Dear Sir,

This is a response to letter published on December 22 under the pseudonym Just Sayin’.

The author contends the examples on this topic given earlier by Clevelyn Crichlow dealt with human rights whereas the airport project was a matter of government policy. It appears to me that the author has a restricted definition of human rights and in some ways is self-contradictory, as each of the putative situations mentioned was a matter of government policy.

1, Apartheid South Africa existed based on law otherwise known as government policy

2, India before independence was based on British colonial law and British imperial government policy. It was even more pernicious, as the British used Indian troops to fight against Nazi aggression that was based on Nazi ideas of genetic superiority, while British colonialism was based on European-wide ideas of genetic superiority vis-à-vis the colonised peoples

3, The United States before the civil rights era was based on law as well as government policy

With respect to the airport project, my perception of complaints is that many persons are concerned about restricted access of the majority of the population to jobs arising from this project because of the nature of the contracts being used. Whether these complaints are justified is a separate question, but persons complaining may still be viewing it through glasses tinted by human rights issues.

As an aside, the retiring head of the Bermuda Tourism Authority seems to view himself as some sort of “Deus ex Machina” when he asserted in your newspaper recently that the greatest problem facing tourism for the future is politics.

Politics and the associated access of the black population to opportunities for work have been matters of concern in the Bermuda community since the 1950s.

I would have thought that his board members would have made him aware of the history.

Alternatively, he may have been living in a bubble for the past three years

J.T. CHRISTOPHER