Public Access To Information – PATI
Posted by J Starling on January 23, 2008
I support PATI, and was happy with the initiative launch under Alex Scott, though I was disappointed that it kind of got put on the backburner.
I was further disappointed by it remaining on the backburner once Dr. Brown assumed the leadership.
So yes, I look forward to it being implemented.
Having said that, the recent crusade by the RG, which has been predictably latched on upon by the numerous anti-PLPers online, puts a bad taste in my mouth.
Vanz has a post up that covers this phenomena quite well. A legitimate piece of valuable legislation is being ade into a poltrickal cricketball, with the RG trying to go for six.
Their support for it, and their particular crusade actually makes me less inclined to support PATI, at least if it is implemented by virtue of such a campaign. One has to wonder, why the sudden interest in PATI by the RG? I still support implementing PATI, but I do so now in spite of the RG crusade.
Zippy said
“Having said that, the recent crusade by the RG, which has been predictably latched on upon by the numerous anti-PLPers online, puts a bad taste in my mouth.”
The Royal Gazette and the “numerous anti-PLPers online” all supported PATI when it was first proposed. They have also repeated that support when the project was shelved.
I think your link between this support for PATI and anti-PLP sentiment is off base. PATI is a PLP project for (atheist deletion)’s sake! While there may be accusations of secrecy levelled against the PLP, the real culprit is the institution of government which thrives on keeping secrets. The old saw goes “information is power” – they have it and we don’t.
As the size of our government has grown, as well as the cash expenditure of it grows, we have to put in place proper safeguards for the public. PATI is one of them.
This is not anti-PLP. It is anti-secrecy and anti-abuse.
vanz said
The Royal gazette has for years been the media arm of the UBP and white elite – it does nothing for the sake of everyday working class bdan people – when the crack trade was killing bda in the 90s they did no in depth tackling of that issue (did not effect “them”) when mandela was screaming for freedom during apartheid and JWS was taking foto ops w/ thatcher and reagan (both apartheid supporters to a degree) they did not call him on it.
they r doing this to screw with the labour govt. of bda – its’ biz as usual
Rowland said
I would agree in my support of PATI/FOI reform, but I too am being cautious and skeptical of the RG’s push for this type of legislation. And I would also like to see people like the U.S. rep on the island keep their nose out of this, it’s none of the U.S. business, and it is not like the United States is a shining beacon of PATI. I was pleased when this type of reform was brought up under Scott but was disapointed to say the least when it was pushed to back burner by his government and then kept on the back burner by the successor government of Brown. With the RG’s very public involvement in certain unsavory incidents concerning FOI in 2007, I do wonder about their reasons behind this type of legislation, I guess only time will tell.
jonnystar said
Hi Zippy,
I’m assuming you accidentally posted twice there, so I’ll delete one of them.
As I said, the PATI legislation is indeed a PLP initiative, and was welcomed by many at the time, and their was alot of disappointment all round when progress was not forthcoming and it appeared to have been put on the backburner.
I and many PLPers and others are not disputing this, and I think we would all welcome PATI legislation. But we cannot but help being suspicious of the RGs motives, both in general and in particular. Why their sudden surge of interest? Can it be denied that there is a political motive behind their actions?
It would have been better for a grassroots movement to coordinate an organic movement towards pressuring the Party and the State than to allow the RG to mechanically manufacture this crusade. I will still support PATI, but i will be watching the RGs motives all the same.
Phil Wells said
First, why does it matter what the Royal Gazette’s motives are? If PATI is a good idea, then it’s a good idea. If you are all for it, why can’t the Royal Gazette be too? Or are only PLP supporters allowed to support initiatives that would make the government more accountable?
Second, of course the Royal Gazette has a vested interest in the legislation. It’s their job to hold the government to account. If they are unable to do so because they cannot get the information they need, they are perfectly entitled to stand up and ask that something be done about that. Particularly when they are merely asking the PLP to deliver on a promise they themselves made.
Third, much of the mistrust of the PLP comes from a lack of information about how it conducts itself (e.g. how was a particular government contractor selected). In the absence of information, suspicious minds will assume the worst. PATI will reduce the ability of people to jump to the wrong conclusion, by making it easier to get at the facts of the situation. So even if the Gazette’s aims are malicious, the best way for the PLP to fight back would, ironically, be to give them what they want. Assuming that the party has nothing to hide, of course.
Your comments are a perfect example of the tendency of many PLP supporters to criticise and impugn motives not because you disagree with what is being said, but because you don’t like the person saying it. I expect it from Vanz. I expect better from you, Jonathan.
vanz said
“the Royal Gazette has a vested interest in the legislation. It’s their job to hold the government to account.”
that’s not true – but then again u know that – they did not and still do not hold the real movers and shakers of this island accountable.
“So even if the Gazette’s aims are malicious,”
finally some truth out of ur mouth – tastes unfamiliar huh.
“I expect it from Vanz. I expect better from you, Jonathan.”
who r u to expect anything – r u his father?
considering u so gloriously quit ur cause u need to start expecting better of urself.
Zippy said
“The Royal gazette has for years been the media arm of the UBP and white elite”
Vance, that’s your perspective. Many in the UBP and white elite disagree.
If you agree with PATI, complaining that other people support it too doesn’t make sense.
PATI is as useful to the BIU and Workers’ Voice to protect the interest of union members as it is to the RG in pursuing news stories.
vanz said
i already said that i agree w/ PATI but as 3/5 posters on this discussion have said – the RG’s rallying cry smells foul
Denis Pitcher said
“It would have been better for a grassroots movement to coordinate an organic movement towards pressuring the Party and the State than to allow the RG to mechanically manufacture this crusade”
Jonathan,
Perhaps I’m mistaken but haven’t we already had two ‘grassroots movements’ (ABC and VRI) that both asked for PATI among other things and yet were ignored?
You make it out like the RG suddenly pulled PATI out of the blue when it has been a topic of ongoing discussion since it was first proposed.
