Race does not rule the day

March 15, 2003

Dear Sir,

This letter is directed at all those people who may have voted for the PLP in 1998 - for the first time. Remember why you voted for them? Part of the reason was that the UBP didn't look so great in those days. They had become arrogant - remember all those accusations from the PLP - and secretive; they governed only in their best interests. Now take an honest look at today's PLP... see anything familiar?

It is easy to say that you don't care; that you are no worse off; that it's time we got our share. But at the end of the day do you really want to have a Government who only care about themselves and people who look like them; who can't figure out a financial project no matter what amount is involved; who want to divide this country down racial lines; where gangs are battling in our streets; where tourism success hinges on the African Diaspora Trail and some naked babe pictured on a Hawaiian beach. And where arrogance and dishonesty and secrecy are the norm.

In Friday's Royal Gazette there was published a Notice from the Broadcast Commissioners giving us the new 'rules of engagement' for political broadcasts. The detail is not that important because we have come to expect this sneaky and fearful way of doing things from Jennifer's group. What is important is that the issue of freedom of speech - who can speak and what they can say - was dictated to us and never allowed to see the floor of the House of Assembly. The way this Government gets what it wants, when it knows that that 'want' is wrong, is to dictate it and not allow any backtalk.

They don't speak to the media because they are afraid that the media will challenge them and make them look at the other side of the issue; they don't speak to the people because the people - many of whom are represented by the Opposition - might make them look at the other side of the coin too. This is the kind of Government that you got when you voted for them in 1998. Now I fully agree and understand why you may have voted that way then (and I am a UBP supporter who feels that it was important to see what someone else could do) but is this really what you want. Do you want a Government which doesn't have the ability to govern properly; all it can do is use it power to dictate. It may sound nice - especially if you are benefiting - but history says that it will come back to haunt you.

The new UBP should not be judged on what it was doing in 1998 but what it did for the 30 years before that. Bermuda was a success story and most aspects of our country were successful. Yes, I absolutely agree, race relations was not one of those successes and you tossed us out and we listened and we learned. No question that the UBP of the past was not perfect and the new UBP is not perfect - but the new UBP has diversity; people with common sense; people with intelligence and, maybe most importantly, people who have succeeded in their lives and who want to serve Bermuda. The United Bermuda Party learned that race could not rule the day; I can only hope that those of you who thought it might, in the form of the PLP, now know that race may be a short term plan but it will never (and should never) be the thing that we hang our hat on.

LOOK IN THE MIRROR

Southampton

Registration woes

March 13, 2003

Dear Sir

The article in today's paper regarding the accuracy of the voting register and which reports Parliamentary Registrar Sabrina Phillips' comments, borders on incredible naivete or absolute ignorance. The Opposition Leader and all of the United Bermuda Party branches know categorically that she is talking a great deal of nonsense because we have canvassed most of the new districts or reviewed the register, which is based on the old districts, and I and others absolutely know that inaccuracies are at least 25 percent and more in some areas.

In fact, and I mean this in the nicest possible way, how would Mrs. Phillips even know the 'accuracy' of the register ? I do not mean to criticise Mrs. Phillips - unless she really does think the Register is accurate - but because there is no requirement to register annually, people simply are not doing anything when they move. This means that a person registered in Smith's who moves to Warwick and does nothing will be registered in Smith's for as long as inertia persists...

Look, when you canvass an area - and every UBP branch has done a lot of this - and you collect data, and then you compare that data to the Register (that is supplied by the Registrar and which forms the basis of the UBP database), it is inaccurate - we are not making this up. Why would anyone make this up? No political party - or the Governor - wants to see chaos on Election Day. Chaos will be the order of the day if the UBP's assertions are true because people will show up to vote where they live and find that they are NOT registered there but somewhere else - and that's gonna tick a lot of people off! Telling people where they live under the new system is very nice - and the UBP has been doing this constantly for months - but it doesn't matter a hill of beans if you are actually registered someplace else!

The other thing is the Registrar's claim to be so diligent in acting on claims of inaccuracy and, particularly, updating the register when a change form is filled in. Maybe she is but something isn't right in Oz because these things just don't happen the way they are supposed to.

Maybe politics is involved here but when we send in change forms and nothing seems to happen when we get an update months later and, worse, the Registrar cannot even keep an adequate supply of the requisite forms - all is not well in Jennifer Land ! Short of making the problem known to the public, I can't see what the UBP can do about it.

At the very least we know where the inaccuracies are and we know where our supporters will have to vote - so it doesn't make that much difference to us. The real problem is going to be on the head of the PLP and the Governor - and those heads seem to be firmly planted about three feet under the sands of the Sahara!

ONE WHO KNOWS

Southampton

Butler's newsletter

March 15th, 2003

Dear Sir,

The only 'novel approach' (Royal Gazette, March 16, 2003) that Dale Butler has taken in his 'New Newsletter' is that it has miraculously appeared while Parliamentarians are gearing up for an election. My Members of Parliament, John Barritt and Michael Dunkley have sent out fabulous newsletters to their constituents regularly - they include current political information, write-ups on Devonshire people, historic facts and a good joke, or two (sound familiar, Mr. Butler).

