it OK for politicians to simply choose not to debate it? Progress is stymied by lack of discussion. It is how we hash out who we are and what we stand for as a country. And whether or not I am at odds with what leaders decide we are ready for - I want to know that there has been a public discussion. It is a slippery slope to allow politicians to avoid issues for political expediency.

[Zoom on 31.05.06 at 12:47]

The Bermuda Sun says that the bill was also shot down within the PLP Central Committee - which seems to have an inordinate amount of power over our Government.

The Sun identifies BIU firebrand Laverne Furbert as being a member of the Central Committee.

Who are the other members?

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 31.05.06 at 12:47]

I guess what would interesting is to see how many on this blog who constantly complain about MPs and their supposed lack of accountability will stand up and be counted at this protest.

SmokingGun, just out of curiosity and the fact that on the thread Invertibrates you were so outspoken, will you be participating in this protest?

[sandgrownan on 31.05.06 at 13:34]

I will be there.

[Civil on 31.05.06 at 14:06]

It should be noted that by refusing debate, thereby defeating this bill, it remains legal in Bermuda to discriminate against heterosexuals.

[SmokingGun on 31.05.06 at 14:12]

Guilden - unfortunately the timing coincides with my scheduled bathroom break. ;-)

Actually I don't get back on island till next week so I'm out. However I'm thinking of sending a couple of postcards.

[Darkside on 31.05.06 at 14:14]

I will be there.

[sandgrownan on 31.05.06 at 14:19]

Guilden you are deliberately confusing the issue here (or maybe not deliberately!). The problem with independence and the use of a reforendum or not is that it's a clear cut policy/political debate with theoretically a debate going on for the pros and cons. (in reality there isn't much debate unfortunately just crap information from ministers). BFR are taking the political will of a the majority to a government that refuses to listen.

This is not the same as the ammendment tabled by Renee last week. This is a simple moral issue about discrimination. LEave out for the moment that it's about homosexuals...just discrimination. The members (of both sides) decided that a vocal group of church goers were the moral yardstick of the community. THe problem with the church as debated over and over again is that it is ALL open for interperatation and should not be used as an excuse to deliberately exclude a section of the community. It may well be that the majority of people in Bermuda dislike gays (shame on them if they do) but they are wrong to do so. Completely wrong. And the members should have had the balls to take a stand. We all look like neanderthal idiots as a result.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 31.05.06 at 14:31]

Sandgrownan,

Did any MP specifically state that he/she was basing his/her view on what the church told him/her? If not than you are assuming.

[Zoom on 31.05.06 at 14:33]

Guilden - I have never liked the PLP structure where a faceless and unaccountable central committee calls the shots over cabinet. And I am horrified to know that an unelected radical like Laverne is in such an inflential group.

[wyrdsister on 31.05.06 at 14:39]

If this bill had not been opposed by "the bible bashers" would there have been more of a debate? Of course, no one wants to say the wrong thing and offend voters, the right and wrong of it is not as important as ensuring that as many votes as possible will gained in the next election. Right and wrong and morality are not important to the Bible thumper, being seen in church and a superior attitude is though

[sandgrownan on 31.05.06 at 14:42]

Actually Guilden, Alex Scott said so earlier this week.

[WTF on 31.05.06 at 14:48]

Woah there sandgrownan, dont' let reality get in the way here

[sandgrownan on 31.05.06 at 14:49]

Ha!

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 31.05.06 at 14:50]

wyrdsister,

Please explain to me who the "Bible thumpers" are that you refer to.

How do you know that right and wrong and morality are not important to certain people? Do you know what's in their heart? Just because you do not agree with how they act or react does not give you the right to judge.

Isn't your judgement of these persons expressing your "superior attitude"?

[SmokingGun on 31.05.06 at 14:50]

From the Bermuda Sun:

http://www.bermudasun.bm/main.asp?SectionID=24&SubSectionID=270&ArticleID=29694

It was a done deal. If Renee ever wants to get it passed she'd better seriously start thinking about where her loyalty should lie. If this is how "our" elected officials get things non-done then we've got a lot more to worry about than we think. Hmmm.... maybe I'll try to fly back early.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 31.05.06 at 14:52]

Sandgrownan,

"Actually Guilden, Alex Scott said so earlier this week."

Ok, I will give you that but that is one MP what about the other sitting MPs?

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 31.05.06 at 14:55]

SmokingGun,

Are you seriously trying to tell us that you had no idea that politics is about making deals? How do you think most democracies operate? They operate via favours and lobby groups.

For an indication take a look at the lobby groups in Washington DC and their political clout.

[silencedogood on 31.05.06 at 14:57]

Guilden - unfortunately the timing coincides with my scheduled bathroom break. ;-)

Posted by SmokingGun on 31.05.06 at 14:12

I had to go to the bathroom until I read that and started laughing...damn...funny and not so funny. J/J

[sandgrownan on 31.05.06 at 15:06]

For Pete's sake Guilden - won't you ever let up!? One MP? He's the bloody Premier. What do you want me to do, go and ask them all as they leave for their bathroom breaks?

As for bible thumpers - these are the people who put blind faith ahead of what is right, what is wrong and common sense. They claim to be Christian, but feel it's OK to discriminate. It doesn't matter one bit if they like or dislike homosexuals, they should know it's wrong to discriminate. The mere fact that they were unable to send the right message makes them bible thumpers. Ignorant, imbecelic neanderthals who put faith ahead of a simple moral choice. Everytime the "church" does something like this it reduces its standing and importance.

