Courageous Webb deserves praise for gay amendment

December 4, 2005,

IT was impressive to note that Renée Webb has so much more courage than does the lily-livered Dale Butler. I used to have a certain amount of respect for Dale butler, but no longer. His integrity and intellectual honesty have been dragged in the mud of hypocrisy by his Progressive Labour Party colleagues too often. "P" has made him look like a wimp. Maybe he is a wimp. He certainly hasn't had the courage to resign from Cabinet to stand up for his principles as Ms Webb did.

At long last the ordinary civil rights of gay people have been put back on the political map and the political parties are scuttling helter-skelter for cover. What they apparently fear is a backlash from the churches that call themselves Christian but which are, in reality, churches of bigotry, hatred and discrimination.

Before the political parties cower before these churches they should demand, as indeed should everyone else, clear statements from these churches' several spokesmen. These statements should explain in unequivocal terms why a Christian property owner should be required by our law to rent accommodation to a remarried divorced person or why a Christian businessperson should be required to hire such a person by those same laws.

Such people are adulterers. Adultery is forbidden by the Seventh Commandment. Adultery is the single sexual sin against which our Lord Jesus Christ spoke out. Adultery is obviously the greatest threat to marriage there is.

The church spokesmen should also explain why a Christian landlord or businessperson should be required by law to rent accommodation to or to hire an unmarried mother. She is clearly and often proudly a fornicator yet another sexual sin that should be but isn't, loudly decried in our churches.

These fatherless children often grow up to be the next generation of gang members and criminals. The social harm done by these irresponsible sexual liaisons is incalculable.

When or if they are successful at the foregoing explanations they must then turn their logic on its face and explain why it should suddenly be right and proper that gay people should be legally discriminated against in accommodation and hiring. If homosexual sex is a sexual sin and it is by no means clear that it is other than in Roman Catholic doctrine it is not a sin mentioned in the Ten Commandments nor is it a sin decried or even mentioned by our Lord Jesus Christ. More to the point, homosexuality is not a sin with any clear or grave social consequences in the way that adultery and fornication so obviously are.

Moreover, a homosexual person who is celibate and chaste, one who never has sex at all, is still a homosexual person. How should the cruel discrimination championed by these mean spirited churches then be justified and how should the landlord or potential employer be expected to distinguish between a sexually active and a sexually chaste homosexual?

It is not a sexual act that determines who is and who is not homosexual, it is the person's sexual orientation, an integral part of his or her self, that determines homosexuality.

Only the persistent but wrong conviction that homosexuality is a choice allows these mean spirited churches to continue to hold on to their irrational prejudice. Even in the relatively accepting world in which we now live it is totally idiotic to suggest that anyone would choose to be homosexual.

He would thus willingly subject himself to vicious scapegoating and foul libels from the Pope, who is exempt from any ordinary remedial legal action because he is a sovereign in his own nasty little principality, let alone the offensive abuse from much littler men such as Bishop Goodwin Smith.

Finally, these church spokespersons should clearly explain so we can all understand their position in terms of the Bermuda Constitution why they think their churches have a legal or constitutional right to impose by law their religious doctrine on others who clearly do not share it.

I am quite satisfied that there is no churchman in this island — or anywhere else — who can produce clear, logical answers to these questions.

None will even try to do so. What will happen is that my challenge will go unanswered because these churchmen are both cowardly and devoid of logic.

What the churchmen will do instead is to sneak around in their usual hole-in-corner way threatening susceptible politicians with "the church vote".

Any politician worth his salt will kick these cowardly influence peddlers out, but only after pointing out that their threats contravene the Bermuda Constitution. Freedom of religion and consequently freedom from having someone else's religion imposed by law is an article of the Constitution that our Parliamentarians are bound to support. Any one of them who does not do so should be impeached.

The improbability of impeachment notwithstanding, it will be interesting to see how parliamentarians actually do vote. Our churchmen may threaten but they are quite unable to guarantee something promoted as "the church vote".

That vote was split and obviously failed to be of any real consequence at the time of the Stubbs bill. Indeed, impartial observers thought that the stridency of the hatred emanating from these church groups helped rather than hindered the passage of the bill.

