Dear Sir,

Dr Justice Kawaley, it would be easy for me to understand your inspiration to somehow enshrine in law this ideal of presumed or potential discrimination with new merits of formality.

However, Sir, there is a volatile and potentially dangerous flaw in this re-creation: that would be to strip the majority of the people of these Bermuda islands of their true values.

Correct me if required, Sir, but the goodness of law is dependent not only on the word of law, but the perimeters adjudicated to all persons residing in that quadrant. As the Chief Justice, the dictionary of the law may be within your grasp, but does it identify one’s ability to allow further discrimination to the greater segment of our locale to appease what is considered a personal choice of any select individuals?

The standing foundation values of any specific society rest not in imported or external tissues of extracted truth, but principle values that create a healthy society and/or healthy culture according to its own citizens and their beliefs. This foreign ideal should not be used as a crushing mechanism to conceal our own cultural views like a wolf in sheep’s clothing dialogue. A referendum by the citizens of this country would have identified the majority consensus rather than being dictated to by either an individual or even a segment of representative legislators.

The law against sodomy was a universal response to the mutilation of decency and not just an off-the-cuff thought. Having this amalgamated into our legal ritual leads to a position of disrespect for the majority of Bermudians.

Interestingly enough, the wheels of our legislation quickly embraced the Chief Justice’s status on this matter. The people of Bermuda have been patiently waiting to cast their vote through a referendum that would ensure our actual position of cultural value.

I wonder if those in physical seats of authority will allow us, the people of Bermuda, to entertain our democratic right by exercising our vote for or against it by way of a referendum?

Margaret Thatcher, in a speech to the Canadian Parliament on June 22, 1988, cited a few glaring errors of significance; in fact, similar to the Government of Bermuda today. The former British Prime Minister recalled a famous Abba Eban quote during her presentation that “history teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives”.

In respect to “human rights”, the Prime Minister highlighted that communist societies believed that human rights are something given by the state, which can be taken away by the state. With a measure of gusto, she toiled on to say: “For us, they are something so fundamental that they cannot be given or taken away by any government or human agency.”

Does that identify our government as having communist attributes?

JOHN H. HOLDIPP III