---

What a disappointment. Parliament has the right not to include sexual orientation in the Human Rights Act, if it so chooses. What was disappointing was that so many parliamentarians were willing to make the decision anonymously, and without even saying why.

I did hear some religious voices posing that our MPs gave a “resounding no” because of their Christian beliefs. Truth is, no one, not even those who were in Parliament’s debating chamber at the time, knows who all voted “yea” or “nay”. Those MPs who shouted their “no” were loud but that’s only an indication of volume, not numbers. And no one was willing to call for “names” so a count could be made of who actually voted, or how. As the editor of the Gazette noted, without a tally, any MP can tell one constituent he or she voted “yes” and another constituent he/she voted “no” — and no one would be the wiser.

And no one knows for sure what motivated the ‘no’s’. There is a difference between voting ‘no’ out of conviction and voting ‘no’ out of fear of losing votes at election time. Except for Nelson Bascome, who spoke his reasons for his no vote, none of the other MPs who voted against the amendment had courage to match their conviction. Reminds me of the Roman who washed his hands after ordering a crucifixion.

No parliamentarians, other than Ms Webb, stood to help educate the public that the simple amendment did not steer anyone toward a particular sexual orientation.

If we think about it, the clause in the Act that protects freedom of religion doesn’t steer anyone toward or away from any particular religion. Nor does it require that one have religion. Similarly, the clause in the Act that protects the rights of the disabled doesn’t force one to become disabled. Almost anyone could understand this. Anyone who suggested that we should not protect the rights of the disabled because doing so would lead to more disabilities would quickly be corrected.

As Ms Webb pointed out, historically, religious groups have been most subject to persecution — Christians in particular. One would expect this group therefore to have the greatest appreciation of the value of including others under the umbrella of human rights protection. Instead, some members of this group hid behind their own protection to deny extending protection to others.

Disappointed and saddened

I am disappointed. Disappointed that my fellow humans are so willing to discriminate, thus making Human Rights legislation necessary. Disappointed that some in my community would prefer persecution to empathy. Disappointed that religious leaders would pervert the intent and distort the outcome of the proposed amendment. Disappointed that political leaders abandoned their integrity and chose, most of them, to remain silent rather than educate and debate before deciding.

Mostly I’m saddened. My leaders missed an opportunity last Friday to exhibit conviction to principle, individual and group integrity, and statesmanship. They hid behind anonymity, not because of any threat to their individual or collective security, but because they were asked to approve a simple extension of human rights. I’m saddened about the loss of self-respect — for them as individuals and for the office of parliamentarian.

Some of them will put on an air of bravado and try quickly to forget this lapse in their responsibility, but they have done injury to their status as leaders.

Would the PLP want us to emulate their behaviour and refuse to engage in a dialogue on independence? I doubt it. Would the UBP want us to copy theirs and wait for others to make the first move in response to a government faux pas? Of course not.

Our leaders want responsible and accountable citizens. They must exhibit that behaviour themselves. Our leaders must lead by example.[[In-content Ad]]

---