A second chance

I was surprised - but happy - to learn that Renee Webb will make a second attempt to have her sexual orientation discrimination bill passed into law in November. However, if she is to have any chance of success, several things must happen between now and then:

1. Someone must bring a test case to establish that discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is not currently covered by the Human Rights Act, as claimed by the likes of Alex Scott and Wayne Furbert.

2. Renee Webb must do whatever is necessary to obtain the support of as many of her parliamentary colleagues as possible. I sympathise with the frustration that she clearly feels about having to do this. She’s right that MPs can do their own research, and should not need her to persuade them to do what is right. However, she also needs to recognise political realities. It’s essential that she denies the likes of Michael Dunkley the opportunity to justify his opposition by saying he didn’t know what he was voting for.
   
   
3. Members of the public who support the bill must be prepared to lobby their MPs hard. At a minimum, a week or two before Ms. Webb’s bill is re-introduced every supporter must call, write to, or visit their MP to explain why they should support the bill. Hopefully the Lunch for Democracy group will co-ordinate this effort, however I will lend whatever assistance I can.

4. I need your help to get my list of contact information for MPs up to date. I currently have email addresses and telephone numbers for almost all members of the UBP, however I am missing many details for PLP politicians. Any assistance you can lend in updating this list would be greatly appreciated.
   

In addition, I recommend that Dale Butler starts practising bladder control, and Jon Brunson gets used to listening to debates in the main chamber instead of the back room.

Ms. Webb's decision offers all supporters of equal rights an unexpected second chance to overturn last month's decision. We must make the most of it. Without a concerted effort to do what's necessary, the bill will fail again.

Comments

[SmokingGun on 22.06.06 at 18:51]

5. Hire The Limey to help run her online campaign.

[novote on 22.06.06 at 21:21]

6. Ensure that another 500 people are lobbying in support from the public gallery and outside the House when the bill is debated.

[SmokingGun on 22.06.06 at 21:27]

7. Sponsor the 1st Annual Bishops & Church Ministers Fishing trip on the same day of the debate.

[Enigma on 22.06.06 at 23:02]

Phil,

An interesting post but methinks you forgot to pick up your copy of last weekends Mid Ocean News. The front page headline screamed 'Gay doctor marries Bermudian woman' or words to that effect! If you are looking for a test case of gay discrimination, look no further.

The test case is right there but as always we have to persecute someone whom we think is least able to defend themselves.

Dr. Johnson is a highly respected surgeon but he has made the fatal error of expecting fair treatment from a nation of myopic zenophobes who are rapidly flushing themselves down their own toilet.

Dr. Johnsons patients don't care about his sexual orientation. What they care about is his skill and experience and that is why he is going to transcend this slur campaign. My only wish is that the rest of the gay crew were judged on their skills rather than their gay political connections

Do you want me to go on? I am starting to feel like Howard Stern on a bad hair day!

[Michael Taylor on 23.06.06 at 01:51]

Enigma,

Is Dr. Johnson being targeted for being gay or is he being targeted for being straight and claiming he is gay...or is he being targeted for being gay and claiming he is straight?

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 23.06.06 at 01:51]

Wait... this guy's married to a woman, assumedly to get spousal rights to work and live here... an act which, if not illegal is certainly immoral since he came out and SAID he was gay in a court of law... and you're defending him for doing this?

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 23.06.06 at 01:57]

He's being targeted for possibly being a liar.

What kills me is THIS is the sacred institution of marriage we're supposed to be defending from the gay folk! This alleged falsehood is perfectly legal and acceptable to people, even defendable, but the thought of two people that love each other, who happen to be of the same gender?
Oh, no, we can't have that, that's disgusting.

The hypocricy makes me sick.

[The Limey on 23.06.06 at 08:14]

Enigma

I edited your post because I have no intention of permitting any comment here that might allow me to be sued for libel.

Re Dr. Johnson: are you saying that he could bring a case for sexual orientation discrimination against the Mid Ocean for reporting that story? I'm not so sure. I would have thought the immigration department in particular would have an interest in someone who has allegedly admitted being gay marrying a Bermudian (and gaining the associated rights of residence here).

