Travelling

Just a heads up that I will be travelling for the next couple of days, so comments may not be updated as frequently as usual.

Will be back to blogging shortly.

Vexed Bermoothes Dormancy

I just wanted to comment briefly on the decision of Vexed Bermoothes to cease active blogging for the immediate timebeing.

To be quite frank I was quite taken aback in reading that post. I hope that the blogger decides to return to active posting shortly.

When I started this blog I decided to orient it as a rival to the then active politics.bm which ran as an independent pro-UBP blog, or at least that’s how I percieved it. The rivalry was friendly, and helped stimulate my own postings, as well as gave me an objective – to post as well and as frequently but from an alternate point of view. When politics.bm decided to suspend operations my friendly rivalry changed to a focus on Vexed. Both blogs are well written and well informed, and helped me focus this blog. I enjoyed reading them and occasionally writing posts in direct response to theirs.

I have long been a supporter of a plurality of positions and voices in any sphere, be it in a regular meeting or in the lively to and fro of Bermuda’s blogs. I find interacting with alternate points of view – while actively engaging with them – as beneficial, both in clarifying and evolving my own positions and as empowering for all those willing to participate in the action.

Bermuda’s blogs have evolved quite a bit over the last few years, and are now dominated I think by the two main forums of Sucks and BIAW. The development of the Bermuda Jewel blog, a collaborative blogging project adds a further diversity to Bermuda’s blogs. Its too early to tell exactly how the online evolution will reflect – or initiate – changes on the ground, but it seems clear that there is a growing desire to develop a new politics away from the status quo poli-tricks of both Parties.

While my own blog will have a lower active posting rate at the moment due to my academic commitments, I am confident that Bermuda Jewel will more than complement for any inactivity here, as well as with Vexed. I hope to resume fully active posting shortly, and I hope Vexed also returns too – as well as for even more blogs to develop.

Bermuda JEWEL

Regular readers of Bermuda’s blogs and news will be aware that last week former Senator Davida Morris was reported in the RG as announcing the creation of a new blog, Bermuda JEWEL. The reasons for the creation of this blog may be found in the threads on Progressive Minds, as well as a desire to further critical thinking and a critique of the Bermudian political status quo. It is my pleasure to announce that the new site is now up and running, and I encourage readers to go and check it out at www.bermudajewel.wordpress.com.

Due to the format of the WordPress system it was not possible to operate the new site in the same manner as the Progressive Minds site, at least as regards content creation. However, comment moderation is off (but moderated by the three admins and regulated as per that sites policies), and anyone wishing to create content may write it up and email it to Bermuda JEWEL and it will be posted.

In Ms. Morris’s article she mentioned her opinion that the youth of Bermuda are increasingly becoming disillusioned with the political status quo and increasingly desiring a new Party. As I think some people may have misunderstood her position, I thought I would offer my interpretation of her comments. She of course is more than able to clarify on this issue herself.

I don’t think she was calling for a new Party. How I read it was that she was giving a warning to the PLP that if these issues (which she outlined in her article) are not addressed, the Party risks eroding its current support, as well as losing the support of increasing layers of the youth. In some ways this is the reason for creating JEWEL. It was felt that in order to correct some of the problems within the current state of the Party it was no longer possible to do it necessarily from within the Party. This by no means should be interpreted as ‘turning ones back’ on the Party. Fixing the problems must involve both external critique and internal action, but it should not be limited to work solely within the Party. Many of our problems as a people should and can be dealt with outside the Party, and in some ways the Party itself can be an obstacle to success in these areas. It is hoped that JEWEL can help our people, as well as help correct the direction of the Party.

Dissertation Time

Well, I am starting serious work on my dissertation right now. As a result I’m not sure how much time I’ll have to devote to local politics and the like. I will try to post some relatively short posts every other day, but just wanted to give readers a heads up.

Also, I’ll be writing a new ‘About’ section for this site. I actually started the new About to tie in with the third anniversary of this blog, but decided to hold off for a little while. Basically it will just be stating the reorientation of this blog. It will remain a site for local and other political discussion, and for the most part there won’t be any substantial differences. What will happen is that I will try and start focusing more on a general critique of Bermudian society and the Party as a whole.

