As the song says: "I used to be disgusted, but now I'm just confused.'' If I had been on the Island for the last Election I would have voted for the PLP.

According to Rolfe Commissiong and the Premier, that means: a. I approved of their parliamentary reform proposals; b. I was pro-Independence; and c. I did not need to be consulted and I was content to have them represent my opinion in every matter.

All three assumptions would have been incorrect. The only reason I needed to vote for the PLP was that they were not the UBP. I resent being lumped in with UBP when ever I take a position against Independence or on other matters perceived to be a "white'' position. The UBP is an ungainly paranoid organisation. There are a few really good leaders in the party but they never get a chance. I have never supported that party as a whole. And hey, I'm a Zuill. Go figure. Either party never seems to understand that there are a lot of us out here who cross that fatuous distinction "the racial line''.

The argument presented by Mr. Commissiong, in your paper (April 27), against referendums on issues of constitution reform or Independence is that their wording can be misunderstood by voters and misinterpreted by leaders. It is difficult to understand how the election of one party or the other can be taken as a better measure of public opinion. Surely, any referendum would be better than hoping that in voting for the two doubtful options we have in government, the government in return will perceive our hopes accurately. No, the whole idea of an election as an accurate gauge of public opinion of specific issues is absurd.

In terms of government, I can be unembarrassed by my verbal support for the PLP in the past. They seem to be just as effective as the UBP and indeed resemble them more and more each day. Certainly their concern for education seems identical. Choosing one over the other as a way of acting progressively would be pointless. We are told by the Premier that Independence would be decided by an election. So if I am against Independence I should vote for the UBP? After John Swan and his dreams of being the first Premier of an independent Bermuda? Is there any clarity in this? If I don't want independence I condemn the country to five more years of UBP political frolicking? And all this is preferable to people airing their concerns in conference? What is the Overseas Office in London thinking? You see why I am confused.

JOHN ZUILL Pembroke Writer's selective memory April 21, 2001 Dear Sir, Mr. Robert Stewart's letter which appeared in Saturday's (April 21, 2001) newspaper is so misleading, so filled with errors and theoretical in its thrust, that I must request the privilege of responding to it with some real practicalities of Bermuda.

It is necessary for me to point out initially, that I hold no brief for the PLP, Ms Webb or Mr. Commissiong, the targets of Mr. Stewart's letter. Ms Webb's penchant for making rash unsubstantiated statements like that in which she accused the Police of corruption speaks for itself, in view of the fact that she is a Member of Parliament and thereby had a duty to bring such matters to the attention of her colleagues. As far as I am aware, Ms Webb has never provided through the same media which carried her allegations one shred of evidence of this corruption. Additionally, the PLP's apparent endorsement of one of its Senator's wayward if not hostile, inflammatory comments that in essence, the PLP do not care about those who voted against it at the last Election shows that the party is in dire need of leadership. However, this does not provide any underlying basis for the fictitious or imaginary historical account represented in Mr. Stewart's letter.

Mr. Stewart's contention regarding the "great legal innovation of the past 1,000 years of equality before the law'' would be funny had the consequence of this lack of equality not been with us today, albeit slightly reduced and manifested in different forms. One could assume that Mr. Stewart was referring to the relatively recent CURE regulations or the Human Rights Act, but that would be a bit pedantic. Mr. Stewart is/was a politician having run for the UBP in the past and it is unlikely he was endorsing the PLP's legislation.

I would like to ask Mr. Stewart if this realisation of equality was prior to or after a black person was considered to be a fraction of a human being or if it preceded the large sums of money European governments paid to former slave owners when those owners lost their precious human capital. To suggest that some legal innovation created or attempt to create equality of the races is an affront to history. The unyielding fact of the black struggle from time immemorial is that notwithstanding legal devices, almost all of the rights with which others were endowed had to be fought for by blacks.

Mr. Stewart's later argument that property, economic power and opportunity should flow from this equality rather than `membership in some politically favoured group' is surely meant for a laugh. However those black Bermudians, whose mortgages were threatened and/or determined for not supporting the status quo and those persons who were kept out of gainful employment, denied Government contracts and employment, all under the UBP government, would not find this so funny. In fact, they may think it is quite cruel to make such a statement.

The truth of the matter is that to this day in Bermuda, the unspoken policy of some establishments is to discriminate against blacks and unconnected persons in this country. Discrimination runs the whole spectrum -- from housing to jobs. There is no doubt that some policies have brought about a healthy change against rampant discrimination, but the problem has not been eradicated.

