December 9, 2002

Dear Sir,

Your editorial staff would be advised to cheek to accuracy of reports given to you by Reuters News Agency. I have noticed mistake after mistake. The latest is on Page 33, Saturday, December 7, 2002.

My information is that Osama bin Laden was not born in Saudi-Arabia he was born in Yemen and transferred to Saudi where his family established a large building construction company. We have enough biased information on the Mideast as it is.

BILL COOK

Paget

Editor's note: According to the US Central Intelligence Agency, Osama bin Laden was born in 1955 in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, the youngest male of more than forty children of Muhammad bin Ladin, a Saudi citizen of Yemeni origin and owner of the Bin Ladin Group of construction companies. Much of the border between the two countries is undefined. In 1996, Saudi Arabia “expelled” bin Laden - thereby denying him of citizenship.

December 6, 2002

Dear Sir,

With reference to the article in today's Royal Gazette entitled: “West end stores unite”, it is little wonder that we rarely see a police officer on patrol in Somerset, St. George's or Hamilton as they are all working second jobs, such as security jobs.

EX-POLICE OFFICER

Paget

December 5, 2002

Dear Sir,

Could you please put this letter in your most valued column. On a recent trip to Sao Miguel (St. Michael), Azores my wife and I stayed at La Ninha Guest House, 15 Rua Do Contador in Ponta Delgada. Our holiday went very well until we received our telephone bill for a call my wife made to Bermuda for 17.17 minutes 311.50 and three local calls I made one costing 13.90 for .36 seconds. Our total telephone bill came to 346.50. That works out at about $20.00 a minute.

Apparently this guest house uses a system which uses impulses and they charge .70 per impulse. If we had called Bermuda from a pay phone it would have cost 18.00. St. Michael is a beautiful Island and we enjoyed it very much as it was were my parents came from. If you travel there be very careful where you stay as you can get ripped off as we did.

ERNEST M. DECOUTO

Pembroke

December 6, 2002

Dear Sir,

As a result of the racial remarks made by Mr. Derrick Burgess of the Bermuda Industrial Union and Ms Renee Webb, Minister of Telecommunications and Tourism, I and my friends have decided that we will not be patronising any business owned by the Bermuda Industrial Union, especially the Liberty Theatre.

CUSTOMER

Paget

December 3, 2002

Dear Sir,

There should be a law that states:if a student is seen hanging about in town,not buying anything or causing disturbance they,should be ordered to catch a bus home.If the student doesn't go by this warning,they get arrested until further notice.

WHAT I'VE SEEN IN TOWN

Pembroke

December 2, 2002

Dear Sir,

On Saturday November 30 at about 3.20 p.m. we were driving on South Road, near the Designer flower shop when over the horizon a young man on a scooter came towards us standing on the seat of his bike with his hands up in the air. This young man immediately fell off (Surprise! Surprise!) and his scooter flew across the road right inches away from our car.

The young man jumped up and did not appear to be hurt but I just wonder why this young man thought he could do tricks such as were probably seen at the cycle display which was here last weekend. I am glad the young man was not killed, I am glad that we were not killed but if any parent is told by their son that he had an accident on Saturday afternoon, he did not!

He narrowly escaped death and causing harm to my family through his own stupidity and I strongly recommend they take the bike away from him.

J.K. WILLIAMS

City of Hamilton

December 6, 2002

Dear Sir,

I find it profoundly shocking and dismaying that in the 21st century a nation which has long been a leader among the world's most influential democracies (the UK) should have ratified a blatantly anti-democratic development in a subordinate state (Bermuda).

At a time in history when Britain viewed their colonial role with greater paternalism, they did not permit the framers of our constitution to establish a method for amending that document. Now a more laissez faire attitude on their part has made us the victims of that void.

We, the voters, are, in effect, the shareholders of Bermuda. Our elected representatives are our board of directors whose job it is to oversee the work of the civil service on our behalf. No board anywhere, ever, is permitted to alter the rules of its own appointment without the shareholders' express agreement to the specific form of that alteration. They cannot simply say: “We were appointed by people who knew we had a change of this sort in mind, so we can make whatever alterations we think are appropriate ...”