The UBP is more or less a spent force, a pale reflection of what it once was. It seems clear to me that the last few weeks in Bermuda will be seen as truly historical for various reasons. In particular I think we will see the emergence of new political organisations and that has the potential to radically reshape the political landscape. The recent events have also given a good reason to reevaluate our liberal democracy and our constitutional relationship with the UK. These will be some of the focuses of the blog once I am more able to devote time to it again.

The dissertation is due in the third week of August. I am hoping to have it more or less complete by the end of July in order to make sure its nice and polished. Barring any major local news developments between that time, I will be only posting short articles for that period.

Abolishing the Urban Corporations

I cannot comment too much on the breaking news about the Government seeking to abolish the Corporations of Hamilton and St. Georges, simply because at the moment there isn’t much to go on. I look forward to reading more details in the news as this story develops.

I am however surprised at what is being reported, that they are to be abolished and their responsibilities absorbed into the various Ministries of Government.

I have long been opposed to the existing electoral system of the Corporations, and even the concept of them as corporations. They seem to be one of the last remaining vestiges of obvious oligarchy with their property vote. I have argued in the past that the electoral system needs reformed and that the vote should be extened to every individual that has a full-time job based in the City or Town. I also believe that the general public, that is the ‘consumers’ that use the conurbations, in addition to the ‘producers’ that work in them, should also have some say in their running, although I am mostly content to allow the Government, in as much as it is supposed to represent the people, fulfill this role until a better system can be developed.

As stated, I take issue with the concept of the city and Town being run by a corporation. I would much rather see them become actual examples of local government, along the lines of my concepts for decentralised government based on elected and empowered Parish Councils, with the basic unit being the neighbourhood association. As corporations their MO is to develop a profit. As local governments they’re MO changes to make the urban areas a living expression of the people who use and work in the urban areas.

In short, I am for increasing democracy and people’s empowerment of society, not for increasing the centralisation of power. Under our liberal democractic system the ‘people’s representatives’ govern on behalf of the people, which is quite different from the people governing themselves. And this is further complicated by an already bureaucracy that is the civil service, further alienating the people from controlling the institutions of society. I fully support reforming the relevant corporations in question, but simply abolishing them and absorbing their function into the state, ameoba like, is actually worse than the existing system.

I’ll write more on this as I get more information and have the time to think the issues over more.

The new RG article is here.

Making Martyrs?

Well, it seems that there has been an attempted act of intimidation towards some of the organisers of the recent demonstrations. The most public of which is the mailing of a powdered substance to one of the organisers on Tuesday afternoon in a not so obvious copycat of the anthrax letter scares. I cannot confirm, but word is that other organisers have also been threatened after a fashion.

Readers will remember a similar event in the run up to the 2007 election when a bullet was mailed to the Premier Dr. Brown.

One would hope that our political development was more mature than this.

There are some who maintain, for example with the bullet-in-the-mail, that this incidents are staged by or for the benefit of the victim. According to this theory the victims benefit from public outcry and revulsion to the act in question.

While the ’staged’ theory is certainly possible, both with the bullet and the anthrax scares, I generally don’t accept them without some evidence to back up the claim. I can understand the circumstantial argument, but for incidents like these I generally accept them to be legit. And by legit I mean I believe someone has actually tried to intimidate someone for political or other reasons.

I am not in the least bit surprised at a bullet and threatening letter being mailed to the Premier. I have certainly overheard some rather bizarre and pathological statements by some in our community who have a distinct hate towards the Premier. I am confident that they are largely an extreme minority and mostly impotent in realising their wishes. Having said that, I wouldn’t be surprised if they were capable of at least attempting to intimidate, certainly verbally, and also in the form of a stunt like the bullet or hate-mail. Similarly, I am sure that there are some, especially in the still-heated aftermath of last week, who have a degree of irrational hate and desire to intimidate those who helped organise the events of last week. Again, I think that such intimidation is more bark than bite, but one cannot deny the potential psychological impact of these acts. They are, quite frankly, a terrorist act. They seek to strike terror and to intimidate the victim. They also serve to fill a need in the perpetrator for both attention and a need to feel potent.

