Probably my last comment on the whole sexual orientation amendment before I move on.
The first point I think needs reiterating is that the timing of this bill was completely wrong.
As someone put it to me this morning, the difference between the Stubbs bill in 1994 and the Webb bill in 2006 was 4 years. Meaning that there were 4 years between the Stubbs bill passing and an election in 1998.
Renee Webb's amendment was pitched right before a highly anticipated early-ish election.
Secondly, I haven't spoken to any MPs who feel good about the way this all went down. Paula Cox put it well in the Bermuda Sun when she said:
"I think that all players were diminished somewhat in the actual proceedings."
Ms. Cox also shed light on what I think is a unanimous consensus in Parliament that Ms. Webb didn't do the standard legwork, work that is much more critical for a private members bill to gain support:
"To credibly discuss this issue, I would have approached the process completely differently. We all know the hype and emotionalism that surrounds the issue of sexual orientation. Some clear, objective and factual discussion and consultation needed to occur prior even to any debate. If not, you contribute to a situation where in the absence of information there is a vacuum and in which fear and misinformation can flourish."
It seems pretty clear to me after some feedback that I've received that some of those 'against' votes were actually 'I could have been persuaded but Renee didn't go about it properly'.
That may not make some people happy but that's politics.
As I mentioned in my article in yesterday's RG, there's a lot more to politics than voting your conscience. A number of MPs seemed torn by what some may characterise as self-preservation (which is probably the case in some instances) but was actually the push pull between voting your conscience and representing your constituents, while others resented what they saw as a lack of respect given them by Renee.
The rapid defeat of the bill is more indicitive of a lack of support for Renee Webb than the amendment itself.
I was told this morning that after Renee spoke for an hour and a half and Nelson Bascome began to speak, she started to leave the gallery. At that point Environment Minister Neletha Butterfield said something to the effect of: "Where do you think you're going. We sat here and listened to you", which caused Renee to return to her seat.
That's very revealing. MPs felt like they were disrespected through the process and returned the favour.
One other thing I'd like to mention. There's also been a fair amount of consternation about who should have spoken to continue the debate after Nelson Bascome.
I maintain that the UBP's position that the Minister responsible (ie. Dale Butler) or a Cabinet Member should have gone next is entirely reasonable, particularly when I've been reliably informed that Renee Webb had indicated that both Dale Butler and Ewart Brown would speak in support of the amendment -- one who claimed to be in the bathroom (oldest excuse in the book) and the other (Dr. Brown) who engaged in characteristic double talk:
"I elected not to speak today. I intend to speak on this issue another time and another place."
If a private member can't even get a member of the Government to support her bill, only having one of her backbenchers oppose it, then there is no hope of it moving forward with or without the opposition.
Ms. Webb has been around long enough to know that and should have read the writing on the wall. But she's a politician who thrives on confrontation, and it seems to me that she was led down the garden path by her own party in particular.
Someone got punk'd.
Posted by Christian S. Dunleavy