Suckered at Sox game

June 18, 2010

Dear Sir,

Please allow me to vent my anger at being suckered as we all were last night by our illustrious Premier and so called Minister of Tourism. For weeks now and certainly this week we have heard that Thursday, June 17, was Bermuda night at the Boston Red Sox game.

Being a Sox fan I was thrilled to see how The Premier was going to sell Bermuda to the greater New England area with a promised on air interview with the games commentators'. This never happened. Why not? I hear that flyers and goodie bags were handed out at the game. Really, goodie bags. What I saw was our lame Premier enjoying a luxury box with the Director of Tourism, Mr. Billy Griffith. One would have thought with the Premier's lust for the limelight he would have sold Bermuda by being interviewed on NESN Ch142 on cable instead we were treated to some fly over video of the water and Elbow Beach Hotel.

I hear that the Bermuda contingent held a luncheon hosting travel professionals but the value of this trip was surely speaking to the public via the promised TV interview instead of escorting Khano Smith out to the mound to throw out the ceremonial first pitch. How much was the gross total spent on this trip? I can only hope that the second Bermuda day in August is better planned with the aim of selling Bermuda for the sake of its flagging Tourism industry. One bright point though was Twanee Butterfield's rendition of the US Anthem, it was fantastic.

PETER CLARK

Pembroke

Petty and churlish

June 22, 2010

Dear Sir,

It is regrettable to take note, yet again, of the spurious comments by United Bermuda Party stalwarts such as Mr. Davies against the BDA, its MPs and leadership. I can appreciate that the exodus of the UBP's youthful talent was difficult to bear, and that they are subsequently threatened by the BDA and the potentials to capture that which they never could (and judging on recently named candidates, apparently never will). They should cease and desist with the petty and churlish name-calling and attacks. It is beyond tiresome and illustrates that they remain trapped in antiquated and ineffective politics.

TONI DANIELS

City of Hamilton

If we are really serious...

June 25, 2010

Dear Sir,

In response to the proponents calling for banning of tinted visors and full face helmets, why do you seem to think that banning them will lead to fewer shootings, or more prosecutions? We already have a ban on firearms and yet we have had an unprecedented amount of shootings and murders over the past few years. Do you seriously think that the criminals that carry out these shootings will simply stop once tinted visors are outlawed? In fact why stop at banning tinted visors? In most, if not all of these shootings, motorcycles were used to carry out the crimes; shouldn't we ban them as well? I'm sure the idea seems preposterous, but that's exactly how those of us that use the tinted visors to protect our eyes from glare and airborne objects feel about the talk of banning them.

We Bermudians seem to have this "knee jerk" reaction when dealing with issues and instead of getting to the root of a problem and doing what is uncomfortable or difficult, we tend to take the route of least resistance and hope that the issues will simply go away. We are already over legislated and don't or can't enforce the laws that we have now! We've banned the importation of certain breeds of dogs, instead of prosecuting uncaring or negligent owners. We've banned loud music and loud motorcycles; we have anti littering laws, illegal car tint, turning without using indicators, prohibit carrying children on the front of motorcycles, all of which we rarely, if ever enforce.

The list of legislation goes on and on, and all we are doing is making life more restrictive and stressful for law-abiding citizens, while those that choose to flout the laws carry on as usual! Just take a look at the number of bike riders that use the centre line as a third lane without a care in the world of being prosecuted! If we are really serious about stopping and prosecuting these murderers, then we all have to 'stand up', 'speak up', and stop hoping that someone else will do it for us!

DAVID WILLIAMS

Sandys

Not convinced

June 24, 2010

Dear Sir,

A letter to the Editor recently stated, "where are the so-called 'Christians' outrage at the murders now happening in society, when they seem more concerned with gambling in Bermuda?"

We as Christians were there a long time ago. We were against fornication before marriage. When Bermuda was truly a Christian society it was considered a sin and it was shameful to bear children out of wedlock. But people cried out against the Christian way. Children are now bearing children. These children are growing up never knowing what it is to be loved, cared for and guided to become adults, not to stay children all their lives. Children, that are not being raised at all.

Do you think that this is the reasons for all the murders? You see, we as Christians raise our children to believe the father is the head of the family, (not spreading his seed anywhere and everywhere at will) we teach our children to marry before considering having children. We raise our children to be considerate of others and to have moral values.

We are once again speaking up against something immoral, before the destruction of society as a whole. We believe that gambling will bring yet more immorality and devastation of the family unit. So yes, we speak up against gambling. You might poke fun at Christianity, but it has served my family well. Whether the people of Bermuda will listen this time is yet to be seen. As we are no longer a Christian Society, we still observe Christian Holidays, but we no longer celebrate them. When we were a poorer nation we were a stronger nation, now we are weak to everything that comes our way. If your defence of gambling is to attack Christianity, then I am not convinced.

A HUMBLE SERVANT

Pembroke

A simple retrofit

June 28, 2010

Dear Sir,

I agree completely with the letter from Mr. Martin H. Samuel concerning the saving of condensate from air conditioning. I am pleased to advise that in Victoria Place all condensate water is drained separately from our air handlers into a grey water tank where it is then filtered and used for toilet flushing and landscape watering. In peak times this can save up to 600 gallons per day.

