Burch gets off “Scott” free May 17, 2006
I actually had to read it twice. The HRC not only said that Mr. Burch’s use of the term house n***er, on a public broadcast was not only ok, but it also scolded Patricia Gordon-Pamplin for bringing it up as a complaint.
Great, that’s one hell of a message that the HRC is sending to the community. Their excuse was “The comments in question, however insulting or distasteful, do not, in the view of the HRC, cross the threshold of illegality as laid out in the (Human Rights) Act.”
Ok from the Human Rights Act itself:
-
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,
being matter or words likely to excite or promote ill will or hostility
against that section on grounds of colour, race or ethnic or national origins.
I’m sorry, but I’m calling BULLSHIT on this judgment! Burch’s comments created nothing but ill-will in the general public. Bermuda has been buzzing about it since. That comment was a derogatory comment which directly insults a group of people based upon not only their race, but also their political views. If the Human Rights Act doesn’t guard against this, then it is utterly useless. The HRC has proven themselves to be a toothless organisation, who bends in the slightest breeze originating from the collective assholes of the PLP leadership. (Hey if Burch can use his terminology, then so can I!)
I’m not at all surprised by the outcome, more so the outcome was expected, especially since they attempted to keep the verdict private, but that doesn’t mean that I’m not enraged by it. There was always that little bit of hope that the HRC may do the right thing, I guess it was a pipe dream.
I am truly disgusted as to how select PLP members carry on, I am truly disgusted by the HRC turning a blind eye to this, and I am also truly disgusted as to how good governance gets kicked in the teeth for political motivation.
I think it’s time that “We the People” take a stance against this, as not only our government, but also our various public vehicles (Ie: The HRC) are displaying a manner of sheer contempt for the public. I for one have had enough.
Maybe we should take our complaints to the Governor. I feel this particular matter is in total defiance of the Human Rights Act. Various members have attempted to go through the right channels, only to be turned either away or down. The situation is unacceptable and there is obviously no way to correct it. Something needs to be done about this!
UPDATE: The Royal Gazette has a fantastic editorial on this.
- Posted in : News
- Author :Sean
Disclaimer: Comments for IMHO.bm are not the views or opinions of IMHO.bm, but rather the responsibility, views and opinions of the readers. While IMHO.bm is a supporter of free speech, IMHO.bm reserves the right to remove any comments considered to be of a defamatory or inflammatory nature by the blog author. Excessive profanity or racial discrimination will not be tolerated. Commentator’s opinions are the sole property of the individual readers themselves.
Comments»
I’ll second your BULLSHIT call!! The whole Commission should be ashamed!!!
Mr. Rod Attride-Stirling Chairperson
Maryanne Scott Deputy Chairperson
Ms. Kirsty Anderson Commissioner
Mr. Matthew Clifford Commissioner
Mr. Elliot Hubbard Commissioner
Ms. Megan Lewin Commissioner
Major Leslie Lowe Commissioner
Mr. Lionel Raynor Commissioner
Ms. Tammy Richardson Commissioner
Mrs. Lucinda Woolridge Commissioner
Mr. Kamal Worrell Commissioner
Yup time to get back to working on my exit strategy
I’m not so sure that the HRC could have come to any other decision. Look at that part of the Act: part (a) covers written material and part (b) covers speech in a public place or at a public meeting. The definition of the latter comes from the Public Order Act, and is
“any highway, public park or garden, any sea beach, and any public bridge, road, lane, footway, square, court, alley or passage, whether a thoroughfare or not; and includes any open space to which, at the material time, the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise”
i.e. not a radio broadcast.
Burch’s comment was disgusting but as far as I can see, it wasn’t a breach of the Act.
Disgusting but not illegal
A lot of people are criticising the Human Rights Commission (HRC) for rejecting a complaint against Senator David Burch for using the term “house niggers” on his radio show last year. I defended the HRC’s decision last December, when it
Limey,
Section B from above is an entirely seperate point and in no way shape or form does it specify written only words as it does in point A.
(b) use in any public place or at any public meeting words which are threatening, abusive or insulting, being matter or words likely to excite or promote ill will or hostility against that section on grounds of colour, race or ethnic or national origins.
Their job is to uphold this act in every way shape and form and therefore should have passed an entirely different judgement.
I also believe there is additional legislature which prohibits verbally racist abuse.
I agree that section (b) does not specify written words only. However it specifies “in any public place or at any public meeting”, and the definition of those terms does not seem to cover radio broadcasts.
What is the additional legislation to which you are referring? There is also a section 2 which you didn’t quote in your post, however that refers to incitement to commit a breach of the peace. I think it would be a stretch to say Burch was doing that.
Obviously this is all my extremely non-professional legal opinion.
Limey, where does this say not a radio broadcast? What about occurances of a radio being played at any of these locations?
If anything the Radio, Ie: a public broadcast would be by every definition covered by The Public Order Act, as it can be played at “any highway, public park or garden, any sea beach, and any public bridge, road, lane, footway, square, court, alley or passage, whether a thoroughfare or not; and includes any open space to which, at the material time, the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise”
I don’t consider this a grey area, and ASIDE from the rules of public broadcast standards which stipulate:
No programme or other matter intended to be broadcast by
any broadcasting undertaking shall contain anything which offends
against good taste or decency or is likely to encourage or incite to crime
or lead to disorder or to be offensive to public feeling or which makes any
offensive reference to any living person or which is likely to violate this
Act or any regulations or directions made thereunder and if, in the
opinion of the Broadcasting Commissioners, any programme or other
matter contains anything which is offensive or otherwise undesirable as
aforesaid, or which violates this Act or any regulations or directions
made thereunder they may direct that such programme or other matter
be changed or modified.
