Deserved recognition

November 22, 2007

Dear Sir,

We would like to extend, through your paper, our most sincere congratulations to Mr. Ralph Richardson on his appointment as Commodore of the Royal Bermuda Yacht Club.

We know, through working with Mr. Richardson, that he will give 100 percent to this position.

Mr. Richardson is a decent and honourable man, and it is wonderful to see this recognised by his appointment to this post.

HUW AND DALE LEWIS

St. George's

Praise for Dunleavy

November 21, 2007

Dear Sir,

I applaud Christian Dunleavy for speaking out against his detractors, mainly Dr. Eva Hodgson.

She and others have constantly accused him, in the public newspaper, of writing from a privileged white perspective. How wrong have his critics been!

I am sure that putting his family's business out there in the public eye was not an easy choice but what a blow to anyone who has accused him falsely. I totally agree with his hope that people like Dr. Hodgson and others, are going to be thing of the past very soon.

We do not want people like that poisoning the minds of any future generations.

WAY TO GO DUNLEAVY!

Devonshire

Institutionalised racism

November 8, 2007

Dear Sir,

Two recent news items have caught my atttention. The National Geographic recognition of our increasing racial tension and angry white doctors who charge political interference since 1998.

There are those of us old enough to recall Warwick Academy as an all-white school. No problem. Then Sir Henry Tucker challenged the racism of segregation with desegregation. White parents became enraged. They were furious.

The King Edward VII Hospital has always practised racism since the days when no black doctor could enter, including the brilliant Dr E.F.Gordon (long before Dr. Brown was even a doctor). No problem. But when the Ombudsman challenges the racism in the Hospital the white doctors become enraged and charge political interference since 1998, a political interference which seems not to have mattered until racism was challenged!

Since 1998, we have had two PLP Premiers who chose not to touch the issue of racism. Most whites were not happy but they could continue to ignore the black community. There was no real problem (for them). Along comes a Premier who challenges racism and suddenly there is great outrage and fury and all kinds of accusations. No wonder racial tension is on the increase!

As frustrated as some of us may be with both the racism and the white rage which erupts when racism is challenged, I have gradually come to believe that since we as blacks are in the majority, we determine the nature of the society despite our economic dependency. We, too, have been exposed to the ideology of racism which says that black people are inherently, genetically and morally inferior to whites and therefore should be segregated from them.

We, as black people, have also accepted the doctrine as much as white people. Thus we have internalised racism, and, today, internalised racism is destroying us more than racism. We, therefore, are responsible, perhaps more responsible, for the continuation of racism in the hospital and elsewhere. We have not, collectiverly and individually, unrelentingly resisted racism.

Racism is evil, immoral, corrupt, wicked, unscrupulous, without a conscience and very destructive to black people, yet there are black people who wish to ignore it, do not wish it talked about, defend it as long ago, support it by their actions and rationalise it. We have had three black Premiers who ignored it, refused to address our racial divide and condemned those of us who raised the issue and did not resist it.

Every day on the Talk Shows we hear black people attacking and demeaning other black people, while white people remain publicly unified no matter how much they disagree, as do Portuguese and other racial and ethnic groups. They never publicly condemn each other, certainly not even for the evil of racism.

In our current climate, every time blacks, collectively or individually, show their preference for, or choose whites over blacks, particularly in leadership roles, no matter what the reason – irrespective of how good or right the reason– they reinforce the concept that white people are genetically, inherently, morally superior to black people whether that is their intention or not.

We, as black people, must rid ourselves or our internalised racism and unrelentingly resist all forms and manifestations of racism, no matter how great the outrage before we can hope that whites can rid themselves of racism.

Racism has been with us for three or four hundred years but we are not born with it. It is not natural. It may take that long for us to be rid of it but we can be rid of it. Whites can and will change when blacks rid themselves of their own internalised racism and if they, together with whites who are concerned, consistently and unrelentingly resist racism in all of its forms, not only in the Hospital but the racism which continues to ensure that we are a racially divided and separated society that is so destructive and unfair to blacks as it demonstrates the continued conviction that blacks are inherently, genetically and morally inferior to Whites. Our racially divided society is not 30 years ago, nor is it at the will of the black community, it is today, together with the the racism in the hospital.