I really don’t get it. One day your criticising the RG for writing about UFOs and the Premier’s wife in an accident for a slow news day. Then when they pick up and create some discussion by ressurecting a PLP proposed initiative, it’s suddenly a conspiracy.
What do you expect the paper to cover on days of limited news?
vanz said
ABC and VRI are hardly grassroots – from what i see they are prefab orgs with a specific political aim as opposed to growing from the concerns of a wide x section of bda ( from what i remember they are both wasi’s groups and he is hardly grassroots)
Zippy said
Frankly I am relieved that the RG is doing something constructive. And it’s no surprise, many of the FOIA groups around the world are heavily supported by the media.
It’s odd to see Walton saying that PATI is important but Government has other fish to dry, when he himself has used PATI in the UK to open up information about Bermuda!
PATI is important – other community groups have a stake in it too. They should also engage so that the media does not totally set the agenda.
Zippy said
Looks like the Cayman Islands solicited the help of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative to draft their law and ensure that it was free from local political handicapping. That seems reasonable. This law must be balanced and bi-partisan.
jonnystar said
Response to Phil:
I don’t kow how else to phrase this, but I’ll try again.
I, and pretty much all PLPers and others are in support of PATI. As has been said PATI was a PLP initiative. It is a good thing, this is not in dispute.
What we are disputing is why the sudden interest and ‘Right to Know’ campaign by the RG? Why wasn’t there a similar mass campaign (and true, there was a small one) launched by them when the Governmnet was desparately seeking advice and general mass input in the first place? Why wasn’t there a mass campaign launched by the RG while the UBP was in power?
As you said, in the absence of information, suspicious minds will suspect the worst. That is exactly what happened while the UBP was in power, and that is exactly why many in the comunity remain suspicious of both the UBP and the RG.
You mentioned Vanz in your statement, to which he predictably responded ***Note to Vanz: Its sometimes better not to respond***. This actually provides me with quite a nice example to illustrate my point.
You ‘expect’ such and such from Vanz. No doubt you prejudge him and predict him based on his more or less infamy in some blog etiquette. Likewise, many of us have come to ‘expect’ certain behaviour on the part of the RG based on it past infamy. Due to its failure to address PATI earlier many of us are left skeptical of their motives for suddenly launching this campaign now. Its really quite that simple.
We continue to support PATI, and many of us have actually been working behind the scenes to advocate for it. The RGs moves however come across as directly confrontational – they appear to us to be making a legitimate and beneficial/progressive initiative into a weapon to attack us. I agree, some of their questions should be answered, like the report on the hospital, mould at Cedarbridge, US chemical weapons in St. Davids. But we cannot ignore that they appear to have motives that go beyond general advocacy or investigative journalism and into out and out politrickal attack.
The immediate result of this is, yes, to make us suspicious, and even counter-productively retard the unrolling of PATI.
Once more, I support PATI. And if the RGs tactics assist with its implementation, great. But I cannot disregard my impression that they are doing badly (conflictive rather than constructive), and, yes, I am suspicious of them on the basis of past experiences with them (not personally, but in general observation).
jonnystar said
Reply to Denis:
As Vanz put forward, I hardly view either ABC or VRI as being ‘grassroots’ organisations. They may have as their goals certain proposals for a grassroots restructuring of our society, but in their organisation and tactics they were not grassroots, nor did they spring organically from the community. Rather they were largely initiatives of a small group of people with their own political motives. Had they sought to organise the communities organically and posit a situation of dual power in which they could either have effected political revolution or won concessions, that would have been one thing. Rather they sought to ‘reform’ the status quo, and, disconnected from the community, they failed to develop into movements. To be blunt, they came out with a bang and went out with a whimper.
They are certainly proposals of theirs that are progressive, and should continue to be advocated, that I support. I am not questioning the merit of their proposals, but rather their motives and strategies.
PATI itself hasn’t been pulled out of thin air, but the sudden launching of this campaign comes across as suspect. I addressed this largely in the response to Phil.
There is alot that the RG could cover. There is a significant body of information out there that needs synthesised and addressed. There is no reason why they cannot commit significant intellectual resources to greater investigative jounrnalism to the intricacies of class, race, sexism, colonialism, everyday working life, labour conditions, an analysis of the coming recession, etc.
Denis Pitcher said
“Why wasn’t there a similar mass campaign (and true, there was a small one) launched by them when the Governmnet was desparately seeking advice and general mass input in the first place? Why wasn’t there a mass campaign launched by the RG while the UBP was in power”
Very simple. Tell me how many countries had PATI or similar legislation when the UBP was in power? How many countries had it when the PLP announced it. Finally how many countries have it today.
I suspect that your answers will suggest that it was an idea barely even concieved or understood when the UBP was around, that the PLP was ahead of the curve when they announced it and now are near the end of the pack of developed reputable nations who are or have implemented such legislation and as such there are many examples that can be referenced.
The legislation was promised years ago when other countries turned it over in short timeframes.
Sadly your definition of grassroots inadequacy describes many movements initiated by minorities in need of support. In your view, do such groups not deserve representation or consideration?
As for the gazette having their own motives, I have no doubt that they do but they are likely the motives of a business trying to sell papers rather than some grand political conspiracy.
Think Occams Razor and wonder if maybe the RG is fed up with ‘plantation questions’ being the reasoning why questions go unanswered, that they can’t easily get interviews or comments for stories, nor can they get accurate statistics or reports to decipher what is spin and what is truth. If there were more real answers, openness and communications with the press rather than greater amounts of spin doctoring by increasing numbers of public relations personel so the papers could produce real stories than perhaps they wouldn’t be as motivated to convince the people of the need for PATI
jonnystar said
I’m afraid you’ll have to expand on this:
“Sadly your definition of grassroots inadequacy describes many movements initiated by minorities in need of support. In your view, do such groups not deserve representation or consideration?”
…before I can respond to it properly.
