I can't afford it

May 26, 2010

Dear Sir,

It is a hindrance to good medical care in society that many medical doctors are now requiring payment of fully major medical insured patients at the time of treatment. While most of us can afford a deductible, many cannot afford to pay the entire medical appointment bill which can be hundreds of dollars. This can be a serious barrier for many people in seeking and getting adequate medical care. As health insurance costs continue to rise, persons are paying a premium for medical insurance and then being required to pay the Doctor for the insurance company until submitting the claim to collect the money from the insurer. I am curious why the lack of administrative efficiency is being passed on to the patient? I would like to request of the Government that I keep my health insurance money deducted from my pay cheque each month and invest it myself so that I can afford to see the doctor. I have excellent major medical and I still have to pay out hundreds of dollars to visit the doctor when I need to! So BF&M, please return my premium to me for June so I can pay the Doctor, as I can't really afford to both pay a premium to you and front the money for you until you pay the medical bill.

INSURED

Pembroke

No vindication

May 24, 2010

Dear Sir,

After today's ruling from the Privy Council upholding the legality of Bermuda's conscription laws, the Government of Bermuda may well feel vindicated. They should not.

The case turned on a narrow point of law; the Board essentially found themselves unable to equate a definition of "conscription" with that of employment, distinguishing the involuntary process by which men are called up to serve from the actual conditions that both men and women enjoy while working for the Regiment. Discrimination in employment is expressly forbidden in our Human Rights Act. On this point the Justices found they was no discrimination in either the Regiment's willingness to employ volunteers of both sexes or how members of the Regiment of both sexes were treated once they were on active duty. Quite simply, on a hard-nosed, literal interpretation of our Human Rights Act, the Privy Council decided that "conscription" as a policy was outside the parameters of the Human Rights Act. They therefore felt they had no legal basis for declaring the law unconstitutional.

This case is the victim of poorly worded legislation. A victory was handed to the Government, not because of the merits of their case, but because of an accident of drafting. The real heart of this judgment is not the reasoned opinion of the Lord Chief Justice, but the unusually passionate postscript of Baroness Hale. Her postscript begins: "It is hard to think of a more obvious case of sex discrimination than to oblige the members of one sex to join the armed forces of the country."

She goes on to point out that while such a policy obviously discriminates against men, it also may discriminate against women by encouraging the opinion that women are less fit to serve than men. Baroness Hale does state that she agrees with the reasoning of the Chief Justice in dismissing appeal, but expresses unequivocally that the appellants in this case challenging the policy have both a grievance and that they have again unequivocally been treated less fairly than their countrywomen.

It is unusual for a judge, even a senior judge, to criticise the merits of a law, but here Baroness Hale has had no compunction about doing so, going so far as to propose that Bermuda consider changing its Human Rights Act. Her conclusion is clear: our Human Rights Act is unsatisfactory by too strictly defining the activities in which discrimination is forbidden. By specifying a list of contexts in which discrimination is not allowed, the drafters of the legislation have left open the possibility that certain activities may fall wholly outside the scope of the act as did conscription.

Governments do not have a crystal ball, and discrimination has many forms; it is ludicrous to suppose that there is a set list of categories in which discrimination may operate. The task for the Bermuda Government now is redefine the limits of our Human Rights Act, outlawing not specific instances of discrimination, but discrimination itself, allowing, as Baroness Hale rightly indicated, the possibility that the Government may objectively justify some forms of discrimination such as conscription. At present, even if conscription had been found to be discriminatory, government need not offer any such justification. A legal victory for the Government then, but perhaps not a moral one.

EDWARD RANCE

London, UK

Kudos to W&E

May 21, 2010

Dear Sir,

I would like to publicly thank the Ministry of Transport or the Works and Engineering Department for installing the traffic lights at the crosswalk between Heron Bay MarketPlace and Sousa's Gardens in Warwick West. This is one of the most densely populated areas of Bermuda, and this particular crosswalk is used extensively. However, I'd like to make an appeal. Presently, when a pedestrian presses the button to activate the light, it blinks amber/yellow which signifies "caution". Unfortunately, many people do not stop, or even slow down for that matter. I propose that the light changes to red (much the same as the one at Crow Lane in Hamilton). I, like many in the area, are very concerned about the children and seniors that use this particular cross walk and I am sure the same applies to others across the island.

JEFFERSON SOUSA

Warwick West

A tactical approach

May 21, 2010

Dear Sir,

The Bermuda Media Council Act: It sounds (to me) more like, "Dictatorship" as opposed to "Freedom of the press"; especially this portion:" and ban publication or broadcast of material."

Granted, there are things that shouldn't be published, and yes, if something did get published that's either, biased/or outright lies, well then, there should be an apology given to the "Public" by the press for this wrongful doing. But for Government appointees to have the right to say what does get published or doesn't get published is "hogwash", and "We the People" better pay attention to the attempt of the Government to pull "wool over our eyes". This appears to be another tactical approach being taken by our Govt. to herd us like sheep (wake up you lot!)

RAYMOND RAY

St. George's

Use Tudor Hill for hotel

May 24, 2010

Dear Sir,

Why Not? Instead of making a land swap with Southlands and Morgan's Point, why not make a "land swap" with Southlands and the Tudor Hill area which is part of the US Navy and belongs to Morgan's Point? A five-star hotel built on top of Tudor Hill would be more advantageous to all concerned. It could be powered by solar and or wind energy. It could have its own osmosis plant as the Western shore is close by, this hotel could tap into the water lens underneath the Port Royal Golf Course as a reserve for water.

On top of Tudor Hill there is a large rain water catchment and large tank at its bottom. Further advantages for a hotel built on Tudor Hill would be the following: It would be close to the main road of Southampton with bus stops close by. There's a cycle livery close by for renting to the tourists, a Fire Station, Service Station, a local restaurant, and a supermarket at Hog Bay Level. And last but not least there's a first class golf course right next to the hotel.

PETER BROMBY SR.

Paget

P.s. Let's keep Morgan's Point for solar powered built housing, and recreational area for our local populace, and let's forget another golf course at Morgan's Point.

No such word

May 24, 2010

Dear Sir,

On the front page of Saturday's Royal Gazette, Dr. Ewart Brown mentions "the importance of quality teaching". In the same quote, he uses the word "incentivises". Dear Dr. Brown, there is no such word. Go back to school.

JEAN HANNANT

Pembroke

Heavy truck woes

May 26, 2010

Dear Sir,

I am wondering if there are any regulations regarding heavy equipment on the road during rush hour. On many occasions I have found myself behind convoys of massive construction equipment making a rather slow trail to work. I see frustrated morning commuters driving from the east end overtaking cranes and heavy trucks, which seems very dangerous. I see coming at me in the other direction, fast moving front trucks waving their arm at everyone to pull to the side. I think that kind of equipment needs to move early to get to destination for 7.30 or move at 9 a.m. when the morning school and work crowds are at their destination. This would be safer and less chaotic for all.

I'M JUST SAYING!

Pembroke