LAWYERS have rounded on Premier Alex Scott after he explained why he believed human rights legislation does not need to be updated.

Mr. Scott failed to support a bill calling for discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation earlier this summer, claiming that everyone was "covered" by current legislation and that no amendment was necessary.

But he did suggest if the Act's ability to protect gays and lesbians was tested in court, Government might re-examine the issue.

When recently asked on a Bermuda blog web site to explain his reasoning, Mr. Scott responded by saying the Act "affirms the rights and freedoms of all members of the community".

"Community" is defined in the Act as 'all persons lawfully residing in Bermuda'," the Premier added.

He also suggested that, if a test case suggested the law contained a loophole, Government would consider re-examining the issue.

But attorney Mark Pettingill said the Premier's interpretation of the law was "nonsense". He pointed out that, while the law did protect all residents, it did not outlaw all forms of discrimination.

"The Human Rights Act covers 'specific' areas of discrimination such as race, religion, sex, etc," Mr. Pettingill said.

"The use of a blanket clause like 'everyone' is nonsense because this could include undesirable classes like child molesters, etc. Specific classes are important and accepted good legal practice.

"Currently, 'sexual orientation' which is included in numerous western statutes is absent and cannot be generally included under some general heading. Further, to say as he did that they would wait for a test case in court is further nonsense as the making of good law is intended to foresee and prevent litigation, not encourage it.

"How can a Government with elected and appointed gay members try and obviate this human rights issue? It is typical of the ostrich with his head in the sand syndrome that reflects this administration in so many areas ? issues that are obviously there that they pretend not to see given an inability to deal effectively with those issues."

Yesterday, United Bermuda Party Deputy Leader Jon Brunson also blasted the Premier for failing to show leadership on the controversial question.

He agreed that, because the bill had been a conscience vote, members of the Opposition had been split on whether or not to support it.

But he said that the Premier was failing to take any position at all and was instead "dancing around the issue".

"From my perspective I can't prescribe discrimination in any form or context," Mr. Brunson said.

"I think the Premier's interpretation of the law is flawed. If everyone is covered then why would you have sub-divisions within the law? That's why there have had to be amendments in the past.

"For example, there was an amendment to make it an offence to discriminate on the grounds of obesity. In order to be effective the law needs to be specific and at the moment sexual orientation isn't specified under the law. I think the Premier is simply dancing around the issue."

Web site author Christian Dunleavy said he had received a number of comments from other lawyers who described Mr. Scott's interpretation of the law as "hilarious" and "bulls**t".

And on www.politics.bm, Mr. Dunleavy also pointed out that a test case had already proved that sexual orientation was not covered under the Act.

Mr. Dunleavy referred to a complaint to the Human Rights Commission by cross-dresser Mark Anderson, who had been banned from taking part in this year's Bermuda Day Parade because of his sexuality.

That complaint was rejected because there were no grounds under the Human Rights Act on which to proceed with a formal complaint.

The has repeatedly left messages with the Premier and Government's Director Communications Beverle Lottimore in the last 11 days, asking if his position had changed.

We also left messages with Attorney General Larry Mussenden. No response to our questions was received by press time last night.