Personally, as an aside, after joining the PLP, and it becoming widely known, I myself recieved some threatening phone calls, and graffiti chalked on my property calling me a traitor and a Jew, complete with swastikas. I mention that just to indicate a bit of why I am not surprised at these actions, and why I tend to err on the side of these being deliberate acts of intimidation and not cynical ploys for sympathy.

It is my belief that with these events the best thing to do is to carry on, to not let these terrorists win by intimidating you. True, its quite possible that things will escalate. And I cannot ask anyone to risk their own welfare over this. All I can say is that if it was me I would carry on with what I’m doing. It takes a toll, and it makes one think about ones loved ones. For me, while I took precautions for those around me, thinking about them actually spurred me on, mainly because if one were to cave in, then one would, in the long run, be harming your loved ones and society as a whole more than any temporary fit of reaction on the part of the terrorists.

Perhaps the terrorist in this question truly believed what they were doing was right. Such is typical of the fanatic, and an impotent one at that. Even should they be successful though, their action only makes their victim a martyr, and strengthens the very situation the terrorist sought to destroy, almost hydra like.

I should stress that if this action is a genuine act of terror, I strongly doubt that it was done by any organised group. It would have been little more than the individual act of some impotent fanatic with some serious mental problem. This person needs some help, and I hope that this help is made forthcoming to them. I am sure that the respective community leaders will make it clear that such acts of terror are rephrensible and the perpetrator needs a psychological evaluation.

The Day After

Well, that was a long night. I’m sure most readers by now are aware that the Motion of No Confidence was debated till about 0500hrs Bermuda time, and was then defeated, 22-11. All PLP MPs voted against the motions, as did Independent Wayne Furbert. Two UBP MPs, Darius Tucker and Mark Pettingil abstained (although Mr. Tucker who absented himself had indicated he would vote against the motion). I stayed up till 0200hrs UK time following the Mystery Science Theatre transcripts at BIAW, and woke up this morning to catch up on the rest.

After reading over the transcripts of the debate and looking at the end vote, I think one thing is definitely clear. Dr. Brown won the battle, but he has lost the war. A good number of PLP MPs heavily critiqued Dr. Brown over this issue, and while Dale Butler and Alex Scott made some excellent speeches in this regard, I think Ms. Cox’s statement really was the heaviest hitter in terms of expressing Dr. Brown’s situation. She didn’t much more than to say that the Party has mechanisms within it to change the Party Leader, special or annual delegates conventions. To me she was effectively giving out a major signal and saying that the Party will not support this No Confidence Motion, but Dr. Brown should know his time is coming to a close.

Dale Butler called on Dr. Brown to apologise for his actions. My interpretation of this statement was that it was a warning to Dr. Brown that an apology on his part, officially directed at the House but really addressed to the PLP MPs would be key to gaurunteeing PLP votes against the motion. That Dr. Brown conceded this and did apologise to the House was to me a catharsis moment, and sufficient for PLP votes to defeat the motion. Dale Butler has apparently now resigned as a Cabinet Minister. To be honest I don’t see that he had much choice in this matter. His speech made it clear that he found Dr. Brown’s actions reprehensible, and having given a speech like that, his ability to stay in Cabinet become largely untenable. It was really a question of whether he got pushed first, or jump. I think he decided, correctly, that its better to jump.

While on the surface it may appear that Dr. Brown’s hand has been strengthened, from my reading any such strength now is more illussionary that real. The Party, at least in the form of its MPs, have clearly expressed that business as usual a la Dr. Brown cannot continue. He must now either build bridges or accept it is time to go gracefully as per internal Party procedures.

One other thing that became clear in the debate, patently so with the comments by Alex Scott, Jennifer Smith and Dale Butler, is that the spin coming from Party apparatchiks was off the mark and misrepresentative of the real issue. It cannot be denied that race was a factor in the opposition and composition of the demonstrations. As with all things in Bermuda it was and is. Polls consistently indicate that Whites vote overwhelmingly in support for the UBP, and were already feeling marginalised and alienated by Dr. Brown. This is all true. And it gave some credence to the argument that the demonstrations represented people who didn’t vote for the PLP in the first place. This is true. What is not true however is that race was the dominant factor in opposition to the incident. Polls also showed a small majority of PLP voters and Blacks (and thus not solely Whites) were also disapproving of the situation. Why the actualy composition of the demonstrations did not necessarily reflect this is an interesting question that deserves further reflection from all involved.

