In reply to Kim Young MP, who took the Government to task for its qualified endorsement of the 'Black Economic Empowerment' philosophy, I can only offer the following: Let's use Australia as an example.

Imagine if you will, that in return for stealing most of the Aborigines' land and for that matter some of their children as well - all State sanctioned, I might add - the Government simply stated that now it would enforce equal opportunity for Aboriginal people.

In other words, these people would now have the same opportunity as White Euro Australians to obtain a job as a waiter at an Australian Outback restaurant, for argument's sake. Would this mandating of equal opportunity discharge the State of its historic and contemporary debt to these people? Would the historic disadvantage of the Aboriginals and the historic privilege of White Euro Australians be resolved simply by the mandating of equal opportunity type legislation? I think not.

To really provide redress for the historic wrongs committed which were state sanctioned the state would have to endorse a policy that would include the return of some lands (those that are economically productive) and some form of reparations to those who were the victims of state policies that disadvantaged (putting it mildly) members of the justifiably aggrieved group.

Equal opportunity initiatives in this context, while useful to rectify contemporary discrimination in the job market, are less than useful in rectifying injustices that are long standing and egregious. Affirmative initiatives are useful in correcting imbalances that are historical and are designed to address the wealth and asset gaps that are such a salient feature of formerly state sponsored, racist societies. These sorts of initiatives are remedial in nature and are an essential component along with 'equal opportunity initiatives' for addressing historical wrongs. In other words, equal opportunity in and of itself will not rectify nor provide the vehicle necessary to address the long standing structural and systemic failures of a flawed system.

In many ways, it can ironically bolster or at least mask real inequality if not accompanied by companion initiatives such as those being currently proposed that are affirmative in nature. In addition, the 'denial' of those who have been the recipients of privilege can be enhanced by the view that, now that the State has mandated 'equal opportunity for all' that the State and those who have historically benefited by the now discredited policies have discharged their responsibility to those who were the victims, and thus have absolved themselves of the debt incurred.

Moreover, in a Government bidding process the A.F. Smith's of the world - by way of example - will always have an inherent advantage due to size, experience and capitalisation, that relatively speaking, no black dominated company can hope to match. The question is, would it provide a justifiable end and social good for the Government to engage in positive affirmative discrimination to ensure that a qualified African Bermudian company be given an advantage over an A.F. Smith in an effort to redress an historical and contemporary wrong? I think so.

And it is in the interest of the A.F. Smiths and the rest of Bermuda, black and white, that this does occur. It is not only good social policy but morally right as well. Why? Because the elimination of a long standing justifiable grievance on the part of a significant population group in any society can only be a good thing for those societies as a whole.

Lastly, Kim Young's letter was interesting in the following respect as well. It was my opinion that only recently, that the United Bermuda Party had endorsed the concept of 'Black Economic Empowerment' as part of the party's new philosophy. Certainly, the leader, Grant Gibbons, John Barritt and influential members such as Khalid Abdul Wasi have expressed as much. The only difference apparently,would be in the details or model utilised to achieve it. Their core critique focused on the ad hoc nature of these sorts of initiatives on the part of the Progressive Labour Party, a criticism that is not without some foundation.

Kim Young's letter appeared to fly in the face of that and signifies a return to the past rather than an embrace of the future, especially considering her stature within that organisation.

And finally, I am continuously amused, as I was only recently by Trent Lott's use of Martin Luther King's writings and speeches to justify what is basically a racist position, a tactic that has been used - in many cases - by racist conservatives since the Reagan era. The Lott affair exposed that tactic for what it was, a shameful expropriation of Martin Luther King, not to aid in the elimination of racism but rather as a ploy, in an effort to maintain and strengthen racism in America. Just something for Mrs. Young to ponder, along with the fact that over 90 percent of Government contracts still go to white-dominated firms. This from a Government that spends hundreds of millions of dollars annually for goods and services locally.