Online Responses To The Democratic Alliance

With the launch of Bermuda’s Democratic Alliance on Thursday the online community has understandably been in a bit of a flurry of discussion about them. This has ranged from sheer expressions of enthusiasm on the Democratic Alliance’s facebook site, to more critical reactions elsewhere.

The popular forum BIAW has had a long discussion concerning both the Democratic Alliance itself and it’s choice of name, or, rather the acronym it prefers ‘BDA’ which some see as witty but potentially divisive in as much as it co-opts the shorthand for Bermuda. Most of the discussion on BIAW has focused on the apparent lack of substance provided by the Democratic Alliance, as well as an ongoing conversation between posters there and the DA’s de facto online representative ‘Full Fullish’ who has also posted here.

On Facebook the DA has left both the PLP and the UBP in the proverbial dust, both in terms of ‘fans’ and in the novel use of the sites features for incorporating public input. The PLP mostly pioneered the use of Facebook for Bermudian politics, setting up both an official site and supporting ones. The PLP’s former youth wing Progressive Minds also experimented with having online forums there to increase interaction between youth and Cabinet Ministers. Despite these early attempts, the official site is mostly inactive, not being used for announcements or interaction. The UBP’s Facebook site is even more restricted, being nothing more than an information page. The DA now has almost twice the amount of ‘fans’ than the PLP and close to three times the number of UBP fans. This in itself does not mean that all these fans are supporters of the DA, however I think it is fair to say the majority are. The DA has also begun exploiting the interactive features available on Facebook which is woefuly underutilised by the PLP and UBP. At the moment the success of the DA on Facebook seems indicative of their support amongst a substantial number of youth, especially the middle classes. Whether the DA is able to capitalise on this momentum or if this will contribute to an early flame out (enthusiasm with no direction) is to early to tell at the moment.

21square has two posts on the DA, the first one being critical of the Alliance’s choice in name, based on the argument that the acronym ‘BDA’ and its meaning were first developed through that blogs Bermuda wiki project. The second post, to date, questions the logic behind the launch date.

The newly resurgent Bda Longtail criticises the DA for the disorganisation that it is conveying, namely in its failure to get its frequently referred to former PLP members to show up for public unveiling. Bda Longtail cautions that if the DA isn’t careful it will rapidly be seen as little more than another UBP.

Beachlime doesn’t comment on the DA directly, however he vents his frustration (which I passionately share) with the overkill use of Obamist phrases. Obama this. Change we can believe in. Yes we can. Stuff like that. When they were put into public discourse they were fresh, if meaningless, rhetorical devices. Now they are just nausea inducing in their insipid lack of originality.

Triangle Tips criticises the vague political name that the DA has chosen, questioning what exactly is it an alliance of? He also criticises the apparent vacuousness of the DA’s platform (or lack thereof). The basic verdict put forward there is that if the DA wants to be taken seriously it needs to demonstrate how exactly it is different from both the PLP and the UBP, otherwise it will look like a bunch of disgruntled UBPers in new clothing.

Bermuda Fables provides what I see as the most detailed critique of the DA online to date. In general the DA is criticised for being overly reliant on flowery rhetoric rather than actually marking out what exactly they stand for. They are also criticised for failing to unveil their now almost mythical former PLP members that they keep nattering on about.

Much of the criticism online though has been more of disappointment or exasperation combined with a plea that the DA gets its act together and move beyond vapid rhetoric and clarify both what stands for and what it plans to do. Should the DA fail to articulate its own vision then alot of the initial enthusiasm that it has been able to generate risks evaporating as the chorus of it being little more than disgruntled UBPers in new clothes reaches a crescendo. Personally I believe that the DA is articulating (poorly) a liberal ideological position, and that it will begin fleshing this out in the coming days. At the moment I get the impression that they are just trying to appeal to people superficially in order to prepare them for liberalism. The only problem with this is that the political centre is solidly occupied by the PLP and UBP at the moment, and if they are not careful they will come across as little more than a hodge-podge of PLP-UBP policies rather than having an identity of their own beyond that of a fence sitter. Their exodus from the UBP does however present the potential that the bulk of the UBPs liberal wing has solidified behind them, leaving the UBP rump made up of the conservative wing, which could allow the DA to occupy the centre and push the UBP to the right. The other big challenge for the DA is articulating their position on the race question; so far they have come across with a mix of vapidity and UBPist approaches on this point.