[Sleepy on 23.06.06 at 09:22]

There's no way a suit against the Mid Ocean News would win because they simply reported information that was in the public domain through legal documents.

But that story wasn't about his sexual orientation. It was about an alleged marriage of convenience.

[Bill Cook on 23.06.06 at 09:45]

This subject is becoming more bizarre by the day!
One would have thought that all checks and balances would have taken place prior to gaining employment in Bermuda.
I had to undergo a thorough vetting including a medical with x rays Police clearance and a character reference from my local priest on top of the actual qualifications of course.
If Dr Johnson passed muster he is entitled to practice his trade and marry any female who agrees to the union
Ther is nothing the law can do about a choice between two consenting adults of the opposite sex who may or may not produce children.
If the doctor breaches medical procedure that is a matter for the Med Assoc and if it contravenes the law then the police.
If he is clear on all counts then he free to go about his life and work without interference.
Ther is nothing anyone can do if they think it is a marriage of convenience and I would like to see anyone try it will prove most interesting.
If all the gay or lesbians were denied marriage or had their marriage dissolved it would be most enlghtening as we all know so many cases of these marriages.
I do not know this Doctor but so far it seems either those who passed him for employment and residence in Bermuda are responsible or he is entirely clear to continue.

[Onion on 23.06.06 at 10:04]

Wait a second. How do you all know this is a marriage of convenience? Suppose the guy is bisexual?

[Trebliso on 23.06.06 at 10:09]

Wait a second. How do you all know this is a marriage of convenience? Suppose the guy is bisexual?

Posted by Onion on 23.06.06 at 10:04

Or maybe he had a Pauline revelation and realized his lifestyle was "wrong".

[Sleepy on 23.06.06 at 10:13]

"Wait a second. How do you all know this is a marriage of convenience?"

Hence use of the word "alleged".

That was the implication of the story which was written veeerrryyyy carefully.

[Michael Taylor on 23.06.06 at 10:25]

Is getting immigration status through a marriage of convenience in fact legal in Bermuda? In Canada it certainly is not. My wife and I have filled out about 200 pages of forms for Canada immigration so far, and just recieved another 30 or so from the province of Quebec. We had to submit letters from friends and family testifying to the nature of our relationship, and interviews of us and our family are expected before this is all over. We had to tell them all about our wedding, first dates, gifts we gave each other and submit pictures. I expect a Pam and Tommy type video to be demanded of us any day now. Seeing what the Canadians are doing I would have to say that it IS in fact possible to determine within a reasonable doubt if a marriage is in genuine and Bermuda could be doing it. As it stands now, your signature on a marrige certificate can be the end of the immigration process for the spouse of a Bermudian.
Having said all that, Bermuda should also allow gay marriage for the simple reason that any couple who decides to commit their lives to each other deserve the support things like the immigration act currently only gives to married heterosexual couples.

[Onion on 23.06.06 at 10:26]

I don't know why all this attention is focused on this man. There are many Bermudians who have been alleged to have been gay, including a former editor who shall remain nameless. Let's do a story on him shall we.

[Onion on 23.06.06 at 10:32]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Mid-Ocean newspaper is a scrappy piece of tabloid toilet paper whose shoddy journalism often detrimentally targets (mostly but not only) black professionals in this country.

Who's turn will it be next week? Johnny Barnes?

[loki on 23.06.06 at 10:32]

It was a disgraceful story: this man's private business is precisely that - private. It was not a legitimate news story. So what if he is gay? Who's to say that gay people cannot marry straight people and have a perfectly fulfilling relationship that works for them. Best friends of mixed sexuality marrying is not as uncommon as once might think. The late British comedian, Kenny Everett, is a good example of someone who was gay who married someone who was well aware that he was gay. He had a perfectly happy marriage until he died in 1995.