The PLP central committee are appalling in refusing to even talk about the issue. Shame on them all.

[SmokingGun on 31.05.06 at 15:14]

"The PLP Central Committee" - the phrase alone gives me the shudders.

Sounds like we all should be waving bright red flags with CCCPLP stitched on them.....

[Adjustah on 31.05.06 at 17:07]

"The PLP Central Committee" - the phrase alone gives me the shudders..."

Achtung! Shrinken sie nicht meine driveway, bitte!

[wyrdsister on 31.05.06 at 17:18]

"wyrdsister,

Please explain to me who the "Bible thumpers" are that you refer to.

How do you know that right and wrong and morality are not important to certain people? Do you know what's in their heart? Just because you do not agree with how they act or react does not give you the right to judge.

Isn't your judgement of these persons expressing your "superior attitude"?

Posted by Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 31.05.06 at 14:50 "

anyone who feels that going church makes them better than everybody else, that because they read the bible they know all and that some mystical being is going to make everything right for only them and all they do is go to church and pray. I have heard enough crap from "christian" people to sour my attitude towards those kind of people. Truly good people do not see the need to condem others for their beliefs, or their lifestyle. I don't think I'm better, but I do try to have an open mind.

[SmokingGun on 31.05.06 at 17:24]

"Are you seriously trying to tell us that you had no idea that politics is about making deals? How do you think most democracies operate? They operate via favours and lobby groups." - Guilden

Guilden my friend, if you can point out to me where the "deal" or "favour" was accomplished I will be happy to show you just how much influence our churches have over our current decision makers. The fact that our parliamentarians were stymied from the start from even debating the issue is the real deal. And in my humble opinion that's a bigger deal than anything the church or political party brings to the table.

Remember seperation of church and state swings both ways.

[Advocate on 31.05.06 at 18:03]

Remember seperation of church and state swings both ways.

Posted by SmokingGun

And according to the rumour mill quite a few government MP's do as well....

[SmokingGun on 31.05.06 at 18:13]

Are you "advocating" something mon sherri? ;-)

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 31.05.06 at 18:16]

wyrdsister,

Thanks for clearing that up. Unfortunately you are correct some people who go to church and call themsleves christian do not act very christian like but plese do not lump all of us in the same category.

I have always been taught, and hopefully continue to live by the words, "Treat your neighbour as yourself." I am sorry for your experiences but not everyone is the same, please understand that.

SmokingGun,

Let's just say I have a document in my possession that evidences some financial issues that occurred with a particular political party and it layouts how a certain group of people authorised the use of shareholder funds, without approval and disclosure to "assist" the party. If you knew who the author of the document was you would understand political favours.

I would never release this document because I have no desire to harm anyone and it is now a dead issue. But you would be very surprised at somethings that have occurred under the heading political favours.

[Rossini on 31.05.06 at 18:17]

I have been entertained for a week now by all of you people who suddenly support Renee Webb. Aren't you the same crowd who called for her head when she said "those pictures in the House of Assembly should be taken down and replaced by ones of people who look like me...".Maybe its me....

[The Limey on 31.05.06 at 18:26]

Rossini

I usually criticise people when they do something with which I disagree and praise them when they take a stand which I believe is right.

What do you do?

[It Does Matter on 31.05.06 at 18:28]

Guilden - I have never liked the PLP structure where a faceless and unaccountable central committee calls the shots over cabinet. And I am horrified to know that an unelected radical like Laverne is in such an inflential group.

^This simply means you do not like what this world terms democracy. It isn't a PLP thing. Its a Western World thing.

Politics in this corrupt world thrives on corporate influence. The ignorant bash the government, when in reality, it's the corporations and merchant class who call the shots.

Politicians are power-deprived. You should know that. I would rather a committee call the shots behind closed doors, before tryanical merchants like Trimingham, Gibbons, the Bank of Butterfield, ASH, Conyers Dill etc do same.

[SmokingGun on 31.05.06 at 18:36]

Guilden - I have no doubt that there are and have been many distasteful shenanigans on both sides of the bench.

Rossini - I personally requested Ms. Webb consider altering her commentary when she graced our humble blogosphere. Tearing down the walls of discrimination isn't quite the same as tearing down historical portraits off the walls. I have no problem with women or people of colour being extremely successful and recognised for it. It just shouldn't be at the expense of others.

[novote on 31.05.06 at 18:39]

The really scary thing is that a single interest group is so powerful that it was able to drive our politicans to silence.

Who knows what they will be able to persuade the government to do next, now that they have been able to exercise their influence so visibly.

[It Does Matter on 31.05.06 at 18:40]

So tearing down pictures of white people is offensive to you. What if tearing down those pictures would assist in realigning the Black psyche. Don't the pictures stay up at the expense of some.

But that's really a moot point. No need talking about it. I dont think this discussion should fall into the depths of why those pictures should come down for historical reasons.

Anyway. Forget I typed anything.

[SmokingGun on 31.05.06 at 18:50]

"So tearing down pictures of white people is offensive to you. What if tearing down those pictures would assist in realigning the Black psyche. Don't the pictures stay up at the expense of some." - It Does Matter

Wrong mind-set. Instead of tearing down historical pictures why not put up some additional ones? When will you start to recognise the value of your own people without insisting on destroying others first?

