Riddle me this, Mr Acting Editor, as we reflect on the recent equal rights debate. How is it that those who espouse tolerance, exhibit so little for those who have views with which they disagree? I am not just talking about reported exchanges on the Hill, but those who also took to the blogs, posting their views, venomous, and vitriolic, on occasion, most of them volleyed from behind pseudonyms.But this too, sadly, is our Bermuda, and underscores in a perverse way the need for laws which mandate tolerance, and protection for all. There again, you have to also wonder: how hard can it be to ‘man’ up, and admit where you went too far?As it’s been a short week, some more short “riddles” for contemplation and comment:Riddle 1: Anyone notice that the public holiday Monday was National Heroes Day? Oh sure, like you, I saw the banners hanging on a number of Government buildings as well as a couple of newspaper advertisements. But really, the holiday was pretty much a damp squib. The weather on Saturday didn’t help either as it led to the scrapping of the parade which used to be a featured event of the three-day weekend. Our new Government must come to a decision here: the holiday weekend presents an opportunity to honour our heritage with celebrations of interest to locals and visitors alike. Like mother said: if something is worth doing, it’s worth doing right.Riddle 2: Hey tongues sure were wagging, and bloggers typing, about the Honours List. Biggest talking point: a CBE for former Premier Alex Scott and his acceptance of the award. But come on, it shouldn’t be that big of a surprise, should it? The man worked long and hard for country, within the system, and for what he believed in, and the system chose to recognise him for his service. Why return the gift? We all know where he still stands. The bigger surprise arguably was why he wasn’t awarded what all former Premiers have been offered, ie a knighthood. But I don’t profess to understand how these things work; criteria and selection have always seemed to be shrouded in secrecy.Riddle 3: Speaking of secrecy, Government has in mind legislating a Code of Conduct for the Corporation of Hamilton. Good stuff. But you have to wonder why they don’t take the lead and start with themselves? Mind you, we know there is a Ministerial Code of Conduct, but they just won’t make it available publicly so we can all know what’s expected of them. Similarly, we still don’t know the criteria that distinguishes a full-time from part-time Cabinet Ministers other than salary.Riddle 4: It was my view (from experience) that having to sit in Opposition after serving in Government helped you to see things more clearly. That has to be so: otherwise can there be any other credible explanation for the two good governance motions which the PLP have advanced in the House on the Hill? Mandatory disclosure of contracts and reports is something they could have voluntarily done when in power. Still, the push is heartening. We need Government and Opposition to work together to make disclosure and accountability the norm. Forgo the grandstanding.Riddle 5: Finally, ironic isn’t it how we now hear boldly and loudly from new voices decrying the state of Government finances and the crippling public debt. Yet when the damage was being done, not a peep; at least not publicly. I am not surprised. This has always been the way in tiny Bermuda where people have always found it easier (some might say wiser) to appear to go along to get along. But be warned: I have also learned from my years in politics that while this may be the practice in between elections, it is not always the case come election day.* Post your comments on this on The Royal Gazette website, www.royalgazette.com or e-mail jbarritt@ibl.bm.