[Michael Taylor on 23.06.06 at 10:39]

Onion,

He's not exactly ALLEGED to be gay, he CLAIMS to be gay, and nobody here seems to be concerning themselves with his gayness, only his honesty. He may or may not be being honest. He may well be bi-sexual, but the "facts" as reported by the Gazette sure beg the question.

[Onion on 23.06.06 at 10:50]

So he can't get married if he is gay?

[Bill Cook on 23.06.06 at 10:55]

Not to another gay at least in Bermuda to date but he as far as I know there is no law that states you cannot marry a gay or lesbian or bi sexual or the fourth category NEUTER.

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 23.06.06 at 11:06]

"Sanctity of marriage."

What a fucking joke.

[Onion on 23.06.06 at 11:08]

Michael, his assertion that he is gay is his business. The fact that he got married to a woman is his business. You can speculate on the motives of every person who gets married.

[Michael Taylor on 23.06.06 at 11:15]

Onion,

I agree with you to a point. It is none of MY business, none of YOUR business but it may be the DEPARTMENT of IMMIGRATION's business (not 100% sure of the law yet, so it may not even be their business). Loki may be right too. This may be a tabloid type news story and not worthy of a legitmate paper. The only reason we are still talking about it is because people have claimed he is being targeted for being gay. As far as I can tell, this is not the case.

[silencedogood on 23.06.06 at 11:17]

I'm guessing the bill won't pass if this is what the debate will degenerate into.

[Bill Cook on 23.06.06 at 11:31]

I think there should be legal protection for any partner who enters into marriage thinking the partner was heterosexual but was not and had an active homosexual life.

This could cause needless pain and suffering especially if children are involved.

In my opinion this situation is more potentially damaging than two consenting gays entering into a union (the institution of marriage was intended for male and female I believe)

[novote on 23.06.06 at 11:33]

"Ther is nothing anyone can do if they think it is a marriage of convenience and I would like to see anyone try it will prove most interesting." - Bill Cook

Actually, Bill, you are incorrect. Spouses of Bermudians are issued with a permit by the immigration department that allows them to reside and work in Bermuda provided that they are living together as husband and wife. It is not sufficient merely to be legally married. My guess is that Dr Johnson has left himself exposed to having his rights to work and reside in Bermuda revoked by the immigration department.

[Bill Cook on 23.06.06 at 11:46]

Yes but how do you prove that the person has not changed and is now a heterosexual and is happy to stay that way.
If they live together etc their sexual activity is private and protected I would think.

I recall a case were a female army major who was happily married for 25 yrs had a family and found she had become gay left her husband and family to live with her lover.

Bit dodgy trying to prove someone married for convenience if you ask me !

[Michael Taylor on 23.06.06 at 12:00]

Novote,

I believe the certificate you are refering to is a "spousal letter". The immigration act states that a spouse of a Bermudian is free to reside and work in Bermuda free of immigration control. The letter is only obtained for convenience and is actually unnecessary. In any case, I would hope that the act otherwise blocks marriages of convenience.

Bill,

Marriages of convenience may be difficult to prove but if the immigration department were to at least provide some checks in all spousal cases, it would be a lot harder to get away with.

[Sleepy on 23.06.06 at 13:42]

OK, I just got around to reading today's installment of the Dr. Johnson saga and I think the whole marriage thing is not the central issue.

Last week's story did seem strange at the time but when read together with today's it seems like the crux of the matter is that the Doc, rightly or wrongly, has a serious professional cloud over him that meant he was barred from practicing by the California medical board.

I'm willing to concede that the allegations could be based on homophobia, racism etc., but there were a lot of them. Today's story must have given the local regulators something to chew on if it came as news to them, and something for us to chew on if they missed it.

[The Limey on 23.06.06 at 13:50]

Anyone who wants to read what Bermuda's immigration laws say about marriages of convenience should look here.

However it's unfortunate we've got into a discussion about Dr. Johnson's marriage on this thread, since Ms. Webb's bill has nothing to do with marriage.

