Protect everyone’s rightsDear Sir,Over the last two weeks, like most, I too have been engaged in the debate around Renee Web’s motion to amend the Human Rights Act to include the wording sexual orientation. I’ve only managed to speak to the subject on two occasions via talk radio. Therefore, I would like to indulge the public with my written opinion on the subject and also what it could mean for Bermuda. This subject and the thrust of the question brought forward to the Parliament, in a real way, is defining current Bermuda and the nature of our society and its legislature.

At the core of the issue is the role of the state (legislature) in codifying the rights and behaviour of the individuals that constitute our society. Giving rise to the question of whether our collective or individual beliefs should define law. With the concomitant question of whether there exists or should exist the rights of a religious majority to exert morality over the legislature. There of course in my mind is a third question which is the theme of my approach. That being the question of whether it is possible to have a state, where there is both freedom of the individual and social regard towards public morality.

It is important to achieve a balance between individual freedoms and social responsibility. The inherent goal within the historical human struggle has been to create a society were people are free from the tyranny of others. The United States’ constitution was an excellent example of an approach to the legislative or sovereign challenges to our aforementioned problem. The 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights is another great experience in dealing with the complexity of the same issue.

In both instances it’s the broadness of the terminology used in those documents that gives or creates the environment for individual liberty. The UN Declaration, when categorising the human family, distinguishes them as being of a race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it is independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

In broad terminology no one is left out. The trouble with overly defining the human family is that there are just too many categories. It would be a nightmare to list all the races or all the various beliefs. It will open the door to bias to mention any specific religion. Similarly the word sex was meant to include all, (presuming all to be of a sex). Given that the Declaration of Human Rights came out of the Second World War and the proponents witnessed manifest travesty, the greatness of the document and the ensuing human salvations for the world lie in the breadth of the UN document that makes no mention of the catalyst that promoted it. In simple terminology neither the American constitution nor the UN Declaration bends to the language of a pressure group.

I thought this was an opportunity for our politicians to lead the world by taking our “poker doted” Human Rights Code to another level. We could have led the world on this issue. We need not bring people’s beliefs into conflict. We could have honoured the right of everyone’s belief by revisiting our Human Rights legislation with a broader based terminology.

The issue of forcing beliefs, religious or non-religious, morality or immorality into common acceptance is a nonstarter as legislative superstructure or sovereignty. MP Renee Webb’s amendment was asking religious people to accept what they by faith cannot. On the bases of freedom of speech the community has the same right to reject that proposition as she or anyone would have to propose it. The issue was not one of democracy either or lack thereof. If the issue were one of democracy the very narrow 36 member parliament would be inadequate, only a referendum could satisfy the question. My point is that question (motion) need not be put. I’m not suggesting that the fight of Renee’s and others to ensure that all people regardless of their sexuality to enjoy life and liberty is out of the question. I am saying that the particular question that she placed is not simply one of whether all people can have equal rights but rather an additional question of homosexuality as a separate gender distinction (so to speak) to be considered a norm. Whether realised or not that question is falling in the domain of religious and or scientific opinion.

In order to have a free society, every member would need to be free from the beliefs of others. The term “all man are free under God” means that God is the sole intermediary and it is, however determined, that personal relationship with the source of life for each person that has to be given sanctuary. Most modern societies are becoming increasingly multicultural. To have a modern state that can deal with cosmopolitan complexities, the terminology of the law must be very broad. Broad like that of the UN Declaration or as in the preamble to the US Constitution, such that no questions of race or religion or beliefs can be asked except in cases were it forms an absolute requirement authorised by the state.

The constitution will have recognised that any individual having the full power of their individuality is having a set of beliefs, practices and values and “answerable to no one”. Once the state enters that kind of human rights code that I’m proposing, everyone will be protected, without need to bring questions that distinguish the myriad of differences, sex or otherwise within society.