As to the question about how many countries had PATI when the UBP was in power, I’ll let you read through the convenient list found on wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_information_legislation) yourself, and for now I’ll settle with selecting a few relevant ones:
Australia – 1982
Belgium -1993/4
Canada – 1983
Denmark – 1985
Finland – 1951
France – 1978
Iceland – 1996
Netherlands – 1978 (amended 1991)
New Zealand – 1982
Norway – 1970
Sweden – 1766!!
USA – 1966
There is admittedly less information for our similar domiciles in the Caribbean, with Jamaica introducing the legislation in 2002, and Trinidad & Tobago in 1999. Also, the UK intorduced such legislation only in 2000.
So, its sort of a mixed bag of results, but the concept was definitely around during the UBPs time as Government.
I don’t have information about how many states have it versus don’t have it versus developing it. At best Wiki states that at least seventy States currently have such a system.
Having said that the following links are of interest and will contain the answers should one review them in-depth:
http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/foia/foia-laws.jpg
http://freedominfo.org/
I think you also find that such legislation took some time to be ‘turned over’ even in these other jurisdictions, and there is also different economies of scale that come into play here as well.
I have not stated that I believe the RG is involved in ’some grand conspiracy.’ But I recognise that the RG does have a political position (I don’t know any papers that don’t, although some are more conscious and overt than others), and also, due to its dependence on advertising, dependent on the capitalist status quo to boot.
I am sure that part of the RGs motives stem from the BHC case of last year and the attempts to gag the press, something that this blog opposed. Some of the questions I too would regard as ‘plantation questions’ I’ll admit. But with its track-record, and the approach to date, I cannot help but remain suspicious and critical of their crusade.
Phil Wells said
Jonathan
You ask, “why now?”. Seems pretty obvious to me. There was no need for the RG to launch a campaign when the Government was seeking input into its PATI proposals, because the Government was heading in a forward direction. They could have justifiably launched a campaign towards the end of Alex Scott’s tenure, when it was becoming apparent that little progress was being made on PATI, but perhaps it never occurred to them, or they wanted to give the Government the benefit of the doubt. After Ewart Brown took over, perhaps they wanted to give him chance to reprioritise the initiative. Perhaps they were waiting to see if there was any mention of it in November’s Throne Speech.
Now is the perfect time for such a campaign. The PLP won the election and do not have to hold another for 5 more years, if they so wish. They should not be feeling insecure about their position, so you would hope they would be more receptive to constructive criticism. Ewart Brown has been leader long enough to be reasonably certain now that he has little intention of pushing PATI forward, as you yourself admit. Hence the campaign.
Why did the Gazette not push for PATI legislation when the UBP were in power? While some jurisdictions did have freedom of information back in those days, as you point out, it nevertheless wasn’t the hot topic globally back then that it is today. Many other countries did not pass their FOI legislation until much more recently, including the UK (2000), Germany (2005), Jamaica (2002), South Africa (2000), Trinidad (1999) and Cayman (last year).
I wish the Gazette had launched a campaign in 1980, but better late than never. If the PLP turned round tomorrow and supported adding sexual orientation to the Human Rights Act would you criticise them for not having done so for the last X years, or would you applaud them for finally doing the right thing?
You agree with all the Gazette’s goals, so you should be supporting their campaign. Their motive is irrelevant.
vanz said
“Their motive is irrelevant.”
i see why ur blog is defunct – if u coached jr. boys soccer and needed to attract young boys would you hire a pedophile as a co coach – certainly his goals are the same in attracting young boys – so who cares about his motive right – “Their motive is irrelevant.”
jonnystar said
To answer your question Phil regarding whehter the PLP were add sexual orientation to the HRAct, I would do both: I would both appluad them for doing so and criticise them for not doing so earlier, which I did earlier when they failed to pass it. Unbeknownest to many in the Party is the fact that both Aunt Lois and Freddie were advocates of such an addition, although they realised the difficulties they would have within their own constituency.
I do feel that I am banging my head against a brick wall here right now. I, and everyone else I know supports PATI. That is not the question. We are deeply suspicious of the RGs motives and view them as using something as a weapon to attack the Party unjustly. As Vanz put it rather colourfully (Vanz, did you know Pauulu well?) the motive is important, even if we mutually support the initiative.
Paranoid, Much? said
[...] folks are uncomfortable because the Royal Gazette (and what Comrade Star indelicately calls “anti-PLPers online“) are supporting the public access to information [...]
Denis Pitcher said
Alright Vanz, considering you like extreme examples, I’ll pass one right back.
Lets say you’ve got two priests running a church, one the head priest, the other his assistant. The main or head priest was accused of molesting altar boys and an investigation was privately conducted by the church. Results were never released despite the head priest maintaining he was exonorated while some people hold the belief that the church may have withheld making the ruling public due to the damage it would do to the church’s reputation.
The assistant priest subsequently launches a campaign to rally people to request that the church be required to publically release all such investigation results, though some question the assistant priest’s motives because it could just be a bid by him to take advantage of the situation to become head priest.
So here’s the moral delemma, if everyone genuinely believes that pedofilia is wrong and that the results should be available to the public, is it right to place more focus on the assistant priest’s motives rather than working to ensure the safety of altar boys?
J Galt said
“i see why ur blog is defunct – if u coached jr. boys soccer and needed to attract young boys would you hire a pedophile as a co coach – certainly his goals are the same in attracting young boys – so who cares about his motive right – “Their motive is irrelevant.””
1. Come on his blog was very good, and very well read, I think just looking at the amount of comments it generated alone puts him well over any other blogs currently being run.
