And two human rights lawyers have backed up her views, claiming that the law contains "a gaping hole" and needs to be improved.

Maryanne Scott spoke out yesterday after the HRC rejected two complaints against Government Minister David Burch, who, during a live radio broadcast last year, referred to Opposition United Bermuda Party supporters as "house niggers".

The ruling, announced on Tuesday, was condemned by Opposition Leader Wayne Furbert, who claimed that the HRC was "fully stacked" with Progressive Labour Party supporters. One of the complainants was UBP Shadow Finance Minister Patricia Gordon-Pamplin.

Last night Mrs. Scott defended the decision, insisting that under current legislation, the Minister had not broken the law.

But she added that the current Human Rights Act "isn't perfect", that it could be challenged, and possibly amended, and that complainants could lodge a successful complaint against such comments under different legislation such as the Summary of Offences Act.

"The Commission is governed by the Human Rights Act. We have to act in accordance with the Act ? it's not perfect and we do expect to be challenged by the Act," Mrs. Scott told the .

"By no means were we supporting this kind of behaviour ? we found it distasteful and it doesn't help us as a community, but we don't have the jurisdiction to make a determination under the Human Rights Act. We also have other fundamental rights under freedom of speech.

"The Act is probably not the best and can always be worked on, but under the Act itself, the complaint is not covered by the Act. It may be covered by the Summary of Offences Act but not the Human Rights Act. There's quite a few complaints which may not fall under the Human Rights Act but we try to refer those to other bodies which may be able to assist."

Lawyers Tim Marshall and Mark Diel of law firm Marshall Diel and Myers, said the current Act was "silly and ludicrous" and contained at least one "gaping hole".

They pointed out that the law states that it is illegal to intentionally and in a public place excite or promote ill will or hostility against anyone based on race ? but does not regard comments broadcast over the airwaves as being made publicly.

Mr. Marshall agreed that there was no way of knowing if the HRC rejected the complaints on this technicality, adding that the reasoning behind future rulings should be made public.

"There's a gaping hole and the law definitely needs to be changed," he said.

"At the moment there's an argument that what is broadcast over the airwaves is not being said in a public place. The Act doesn't include anything broadcast as being in a public place and it would therefore be very difficult for anyone to argue that what was said was said in a public place.

"This type of case brings to the forefront imperfections in the law and it should be changed."

Mrs. Scott also denied that the HRC had publicly criticised Mrs. Gordon-Pamplin for filing her complaint. In a statement announcing the ruling, the Commission added that "it encourages all persons, particularly representatives of the people, to be mindful and to exercise discretion so as not to reduce this or any public body to political sport for personal ends", a comment that Mrs. Gordon-Pamplin said was directed at her.

Yesterday Mrs. Scott insisted that nobody was discouraged from filing a complaint with the HRC if they felt their human rights had been violated.

"I can see that perhaps we were not careful," she said, referring to the statement.

Last night Mr. Furbert remained on the offensive, saying that the UBP was "disappointed" by both the tone and content of the HRC ruling.

"It is hard to believe that this is 2006 Bermuda we are talking about," Mr. Furbert said.

"If describing half of the population as 'house niggers' is not offensive and downright out of place, then I do not know what it is.

"It is one thing to dismiss the complaint based on deficiences within the Human Rights Act, it is another thing to engage in malicious and apparently politically motivated attacks on the victim.

"Patricia Gordon-Pamplin is a valued member of the United Bermuda Party team, but more importantly she is a human being, deserving of far better treatment than she received from the HRC.

"This ruling by the Human Rights Commission has done nothing to enhance its own image, relevance and effectiveness in society. Instead they have sent a clear, unambiguous and strong message that intolerance, hatred and divisiveness is encouraged and bred racial epithets like 'house nigger' which are intended and understood to be demeaning and dismissive of black members of this community.

"The Human Rights Commission had an opportunity to make a statement and condemn such language but failed and, on the contrary, appears even to approve. We in the United Bermuda Party do not, and that is why we sought the adoption of a code of conduct, which was rejected by the PLP.

"We believe that this is a very serious issue, which ought to occupy the attention of all our leaders. Therefore, I will be writing the Premier of Bermuda to seek clarification on where he and his Progressive Labour Party government stand on such issues.

"I want to know if Minister Burch was truly echoing what lurks within the hearts and minds of the Progressive Labour Party Government or if he is merely a deviant aberration.

"I want to know if that is how persons who do not support the governing party are perceived and referred to by the ruling party. The time has come for the Premier to send a clear and resounding message as to whether such language is encouraged and acceptable within his administration and within our community."