If we as a Bermudian society can lead with this form of rationale we can provide a bridge of understanding that straddles the north south cultural divide, takes the society beyond religious and ideological divides. We can build the kind of constitutionality that will signal the only format on which a diverse modern multicultural democracy can be built.KHALID WASIThe abhorrent ‘n’ wordMay 17, 2006

Dear Sir,So, it’s now OK to call a black person a n<\m><\m>-? If I am discussing an issue with a black person, or white for that matter, and in attempting to identify the third person who happens to be black (like in a police ID) I gather that it would be OK to say that he or she is a n<\m><\m>-? Mr. Editor where is the offence? If the offence is in the word than no one should use it, period! Otherwise it would be wrong ONLY if a white person uses the “N” word. Give me a break!

Is the Human Rights Commission concerned about black rights, white rights or human rights? Human dignity and respect or the rights of those individuals who sit and occupy seats of power and authority to denigrate others without fear of recompense from those who may be highly offended? Don’t forget that Col. Burch repeated the “N” word in the Honourable House and said in so many words “yes I said it, I do not apologise and if you don’t like it, that’s your problem”! Yes, I am a white person who tries to respect people of all races and cultures, and yes, I find the “n” word to be offensive and sickening no matter who uses it. I am not a member of the UBP so this letter is not politically motivated.

In my opinion Mr. Editor, the HRC is a group of spineless, gutless people who do not have the backbone to defend anyone whose human dignity is under attack. Mrs. Patricia Gordon-Pamplin has more integrity than “all of you” put together. I would like to pose this question to the black community; “why is it that most — if not all — blacks are forever highly offended (and God Almighty knows that you have a right to be) by past injustices of blacks, by whites, but seem to have no problem with being degraded and disrespected by other blacks who are supposed to be instilling pride in the black race?”

Black people are advised and encouraged to break-away from the “slave mentality” (a difficult task for many) by persons like Dr. Eva Hodgson and others whilst some prominent black individuals keep taking black back to a “slave mentality” by using such offensive comments as “house n<\m><\m>-s” and “back to the plantation”. Mrs. Patricia Gordon-Pamplin, “you go girl”. Thank you Mr. Editor for allowing me so much space.EDWARD MONIZ<$>Burch let youth downMay 25, 2006

Dear Sir,Col. Burch falls under that phenomena of blacks keeping blacks down. If a black looks as if he is getting ahead they will say “he is getting too big for his boots” so we wont support or help him. A speech given by a Willie Lynch in Virginia in 1712 a white plantation slave owner from the West Indies, indoctrinated blacks to turn against each other through fear; his address was called “Thanking a slave” his described methods were both disgusting and repugnant; his surname being synonymous with that practice.

History shows us that we have all been slaves at one time and that blacks sold their own people into slavery. To keep looking back over ones shoulders will surely bump us into racism and delay moving on to making a better and happier world for our children. One would have thought and even hoped that Col. Burch would have absorbed some kind of educational maturity — instead he let down the youth of Bermuda by teaching them, rudeness and spitefulness, and even fell into that all pervasive trap of displaying the very sense of arrogant power, that he must have been subject to, growing up, and despised so much.

Finally he let his brothers down (if they would allow themselves to be so aligned?) I am sure they don’t admire his sentiments or distasteful wordage especially from a Minister of Government. If some people are house niggers what are you called, Col. Burch? Take care, they might find you are “getting too big for your boots”, and then “I don’t care what you think”. Might be your history lesson!DIANA WILLIAMS<$>Not a happy camperJune 2, 2006

Dear Sir,Please allow me space in your paper to express my disappointment in the refund system of Parks. I enquired on the cost to spend one day and was told ten dollars. (I did not want another day because the following night an event was scheduled to take place there, which would be very noisy.) On September 15, 2005 I leased a camp site, when I arrived at parks office I was informed the procedure consist of a hundred dollar deposit. I was then told I would receive my deposit the following week, so I paid one hundred and ten dollars to spend a day of peace.

The following week I went to Parks and requested my deposit and was disappointed to find out that I couldn’t get my deposit until it was processed and told I would receive my refund by December; “campers only got their deposits returned at the end of the year.” Well! December passed and a friend, whom I informed of my problem, told me she knew the director Ms Lisa Johnston and instructed me that if I called her she will get to the bottom of the matter.

When I spoke to the director on the phone she asked for my information (receipt #0273395 and permit #1120 and my phone number.) Yet, up to this date I have not received my deposit or a return phone call. In addition to that I’ve left messages on Mr. Burt’s answering service with my name and number and still nothing. I do not feel anyone at Parks has taken the time to follow up on my case or even care whether or not my deposit is returned.