2. If you are coaching a jr soccer team, your goal is to attract young boys to play soccer. If you are a pedophille wanting to co-coach, then your goal isn’t to attract young boys to play soccer its to prey on them.
vanz said
i don’t believe that the RG is doing this for the public – i believe they are doing it to 1.) dig up dirt (real or imagined)
2.) create some level of animosity in the public by insinuating that their neighbors and not them are somehow on some gravy train by sitting on these boards etc – basically put – they are trying to cause static that they hope will weaken the PLPs support – i think with hott 107 the RG realise that many people get their news from thaao b4 the RG and that a whole new generation is being bought up not to take the RG seriously – that is why they don’t even try to hide their bias anymore – just look at the editorials recently – the young guns of the UBP basically come out and say that they want the blks in front of the party which is directly the opposite of what they say they’re about and the RG does no editorial about it.
his blog wasn’t good – the people’s posting where good – he didn’t seem well read on social/political/economic issues the way that starling, pitcher and even dumbleavy are. that’s what got him in trouble – he shooting from the hip but w/ blanks
jonnystar said
I have to agree with J Galt here on Limey’s blog. We had different ideological positions, but I was said to see him decide to cease his active blogging. It was well written, well thought out, and really did serve as a foundation for the continually developing Bdian blogopshere. Indeed, this very blog is indebted to him for its very existence.
Concerning your point two however, you have perfectly illustrated Vanz’s point. Our question is whether the RG is launching this crusade for its own sake (PATI) or as an alternative political assault. Just like the hypothetical paedophile coach, is the person coaching soccer to attract youth to play soccer or as a means to an end to prey on youth? That is the question.
To Denis, again, no-one has opposed PATI. Vanz is pro-PATI. I am pro-PATI. The PLP is pro-PATI. Whats more, PATI is a PLP initiative.
We are only questioning the particular motives of the RG and the style in which they are executing their campaign (which comes across as trying to play the victim and alternatively as wanto aggression).
Thats all. Really.
jonnystar said
Vanz, there is a duplication of your posts, I’m removing one as they are identical.
J Galt said
“Concerning your point two however, you have perfectly illustrated Vanz’s point. Our question is whether the RG is launching this crusade for its own sake (PATI) or as an alternative political assault. Just like the hypothetical paedophile coach, is the person coaching soccer to attract youth to play soccer or as a means to an end to prey on youth? That is the question.”
Vanz’s point as stated was the Coach and the Paedophile had the same goal, which I pointed out they do not. That does not mean that the gazette and PLP do not have the same goal when it come to PATI.
It would have been better to say you and I are the coaches of rival local football teams, you have been selected to coach the national squad, you decide you need some new equipment to help the national squad in some way. I come out in support of your idea for new equipment. Do you throw away the idea because I agree with you?
Phil Wells said
Jonathan,
The essence of your argument seems to be that you think the RG will abuse PATI to discredit the PLP.
Perhaps you could explain how.
The RG cannot abuse PATI itself unless they breach its provisions that guard against voluminous or vexatious requests (which would just result in their request being denied). What I guess you are really concerned with is that they will abuse the documents released via PATI to paint the PLP in a bad light.
I will acknowledge that in certain cases it may be possible for the RG to selectively quote from those documents to paint the PLP in an unattractive light. However they would be foolish to do so, because if anyone who suspected that they were misrepresenting the facts could use PATI to request the same documents, and highlight the RG’s trickery.
This is surely a much better situation than at present, where if the RG receives a leaked government document, we all just have to take their word for what it said. So it seems to me that by pushing for PATI, the RG is, whether intentionally or not, making itself more accountable too.
So how exactly do you think the RG would abuse PATI?
vanz said
“the RG is, whether intentionally or not, making itself more accountable too.”
this is the exactly type of thinking that made me suggest that phil is very unaware – he’s been here long enuff to know exactly what starling is saying about the RG’s bias yet he pretends to be or is actually clueless to this fact – i believe i have read (i could be wrong) where phil has commented on 107’s plp bias – so we know he understands that concept – why he doesn’t admit that the RG is obviously biased against the PLP again is another matter -
vanz said
“So how exactly do you think the RG would abuse PATI?”
allegations are not fact, convictions or even indictments – the RG published stolen documents of allegations with the intent of positioning the allegations as fact.
theft is against the law.
the RG published the health minister’s stolen notes.
if the RG is willing to do these things to attack the govt. i’m positive that they will abuse PATI to that same end.
the RG is not like the NYT or the Washington Post – it’s more like the washington times – a paper with a specific political agenda – not just a political opinion like the post or nyt but an agenda.
in the late 60s belco treated their blk workers horribly and even still had racially segregated lunch rooms and change rooms – as a matter of fact – the company was segregated with the field workers mostly blk and the office workers mostly white –
when the workers had choice but to strike the RG sided with belco and ran negative coverage of ottie and the BIU for political reasons – times have changed but not the RG – they were anti labour (and blk in my opinion) then and still are -
Zippy said
There is no evidence that either the son of the soil documents or the ministers notes were stolen as multiple copies of both were in circulation. It is more truthful to say it is unknown how those documents came into Harold Darrell’s or the Royal Gazette’s possession.
vanz said
There is no evidence that either the son of the soil documents or the ministers notes were stolen.
what r u talking about? the police chief said that the son of the soil docs. were stolen from them and the health minister himself said that his notes were stolen.
Jeremy Deacon said
When we launched the A Right To Know – Giving People Power campaign, we included these words from former Premier Alex Scott.
“This is not an anti-government exercise. It’s a pro-democracy vehicle for the public that we serve.
“The Government serves the public, serves the people. Access to information, especially in this day and age, is fundamental to good governance. It is their information, not our information.”
It is important that these words are never overlooked or forgotten. They perfectly summarise the importance of a campaign of this nature, whether it be in Bermuda, Barbados or Belarus.
The Press has a myriad of roles – to inform, enlighten, amuse, help and expose.
In any democracy it also acts as an independent watchdog to help in the efficient running of the democratic process helping to safeguard freedom of expression. And it campaigns for and on behalf of people.
It is the last two that are of most relevance here and frame our motive.
Transparency and accountability help to make any democratically-elected government even more accountable to the electorate (the people) whether that be through the Press or through individuals.
A campaign aims to take up issues for or on behalf of the people where the Press sees or feels that input from them can help to change things for the better for an individual or a group of people.
There is no confrontation, on our part, there is no Machiavellian plot, there are no sub-plots.
