That was no retraction
June 22, 2013
Sentiment, whether it is pro or con, reigns supreme regarding the Attorney General, and his comments regarding the human rights legislation. The original statement made in the House, has disturbed many among our community, especially the Christians. Since which, the Premier made a statement, to the effect that he has distanced himself from remarks made by his Parliamentary colleague, that they were of a personal nature, not a Governmental stance, or a party consensus. It has been noted that, by way of Parliamentary Code of Conduct, this stance is in contravention of the same.
From an analytical perspective, for the Premier not to address the situation head-on, gives the appearance that the decision of the Premier was solely an attempt to eliminate the perspective of division among the ranks within the One Bermuda Alliance, by not professionally, ethically or on the foundation of principle, evading the subject. The AG has since offered an apology. An apology to the effect that he was sorry if the remarks he made offended anyone, that he was exercising his freedom of speech.
Take note that, not in any way has the AG made an attempt to retract his remarks. Again he was only sorry if the comments made members of the community angry. Does this mean the AG still has the conviction of the original remarks? If this is the case, Mr Acting Editor, the personal attitude/mentality of the highest legal office, is indeed disturbing to say the least. Can we afford to have someone of this mindset play a role in the future policy or legislation of our country?