Dear Sir, It was my understanding that when one advertises for staff, it is against human rights and the Constitution to specify male, female or race.

In view of Minister Lister's comments I wonder how Immigration and Government would react to the following advertisement.

"I require a one-eyed, Chinese lesbian, evangelical optometrist for my practice. Please send resume to P.O. Box etc. etc''.

This will discriminate against, two-eyed people, non-gays, non-Chinese, males and people who are not of the evangelical religion. If there was an uproar about such an advertisement, I could respond that the Minister wants to get more equality in various areas.

All I can say Mr. Editor, the Minister is talking a lot of rubbish.

ANTONY SIESE City of Hamilton ARV will fuel inflation July 23, 1999 Dear Sir, Regarding the ARV ratings, I was listening to the ramblings in The House when a Government MP (whose name I did not get) stated that the high increases on ARV ratings were necessary because the previous government had not paid attention for ten years, or longer, and that they, the present Government were putting right years of neglect.

Whilst I can agree with the general principle here, that Bermuda has suffered years of political cronyism and other elitist syndromes, I have to ask myself whether increasing the ARVs, is the right thing to do. Sometimes doing the right thing at the wrong time becomes the wrong thing, and in view of the extortionate rental market at present, I would have thought anything that ultimately serves to increase rentals can only be bad.

I can see that increasing the tax on rentals might give a landlord incentive to lower the rent and thus pay less tax. However, the increases seem to have been based on what a property might be rented for rather than actual present rental received. In any case, a landlord is more likely to increase the rent to cover the extra amount of tax he/she has to pay, so that what is now rented for $5,000 per month, could become $6,000 a month. True the tax percentage increases proportionately, but the landlord ends up with the same amount as before... the tenant is the one who pays for the tax hike. Whilst this may be tolerable, given a view that those who can afford to pay $5,000 a month in rent can afford to pay $6,000 per month, the trickle-down effect to the lower rental bracket is where the government should be looking. If Mr Grabitall can rent his unit for $6,000, then Mr Jackitup can rent his for $3,000, and if that's the case, Mrs Fleabag can rent hers for $1,500. This is not a new issue. Rents in the $1,000-a-month bracket hardly exist, yet earnings of less than $500 a week are common (despite the financial wizards telling us differently). How do these factors reconcile? Buying a house is still a joke, unless these are any going for less than $150,000 -- and where you would still need $30,000 for the 20% deposit. Raising the ceiling on Rent Control doesn't work because landlords simply take their properties off the market, which adds to the existing shortage of rental units, which in turn puts up the value of those that remain.

Perhaps what's really needed is a proper Landlord & Tenant Act, i.e. one that protects/encourages both parties to be fair (eh...? what does that mean?) One where landlords don't have the right to increase rents without increasing the value or habitable state of the unit or to evict tenants if they can't and/or are unwilling to pay (and getting new tenants who will). However, that is a long-term strategy that should be in place and seen to be working, with ARV increases being the last thing to be done, not the first. If the new Government wants to do (or undo or redo) stuff not done by the previous set - and let's hope that's not their only reason for wanting to do it - there are a million other issues that need urgent attention, things that the `average person' could feel happy about. (The whole transport/road system, for starters, from speed controls, sidewalks for pedestrians, to a driving test which actually tests driving skills, demonstrates road courtesy/consideration, and how to apply it.) Raising taxes in this way will not fix high rents (if that was any part of the intention), but add to economic inflation as well as tick-off the whole community.

TRICIA THOMPSON-BROWNE Pembroke Is Govt clever or devious? July 22, 1999 Dear Sir, It looks like this New Bermuda Government is spending money like it's coming from a bottomless pit, which it obviously isn't, because now they are looking for a further $7 million to spend, and we are only a few months into the Budget year, which makes us wonder what is going to happen during the next eight or nine months? -- what other taxes are they going to demand? and what kind of Budget can we expect next year?. They have been very clever, or devious, depending how you look at it, with the new Land Tax.

They have made a small reduction for 75 percent of the landowners, and they are crucifying the rest of us, so now they can say that when a Government passes a bill, you are not going to please everybody, and most of the landowners are happy. Yes, 75 percent of them! Very clever. Those of us in the 25 percent are not all millionaires, we have worked hard all our lives, put our children through school, and now they have left the nest, we have bought into a small modern home to enjoy our retirement. If any tax has to be increased for some legitimate reason, it should fall on everybody.

SEEING IT AS IT IS Pembroke Praise for the Fab Five July 22, 1999 Dear Sir, I refer to your sizzling headline today that the "Burger Barons Burned''.

Rather them than the rest of Bermuda, which now should be free of McDonald's and other symbols of the international junk food culture.

Small islands and places have been assaulted since the 1950s by the destruction of local culture through the infiltration of foreign eating and other nasty habits. These places, such as Bermuda, will always depend upon an atmosphere of uniqueness if they are to survive in the competitive world of modern eco-tourism. In many places, that uniqueness has been all but obliterated by the introduction of fast-food, fast-buck operations.

All Bermudians now have a permanent debt to the Hon. Ann Cartwright DeCouto, Trevor Moniz, MP, and the others of the "Fabulous Five'' and their supporters for a job well done in keeping McDonald's out of Bermuda. We should also remember that it was Mrs. DeCouto who also had the courage to bring in the fish pot ban, another major act in preserving Bermuda's unique environment.

None of this long battle would have been necessary if the short-order cook at the Ministry of Finance had any respect for Bermuda, its history and its needs in cultural tourism, not to mention the disregard for the long-standing government policy against fast-food franchises.

Bermuda can only survive in tourism, which supports the majority of Bermudians, if it invests in the assets of the local culture and environment.

Every effort to dilute the uniqueness of this island should be seen as a threat to our fundamental livelihood.

The "Fab five'' have given us some breathing space in which to take stock of the essentials which make Bermuda so special. Let us follow their extraordinary leadership by continuing to resist those who for the fast dollar would turn the place into another Orlando.

Bermuda for Bermudians means investing in Bermudian culture and not replacing it with junk food and junk buildings.

DR. EDWARD CECIL HARRIS, FSA Sandys Parish Bone of contention July 21, 1999 Dear Sir, I have just read the Dangerous Dogs section of the Letters to the Editor and feel compelled to offer my point of view.

Typically, I do not read letters unless the writer provides their name, however, as I am a dog lover, and owner of what some might consider "Dangerous Dogs'', I read the letter entitled Foresight is Needed written by Hopeful Hound (didn't realise dogs could write, but it doesn't surprise me).

Without going into detail regarding Hopeful Hound's rhetoric, most "people'' have heard the following saying, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people''. Well, the similar thing applies to dogs, i.e. a dog is essentially a product of its owner's upbringing and teaching (kind of like a child). Hopeful Hound would have us believe that any and all dogs of the breeds he/she references are uncontrollable, and impossible of being trained to do anything other than fight and bite. This is far from the truth.

While I fully acknowledge that these breeds may have initially been bred for fighting and protection, who is Hopeful Hound to say that someone cannot be a responsible owner and breeder of these dogs? As far as I am concerned, if someone has owned a dog since it was a puppy, they can train/condition it to do whatever they want. Yes, some breeds are inherently more aggressive, less trainable, and harder to control than others, but this is where being an informed and responsible owner comes in.

At the end of the day, dogs (regardless of breed) are not the problem, the people who own and control them are.

MARK L. SIMONS Warwick