[Rossini on 23.06.06 at 17:10]

It may not Limey but the wickedness of the MidOcean is precisely why that Bill will fail when next it is debated. Who would want to subject themselves to that...labelled like being gay is some kind of crime. The MidOcean has fed the exact prejudice you are railing against. The pretence of those who are in the closet will continue as long as vile publications like the MidOcean exist in the small community.

[Mr Wrong on 23.06.06 at 17:16]

It seems to me of all the matters to be discussing in Bermuda right now discrimination based on sexual orientation should be relatively low on the totem pole. Don’t get me wrong, I am for ending discrimination but the apparent outrage expressed by many for the lack of debate on the topic is ridiculous. Let’s face the facts:

1. There are rumours of an election flying left right and centre.

2. With 1 in mind both parties are looking for the church vote to help them win the election.

3. The church vote is largely against the amendment to the Human Rights Act for fear it will lead to such things as gay marriage (it
matters not whether that fear is unfounded or not).

4. Renee Webb has gone on record saying it is unlikely she will run at the next election.

5. Renee Webb is using the issue to upset those that forced her out of Cabinet and wants to be remembered for something that she contributed to Bermuda.

6. Renee Webb failed to properly lobby the politicians and church groups, unlike Dr Stubbs who went about the matter of legalising sodomy
sensitively and diplomatically, despite some in his own party against the “Stubbs Bill”.

7. Renee Webb is headline grabbing to boost her profile since she is out of the country for a good portion of the year.

Those that want the “Webb Bill” to pass should bide their time. The next election is no more than two years away. If the matter is introduced immediately after the next election the politicians will be more than happy to have a free vote – five years later the church
groups will forget who voted for what.

What irks me the most is where are those same people who stood on the Hill in the face of racist behaviour from Government Ministers; where are those same people in the face of overspends on projects by tens of millions of dollars; where are those same people in the face of Pay to Play; where were those same people following the collapse of the Lottery for Homes? The list goes on and on. “Lunch for Democracy” is the name of the group – come on people - make noise on other issues too if you want credibility. Attempting to blackmail
politicians and using a discredited MP who has used less than politically correct language in her time about race and other matters is hardly the way to go!

Mr Wrong

[Enigma on 23.06.06 at 21:28]

Praise the Lord, Dr Johnson went to the First Church of God INC. last weekend and was so overwhelmed by the quality of preaching and the quality of German sportscars in the parking lot that he was immediately overwhelmed by the 'money spirit' and realised that it was time to denounce his wicked ways and learn to speak in tongues like the blessed bretheren of the holy money machine.

Hallelujah, Dr Johnson has now been saved and is now with wife and is able to join in with Bermuda's most elite cabinet ministers, church elders and civil servants in pronouncing judgement on all the rest of us by avoiding any debate on lifestyles that could cost us votes, diminish our congregations or prevent our chances of top jobs in the government, military, or civil service!

Congratulations Dr Johnson you are more Bermudian than you could ever know. As for the rest of you, you are so pathetically hypocritical, materialistic and cowardly that you deserve to be conscripted into the Regiment under the command of the 'Colonel'

Ha, Ha, Ha. Phil, are you going to edit this post as well?

[The Limey on 23.06.06 at 21:57]

Enigma - What's your point?

[Enigma on 23.06.06 at 22:09]

As a Limey you may remember an old English proverb. "What's good for the goose, is good for the gander"

Or if you you prefer, and I refer to our government and civil service,
"If it walks like a Duck, and sounds like a Duck, and looks like a Duck, it's probably a Duck"

Or my absolute favorite,
"People in glass houses should not throw stones"

My point Phil is if we are going to conduct witch hunts lets burn them them all or none at all!

[The Limey on 23.06.06 at 22:26]

Enigma

I do not believe that Dr. Johnson is the victim of a witch-hunt because of his sexuality. The editor of the Mid Ocean was among the protesters at the House the other week, and the comments he made to me lead me to believe that he is no homophobe.

[Turtle on 23.06.06 at 23:40]

The sooner the Webb Bill is passed the better. As long as gays have no protection under human rights legislation, the public identification of someone as gay can be seen as an attempt to make life in Bermuda intolerable for them.

