---

When MP Renee Webb brought her anti-discrimination amendment to Bermuda’s House of Assembly in the space-age Internet world of 2006, in the early years of the progressive 21st century, so far away from the deeply discriminatory decades of the 19th ?and 20th century; I hoped that the amendment would pass into law.

In 1942, in Bermuda, I was born into a Bermudian society that consigned me to the bottom half of that society. The rules of that day discriminated against me because I was black, and only because I was black.

I grew up. I received an education. I lived under that formal and legally supported discriminating system until I was eighteen. From that long personal experience, I believe that all forms of discrimination are wrong and that all forms of discrimination should be eliminated. I do support her amendment.

Years ago, as a writer, I took my public stand against discrimination. That stand included discrimination against homosexuals — of either sex. I believe that the discriminations against homosexuals should be written out of our existing laws. Or, put the other way, I believe that protections should be written into our existing laws. Either way, I support MP Webb’s intention.

I do not support the churches stand against the amendment because the churches do not come to this issue with clean hands.

Just this year, in 2006, after profiting hugely for over 400 years, the Church of England has just gotten around to apologizing for having supported the massive transatlantic slave trade; and for helping to create and find biblical justification for some of the racist philosophies that were used to support the continuance of that particular form of human slavery. This Church has also apologized for having profited, economically, from the proceeds of centuries of support for the slave trade.

The Dutch Reformed Church in Apartheid South Africa used the Bible to justify Apartheid. With a Bible in one hand and a musket in t’other, Europeans killed the indigenous peoples in a two continent genocide and took over all of North America and much of South America.

Bin Laden

Quoting the Holy Quran, Osama Bin Laden’s people took out the twin towers of the World Trade Centre. Quoting the Holy Bible, George ‘Dubya’ Bush went after Osama and went to war in Iraq. Israelis hold on to their Torah and kill Palestinians. Palestinians hold on to their Qurans and kill Israelis.

I was extremely disappointed in the performance of 31 of the elected members. The four who at least did their jobs or acted properly are MP Webb who presented the amendment; MP Bascome – who at least had the guts to stand and oppose; MP’s Lowe and Smith who were in the ‘chair’ and who handled the process. The Premier who, as Leader of the House, always speaks last, was effectively shut out by the custom and tradition of the Parliamentary process.

The 31 others, from both parties — PLP and UBP — are cowards. Political cowards.

This was a free vote. Each MP was free to speak and vote according to his conscience. There was no Party Whip on anyone. The only whip was the whip of personal conscience and personal standards. And what standards! What standards!

Following the display of cowardice, there were those who said they’d intended to speak but were caught out of turn. Others suggested that they were waiting for ‘other’ people to take a position. One or two suggested that procedural rules were the cause for the non-debate.

But the crowning statement, the statement that — for me — captures and forever after defines the whole demeanour, the whole style, and the whole value-set of each and all of the 31 silent members was the excuse offered by one of the silent members. He said that he would have spoken, but that he had not spoken because he had to go for a “wee-wee”. For me, the “wee-wee” excuse honestly and accurately describes the actions and puerile cowardice of all 31.

What do you think? Were you for or against the amendment and why? E-mail the editor: tmcwilliam@

bermudasun.bm

[[In-content Ad]]

---