We want to empower the people to be able to ask questions on issues that shape their lives or to be able to ask questions on their behalf. Clearly the Press would avail themselves of any FOI legislation, but the greatest use would be for individuals who currently have even less access than the Press to information
Believe it or not we have been thinking about this for a year. We’ve been working through the problems and how to counter the fact that the perception would always be that it is political even though we are determined that it remains apolitical.
PATI had fallen off the radar, or so it seemed, the Throne Speech is coming next week, and it is the start of a new year (yes, the Press looks for hooks like that.)
In addition, there is a new Government with a five-year mandate. What better time is there than when a Government is about to set out its legislative stall to call for something such as this?
For many I can see that it looks like the Gazette vs PLP and I’m not sure that anything I say here will ever alter that.
It is a fact, however, that most criticisms or questions in any democracy tend towards the sitting Government. After all, it is they who take the decisions that shape people’s lives.
I’ll say, though I think I am wasting my time, that had the UBP been in power and there was no freedom of information legislation, we would be doing exactly the same – because it is the principle behind this campaign that is important, not which party is in power.
That is because this is really about the Gazette seeking increased transparency of public organisations that take decisions that shape the lives of people without any real scrutiny or accountability.
Bear in mind also, that whichever party is in power in the future will be bound by this legislation.
Surely, it is beyond reason that bodies that control large budgets and which take decisions that directly affect people’s lives are not required to justify their decisions in front of an open public gallery or through the glare of publicity?
Again, the motive is not anti-PLP it is pro-transparency – for and on behalf of the people.
I think I’ve expressed our motive enough, although it will never win the argument. I think it is too convenient for people to have a demon to slay.
I’ll move onto some of the more specific points raised.
Rowland mentioned ‘the RG’s very public involvement in certain unsavoury incidents concerning FOI in 2007.’
If you are referring to the BHC documents that is a very different issue and actually pertains more to the Mid Ocean than it does the RG.
In tomorrow’s RG you will see what their Lordships from the Privy Council felt about freedom of press – again, though, that is an entirely different area and should not be confused with FOI legislation.
That was do with the right to freedom of speech – so this campaign has nothing (I repeat nothing) to do with that.
jonnystar says that many people have been working behind the scenes to advocate PATI.
I would say use this campaign to add fresh impetus to your work. Very often a newspaper campaign can galvanise work such as yours. I’d appeal to you to push even harder and lend your support.
As to your other point about pushing our investigative resources into other areas: we do. Not always as much as we would like, but we do. However, our investigative resources would be greatly aided by easier access to relevant information.
You also say ‘I recognise that the RG does have a political position’. Perception is a person’s reality I suppose.
But in my reality, the RG tries hard to tread the fine line of accuracy, fairness and balance. Yeah I can hear all you die hards laughing now.
But it’s true and people should not confuse the fulfillment of our primary role (exercising our right to freedom of speech and holding publicly elected officials to account) with a so-called political position.
It was also asked why we have not campaigned for this before. The fact is that when Alex Scott introduced PATI, in response I believe to complaints that information was becoming harder to access, there was no need!
I know that in all probability that I have wasted a couple of hours writing this. Those that want to believe it will, those that don’t will simply rip it apart line by line.
But I’ve said what I truly believe and what I believe to be the truth.
It is important that the debate on PATI continues. One role of the press I did not mention was to stimulate debate.
If we have done nothing else, at least we have succeeded in that.
Jeremy Deacon
Assistant Editor
The Royal Gazette
PS, The RG has not published material from stolen documents. There is an ongoing police investigation into allegations of theft of the BHC files and the personal minutes of Michael Scott of a secret health meeting. Therefore nothing is stolen, in fact it can only be deemed stolen when or if someone is convicted in a court of law.
Also, the RG did not publish the BHC file, it was the Mid O – just for accuracy’s sake.
vanz said
jeremy r u new to the gazette because ur observations seem absurd:
“In any democracy it also acts as an independent watchdog to help in the efficient running of the democratic process helping to safeguard freedom of expression. And it campaigns for and on behalf of people.”
is this something new because it was not happening prior to the PLP govt. while most papers around the world were calling out their govts. for not sanctioning SA – not a peep from the RG
“For many I can see that it looks like the Gazette vs PLP and I’m not sure that anything I say here will ever alter that.”
start by telling the truth.
“I think it is too convenient for people to have a demon to slay.”
most people have too much on their plate just trying to survive so to think that many average bdan think so lowly of the gazette because they want imaginary battles to fight is ridiculous.
“But in my reality, the RG tries hard to tread the fine line of accuracy, fairness and balance. Yeah I can hear all you die hards laughing now.”
finally – the truth.
“Therefore nothing is stolen, in fact it can only be deemed stolen when or if someone is convicted in a court of law.”
member clinton’s lewinksky deposition when he tried to weasel out by saying, “it depends what your definition of “IS” is.
&
if a tree falls in the woods…
“Also, the RG did not publish the BHC file, it was the Mid O – just for accuracy’s sake.”
i’m all laffed out – good luck on your campaign for the “people”
vanz said
“But in my reality, the RG tries hard to tread the fine line of accuracy, fairness and balance.”
wow!
Zippy said
“health minister himself said that his notes were stolen.”
He also said in the media that the notes had been distributed to others via email. It is very likely that those others forwarded them.
Creg said
I love it Vanz you were argueing Dr Brown was innocent in the BHC “scandel” as he wasn’t charged with anything illegal a couple of months ago. Nor has the RG been charged with theft of documents.
Last time I checked in Bermuda someone is innocent until proven guilty, unless of course that only applies to people Vanz doesn’t like….OK
Perhaps the RG should start to support the employment inequality laws the PLP want, so PLP get paranoid and drop it.
At the end of the day the PATI is good for everyone in a democracy except a government that has something to hide. That is why the PLP first championed it.