Dr. Johnson is a surgeon whose behaviour, as reported by the MidOcean News today, is probably no worse or better than a lot of surgeons world-wide. Stereotypically, surgeons are thought to be arrogant, rude and dictatorial.

Whether his behaviour is a problem or not is a matter for the hospital and his peers and has absolutely nothing to do with his private life. He has the support of both local medical associations on this.

What he has done to deserve this outrageous coverage is hard to imagine. My guess is that he has done nothing more than hobnob with the wrong people from the point of view of the editor of the Mid Ocean News (i.e. the PLP).

Given the widespread belief that a number of our public figures are gay I wonder whether this treatment of Dr. Johnson's private life might not be a warning to others that they might be similarly exposed.

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 23.06.06 at 23:48]

Personally, I don't have a problem with the naming of names of OPENLY, ADMITTEDLY GAY people that have "allegedly" married for financial or political gain. People that have come out publicly, but are still using the "sacred" institute of marriage to "allegedly" forward their careers.
Having sid that, I don't want rumours, I don't want "Oh, everyone knows they're gay", I don't want "Oh, my acegirl's friend's brother's uncle's babymama's dog's former owner's cousin saw ya boy hangin' out wif a gay guy". I don't think that's fair or right.
But if you can provide people that have admited their homosexuality openly that are "allegedly" married to someone of the opposite sex for something like a work permit or something to do with a job, then I say go for it.

[The Limey on 24.06.06 at 00:27]

Enigma

I have no intention of allowing you to make potentially libellous suggestions on this blog. If you feel the Mid Ocean has double-standards, write to them and name names, and see if they publish your letter.

Also, Uncle Elvis is right - unless someone has publicly stated their sexuality, you have no business outing them.

Moreover, this thread is about Renee Webb's private member's bill, not the alleged persecution of Dr. Johnson - especially since you seem to be saying that this has nothing to do with his sexual orientation anyway.

[loki on 24.06.06 at 08:48]

Enigma,

I find it both laughable and cowardly in the extreme for you to 'challenge' Phil to leave your comments unedited, despite the fact that they contain potentially libelous content. Given that Phil is ultimately liable for libelous posts, whereas you are just an anonymous poster with an ip address that may, or may not be traceable, it's pathetic for you to imply that Phil is, in some way, copping out by editing your posts for libelous comments. If you do wish to post such comments, might I 'challenge' you to go to blogspot.com, create 'enigmalibelposts.blogspot.com', publish your real name there and post away to your heart's content.

Really, some people........

[loki on 24.06.06 at 09:01]

"Also, Uncle Elvis is right - unless someone has publicly stated their sexuality, you have no business outing them."

In most cases, I agree with you on this, Phil. I think the practice of 'outing' people is pretty reprehensible in most cases. There some cases that fall within a more grey area, though: look at the case of Mark Oaten, the Liberal Democrat MP in the UK, who was one of the front-runners for the Lib Dem's Leadership contest after Charles Kennedy was revealed to be a little too fond of the bottle - Oaten's rallying cry was one of 'family values' and he actively promoted himself as a dedicated middle-of-the-road family man in order to get elected as an MP, and as part of the leadership contest. It was later revealed by the News of the World that he repeatedly engaged in homosexual activity and had a penchant for young, male prostitutes, with whom he engaged in a variety of, err, 'bizarre activities' (I'll leave that to your imagination, kids). Surely, in cases such as this, the 'outing' is justifiable? Oaten was promoting himself as one thing when, in fact, he was nothing of the sort. I'm certainly not advocating the wholesale outing employed by the likes of Peter Tatchell in the 1980s and 1990s, but there are occasions when it is justified. One might argue (though, I'm not so sure, I confess) that outing gay members of the current government is justified, given their hypocritical and disgusting behaviour over the presentation of Renee Webb's recent Bill.