Which should be held up by the Broadcasting Commissioner AS WELL AS brought into the HRC’s judgement considerations. The more I look at the various acts, the more and more I see a case for this in my opinion.
The idea that a radio broadcast qualifies as a public place because you could play a radio in a public place seems a bit tenuous to me. But I’m not a lawyer. Perhaps any lawyers reading this could offer a more informed opinion?
I agree however that it looks like Burch’s comment was a violation of the broadcasting standards you quote, and so I would expect the Broadcasting Commission to find against him.
However, the HRC’s mandate is solely to enforce the Human Rights Act. It’s not their job to look at the broadcasting standards or any other law.
At the end of the day, if the targets of Burch’s comments believe they have a case, and they get no joy from the HRC or the Broadcasting Commission, perhaps they should hire a lawyer and take Burch to court.
The idea that a radio broadcast qualifies as a public place because you could play a radio in a public place seems a bit tenuous to me
How so? It’s just another vehicle to get your voice across, similar to using a PA system or Microphone at a public gathering.
However, the HRC’s mandate is solely to enforce the Human Rights Act. It’s not their job to look at the broadcasting standards or any other law.
Possibly true, to a degree, however I still think that it should have come into some consideration. Kind of like getting a parking ticket in the city hall parking lot, there are additional rules that govern what you do with your vehicle above and beyond the rules of the road, either way you get a ticket.
Quite frankly both the HRC and the Broadcasting Commissionare should have laid the smack down on him, but, as has been infered on both your site and mine, as well as in the newspapers, both organisations are so in bed with the PLP that they wouldn’t possibly rule against them. It reeks of corruption quite frankly. Most places in the world, you would have gotten a serious fine for making comments like this (at the least), why is it so different here? These committee’s need to be make non-partisian, so rulings can be conducted in a fair and non-bias manner. As far as a civil suit, I agree that they should do one, if the various “proper channels” aren’t forthcoming.
1am feeding, get used to it Phil.
Just one more thought, I assume that the HRC are immediately working on modifing the HR Act to include electornic public broadcasts. I mean we wouldn’t want this glaring loop hole to be exploited again and again now would we?
So The HRC are saying it is okay to use the N word !! No I donot agree with anybody using that digusting word ! But according to the Human Rights Commisin (spinless whimps they are ) say it is okay to do so .
I just wonder if Mr. Burch was white and made that racial remark ,would he possibly be serving his third month in incarsoration at Westgate Prison !! Because he is a Black Bermudian ,Government Minister , and one of the pupetiers controling the strings of the pupets known as Human Rights Commission . It won”t Happen ! He is a protected specie !!!!
Here’s the real issue - What ever happened to that guy trying to bring his porno in?
In listening to Hott 107 this morning, both hosts were calling the RG editor ignorant after reading his Editorial in todays paper… Mr Dill stating that he was pissed and every Bermudian should be pissed (mainly for his references to rapists and their victims). Anyone else see the irony here??
According to them, the comment was made, deemed to be ok, so we need to get over it…… move on.
Accountability? Whats that?
Slowhand - I have to say that if that’s the case, I’m surprised at Thao Dill. He has always seemed to be a man of more substance. Nefertari, I’m not so sure about.
Basically this is what it boils down to…..how exactly would they Thao and Nefertari react if I walked up to them and called them the “N” word in a very demeaning and public broadcast? I’m sure that they would be insulted to say the least, and outraged at best, and rightfully they should. By allowing this to go through, the HRC are basically endorsing behaviour of this type.
Also the fact that it is also a case for the BBC and the simple fact that it was said on their radio station which also has a 14 second time delay to supposedly prevent filth like this from going out over the airwaves. May be they are saying what they are saying to prevent HOTT 107.5 from coming under any scrutiny themselves.
Sean not only should the BBC be involved monitering this situation . WERE TO HELL IS C.U.R.E. Have you heard one coment from them .I haven”t !! May be they are part of the same PUPET SHOW !!!
Just a thought, considering that Burch said this on a talk show which was for the public consumption, I assume that he had guests on his show at the time, not to mention that he was entertaining phone calls from the public which could also be considered a public meeting, all be it electronic in nature, but a meeting none the less, as it was a forum for the public.
In yesterday’s Mid Ocean News (”Burch remark ‘distasteful’ says HRC”), lawyer Tim Marshall of law firm Marshall Diel and Myers says:
“The Act doesn’t include anything broadcast as being in a public place and it would therefore be very difficult for anyone to argue that what was said was said in a public place.
“This type of case brings to the forefront imperfections in the law and it should be changed.”
[…] Instead of talking about doing something, actually do something. Right now, our Police Force isn’t working and neither are our various laws. The Police force is under-maned and apparently suffering from a moral problem, as such they are becoming an ongoing joke. We need more police on the streets, and I think that everyone can agree with this. All the laws in the world won’t help us if we have no one to enforce them. Our laws are antiquated and need to be revised. This was recently made painfully obvious as certain ministers words were able to go unchecked due to a technicality on the phrase “public area”. Any law regarding basic and fundamental human rights should be written to encompass all people, regardless of race, colour, creed, and yes sexual persuasion. No one should be able to fall through any loophole where as any one’s individual human rights are not covered. This especially goes for crimes of hate. […]