Let’s Talk Bermuda – With Dr. Brown

I understand that Dr. Brown will be appearing on Gary Moreno’s live call-in show tonight at 8pm. This show is also mostly streamed online, so Bermudians around the world should be able to follow the discussion and even contribute by posting questions to be asked on the website.

As I understand it there is no set agenda for the talk, although it is likely that the recently released Black male study, the Throne Speech and gambling will be key talking points. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Democratic Alliance is also a feature of discussion, although all of this depends on interaction with callers and posters.

I personally don’t know if I’ll be able to participate from Scotland due to the time difference, but I will certainly review the show the next day.

Problems For Socialism In Bermuda

With the formal launch of the Bermudian ‘Democratic Alliance’ there is now a potential for a return to ideological politics as opposed to the poli-trix that has dominated our island since 1998. This is because so far our politics has been dominated by that bland form of ideology that is known as the political centre. In truth, there have been some differences between the UBP and the PLP, as I have discussed in other posts. But beyond the question and understanding of race, as well as their respective composition and support bases, there has been woefully little difference between the two parties on substantial issues of ideology and policy.

At most the argument has been of ‘we would do this more’ or, ‘we would do this less’, mixed in with the occasional kindergarten exchanges that defines our parliamentary debates more than anything else. The UBP, nominally a conservative, right-wing party, and the PLP, nominally a social democratic/labour party, have been in recent years about as indistinguishable as Tweedledum and Tweedledee. With the arrival of Tweedleda on the stage, the hypnotic (if not idiotic) dance between Tweedledum and Tweedledee is presented with a challenge that can be answered in three potential ways:

a) Tweedledum & Tweedledee will together push Tweedleda off the stage and quickly return to their status quo;

b) Tweedledum, the UBP, is faced with the greatest initial challenge from Tweedleda, and may simply retire from the dance, leaving us with the same dance, only this time between Tweedledee and Tweedleda;

c) Tweedleda will force a fundamental change to the dance, pushing Tweedledum and Tweedledee away from the centre, Tweedledum to the right and Tweedledee to the left, with Tweedleda occupying the centre.

Only option (c) leads to substantial change for our politics; options (a) and (b) maintain the status quo, even if (b) gives the superficial impression of change. It is for option (c) that I personally would like to see realised, as this option provides the best potential for our collective national development. Of course there is the option that our politics may become more complex should further new parties solidify, such as a Green Party, the embryonic stages of which have been noted already. At the moment however I feel that many potential new parties, such as the Green Party, will pause and reflect on the Democratic Alliances arrival, which, no doubt, will try to co-opt such groups. As such I cannot see the political equation becoming more complex in the immediate period.

It is also hard to tell if (c) would lead to a substantial push to the left or right from the UBP and PLP; the equilibrium could simply result in a centre-left, centre, centre-right combination, although it would be hard to see how the centre will maintain itself over the long-term in such an arrangement.

Regardless of which option ends up being the eventual outcome of Tweedleda’s appearance, the very challenge itself presents an opportunity for at least a brief push towards ideological discussion and consciousness raising. To this end the Bermudian left (yes, there is actually one) should seek to exploit this development, and I hope to explore the problems for socialism in Bermuda that this moment allows. To do so it is necessary to outline what exactly are the problems for socialism in Bermuda? As I see it the following questions must be posed and answered:

What is the state of the Bermudian left? Where is the left? Is there a Bermudian left? Why is the left in the situation that it is?

The question of identity – or the problem of bad examples? The stigma of Stalinism and dogmatism in general.

Reform or revolution? The nature of the revolutionary organisation and the relationship with the ‘traditional left’ of organised labour and the PLP. Armed uprisings, parliamentary elections and political consciousness. Strategy and tactics.

Socialism in one country – to Cuba or not to Cuba? The day after and what comes next.

Socialisms? The problem of groupuscules – the People’s Front of Judea or the Judean People’s Front?

Key questions for the left – racism, sexism, ecology and power.

Over the next few days, when I am able, I will try to answer these problems as best I can. I would welcome suggestions from readers about what other questions they think need answered, and I will either incorporate them into the above problems, or dedicate posts to them alone.

Welcome Back Bermuda Longtail Blog!

I just wanted to welcome back the blog ‘Bermuda Longtail‘ which started last year and then kind of went dormant for a while. Alot of blogs have been shaking off their dormancy of late, and while there are many possible reasons for this, I welcome the greater number of Bermudian voices online. I reckon that the various political events of this year, and the formation of the DA is contributing to a resurgence of online commentary, and that is certainly something to be encouraged.

