on a motion to enable born Bermudians who have become citizens of other countries to sit in the House of Assembly.

Government MPs rejected a Progressive Labour Party motion to take immediate action to have a section of the Constitution deleted.

Shadow Home Affairs Minister Alex Scott's motion was defeated by a 16-15 motion at about 3 a.m. yesterday morning after a marathon debate.

Mr. Scott argued that the section -- which prevents Bermudians who have sworn allegiance to a a foreign power from sitting in the House of Assembly -- was discriminatory.

He said that it was unfair that Bermudians who had become citizens of another country were barred from the House while people who were born elsewhere and later received Bermuda status were allowed to sit.

But Home Affairs Minister Quinton Edness said there was a difference.

Poliiticians like those from Jamaica, (Senator Yvette Swan), Canada (former Transport Minister Sidney Stallard and former Senator Michael Winfield), or the UK, (former MP Dorothy Thompson) who sat as members all swore allegiance to the Crown, said Mr. Edness.

The American oath on the other hand, demanded its citizens "absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure any and all allegiances to any prince, potentate...,'' he added.

Government would not support the motion because in the final analysis it did not agree with it, he said.

Mr. Edness urged Mr. Scott to seek wider legal opinion on the matter and if necessary to take it all the way to the British Government.

Ottiwell Simmons (PLP) rejected Mr. Edness's arguments, saying the section clearly discriminated.

Mr. Simmons went on to say what was perhaps needed was a clearer definition of the terms "foreign power or state''. Taken at face value, Australia and the United Kingdom could also qualify as "foreign powers''.

Meanwhile, Dr. Brown holds his seat by the authority of the electors of Warwick West, and has also sworn allegiance to the Queen.

Despite that, Dr. Brown yesterday woke up to glaring headlines in The Royal Gazette saying he could face a prison term because the people had elected him.

"This is about power, about control, about crashing the glass ceiling on every bit of talent that we have,'' said Mr. Simmons.

Mr. Simmons said he defied anyone in the UBP to say the Constitution was right, just or fair.

It was not, he argued. Instead it was wrong, unjust, unfair and discriminatory.

He urged the people of Bermuda to take the matter up and discuss it amongst themselves and with their children.

Mr. Simmons said he wanted to make sure the future of the children and their children's children was politically, economically and socially secure because now it was in the most insecure position that it had ever been.

Shadow Health Minister Renee Webb stressed that the debate was about one section of the Constitution and that concerned whether or not Dr. Brown's act of swearing allegiance to the US disqualified him from serving in the House.

She said Dr. Brown did swear allegiance to the US in 1990 but she added that in 1993 he swore allegiance to the Crown and the Bermudian people when he took a seat in the House.

The question was whether the Dr. Brown's swearing allegiance to the Crown after swearing allegiance to the US nullified his allegiance to the US or not.

Ms Webb said Dr. Brown's intent when he took the oaths also had to be considered.

When he took an oath of allegiance to the Crown in 1993 it was because he was taking his seat in the House, noted Ms Webb.

She said the idea of dual nationality was a moot point as Bermuda did not and could not grant nationality to anyone as it was not independent.

Ms Webb pointed out that the US State Department said it assumed people intended to retain their US citizenship when they took routine oaths of allegiance to foreign countries.

The State Department said each case had to be studied to determine an individual's intent.

If swearing allegiance to the US was so important, she continued, then it was not fair to say that swearing allegiance to the Crown meant nothing.

She said if swearing allegiance to the US meant that a person was intending to denounce the Crown then it could not be said that it meant nothing when the same person swore to the Crown three years later.

Ms Webb said a similar situation had happened before in Bermuda and cited the example of Calvin Smith who served as a Parliamentarian after swearing an oath of allegiance to Canada.

But Mr. Edness -- on a point of information -- pointed out that Canadians swore allegiance to the same entity as Bermudians, so that was not a good example.

Ms Webb argued that if Dr. Brown had sworn allegiance to Canada or any other country in the Commonwealth, the Government would have used the same argument under the Constitution to disqualify him.

The Constitution was an evolving and growing instrument, she continued, and made to be amended and if it was to be amended then the British Government had to be consulted as Bermuda was still a colony.

But it defended all Bermudians, she added.

UBP MP Tim Smith said the matter under discussion was important because it brought debate on the Constitution into people's lives which did not normally happen and it asked the question whether the Constitution was fluid enough to evolve.

He said he took a different view to that of the Opposition who were suggesting that for it to evolve it had to be amended.

The document did not need to be amended because the original writers had good intentions when they put in clause 30.

And Mr. Smith said concern should not be focused on what the US's view of the matter was, but on Bermuda's view.

In the US, one could not renounce citizenship on a whim, he pointed out.

And if people wanted to serve in the US Government then they had to prove their loyalty through holding their citizenship for long periods of time.

The Constitution was also the fundamental basis for law, said Mr. Smith, and could not be changed on a regular basis.

And Dr. Brown had not simply swore an allegiance to the US flag in 1990, he added, but to a number of different things.

He might now be in a position of division of allegiance, said Mr. Smith, and although he had sympathy for that position, the Constitution could not be amended to fix that.