What makes me suspicious is the reason it fell on the back burner and why certain people are panicing when this is brought up again.
vanz said
“why certain people are panicing when this is brought up again.”
again – we have all said that we support it – what has been said is that it’s suspect that the RG is so on it now.
jeremy deacon said
If you have all said you want it – why isn’t it on the statute now?
vanz said
“If you have all said you want it – why isn’t it on the statute now?”
the same reason that the gazette has too few blk and bdan writers and too many brits – because it’s not a priority right now.
i’m just being rude – u obviously know that we on this site do not dictate what the govt. does – personally i can think of 10 more issues that should be dealt w/ before PATI -
vanz said
workplace equity, the economy, elder care, education, tourism, the environment, race, healthcare, culture, and labour issues – to name a few
Zippy said
“the gazette has too few blk and bdan writers”
My understanding is that the Government and insurance companies regularly plunder the Gazette’s “blk and bdan writers” – in which case the Gazette is doing its part on helping Bermudians up the career ladder. Moreover, many suspect that Government that the Gazette have a constant turnover of expats – harder for them to really develop sources.
Zippy said
PATI itself is not an issue – it is a government reform it helps keep the pursuit of the other community issues accountable and responsive.
Rowland said
Rowland mentioned ‘the RG’s very public involvement in certain unsavoury incidents concerning FOI in 2007.’
If you are referring to the BHC documents that is a very different issue and actually pertains more to the Mid Ocean than it does the RG
First off Mr. Deacon, for all intents and purposes the people of Bermuda tend to lump the RG and MON together into one entity, the simple fact of the matter is that they are sister papers and operate a similar bias. If you do not believe this then I think your view of Bermudian perceptions is somewhat skewed to say the least, I was simply continuing to follow that trend of grouping them as one.
Also, how was the mess with the BHC documents a ‘very different’ issue from FOI? Yes I know there was, and still is, disupte over the legality of the documents, but was not much of the incident, including your court victories against the government, based on the public’s right to know what is in the documents. If we are talking about Public Access to Information and Freedom of Information, how is the BHC mess not related this subject.
Jeremy Deacon said
The people of Bermuda may lump the RG and Mid Ocean together but it does not mean that that is correct.
They are two separate entities, do not share any perceived bias, are written and edited by entirely separate staff and it is important that distinction is made. One does not have anything to do with the other.
To continue to lump them together is misleading – if we were to display such lack of distinction we would be hammered for it.
I will keep making that distinction because too often people believe the RG has done something when it has not.
As regards BHC and FOI – yes they are entirely different.
The BHC was an issue of freedom of speech as the Privy Council outlines today. The documents were placed in the public domain and then it was the overriding right to freedom of speech that the Lordships considered when rejecting the injunction.
FOI is about getting access to meetings such as the BHC, BHB, the PAC etc etc in the first place.
Please, again the distinction is very important.
Rowland said
Let me clear something up, when I was refering to something called Freedom of Information, I was refering to the broader sense of the term which we can roughly define as a right to know, which can involve three related concepts and areas:
-Free content: whether particular information can be freely created, read, modified, copied and distributed
-Freedom of speech: freedom to express one’s opinions or ideas, generally, within a society
-AND Freedom of Information Legislation
So let me repeat, I was refering to a broader concept of the public’s right to know about their government, also known as “open government”. In which case, as you said the Council’s decision would be in the RG today, let us look at it quick:
“Lord Justice Scott held that the public interest in the freedom of the media to disseminate information relating to elected officials overrode the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of documents relating to a police investigation into allegations of corruption.”
Infact let us zoom in on one area of it:
“the public interest in the freedom of the media to disseminate information”
Public interest in the freedom of the media to disseminate information? Since we were talking about the wider concept of freedom of information which I stated covers more than one narrow area like PATI legislation and actually includes areas like freedom of speech which encompases freedom of of the media/press, also FOI (the concept) includes free content which includes the freedom to freely disseminate and copy information. So once again, now that I have cleared up what I was talking about please explain to me how the hole BHC non-scandal had nothing to with freedom of information Mr. Deacon.
On a final note, you said the RG and MON “do not share any perceived bias”. Please go out an ask the people of Bermuda if they do not think you guys have a bias towards the UBP. You may also find that other News outlets in the hemisphere also claim to have no bias, like Fox News claim to be “fair and balanced” but you would truely have to be blind to reality to say they are fair and balanced. So claim all you want that the RG/MON have no biases, you may find that Bermuda for the most part disagrees with you, and I think the reading public makes the final pronoucement on that area.
loki said
If the Royal Gazette and Mid Ocean are so biased and demonstrably anti-PLP, why does the PLP’s own official homepage make liberal use of links to both publications’ websites to promote positive news stories? This isn’t an occasional thing, either: the PLP’s website does this frequently. As much as the PLP likes to spread the myth of the publications being anti-PLP, the fact of the matter is that both publications do what responsible papers do in western democracies: hold the powers that be to account and try to keep them honest.
Aside from the above, the issue of bias should be irrelevant when discussing the issue of public access to information. It’s not a political issue, it’s a moral one concerned with democracy, and a Government’s power to withold information that would otherwise allow the general public to make informed opinions.. Simply because someone, or some organization that one doesn’t like is in favour of a particular initiative doesn’t make that initiative any less valid. If the RG ran a campaign to increase criminal penalties for convicted child molesters, would you object to this merely because you don’t like the RG?
vanz said
jeremy u need to take that comedy act on tour:
“They are two separate entities, do not share any perceived bias, are written and edited by entirely separate staff and it is important that distinction is made. One does not have anything to do with the other.”
or better yet:
“The SS and the nazi party are two separate entities, do not share any perceived bias, are run and populated by entirely separate staff and it is important that distinction is made. One does not have anything to do with the other.”
or maybe u’d like this better
“The PLP and the BIU are two separate entities, do not share any perceived bias, are run by entirely separate staff and it is important that distinction is made. One does not have anything to do with the other.”
