October 15, 2013Dear Sir,Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to respond to a column written by Pte Raymond Hainey which appeared in your newspaper recently. Headlined “Mr Marshall’s views are dated and out of touch” the article, a rather lengthy one, contained many inaccuracies illustrating the writer’s partiality, blatant lack of objectivity, cultural ignorance, and intellectual deficiency. Space does not allow me to address the many inaccuracies and therefore I will try and focus only on the most glaring although that will require some discipline. Pte Hainey states at the beginning of his article that the first fight he would be involved in was one against someone who had probably never worn a uniform. Of course the implication was that anyone who has worn a uniform was more of a man than someone who has not. That toughness and courage are defined by a uniform.That would mean great freedom fighters who never wore a uniform like Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Malcolm X, and Muhamad Ali were all less of a man than Mr Hainey because he dons military fatigues. Conversely, vicious tyrants like Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Idi Amin were all real men according to this criteria simply because they wore uniforms. That was the first of many mind boggling statements yet incredulously from there it went down hill. For in the next paragraph he suggests that I contradicted myself in a recent column when criticising columnist Al Seymour because he felt statements made did not correspond with those made in an interview with ZBM. Yet in that interview the question asked and answered had nothing to do with the subject matter of the column so it could not possibly be contradictory.For context that column — that is Mr Seymour’s — highlighted the Bermuda Regiment as an institution which instils values and discipline in young conscripts. I strongly disagreed stating that it had in fact brought much sorrow to many as well as corrupting an equal number over the past forty seven years. That opinion was based on having talked to literally hundreds of victims or their family members over the past eight years. This included affirmations and sworn affidavits introduced in court as evidence. Yet Pte Hainey suggests that we completely disregard those hundreds of victims and sworn affidavits and simply believe him. In other words the testimony of one Scot carries more weight than the combined testimony of hundreds of Bermudians. This type of thinking is symptomatic of one gravely afflicted with a most debilitating superiority complex which causes him to have an incredibly low perception of Bermudians. And it this sickening, condescending attitude which is interwoven throughout his entire article. That is why, despite the abundance of evidence which proves otherwise, he declares in 2013 the Regiment underwent a phenomenal metamorphosis whereby it no longer treated young men so deplorably nor had such a corrupting influence. This of course coincided with his arrival on the scene as all the profanity, vulgarity, and insults suddenly came to a screeching halt. We must have two governors not one.Is that true? Can Pte Hainey be trusted to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I believe that can be determined by comparing what he has written with what officers have said, considering his past columns on the Regiment while at the Sun, and by examining the comments contained in the article. It is important to note that the officers quoted in this article were all under oath when giving evidence in February 2011. Then CO Brian Gonzalves, when asked by our lawyer Eugene Johnston if officers were allowed to curse the conscripts, he answered in the affirmative. Then when asked if officers were allowed to put their hands on conscripts he again answered in the affirmative. So who are we to believe an officer under oath or Pte Hainey who is not under oath?Any logically thinking person would believe the officer under oath. For one thing I’ve learned is that under oath officers from the Regiment can indeed be trusted to tell the truth. This was graphically illustrated in that same trial when Lt Col Gonzalves, along with Warren Furbert and Ted Gauntlett were questioned concerning allegations of sexual abuse in the Regiment. Initially all three stated that, to their knowledge, no sexual abuse had taken place after 2000. Yet when Mr Johnston asked if they had any knowledge about an incident that took place in 2005 in Grenada when one soldier put a knife to the throat of another and attempted to sexually assault him they all said “yes”. Therefore when Regiment officers under oath say profanity is used at Warwick Camp they can be trusted.As a journalist at the Sun Pte Hainey wrote an incredible number of stories promoting his beloved institution. In one calendar year he wrote about forty stories endeavouring to present the Regiment in a positive light. It actually got to the point where the editor started to place somewhat of a disclaimer at the end of each story explaining the writer was currently serving. At no point did Pte Hainey ever contact any member of Bermudians Against the Draft to run a story which ran contrary to what he personally believed. It was evident he committed the cardinal sin for a journalist which is to allow personal opinion to influence one’s writing to the point it brings into question their journalistic integrity. It became apparent that he did not embrace the concept of freedom of the press which is predicated on fair and unbiased reporting by any stretch of the imagination.Now to the actual column itself which contains many inaccurate statements made in an attempt to deliberately misrepresent the truth. Pte Hainey states that I have been in many courtrooms which is true. Why that was mentioned I have no idea. In any event one thing I’ve learned in courtrooms is to always tell the truth because if the judge catches somebody in one lie their credibility is destroyed. Regarding profanity, which he stated was not allowed, the evidence form the officers under oath prove