Swan Still Sailing On

Well, I guess I should offer my congratulations to Mr. Kim Swan who seems to have successfully been re-elected as leader of the UBP. I had predicted that Mr. Richards would emerge the leader, based on what I saw as the various albatrosses around Mr. Swan’s neck (reform inaction, NewBP schism, lack of strong leadership actions, failed motion of no confidence).

It will be curious to see how the UBP develops from this point on, especially with the rise of the DA. It may be possible that the UBP finally begins the transition to a conservative political party that truly reflects Bermuda’s racial demography, as many of the UBP’s long-suffering White members jump ship over to the DA, invigorated by the novelty of the development. Alternatively the DA will succeed in eclipsing the UBP over time; however this just simply leads to a political shell game, where the DA becomes the UBP in everything except name.

Personally, I’m hoping that the DA’s actions lead to a more ideological politics, with three political parties representing the ideological positions of social democracy, liberalism and conservatism, with each party having a racial composition more representative of our populations. Hopefully this will help further our political maturity by going some way to de-racialising our political system, and allow politics to become more about ideology.

The NewBPs New Name

Well, it has taken close to two months, but the NewBP, which split from the UBP, has finally announced its name, launched a website and had an official launch on the steps of the House of Assembly.

I don’t think there’s been any secret that I have been rather critical, even to the point of some thinking I’m overly hostile, towards the NewBP. I was (and remain) shocked at their lack of planning in both how they came to be through the split, and failure to follow up with any policy positions, organisation or name. The individuals behind this split had been musing about such a move since the 2007 election. They had almost 18 months to think about how to do it, and I expected better.

Even with their new name, the Bermuda Democratic Alliance, and website, I still don’t know what they stand for. Their website seems to just repeat all the empty nice sounding rhetoric that they’ve been saying to the media all this time. About the most that I can get from reading over their site is that they seem to be modeling themselves on the UK Liberal Democratic Party or the South African Democratic Alliance. In fact, the more I look at the Bermuda Democratic Alliance the more I think they’re trying to copy the South African Democratic Alliance. Both Parties seem to be advocating a centrist liberal ideology. Which is exactly what the PLP and the UBP have come to adopt, more or less, as well.

Our political parties today are all parties of the ideological centre. Tweedledum, Tweedledee and Tweedled’oh. There are differences of course, both in some minor ideological positions and in their class bases. The PLP is an unholy alliance of the working classes with the rising Black bourgousie. The UBP is an alliance based on the White upper and middle classes. This new Party will, by the very nature of its split, have a base similar to the UBP, with the exception that it may be able to attract a significant number of Bermudian youth who have been alienated by both the UBP and PLP and are eager for a vehicle they can call their own. Ideologically the PLP has the best approach to the race question, in that they are willing to articulate it and advocate some measures to address it. The UBP by comparison adopts a ‘don’t talk about it’ position, while playing a patronising PR campaign with its parliamentary candidates. Quite frankly that is all that really separates the PLP and the UBP these days. The Democratic Alliance so far seem to be adopting the traditional UBP line, of colour-blind now, and lets not talk about it becuase its uncomfortable. Instead, lets all just hold hands and sing kumbyah.

I am not optimistic about the chance of success for the Democratic Alliance. Their stunted launch and lack of clarity is only made up by their nice sounding fluffy rhetoric and ‘why can’t we all just get along’ whining. Despite that, I do believe the Democratic Alliance has the potential to serve as a catalyst for Bermudian politics. I hope that its emergence could force the PLP and the UBP to clarify their ideologies; the committment to the centre has left our politics bland and based on poli-tricks as opposed to politics proper. About the only thing that is certain though, is that the Democratic Alliance poses a direct challenge not so much to the PLP but to the UBP. The UBP has already been forced to adopt change where previously it just dragged its feet; and tonight the UBP is choosing its new leader. How the Democratic Alliance changes Bermudian politics from now on is an open question. They may simply burn out after a brief, but bright, five minutes of flame. They may simply represent a foot in the door for a new politics. They may even become the new Opposition.

I do question the almost religious comments being posted on the Democratic Alliance’s FB page, with an almost chant-like mantra of ‘Change – I beleive’ and the like. Change to what? Change in and of itself means nothing. Change can be both negative and positive; we should not seek change for the sake of change alone. I worry that some people are too readily swept away by novelty, brought on through disillussionment with the current system. I am sure many are happy at the potential that the Democratic Alliance represents, however I would caution against an uncritical reception for them.