[Advocate on 31.05.06 at 20:44]

Are you "advocating" something mon sherri? ;-)

Posted by SmokingGun on 31.05.06 at 18:13

No not at all.... Just couldn't resist a good play on words.

Having said that I am deeply concerned about the precendant that was set last Friday. Putting aside the moral and/or religious objections to the proposed human rights amendments I think what took place last week highlights how Mr. & Mrs Average Bermudian have abdicated our responsibility as citizens in a democracy.
Social change comes about as a result of the people coming together to lobby, campaign, march, sit-in, etc. Whether or not you agree with the church's stance on this issue - one cannot deny that they lobbied and lawmakers on both sides of the house clearly knew the church's position. That cannot be said for those in favour of the legislation.
The concept of lobbying for basic rights may seem luducris but it is necessary - even in the year 2006. No social change has ever occured from the top. Risk taking is seldom the hallmark of elected officials.

[Burst Bubbles on 31.05.06 at 21:04]

You people crack me up. Here you are blaming the AME church, and its power to influence the PLP when the UBP crumbled over its desire to attract the same lobby. What is more ridiculous is that the AME church isn't the only church with an anti-gay stance. They just happen to be the body with the greatest swing vote power (whites don't vote PLP, remember). That doesn't make them any worse than the other churches though. Do you honestly believe that the Catholic and Anglican churches support this amendment (please spare the Catholic jokes)? And what makes you so sure that people who aren't in the church are in support of this bill? I know plenty of people who aren't "bible thumpers" and trust me, they aren't voicing much anger about the rejection of the bill. Certainly in terms of the majority, most people seem to not care at all, or appear to be happy to leave things the way they are.

A note to the marchers protesting the failure of MPs to voice their opinion on this bill. Where were you when the UBP flat out refused and continues to refuse to provide any kind of opinion on independence? What they are doing with the gay bill is hardly any different from their strategy on independence!

[SmokingGun on 31.05.06 at 21:17]

Advocate - always appreciate a good play on words and also the rest of your post.

Burst Bubbles - sorry to burst yours but I do believe the march is to complain about "both" parties and how they handled democracy in Bermuda. Maybe it will get some UBP pols re-thinking about how, when and if they are going to put pressure on the PLP's dicking around with our future.

[Michael Taylor on 31.05.06 at 21:27]

Guilden,

Can you send it to me?

[Full Fullish on 31.05.06 at 21:58]

So a show of hands, who's going to this shin-dig? I'll be there.....

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 31.05.06 at 22:03]

"I usually criticise people when they do something with which I disagree and praise them when they take a stand which I believe is right."

Nailed it in one. That's exactly what I was gonna say, except it was far more succinct that I could have put it.

As for Bible thumpers:

Yeah, they drive me bonkers, too. I recently went to a service that started out amazingly. All joyousness and praise for the Lord. It was a wonderful experience... until the pastor started in on the gays... and then the Jews. Why can't we just praise Him and not have all the negativity? That's not His message.
Anyways...

Regardless of whether they're right or wrong, whether Christ was gay or not, whether they're hypocritical or assholes or ignorant, whether it's fair or not, these past couple of weeks have made me realize something.
I used to be in the "Shut up, GodSquad! You have no right to tell me how to live!" camp, but I've realized that, you know what? They do. They're citizens, just like me. Their voices count just as much as mine does.
I disagree with their thinking on MANY of the things that they push for, but I've come to understand that I have to defend their right demand them. They're working the system how I think the system should be worked. They are forcing the Government (both sides... this isn't an anti-PLP rant) to do their jobs and represent their constituents.
Isn't that what we keep calling for? For the Government to be accountable to us, the citizens? Well, this is how to do it! They are doing EXACTLY what we keep calling for.
They are organized, they make demands and have the clout to back up the threat. They CAN fire the Government.
While I disagree with the demands, I CANNOT disagree with how they do it. They ARE doing it right. They are treating the Government as their employees, which is how I think it should be done.

The problem comes, not with them doing it, but the fact that they're really the ONLY ones doing it.
I don't believe that they are the majority, but they ARE the only group that is unified, organized and willing to threaten to vote based on performance and not on party lines.
THIS is why they're courted.

Hopefully, Friday will be the start of another group that will be able to work the system like this.

[save d cut on 31.05.06 at 22:04]

I will be going...
I am really mad. I always look forward to listening to the theatrics of Maxwell Burgess.
I find him so entertaining. I thought he would have had a field day with the debate. I feel cheated!
lol

[Burst Bubbles on 31.05.06 at 22:06]

"Burst Bubbles - sorry to burst yours but I do believe the march is to complain about "both" parties and how they handled democracy in Bermuda."

Exactly how is my bubble burst? Here is outrage that our politicians did not speak their minds on gay rights, an issue are of little relative consequence to Bermuda's future. But when our politicians (the UBP) zip their lips about independence, this actually gets support. So funny that you complain of a failure of democracy when it doesn't work in your favour.

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 31.05.06 at 22:09]

Um.. when was Independence put to the house as a bill like this? As far as I know, we still haven't decided, as a nation, whether we're going to even talk about it being something we want to do.
Independence is nowhere NEAR as far along as this proposal was.
It's a nice try at a correlation, but not even close enough.

