Dead men riding

January 2, 2009

Dear Sir,

The Republic of Ireland recorded its lowest number of road deaths in 30 years in spite of the fact that there is now eight times the number of vehicles on the road compared to 1959. 279 people died from a population of 4,400,000 which, if Bermuda's 2008 figures are used, would equate to 1,150 deaths! Tougher measures for learner drivers, greater police presence on the roads, harsher driving penalties and unmanned radar, which can read a number plate, all contributed to the downturn.

The day after the latest road fatality I was passed, on the inside, by two speeding bikes less than 500 yards from the scene of the accident. These types of "drivers" have to be taken off the road and their bikes impounded. They are a menace, primarily to others, and as they clearly do not have the capacity to operate machinery responsibly.

They are, in effect, "Dead Men Riding" and can be seen any time of the day on Bermuda's roads. Many of them will, most likely, be a 2009 statistic. Usually it is not the fear of having an accident which concerns an errant driver; it is the fear of being caught by the Police. Unfortunately in Bermuda you have a better chance of winning the lottery!

JOHN R. KANE

Devonshire

Do you even care?

January 6, 2009

Dear Sir,

I thought littering was against the law? Don't cars still come with ashtrays? I see on a regular basis car drivers throwing their cigarettes out the window. Not only is this littering, but is a danger to bike riders. especially when they throw out their still lit cigarettes. I was unfortunately driving behind an orange Mazda on New Year's Eve just after 5 p.m. on Trimingham Hill on my bike. It was a windy ride home. This lady was smoking her cigarette in the car and was flicking the ashes out the window.

Well what did she do with the rest of the cigarette? Threw it out the window, the wind carried it and it flew back and hit my visor on my helmet. Thank goodness for the visor because it could have been my face. The unfinished still lit cigarette actually left a mark on the visor – lady, this could have been my face! Were you prepared to pay for any damages to me caused by your littering and inconsideration? I could have had a burn mark on my face from your still smouldering cigarette! It could have caused me to have an accident.

I know your car has an ashtray. You are no different than the beer bottle throwers throwing their trash by the road side. You are contributing to the litter on this Island too. Don't you care? So to all smokers, please use your ashtray in your car, consider the person behind you, and don't litter!

BERMUDA MOM

Warwick

A clarification

January 3, 2009

Dear Sir,

I wish to take exception to your presentation of an article which appeared in today's Royal Gazette captioned "Key Moments in Bermuda's History' in which it was stated:

1997 Pamela Gordon is appointed Premier by her United Bermuda Party colleagues, becoming the first women to hold this position.

1998 The Progressive Labour Party wins its first general election, marking the first change in Government since the establishment of party politics thirty years ago with Jennifer Smith becoming the first female leader to be elected as Premier.

As the article did not credit a byline I am unsure as to the source of said facts. However, I will tell you that since such information appeared in 2000 Fact Book issued by the Cabinet Office I have been awaiting the Attorney General's opinion.

I am sure that you are aware that Dame Pamela was elected Leader of the United Bermuda Party in 1997 and subsequently appointed Premier by HE the Governor, thus, becoming the first woman to hold this position.

Likewise, in 1998, Dame Jennifer was Leader of her Party at the time The Progressive Labour Party won the Government and as prescribed by the Constitution, was subsequently appointed Premier of Bermuda by the Governor, thus, making her the second woman to hold the position.

Simply put the respective party's may elect their Leaders but it is the Governor who appoints our Premier and no matter how you try to spin it you cannot have two firsts. In this most important year of celebration trying to keep history correct is that much more important.

DAVID J. SULLIVAN

Paget

P.s. I will let you know when I hear from the Attorney General's Office ... but it's been over seven years!

Love is a word of action

January 5, 2009

Dear Sir,

This morning as I prepared for devotions and meditation, my thoughts went again to the government of this country. This question kept going through my mind "What is this government trying to do with this country and in what direction are we really headed in"?

