June 11, 2011Dear Sir,I am most grateful to Stephen Notman for eloquently enunciating the reasons why we so urgently need to amend the Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation, although I strongly suspect that this was not Mr Notman’s intent! It appears that Mr Notman has not actually read or understood the Human Rights Act, otherwise he would not make the erroneous statement that, and I quote: “I do not have the right to live wherever I want, or the right to be employed by anyone I want.” He goes on to state that there are “moral restrictions that govern and equally apply to all people”.He has clearly never read Section 4 of the Act which expressly prohibits discrimination against any person who is seeking to acquire accommodation, premises or other land for any of the reasons listed in Section 2 (2) of the Act. Examples of prohibited discrimination include a person’s race, ethnic or national origins, for being disabled, for their religious beliefs, or for their political opinions. It goes on to outlaw discrimination based on “marital stability” (or the lack of), not being born in lawful wedlock (the old discriminatory term for illegitimacy), or when someone is likely to have a child whether born in lawful wedlock or not”.In other words, the Act would protect Mr. Notman’s right to rent or to purchase property if he were an adulterer, or if he was living with a woman and was not married, if he was “illegitimate”, or if he was living with a woman who has or is due to have a child born out of wedlock. These were, of course, included in the Human Rights Act to prohibit what Mr. Notman referred to as the kind of “moral restrictions” that he claims govern and equally apply to all people. The Human Rights Act protects Mr Notman’s right to live wherever he wants to in Bermuda — unless he happens to be gay, in which case he has no right whatever to make a complaint and have it investigated.Mr Notman goes on to say, “I do not have the right … to be employed by anyone I want”. He is clearly not familiar with Section 6 of the Human Rights Act which is specifically designed to protect employees and potential employees from discriminatory practices by employers. Again, Section 2 (2) of the Act lays down specifically what employers cannot discriminate against.This does not mean that Mr. Notman can simply demand to be employed by anyone he wants. He may not have the necessary qualifications for some, perhaps even many jobs in Bermuda, but Mr Notman can rest assured that if he applies for a position for which he is qualified, and if he is denied the job because of his religion, or because he is an adulterer, or because he is living out of wedlock with a pregnant woman, or for any of the other reasons specified in the Act, then he would have legal recourse to make a complaint to the Human Rights Commission and have the complaint properly investigated. However, if the employer refused him employment, or refused to promote him, or demoted him, or underpaid him because he was gay, then Mr Notman would have to shrug his shoulders and accept that as the law now stands he would be powerless to complain.Yes, there are laws and there are “moral restrictions” that govern and apply to the people of Bermuda but at the present time our Human Rights Act does not equally apply to all people, and neither do the so-called “moral restrictions”. We have gays in every facet of our lives in Bermuda. All of these persons deserve equal protection under the law. It is time to amend the Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation. Mr Notman is perfectly entitled to hold his Christian views. However, neither he nor anyone else should be entitled to use them to discriminate against his fellow human beings.EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALLSmith’s