[Bill Cook on 24.06.06 at 09:58]

Loki,
Yes its a dilemma but I would see it as appropriate to out any MP who came out in santimonious support for anti gay protectionism, as its an act of blatant hyprocricy but one must tread carefully making accusations they may be obliged to prove in a court of law.

You will recall that Liberace sued the Daily Mirror's Cassandra who called him a mincing mint flavoured sissy or words to that effect and was awarded considerable damages.

Cassandra passed on before it was revealed by Liberace's lover that he was and always had been gay a revelation that surprised no one of course.

Outing someone is not so simple when it comes to presenting solid evidence on someone who is in the closest as it were.

[loki on 24.06.06 at 10:18]

"You will recall that Liberace sued the Daily Mirror's Cassandra who called him a mincing mint flavoured sissy or words to that effect and was awarded considerable damages."

Yes, I do recall that. Less well known, however, is the headline that was printed by the Daily Mirror after it was revealed that Liberace died of AIDS-related illness. I swear, I'm not making this up. The headline was:

"CAN WE HAVE OUR MONEY BACK NOW?"

Probably the best example of where an outing would have been justifiable was the 1983 bye-election for Berdmonsey in London. Simon Hughes, who was the Liberal candidate for the seat, made anti-gay slurs and innuendo directed towards the Labour candidate, the openly gay Peter Tatchell (mentioned in my earlier post). The Liberals went so far as to distribute leaflets describing Hughes as "The Straight Choice". It was truly a nasty, bigoted campaign. Well, it turns out that Hughes is now openly bisexual and was a closeted, though practising bisexual at the time of the bye-election. An outing would definitely have been justified at the time of the bye-election, had Tatchell known at that time of Hughes' sexual orientation, I think.

[Martin on 24.06.06 at 11:52]

Elvis...

What are you saying? Are you saying that this is wrong BECAUSE he spoke out about being gay?

Given the number of "normal" marriages around where one partner is (and always has been)gay, what is the issue here.

Remaining closeted I suppose is the key to respectability.

[Turtle on 24.06.06 at 13:15]

In a society such as ours, where gays have no protection against discrimination under law I can understand why gay people wish to keep their sexual orientation to themselves, and why some may go so far as to marry persons of the opposite sex and maintain a secret gay life.

If the other partner in the marriage is being deceived then the marriage is no worse than a lot of heterosexual "love" matches - and it is for those involved to deal with and is no one else's business. If they are not being deceived than that is their own business too. As someone pointed out earlier in the thread there have been many famous people who have had sucessful partnerships of this sort.

It's easy to get all righteous about deceiving Immigration and so forth - but the immigration motive for such a marriage is probably secondary in most cases to the desire to gain the human rights advantages conferred by passing as heterosexual.

That's why we need to do our best to support Ms. Webb's amendment when it is brought to the House for a second time.

[Turtle on 24.06.06 at 13:17]

Martin - Remaining closeted is not simply "the key to respectability" it is the key to protecting oneself from discrimination, alienation, etc.

[SmokingGun on 24.06.06 at 14:19]

"Stereotypically, surgeons are thought to be arrogant, rude and dictatorial." - Turtle

Also either a life-saver or life-taker. The main problem I have with the recent revelations of Dr. Johnson has nothing to do with wether he is gay, it's wether he is manipulative and deceitful. If one wishes to have their rights protected then they need to make sure they maintain a high standard of conduct no matter who they are. Learning about his back ground and the way he handles his affairs in the community would give me great concern for how he performs in his job if it's negative. I do not want a "very" distracted surgeon working on me or my family. If there is a history that is open to the public it is the duty of the newspapers to dig it up and report it especially when it concerns a position such as his. Even if protective rights for sexual orientation were explicitly written into our constitution someone would still have to be very careful in how they handle their affairs in the public domain.

[Martin on 24.06.06 at 14:23]

Turtle...

You are right - of course it is. My point was in response to Elvis point that "it was immoral" to marry for the purposes of a spousal certificate.

I don't disagree with him, but I find it strange that society has been recognising "normal" marriages for years where one of the partners is gay and where the person is silent - yet because one speaks out and admits one is gay - the balloon goes up.