The shareholders must vote to confirm their specific consent. Can good corporate governance be of greater significance than that of a state? It is a matter of no importance at all whether the specific changes that have been made are good or bad.

All that is significant is the fact that, by this precedent, it is established that our parliamentary representatives are allowed to alter the very method and terms of their own election. The voters of Bermuda have relinquished our most fundamental right - or had it taken from us.

It is amazing to me that this can have come to pass - and with the approval of the UK. I should have thought that some global watchdog organisation would have alerted the world to such a reversal in the worldwide progress towards empowerment of the people, even in so small a state as Bermuda.

CRIS VALDES DAPENA

Warwick

December 5, 2002

Dear Sir,

I refer to Alvin Williams' commentary in the November 29, 2002 edition of The Mid-Ocean News in which he referred to integration as “the grafting of black people into white society”. In my opinion, integration actually implies the melding of elements of individuality, independence and uniqueness, on an equal basis.

The Webster Dictionary talks about ‘incorporation as equals into society', and ‘an organisation of individuals of different groups (as races)'. Hey, maybe it's a white dictionary. But all jokes aside: to misunderstand a word is certainly forgivable. To create a false meaning for a word of such importance as integration, and preach it to one's readers, is not.

BEAU EVANS

St. George's

December 1, 2002

Dear Sir,

I read in The Royal Gazette that on Friday, December 13, the Government will bring to the House for debate amendments to the Child Act.

I hope that both sides of the House will come together for the sake for the children because if they do, they have a good opportunity to really make a big difference to life in Bermuda (if fathers can be encouraged to be parents and not treated as trash by bias case workers, in the courts and have their contributions lead to being an equal parent).

Other countries when they see that Bermuda has brought back dads and the children have responded favourably will look to us as the model. We can make Bermuda better by listening to what the speakers had to say on the Childwatch T.V. show.

US Senator Cools: “Men and women are equally capable of being good parents”, “Upon divorce a child has the entitlement to a meaningful relationship with both parents”, It is time for the legislators to probe deeply in to just how so many men have been shut out” [of their children's lives].

Erin Pizzey: “Many men were innocent victims suddenly without their children, homes excluded and discriminated against right the way through the legal system”. “I have a feeling we will move human relations out of the court system because the court system is not designed to deal with the delicate mechanism”. “Destroy the family and you destroy civilisation”.

These words when you hear them are so right, yet for years fathers have allowed themselves to be victimised, make you views known to your M.P. before Friday the 13th.

LLEWELLYN SMITH

Devonshire

December 6, 2002

Dear Sir,

When out shopping last night at A.S. Cooper's, I saw a sign displayed prominently near the cashiers' desks. It noted that for returning US residents, the exemption from Customs Duty has been raised from November 4, 2002 to $800 (from $400) for those who have not used the exemption in 30 days.

Finance Minister Eugene Cox was quoted as saying not long ago that few people complain about the $100 Bermuda allows. Well, I do. If we are truly a tourism resort and international business centre without parallel, can we at least match, if not better, the US exemption instead of being so incredibly stingy by comparison?

If the US can do so, despite its allure to Bermudians to shop in the USA at bargain prices, I don't see that Bermuda has any valid excuse at all, from Government or the private sector, especially when the Chamber of Commerce and its “Buy Bermuda” campaign says many goods are as cheap or cheaper here than in the USA.

If it is indeed true, why is our exemption only $100? Ours used to be $400. It is high time it was improved to $800.

KEITH A. FORBES

Hamilton Parish

December 2, 2002

Dear Sir,

Housing Crisis Possible Solution: The Club Med Hotel in St. George's that has laid vacant for several years. My suggestion would be to turn the floors to designated family structures.

The first floor for single couples; the second for single females; the third for single males; the forth floor for a single parent with on child; the fifth floor for single parents with two children or the like with an additional fee to included security for the building. I can't understand how so much money is spent on some expert to come and see what is good for my country when just a little talk with the people could produce some positive solutions.