Zippy said
Vanz, you make no sense.
vanz said
that’s the beauty of democracy – we all get our say -
Zippy said
except, apparently, if you are an expat in which case you can stfu or go home
vanz said
having your say – and having your vote r 2 different things – people around the world had their say about the apartheid in south africa even though they did not have the right to vote in that country and in the end it was in big part to those outsiders that apartheid got dismantled
jonnystar said
Brother Derrick Burgess, whoI am assuming you are referring to Zippy, was in my opinion wrong in his statement. I am not sure if he was misqouted in the RG or not, but I feel, and spoke publicly at the time, as did other PLPers, that the sentiment as expressed through the prism of the RG was wroong. Many pointed out to the fact that the ‘Father’ of organised labour in Bda was a Trini, Dr. E. F. Gordon, and had he been prevented (as indeed many of the oligarchs tried) in his work the movement here would have no doubt been retarded.
I feel that what Bro Derrick was trying to say was that destructive/negative criticism is neither helpful or welcome, while constructive criticism and suggestions would be welcome.
There is a perception that many, especially Anglo, ex-patriates come across as overly negative in their criticism of how things are done here, and in the experiences I’ve had with one or two of this nature, yes, I did come to the point where I said something to the effect that if you hate it here so much, and as its not your country, why don’t you leave? I understand that sometimes their actions are often a reaction to hostile interactions with Bdians, and I have tried to counsel that not all Bdians are hostile (most are quite friendly), but some sensitivity and a positive constructive approach would be more beneficial for all considered.
So, again, Bro Derrick was wrong in what he said as quoted in the RG, in my opinion.
J Galt said
Vanz, you have been reading my old post’s on Limey’s site haven’t you?
jonnystar said
Hi everyone!
I was talking to a sister the other night about this whole issue and she came up with what I think was a very good point, and I hope she doesn’t mind me putting it to everyone here. Of course, she said it much better than I, but I’ll try anyway.
She made an analogy with the ‘Big Conversation’ initiative on racial reconciliation luanched last year. Across the board I think most Bdians support the general idea of racial reconciliation, just as most people support PATI. But certain elements in Bdian society, mostly anti-PLPers, almost right from the start rejected the approach, claiming that the actual motive of the Big Conversation was not racial reconciliation, but rather a more political motive on the part of the PLP. They voiced such fears as the main agents superficially connected to the project, Mr. Rolfe Commissiong and Dr. Ewart Brown, being more or less not the right people to do this job based on their alleged past track record.
So people questioned the motives of the initiative based on who was superficially in charge of it and the possible political motives they had for implementing just such an initiative.
I trust most people can see the applicability of this analogy to this particular discussion. Now, the RGs motive may well be as pure as the sun-bleached sands of South Shore, but due to their past track record, and even their (what comes across to many PLPers) confrontational approach, is it any wonder that there is some suspicion from certain sectors about their motives?
Having said that, I really need a cup of morning tea…
J Galt said
What is an anti-PLPer?
Mike Taylor said
Jonny,
Actually I do have trouble seeing the applicability of that analogy. The question of the motives for the “Big Conversation” come from fundamental problems people have with the actual execution of it; like having the whole thing controlled by a radical black activist, the selection of “expert” panelists representin only one point of view etc.. “Questioning the motives” in this context is shorthand for saying that one believes that the stated purpose of the Big Conversation is a lie and that is why the methods of the Big Conversation are likely to increase division and villification rather than decrease them.
What aspects of the Gazzette’s campaign, if any, do you believe are contrary to their stated goal? What do you believe their actual goal is and which parts of their campaign do you believe advance their ulterior motives? Do you disagree that immediately following an election would be the most PLP-friendly time possible for them to make such a push? If so what better time would you suggest and why?
Whatever the true motives for the Big Conversation are, it is easy for most to see why the PLP would want to increse racial division rather than to decrease something it is a clear beneficiary of. In fact Dr. Brown has stated that the existence of racial division is the PLP’s whole reason for existing. Without racial division the PLP has no reason to exist.
It is hard for me to see how any cause could be more important to a newspaper other than to advance the public’s access to information. In fact, one could say that it is a newspaper’s “whole reason for existing”. Without access to information a newspaper has no reason to exist. Unless, of course, you think that getting the PLP out of power is their raison d’etre. If that’s the case, let’s hope for their staff’s sake that the PLP never get booted out.
vanz said
“The question of the motives for the “Big Conversation” come from fundamental problems people have with the actual execution of it; like having the whole thing controlled by a radical black activist,”
ironically rolfe has been tainted with the radical blk activist tag by the RG – i know some radical blk activist – and rolfe is not one – he speaks his mind on race issues which i see in bda gets u labeled a racist.
and to play devil’s advocate – when al campainis (VP for teh LA Dodgers) said on live TV that blks didn’t have the IQ to be baseball managers – the dodgers axed him immediately and hired a blk prof. from UCLA to help deal with reg race problem in baseball – teh prof. immediateley re-hired campainis saying if we are going to truly deal the with the race we need people like campainis to do so – bda’s race problem is so repressed that u need someone like rolfe to open things up – bring out people’s real emotions as opposed to the fake lip service that was previously given to the race issue – CURE has been around for a while but has not really made a dent because it’s all about dealing with race by not making people feel uncomfortable – and that as we have seen – gets us nowhere in bringing the races closer together
Mike Taylor said
Vanz,
If by “tainted” you mean that the Gazzette has published his opinions which has in turn allowed the public to form their own opinions about him then I would agree. If you mean that the majority of people in Bermuda hold similar beliefs to Rolfe then I would have to also agree that, regrettably, a very large proportion of people in Bermuda probably do have similar feelings. I label him as radical because I feel that he is at one polar extreme of the views regarding race in Bermuda (the small minority of overt racists on either side removed from the equation). Semantics aside, the important point is that I have a sneaking suspiscion that most white Bermudians and a significant proportion of black Bermudians find his views to be highly objectionable.
