Dear Sir,

I sat on the Human Rights Commission when its Act gained primacy over all the Acts; essentially meaning that whenever an Act came into conflict with the human rights law, the Human Rights Act would be the determinant.

I am not a lawyer, but in my lay understanding it should mean that things permitted under the law that contravene a human right will have to give way to the Human Rights Act.

But does that mean the Human Rights Act has the power to effectively reverse legality? That is to say if something illegal under the law is to be made legal on the basis of the Human Rights Act?

We are protected by the Constitution, which sets out legal parameters and remedies for where they are infringed. Much of this takes legal interpretation and I submit my ignorance.

It would appear that even novices such as myself are testing the courts to interpret the Acts to define the strengths and limitations of our Acts and the Constitution as it relates to our rights under the Human Rights Act.

When the Act was amended in the early Nineties, the entire commission was elated and feeling victorious in having everyone, including the Crown, bound by the Act. Certainly, we knew it had far-reaching consequences, but I don’t think anyone would have guessed it meant the Bermuda Constitution was subject to reinterpretation by the Human Rights Act.

Law is meant to be equitably applied; in other words, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. The recent ruling by Chief Justice Ian Kawaley leads one to presume that having a valid or bona fide relationship, in this case called marriage, which is supported by another jurisdiction, must also be upheld in Bermuda.

I know this is good news for a friend of mine who has two wives but lives in Egypt because the Bermuda Government has refused to recognise his other foreign marriage certificate.

He left Bermuda quietly because he understood what he did was not recognised by the law.

To the same point, many countries such as Canada, whose law we actually copy in legal practice, recognises common-law relationships/marriage, which some countries term as unions. While Michael Fahy, the Minister of Home Affairs, is busy redefining areas of practice within the immigration department that clash with the Chief Justice’s ruling, he should include common-law marriage, which is rapidly becoming the norm in places such as Canada.

I have already posted my position on the whole issue, which was that the Government needs to step out of the role of determining who or what is marriage and issue a civil contract certificate for all the relationships of consenting adults beyond the age of 18 or whatever age that recognises the legality of conjugal relations and contract.

Leave the notion of marriage to the societies themselves, however formed. It is not the Government’s business to decide what people should or should not believe.

KHALID WASI