There is continued talks of unity, but at the very top there is division, and thanks that these debates are not televised. It would be a real disaster, for then the people would see the truth of division. The worst part is that they are talking of unity and fully expressing division where they should be expressing leadership. These same people then say our children and in some their children are uncontrollable. This to me is so amusing, because control does not and is not a part of the leadership qualities. Words like integrity, respect, peace, love and joy turn to a war of words when one does not agree with the other's opinion. Readers, remember this is my opinion and while you may not agree with me, I am in no way going to get angry with you if you meet me and say that you do not agree with me. But thanks be to God that so far I have not met any opposition with my opinions and thank my many readers for their support. It is encouraging to hear that I am expressing the thoughts of others with my opinion.

It is amazing how God's word is always on the right track, because when I opened my "Our Daily Bread", the topic was "Are we selling out". Now this is what it read "Have we "sold out" the way Esau did? (Hebrews 12:16). Has the lure of wealth, power, prestige, security, style, or the approval of others and praise of others led us to barter away God's riches for a single meal? Esau sought to change his father's mind and gain the inheritance he had forfeited by his duplicity, but he could not set right the damage he had done. He had to live with his decision. Neither can we (the Government) turn back the clock and undo the wrong we (the Government) have done to ourselves and others.

Although the past is irrevocable there can be a new day before us, filled with new chance, new opportunities and new expectations. God will not redo the past, but when we (the Government) repent (when the Government gets to think people instead of self) He will forgive and set us (the Government) on a new path. The Lord can give us (the Government) opportunities to show how we (the Government) have truly repented of the decisions of the past and how much we (the Government) long to serve Him (the Government serving the people) in the decisions to come. He (the people) will never mention the deeds by which we, have shamed others and ourselves; they are forgiven and forgotten forever. God will give us (the Government) a place to start again — to love, to serve, to touch others (the people) profoundly and eternally for His (our sakes). This demonstrates the greatness (leadership in our Government).

I would like to see those that want to lead really get together and come with a unified body of people that are really prepared to lead. Not parties being led by selfish persons, but persons with solid visions for positive directions to guide and govern the concerns of the people. Is this at all possible or do we intend to allow the few with selfish ambitions lead this people astray.

Which direction is this government leading the c country in? First it, gambling and next it's another beach bar and if we are to attract more tourist why not a nude beach and see if that will attract more tourist? After all tourism was our main life stream one time and maybe this will grow a major attraction for the island. The moral values seem to be on a down trend so why stop the decline, with drugs on the rise and all else why not just Blow it all. In all reality what message is this government sending to the people? After all everything is for a time and I think this Government has done it's time and change is on the wings of tomorrow. May our eyes be opened and our tongues loosened and we will take our heads out of the sand. Love is a word of action and if we the people truly love this country I pray we will start showing it. The power is still in the (X). Use it at the next election.

A.E. WENDELL (SCOPSIE) HASSELL

Sandys

Make HRC independent

December 12, 2008

Dear Sir,

If the chairman of the commission is suggesting that there be an amendment to the Human Rights Act 1981 giving express independence to the commission, I agree with her. All human rights commissions with which I have had contact (and as former executive officer and a former investigations officer to the Human Rights Commissions I have had contact with many, from Ontario to the Caribbean) are independent.

Following my visit to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, some years ago, I advised the then Director of the Department of Human Affairs (Brenda Dale), under which the commission operates administratively, to among other things, encourage bringing about such an amendment.

Express independence could also be achieved by a memorandum of understanding between the government and the commission. For quite some time, as executive officer I vigorously made the case to Brenda Dale to take steps to give express independence to the commission. Regrettably this fell upon deaf ears.

But let us not play games. In the absence of these two methods of expressly establishing the commission's independence, the commission already has implied independence from government and it has been violated with blatant disregard.

The 1981 Act was amended in or about 1992 giving the commission the power to investigate the government. It takes a modicum of common sense to know that if the commission has the power to investigate the government, the government ought to be at arms length from the commission. You cannot have a government which is subject to the commission's power of investigation, at the same time expressly or tacitly influencing or dictating to the commission.

During my years as executive officer, my office experienced political pressure, and top civil service interference. This is evidenced by the ongoing Harold Darrell case (a case for which I was responsible) which is a classic example. The government which is subject to the Human Rights jurisdiction, at times directly and at other times via Mrs. Brenda Dale, interfered with the commission's powers under the present legislation.

My response to Ms. Memari is that the commission has the power to investigate the government, and by implication the government must be at arm's length. What is lamentable is that for the last eight years or so (and I refer to the Harold Darrell case in particular) the government and top civil servants have been unwilling to respect the sanctity of that independence.