[SmokingGun on 31.05.06 at 22:20]

Burst Bubbles - an issue of little relative consequence to Bermuda's future?? I think you might be having difficulty comprehending just what the march is all about. The point is to let our government leaders know we want them to start standing up and speaking out about how they go about making the decisions that are in the best interest of all Bermudians. To create and engage in proper debate. The gay issue is just the catalyst that exposed a serious flaw in how our leaders operate.

There really shouldn't be any partisanship on this issue so I do not understand why you want to keep flogging the pony on the zip-lips of independence.

[Denis Pitcher on 01.06.06 at 10:40]

I'll be there...

This stands as a perfect example as to why "representative democracy" does not work for our country.

I am ashamed with both our parties for their lack of action. It isn't about human rights so much as the rights of our people. How many more important issues will be sidlined in the face of a looming election (anywhere from 6 weeks to 2 years from now), simply because those in power would rather not lose that power.

It isn't even about whether or not they are for or against this issue, we should at least have been provided the decency of knowing that they voted and what the overall outcome is. Having "gone to the bathroom" during the vote is not an acceptable excuse. Silence is not democracy, no matter which party you support or what your stance on the issue.

"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
Martin Luther King Jr.

[ken on 01.06.06 at 11:09]

Denis,

You write
"I am ashamed with both our parties for their lack of action. It isn't about human rights so much as the rights of our people. How many more important issues will be sidlined in the face of a looming election (anywhere from 6 weeks to 2 years from now), simply because those in power would rather not lose that power.

It isn't even about whether or not they are for or against this issue, we should at least have been provided the decency of knowing that they voted and what the overall outcome is. Having "gone to the bathroom" during the vote is not an acceptable excuse. Silence is not democracy, no matter which party you support or what your stance on the issue."

But does your disgust with this situation only sit with the government as your post suggests? Because it doesn't look too smart for the Opposition as the 'supposed' government in waiting to take no stance either and sit on their collective hands during this entire situation either? While you may not condone the PLP for not participating, you should also condemn the Opposition for not participating, as they are the ones that need to win. They should be tackling the issues and offering their opinions/views especially in Parliament so that people do see them as a viable alternative.

Also, regarding the bathroom excuses offered up by Minister Butler. Denis, you seem not to use this as a plausible excuse, but how do you feel about Jon Brunson's excuse that he was listening to the debate on the radio in another room? To me that is as weak an excuse if not more weak?

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 01.06.06 at 11:17]

um.. so the phrase "I am ashamed with both our parties for their lack of action" doesn't count? For me, it is the defining sentence. It makes it quite obvious that he is talking about both parties, mainly because... um... he's talking about both parties.

Or didn't you read that?

[ken on 01.06.06 at 11:20]

Elvis

I did read that, and I knew someone (you) would pick up on that. But I also read the part about "How many more important issues will be sidlined in the face of a looming election (anywhere from 6 weeks to 2 years from now), simply because those in power would rather not lose that power" which to me refers to the PLP as they are the ones in power...

and I also read the part "Having "gone to the bathroom" during the vote is not an acceptable excuse." referring to Minister Butler.

All I am saying is be fair in your criticisms.

[sandgrownan on 01.06.06 at 11:26]

Ken - how about this - MP's on both sides of the house demonstrated last Friday that they are all a bunch of wankers. Fair enough criticism?

[Trebliso on 01.06.06 at 11:28]

"spineless craven wankers" if you please.

[ken on 01.06.06 at 11:30]

Sandgrownan,

That indeed would be a fair assessment.

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 01.06.06 at 11:30]

You knew specifically that I, personally, would call you on your bullshit? Wow.. that's flattering.

So now we have to give equal time to both parties in order to be fair? Ok.. I'll be sure to keep an eye out for that in your next diatribe against the UBP.

You wrote "But does your disgust with this situation only sit with the government as your post suggests?", which is, at best, disingenuous, as he answered the question in the first, defining statement. The fact that, later on in the paragraphs, he used specific examples only on one side does not negate the fact that he has already said that he was disgusted with both sides.

There was nothing unfair in his statements, nothing biased.

[ken on 01.06.06 at 11:50]

Elvis

Did I say you have to give equal time to be fair? I don't recall saying that.

[Walla on 01.06.06 at 12:11]

Ahhhhh... the separation of church and state, that age old quandary.

[Denis Pitcher on 01.06.06 at 14:05]

Ken,

Why do you constantly assuming that every comment is a wholehearted attack on the PLP and a cheer for the UBP.

I clearly stated that I am disgusted with both parties, not one.

Likely, you took the following statement in a biased way:

"simply because those in power would rather not lose that power."

By "those in power" I was referring to the 36 individuals elected to a group of restricted membership that effectively controls what happens on our island.

I targeted the "was in the bathroom" remark not because it was a PLP member who said it, it's because it's an all too common excuse for more then just this recent event.

The fact that Jon Brunson was listening on the radio (which I'm taking your word for, as I havn't yet read this) in another room is not something I'm happy with either. We're paying people to be there, we're paying people to vote. Failure to do so without a reasonable, and I stress reasonable, excuse, is worthless.

I condemn both parties. The sad thing is the only choice we've got is to chose between at the next election is these two or not vote for any.

