Surely that is the message sent by the conviction for manslaughter, rather than murder, and the sentence of only seven years imposed by the Supreme Court in the killing of a young man who was reportedly gay. The killing resulted from a bar fight in St. George's. It seems that the dead young man was the winner of the unarmed fight. He was then stabbed to death by his opponent.

There is a basic principle involved here. People are allowed to defend themselves but they are not allowed to use greater force than that used against them. Clearly they are not free to stab to death someone who is unarmed.

The results of this case seem to us to send a clear anti-gay message. That message may well have been encouraged by the recent debate on changing the law as it applies to male homosexuals. Some very strong anti-gay messages were sent in the process of that debate, many of them from pulpits and many of them from politicians.

The recent case gives every appearance of stating an ultimate discrimination, the life of a gay person is cheaper than the life of a heterosexual. You can kill a gay person and you will spend four to five years in prison, with time off, but if you kill a straight person Bermuda might hang you. This is the taking of a young life we are talking about here. You can take the life of a gay person and receive less punishment than you would for importing drugs or any number of other offences. Yet we often explain tough drug laws by saying that drugs take lives.

But much wider than an anti-gay message, is a situation where young people are being given the message that it is not so bad to stab to death people who are different. That is the message Hitler sent. He said it was alright to kill Jews and blacks and homosexuals and any number of others.

That is not a very pretty picture of any society. Yet it may well be the society which those people who were openly homophobic during the change of law debates have created and encouraged here in Bermuda.

Government too must bear some responsibility. The Minister of Home Affairs, despite protests, allowed singers to come into Bermuda and spread songs which advocate the killing of homosexuals. The minister said he was protecting freedom of speech but the minister clearly misunderstood the difference between freedom and licence. If this newspaper advocated the bombing of the Home Affairs offices it would not be considered freedom of speech but incitement to violence. But then the Minister might be in danger and not Bermuda's extensive gay population.

Most countries have moved beyond allowing prejudice to dictate to the legal system. Whether or not the victim in this case was gay should not have been a factor in any way in the trial. Sexuality was not material to killing. We would not tolerate race as a part of a trial defence, why do we tolerate sexuality?