Hence silence = respectability.

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 24.06.06 at 14:31]

Way to misread.

What I'm saying is all the anti-gay folks keep harpin on and on about the "Sanctity" of marriage and how it's a "sacred union" between a man and wife and how it's about propogation of species and all those other stupid.fucking.arguments against it, yet THIS is legal, accpeptable and defensible. I'll temper my statement so that Phil doesn't have to edit.

IF this guy is gay (which he has said he is... in a court of law, under oath yadda yadda) and is married to a woman and just happens to be able to work here without a work permit, even though he's not Bermudian... it's not like he's closeted, I'd consider someone that has stated in a court of law that he is gay to be openly gay, this instance isn't about a closeted gay pretending to be straight... he's gay. He's openly said he's gay... IF this is the case, then the marriage is a lie and goes against all the shit that the anti-gay folks spew about marriage, yet it's still defended and ok and acceptable.

THAT is what disgusts me about this situation.

[Turtle on 24.06.06 at 16:30]

I understand your position Smokes, and I'm with you on the importance of exposing incompetent and dangerous professional behaviour. The California allegations about Dr. Johnson compromising the sterility of tools during an operation are disturbing to say the least (understatement!!!), and on that basis any journalistic investigation is justified.

I do not agree, however, that matters such as his sexuality and marriage have anything to do with his professional competence. If manipulation and deceit have occurred in private life that is the business of the people involved, unless it is a criminal matter.

Also : "If one wishes to have their rights protected then they need to make sure they maintain a high standard of conduct no matter who they are."

Nope. Protection of one's rights is not contingent on behaving yourself!

[SmokingGun on 24.06.06 at 16:54]

Turtle - I do not disagree with you in the grand scheme of things. I should have been more explicit in saying I was meaning in the context of this situation.

[Tiggy on 28.06.06 at 13:26]

It's interesting to see in today's Sun (28/6/06) that Sybil Barrington lost his/her case with the Human Rights Commission. Apparently, the HRC responded to him/her that there were no grounds under the Human Rights Act on which to proceed with a formal complaint (discrimination as a drag queen entertainer). So where does this put the government with their stance discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation was covered?

[The Limey on 28.06.06 at 13:36]

I suppose they'll argue that he wasn't prevented from participating because of his sexual orientation, but because his act simply wasn't appropriate for such a parade.

Nevertheless, I would have thought there was sufficient grounds for believing that his sexual orientation was the motivation for his exclusion, and that the HRC should therefore have at least conducted an investigation (even if they eventually concluded it was not). That they said there was no grounds to do so does suggest the sexual orientation is indeed not covered by the Act.

Can any lawyers here clarify?

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 28.06.06 at 14:17]

What needs to happen, I think, is what I suggested when this first came up.
Straight men need to dress up as women for next year's parade. If they are allowed to do so, then it is OBVIOUSLY about Sybill's orientation and not because of the act.

[Bill Cook on 28.06.06 at 15:20]

It seems that The Hasty Pudding Pullers or whatever they call themselves dress up as females and perform without objection so perhaps it is all about orientation.

Of course if one of the Pudding Pullers was also gay he would get a bye ball I guess.

My guess was that it was the occasion that was deemed inapproprate for a drag Queen Bermuda being conservative and it being a family affair.

[Ali on 28.06.06 at 16:20]

May I suggest that it would help the gay community in the long term if the terminology on relationships was made clear. I do not think that 2 gay people should be called 'married', marriage is for husband and wife. How about male union or female union? Even the word partner gets confusing these days. It used to be a way to say 'gay', now it also refers to a man and woman who are not married ( but used to be, to someone else). Middle aged people don't seem to use boyfriend or girlfriend ( except Bermudian women as in 'Hey girlfriend!). Sorry to sound like Andy Rooney but it can be confusing and embarrassing. If we get the terminology right in future legislation it will always be clear what the man or woman's partner is. I am in favour of gay people having a clear identity. Not exactly on the thread but related.