[RedOnion on 01.06.06 at 14:30]

I have a good excuse for not attending the protest as I am off the island. I will be interested to see how many MP's from both sides venture outside to see or talk with the protestors. Very few I would think, it might interfere with the 12:15 bathroom break.

[SmokingGun on 01.06.06 at 14:34]

RedOnion - No worries. I had a word with the janitor. He's locking the bathroom doors for one hour starting at 12.15 pm.

[ken on 01.06.06 at 14:43]

Denis

The reason I might take your comments (and others) in that manner, is because more often than not it seems that is the intended manner.

I realize the PLP is the government and due to this they will garner more criticism because they are the decisionmakers or legislators or what have you. But I find that in most cases you are willing to overlook the past and in doing this you cast a negative outlook over anything PLP yet find excuses for the UBP.

With Friday's proceedings, I personally am disappointed in both parties handling of the matter. Despite the positions (whether for or against) I feel that the 36 members should've voiced their opinions rather then remaining mute. However I try to be fair and balanced in my criticisms. I could just say that the Opposition has no backbone and cant take a stand...but in doing so I also concede the government dropped the ball in no one speaking.

I think if we are going to hve fair and just discussions about things we all have to be fair and honest, and this honesty begins with ourselves. I am not trying to convert you or anyone to the PLP...but I don't think the PLP is any more to blame in this fiasco as is the UBP. Yes you may have meant the entire government, but maybe as you post you should try and ensure that nothing can be really misinterpreted. These topics can get very emotional and heated and in the spur of the moment things can not be as black and white as they seem.

I think most if not all of us are here for constructive dialogue, but there are some that are hell bent on being antagonizing and not opening their minds up even the slightest bit. And that is what bothers me the most.

[SmokingGun on 01.06.06 at 15:01]

Ken - it's a pro-democracy rally. Plain and simple. Your defense of the PLP in this case in any way shape or form is unnecessary. And feel free to call the opposition a spineless bunch of zip-lips. Let's just hope they'll all at least have their eyes and ears open tomorrow.

[Full Fullish on 01.06.06 at 15:03]

RedOnion - No worries. I had a word with the janitor. He's locking the bathroom doors for one hour starting at 12.15 pm.

Christ, Dales doing the Pee Pee dance already! :)

[Canuck in Bermuda on 01.06.06 at 15:09]

I read it as a criticism of the MPs, not a PLP thing.

And to keep it on topic, I hope to see quite a turnout

[Full Fullish on 01.06.06 at 15:17]

Canuck, absolutely. This is a general disgust at ALL MP's, both PLP and UBP. Kinda falls under the topic, "Well what in the hell are we paying you all for then?" If you ask me....

So do I

[Denis Pitcher on 01.06.06 at 17:20]

Ken,

I appreciate your followup. I try as best I can to be fair and balanced in my criticms.

I think you are confusing my words with someone elses in your suggestion that I "cast a negative outlook over anything PLP yet find excuses for the UBP. "

I would welcome if you would care to look through all of my posts on this site and in most cases I have criticized the UBP as well as the PLP for their failures. If you can find any examples for where I've found excuses for the UBP for something they've failed at, then let me buy you a beer. If you can't, then you're gonna have to get the second round cause I'd welcome sitting down with you for a wholesome discussion either way.

I think the problem arises when many heavily pro UBP supporters jump on the bandwagon when I make comments that target the PLP, but in most cases I am very disappointed with our representatives overall on both sides. Often times I'm chastising both parties and people take it as comments against the PLP and jump on the bandwagon.

I have a tendency to be "willing to overlook the past" in some cases because I try to focus heavily on the present. Simply because in the past the UBP have been crooks and held back many from getting ahead does not mean they are the same today despite carrying the same banner. Just because Germans killed millions of Jews, should I hate all Germans for the rest of time?

My frustrations with the PLP and blind followers stem from my own relatives. My grandmother, as an example, openly proclaimed support for the PLP last election and described them as "They're my party". I was new to politics then, so I was confused. So I asked her why they were her party, what issues she supported, what solutions they proposed, and why she liked them. She stared at me blankly and restated herself "They're my party". I could gain no further explanation from her but that. The only issue that mattered to her was that they were Black, plain and simple.

Certainly I will admit it is one thing to overlook the past, but it is a whole different thing to overlook the present. I could list off issues that arn't being resolved, yet independence is still a core one when the majority of those polled don't want it.

For those of you who falsly believe I am a pro-UBP individual, I would like to contest this opinion. I have personally sat down and had chats with more PLP MPs then I have UBP. I like and respect a number of them and think that truly they are trying to do what is best for Bermuda, which is what I am all about, regardless if I agree or disagree with some of their decisions.

I have considered joining and fighting for either party, but in neither have I seen solid examples of what I stand for. I am pro-Bermudian, plain and simple.

I don't like the fact that both parties always seemed to be steered by "central committees" who control those who are supposed to be our elected representatives.

If you elect someone to represent you, and then they toe the line of following the decisions made by a "central committee", then how is it that your actually being represented?

This is the very core of why I'm going to this rally tomorrow. For me it's not about human rights specifically, it is true rights of government for all people.

If our elected MPs cannot live up to what we're paying them for, then it's time we demand a changed of structure of our government. That way we could decide these issues for ourselves via referendums, for it is clear that they are inable to do so themselves.