Today Warwick Academy is both private and desegregated even if, perchance, it is not totally free of either racism or internalised racism. Tomorrow, or the day after, or perhaps even the day after that, Bermuda will be a totally integrated society without racial tension and rid of both racism and internalized racism if we, as blacks, do what we need to do by eliminating our own internalised racism and rather than ignoring and refusing to talk about it we, together with concerned whites as few as they may be, challenge it and unrelentingly resist it regardless of the rage and fury which erupts.

Eva N. Hodgson

Hamilton Parish

Bermuda's three classes

November 17, 2007.

Dear Sir,

There is more garbage spoken about the problem of affordable housing than you can find at Pembroke Dump. The latest addition to the landfill problem bears the happy title: "We're making housing affordable for every Bermudian".

Leaving aside for the moment the mendacity of claiming that the private trust Elizabeth Hills was the work of the PLP, this work of fiction perpetuates the "Big Lie" that Government is making, or can make, housing affordable for some of the population. It never can, and never will. Affordable housing policies have been tried almost everywhere but without success, and there is no reason why Bermuda would be any better than say the USA or UK. What Government can do is make some Bermudians poorer, simultaneously making others wealthier. This means that someone who has earned a dollar is not allowed to keep it, whilst someone else gets a dollar who has not earned it. This used to be called theft.

The question that always needs to be asked when a government proposes to act is this: who pays? The answer to that is simple, it is the taxpayer. Government can't give some of us anything without depriving most of us of something else. This statement should be stamped on the bum of every new born baby.

In Bermuda (as everywhere) there are three classes:

1. The looted – better known as taxpayers or the forgotten anonymous people.

2. The looters – better known as politicians and bureaucrats who like to take credit for helping the less fortunate.

3. The minority who share the loot – some of the voters who just happen to be government supporters.

In the affordable housing propaganda by the PLP to which I refer, the only people mentioned are those in class 3. However, it is obvious that class 2 claims the credit, whilst class 1 carries the financial burden.

Under the current Budget, Government will pick the pockets of taxpayers by around $856 million in the financial year 2007/08. That is about $14,000 per person, or $56,000 per family of four. That is not chump change. When Government loots more than $1,000 a week from a family the question that should be asked of our political masters is this: "You say you are bring benefits like housing to us. Maybe – but instead of what? In order to provide all the so-called benefits we have given up $56,000 per family."

What could have been done with that money? Well things like private education, a new car, better health care, provision for our old age, some home improvements, better nutrition, a vacation abroad – even a deposit on a new house, the list is endless. Much of this is now difficult, if not impossible. Instead, we have the politicians determining how the public spends its money and the poor taxpayers are left out in the cold. They are the forgotten people who have been legally robbed of their assets, and a great many of them are struggling to meet their mortgage payments without any assistance from government. Apart from anything else this is totally unfair.

The tremendous advantage that politicians have over the rest of us is that their good deeds are trumpeted to the world through mendacious propaganda and the benefits can be seen. Their lies and misleading statements are quickly forgotten, just like those who are compelled to pay the cost are forgotten. Other things are also forgotten like the 8th Biblical Commandment – "thou shalt not steal".

The PLP Government has taken upon itself to change that commandment to say – "thou shalt not steal except by majority vote in the House of Assembly." The next time you read government propaganda about all the wonderful things our wonderful politicians are doing, just remember the key questions: 1.who is paying the cost?

2. Instead of what?

3.who gets the credit?

4.what about the 8th Commandment of God?

ROBERT STEWART

Smith's Parish

Vision is out of touch

November 20, 2007

Dear Sir,

The PLP Banquet speech was impassioned and from the heart. The PLP is the respected voice for black Bermudians and Dr. Ewart Brown is the trusted leader for the Party's vision.

However, Saturday's speech appeared to endorse distrust and disrespect. This is a shift in my understanding of the PLP vision. Not only as it relates to the UBP and "the most vicious and vile opponents in the history of our struggle", but as it relates to our black brothers as well. This is a different PLP vision – or perhaps a mixture of PLP vision and Dr. Brown's vision.

Solid respect for the late Dr. E.F. Gordon, the late Mr. L. Frederick Wade and the late Dame Lois Browne Evans. The Premier then announced that he was "not going to give (you) a lengthy speech on what we (the PLP) have done or what we will do".

The remainder of Saturday's speech was largely about the "non-stop media attack", "the Privy Council", "a stolen police file", "cedar beams", "the five-year old BHC controversy", "sale of a $600,000 house", "stem cell research facility", "the personal defamation law suit", etcetera, etc. It was about "I have", "I would have", "I am", "I am not", "talk about me", "condemn me", "I invite", "I will not", "I do", "I do not", "I believe", "I long for", "I defy", "I am a fantastic man", "I am a blessed man", etc. etc.

