I would like to tell a disturbing story about fairness and trust in the new Bermuda that should concern everyone in our community.

The story describes just one small chapter in the legal saga of the attempt by Harold Darrell to prove his claim of racial discrimination against the Bank of Bermuda. But this chapter cuts right to the issue of the bond of trust that should exist between the PLP Government and those it was elected to serve.

To begin, I need to go back to 1981, the year the United Bermuda Party Government passed the Human Rights Act. This landmark legislation ensured that the human rights enshrined in the Bermuda Constitution were even better protected under Bermuda law.

Our Constitution guarantees the fundamental rights and freedoms of every person, whatever his or her race, place of origin, political opinion, colour, creed or sex. The Human Rights Act established procedures and guidelines by which any person who felt discriminated against could seek a fair and equitable hearing from an independent body, free from political interference.

Let’s jump ahead to 1998, when the Progressive Labour Party claimed in their election promises that they would be — and I quote — “scrupulously fair to all persons regardless of race, colour or creed”.

These are certainly noble sentiments. In fact, these are the same sentiments expressed in the Human Rights Act that was passed by the UBP Government some 17 years earlier.

But with the PLP Government, making promises and fulfilling them are two very different things, as we have now come to see.

We now have documents that suggest that a current Minister of the PLP Government — the Hon. Terry Lister — ignored the intent of the Human Rights Act, prevented an individual from receiving a fair and equitable hearing on the basis of personal feelings and compromised a civil servant to the point where he felt compelled, in the end, to leave Government service.

In October 2000, Harold Darrell filed a discrimination complaint against the Bank of Bermuda with the Human Rights Commission. The complaint alleged oppressive business practices by the Bank towards black Bermudian businessmen and discrimination by the bank in not enforcing its own complaint policy.

It is not my intention to discuss the merits of Mr. Darrell’s complaint against the bank. That issue will be decided elsewhere. But I am compelled to bring to the public’s attention what, in my opinion, was the inexcusable way Minister Lister handled Mr. Darrell’s original complaint to the Human Rights Commission.

It is important to know that at an earlier point in their careers, Mr. Darrell and Minister Lister had significant disagreements over business matters.

Towards the end of 2000, the Human Rights Commission completed its initial investigation of Mr. Darrell’s discrimination complaint and judged that it “appeared to be genuine” under the Human Rights Act.

Normally, the Human Rights Commission tries to seek a satisfactory resolution to a complaint if all the parties involved agree to cooperate. But because the Bank of Bermuda would not participate in the complaint process, the Human Rights Commission found it could not proceed further. So the Commission did what it was supposed to do in law. It referred the complaint to the Minister.

This was clearly set out in a letter dated December 15, 2000, to Minister Lister from the Rev. Dr. Goodwin Smith, who was then the Chairman of the Human Rights Commission.

The Rev. Dr. Smith stated “the complaint appeared to be genuine in accordance with Section 15 of the Human Rights Act”.

He requested that the Minister consider the appointment of a Board of Inquiry to investigate the complaint.

So far, so good. Mr. Darrell’s complaint had been handled in accordance with the law.

But then this sequence of events took a disgraceful turn.

We know from publicly available documents that Minister Lister called a meeting to discuss the Rev. Dr. Smith’s letter with the Director of Human Affairs and the Executive Officer of the Human Rights Commission. We know what took place behind those closed doors from an affidavit filed in the Supreme Court and sworn by the then-Executive Officer, Neville Darrell, who is now a United Bermuda Party Senator.

In his words, the following took place:

“The Minister challenged my analysis of the human rights complaint as being poor judgment on my part.

“The Minister stated to me that if I had personal knowledge of Mr. Darrell that I would not have placed much significance in his human rights complaint.

“He asked me, ‘Do you know who Harold Darrell is?’ I said, ‘Harold Darrell is a part of the human family and has been declared through international conventions and indeed our own Constitution to possess inalienable rights, rights that we call human rights’.

“The Minister stated to me that there would be times during my tenure at the Human Rights Commission that I would have to ‘tear down the Temple’ and that on other occasions I would simply do nothing.

“At the conclusion of the meeting, the Minister announced to me that he was not going to send the complaint to a Board of Inquiry and that the Commission was going to dismiss it.

“I am clear that the only basis for the Minister not proceeding forward with a Board of Inquiry was on the basis of the complainant, Mr. Darrell himself. This discrimination on the part of the Minister immediately upset me and placed me in a toxic, poisoned work environment with the Minister and if I was to follow the direction of the Minister in being more aware of who is seeking the assistance of the Human Rights Commission as opposed to weighing the merits of the individual’s complaint I would place myself in direct opposition to the very statute I was committed to upholding in my community.”

Under the Human Rights Act, custom and practice dictate that once a complaint is referred to the Minister, he can set up a Board of Inquiry or dismiss the complaint himself. Minister Lister did neither. I suspect he didn’t have the courage to dismiss the complaint under his own hand. Instead, according to the affidavit, Minister Lister instructed the Executive Officer to dismiss the complaint, thereby placing a senior civil servant in an untenable position.

On January 17, 2001, the Executive Officer wrote a letter — a single sentence of dismissal — to Mr. Darrell. It read, “Please be advised that pursuant to section 15 (8) of the Human Rights Act 1981, the Human Rights Commission has dismissed the above action, the same being without merit.” It was signed by the Executive Officer, not by Minister Lister.

It appears that Minister Lister, acting on the basis of personal feelings toward Mr. Darrell rather than on the facts of the case, ignored the normal procedures established by the Act to afford Mr. Darrell a fair and equitable hearing. Minister Lister’s actions represent a fundamental betrayal of trust between the PLP Government and those whom it governs.

Why have a human rights commission when a PLP Minister can dismiss a genuine discrimination complaint on the basis of his personal feelings about the complainant?

What kind of new justice is that?

Can the PLP Government now dismiss discrimination complaints because a Minister doesn’t like someone’s skin colour? Doesn’t like someone’s political affiliation? Doesn’t like the way they do business? Doesn’t like the way they criticise Government? The answer must be a resounding “no”. The United Bermuda Party sees this as an appalling disregard of human rights by Minister Lister and the PLP Government. Shame on them.

A Government must uphold the law, not bend the rules to suit their personal preferences. By denying Mr. Darrell’s right to a fair hearing, Minister Lister effectively denied those rights to every member of our community. It is fair to ask, who will be next? Who will be the next victim of the PLP Government?

The Act itself says, under section 16 [4], that “any person who hinders, obstructs, molests or interferes with the Commission or an officer of the Commission in the lawful exercise of a power or the lawful performance of a duty under this Act shall be guilty of an offence”.

Is it possible that Minister Lister committed an offence under the Human Rights Act?

The United Bermuda Party believes the Department of Public Prosecutions should determine whether this occurred. In the meantime, the Premier should do the right and honourable thing and ask Minister Lister to resign.

In March of this year, with a change in ministerial portfolios and with the Government’s back against the wall, Minister Horton appointed the Board of Inquiry that should have been established long ago to investigate Mr. Darrell’s complaint. But Mr. Darrell’s pursuit of a fair hearing comes at considerable personal cost. It has taken him more than two years and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

The moral to this story is obvious to anyone who supports fairness and civil rights. Mr. Darrell had the resources at his disposal to pursue justice, but justice must be available to all, not just to those who can pay for it. Our Constitution guarantees justice to everyone in our community, regardless of station in life, skin colour, gender, religious or political affiliation. When the UBP forms the next Government, we will ensure that the human rights legislation we originally wrote is upheld absolutely and without prejudice.