What I'm most hoping for, is that regardless of whether you support the PLP or the UBP, that you are first and foremost pro-Bermudian and see the rally tomorrow as a means to show ALL of our MPs that we're truly disappointed in their lack of representation.

[Ball of confusion on 01.06.06 at 18:15]

The PLP submission in the Bermuda Independence Commission under the section of the Constitution reform it will make as outlined on page 9 it reads: "We foresee the provisions protecting the human rights and freedoms of our citizens" ..etc. Clause 3: "The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnany, martial status, ethnic or social orgin, colour, SEXUAL ORIENTATION,age,disability religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth". Members effectively voted against their own submission to the BIC.

[SmokingGun on 01.06.06 at 18:25]

Oh jeesh - now all the Church Ministers are going to show up for the rally demanding to know what the hells going on as well.....

[Bundy & Coke on 02.06.06 at 03:06]

Exactly how many toilet cubicles are there in Parliament?

[TJL on 02.06.06 at 13:46]

Just got back from the rally, and I haven't had time to read all of the above posts so sorry is some of this has already been covered:

1) Despite the intentions of its organisers, it was pretty clear that there were at least as many individuals there protesting in favour of equal rights for homosexuals as there were in favour of simple debate, and probably more. This was no doubt to be expected - I think it would take a very special individual to come out and protest for debate if they ferverently disagreed with granting protection to gays. Some people on this site have taken the high ground and suggested that they support all debate regardless of the subject, and while I can't get inside your heads to see if this is true, I would ask you to quickly consider how you would respond if the MPs dismissed a bill which you found repellant. For me, possible examples include a private members bill calling for the reintroduction of capital punishment, or legislation allowing the torture of prisoners suspected of harbouring useful information - my gut reaction if either of these were introduced and then thrown out without debate would be "Good riddance to bad rubbish, and thanks for not wasting your time and my dollars with this nonsense." I don't doubt this was the opinion of many of those who never wanted this legislation to pass, and hence their absence at today's rally.

2) To all of you who have a very hard time understanding how an individual can oppose discrimination and homosexuality in the same breath, consider that the issue of whether or not being gay is a choice is not yet widely settled (much in the same way that evolution is still contentious). For those who think people can choose their sexual orientation, there is no hypocrisy in treating people differently based upon their choices, particularly if one possible course is felt to be immoral, unnatural, or disgusting.

For the record, I don't think homosexuality is a choice, and I do think Renee's bill should have passed. I just don't think it's fair to assume that everyone who feels otherwise is an evil, hypocritical son-of-a-bitch who doesn't deserve to be heard.

[SmokingGun on 02.06.06 at 14:06]

TJL -
"Some people on this site have taken the high ground and suggested that they support all debate regardless of the subject, and while I can't get inside your heads to see if this is true, I would ask you to quickly consider how you would respond if the MPs dismissed a bill which you found repellant."

Debate and disscussion improves the mind and is healthy. I may have a strong opinion on something but if I never discuss it I will never know if it's really a good opinion or even the proper one.

"For me, possible examples include a private members bill calling for the reintroduction of capital punishment, or legislation allowing the torture of prisoners suspected of harbouring useful information"

What if those bills were passed with little to no debate because half the members were in the bathroom? Would you be repulsed then? Of course you would.

"I just don't think it's fair to assume that everyone who feels otherwise is an evil, hypocritical son-of-a-bitch who doesn't deserve to be heard."

That's a double edged sword you're carrying. As a member of Parliament it is their duty to represent the interest of all their constituents. Everyone should be heard. That does not mean they will all be accomodated and in a true democracy most would understand that.

[Sleepy on 02.06.06 at 14:10]

TJL,

The Human Rights Code protects choices as well, political views/affiliation to name one.

That's a red herring.

[TJL on 02.06.06 at 14:13]

If a bill calling for the reinstatment of captial punishment was dismissed without debate I would be happy, regardless of how it happened.

Good point, Sleepy. I'll have to mull on that some more.

[SmokingGun on 02.06.06 at 14:22]

"If a bill calling for the reinstatment of captial punishment was dismissed without debate I would be happy, regardless of how it happened."

TJL ??

Were you responding to me by chance. If so I think you misunderstood. If the bill passed "allowing" CP and torture without real debate you obviously would not be happy. Correct?

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 02.06.06 at 14:22]

consider that the issue of whether or not being gay is a choice is not yet widely settled (much in the same way that evolution is still contentious).

No, evolution is contentious because people want to teach Bible stories in science class. This is not the same.

The way I look at it is:
I didn't CHOOSE to be straight. There was no choice involved.

"I just don't think it's fair to assume that everyone who feels otherwise is an evil, hypocritical son-of-a-bitch who doesn't deserve to be heard."

I'm with you here. That guy with the "Sodomites" sign was an ass, but a) at least he had the balls to be up there with the rest of the protesters and not whispering behind his hand on the street, tsktsk-ing and shooting the stinkeye and b) ABSOLUTELY has the right to do what he did.
Was he in ill-informed, loud-mouthed bigot? Sure. Does he have the right to come up to the protest with that horrid sign? Abso-fucking-lutely.

Wait.. we can still call them ill-informed bigots, right?

[stuart J Hayward on 02.06.06 at 14:37]

Ahhh RR Uncle Elvis,
Wasn't it you who "assisted" me with an absent closing tag...?

