Dunkley seeks Senate debate on alleged sexual assaults in Regiment
Shadow Home Affairs Minister Michael Dunkley has tabled a take note motion in the Senate about sexual assault allegations at Bermuda Regiment.
The UBP Senate Leader told The Royal Gazette yesterday that the issue would likely be debated in the Upper Chamber in the next couple of weeks.
His motion reads: "That the Senate takes note of the allegations of sexual abuse within the Bermuda Regiment and the need to resolve these allegations and ensure a framework is in place to allow future reporting, proper investigation and resolution."
It follows revelations in this newspaper in September about 14 allegations of sexual assault or harassment made by male soldiers at Warwick Camp between 1989 and 2002.
Our reporting on the claims has already prompted three ongoing inquiries by the Ministry of Labour, Home Affairs and Housing, the Regiment itself and the Human Rights Commission.
Sen. Dunkley said last night: "I thought it important to put it down in the Senate. The Lower Chamber and the Upper Chamber — that's where the people's business is done."
The Opposition politician has previously claimed that "well known people" in the community may have been involved in sexual misconduct at Warwick Camp and that official records detailing at least two of the 14 allegations are missing.
"We are concerned about these allegations," he said. "The intention of the motion is not to have a witch hunt against anybody.
"The intention is to rectify what appears to be some very horrible circumstances in the past and to have a framework in place to make sure it doesn't happen in the future."
Sen. Dunkley added: "There are those in the community who just don't want to deal with it and want to think that didn't happen and it will go away. That's not good. To me, it's not acceptable."
Governor Sir Richard Gozney — the Regiment's commander-in-chief — has said he is satisfied that the Regiment dealt properly with past allegations and that a Royal Commission to look into the claims is not necessary.