slightly in advance of public opinion. Where governments are concerned, that is leadership of the country. Where newspapers are concerned, it is part of their function as a watchdog for the people. It seems to us that newspapers have a duty to guard against extreme positions and extreme opinions becoming a dominant force in any country. We think that is exactly what this newspaper did on the gay rights bill. The opposition to the bill was socially and politically extreme in 1994.

As several Members of Parliament said on the floor of the House of Assembly, the Government should have led the Country and supported gay rights as part of Government policy. It did not do so because, internally, the United Bermuda Party was just as split on gay rights as it was on Independence. The great political oddity is that some of those in favour of Independence are opposed to gay rights! The Progressive Labour Party was in no better shape. To its credit, its leader Mr. Frederick Wade voted in favour but the difference of opinion between Mr. Wade and Mrs. Lois Browne Evans and the antique homophobic ramblings of Mr. Eugene Cox were nothing short of a chasm.

However, just as the newspaper has a right to guard against extreme positions, Members of Parliament have a duty and a right to follow their conscience when there is a conscience vote. Under the Westminster System members often have to follow their party line when that line does not fit their thinking or is not quite to their taste. That happens in both parties and is the reason the parties have a Whip. Having to follow the Whip on a party vote makes the freedom of a conscience vote all the more sweet.

But a conscience vote is just that. It is the right of a member to do what conscience dictates, not what the party dictates or the constituents call about but what the individual conscience requires. Conscience votes should not be looked on individually and subjected to political criticism because they are simply a matter between the Member and the Member's conscience.

In the past, there have been suspicions that even during a conscience vote there were party pressures exercised to decide the vote. That may have led to politicising the conscience vote in the way we see it politicised now.

However, given the wide disparity of opinion expressed within party affiliations on the floor of the House of Assembly there does not seem to have been party pressure applied on the gay rights bill.

Clearly, however, other pressures were applied. The Premier, the Hon. Sir John Swan, is widely thought to have bowed to the churches despite his personal opinions. Exactly the same situation appears to be true of Mr. Trevor Woolridge. He spoke in favour but voted against.

A conscience vote should be dictated by the member's conscience, nothing else.

The vote should be cast so that, as the Hon. Pamela Gordon said, "I can go home nights and go to sleep.''