Relaunch of Catch-A-Fire

Almost three years ago (well, October 26th, 2015 to be exact) I mothballed this blog.

At the time I stressed that the blog wasn’t dead, just that I was putting it to rest while I focused on other things, largely so that I could focus on a new job without being distracted or having this blog negatively impact my ability to do my work.

Well, now it’s time to reactive the site. I'm_Back

I’m going to avoid local politics, and politics generally, although I may muse on global events and politics from time to time, as well as political theory and philosophy. For the most part I want to try something slightly different and look at policy matters.

I’m not quite sure what that will involve at the moment, however I’m currently seeking inspiration from some other blogs that focus on policy analysis and to begin with I’ll probably use them as a template until I’ve got my groove back.

I’m also going to respond to public consultations as I’m aware of them and try to encourage greater awareness of the issues around them as I learn about them. Which will likely involve me leaving my comfort areas of environmental issues – which is fine, that’s how one grows after all!

I’m going to try to post at least once a week, and I might vary between a short post and then a much more detailed post. I’m not sure. I’m really just going to be experimenting initially.

I decided to reactivate this blog rather than start a new one, primarily because I’m familiar with it and it has some familiarity to readers too. Over time I may decide it truly is time to end this site and launch a whole new one.

I’m open to feedback on that.

Door closes, window opens… Welcome back 21square!

While I’ve ended commentary on local politics, I’m pleased to see that 21square has come back to life.

I always appreciated 21square’s perspective and reasoned commentary, even if we naturally had our ideological disagreements. So, I’m happy that while I may be ending local political commentary another site has come back to life right at the same time.

 

So long, farewell, auf wiedersehen, good night.

This site has been operating now since January 2007. Throughout this time it has changed quite a bit, both in terms of its focus and its writing style.

I’ve enjoyed writing here.

The flame's not out. Just taking a break. :-)

The flame’s not out. Just taking a break. 🙂

However, after almost eight years, it’s time for a change.

I’m not saying the blog is dead.

I’m not necessarily stopping the blog. However, it is going to undergo a change.

A good chunk of this blog has focused on local politics, first as an independent pro-PLP site when I was an active member of the PLP, and since then as an independent, non-aligned, political blog.

I am not able to continue that particular line of writing going forward, at least not for the forseeable future. Effective immediately I am ceasing all commentary on local politics.

What that means for the blog, I don’t really know. I’ve been experimenting over the last few months with a non-political writing style. Thoughts on books or articles I’m reading, a review of this or that legislation (in a non-political way), or a look at historical (or other) speeches/writings which I think are simply interesting.

I’d like to experiment some more with such an approach.

I realise they don’t quite have the same popular appeal as posts framed around local politics. However, I’ve enjoyed them and found them quite stimulating. Whether readers agree, I don’t know. But needs must.

So, as regards blogging about local politics, adieu, adieu to you and you and you!

And for the sake of clarity, the above also applies to Facebook and Twitter.

My Vote Starling page on Facebook has already been converted to this blogs Facebook page, and my Twitter handle has changed to a non-political one. The Vote Starling website that I set up for the election has also been retired. The ‘About’ page has also been changed already to reflect this change in direction.

Reflections

I have tried over the years to engage in reasoned discussion.

I have my positions; I’ve never hid them. I have, however, tried to listen to others and been willing to change my mind if convinced by an argument. I’ve tried to be respectful of others and their positions. To what degree I’ve succeeded in any of that is not something I can really judge however. All I can say is that I’ve tried my best.

I am hopeful that other voices will continue to grow in strength and number to continue these political discussions going forward, even if I am not able to participate actively along with them.

While much of these conversations are quick to descend into partisan shouting matches and personal attacks, there are also good conversations where individuals come away from them with healthy respect for the other, positions have been clarified and perhaps even one or two minds changed.

Perhaps it’s wishful thinking on my part, however, I’d like to think that – in time – we’ll have more of the latter and less of the former.

On a related note, I realise that my ending local political commenting further reduces the number of local blogs providing local political commentary. Blogs provide a much different contribution in terms of such commentary, very much different from the more rapid-fire conversations that social media like Facebook and Twitter offer. They provide a greater in-depth more constructed argument in my opinion.