Murphy has a way of humbling us all.

[TJL on 02.06.06 at 14:38]

SmokingGun,

To answer your question, if somehow a bill was rammed through parliament without real debate which brought back capital punishment, I would be outraged. If that same bill was thrown out without debate, I would be thrilled. Hell, even if CP was brought back WITH real debate I would be disgusted. Clearly my concern is not so much with whether or not debate occurs, but rather with whether or not I get my way on the subject of capital punishment.

My point is that I am skeptical of people who suggest they are in favour of MPs debating subjects which they hold very strong opinions against. I oppose capital punishment down to my very bones - it is not an issue I am willing to concede "to each their own" on, but rather I believe in my heart of hearts that I have the issue right, and anyone who supports it is wrong. However, it is a very contentious issue in politics, and has many supporters. Were an MP to propose a bill suggesting we reinstitute capital punishment, and some MPs fled to the bathroom while others dismissed it in committee without debate, I would not shed a tear. I would not think democracy had died. I would be glad that we have intelligent (or at least savvy) enough MPs to not waste their time discussing an issue so horrid and backwards.

The allegory here is that we shouldn't be surprised that the rally today turned into a pro-"equal-rights-for-gays" protest, despite the explicit intentions of the organizers for it to be a pro-"debating-the-subject-regardless-of-your-view" event. There may be some of you who can divorce your feelings on a subject from how you think the subject should be decided in government. But I very much doubt it.

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 02.06.06 at 14:55]

Actually, with me, it's Murphie! *lol*

It was good to shake your hand, Mr. Hayward. Nice t'meetcha. And thanks for being there.

Teej, I have to disagree. I think, and I can only suppose, that if a Capital Punishment Bill was brought up, (Which, like you, I am completely against) and thrown out with this much disdain and cowardice, I'd still be pretty pissed off.

[SmokingGun on 02.06.06 at 15:00]

TJL - I do not disagree that a "strong opinion" may very well win the outcome. Obviously the church's pressure was too much to bear in this case. The issue really is though that debate in the house is not allowed to be "conveniently" manipulated by lame excuses. It's does not do any good for the confidence of the people.

[loki on 02.06.06 at 15:24]

Stuart,

I didn't get a chance to shake your hand at the rally, but I did see you talking with the chap with the bigoted sign (and never did get the opportunity to ask him how lesbians can be 'sodomites'). What were you saying to him? It looked as though you were trying to rationally talk to him, though I must say that it resembled quite a restrained and masterful exercise in diplomacy on your part!

It was disgusting how he refused to let anyone else have their say with his interuption. At one point, as my buddy Saul was being interviewed, he actually stood right behind him with that disgusting sign. Despite repeated requests, he also refused to let Ms. Webb have her say. Why, oh why, are the right-wingers always represented by the crazies?

[Tiger Bay on 02.06.06 at 15:31]

"and return to hatred of the government Renee Webb represents"

I am no fan of Renee Webb. But she took the intiative, and think she's right on this one.

The problem with Bermuda politics is that everything is treated like it's binary, umm, black and white. However the issues facing our society are not.

And for the record, I think the UBP's performance was poor.

[JJ on 02.06.06 at 15:52]

I am reading this wrong or is this ex Arch Deacon coming out in favour of the bill?

[loki on 02.06.06 at 20:28]

"I am reading this wrong or is this ex Arch Deacon coming out in favour of the bill?"

He is, indeed, JJ, which puts the lie to the claim the the Anglican Church is no different to the AME church on human rights issues.

[Turtle on 02.06.06 at 22:42]

Archdeacon Hollis has always been an extremely progressive and compassionate man, who - I believe - truly understands the message of Christianity. I wish more were like him. When AIDS awareness first began to emerge he was a strong advocate for supplying free condoms so that people would be protected and he took a lot of flack for it.

Loki - I am not so sure that there are many like the Archdeacon. Where is the Anglican Bishop on this issue for example????? And any of the other clergy???? Hiding? Like the MPs???

[Bermudian on 02.06.06 at 23:12]

It is quite hilarious how the same people who are so opposed to independence are somehow so passionate about democracy...

...in addition to not getting this upset about education, housing etc., why doesn't anyone get this upset about having an unelected person as the most powerful person in the country?

Surely a person who champions democracy would think that a colonial representative is a complete disgrace to democracy, far more than not having a bill debated in the House!

I guess the people at this protest generally forgot the true meaning of democracy, i.e. government by the people exercised either directly or via elected representatives.

[J Starling on 02.06.06 at 23:30]

Bermudian, I agree that under the colonial system of government, while providing us with a good deal of autonomy, does not equate to a true democracy. Also, any form of hereditary monarchy is not compatible with democracy. I would go further and say that the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy is a flawed and hypocritical democracy, but I have done so on another thread on democratic reform. I also agree that similar community actions should be taken on education, housing, etc. is a good idea (though I seem to remember a housing demo and would love to contact the people behind it if someone could help). This event should not be belittled because other important issues have so far not seen a similar level of organisation. Rather, this demo should be seen as a foundation on which to build momentum for other similar actions. It is not easy to arrange such actions. At certain times (revolutionary times) when the people as a whole are energised self-organisation occurs; most of the time however the task is left to a few patient and dedicated workers who are willing to sacrifice their time and effort, as well as risk repercussions for their work. So Bermudian, compatriot, we agree, I think? So where to now? Cheap potshots on a blog or lending a hand to the organisation of community actions (and yes, I have no idea to know whether you are already involved, so I'm assuming). You want to rally on education and housing? Contact people. Contact the people who organised this one. Contact the people along with me who organised the housing demo. These are all issues of importance to our people, and we have learned that what we build ourselves we will defend, but what we are given from up high, we may not defend as well. Furthermore, the organisation of such demos teach us all what is involved in governing, and goes a long way to defeating the culture of entitlement and the psychology of dependency that the colonial experience tends to produce in colonial peoples. We cannot afford apathy - we must all engage in social decisions or these decisions will be made by default rather than design. You dig?