Interestingly, Dr. Brown said "me", "my" or "I" more than 165 times whereas he said PLP 25 times. He said UBP more than he said PLP! The Dr. Brown vision is self serving and has changed the PLP focus from that of its visionaries.

The Dr. Brown vision is out of touch with the people. We do not have the same concerns. The Dr. Brown vision is out of touch with business. Businesses do not have the same concerns. Politics is a dirty business, but we do not want to be drawn into the dirt.

Most importantly, your PLP colleagues, the PLP supporters and the PLP Party do not appreciate being drawn into your "alleged" dirt. The PLP is making headlines about expensive houses, security huts and corruption while the UBP is making headlines about helping seniors, affordable housing and tax breaks for low income earners. In my opinion the Dr. Brown vision is not mixing well with the PLP vision – and the whole PLP is tied to him.

It should not be overlooked that PLP and UBP Bermudians socialise together, work together, discuss politics together, laugh together, and generally get along very well every day. PLP and UBP Bermudians respect each other and trust each other. If you only listened to the current politicians, you would not believe how well everyone gets along. We trust and respect each other.

We should trust a vision that carefully manages and competently improves our valuable social fabric. We should respect a vision that clearly aims to improve our less fortunate, our infrastructure, our schools, our health care, our environment and housing. We should uphold a vision that is transparent and accountable.

Let us remember that the PLP has contributed to the Bermuda success story, but that Bermudians are the real people to be credited for our success.

Let us hope that all PLP and UBP Bermudians will socialise, work, discuss politics, laugh, and get along together in the future and forever. Let us pray that the days of segregation are behind us forever.

SOLID AS THE ROCK

Devonshire

No equality for gays

November 25, 2007

Dear Sir,

I refer to the letter in today¹s Royal Gazette from Julia Couper Leo, PhD in which she draws attention to the violation of human rights in the proposed new Immigration Act. I entirely agree with her point.

However she states that "One of the responsibilities of our Government is to respect and ensure human rights for all Bermudians without distinction relating to race, religion, sex, political opinion disability or marital status. Bermudians of all backgrounds have the right to marry and create a family, and are entitled to protection of that Bermudian family by their society. Bermudians are entitled to equality of rights regarding their choices regarding (sic) marriage: whom to marry, equality of rights during the marriage, and equality in the case of dissolution of marriage."

This is, of course, completely unfounded. Gay Bermudians do not and never have had such equality of treatment. With a disproportionate number of gay men and women in senior positions in the present PLP Government it is not only disgraceful that they are proposing additional discriminatory laws, but even more so that they seem to have no plan to remove existing ones.

ANDREW TRIMINGHAM

Paget

Detecting bias

November 21, 2007

Dear Sir,

Allow me the opportunity to convey my observation of one particular electronic medium, concerning the lead-up to the General Election and in general their view/perception/criticism of the current Government.

Further, as a frequent listener to the same station as a 'pulse of the community', the moderator has the liberty to accommodate subjects/issues aired, whether they coincide with his perception or 'biased' position.

On this note, I challenge the daily afternoon talk show (Mon.- Fri.) host of Bermuda Broadcasting Co. to divulge the directors of his employment. I'm curious to see if his silence/lack of input, and in some cases cut callers off, in most instances on subjects that appear to portray the UBP in a 'negative light'.

I acknowledge the recent Race Relations Guest embraced by the same Company, of the past six weeks on Fridays, but could this be a "smoke-screen" to appear as though they are impartial?

Any intelligent observer should notice the "silence" and or lack of rebuttal condemning the Opposition, in particular the leader the Hon. Michael Dunkley.

If for any reason they are not willing to reveal who their "bosses" are, I trust the listening public consider making a call instead to the Registrar of Companies to answer my and perhaps their question as to why there are so many UBP interviews and anti-PLP rhetoric on this same network of stations !

I don't blame the PLP for opening-up CITV, which, incidentally has once again proven the Opposition wrong on being a 'Propaganda' station.

I trust you, Mr. Editor, to be objective and unbiased in selecting my letter for publication as I cannot seem to "get through" on my allotted time, to call the station in question.

NOT NAIVE

City of Hamilton