Decades ago, Dr Eustace Cann, who was one of the small band of black Members of Colonial Parliament (as MPs were then known) who for decades fought for equal rights and against segregation, made a selfless and statesmanlike decision.Women were seeking the right to vote and the right to sit in the House of Assembly. It is important to understand that they were not seeking the right on behalf of all women, white or black. Instead, propertied women were seeking the right.This had been a losing battle for years. One bill after another had been defeated through the first 40 years of the 20th Century. There were always MCPs who supported the principle of women’s suffrage. There just weren’t enough. And many of the white MCPs who opposed women’s suffrage did so because they feared it would lead to universal adult suffrage and the abolition of the anachronistic property vote.Also among the opponents were the small number of black MCPs, not least because it did nothing to change the property vote, although some probably harboured more chauvinist views about the worth, or lack thereof, of women as well.But Dr Cann broke ranks and voted for the women’s suffrage bill in 1944, thus enabling the bill giving women the right to vote to pass.He did so because he recognised the rightness of the cause, a given today, but not universally accepted then. And he did so because he recognised that backing women’s right to vote would lead to universal adult suffrage as well. He was right on that, although it would take two more long decades, and he would not live to see it. In 1968, one person one vote finally came about.That courageous act is important today because of the parallels it has with the fight for an end to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, about which there was a protest yesterday.Royal Gazette columnist Walton Brown put the case for introducing protection against discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation very well on this page yesterday, and he noted the responsibility that supporters of such a change have to fight for it.But in the end, the decision on an amendment to the Human Rights Act outlawing this form of discrimination will have to be taken by Dr Cann’s successors in the House of Assembly, who so far have shown little willingness to do so.To be sure, there are some in the House of Assembly who oppose this change on the basis of firmly held religious beliefs. Their faith deserves respect, not denigration.But even they, if they oppose the homosexual life, should recognise that this does not mean that people should be denied basic rights to rent or buy homes, to work, to be served in shops and restaurants and not to be judged on the basis of their private lives. That very right is applied to people of different religious beliefs.Human rights cover a basic range of rights, which today, unlike in Dr Cann’s time, are inarguable. A person will not be told where they can or cannot live or work on the basis of his or her gender, race or religion. It simply is not acceptable in a democratic society founded on equality and tolerance.Sexual orientation should not be excluded from this list. Gays bother no one by where they choose to live or what work they wish to pursue. No one should have the right to prevent them from living and working and fulfilling their potential. And it’s worth remembering that the same gap in the Human Rights Act means that heterosexuals can be discriminated against too.For those MPs who do not have a strong moral reason to oppose changing the Human Rights Act, fear is their main motivation; the fear of losing votes.Dr Cann may have had the same fears in 1944, but they were magnified tenfold in an electoral system designed to make it as difficult as possible for him to get elected. But he did the right thing. Today women have the vote and the same rights as men as a result of his action. It simply takes courage.For now, a property owner or employer can refuse a home or a job simply because he believes that person is attracted to someone of the same sex. This has no bearing on whether they will meet the lease or job requirements necessary. This may seem remote to many, but it is not. One day it will be your child, or sibling or friend who will be discriminated against and when that happens, you must ask yourself the question: “What did I do to prevent this?”Don’t let the answer be: “Nothing.”