As an aside, I realise some readers may take issue with my decision to refer to the new Party as the Democratic Alliance as opposed to the Bermuda Democratic Alliance. I do so for a few reasons. Perhaps the main reason is due to my reading of Denis’ account over on 21square as to the origin of the name. While it is quite possible that it had been used long before the events he records, I am satisfied that his account represents at least an independent development of the name. More than that, it would appear that the events he describes led to the first public usage of the name, at least in a recorded sense. To that end, and in as much as the Democratic Alliance does not seem to be associated with those who were involved in its origin, I feel that their use of the acronym, while not illegal, is unethical. Beyond that, there are a number of political parties, some defunct, some active, which also use the name ‘Democratic Alliance’, ususally prefixed by the respective countries name. Some examples include the South African Democratic Alliance, the Singapore Democratic Alliance and the Italian Democratic Alliance. All of these parties are liberal parties, parties of the political centre, all sharing the same basic philosophy and approach as this Bermudian Democratic Alliance.

Lots To Read!

Well, there has been alot of documents to read of late and I haven’t had the time to read over all of them deeply enough to comment on any of them. Additionally, I have some other documents that are more pressing at the moment, and have some travelling to do over the next few days. So I don’t think I’m going to be writing much on them over the next couple of days; hopefully I’ll be able to do so over the weekend.

In the mean time I thought it would be wise to direct readers to some of the other blogs who may be able to comment on these issues (and others) until I can comment myself.

There are two new articles over at Bermuda JEWEL. One of them is actually from me, writing about a gang initiative in Glasgow, Community Initiave to Reduce Violence. The other is an open mic from ‘Pied Piper’ discussing the themes of narrative in politics.

The newer blog ‘Bermudas Wishful Thinker’ also has two new posts right now. The first refers to the recent releases of the Bermuda First Report and the Young Black Male study, and the second discusses the recent event in London where the UK Youth Parliament showed up the ‘real’ politicians as a waste of space.

Tales From The Triangles Tip writes an insightful post his motivations for blogging, as well as on the issue of using psuedonyms.

Politics.bm and VexedBermoothes both comment on the recently released reports.

The study on Young Black Males is available in a pdf format from the Bermuda Government website, while the Bermuda First Report is available (after a fashion) from the Bermuda Sun site; I hope that it will be made available in a more easily read pdf format somewhere shortly. I have just found a pdf copy of the document through the RG site.

Setting The Record Straight On My BIAW Autism Comments

I have recieved an email criticising some comments that I made on the BIAW forum relating to Aspergers Syndrome or High Functioning Autism. The author of this email interpreted my comments as ‘making jokes’ at the expense of individuals who suffer from these conditions, and vowed to forward her email, or a variation of it, to others on the island in order to expose me as someone who denigrates these conditions. It is as a result of this email that I feel it necessary to clarify my comments and apologise for any misperceptions resulting from them.

I would ask that readers review the thread on BIAW were the comments were made, however I will also copy and paste them here. I have also posted a follow-up comment on that thread similar in effect to this one. I should note that I post on that forum under the pen-name ‘Crimson Dynamo’, which is more an accidental pen-name than anything else, and I have never hid behind it; I am quite open as to my identity.

The offending comments on that thread were:

No offence, but I do sometimes get the impression you may have a form of Aspergers syndrom. I’m not saying that to be mean or anything, it’s purely just an impression I get sometimes, based on my own experiences with people with it.

Followed by:

I just want to be clear that I don’t know this guy from Adam, and I am not belittling Aspergers syndrome. It’s just an impression I have. But then, I tend to think most Randroids have it…

[The second statement was in reaction to a fellow poster there clearly misinterpreting my original statement as intending to be a joke.]

I think it is important to stress here that I am quite familiar with Aspergers Syndrome and High Functioning Autism as a whole, as well as autism in general. Sufferers of these conditions are within my close social network, or closely related to them. Indeed, the reason that I mentioned it in the post itself was because I happen to know a fellow Bermudian who has a mild form of this condition, who also happens to espouse Objectivist ideologies (which the person the comment was directed at also does) and I suspected the two were the same people. It was sort of a friendly sounding out of the individual in question (who posts on BIAW, as well as here infrequently, under the pen-name J. Galt).

