Dear Sir,

Who has the right to question the Chief Justice?

There are times when decisions made by authority demonstrate an unreasonable, intolerable solution that is missing what the people call common sense. Why it occurs, I can only measure is a result of an individual acting in a manner that cannot be questioned.

In recent times, we have witnessed some concerns about decisions passed down from the bench without thoughtful merit.

For instance, let’s look at the case Rawlins versus Squatters on Union Street. Mr Rawlins went to the legal system to have squatters removed from his property. The Chief Justice made no effort to have the facts brought to his bench.

He asked for no proof that the squatters had been residing at the location for a consistent, required time period.

He merely rolled over the homeowner’s rights without taking steps for the squatters concerned to prove their length of stay. Moving on, we had the previous Corporation of Hamilton council which was questioning the legality of a minister having the ability to strike down the decision and rights of 600-plus voters by implementing a stewardship close-out against elected persons.

The majority of the council sought clarity of this precedent-setting position by the minister and his government cabinet to usurp the voter’s right.

The Chief Justice has left the decision sitting in the air. If this stays as it is, it demonstrates that a legislator can override the conscience of voting citizens without too much effort.

So, exactly why did the Chief Justice refuse to make a decision or was he just burning up time against the sitting council? Now we have this rash of immigration decisions that are based on an innuendo and assumption of shadows rather than a common sense perspective of facts.

The most recent is this opportunity for same-sex relationships to bridge distances by allowing them to reside and work in Bermuda based on a rationale with no foundation.

In truth, the injecture is predicated on a whim that they might be considering a long-term experience.

Has the Chief Justice recognised that we have a few thousand persons living in hardship as a result of limited or no employment opportunities?

This decision does not increase harmony or opportunities in the community; instead it leads to further ill feelings towards working immigrants.

The Chief Justice must not base his position of ruling without the inclusion of commonsense rationale, otherwise he does more harm to Bermudians who already exist on the Island or, after training, education or living abroad, choose to come home. Back in 1850, the economist and journalist Frédéric Bastiat, a Frenchman living in the United States, was revered because of his concerns of the implementation of imposing law without common sense.

The Law is a readworthy of your time. I invite all the citizens of this Island to spend time reading it with your offspring.

It will open your eyes to the truth of what is going wrong in Bermuda as we live and breathe.

JOHN H. HOLDIPP III