Had the spin left it at there, accepting widespread disapproval with the issue and using that to stimulate discussion within the community, that would have been fine. But in my opinion certain media and personalities wilfully distorted the reality, while the majority White demonstrators also failed to acknowledge the racial factor and even compounded the issue with an embarrassingly overt focus on increasing the racial diversity of the demonstration.

The most disturbing developments of the last week for me really was the manipulation of this reality for political ends, and direct censorship of posts at (Not Anymore) Progressive Minds. I say it is not anymore Progressive Minds as it no longer is under control or in any way connected with what was the PLP Youth Wing, Progressive Minds. It no longer sticks to the ideals and operating parameters that this group intended for it. It is now nothing more than an additional appendage for ‘controlling the message’ and manipulating opinion on the behalf of the dominant Party faction.

Both of these events, the wilful misrepresentation of the race factor and the overt censorship of dissent will have left a bad taste in many otherwise supporters of the PLP. Relationships are no doubt frayed as a result, and it is unclear what the longer-term consequences of these actions will be, both in terms of racial understanding and Party support.

The demonstrators will feel disillussioned after these events. That is unfortunate, and I advise them to carry on their energy of political and community activism in other areas. There are a lot of issues of concern in our society, and if people can mobilise as they did last week, there is no reason why this momentum cannot be carried forward for the betterment of our people on other issues. I have heard talk of engaging in Friday democracy lunches, where every Friday lunch hour citizens rally at the House of Assembly to discuss the political topics of the day, and, more importantly, keep our parliamentarians on their toes. This is certainly something to be commended and encouraged for our nation. For those who feel the PLP has lost its way, or wish to organise a new political force, all I can say is ‘don’t mourn – organise’. Organise within the Party for change, organise outside the Party for grassroots community change, organise a new political party, or two, or even forge a coalition of independents, a weak political alliance. Do all of this and more. While those in power may cry that control is being lost, in fact it is our democracy and political consciousness that is being strengthened.

Your Democratic & Human Rights

I am led to understand a rumour (and that is all it is at the moment) is going around, mostly through Hott radio. This rumour is that businesses have advised their staff to attend the demonstration tomorrow, with the implication that there may be repercussions for staff who do not attend.

I find this particularly bizarre.

Every citizen and resident of Bermuda has various democratic and human rights as outlined in the Constitution and the Human Rights Act. Amongst those are the right to freedom of expression, freedom of opinion and freedom of assembly.

NO ONE CAN TAKE THESE RIGHTS FROM YOU.

Anyone who attempts to interfere with your democratic and human rights are committing a crime, and should be fully investigated. If there is any proof to this rumour, it is a very serious one and needs to be investigated. It is notable however that so far it seems to be nothing more than a rumour, as no businesses have been named and it seems to be mere hearsay. At this point some wouldn’t even be surprised if this is a direct attempt to smear the demonstrations tomorrow and INTERFERE with people’s democratic and human rights.

It is important that this issue is investigated fully. If there is something to it, then the businesses and people involved need to be fully persecuted. If it is found to be false, then those who are actively passing on the rumour, which in this case is Hott, is guilty of interfering with YOUR democratic and human rights and should be investigated accordingly.

At the end of the day, NO ONE can legally interfere with your right to demonstrate or not to demonstrate. The law is clear on this one, there is absolutely no ambiguity. If you want to attend the demonstration, go and attend it. If you do not want to attend it, don’t go. If you want to organise a peaceful counter-demo, go ahead. Its up to you and no one, NO ONE, has the right to stop you.

If you have proof of these threats, let the police know now. And Hott should not be broadcasting this unless they can similarly prove that it is the case. One hopes they have such an ability.

Again, if you are demonstrating, have fun, keep it civil and enjoy. If you’re not demonstrating, well, thats fine too.

Friday Demonstration

I am of the understanding that there is to be a second demonstration tomorrow, Friday, June 19th. I understand that the demonstration is to be held at the House of Assembly, at 1200hrs. If I am mistaken on this information, let me know and I’ll correct this.

As I said of the last demos, I am always in support of citizens taking an active and participative role in local politics.

Similarly, I have made my position clear that I believe the Constitution was violated (as per my reading of the Constitution and the Immigration Act), and that there needs to be some accountability as a result. I have also made my position clear on the Uighurs (they should stay) and the No Confidence Vote (I support a censure, but not a no confidence, but I leave that up to the respective MPs and their legal counsel – I do not see the NCV as leading to a dissolution of Parliament, as per my reading of the Constitution).

It is important that the demonstrators recognise the racial element, but as I’ve stressed, I don’t believe the propaganda that only White people are upset about this. I have found the majority of all people I have spoken to, across racial and political lines, to be upset about the way this was done. I understand a recent poll has confirmed this to be the case, and these numbers will be out tomorrow in the media for fuller analysis.

I am also of the understanding that the BPSU has been swamped with calls from its members (mostly civil servants) who did not attend the last demonstration out of legal concerns about whether they could do so. I understand the BPSU has stated that civil servants can indeed attend the demonstration, with the qualifier that they cannot hold a placard, shout or identify themselves as civil servants. As such, they are welcome to join the demonstrators.

I am also of the understanding that the PLP has advised against a counter demonstration, stating that they fear inflaming the issue and sparking confrontation. I think that is mistaken, and I find it highly doubtful that the demonstrators would be anything but peaceful in their protest. Any PLPers that agree with the premises of the demonstration should have no problems with attending and they are free to do so if they so wish.

As before, I fully support active citizen participation in politics, even when and if I disagree with the reasons. As before prejudice needs to be confronted and has no part in these demonstrations – participants should make that clear to anyone who seeks to misrepresent the demonstration in this way.

I hope that this further public demonstration can further strengthen active public participation in politics on other issues that affect our nation. This need not limit such participation to occassional public expression in the form of demonstrations. Demonstrations are important in giving people a sense of community and empowerment, and this should be translated into further community actions, be it active neighbourhood councils, grassroots actions on violence or anything else for that matter. If the people don’t do it, either it won’t get done or someone else will do it in a top-down way.

Taking Stock

It is now almost a week since the story about the Gitmo Uighur detainees broke. This incident is, without question, one of the biggest newsworthy and political stories for Bermuda since at least Hurricane Fabian, and even then some. And in many ways this story is still developing.

It’s no secret that this story has triggered massive discussion on Bermuda’s various blogs, the radios and workplaces. There are a lot of issues to get ones’ head around, and I think its important to try and take stock of the various issues this story has touched on. I’m going to try and put out what I see as the pros and cons of this incident and its related issues.

Pros

Four people who have been in limbo for several years, and arguably unfairly so, have been relieved of their inhumane living situation at Gitmo.

Bermuda has acquired significant political capital with the USA, easily our most important economic, cultural, and political partner. This may be used for a combination of purposes, be it cleaning up the mess the USA left behind when they closed their military bases, greater security for our IB sector, or something else, or combination of purposes.

Our political power structure, as outlined in the Constitution, is being widely discussed, both in whether the incident was Constitutional and how a No Confidence Vote works. The same can be said, to a lesser degree, for our Immigration Act. It’s always a good thing for people to learn more about the legislation that structures our political system.

This issue has united a cross section of usually opposed groups, a rarity for our nation, and one that has a potential to help develop a concept of us as a nation and a people.

People have mobilised to express their opposition (and support) on this action, and exercise their right to demonstrate such. Whether I agree with a demonstration or not, I personally find the fact that there are demonstrations quite refreshing. Demonstrations are also a hugely important learning experience for those involved, and empower people as active and participative citizens, something I am always supportive of.

The incident has given an opportunity to discuss democratic reforms of our political system, both in the structure and practice of government, as well as our relationship with the foreign powers, particularly our colonial relationship to the UK and our neo-colonial one with the USA.