The cost factor, well to make adjoining rooms or knock out the families floor and keep it to only a single affordable dwelling. Well, what do I know, just that there is no revenue from the hotel now, every day our fellow Bermudians encounter someone seeking a single dwelling or the like.

We could even start co-op housing like in the USA, learn from their mistakes and make it work on our Island because something like this is urgently required. Why not?

MS KATHY LANDY

Devonshire

November 21, 2002

Dear Sir,

In response to Mr. Sautucci's comment that the separation of church and state is an American phenomenon, let me give you some snippers of the constitution of the Netherlands (Holland).

Article 1: All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race or sex or on any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted.

Article 6: Everyone shall have the right to manifest freely his religion or belief. Article 7: No one shall be required to submit thoughts or onions for prior approval in order to disseminate them. Article 11: Everyone shall have the right to inviolability of his person.

I might add that despite the fact that you can smoke cannabis products in Holland and prostitution is permitted, the fact that religious groups have not been allowed to meddle with secular life and especially the schools, where sex/drug education is very much part of the curriculum, that Holland has the lowest level of teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, hard drug addiction and rape, in the world.

Now let's take Utah, that Bastion of religious correctness, which last year won the dubious honour of having the highest level of teen pregnancies in the united states - and that's saying something!

Of course, in the states, like here, religions groups are always meddling with secular life, and there are plenty of politicians prepared to pander to them. But before you thumb your noses at international law, and attempt to hijack the mechanism of secular democracy in your fanatical zeal to replace it, think how you would feel if another religion eg. Islam, rose to prominence and forced the same stunt on you and your children.

You would raise the roof. “How dare you force your religious laws upon us!” Oh yes, how dare you.

GLEN LIMA

November 20, 2002

Dear Sir,

Those of us who remember Bermuda in the early 1960s will recall that affirmative action had been in place for years and whites were routinely given preferential treatment for jobs and government contracts. Many prominent Bermudians, including several veterans still serving with the PLP like Dame Lois Browne-Evans, aroused the conscience of Bermuda about the injustices of such a system, and after immense political pressure special privileges for whites ended. Fast forward to the 21st century, and the proposal by Tourism Minister Webb that affirmative action policies be resurrected, the difference being that the beneficiaries “are people who look like me”.

If the 1960s crony capitalism system that gave unfair advantage to whites was wrong, then logic would suggest that a 2002 system that gives unfair advantage to blacks would be equally wrong. It may well be, of course, that logic, right and wrong, justice and fairness are irrelevant to those who exercise power.

The only important factor could be that when whites held power 40 years ago they used government power for their own advantage. Now that there is a predominantly Black government, there are strong political incentives for Blacks similarly to be placed in a privileged position.The only substantive issue is which race wields power; if it is whites, then the black population is disadvantaged; if it is blacks, then the white population is disadvantaged.

Affirmative action gives special privileges with the result that the principle of equal treatment and equality before the law gives way to the mediaeval, and discredited, concept of “might is right”. Individuals become less important and talent, hard work, initiative, education, training and other positive personal qualities become irrelevant. The only criteria for success is having friends in high places, being on the right side and being the right race.

ROBERT STEWART

Flatts

December 6, 2002

Dear Sir,

There are two aspects of the current furore over Minister Webb's ‘people who look like me' comment that, I confess, confuse me: First, I don't really understand what it is that some people are finding so objectionable. CURE requires all of us, when faced with two equally qualified candidates, to lean in the direction of the one who represents a group that is under-represented - that has been historically denied opportunity.

I cannot understand why a personal, or even a Ministerial, propensity to do the same should be viewed as essentially wrong, even though it may not be codified in law or express policy.

We all have a responsibility to do what we can to redress this historical wrong in any way that we responsibly can. (The selections we make may not always prove to be wise, but that can be true even in the absence of such a preference, as history has proven more than once.)

But more than this, I really completely fail to understand why the UBP has been so vocal in its objection to her stance. Whose votes (other than those already committed to them) can they hope to attract by attacking this particular issue?

There are other, much more important and more unambiguous issues on which to focus. At best, this one seems to me to be of dubious political value.

CRIS VALDES DAPENA

Warwick