For those familiar with LEED, it contributes to a point for water efficiency for wastewater technology. To implement this simple system as a retrofit would be expensive but I encourage architects and engineers to incorporate it into all new buildings to help conserve our most precious resource.

ALAN GAMBLE

Victoria Place Ltd.

City of Hamilton

A perpetual cycle

June 21, 2010

Dear Sir,

Bermuda must introduce and pass into law hate crime legislation. The comments spoken in the House of Assembly on Friday are part of a perpetual cycle that we can't seem to break. What do lawmakers have to lose if they introduce hate crime legislation? There can only be gains. Just do it. We can't afford anymore of this.

MILTON RAPOSO

City of Hamilton

Show yourself Taciturnus

June 22, 2010

Dear Sir,

I have noted with dismay Taciturnus' letter, "Mr. Radlett's true position", published on June 17, 2010. When has it become an ingrained feature in Bermudian society to use ridicule, contempt and sometimes outright hate speech as a substitute for debate? And, is debating the issues so difficult or too unsensationalised that we need to laugh and sneer at others in order to feel entertained? I know that many of you will defend the "right of free speech" no matter how low it sinks in Bermuda, but I will not involve myself in an open debate, in letters to the editor, disguised to throw scorn on another person's reputation. Taciturnus, your intelligence should allow you to raise the level of debate so that others can understand and define the issues being debated, not feel that they are witnesses to a contemptuous soap opera.

When Taciturnus wrote his/her first letter to the editor on freedom of expression entitled, "Guard our free speech", published on June 1, 2010 what s/he conveniently failed to bring the attention of the public is that freedom of the press or, freedom of expression, is balanced against the right to privacy, family life and reputation. And, that right is enshrined into the Bermuda Constitution Order 1968 under the same section as free speech. Section 9: Protection of freedom of expression.

It is not the reputation of an organisation, a place or a feature within a story, it is your reputation subjective and individual. Furthermore, this right is also enshrined in: 1) Universal Declaration of Human Rights; 2) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and 3) European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom. With the latter, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) being the court that will give final adjudication in all court cases from the United Kingdom. And ECHR states under Articles 8 and 10:

Article 8: Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 10: Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

When these two rights are defined in a nutshell, it is free speech vs reputation. So, our Constitution and all these charters guarantee free speech and equally guarantee the individual right to the protection of your reputation and your privacy. Moreover, to define it even more precisely, free speech is not above your reputation but, is balanced against your right to remain private; so when a journalist would rather define you by your sexual orientation and not your accomplishments, the right to privacy counters freedom of the press. Preventing damage to your reputation is one ground by which the right of expression can be restrained, but if unchecked, free speech can destroy your reputation while your right to your good name will never be regained once an ugly story has been published or broadcast as it remains the first and foremost impression of you by the public — irrespective of corrections, retractions or apologies.

Ironically, Taciturnus as an entrenched proponent of freedom of expression "guards" his/her right of privacy by cloaking his/her identity in secrecy whilst smearing another person's reputation with ridicule; a well respected lecturer in law who has honestly and openly stated who he is. But we know not who Taciturnus is. Now, is this an open debate, or a covert exercise to destroy any opposition to a "voluntary" media council? For Taciturnus could be from outside Bermuda, Bermudian or expat or even a journalist inside The Royal Gazette newspaper, as we, the public, know not who s/he is.

Is this the media that wants to run a "voluntary" media council? Will they continue to bombast us with letters of hate speech and, by anonymous authors who impugn the reputation of others? And, all this in the defence and to "guard" free speech! Since when has free speech lost its virtue, nobility and respect? When did it become covert, cynical and hateful or is this just a reflection of a segment of Bermuda, notably the discretionary call of editors and/or news directors, who already have too much power and who want to amass even more? Taciturnus, debate me if you will but, at the very least, be man or woman enough to unmask yourself and I promise not to laugh, snicker and snare, but to show the respect that this debate deserves.

VALIRIE MARCIA AKINSTALL

London, UK

All mail should be checked

June 25, 2010

Dear Sir,

I am glad to see three former premiers speaking up that they too had their mail searched and saw nothing wrong with it. Alex Scott went on to say that yes people do use high profile names to smuggle things into this country. Thank you Mr. Scott for helping to underline that fact. With guns and ammunition being smuggled in, clearly everybody needs to be checked. Dr. Brown needs to get up off that high horse. It's going to be a long hard fall to the ground the longer he stays on it. What does he have to hide? Maybe a cheque from the USA for taking those Uighurs off their hands? Or maybe a job offer to work in Turks and Caicos ... hm, food for thought huh?

ROBERT DAVIES

Devonshire

Westgate Recreational?

June 25, 2010

Dear Sir,

Can somebody in Government explain to us why law abiding senior citizens who have no doubt contributed to Bermuda for their entire working lives struggle to live a part-decent life while delinquents who end up in Westgate get treated like royalty by comparison? It is about time convicted criminals received punishment for their crimes and the good things in life only if they work to pay for them. I often wonder why our senior citizens do not commit crimes so they can get into the Westgate Recreational Facility to ensure that all their medical problems are resolved at no cost, get as much entertainment as they want at no cost and three square meals a day, again at no cost. They would probably be a lot safer in there as well! Why are the criminals always looked after better than their victims and the law abiding public who have to pay the $80,000 a year that is needed for each of them to live in style?

FED UP

Pembroke