Given the absolute certainty that the gay vote will turn against any parliamentarian who votes in favour of continued discrimination and given the very close nature of so many constituencies fought at the last election, the gay vote seems likely to be of more political consequence than the supposed church vote. At least the oppressed gay community will be able to count on the vote of Dale Butler. He has spoken out in favour of ordinary civil and human rights for gays too often to do otherwise. Certainly Renée Webb's vote is safe. The anti-discrimination side should also be certain of the votes of at least three sitting Government MPs. In the Senate it should certainly be able to count on the vote of at least one flamboyant Government Senator (at least if he's still there). In the Opposition, already itself showing signs of running for cover, a courageous stance for the Constitution and for equality before the law would certainly embarrass the Government and earn the lasting gratitude of Bermuda's unusually large gay community.

To what extent the United Bermuda Party must consider the vote that may or may not be deliverable by the black churches must be moot. Everyone should notice, however, that it is not the mainstream white churches that opposed the Stubbs bill.

The demand for discrimination is most strident where one would expect discrimination of any kind to be most detested; that is in the black churches. Bishop Goodwin Smith, whose incongruous position as chairman of the Human Rights Commission was singularly inappropriate, is amongst the most strident opponents of equal civil rights for gays. He will, of course, be absolutely silent when it comes to answering the questions posed above.

He is, in fact, a contemptible little hypocrite.

Equally hypocritical is the deceitful Bishop Vernon Lambe, already known for his willingness to bear false witness to further his political beliefs (look no further than the Bermuda Independence Commission's final report). He, too, will remain silent in the face of the questions posed above. He must, because he cannot answer them. He will nevertheless be sneaking around amongst his political cronies in the PLP threatening the supposed "church vote" on the subject. Finally, I reiterate to the churches the second of the two commandments of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Perhaps they should give it a try. Hatred and discrimination are not Christian virtues. The PLP Government continues to beat the tired drum of Independence and looks forward to "taking our rightful place on the world stage". If other countries notice tiny Bermuda futilely bleating in the darkest and most remote corner of the world stage at all, it will be to criticise us for our human rights shortcomings if we fail to pass the courageous Ms Webb's amendment.PERSECUTED, City of HamiltonIsland homeDecember 1, 2005

IN principle, I am not in disagreement with Mr. Brannon's wont to improve the life and livelihood of local musicians and entertainers. I also understand Mr. Brannon's sympathy for Mr. Gene Steede's artistry being relegated to the disinterested and unappreciative masses filing through the airport. However, Mr. Brannon, being a lifelong Bermudian, might be "missing the forest because of the trees". Being a first-generation Canadian, I explored many corners of North America, leaving Europe, Asia and exotic locations to a time when there were not diapers to change or adolescents to entertain. Unfortunately, my wife passed away suddenly nine years ago just as the last child had left home and travel took a back seat to loneliness. Five years later I met a Bermudian woman. This woman had a strong affection for Bermuda but found it painful to return home after having lost her husband, her mother and her beloved Aunt Dot.

During our first year of courtship we talked often of her island home and finally, with some emotional reservation and a fear of flying, we jetted to Bermuda. Upon arrival, as we walked to the main concourse, you could hear the strains of calypso music welcoming the travellers. Initially, my wife-to-be shrugged off my enthusiasm as: "Well, it is Bermuda", but she softened and said: "I'm home." To this newbie tourist it was a pleasant and welcoming sound. It was not an airport in Toronto or Montreal or Vancouver. It was not Los Angeles or New York. It was exotic. When we come "home" at Christmas and Mr. Steede spots a gentleman with a white beard and a beautiful Bermudian woman take a little spin on the floor before heading to the customs counter it will be us thanking him for the welcome. RAYMOND AND ELIZABETH TRAFFORD

Salem, Ontario, Canada

PS: The fleeing, red-faced adolescent, will be our embarrassed son.

Not a healthy way to driveDecember 1, 2005

ON Monday, November 28 at about 3 o'clock I was driving through Flatts Village on my way to the airport. As I rounded the end of the inlet a large car swept down the road from Flatts Hill and drove straight through the stop sign without so much as slowing down. I fell in behind it and couldn't help noticing its registration number: GP 9. I followed the oversized ministerial vehicle as far as the airport when it continued on towards St. George's. I have been trying without success to reach the Government Communication & Information office at 292-5998, but no one "is available to take your call".

Whether or not they would have told me the Minister in the driver's seat of GP 9 I will never know. However, I would be willing to swear in court that it was Health & Social Services Minister Minors. Her braids are unmistakable. This is not a serious crime and no tyres squealed. It is nevertheless yet another indication of the feeling most of us have that Cabinet Ministers don't really think that either the law or conventional morality applies to them. They are far above all those petty restrictions. They are only for the common people.KNOW MY PLACE, Warwick