Parliament's failure to debate an amendment to the Human Rights Act that would end discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is disappointing but not surprising. The government's failure to lead an amendment illustrates its lack of commitment to the values of equality and social justice. The cowardice exhibited by both sides of the House typifies the climate of ignorance and fear that pervades mainstream Bermudian society and culture. It speaks volumes of the lack of understanding possessed by leaders in both government and in the wider community of the principals of fundamental rights and freedoms. Moreover, it illustrates that our leaders lack the competence and ability to protect democratic values in Bermuda.

The most troubling aspect of Bermuda's continuous debate on gay rights ? or perhaps the failure to discuss the issue at all in Parliament last week ? is that some political and religious leaders have usurped this climate of ignorance and fear in an attempt to create an environment in which we are all forced to affirm to their personal, social and religious values. What is more, as the treatment of Sybil Barrington clearly illustrates, these leaders will seek to exclude from Bermudian society and culture those of us who, for whatever reason, fail to affirm their beliefs.

I cannot comprehend how a supposed labour government can justify its opposition to legislation that would widen the class of individuals protected in the workforce. The government's attitude towards gays, lesbians and transgendered people in this regard offends the very tenets of the labour movement and is indicative of how far to the right the PLP stands on many issues of social policy.

Although this is of itself disconcerting, it does not cause me the greatest consternation. Instead, that prize goes to the leaders of Bermuda's African Methodist Episcopal Church who have spread a perverse and bastardized message about fundamental rights and falsely claimed that the proposed amendment threatened the civil liberties of its membership.

While I cannot be certain whether the Church has spread misinformation within the community intentionally or out of ignorance, what I can be sure of is this: the Church's inability to embrace the most basic of democratic principals is an affront to not only its history, but also to the struggle for civil rights that led to the very founding of the Church over 200 years ago. The AME Church came into existence because its founding father, Richard Allen, had been prevented from praying in a Methodist church because of the colour of his skin.

Given that the Church's very existence arises out of the civil rights movement, I would have expected that its leadership would have broached its discussion on the rights of gays, lesbians and transgendered people in a manner that would uphold and affirm the principals of fundamental rights; it has not. Also either intentionally or out of ignorance, the sentiments expressed by its leadership have created confusion in the wider community about the true implications of the proposed amendment. Had the leadership given due consideration to the views espoused by the Church's Social Action Committee, it would have realised that the Church was not advocating religious freedom. Taken to their logical conclusion, the views of the Committee suggest that the AME Church desires to create a Bermuda in which we are all bound to affirm the tenets and doctrine of African Methodism. Contrary to the assertions of the head of the Committee, Reverend Ruth Vanlowe Smith, this does not amount to freedom of religion; it is a tyranny of religion, or more specifically, tyranny of the AME Church.

It is of course not suggested that that the Church's leadership should compromise its religious beliefs as they relate to sexual identity. However, the leadership should have made more of a concerted effort to apprise itself of the nature of fundamental rights and how they can be protected in a modern democracy. Had it one so, it would have recognised that there is no legal or political precedent for asserting that the proposed amendment threatened the civil liberties of its membership.

In a democracy like Bermuda, the rights of individuals are balanced one with another ? even when those rights appear to be in conflict. It is this balancing of rights that, for example, allows the Catholic Church to exist peacefully in Bermuda alongside the AME Church even though some tenets of Catholicism are at odds with those espoused by African Methodists (for example, the Catholic view on the ordination of women priests contrasts with the view embraced by the AME Church and if we were all forced to embrace Catholicism, Reverend Ruth Vanlowe Smith would need to find alternative employment). It is this balancing of rights that, also for example, allows Muslims and the Bahai to celebrate their faith alongside Christians in Bermuda notwithstanding that the tenets of their respective faiths are deemed heresy by both the Catholics and African Methodists.

Not only are we able to balance the right to espouse diametrically opposed religious beliefs, we are also able to balance freedom of religion with the right to respect for one's private and family life. Contrary to the assertions of the AME leadership, gay rights are not a special category of rights. They fall within the wider category of rights that, as the title of the category suggests, protect the individual in their private and family life. Also protected within this category is the right to divorce. This right is protected despite the fact that some faith groups do not affirm divorce as a right. What is more, there is no legal or political precedent for such organisations being forced to recognise divorce as a right.

The Rev. Ruth Vanlowe Smith's statement that an amendment would make the AME Church a victim of hate crime legislation is equally inane. What is more, it indicates that the Church's leadership has failed to grasp an understanding of the nature and purpose of hate crime legislation. Such legislation does not prevent an individual or group from espousing their faith or religion; it prevents an individual or group from using, for example, their faith or religion as a ground for intruding upon the rights of others, and rightly so. As my first year political science professor once said: "Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my face begins".

I cannot help but wonder if any historical significance or meaning can be read into the recent actions of the AME Church. Perhaps the behaviour of its leadership suggests that as oppressed groups on the fringe of society assume their place within the mainstream political and economic establishment, they have the inherent propensity to assume the role of oppressor. Perhaps I am being too harsh; it is my observation nonetheless.

It is clear from recent events that the AME Church has lost touch with struggle for human rights that led to its establishment. Moreover, these events illustrate that the organisation's leadership has, either deliberately or in ignorance, perverted and distorted a much needed discussion on fundamental rights and freedoms. Although it is within its right to speak on an issue it knows very little about, it would be more beneficial if the leadership remained silent until it possessed a better grasp on the issues at the heart of the debate. What is also clear from recent events is that the old maxim holds true: incredulous people in large groups can be extremely dangerous.

@EDITRULE: