Acton back at Gazette's Lifestyle section

Nancy Acton is writing for the Lifestyle section of the Royal Gazette again.

I noticed her name under today's main Lifestyle feature, but I don't make a habit of reading that part of the paper, so it's possible she's been back there for some time.

Last year, Ms. Acton was moved to a role that didn't involve dealing with the public, following allegations of racial discrimination against hotelier Billy Griffith. The matter was investigated by the Human Rights Commission and resolved to Mr. Griffith's satisfaction, although no-one has said how.

I wonder how her case has affected the reception she now receives from those she interviews for her articles, or if the Gazette has taken any flak for reinstating her?

Comments

[Raptor on 24.08.05 at 22:37]

"Shame" was a good title for the original piece you wrote about Nancy Acton.

That's nice, she's writing about an artist who is spending his time down in Tucker's Town painting the Tucker's Point and golf development.

Trust her not to be racist? I don't think so.

[write on 25.08.05 at 07:40]

Our society is made up a great number of people. There are more racist out there, they just choose not to show their face in the light.

Fortunately or unfortunately, Ms Acton has been shown to the light. She has not changed, but she will now know that her beliefs about blacks and others will not be openly tolerated.

Now, is there something that could be done about the title of "expat"? Segregation ended years ago, why bring it back?.

write

[anarchy on 25.08.05 at 08:26]

Nancy is one of a small number of people (black and white) who got caught. We all make cude, rude, unflattering about 'people who don't look like me' when we think the offended party is not listening. I'm sure she and others benefited from this 'incident'. My advice to anyone that thinks like she does (no she hasn't changed)is to keep your toxic, anti-social, backward, redneck thoughts to yourself......that way you can rest assured that you won't experience a "Nancy Moment"......

[Tiger Bay on 25.08.05 at 09:04]

Ewart Brown (plantation), Dale Butler (deoderant), Alvin Williams (ad nauseum), Renee Webb (people like her) are also at work today. Is race all we have to talk about?

[Curried Goat on 25.08.05 at 09:05]

You got to love the race issue though. I mean look at the UK. Any pictures advertising publically by law not descriminate. They have to by law give equal representation of sexes and races. There in a very interesting picture at London Zoo in the Monkey House. It shows three white children (2 boys and a girl), with the caption

"Would you like to put your monkeys in here?"

How racist is that!!!

[on 25.08.05 at 10:15]

It's time to grow up, Bermuda. You're embarrassing yourselves.

[J Galt on 25.08.05 at 11:10]

Shame on you Phil, Shame on you.

[Desperado on 25.08.05 at 13:33]

And just who appointed you as Bermuda's commissar of political correctness, Mr. Wells? According to Alvin Williams you are in fact the fountainhead of reactionary white racism in Bermuda. But then Mr. Williams also believes there is an international Jewish conspiracy to take over the world. And he also subscribes to the inverted, Black Supremacist version of the Nazi Sun People/Ice People anthropological myth. How do I know all of this? Because he writes about such things regularly in the Mid-Ocean and the Workers Voice. And I don't see you mounting any campaigns to have him silenced. Then there's your fellow RG columnist Calvin Smith. Curtis Dawson has lodged a formal complaint about his incendiary remarks at a public meeting with the Human Rights Commission. As far as I know, no ruling has yet been made. But Mr. Smith remains a regular contributor to the RG. Why aren't you asking if the paper's taking flak over publishing Mr. Smith's contributions? I don't know Nancy Acton except in passing and I certainly don't agree with her regressive views. Her beliefs are, frankly, repugnant to me. But she's far from unique in modern Bermuda. And, realistically, when you have political leaders from the Premier on down who have made racially-inflammatory remarks their stock in trade, I'd think you might want to focus on some of the bigger targets in this community. Nancy Acton is a sideshow to the main event that's being played out in the Cabinet Office. She cannot impose her skewed vision on Bermuda; those in the Cabinet have the power to do precisely that ...

[The Limey on 25.08.05 at 13:52]

Desperado

The difference between Nancy Acton and Alvin Williams, Calvin Smith et al is that she's white.

I'm not mounting a campaign to have anyone silenced. I'm not saying she shouldn't have got her old job back. I was simply wondering whether anyone who was outraged by her alleged behaviour has any problem with her reinstatement.

As to whether she's as much of a problem as those who use racially inflammatory language in the Cabinet Office, I think she is. Cases like hers just reinforce the perception in some minds that all whites are racist.

Just my opinion, of course.

[jake on 25.08.05 at 13:57]

I'm sorry Galt, but I don't follow. What should Phil be ashamed of? Reporting that Nancy is writing for the RG again? Asking if her case has affected her reception? Asking if the Gazette has received any flak?

I am surprised that someone who is able to launch cogent arguments cannot stand even the asking of questions. Phil has not done anything wrong in following the story.

Shame on you for being afraid to even have the issues raised by Nancy Acton's alleged (as Phil accurately points out) behaviour.

I know you feel that her rights of property overtake the right to fair treatment that members of the public should expect. We have had your discourse on it.

But if your true purpose is to give people their rights, and not sweep injustice under the carpet, as I suspect, why should Phil not ask the questions?

[Better Change on 25.08.05 at 14:28]

Her comments were meant to be private and were unfortunately made public.

Everyone should be entitled to one mistake. She has had hers. Let's move on.

[Bill Cook on 25.08.05 at 15:04]

How long does it take to know someone before you can definatively say "I know that person?"

Reading these posts reminds me of an amusing story of when the movie The Charge Of The Light Brigade with Errol Flynn and David Niven who were great practical jokers.

They were always taking the piss out of Michael Korda the talented Hungarian director who had some difficulty with the English language.

Angered he said to Flynn and Niven "you two think I dont know the English language but I KNOW FUCK ALL !!

That was one of the all time funny lines and in my opinion is so appropriate here.

( with apologies !)

[Desperado on 25.08.05 at 15:06]

"Cases like hers just reinforce the perception in some minds that all whites are racist. Just my opinion, of course."

You have a point, sir -- an absolutely fatuous one but a point nevertheless.

[jake on 25.08.05 at 15:51]

Desperado,

I read your first post, but you are being unfair. All Phil has done is say that he is following the story, and explain that it interests him because of the impact it has on race relations as a whole. He sees that when people (and here I mean black people) provide "justifications" for behaviour he finds offensive it is the Nancy Acton's they quote and say see: that is what white people are like.

Kind of the same way you quoted Renee out of context when she maintained that black people should have access to contracts too.

Would you criticise me if I took Ewart Brown to task for his comments? If not, why is it that Phil cannot take Nancy Acton to task. Is it only black people that can ask Nancy Acton questions? Thatcan't be right either.

So perhaps it is that no one - black or white - is allowed to ask NA questions?

Yes. That must be what you are trying to achieve.

[Desperado on 25.08.05 at 16:12]

"So perhaps it is that no one - black or white - is allowed to ask NA questions?
Yes. That must be what you are trying to achieve."

You forgot to ask if I was still beating my wife, Jake ..;) No, Jake, people are of course free to ask NA questions just as I'm free to dismiss some of the answers to these questions as either facile or misleading. The only point I was trying to make is that there's an Order of Magnitude thing involved here -- Nancy Acton is a hapless lifestyle interviewer for the daily rag. Not the head of a bank mortgage department (like the dreadful Reggie Tucker in the 1960s whose appalling racial and class views really did impact on the ability of black people -- and more than a few poor whites, for that matter -- to get loans). She's not the CEO of a major firm. She's certainly not a Premier or a Cabinet Minister. Her ability to impose her will on the rest of us is pretty much negligible. You can hear people with exactly the same retrograde views as Nancy Acton proclaiming them on the radio talk shows every day of the week. Such opinions may be ridiculous -- frightening even -- but the people espousing them are fortunately not in positions to act on them. That's not true of politicians. And, Jake, although I stand to be corrected I cannot recall ever having quoted Renee Webb -- either in or out of context -- at any time.

[loki on 25.08.05 at 16:16]

"You have a point, sir -- an absolutely fatuous one but a point nevertheless."

'Fatuous'? How, exactly? Phil didn't criticize the Gazette for reinstating Nancy Acton, he was wondering what the effect of that reinstatement may have been.

[Desperado on 25.08.05 at 16:35]

Loki:

I didn't set out to fight a one-man rearguard action in Nancy Acton's defence. As I mentioned earlier, I find her thinking personally repulsive. But then I find much of what is espoused by Bermuda's political leadership equally repugnant. And, unlike Nancy Acton, those people are in positions of authority -- authority that can be used to translate warped visions into even more warped realities. When it comes to labelling Phil's point as fatuous, I was specifically referring to his comment:" As to whether she's as much of a problem as those who use racially inflammatory language in the Cabinet Office, I think she is." That strikes me as being what my old history professor might have called a false analogy. Just my opinion of course ...

[Raptor on 25.08.05 at 16:45]

Desperado:

Maybe hapless Nancy Acton is not altogether powerless. After all, she has HOUSING to rent.

She has had her "15 minutes of fame," as Andy Warhol would say. Or, as "Better Change" has put it, her "one mistake."

That's interesting in itself: it's as though her alleged racist attitude is a one-time thing, something that popped up from nowhere. Not only that, Better Change says her comments "were meant to be private," as though hidden from view they would be meaningless.

How very odd.

[jake on 25.08.05 at 16:50]

You are correct. That was Tiger Bay.

I disagree that Phil's analogy was what sparked your comments as his analogy was in response to your comments.

So what prompted your comments?

Same for Galt?

Nancy is small in the scheme of things, but she would be fired from any institution that valued its reputation as free and fair.

In the Bermuda context people here correctly said that Ahad should be fired for his hate preaching, not only because of his false qualifications. I agree. I like the Tony Blair approach in the UK.

I would also be prepared to fire black politicians who make racist comments. I was appalled when Dale made the deoderant comment. It made me hope that people don't think I think like that - I am sure you feel the same way on occasion when you see white people do racist things. I just get uncomfortable when it seems that to even raise the issue without expressing an opinion either way - as Phil did - is a problem.

I had a huge problem when Phil wrote his reverse racism piece about Dr. Brown's plantation speech and wrote at least 10 responses, none of which I actually posted, because I could not express how hurtful that was. It missed the point completely, so completely that I was sure after reading it that there was no hope for race relations, because if someone who had in the past been so fair thought like that, well what about others. I am very happy to see that I do not have the whole measure of the man. His questions reveal a willingness (sorry to speak about you as if you are not here Phil) to see the problems from more than his own perspective, which is the road to understanding (understanding for me, anyway).

So I value his view, even if he does not think she should be fired. He should be encouraged in asking these questions. You should join him.

[SmokingGun on 25.08.05 at 17:00]

The trouble with firing people in Bermuda is that there just ain't that many to replace them. Many Bermudian's hold down three jobs already. All the more reason why people in authority or with access to a mouth-piece need to be careful and show sensitivity in what and how they say things. And those of us that are on the receiving end have got to pretty much recognise the limitations of our tiny society.

[Desperado on 25.08.05 at 17:10]

"So what prompted your comments?"

What specifically prompted my comments may surprise you, Jake. And it will involve me going off on what you may well regard as an irrelevant tangent. But it was the sight of prosperous white businessmen Fraser Butterworth and Arthur Jones walking out of Magistrates' Court yesterday after it was determined they had no case to answer in an alleged fraud scheme involving hundreds of thousands of dollars.
This, coming just months after the DPP spent God knows how many years and untold amounts of money pursuing Julian Hall on similar grounds in what finally turned into a professional and personal witchhunt. Mr. Hall was acquitted by a seemingly intelligent jury when it was eventually determined there was no chain of evidence that could convince them, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was guilty of the charges laid against him. In the case of Butterworth and Jones, the DPP's case was so sloppily prepared that the court threw it out. But there's still one hell of a lot of money missing ... and yesterday no one here mentioned a word about it. Just struck me that if you are looking for relevant examples of perceived racial injustices, the NA example is pretty small potatoes compared to the treatment meted out to Mr. Hall on the one hand and Butterworth and Jones on the other. I'm not saying the Hall prosecution was racially motivated. I'm not saying Butterworth and Jones got off scot free because of their skin colour (they might well have been entirely guiltless and the fact is incompetence in the DPP's chambers probably had more to do with the case fizzling than the defendants' ethnicity). But, frankly, the disparities involved turned my stomach ... to a much greater extent than the contents of a Nancy Acton email.

[Bill Cook on 25.08.05 at 17:15]

Was the matter resolved ?

Why was the Sean O Connor matter not resolved ?

He was fired after 20 yrs without a hearing,something does not seem right here.

[jake on 25.08.05 at 17:21]

You know what? I looked at that and had a different take. When I saw that it was Justin Williams who was the Magistrate (who I respect) I thought...wow, I guess the case had no feet - and probably better pursued in the civil courts, which I think was the Mag's point.

I also thought, good, at least no one can cry racism at limeyinbermuda because the judge was white.

I did not even think about black people perceiving it as a white judge and two white defendants until just now. An evolution in thought I would say.

I don't know about your point above. People still think Jules was guilty. Do people think this other case = innocent? I wonder.

Why is it the DPP's fault and not the judge?

Not criticizing your thoughts on this at all, but just wondering aloud to myself.

Perhaps it is good that now I am considering racism against whites. I can honestly say I never really thought about it before I did more time here.

One thing is for certain, it is real, and it is important.

[on 25.08.05 at 17:22]

It's because black Bermudians are victims...the white man opresses them.

[Onion on 25.08.05 at 17:23]

Nancy I would like to rent your apartment. I am a black West Indian. Is that cool with you?

[jake on 25.08.05 at 17:27]

Onion, you are such a jump up!

;-)

[SmokingGun on 25.08.05 at 17:28]

Desperado, although I'm not a lawyer, I did wonder a bit about $145,000 being assumed as reasonable to be considered as fees. Wow, next time I skim the escrow account I'll make sure they all know it's just a "fee". Again as I mentioned earlier, those in authority in such a tiny society do need to be sensitive to the ramifications of their actions. Some people ie: yourself will take notice. It might have gone a lot better if the Judge was willing to at least allow some more time for the DPP to get their stuff together. Putting aside the issue of Julian Hall vs Butterworth/Jones I just think it doesn't look good as a whole to so quickly throw a case out when clearly there is a large sum of money involved.

[Bill Cook on 25.08.05 at 17:28]

Not everyone was offended by Butlers deodorant comments.

My personal opinion is that Dale is somewhat racist but not terribly so in my opinion and quite frankly people coming from cooler climates take fewer showers and dont get their clothes drycleaned as much.

Thats a fact if you generalise and so the truth should be acceptable. There comes a time when our hypocricy needs a re think.

We make a big fuss over foul language yet go to any bus stop when school kids are talking and no one is shocked anymore.

[Desperado on 25.08.05 at 17:28]

"Why is it the DPP's fault and not the judge?"

Yes.

"I don't know about your point above. People still think Jules was guilty ..."

They're entitled to hold whatever opinions they want. But a jury, Jake, has to make its decision based on the evidence presented to it. And despite spending years -- years in which he could not make a living as a lawyer -- trying to build a case against Hall, the DPP was unable to do so. The Butterworth/Jones case collapsed after just a few short months. The DPP certainly didn't seem to put the same effort, manpower or money into prosecuting these guys as it did into bringing JH before the courts. Maybe charges against Butterworth and Jones should never have been laid in the first case --I'm certainly not privvy to all of the background information. But, like I said, the disparities involved couldn't help but disturb me.

[Bill Cook on 25.08.05 at 17:43]

Onion,

I am an old white guy and I have an apt for rent but I would not rent it to you.

Not because you are a black west indian but because you accused me of making statements I never made and sneaked away without apologising.

[jake on 25.08.05 at 18:25]

Desperado,

I get your point on Julian but he did not practice becasue of his civil debt, not his criminal charges.

I think that he was correctly found innocent. I am also happy for people to have their own opinions.

Perhaps you are right though that the $$ was not spent in prep.

For one fraud case they brought in a UK QC for crying out loud, and still lost the case.

[loki on 25.08.05 at 20:13]

"Maybe charges against Butterworth and Jones should never have been laid in the first case --I'm certainly not privvy to all of the background information."

Desparado - without getting into too much detail, I can assure you that you've hit the nail on the head: Arthur Jones and Fraser Butterfield should NEVER have been charged. The basis of the 'case' against them could be considered comical were it not for the fact that these gentlemen were put through the pain and embarrassment of criminal proceedings on the basis of a civil dispute. I do not know either of these gentleman personally, and I can assure you that I have no connection whatsoever with their respective defence teams, but I can assure you that the fact that they were ever charged is downright SCARY. The most that these guys could be accused of is coming up with a business plan that didn't turn out to be profitable.

As for Julian, having had a number of months to consider the evidence in the case, I do think that the jury probably made the correct decision in the circumstances.

Sorry to get off-topic.

[loki on 25.08.05 at 20:15]

Whoops - 'Butterworth', that should have been.

[Better Change on 26.08.05 at 10:12]

Raptor,

I didn't and don't condone here comments. But they were clearly meant to be private between her and her brother.

We all have dirty laundry we'd not want shown in public.

Not to defend her - but its time to move on.

[jake on 26.08.05 at 11:19]

Thanks for letting us all know that we no longer need to discuss this.

My view differs. I am very much bothered by your resistance to discuss this clearly topical issue. I am very much bothered by the response that Phil got to his questions.

To me you moved on long ago, and probably would have crafted an excuse for her behavior at the time of its occurrence. That, in essence, is the problem. You are too ready to gloss over examples that are inconsistent with a guilt free thesis.

I am with Phil on this issue. Not all white people think like Nancy. That fact does not give her a pass.

[Onion on 26.08.05 at 11:21]

Bill, as usual, I haven't got a clue what you are talking about.

Desperado,

I agree that the seemingly scant amount of resources the DPP poured into the Butterworth/Jones case as compared to the Hall case is cause for concern. As regards the Hall case, the Crown spent hundreds of thousands to prosecute him. They have actually spent millions on black businessmen that have been accused of similar crimes throughout the 80s and 90s.

In the Butterworth and Jones case the DPP send a lawyer to court who was called to the bar 2 months ago. No disprespect to her - she did her best considering her experience. But come now!!! Where was Ratneser?? Graham-Allen?

Furthermore, there is some question as to whether Justin should have presided over the case. He was a partner at Cox Hallett & Wilkinson which got much legal work from these guys over the years. The grounds presented by the RG really didn't seem like they were sufficient to throw the case out. But of course I only read it in RG.

As for the rationale that the case should never have come to court,well, I can assure you that people have gone to trial on evidence far more tenuous than in this case.

It's all about who you know and who you are in this island!

[Tiger Bay on 26.08.05 at 11:34]

Come on ... the Butterworth/Jones case was a non-starter. The authorities had decided several times in the past not to pursue it. Hard to understand why they revived this personal vendetta by the complainant Anne Spurling.

[Onion on 26.08.05 at 11:40]

Come on ... the Butterworth/Jones case was a non-starter. The authorities had decided several times in the past not to pursue it. Hard to understand why they revived this personal vendetta by the complainant Anne Spurling.

Posted by: Tiger Bay | 26.08.05 11:34

Many legal experts and lay persons saw the Hall case as a non-starter too.

[Onion on 26.08.05 at 11:56]

With respect to Nancy Acton, her obvious prejudices are unfortunate and unacceptable. She was about to deny someone a place to live based on their race and nationality. Here we are in a time when people are struggling to buy and rent decent accomodations and people have to deal with that type of foolishness.

The fact that her comments were private and were between her and her brother is irrelevant. She got caught. Too bad.

I'm surprised she still has a job.

[Desperado on 26.08.05 at 12:21]

"Many legal experts and lay persons saw the Hall case as a non-starter too."

The jury certainly did when it went to them ...

[Better Change on 26.08.05 at 13:28]

Jake,

I can discuss this topic as long as you like.

[Better Change on 26.08.05 at 14:09]

I said it was time to move on for the following reasons:

1. She will likely go to her grave being remembered for this incident rather than her contribution to local journalism (it takes a lifetime to gain your reputation and but a second to lose it).

2. It was resolved to Billy's satisfaction (though quite how I can't figure).

3. She will be apologising for it forever (and she should).

4. It would seem that no legal action is going to be taken against her by anyone (unless I've missed something).

What's there to talk about? I don't defend her one bit. She got caught expressing what some people obviously think I guess.

I imagine she's learned her lesson.

.....and so has everyone else.

[Bill Cook on 26.08.05 at 14:48]

Onion,

You were either not paying attention or whatever as if you retrace the posts you will find your'e claiming that I said something I did not.

Thats unfortunate.

[Onion on 26.08.05 at 16:31]

Bill, this was my first post. Tell me where I am referring to you.

"Nancy I would like to rent your apartment. I am a black West Indian. Is that cool with you?

Posted by: Onion | 25.08.05 17:23"

[SmokingGun on 26.08.05 at 16:40]

Bill, unless you are talking about another thread, or if Limey took something out of this one, I think Onion is correct. I can't find anything to show where he might have refferred to you in this thread. Hope this helps resolve things.

[Bill Cook on 26.08.05 at 17:21]

Its no big deal and was in another thread but I requested twice for a correction.
I like to keep every thing clear and if I slip up I fully expect to be reminded and to apologise when wrong which I did in fact on that very thread.

But if was lack of attention rather than bad manners thats fine TGIF everyone !

[Onion on 26.08.05 at 22:39]

I think the point being highlighted by Desperado is that, despite the repulsiveness of the Nancy Acton affair, in the scheme of things, it is merely a blip on the radar. There are 1000s of Nancy Actons out there (black and white)smiling at their neighbour every day whilst harbouring prejudices within. When they are caught out they must be dealt with - no doubt.

However, the real damaging prejudice is exerted by those with power to affect the liberty, the progression, the success, and the achievements of those around them.

Prior to and during the Hall trial the DPP and other facets of the "Bermuda establishment" pooled together their finacial, political and "legal" resources to secure a conviction. (This was also done for quite a number of other black professionals during the 80s and early 90s.) During the Hall trial everyone on the blog went out of their way to express their opinion on the matter. Despite being found not guilty, countless bloggers on this site were convinced "he must've been guilty of something."

Months later, two white prominent Bermudian businessmen walk free after it was determined they had no case to answer after being charged with stealing a couple hundred thousand. A two month old lawyer (in legal terms) is sent to court by the DPPs office to handle the matter going up against Saul Froomkin QC. CLEARLY a conviction was not a priority.I hear no outcry from bloggers on the site.

Again, and I've mentioned this 1000 times and I've gotten no response, when the Bromby brothers were given absolute discharges for brandishing weapons and assaulting a senior citizen there was no outcry on this blog.

