Dear Sir,

The following is in regard to a few statements made in today’s Royal Gazette (February 15). I do not want to debate the issue that grocery prices are too high in Bermuda, but I would like to comment on two statements made in that front-page article.

First, Ms Armstrong criticises the “greed” of Bermuda’s supermarket chains for failing to drop their prices to an affordable level. Does this represent an actual quote from Ms Armstrong or have the words become changed in some fashion? The statement is utterly ridiculous as it stands; no business on Earth can remain in business if the prices of its products are calculated by people declaring what they are willing to pay, or what they can afford. Open your own grocery shop and let people pay what they consider is affordable and see how long you are in business.

Second, Major Pittman’s statement that “Bermuda has a high cost of living and that causes a problem for people struggling with a low income, as they don’t have options like Wal-Mart”. I fail to see how the presence of a Wal-Mart in Bermuda will end the problem of those struggling with a low income.

America has Wal-Mart and other places offering low prices ... and they don’t have their poor? America doesn’t have people who cannot afford enough food? The cause of want is not from the lack of a Wal-Mart.

Also, in a letter to the editor, we have Phillip Ray’s statement about same-sex marriages that “it is a right. A basic human right, and to deny such a thing, or even accept a protest against same-sex marriage by a group of concerned citizens is inherently wrong”. There it is again, that catchphrase — “human rights”. This catchphrase supports not only justifiable concerns about right and wrongs in our societies, but it has come to support many, many cockeyed and even terrible points of view. It is wrong to think when someone yells “human rights” that they are right and any other view is “inherently wrong” because they have used those magic words.

The declaration of “human rights” should not silence all other voices, for then the future is a dark and ugly road to be travelled. What happens when a group declares it is a “human right”, ie, their right, to have sex with children without prosecution? What happens when a group declares it is a “human right”, their right, to practise sex with animals without prosecution? (Mentioning only two). Is it “inherently wrong” to protest against these because the magic words “human rights” have been uttered?

Now don’t call me stupid; there are groups in Canada and especially in Britain that are claiming these rights. Recently in Britain, a clause was found to have been attached to a matter going before Parliament to be made into law that would have made it easier for those claiming basic human rights to molest children. It was taken out, but it was a close call.

This is what I am trying to say: stop this “human rights” to silence opposition. The opposition also has the human right to be heard — and perhaps from that dialogue will come a better understanding.

In another letters to the editor, there was a statement by Jonathan Land Evans that any sin made by a previous Government of Bermuda would merit the present government making “a formal statement and an apology in the Senate, or indeed in the House of Assembly by the Premier, on behalf of the Government of Bermuda”. Why? This government is not responsible for anything more that what they have done. They were not and are not responsible for any “government manipulation ...” by a previous Government of Bermuda.

Should this present government apologise for the Progressive Labour Party putting Bermuda into tremendous debt, which is now causing us such pain? And if there should be “politicians or civil servants being prosecuted for possible malfeasance in public office or for other offences”, as Mr Evans suggests, then should we start the ball rolling by gathering a list of culprits from the PLP government for said debt, when they were in power? A tsunami of misinformation, not thinking ideas through to the end, and emotions dictating to the brain rather than logic.

MARK EMMERSON