Pain, old homophobia

January 3, 2004

Dear Sir,

I would like to add my comments concerning the mother who felt that the 'Goldilocks' play promoted homosexuality. Oh, please, this takes paranoia to a whole new level! It never ceases to amaze me when people 'suffer' in silence on something that goes against their beliefs, only to gripe about it later. As the mother made comments about different aspects of the play, I can only conclude that she sat through the whole thing. If it was so disgusting and such a bad example for her kids, why didn't she just get up and leave? Hmm, she couldn't have been that appalled! Somehow I suspect that her reluctance to leave this 'revolting' play had to do with not losing out on her ticket fee ? now that's values!

Furthermore, cross-casting has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality. Actors (yes, actors, as technically this term encompasses both men and women) have been role reversing for centuries. I can clearly remember back in school when there weren't enough kids of a sex available for the roles required, boys played girls and vice versa. Even in church plays, as a female I have played shepherds, wise men and even Joseph! Does this mean that my teachers had dirty, evil minds and that turned me into a homosexual? Of course not, and to even think that way is absolutely absurd.

I don't doubt that this mother was well intentioned in her worries. However, she came across as being plain, old homophobic. She needs to stop seeing dangers in innocent things and protect her kids from the legitimate dangers out there surrounding them everyday.

Good law... or not?

January 12, 2004

Dear Sir,

The seatbelt law appears to be based on anecdotal evidence, data from overseas (relating to vehicles travelling three to four times the speed we drive in Bermuda) and plain old "it seems to be a good idea" logic.

Is there any local data on the injuries and or deaths that this new law is supposed to protect us from? Is anyone measuring the effectiveness of this new law? Scientific evidence, using actual data. Will the empirical results support the hypothesis? Maybe this is a good law. Maybe it isn't. Now that my personal freedoms are being further impinged upon, I'd like to know.

Seatbelts make sense

January 12, 2004

Dear Sir,

I would like to congratulate Bermuda on finally adopting a safety seatbelt law. I am glad I will no longer have to see young children riding around Bermuda, standing up in the front seat ready to hurl through the windshield if an accident happens.

However, I would like to make a very important point. The TCD information says that a child should be one year or 20 pounds before they can ride in a forward facing car seat. It should say that a child should be one year and 20 pounds before they ride facing forward. A 22-pound, ten month old should still face the rear of the car and, likewise, a one-year-old that weighs 17 pounds should also still be rear facing.

It is a very important distinction as small children do not have the muscle strength to endure a crash when facing forward.

Turbulence and teens

January 12, 2004

Dear Sir,

I would just like to say something in response to the article titled "'Malcontents' forced plane delay: Passenger"on January 8. This is on behalf of the "spoiled children" on the Air Canada flight on Sunday, January 4.

I was one of the students who wanted to get off that plane (and my decision had nothing to do with missing a day of school). After being on it for hours and hearing of the various problems with the plane over the intercom, some people just didn't feel comfortable flying. I would also like to mention that the students were not always the people deciding to get off, there were parents worried about the welfare of their children ? they wanted their children to get off the plane. Now? would a parent encourage a student to cancel a flight so that they can miss school? I'm thinking no.

People will talk, but that doesn't mean that what they are saying is true. Yes, there were a few students who got mouthy with people on the plane, but there were also very rude business class passengers on that flight who were yelling at these students and swearing at them.

There was also some extremely rude flight crew who were being disrespectful to the passengers. It wasn't just students who wanted to get off that flight, but young mothers with small children and other couples. Some of the flight attendants got up into one mother's face and started yelling at her because she wanted to disembark the aircraft. I may only be 17, but I have known for years that that behaviour is very wrong. The flight was in a state of dismay and people were not handling the situation maturely, and that includes many adults.

It is not fair to make childish assumptions about how the school kids might want to miss a day of school and that the people wanting to get off the plane were selfish. It's a free country, right? People have their right to do what they want and like Air Canada said, they can't force people to stay on a plane. It is no one else's business to criticise and harass someone for making a personal decision.

I must say that I personally respected all of the Bermuda staff who worked the ground for Air Canada that evening. They stayed much later than they should have had to. They organised the flight's disembark, and with tired eyes they succeeded in being helpful and respectful to all of the passengers, and handled the chaos quite well in my opinion.

So in conclusion, I want people to remember that there is always another side to a story and that maybe if we were less bias in our thoughts, things would be a little more peaceful.

Who's the 'spoiled child'?

January 8, 2004

Dear Sir,

I am writing in response to today's article entitled "'Malcontents' forced plane delay: Passenger".

As the mother of one of those children that disembarked the Air Canada flight last Sunday, I take exception to the remarks made by the disgruntled passenger, Mr. John Rule, who blamed these children for delaying the flight. This flight was not late arriving in Bermuda due to snowstorms in Toronto, as incorrectly reported twice in this week's . It was in fact delayed as a result of technical problems. The snowstorm was due to hit on Sunday night. The fault squarely lies with Air Canada for not making a sound judgment call and cancelling the flight before hundreds of passengers, most of them returning school and university students, had spent over five hours sitting on the runway.

Just what did Air Canada expect all of these schoolchildren to do, had they been forced to stay on the plane and arrive in Toronto late in the evening in the middle of the predicted snowstorm? Many of them would most certainly have missed their connecting flights or buses and would have had to overnight in Toronto. Many of these children were young teenagers. I for one would not have accepted my young daughter being forced to stay alone overnight in a Toronto hotel. We were in communication over her cellphone from the grounded plane and when she was given the option by the captain to disembark at about 7 p.m., I advised her to do so immediately.

The passengers had been told yet again that it would be at least another hour before the problems were rectified. Do the maths, Mr. Rule. The flight would have been cancelled anyway if regulations do not permit stewards to work beyond a certain time limit!

After arriving at the Airport at 11.15 a.m., my daughter finally got home after 9 p.m. that night! The decision to disembark was not made by "spoiled" children, but by their responsible parents. As for being happy to miss the first day of school, think again. These kids arrived back at school having missed an entire day of classes, which they will have to make up and they were absolutely exhausted after this ordeal. Hardly a fun time playing hooky!

Are you the same "gentleman" who shouted at the disembarking passengers? Tsk, tsk! I submit that it is you, Sir, who is in fact the "spoiled child".

Carrying extra baggage

January 8, 2004

Dear Sir,

A recent incident with one of the air carriers flying into Bermuda has prompted this response. There is a policy in force with almost all of the airlines which states that baggage allowance is two checked bags and one carry-on, or one checked and two carry-ons. This restriction has to be enforced by all of the agents at check-in, for I have noticed that one person is not allowed any extra while the agent next door lets someone sail through with eight eight to 12 bags.

Extra bags should be treated like standby passengers and not loaded until all of the passengers adhering to the regulations have been boarded, and then and only then the extra bags be loaded if weight and space conditions permit.

On another subject, I applaud the US Government for requiring photographs and fingerprints for arriving passengers, but I wish that it extended to all persons wishing entry to the United States.The face of terrorism is constantly changing.

Three cheers for T.C.

January 9, 2004

Dear Sir

I want to say a great big thank you to T.C. Aitchison for publicly stating what hundreds of us are thinking about John Swan. Everybody's entitled to their own opinion but this guy has gone over the top.

I agree 100 percent with Mr. Aitchison ? you have the right to think what you want but hypocrisy brings with it a major hit on a man's reputation. But then if all you care about is money maybe reputation isn't that important!