When Glen Blakeney made those anti-West Indian comments to Gary Moreno there was little outcry from this blog or from the black or white population of Bermuda in general.

Am I trying to needlessly stir up controversy or unnecessary argument? No. All I am saying is that before we single out Nancy Acton we must look at the system in which she and all of us live that cultivates and maintains the prejucial views that many of us harbour within us.

[The Limey on 26.08.05 at 23:26]

Onion

Again, and I've mentioned this 1000 times and I've gotten no response, when the Bromby brothers were given absolute discharges for brandishing weapons and assaulting a senior citizen there was no outcry on this blog

Probably because I didn't post on this topic so there was no real place to comment. The fact that Henry Talbot is himself not the most sympathetic of figures may not have helped. Not that that would excuse any assault the Brombys may have committed, though.

When Glen Blakeney made those anti-West Indian comments to Gary Moreno there was little outcry from this blog or from the black or white population of Bermuda in general.

I disagree. I criticised Blakeney's comments here, as did several commenters. I thought general reaction seemed pretty disgusted too. If it was at all muted it may have been because Moreno himself seems to be disliked by some parts of the community for also being arrogant.

[loki on 27.08.05 at 08:07]

"I hear no outcry from bloggers on the site."

Certainly, since the case against Butterworth and Jones was a complete joke, you won't hear an outcry from me. It's shameful that they sent such a junior lawyer, not because putting a senior lawyer in the mix would have been any more likely to secure a conviction (if you are familiar with the 'evidence' you would realize that these guys did nothing wrong), but because it looks as though the DPPs office knew the case was a crock and sent the most junior lawyer to avoid embarrassment on the part of more senior lawyers.

[Bill Cook on 27.08.05 at 08:51]

I am not knowledgeable of the Butterworth Jones affair and would app. a very brief synopsis if poss.

It seems one of our odd anonomyles that we have frequent callers on talk shows and perhaps a few letter writers state point blank that they would not rent their app to a black Bermudian and they themselves were black, stating they had such difficulties collecting rent and other problems etc you also had other landlords both black and white refuse to rent out to anyone as the problems were too stressful.

I think someone estimated that there were app 2000 apts not occupied at least not on a permanent basis for the above reasons.

This is a pretty serious situation as in many cases the landlord could use the extra money and there is a shortage of rental units in a reasonable price range.

Older people in particular are scared of the risk of having their remaining years so disrupted.

This is quite a bad situation as everyone loses

[Desperado on 27.08.05 at 09:47]

I think the point being highlighted by Desperado is that, despite the repulsiveness of the Nancy Acton affair, in the scheme of things, it is merely a blip on the radar.

Thank you, Onion. That is indeed what I was trying to point out ...

There are 1000s of Nancy Actons out there (black and white)smiling at their neighbour every day whilst harbouring prejudices within. When they are caught out they must be dealt with - no doubt.

True. The Nancy Acton situation was in fact dealt with by the Human Rights Commission --apparently to Mr. Billy Griffith's satisfaction. I cannot say I was thrilled to see her by-line re-appear in the RG; but, as I mentioned at the outset, Calvin Smith is the subject of a similar HRC complaint. And his by-line has also been appearing in the newspaper -- without interruption -- from the time that complaint was lodged.

However, the real damaging prejudice is exerted by those with power to affect the liberty, the progression, the success, and the achievements of those around them.

Exactly. Nancy Acton is not in any position to impact on my progress, my life, my liberties. Neither is Calvin Smith for that matter (altho' I might have taken a different view if he was still a Government Senator). There are individuals and institutions in Bermuda, however, that do have the power to derail the lives of their fellow Bermudians and Bermuda residents -- and have been known to exert it -- based on crude prejudices: racial, ethnic, class oriented, etc. And they get away with it, time and again. Those on the receiving end of such abuses of power generally have no recourses, legal or governmental, to right the wrongs they have experienced. That is the real tragedy of modern Bermuda. Meet the new oligarchs, same as the old oligarchs ...