If you think that someone like Rolfe Commissiong will help us bring the races closer together I hope you are right since I suspect that we will be seeing more of the same from the govt. on race relations for the next 5 years. Perhaps Dr. Brown should hire Sal or Biggie too. I strongly suspect however, that the opposite of this theory is true.
All previous efforts at improving race relations have not been fake or insincere and it would be difficult to argue that we have not come a great distance at a more or less steady pace over the past 40. I would agree with you though, that CURE under the PLP has been mostly fake and insencere – focussing on presenting misleading data in order to exaggerate the extent of inequality with the intent and actual result of increasing racial divivision.
vanz said
“I would agree with you though, that CURE under the PLP has been mostly fake and insencere…”
no no no – that was not what i said – as a matter of fact if i remember correctly CURE was a UBP initiative that never really got the grassroots love that such an endeavour needs because everyday people have always known that the UBP have always been insincere about race relations – again – maybe u live in a small world but rolfe’s views are hardly radical – put it this way – mike huckabee – a fairly MOR republican recently claimed that abortions in the US is the reason that the US does not have enuff workers to do the jobs that illegal mexicans do – bill clinton a democrat recently said that basically SC didn’t vote for his wife because she’s white and Obama is blk – that’s bill clinton calling the blks of an entire state racist – and then there’s mitt romney – another moderate republican who belongs to a church that up until the 70s said that blk people could not go to heaven – so the fact that rolfe calls white racism in bda what it is? – nasty – is hardly radical – maybe u should look up the word
Anna said
“CURE has been around for a while but has not really made a dent because it’s all about dealing with race by not making people feel uncomfortable – and that as we have seen – gets us nowhere in bringing the races closer together.”
Was the Big Conversation successfull in “bringing races closer together” OR “just making people feel uncomfortable”?
Are we closer now?
Was this considered more important than “workplace equity, the economy, elder care, education, tourism, the environment, healthcare, culture, and labour issues – to name a few”, as previously mentioned? And more important than PATI?
Or was it politically motivated?
vanz said
“Are we closer now?”
people have stopped pretending that we have no race problem – so i would say yes, we are closer to dealing with the race problem.
“Was this considered more important…”
racism is a debilitating social ill that if left unchecked can ruin countries – so yeah it’s important.
“Or was it politically motivated?”
i don’t understand the question – in a democratic society most social issues are politically motivated – abortion, gay rights, equal rights etc.
Mike Taylor said
Vanz,
“…CURE under the PLP has been mostly fake and insencere…”
no no no – that was not what i said ”
Yes it is – “..as opposed to the fake lip service that was previously given to the race issue – CURE has been around for a while but has not really made a dent”
OK, I think we all know you did not mean to paint the PLP in a negative light, but you walked right into it and I couldn’t resist. I know that CURE was a UBP initiative, hence the “under the PLP”.
My dictionary agrees with me that a radical is someone who represents extreme views. In my opinion Rolfe is a radical. How extreme is a radical? How heavy is a bag of feathers? Its all relative and to you; Rolfe is not radical. I don’t have a problem with that at all.
What is relevant to the BIG CONversation/PATI analogy is people’s perceptions; not whether or not their perceptions are valid.
vanz said
what has rolfe said that is radical? i mean this – i know that people say he has said radical things but i have not seen any of what he has said.
Suzanne said
“I would agree with you though, that CURE under the PLP has been mostly fake and insencere – focussing on presenting misleading data in order to exaggerate the extent of inequality with the intent and actual result of increasing racial division…”
wow…in all sincerity, please tell me exactly what it is you are suggesting is happening at CURE. Are you saying that CURE is manipulating the data collected? “Misleading data” – how is it misleading?
sarah said
yes, everything the PLP does is misleading. i pray for teh day that the UBP is in office again. there ar eno racialnequities in bermuda at all and those who say there are, ar ejust lying.
Mike Taylor said
Vanz,
There was the column where he said “Any day the words, “white supremacy” appear in the newspaper it is a good day.” I can’t search the RG online anymore so I’ll stick with one example rather than risk misquoting him. Anyway, whether the statement is right or wrong it seems radical to me. It also is worth noting that you have described him as “nasty”. It could be that some people prefer to use the term “radical” as an awkward euphemism for “confrontational a55hole”.
vanz said
“confrontational a55hole” – i think the cops who arrested rosa parks called her that too.
Mike Taylor said
Suzanne,
I did not say that they manipulate data, I said they have focussed on misleading data. This is off topic but you can check the archives at http://www.limeyinbermuda.com where my views on this are explained in detail. Denis Pitcher has also discussed this in more than one thread on his website. That, said, CURE has made improvements since many of those discussions took place (which I applaud them for) so please be aware of the dates on any posts.
Mike Taylor said
Vanz,
“confrontational a55hole” – i think the cops who arrested rosa parks called her that too.” Now you are giving me a history lesson. I had never heard that part of the Rosa Parks story. What is your point?
Mike Taylor said
Sarah,
Are you being sarcastic?
vanz said
The bus drive then said, “Why don’t you stand up?” Parks responded, “I don’t think I should have to stand up.” “When he saw me still sitting, he asked if I was going to stand up, and I said, ‘No, I’m not.’ And he said, ‘Well, if you don’t stand up, I’m going to have to call the police and have you arrested.’
As the officer took her away, she recalled that she asked, “Why do you push us around?” The officer’s response as she remembered it was, “I don’t know, but the law’s the law, and you’re under arrest.”
sounds pretty confrontational to me – after all – she was breaking the LAW.
Mike Taylor said
Vanz,
Your point was that Rosa Parks was confrontational? Glad you pointed that out for us.
vanz said
no my point is that the only thing that rolfe is guilty of is being confrontational about the race issue – he’s not burning crosses or infringing on people’s civil liberties – he’s simply being confrontational about racism in bda.
Mike Taylor said
“…the only thing that rolfe is guilty of is being confrontational about the race issue…” Tempting me again. I will resist this time.
Seriously though I agree with that post for the most part but fail to see the relevance to this discussion or how it contradicts anything anyone has said in this thread.