I had thought that I had made it clear in my initial statement, and explicitly so in the second one, that I was in no way attempting to denigrate the condition. I apologise unreservedly should people have perceived that I was indeed denigrating them.

I should also say that I only know three Objectivists personally, of these one is the individual mentioned above who I know to have a mild form of this Autism. The other two share characteristics related to the syndrome, although I concede I have never confirmed this with them. It was on this basis that I suggested that ‘I tend to think most Randroids have it’.

I hope that I have cleared up any misunderstandings on this issue, although I am quite happy to further expand on it should readers have any further concerns. I also hope that readers and those who may recieve emails accusing me of ridiculing autism feel confident to hold me to account.

Having said the above, the issue does provide the potential to develop a better understanding of the complex issues relating to autism in our society, and I would be delighted should readers want to discuss these issues here. To that end I would also like to direct readers to the site of BASE – Bermuda Autism Support & Education. BASE does alot of excellent work relating to autism in Bermuda and I encourage readers to contact them for more detailed information.

The UBP’s Leadership Changes

I am still astounded that the NewBP has so far failed to relaunch itself, and about the only thing we hear about it is fluffy meaningless rhetoric and sniping between it and the UBP itself. Incidentally though, I happen to think that Mr. Sousa at least has grasped the need for the UBP to stop putting on a blackface. In the mean time I see that the UBP has been making some changes to both its website and its constitution.

As for its website, I see that they have finally gotten around to removing the page with pictures of its MPs and candidates and replacing it with an updated one based on text only. The old page had increasingly become a bit of an embarrassment for the UBP as it continued to show pictures of the NewBP members. In addition, the UBP has finally put their constitution online (I do not recall it being available previously). The various consitutional document are dated to 2001, with the exception of one 2003 amendment.

Over the weekend the UBP amended its constitution, with the main headline being the changes made to the election of its Party Leaders. Other amendments were also apparently made, althought these are not expanded on by the UBPs press release. Also, the amended 2009 UBP Constitution is not available yet, so my thoughts on the issue are based solely on the press release by Mr. Sousa.

I find the amendments made to their leadership selection process curious, but in general to the benefit of the Party, increasing its stability. It seems to broaden the people involved in electing the leader considerably, where previously only the parliamentary caucus was able to elect the leader, now it includes ‘the Central Council of the party, which is comprised of two delegates from each branch (the MP or adopted candidate and the branch chairman), regional chairmen, Party senators, the President of Young United and officers of the party, which includes the party chairman, deputy chairman, secretary and treasurer‘.

These changes do have their problems however, the most obvious one being the criticism that is often made of the PLP’s internal election system, that the PLP constitution conflicts with the Bermuda Constitution, which states that the Premier is elected by the majority of MPs. This conflict has lead to a number of constitutional crises for both the PLP and the Government, with the most notable example being the 2003 ‘palace coup’ that led to Premier Jennifer Smith’s replacement by Premier Alex Scott. More recently some members of the PLP have threatened to adopt this strategy to replace Premeir Dr. Brown, although this seems to have been averted so far. This tension seems unavoidable though, and my position is that both can be maintained, even if this involves losing power, advocating for the Parties to expel any members, in particular MPs, who seek to undermine the Party constituion.

I do think the UBP has made an error in its amendment in one section however. Under the amendments it seems that the UBP Senators are able to vote on the Leadership. While this was a slight bone of contention within the PLP, it was decided (and I agree with it), that Senators, who are appointed by the Leader, should not be allowed to vote, as they would be a bloc expected to vote for the individual who appointed them. While a similar argument could be made for Cabinet appointees, the Senators have a greater interest in voting for the incumbent than Cabinet appointees, and accordingly their votes should be invalid. I would hope that the UBP amends its constitution in the future to account for this issue; in the PLP I believe it has now been established that Senators are excluded from leadership votes.

It is not clear what amendments the UBP may have been made for initiating a Leadership election. Under the 2001 document, the Third Schedule (The Election of the Party Leader and Deputy Leader) states that there should be an election for Leader when (a) the leader resigns; (b) the leader ceases to be an MP; or (c) a motion of no confidence is passed on the leader. I realise that the UBP has been mooting the idea of waiting until the parliamentary Christmas break to sort out the Leadership issue, but to me it makes more sense to get the issue over and done with as quickly as possible so that the UBP can more adequately respond to the Throne Speech and new Parliamentary term. In its current state of confusion, the current Leader, Mr. Kim Swan, comes across as an increasingly lame duck Leader, the Deputy Leader, Mr. Trevor Moniz, looks like he is in open rebellion with his Leader and should just declare himself an Independent instead of dragging it out, and the Great Pretender, Mr. E.T. Bob Richards, seems hamstrung and impotent. I would advocate that the UBP gets itself organised to hold an election meeting under the new rules, and Mr. Swan should offer his resignation and trigger the leadership election, where he and Mr. Richards can then campaign.