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 02.06.06 at 23:49]

You really hate the Governor, don'tcha?
The Queen, too, I s'pose.

But... talking about definitions...

From Wikipedia.

"De facto liberal democracies
Liberal democracy is sometimes the de facto form of government, while other forms are technically the case; for example, the Canadian monarchy is in fact ruled by a democratically elected Parliament. In the United Kingdom, the sovereign is the hereditary monarch, but the de facto (legislative) sovereign is the people, via their elected representatives in Parliament, hence a democracy."
(Emphasis mine)

Actually, read for yourself. Don't forget to click on this section while you're there.

"We're not a democracy."

Jesus.

[Full Fullish on 03.06.06 at 07:42]

"It is quite hilarious how the same people who are so opposed to independence are somehow so passionate about democracy..."

Christ here come the fucking spin doctors. It always amazed me that somehow someway some idiot is going to spin ANY situation into "Well this is why we need independence". Bermudian, Democracy, which we currently have is exactly what that demonstration was about. I suppose if nothing was done you would have been the first one to say "Gee this is why we need independence, so people can voice their opinions" Honestly, it's people like you spouting dribble like this that makes me more against going independence daily.

"Surely a person who champions democracy would think that a colonial representative is a complete disgrace to democracy, far more than not having a bill debated in the House! "

Ok here's a question, how does the British Government imdede our independence? What would we be doing differently if we were independent, in regards to politics. I want specific answers to my last question too, and just having our highest person in charge an elected representative doesn't count. I want to know how things like this how would our governance be different. Not having an answer to this is pretty poor as once again it would prove that the theory of an Independent Bermuda hasn't been thought out or planned and that's pretty bad considering what's at stake.

[Bermudian on 03.06.06 at 08:59]

Elvis,

It's quite hard to hate people who you have never met in your life, nor have they ever done anything for you. Perhaps it is that I hate what they stand for and represent, both in the past and present.

As for your definitions, there's nothing new there.

I'm not exactly an expert on this, but how legislatively sovereign are we? When we want to make an amendment to our constitution, are our elected representatives capable of thisor do they have to get approval from thousands of miles away? As for choosing key members of our legal, security and any other system, who has the final say on this? Our elected officials or someone appointed by someone thousands of miles away?

I may have missed your point but I assume that you were attempting to parallel us to the U.K.
I'll let you respond so I can understand where you are coming from.

[Bermudian on 03.06.06 at 09:07]

FF,

First of all, this is definitely not the thread for that and it's humorous that not having our highest elected official in charge doesn't count. Perhaps you require some sort of PoliSci course. Seriously!

As for being a spin doctor, I just want you to know that I am not an advocate of independence at this time in our country's destiny. I was pointing out a simple observation that I had made and YOU SPUN it into something completely different. You have missed the point that I was making (kudos to Elvis & Starling for catching on). I never said that this is the reason why we need independence and if you can point this out to me then I will happily accept it. But I guess your intense opposition to independence will allow you to read ANYTHING and think think it is pro-independence rhetoric. Please read my friend.

[Adjustah on 03.06.06 at 09:13]

Bermudian

"When we want to make an amendment to our constitution, are our elected representatives capable of this"

1. What needs changing?
2. Are they capable? Lord no. Cant even debate a sexuality bill without all getting up to pee.

" As for choosing key members of our legal, security and any other system, who has the final say on this?"

I could have sworn we were a self governing territiory when we woke up this morning...unless you mean who would be Governor? As for our elected officials, our Chief elected official wasn't actually elected for his current position, as I recall.

It's nice to have the freedom to change things, but useless if there's nothing to change and we're not going to do anything iwth it. Going independent just to say we did it is really not a good reason. The "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" defense is weak, but really, what sweeping changes are required that cannot be done as a self-governing territory?

[Lisa on 03.06.06 at 09:17]

I do hope that there are people out there who feel strongly enough about other issues to organise the same kind of thing.

The folks who organised this demo were mostly the same (I think) as those who organised the anti-war demo a few years ago. They are a great bunch of people (and deserve much kudos for their good deeds!) but Bermuda needs more activists who are willing to speak out about how they would like this country to be run.

I hope that people don't get complacent about this and wait around for the same people to organise the next expression of public outrage.

Too many Bermudians voice their political frustration to their friends but rarely do anything that will make a difference. There is more to bringing about political change than voting.

L.

[Lisa on 03.06.06 at 09:29]

I heard from somone apparently "in the know" that the AME church put a lot of pressure on the government over this bill.

Not sure how much truth there is in that though.

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 03.06.06 at 10:14]

My apologies. Let me rephrase to:

"You really hate the idea of a Governor and Queen..."