Mr. Barritt and Mr. Dunkley have also mailed questionnaires on important issues so that the people they represent have a say in what they take forward to the House of Assembly (crime and traffic). In addition, I have received Devonshire themed Christmas cards and Birthday cards. The latter, I have received just before my special day every year without fail. The Bermuda public is a savvy crowd. They realise that there is nothing innovative about Mr. Butler creating a public relations tool just before an election - especially since he is running in what is perceived as a marginal constituency.

RLA

Devonshire

Problem and solution

March 19, 2003

Dear Sir,

While walking my dogs in the Abbot's Cliff area, we often pass a number of houses with dogs roaming in the front yards. These dogs are not tied or fenced in any way, and often come running and barking towards their property boundary. I inevitably "freak out", grabbing my little Dachshund and dragging my lab mix as we run for our lives. It is only then that I realise "oh - the dogs aren't coming off of their property. Duh! I guess they have invisible fencing".

Meanwhile, my heart is racing a thousand miles a minute, my breakfast is in my throat and my dogs are looking at me like I'm insane. Can owners that have invisible fencing and allow their dogs to roam their front yards please put out some kind of small sign noting the fact that invisible fencing is in use? I realise this seems like a small issue these days, but my heart just can't take it. I'm sure you don't want to come upon me at the edge of your driveway, dead from a heart attack, clutching my dogs for dear life.

A FREAKED OUT DOG WALKER

Hamilton Parish

Burgess is narrow minded

February 28, 2003

Dear Sir,

Have we gone mad in Bermuda? Has living in this tiny little island affected our brain cells and made us totally narrow-minded? I am referring to the idiotic suggestion by Derrick Burgess that expatriates who come here be tested for the AIDS virus, because "as a small place, we don't need any additional problems..." The Bermuda Sun did a survey, and the sad thing is that many people out there seem to be agreeing with him. This, to me, is the utmost in ignorance. Are we all going to acquire AIDS by breathing in the same air as these individuals? I can certainly understand testing guest workers for diseases like tuberculosis which can be contagious and hepatitis which can be more easily transmitted. However, the last time I checked HIV is not something you 'catch'!

If the fear is that these people will start to have relations with Bermudian and spread the disease that way, then let's look at that scenario. What about the thousands of tourists who come here from all over the world each year-some of which may be carrying the virus. Are we that naive that we think that tourists aren't meeting and engaging in sexual activities with locals?

Should we test every one of them before we let them into our island? And then we Bermudians love to travel, and travel frequently. Are we that naive that we think that Bermudians aren't engaging in sexual activities with people they meet overseas? Should Bermudians have to take an AIDS test every time we return from a trip overseas?

I don't understand why we Bermudians think we are so superior to everyone. Heaven forbid that we should let a tainted foreigner come in and contaminate our pristine little island. I feel Mr. Burgess is way off on this one. I would have expected to heard a comment like this in the 80's or even the 90's, but we are now in the twenty-first century, for Pete's sake.

Mr. Burgess should be promoting more education on safer sex, instead of advocating this idiotic, discriminatory mentality. And to the people out there who are in support of this mindset, read a book, talk to your physician or surf the Internet on the HIV virus and how it is spread. Don't let your personal fears and prejudices affect your logic.

GET REAL

Hamilton Parish

Frightened of Ministry

March 11, 2003

Dear Sir,

Calvin White's article, in the recent edition of "Um, Um" Magazine, regarding his concern over the number of children in private schools, stated:

"This must change or we will ultimately create a divided society of those who have access to opportunity and those who do not. This is a recipe for social unrest and national disaster".

I was wondering what he meant by that? Does he mean that those in private schools are better off than those in the public system, or vice-versa? Or could he mean that there is something about the public school system that the alternative systems are unaware of and therefore, some sort of resentment will build in children who were not privileged to attend public school? Whatever the meaning behind his words (prophetic, fear appeal, threat), I am amazed at how aggressive the Education Department has been in pushing the public education agenda. Of course, my amazement is rooted in what appears to be desperation on the part of the Ministry to attract more children to the system then their genuine concern over the education of our young people.

Their campaigns are filled with nice sounding words, complete with the 'right' people to utter them... constantly. What has public education become all of a sudden, or should one ask, what is the next step in its evolution? It appears as if a new product is on the market: teacher licensing, expos, and 'first choice of parents'. Whose product is this anyway? I should imagine that the majority of Bermuda's young are already enrolled in the public school system. If I wasn't so paranoid I wouldn't dare say that there should be no rest until all children are in the system! What an endeavour! Even the language used to describe traditional education has changed - ah - it still is traditional education... isn't it?

I am convinced that a system as widely propagated as this must have a name. I have not heard it referred to as anything, but surely it is much more than mere education reform? After all, fancy terms like, Parents as Teachers, Stakeholders and Public/Private Partnership must form the basis of something? Moreover, should we be grateful to the schools for their benevolence and foresight in creating programmes, which provide for the child everything that a family normally would provide? Or should we hold our breath in stark terror over what will be required of us in return, concerning what our children will be required to learn?

I am kind of frightened. For months, Bermuda has been overwhelmed with the Education Department's seemingly relentless drive to either bore everyone to death with the public education campaign or they are deeply passionate about something that is not being fully revealed? Whatever it is, two things are certain: they want the public to be just as passionate otherwise we wouldn't be overrun with all the hype, the likes of which has never been experienced. And the other point, which every parent should be mindful of, they seem to want the children in the system... badly.

V. L. YOUNG

Southampton