Ashamed of BermudaMay 19, 2006Dear Sir,The Human Rights Act section 8A paragraph 1 reads as follows:

8A (1) No person shall, with intent to excite or promote ill will or hostility against any section of the public distinguished by colour, race or ethnic or national origins-

(a) publish or display before the public, or cause to be published or displayed before the public, written matter which is threatening, abusive or insulting; or

(b) use in any public place or at any public meeting words which are threatening, abusive or insulting,

Will someone please explain to me how the Human Rights Commission failed to see how this could apply to Colonel Burch’s comments? This is a serious question: Please explain to me and our country’s children and grandchildren how a word so profane, “abusive” and “insulting” could be approved by the HRC?

How do we explain to our children that after millions fought to remove this word from our global vocabulary under the auspices of human rights that our country’s own Human Rights Commission could approve it in 2006?

I beg the HRC to explain to the country how the HR Act does not apply - this is a serious plea. Our children deserve to know.

Reverse racism (racism against members of one’s own race) is still racism and a peculiarly cruel form of it. I don’t think anyone would argue that if Grant Gibbons had used this word on the airwaves there would have been an investigation and the HRC most certainly would not have criticised the complainant. As a country, we all need to agree to end ALL racism and an important part of that is ending the idea that white on black racism is the only pernicious kind.

When you degrade someone based on the colour of their skin, that is racism — end of story. And that is very clearly what took place here. It is extremely difficult to argue that this was not “insulting” and “hostile” and “promoting ill will”. And nobody would argue that Colonel Burch said these words only because the caller was black. The case is so clear that I do not see how the HRC could have seen it differently.

I feel shame for our country. If we are to be accepted on the world stage, let us not be hypocrites. Let us make our children proud that we apply the law equally to all our citizens and shun all forms of racism.

JONATHAN YOUNG

Smith’sTrip was meaningfulMay 23, 2006Dear Sir,As one of those organising the bilateral visit of which you spoke in your editorial in yesterday’s newspaper, “Back from Washington,” I wish to correct several misperceptions and inaccuracies contained therein.

The American Consulate does not, as a rule, get involved with correcting inaccuracies that are reported in newspapers. However, the misstatements in your Editorial of May 22 should be addressed, as they inaccurately portray the substance of the visit.

First, I find the tone of your editorial to be dismissive of what turned out to be a very meaningful trip. For example, you disparagingly place into the bucket of “assistants to deputies” the Deputy Secretary of Commerce — who is actually the second in command of the United States Department of Commerce — the 38,000-person Federal agency that is responsible for promoting international trade (with Bermuda for example), economic growth and technological advancement.

Far from being “fobbed off” to low-level assistants, the Bermuda delegation met the head of the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs and other senior White House officials. These individuals, each of whom is a key player in the White House, were interested in spending significant time with the Delegation to better understand the true situation of Bermuda today — and to determine how the long-standing partnership between the US and Bermuda might be further strengthened.

Your Editorial did mention, very briefly, a few of the meetings on Capitol Hill that the Delegation enjoyed — specifically meetings with the Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (third in the line of presidential succession), Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist, and Senators John McCain and George Allen. Surprisingly, you overlooked the fact that the group did meet, for over thirty minutes, with Senator Max Baucus — someone whom you suggested it would be “nice” to meet “next time.” Nor did you mention the serious and substantive meetings that took place with Senators Susan Collins, David Vitter, Sam Brownback and John Ensign. Certainly, none of these individuals should be discounted by cautioning readers “not to make more out of this trip than it warrants”.

Your Editorial was incorrect both on the facts and on the inference that Bermuda is not important to the US. Bermuda is, in point of fact, a long-standing and very important US ally, and the willingness of senior Congressional leaders of the highest rank — as well as senior White House and Federal Agency officials — to sit and discuss at length this important partnership is proof positive of that statement.

We will continue to work hard to further the strongest possible US/Bermuda/UK relations — and while we fully respect the media’s right to disagree, it would help our efforts if you would check your facts before going to print.

ASTRID BLACK

Public Diplomacy Assistant

US Consulate General

Editor’s Note: <$>The editorial did incorrectly state that the delegation had not met with Sen. Baucus, a point which was corrected on the same day this letter was sent. With regard to the rest of the editorial, the point was made strongly that the trip was worthwhile. But it also pointed out was that the delegation did not get the kind of access to Administration officials that previous Bermuda delegations had received. The reference to “assistants to deputies” was a direct reference to a meeting with the assistant to the deputy chief of staff in the White House, not to the Deputy Secretary of the Commerce Department. The editorial added that the delegation did “much better” on Capitol Hill, and picked out the most senior legislators with whom the delegation met rather than producing a laundry list of all the meetings that were held. There was no “inference” that Bermuda is not important to the US. The point being made was that Bermuda will always have to work hard to maintain a profile in Washington, DC because it is, in the end, a small island of 60,000 people. Invited or summoned?May 19, 2006Dear Sir,This flamboyant visit to Washington organised by the US Consul — for what purpose was it — why was the UBP dis-invited — and who benefited — was it an invitation at all — or was it really a summons disguised as an invitation?

The US government is not going to persuade a few congressmen to meet the leaders of some small island many have never heard of unless the US wants something. What could that something be? What have we got that they want? What has attracted their attention?

The logical answer is perhaps another question: are we doing something that concerns them, something they do not like and that they intend to fix, willy-nilly, with or without our consent?

The answer to that question cannot be our corruption and vanished money that they could not care less about — because it does not affect them. It has to be something that does, and that can only be our murky association with Castro’s Cuba, which we wave at the US Government like a red flag at a bull.

The smoothest way of getting the message over to us, and to show just a little of the iron fist in the velvet glove, would be a high profile trip, with lots of publicity, to the seat of world power. There would be smiles and welcomes, plenty of large cars and flags, and a nice tea party to get to know everyone. We would be reminded how nice everything is between our two ‘countries’ (suggesting we are somehow on a par with them), our nice and friendly pre-Customs clearance — the nice visa-less welcome Bermudians are given — their education opportunities for our kids — access to the best hospitals in the world — their willingness to think about the stop-list (what a hope) and all and every benefit and protection we get from close proximity to the most powerful country there is.

Then of course would be slipped in this little question about why, with all these clear and valuable benefits we doubtless would hate to see disappear, do we screw around with the Cubans, especially while talking about going independent? Do we not remember what the Marines did to Grenada as a result of fooling about with these people? In all probability, some smiling State Department functionary delivered us a clear message we could hardly refuse to hear.

This can be the only logical reason why the UBP was ‘dis-invited’. Mr. Slayton would have been well aware that it would have been impossible to present the PLP hierarchy with this sour message in front of the UBP. So, no free trip to Washington for them.

EYE IN THE SKY

St. George’s