Bermuda has received praise from human rights groups in the West, and praise from individuals, some of which have expressed an interest in becoming tourists as a result.

Bermuda has received massive free international advertising that may boost our tourism.

Cons

Our Constitution would appear to have been violated.

Bermuda has received massive negative advertising, with some individuals vowing never to be tourists out of fear of terrorists.

The ensuing discussion has shown that some people subscribe to a authoritarian democratic system, in the sense that they are happy to participate actively in our democracy for the five seconds it takes to fill out a ballot, and are willing to surrender their right to actively participate in politics in the mean time. One could argue that this legitimatises psuedo-democracy.

While criticism of the incident has truly spanned racial and political groupings, its practical expression has illustrated ongoing divisions in this area, as well as risks further polarisation along these lines.

The incident has unleashed some xenophobic and islamophobic tendencies within our people.

The incident has illustrated our neo-colonial relationship with the USA and the relative impotence of Britain.

So, where does that leave us?

Its not possible to just tally the pros and cons of this issue and just say that there are more pros than cons, so lets move on. There are some very different weights involved to the various pros and cons that make such an angle impossible.

For me, and for the bulk of individuals who have expressed opposition to this incident, the main problem is the fact that our Constitution has been violated. That is a very, very serious issue. While I, and a minority of others, are pro-independence, I recognise that for better or worse the Bermuda Constitution is THE Constitution of Bermuda, and up until the time that we are independent (or the Constitution amended), we must abide by the existing framework laid out in this Constitution.

Personal relationships and political allegiances have been frayed over this issue, largely over (what to me is a red herring) issue of the incidents humanitarian value, but also over a mistaken view that opposition to the Leader equates to opposition to the Party. I have also been disappointed by certain aspects of what I see as rather bad political spin coming from individuals I held in higher regard.

I feel compelled once more to stress that I cannot ignore the fact that the incident equals a violation of our Constitution, and this warrants a those who acted unconstitutionally to be held accountable accordingly. As for the decision, I fully understand that it is a good thing that these four people are no longer in limbo, and any attempts to return them to that state should be resisted by all progressives. However I believe we made this decision on the basis of developing political capital with the USA, and nothing more. As much as I abhor that, I fully recognise the benefits it has for our country, and I can sympathise with it as such.

For me, I intend to explore the issues of democratic reform, primarily in attacking support for authoritarian democracy (for want of a better name for now – LOL!). I also intend to explore the aspect of independence, not so much as it relates to the UK, but our neo-colonial relationship with the USA and how much would formal independence be simply cosmetic. For me these areas are perhaps the best fruits of this mess of an issue, and I hope to do them justice.

On a final note, I’ve been thinking about this No Confidence Vote that the Opposition UBP has tabled. Initially, and in the anger of the moment I came out in support of this motion, arguing that having violated our Constitution Dr. Brown had justified his removal as Premier and Party Leader. Having reflected further on the issue, I’ve decided that I was wrong, and that I do not support the motion of No Confidence.

I realise that a lot of people are going to go ‘WTF?’ as a result of my change of mind. I need to stress that I DO think the Constitution was violated, and I DO think that Dr. Brown needs to be made accountable for violating the Constitution. I just don’t think that a No Confidence motion is the appropriate one. Having referred to my manual of parliamentary procedure (I have consulted both Roberts Rules of Order and Demeter’s Manual, and yes I know those are for the US system but I don’t have the UK one), I think a more appropriate move would be a Motion of Censure. To me such a motion serves as a parliamentary reprimand and a warning. It effectively says that the House finds the person to have acted unconstitutionally and their actions will be under greater scrutiny – further violations would result in a No Confidence Vote.

I realise I am not as versed in parliamentary procedure as some, so I hope that those with better knowledge can correct me on this issue. Does such a motion exist under the UK system which we use? And is it more appropriate than the No Confidence option? While I am wary about the PLPs election chances under the current situation and Leader, I hope that having appropriately rebuked the Premier for a violation of the Constitution, the Party itself will resolve the Leadership question appropriately and at the soonest possible opportunity.