Apparently not even the threat of the negative publicity Parks will receive by this article appearing in your paper has made a difference. I say this because the individual who encouraged me to call the director informed her that my next step would be to send a Letter to the Editor. If this could happen to me, how many others have not received camping refunds? I’m writing this letter because it is now June 2006 and I have not yet received a phone call or a cheque via mail. As far as I’m concerned, they don’t even care. I’m appalled to feel I’ve been taken advantage of. Not a happy camper.RAYMOND A. E. SWAN<$>Not a bad deal at allDear Sir,Time Magazine reports the new US Treasury Secretary was paid $38 million before joining Government at a salary of $175,000. I wonder what salary Premier Scott gave up in order to earn a measly $200,000 from the Bermuda Government? This will be reflected in his pension, which means when he retires he will receive around $170,000 per year for the rest of his life. Not bad. Yours faithfully,ROBERT STEWART<$>Missed opportunityMay 29, 2006

Dear Sir,As a regular international visitor who has grown very fond of Bermuda and its people, I write with dismay regarding the debate (and more depressingly, the lack of debate in Parliament) over extending basic human rights to the Bermudian gay community. I had formed the impression that Bermuda had abandoned the old ways of segregation and oppression and was moving in a positive and progressive direction. I now realise that I have to reconsider — as must the rest of the world.

If I were Bermudian I would be worried that the majority of my elected representatives turn out to be a spineless group of mutes who have nothing to say bout the basic human rights of around ten percent of the population. Black politicians in particular should hang their heads in shame at their apparent lack of empathy with an oppressed group of people and their deep lack of interest in basic human rights.

I would also be worried about the quality of my spiritual guidance from those ministers of the church who peddled cheap hatred in their lobbying against the bill. Perhaps they should spend some time refreshing their memory of the Bible — the last time I read it, the overwhelming message seemed to be “love they neighbour/judge not lest thou be judged/ do as thou would be done to...”

If we are going to stick literally to every word in the good book, maybe we should now consider a return to slavery which the Bible seems quite happy with. I salute the gay community of Bermuda for their courage in the simple day to day existence in such an oppressive environment. In my experience, gay people want nothing more than to find someone to love, get on with their lives and be happy — much like the rest of the planet. Bermuda has missed an opportunity to fully exploit the talents of this notoriously creative group of people for the good of the whole Bermudian community.ALEX ALLARDYCE

London<$>End conflict of interestMr. Editor,The Premier of Bermuda should be paid $200,000, maybe more and MPs deserve a salary increase, but not before parliamentary reforms are in place and proper guidelines have been determined and legislated to ensure that MPs are governed by principles of accountability, fairness, transparency and simplicity.

My only issue is that salary changes should be implemented and recommend changes made effective after the next election to remove the conflict of interest in having MPs vote on their own salary increase. They are our elected officials and should be compensated accordingly, but as a People we have a responsibility to demand proper representation and accountability and hold them responsible for their actions or lack thereof. There is much power in a vote and if MPs are not accruing political capital, let them know that we hold the moral authority.

As Bermudians, we complain about our own, yet say nothing knowing that the Governor of Bermuda, the Chief Justice, Permanent Secretaries and other high level civil servants are presently being paid more than the Premier and cabinet ministers. The Premier’s job is a 24-hour a day experience. It’s a difficult and time-consuming job.

Yet, the Governor is being driven around in a BMW 750 that retails for $96,000 basic in the US. With taxes, shipping costs, duty, etc., we the taxpayer end up spending approx. $160,000 on top of his $180,000 salary, in addition to his living expenses, travel, entertainment, etc., etc. Does anyone complain, say anything or make an issue about it. No, yet we’ll get on a talk show, write letters to the editor and complain each time we see another GP car on the road, a teacher wants a raise or a worker demands equality or an opportunity.

We have to stop looking at issues on the surface only, but look at the facts and just think before we speak and complain. So what, we don’t like the person or party represented, but let’s respect the office of elected officials and the Premier.SAM BRANGMAN JR.

Warwick