In an opinion piece that was published in The Royal Gazette yesterday, Lynne Winfield stated: “There are some human rights that are now considered to be so universal that they are binding on all countries, whether or not they are signatories to the relevant international conventions.

“For example, a country that uses state laws and powers to torture people violates human rights, even if it has not signed the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, commonly known as the United Nations Convention against Torture.

“There is no such universal international human rights standard that requires states to give citizenship rights, such as permanent status and the right to vote, to long-term guest workers ...”

With respect, in my capacity as a Bermudian human rights lawyer, I vigorously disagree.

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms requires our government to have a respect for an individual’s “private and family life”. The United Kingdom signed Bermuda on to that convention in 1953 and the Supreme Court of Bermuda has since held that all residents of Bermuda have a “legitimate expectation” that all of its articles will be observed by the public authorities in Bermuda.

The respect for “private and family life” has been interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights, in the case of Kuric v Slovenia, as requiring states that are signed on to the European Convention on Human Rights to afford citizenship rights to long-term alien residents in certain cases. Although the Kuric case differs significantly from what is taking place in Bermuda, the European Court of Human Rights, while affirming the right of Slovenia to control its immigration policy, ruled that the right in question is not always absolute.

In Kuric, there was a serious issue of families being divided by a new immigration policy that “cracked down” on those who failed to apply for citizenship on time, thereby removing their pathway to citizenship. Slovenia, it was found, had not done enough to protect the families of non-Slovene nationals from the adverse effects of its immigration policy. Such negative impact was accordingly deemed to be a violation of the “private and family” lives of those foreign nationals.

While I agree that the Government of Bermuda should listen carefully to the concerns that are being expressed, I vehemently disagree with the idea that the human rights of non-Bermudian, long-term residents are not a factor that should be considered. Where Ms Winfield and I agree is in our concern for what impact the proposed changes may have on black Bermudians in the long term. While I generally support the argument that permanent resident’s certificate holders and long-term, non-Bermudian residents, and the children of such residents, should be afforded the opportunity to eventually obtain status, I have an issue with the effect that new work permit-holders may have on the overall labour pool in the distant future in the absence of effective controls.

I understood from listening to the media reports that home affairs minister Michael Fahy has claimed to have engaged a “robust” work permit policy that will be used as the means to the end of controlling future immigration. We need to hear more about this.

• Allan Doughty is an attorney who practises human rights law with BeesMont Law