Pandering to prejudiceJanuary 1, 2006 Dear Sir, It is pathetic in this day and age that a letter as riddled with ignorance and prejudice and as devoid of logic as that written by “Pandora” in Saturday’s edition of your esteemed publication can still be written. She starts out by making sweeping and wrong statements. She suggests that specific mention of what she insists on calling a “homosexual lifestyle” was to be made in Minister Butler’s amendment. It was not. Nor is it in Ms Webb’s proposed amendment.

“Pandora’s” prejudice is showing right from the start. For example she equates “earrings-wearing men” as another example of choice of which she obviously disapproves. I will leave it to Col. David Burch to respond to that in his own inimitable way.

Her supposed “homosexual lifestyle” is a myth created by bigots. There is no such thing as a “homosexual lifestyle”.

No more, of course, is there a “heterosexual lifestyle”. The term has absolutely no rational application and is used as a red flag by bigots to promote prejudice. Homosexual oriented people are as varied in their lifestyles as are any others.

She then proceeds to denigrate her absurd notion of the “homosexual lifestyle” by saying that it is “clearly shown to have a marked decrease in lifespan ... has been shown to be associated with various kinds of diseases ... that it is injurious to people who practice it”.

It is true that when AIDS was first identified almost 30 years ago it struck the gay urban community in the United States first and hardest. Since then, of course, it has spread to “the heterosexual lifestyle” and affects probably in excess of 50 million people worldwide. Educated gays in the West now have a lower incidence of AIDS and other STD infections than do heterosexuals, partly because they have taken the trouble to educate themselves in protective measures.

The rapid worldwide spread of AIDS is due primarily to the stubborn refusal of the religious right to allow comprehensive sex education and provision of condoms in the third world. “Pandora” is merely repeating erroneous religious propaganda long since debunked, but nevertheless still endlessly regurgitated. None of her other off the wall accusations can be substantiated.

The proposed amendment does not “single out this particular behaviour to protect”. It is entirely neutral in its proposed application and would apply to “Pandora’s” sexual orientation as evenly as it would to a bishop’s. That Pandora equates homosexual orientation with “choosing to smoke” once again demonstrates her profound ignorance as does her repeated use of the inaccurate term “sexual preference”. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice.

She asks, as did the embarrassingly inept Paula Cox just a few days ago, what evidence there is to show that prejudice based on sexual orientation actually exists. She has clearly forgotten that only a few years ago, right here in Bermuda, Wilfred (Oopie) Ming was killed because of his sexual orientation.

If that isn’t sufficient for her she may inquire of the Rainbow Coalition for its long compilation of such evidence. It is the mass of evidence that is not readily available, of course, that is the largest part of the problem. “Pandora” obviously lives with her head deep in the sand. If “Pandora” knows of landlords who refuse to rent to people who are “shacking up”, she knows landlords who are breaking the law. Marital status (or lack of it) is a protected category under the Human Rights Act.

A known paedophile is a convicted criminal. I am not sure whether the Human Rights Act protects such a person after he or she has served sentence and paid his/her debt to society or not. It probably does. If it doesn’t it probably should. Forcing “known paedophiles” onto the streets would be a lot more risky than having them identifiably housed.

“Pandora” suggests that there is a “ small but powerful lobby to legitimise their lifestyle.” If there is I don’t know about it, but would be happy to join it. It would be churlish, I suppose, to point out that there is nothing illegitimate about a “homosexual lifestyle”. No doubt Pandora wishes there were.

Finally, the person trying to use smokescreens is “Pandora” herself. Her last two paragraphs are simply rant and entirely without substantiation.

They are designed to pander to prejudice, of which “Pandora” has much more than her fair share.

TRY TO GET IT RIGHT

Warwick<$>Better word for BerkeleyJanuary 26, 2006Dear Sir,I found it interesting that your reporter Stuart Roberts called The Berkeley Institute a “traditionally black school” in his article about its controversial opening in the January 25 edition of this paper.

A lot of Bermudians know better, but arrivals to the Island might be misled by this statement that implies that black students could attend numerous secondary institutions to be educated if they wanted to, but chose not to attend The Berkeley. Using “tradition” as an adjective entails that it was a black school that enjoyed the fact that black students in Bermuda had very few educational options.

“Historically”, maybe would have been a better word to use, as Berkeley is over 100 years old, and for many of those years was one of very few options for black students.

The Historically Black Colleges and Universities in the United States, such as Howard University, Hampton University, Spelman College, and Clark Atlanta University, which were established before desegregation, were never exclusionary. I think some schools in Bermuda can be described as “traditionally white” though.

AKILAH BECKLES

Kingston, Ontario

Editor’s Note: <$>Ms Beckles is correct. The more accurate usage would have been “historically” because Berkeley has always welcomed all students, regardless of race or ethnicity. On a more general note, the phrase was added in the editing process to put into context the emphasis that Calvin White, the chairman of the Board of Governors, put that Berkeley’s first priority was “education — of all races”.