that to be false. And for the record we do have a source currently serving in the Regiment who has confirmed that profanity is still excessive and abuse continues. As a matter of fact this source was prompted to contact me after reading Pte Hainey’s column which has been placed on the bulletin board at the camp. How else would I know that, unless somebody from within had provided that information?So the assertion by the writer that my views are dated and out of touch simply because I am not up there is way off base. Furthermore, I’ve never been on a plantation but nonetheless oppose slavery. I had never been to South Africa during the vicious apartheid era but I nonetheless opposed apartheid. I never accompanied Neil Armstrong to the Moon but I believe that he went there and took “One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind”.Yet what exposes Pte Hainey’s bias even more is his attempt to justify filthy language at the Regiment which he says does not occur. This he does by equating language heard there with that heard in an English pub, a police squad room and a rugby locker room. He suggests that Mr Marshall visit a rugby locker room among other places. Now why on earth would I start hanging around rugby locker rooms? It is disingenuous to equate language heard in a pub or rugby locker room with language at Warwick Camp for a number of reasons. First of all everyone in the locker room wants to be there whereas conscripts don’t have a choice. Secondly, and most importantly, the language in the locker room, while excessive, for the most part is not directed at anyone in a way meant to insult, demean, and embarrass them. The players are all friends. When was the last time Pte Hainey heard someone’s mother insulted in a locker room or someone being constantly referred to as part of the female anatomy? Lastly, in the places referred to those subjected to filthy language can leave at any time they want but that is not the case with the Regiment! They must endure the abusive language or face the consequences which can be severe as it is coming from superiors.Regarding the consumption of alcohol it is stated that it is not allowed. Really? Why then are there four bars on the property with one specifically for privates? Are they limited to serving root beer and lemonade? What about overseas trips? It is stated that the pay is $140 a day but what is not stated is that they work eighteen hour days which means an hourly rate of around $7.75 an hour. Nor is it stated how the most exorbitant fines are handed out for the smallest infractions resulting in what little pay is received being significantly reduced in many instances. It is stated that they are only required to work twenty-eight days per year when they are required to work over fifty days per year. It is suggested that our attempt to portray the Regiment as a bad organisation due to heinous crimes being committed by former officers is illogical. Here the writer misses the point of what was being stated which was that if the Regiment wants to take credit for those who do well having passed through their ranks then they must also take responsibility for those that have not.Pte Hainey attempts to twist this around asking the question should we close schools and churches because teachers and clergymen commit sexual offences against children when I was in no way suggesting that.However, when it comes to certain churches, then yes, they should be closed down having facilitated the diabolical agenda of vicious sexual predators who repeatedly preyed upon helpless children as superiors covered their wicked deeds. Sound familiar? Moving briefly from what was written to what was not perhaps the latter is even more revealing than the former. In the article referred to it was asserted that one reason young men are corrupted is because of the common practice to visit strip joints and pick up prostitutes while travelling overseas. Pte Hainey specifically stated that he travelled with the Regiment to the US Marines’ Camp Lejune in North Carolina in April of this year.You would have expected him to categorically deny any visits to strip joints or brothels as was asserted but he does not. After all he was there and I was not so he could definitely state such activity did not take place yet there is no such adamant denial. Strange indeed. So considering that officers under oath admitted profanity is allowed, that there was evident bias in Pte Hainey’s reporting while at the Sun, and there are several inaccuracies in his column one can safely conclude the Regiment is not what the writer would have people think it is. His strategy is classic Regiment propaganda which teaches to deny, deny, deny and then when evidence is presented proving that certain things did indeed take place move to “It doesn’t happen any more.”Pte Rainey closed his article by inviting young men to the recruit night so that “they might dispel some of the dafter notions swirling around service in the Regiment”. Since he introduced the word daft let me explain what daft really is in the context of this discussion. Daft is a Scotsman having the audacity to come to this Island and support a system that was outlawed in his own country more than fifty years ago.Daft is not understanding the cultural dynamics of this country and therefore volunteering for what can only be described as a “fool’s errand.” Daft is questioning whether I listen to the radio or watch television and then suggesting that I am out of touch in my own country while he is in touch. Yet his time appears to be spent primarily in pubs and rugby locker rooms which somehow makes him an expert on Bermudian culture.What Bermudians Against the Draft is fighting for are the same basic human rights enjoyed by young men in Pte Hainey’s country of origin which is Scotland. Why is it so hard for him to understand that young Bermudian men deserve the same rights as their counterparts in Great Britain. What’s the main difference between most of our young men and them? Why is Pte Hainey’s perspective so ‘coloured’?LARRY MARSHALL SRBermudians Against the Draft