So often it’s the little things in life that seem to count the most, Mr Acting Editor, and the big ones not so much. Politics is no exception: things like feral chickens, garbage collection, roads and street lights, letters to the Editor and GP cars.Add parliamentary salaries to the list. I got called out on the subject last week by two readers on opposite ends of the spectrum. What difference does it make, the first wanted to know, why one Minister is part-time and another full-time so long as we know who’s what?Well, that helps, sure, but what’s also important in my view is what makes one full-time and another part-time aside from the difference in salaries. It’s not that we need to know the hours they keep. The Premier will presumably evaluate each on performance, regardless of the hours worked, helped in part, I’m sure, by public perception.We assume the part-timers are allowed to keep their private jobs and draw a second salary. But what of the full-timers: are they permitted to continue with their second job at all and in any way? To draw a salary? Or to receive any remuneration?It’s about time we had some clear published guidelines for all to follow. The Progressive Labour Party Government, which introduced higher salaries for full and part-time Ministers, was caned repeatedly and regularly by the then Opposition for its failure to have done so.That was my point last week.The second reader thought I conveniently overlooked why the recent reductions in salaries were not made retroactive. There was some question whether they could have been. They could have. You can look it up in the legislation, Ministers and Members of The Legislature (Salaries and Pensions) Act 1975. It’s there in black and white: Section 2(3). As to why it was not done is a question only the Government can answer.One other interesting point emerged in reviewing the Act. There is supposed to be a Salaries Review Board which is required to report and make recommendations every two years, and their views are meant to be taken into account in any vote on pay in the House. I don’t think we have heard from them in a while, and not on the most recent vote according to reports reaching me.Exercised 2As you know, Mr Acting Editor, I too get exercised from time to time by the nasty, vituperative and occasional racial if not racist comments penned by people participating in public discourse, parading their points of view pusillanimously behind pseudonyms.What to do?There is a quaint Arabic proverb: the dogs bark but the caravan moves on [and I don’t think it matters whether they bark in unison or not].We do not have a rich and strong history of advancing fundamental human rights in Bermuda, like that of freedom of expression. Slavery, followed by segregation, stymied, stunted and skewered our development.But since 1968 we have been afforded express protection in the Bermuda Constitution Order. Take a look, Section 9, it’s worth a close read. While it does provide that our Legislature may abridge or impinge on that freedom, it can only do so in limited and prescribed circumstances. One of them is that whatever is attempted should be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.The test is arguably steep. It’s also there for another reason: to remind us as a community, as well as our Government and our Legislature, to proceed cautiously — if we are so minded.* Share your views: e-mail jbarritt@ibl.bm.