My information is that Mr. Darrell is now put to further trouble and expense of engaging Ms. Cherrie Booth Q.C. to fight for the protection of his rights — and it is all a result of ministerial and top civil servant interference. I agree with the chairman that the ideal situation is to give express statutory effect to independence, but the absence of that is no excuse for the political impositions upon the commission's already implied autonomy.

DAVID A. WILSON

Former Executive Officer

The Human Rights Commission

Applause for BEST

January 11, 2009

Dear Sir,

An entrepreneur in Bermuda has applied to build a beach bar restaurant at Warwick Long Bay. After an appeal against the project sponsored by the Bermuda Environmental and Sustainability Task force (BEST), the Development Applications Board (DAB) turned the project down. The developer subsequently appealed DAB's decision. An independent appraisal by a neutral evaluator recommended against (ie., to reject) the appeal. The Minister for the Environment, however, apparently with greater insight, knowledge and wisdom about the project and its impact on the environment, decided to approve the project anyway, contrary to the prior judgments of the DAB and the independent technical expert. BEST now has raised a petition against the project which has attracted getting on for 3000 signatures (to date).

Under the circumstances, one has to wonder what the responsibilities of the Ministry of the Environment are. According to its web pages, the Ministry exists "To secure a balance between the protection, conservation and enhancement of Bermuda's natural resources and the sustainable development of the community..." Its premise for Environmental Protection is "... to promote the sustainable use of the island's natural resources..." Some of the objectives of its Conservation Services adjunct are: "To promote the conservation and sustainable use of Bermuda's resources. To ... promote the preservation and restoration of threatened species and habitats. To ... support the sustainable use of Bermuda's natural resources."

Doctorates, books, treatises, indeed mountains of reams of paper have been dedicated to the various meanings of the term "sustainability". But shoving all that aside for the moment (in the interest of clarity), we are left with one simple question to ask ourselves: on balance, is the value of a beach bar restaurant at Warwick Long Bay greater for the Bermuda community than the unique and irreplaceable natural habitat that it displaces and potentially degrades? This, essentially, is the "balance" that the Ministry of Environment says it is committed to "secure": a beach bar restaurant vs. one of the jewels in Bermuda's crown of natural resources that constitute its unique environmental character.

Put it another way: if you had a choice of getting rid of a beach bar, or getting rid of (part of) the beach, which would you prefer? It's difficult to imagine most (or even many) people saying, Oh, let's get rid of the beach; definitely need that beach bar, it would be such a valuable asset in our lives; the beach has to go!

This is the real choice for Bermuda in considering the future evolution of its development: what parts of the Bermuda environment are we prepared to sacrifice in the interest of "sustainable" development? Because some parts of the environment do have to be sacrificed. Hard core developers often say that if environmentalists had their way they wouldn't allow any development. The truth is that sustainable environmentalism is about the balance between the needs and desires of the human community for its social and economic well-being, and the preservation of the natural environment for its — and the human community's — well-being. It is a balance of judgement, discretion and priorities — and the intelligence, sensibility, common sense and wisdom to make the right decisions.

The test of a project's environmental sustainability is whether it enhances the well-being of the community and preserves the integrity of the surrounding environment — or whether it does not. If a beach bar restaurant at (so far) pristine Warwick Long Bay passes that test, I'm a gwelly in a top hat and tails. (And if the Minister for the Environment truly, sincerely, hands-on-heart believes that, too, I'll eat the top hat.)

I suspect that the main problem for Bermuda which has evolved since about the 1970s (and has been aggravated by the current government) is that economic considerations have gradually usurped considerations of social, aesthetic and ethical qualities relating to Bermuda's development and well-being. BEST has been instrumental in attempting to redress that balance in favour of the latter. I applaud their (and Stuart Hayward's) efforts on behalf of the environment and related matters that directly influence the well-being of the people of Bermuda. But in the end it is a matter of personal responsibility to decide what kind of Bermuda you want for yourselves and future generations. That responsibility is not, ultimately, up to ministers or politicians. It isn't even up to special interest groups such as BEST. It is up to us, the People (and gwellies in top hats). It is up to you!

GRAHAM FAIELLA

London, UK