The Rev. Trevor Woolridge (PLP) said the UBP was merely continuing the same practices it had used for 30 years in putting Bermudians out.

He said he was disappointed that the new leadership had taken on the beliefs of the oligarchy of yesteryear.

The issue was a political fight, he claimed, and the matter embarrassed the UBP.

Dr. Brown was a born Bermudian -- did that mean anything to anybody? he asked.

And Mr. Woolridge said the UBP did not champion the cause of Bermudians, but found reasons not to help them.

This was why Bermudians did not feel included by the Country's leadership.

The motion being moved, he said, was simply to provide the Government with an opportunity to step up to the plate to do what it had to do to remove a discriminatory clause from the Constitution.

He called for Government to take the recommendation and support the motion and set up the mechanism necessary to amend the Constitution.

Mr. Woolridge said he expected better leadership out of the UBP but he did not expect to see it.

Minister of Works and Engineering C.V. (Jim) Woolridge took aim at his PLP colleagues for failing to speak to the motion, and said the UBP had made no attempt to sanction Dr. Brown.

"All this PLP rhetoric makes us look like we are a bunch of bad boys. What are we being judged on? We stand accused of what?'' he asked.

Mr. Woolridge said the Constitution was not drafted to benefit Dr. Brown, but all Bermudians. Dr. Brown he said, had made his choices in taking the US oath of allegiance: "Now he has his cake and wants to eat it too.'' David Allen (PLP) said the issue boiled down to whether Government would grant Bermudians a level playing field. He also took aim at the roots of the Bermudian Constitution, saying it was modeled on the Bahamas model, was written in London, and designed to protect only the power of the ruling elite.

The Member in question, Dr. Ewart Brown , struck out at Government's "mean spirited and illogical'' stand, and took aim at the "purchased opinions of a foreign lawyer''.

"I keep hearing the other side say renounce. I'll tell you what I'll renounce -- this Government's racist policies; this Government's economic assassinations,'' he said.

Recalling his Bermudian roots, Dr. Brown said it appeared that from Government's position a Bermudian birthright was of little value.

He meanwhile mocked the controversy that's followed him, at one point producing a set of handcuffs, to the delight of the PLP bench.

"I've always tried to do those things that were correct. But guess what they want to do to me now. I believe this Government wants to send me to jail. I believe ( Royal Gazette Editor) David White wants to send me to jail.

"As busy as I am, why do they want to send me to Westgate -- or would it be to the co-ed facility?'' Recalling his history, Dr. Brown said that with the help of a Bermuda Government scholarship he went to Howard University to study medicine. Upon his return to Bermuda: "I had the distinction of being the first Bermudian doctor in 50 years to fail the medical registry exam.'' After practising in the US for 20 years Dr. Brown said he returned to the Island.

"In 1993 I became a candidate in the general election for the PLP. That's where I committed the crime. What did I do in 1993 that was so horrible? I was able to defeat Sir John Sharpe,'' he said.

"I wasn't supposed to. Sir John was deemed to be a well-respected, almost sacred politician. Now there are people after my political neck.'' It was sickening, said Dr. Brown, to hear UBP members talking about the Constitution as if it was theirs. "This constitution was framed so Bermuda could be a colony. It wasn't framed for me. Constitutions come and constitutions go. Constitutions can be amended,'' he said.

"Any document that gives greater rights to a person born outside the country than one born inside is wrong. And anyone who stands in the way of something as fundamental as that is not fit to govern the people,'' he said.

Opposition Leader Jennifer Smith said there were sure to be as many legal opinions as there were lawyers, and legal opnions sought by the PLP said the clauses in question were open for interpretation.

MPs scrutinise oath of allegiance Government's interpretation seemed to be favouring status Bermudians over born Bermudians, she said.

The Constitution has to be considered within the time it was drawn up. Since then the Island had moved a long way to mending human rights abuses and addressing racial discrimination.

"The constitution's intent may be good, but it's not a perfect document,'' she said.

Ms Smith also pointed out that since Dr. Brown swore his oath of allegiance in the US, he has also sworn allegiance to the Queen: "Surely the subsequent act must share at least equal weight with the prior act.'' Paula Cox (PLP) said legislators had to ask whether they wanted their constitution to be a dynamic or static document.

All Members, she said, had to bear in mind how best the Constitution could be made to adapt to the people's changing needs.

The headline in Wednesday's The Royal Gazette highlighted attempts to channel black men toward Westgate, said Stanley Morton (PLP).

Bermuda had to break out of that habit as the cancer of racism was still present in society and people had to do what they could to remove it.

Dr. Brown had proven himself to be an honourable man, continued Mr. Morton.

He noted that politics had entered election mode and a lot of things could happen and the UBP would do anything to stay in power.

Leon (Jimmy) Williams (PLP) said many Bermudians were treated in similar fashion to how Dr. Brown was treated.

Bermudians were being told by the headline in the daily newspaper on Wednesday that they could be thrown in prison because they were Bermudian.

He said MPs should be honouring Dr. Brown for his work and not having the debate.