Bermuda & Homosexuality

There is an interesting discussion going on over at the BIAW forum concerning the issue of including sexual orientation under the human rights act. While this issue, of which the group Two Words & A Comma are helping to raise awareness of, is not about giving homosexuality any special rights, or even necessarily about homosexuality itself, it is widely regarded as being about the issue of homosexuality and the discrimination faced by homosexuals in Bermuda. This issue is quite a divisive one, as it is throughout the greater Caribbean region.

From my own reading of the Bermuda Constitution and the existing Human Rights Act it is my belief that it is necessary to adapt the HR Act in order to prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. I want to make it clear that under the existing system one can be discriminated against equally on the basis of heterosexuality and homosexuality. Under our prevailing social power system though, in practical terms this works in favour of heterosexuals and against homosexuals.

Personally, I fully admit that I have trouble understanding homosexuality, in finding a member of the same sex attractive, let alone the physical expressions of these attractions. At most I can look at a guy and say, yeah, that’s a good looking guy, and I can see how women will find him attractive. But that’s about it. I recognise however that I no more need to understand homosexuality and same-sex attraction than homosexuals need to understand heterosexuality. It just is. They like what they like and I like what I like, and that is about it. Having said that, yes, I do have an issue with flamboyant and overly feminine or exaggerated homosexuality, in that they do really annoy me and I generally try to avoid them. Similarly, I have an issue with PDA, however I tend to be rather prudish on this issue in general, regardless of the sexuality. I find PDA, in the form of a goodbye or welcome back kiss and hug accetpable, especially at airports, but beyond that I dislike it. As for the irrational fear that some men have about being ‘hit on’ by homosexuals, my position is that if I’m hit on it is for the same reasons a women would hit on me, and has no bearing on my sexuality whatsoever; it only means I’m generally attractive.

Whenever this issue comes up it seems that it always involves a debate about whether or not homosexuality is a ‘choice’ or ‘biological’. While the question may be interesting, I am always wary about the consequences of the arguments and basically find it to be an irrelevant question. If it is found to be biological I am concerned about a new form of eugenics trying to eradicate the ‘gay genes’ from the population by any means necessary, from genetic engineering, forced sterilisations to death camps. If it is found to be a choice I am concerned about the horrors that therapy has unleashed, and question what the point would be.

Personally I am of the belief that it is primarily biological, with nurture having only a slight modifying effect. Again though, to me it is irrelevant whether or not it is a choice or a biological condition. The HR Act even as it is prevents discrimination on the basis of the biological conditions of race and sex (in the sense of male/female) as well as choice, such as political and religious beliefs. So the question has no bearing to me about whether or not sexual orientation should be included under the HR Act. At most I can see that some people may be concerned about their children being turned into homosexuals, should it be found to be a choice. Again, this has about the same level of concern to me as whether or not my children would be converted to this or that political or religious convention, and as far as I am concerned should it be a choice (which I do not think is the case) of the individual. I have always found the idea that it is a choice, especially in a strongly homophobic country like Bermuda, quite a ridiculous notion though. While I may choose the unpopular political and religious views of socialism and atheism in Bermuda, I am alot less likely to suffer negative consequences than someone choosing to be ‘gay’ would in Bermuda.

I have also found that alot of the more homophobic individuals in our society often equate homosexuality with pedophilia or bestiality. I’ve always found this quite ridiculous. I really don’t see how these three distinct issues are conflated into the one. The key thing with sexual orientation, be it heterosexual or homosexual, is the importance of consensuality. Non-consensual sex, be it homosexual or heterosexual, is wrong, period. By definition a non-human organisms (okay, should we meet sentient extra-terrestrials this will need changed… lol) and non-adult humans (in my opinion 18, but the law may say 16 in some legislations) cannot consent to sex. It is that key part of consensus that breaks the connection between homosexuality and pedophilia/bestiality.

Even should we adapt our legislation to include sexual orientation however, that will only be a very small part of the story. The greater issue in Bermuda is not so much the lack of legislation but the social power structure that discriminates against them.