Any black person in this country would tell Mr. Stewart that their lot is not equal to that of their white counterparts. And if you are from the Caribbean, you are categorised much lower down the totem pole. Ask any teacher or Police officer from the Caribbean. The good thing about Bermuda is that because it is so small and there is a need for like-minded people to meet and talk, all of these harmful shenanigans come to light eventually. Some sooner than others.

Indeed, with some employers, the art of discrimination is so refined that human resources officers are empowered to act in such a manner without reference to anyone senior to them.

Whether and how the PLP go about tackling the problem is a more difficult question. My personal view is that the PLP should concentrate on doing justice in all cases, but this does not mean that advocating black economic empowerment should be discouraged. But advocating this concept has no relationship to the realities of present day Bermuda. Discrimination continues. That is why it is essential for necessary legislation to be in place to act as a deterrent. But I am sure the likes of Mr. Stewart would not support more stringent legislation against racial discrimination.

Unfortunately, there is no legislation in place that is likely to deter discrimination in any form. Furthermore, the sad fact is that there is no evidence that the PLP has any interest in dealing with this menace. In fact, it seems to me that the PLP is following exactly in the footsteps of its predecessor, hence a common response to almost every issue is that it was like that under the previous government. The top priority of the PLP now seems to be consolidation of power instead of dealing with issues that affect the majority of Bermudians.

Two issues, one recent and the other in the recent past, have caused me some concern regarding the movers and shakers of the PLP. The first is the Bill brought by the late Dr. Stubbs that had the aim of decriminalising homosexual acts. This was supported by some members of the PLP under the rubric of human rights. It was clear at the time that most Bermudians, particularly the PLP supporters did not support this Bill. It became the law anyway thanks in part to the PLP. But in the second instance, the PLP having gained political power was in no mood to acknowledge the same human rights or any other rights where Long Term Residents were concerned. A simple analysis of the situation by the most simple-minded among us would have led to the conclusion that anyone who has lived in this country for 30 to 35 years and was unsuccessful after applying for Bermuda Status, is someone who did not fit the UBP criteria of race and/or or overt political support. Yet the PLP has methodically set about to alienate the Long Term Residents and their children (who in time will become Bermudians), with a series of meetings last year that would have caused shame among the most xenophobic in this country. Now there is talk about several different colours of papers to discuss this relatively simple issue.

This brings me to one issue with which I happen to agree with Mr. Stewart, that is, that the PLP do not fully understand economics. My reason for believing this is that there seems to be a hidden belief in the PLP that if the Long Term Residents leave Bermuda, it would be good economically for the country.

There was ample room for Mr. Stewart to criticise the PLP and Ms Webb, but to suggest that black economic empowerment whether advocated by Webb or whomever is intrinsically contrary to some abstract legal doctrine is nothing short of an outrage compounded by folly. It is like saying that since there is so much food in the world, there is no hunger.

I did not hear Mr. Stewart's voice when his Party was foisting UBP empowerment. The fact that a few blacks benefited is little joy for the majority who were left out. This process was indeed even more harmful that discrimination against blacks and nonconformists as an entire group because it also had the effect of serving as punishment and a warning to others. It was no surprise that a former Premier and a Senator of the UBP were heard to complain when their own system turned against them. The former with some amusement stated that when he left his political post, no-one gave him a job and the Senator complained bitterly about discrimination, obviously forgetting that with some irreverence, he had castigated many blacks previously for complaining about the same thing. This to my mind was an admission that they both knew that party affiliation and support was a precondition to economic opportunity. How easily Mr. Stewart has forgotten these recent events! Until I see a greater appreciation of justice and rights in this country, I will continue to hold my US citizenship.

EVERETT DILL Warwick Taking issue with story April 25, 2001 Dear Sir, I have just returned from a short, but delightful vacation in Bermuda. While there, I read your front page story accusing the XL tennis tournament of fostering racism. It isn't often that I take issue with your paper, but I do here. I don't believe you should have published that article, quoting an anonymous source. If you were going to do so, you should have at least had one of your reporters independently investigate and state your findings. Racism is a very ugly issue, and it is very easy to accuse an individual or an organisation of being racist. However, it is very difficult, having been accused, to defend oneself, to prove that one is not racist.

Realising that this is a particularly sensitive issue in Bermuda, I think that your paper was irresponsible in publishing the article. Had your source identified himself/herself, and if that person had some credibility, then I would support you 100 percent in bringing it to the attention of the Bermuda public.

JOE LINDO Wilmington, Delaware Robert Stewart Renee Webb