Recalling US President Bill Clinton's recent drive for a new dialogue on race relations in the US, Nelson Bascome (PLP) called for Government to "repair the breach'' in Bermuda.

Deputy Speaker Stanley Lowe (PLP) said he thought there would be more participation from the UBP.

Their lack of participation seemed to show they had given up responsibility.

He said amendments had been made to the Constitution in the past and when it was ambiguous it was up to Parliamentarians to make it clear. That was all the Opposition motion was trying to do, he stressed.

Shadow Minister of Legislative Affairs and Women's Issues Lois Browne-Evans said she was at Marlborough House in England when the Island's Constitution was first discussed in 1966.

She said it was interesting to see how it got from there to where it was now.

And very soon after Bermuda had a Constitution, she noted, amendments had to be made.

It was not a sacrosanct document and unless there were amendments, then there would never be changes.

She said on the face of the section being debated, it appeared to be prohibitive to anyone with an allegiance to a foreign power, but what did that mean? This phrase suggested authority, such as the military, said Mrs. Browne-Evans.

But when a Constitution was ambiguous, she continued, legally, one had to accept the interpretation which was most favourable to citizens or democracy.

She said she expected Government to stand and offer to take the matter under advisement and look into it.

She said the Government should take its blinders off and start being progressive.

Premier Pamela Gordon said the theme she had picked up throughout the day's debate was that Bermuda's Constitution was relatively unique.

However she read off similar sections with almost identical wording from a number of other constitutions from various Caribbean countries.

And she stressed the issue under discussion was not all about Dr. Brown.

She agreed the US was a good neighbour to the Island and was therefore difficult to perceive as being a foreign power.

Bermuda operated as a Country within its laws as other countries did, continued Ms Gordon.

When a person swore allegiance to another country they relinquished certain rights and privileges of their former country.

In Bermuda's case, what a person gave up was the right to be able to serve in Parliament.

The Premier pointed to the example of Sen. Swan , a Jamaican by birth who has since lost her right to sit in that country's legislature because of her status in Bermuda.

Meanwhile repeated calls that the clause discriminated against Bermudians were groundless. The clause only comes into force following a voluntary act: "Everyone has choices,'' she said. "How can a voluntary act be discrimination.'' The case more precisely, was that the clause offended one sitting member who had made his choice.

And calls to amend the Constitution to rectify his situation were inappropriate and self-serving.

Bermuda's Constitution may not be perfect, but neither was it so out of step with the rest of the world, she said. Constitutions of other island states such as Dominica, Barbados, Trinidad, Grenada, and Jamaica, contained similar provisions.

At any rate there existed other mechanisms outside a constitutional amendment to clarify Dr. Brown's position, the Premier said.

Over catcalls from the Opposition bench the Premier suggested Dr. Brown had relinquished his Bermudian status when he swore allegiance to the US, and to remedy that he would have to be "naturalised'' again.

At that remark the Opposition shot back: "How can you naturalise a person who was already born here.'' That position, said the PLP's Walter Lister , was another example of the new Premier and the same old policies. There was no way you can become naturalised a second time. And at what point he asked, did Dr. Brown give up his Bermudian status.

Nowhere in the Constitution did it say a person could lose their status.

Education Minister Jerome Dill agreed with earlier comments that the PLP motion was self-serving.

"What we have is an honourable Member who is in clear breach of our Constitution.'' And the fact the Opposition put forth such a motion was an acceptance of that fact, he said. Because of that the PLP thinks they're entitled to amend the Constitution, when they have no right.

"Then he (Dr. Brown) gets up and has the temerity to say black people are going to be disadvantaged. Is Nelson Bascome disadvantaged; is Dennis Lister disadvantaged; is Trevor Woolridge disadvantaged by this legislation,'' asked Mr. Dill.

"The only young black male who is affected by this particular provision is the Member from Warwick West, and that's because he chose to swear an oath of allegiance to another country other than Bermuda.'' Mr. Dill called the Opposition moves nonsense and disgraceful.

Rounding out the debate, Mr. Scott said the Premier was being burdened with carrying the status quo. The motion before the House he said presented an opportunity for change.

But somehow Government had come around to the idea that the US was a foreign entity, while Bermuda used the American dollar and American Drug Enforcement Agents pitched in to help "Cleansweep'' Bermuda's streets.

Meanwhile Bermuda, even in the eyes of the US Government, has a predominant claim on Dr. Brown, said Mr. Scott, reading from relevant American immigration documents.

Mr. Scott then moved the House vote on the motion.

Mr. Edness then rose to remind Speaker Ernest DeCouto of House rules which hold no Member having a direct, particular, or pecuniary interest in a motion can vote on it.

That brought Ms Smith to her feet, saying the Member's right in question, (Dr.

Brown), had not been challenged, and the motion was only a motion seeking elucidation.

The Speaker however ruled with the Government, observing Dr. Brown had already stated publicly that he knew he was in violation of clause 30 of the Bermuda Constitution.

Dr. Brown forcefully denied ever making such statements and protested. He was however called to order by the Speaker, who said he'd already made his ruling.

The motion was then defeated.