If we are to achieve a sustainable Bermuda then one thing we also need to achieve is sustainable and respectful conversations that are based on constructive dialogue, mutual respect and and reasoned debate which together contribute to positive change for our island. Central to this is the ability to listen to the other and reflect on what is being said rather than reacting. We must learn to listen to each other with enough care to learn from each other if we are to work together for our common interests.

I remain hopeful that such is achievable, and I wish you well.

Continuity?

One last note. I hope that someone else will pick up the baton of local political commentary. There is a space there for a critical progressive voice out there, and that’s what this site tried to do.

While I’m no longer able to continue that, I am happy to help facilitate anyone that wishes to do so. Just drop me a line.

There are already a number of other voices out there, writing on their own sites, on Facebook or in the media. I’ve enjoyed sharing the platform with them and learning from them.

Coming Out

Just a short note here. I wanted to commend Mr Deacon for this post and helping to raise awareness about this issue – and mental health generally.

I also have the occassional bout of depression, and have over the years learned how to manage it better. But there’s a lot of stigma and myths attached to it, and other, conditions that need to be dispelled. I hope that this post by him can help with that.

Bermuda Blue

I often hear people say that they are depressed. Of course, what they really mean is that they are unhappy, they would not use the phrase if they were aware of what it really meant.

What is depression? Here is one definition but it will vary from person to person, depending on the severity of the symptoms.

Why am I writing about this? Well, I suffer from depression and thought it was time to ‘come out’. I was diagnosed about four years ago and since then it has been on my mind to write about my experiences.

For the rest, click here: http://bernews.com/2015/10/opinion-time-come/#comment-3059342

View original post

BPSU AGM, Thursday October 8th, 2015

There’s quite a bit of discussion on social media and the RG today regarding the BPSU’s upcoming general meeting slated for this Thursday (5:30pm at St Paul’s AME Church). A lot of this seems to stem from an anonymously authored email/flyer that makes certain statements in a particular phrasing.

In the hope of ensuring the conversations around this are more informed, I thought I’d provide some key excerpts from the BPSU’s Constitution and their recently released 2014-2015 Annual Report, which generally answers or clarifies some of the issues in question.

I encourage members (and others) to take the time to review the entire report. I am only taking excerpts that answer some of the key questions, in the hope of providing a quick read.

I stress I am not taking any sides or making an opinion hereBPSU AGM

I am just quoting from the publicly available report concerning the issues that seem to be causing most of the concerns in social media. I leave it up to readers to come to their own conclusions, and encourage members to attend the meeting to voice any concerns or seek further clarity.

I am not a member of the BPSU, so I do not speak for them. Just providing a ‘public service’ in the hope of more informed discussion. 🙂

AGM 2015

The meeting called for tomorrow is in accordance with Article V (Organisation), Section 2(a) (General Membership Meetings, subsection (i) of the BPSU’s Constitution (as amended in February 2015). In particular, this reads:

2(a) General Membership Meetings

i) The General Council shall convene a General Membership Meeting at least once a year.

Notice of this meeting was initially given on August 18th, 2015.

Why this ” is the first general meeting that the BPSU will have had in decades” according to a statement by the BPSU President in the RG article in question, is not something I can answer. Without looking at an older copy of the Constitution (pre-2015) I cannot say whether the Constitution required such a meeting previously, or if this was somehow neglected to date. I don’t know.

BPSU President acting as Treasurer

Page 25 of the report provides clarity on this:

“The BPSU received the resignation from both the 2nd Vice President and Treasure and, as a result, a bi-election was called to fill the two vacant positions…. […] As a result of no nominations being made for the post of Treasurer, the General Council was charged with electing an officer from General Council to serve as Treasurer until the next Triennial Election. In June 2015, the General Council elected the President Brother Jason Hayward to take on the additional responsibilities as Treasurer of the BPSU. For additional financial oversight, a Finance Committee was also appointed to ensure that the BPSU finances are under proper stewardship.”

I do not see anything in the report that speaks to claims the BPSU President is also receiving $10k as compensation for this role in addition to his Presidential salary.

The BPSU President’s Salary

Page 25 provides information concerning the Presidency becoming a full-time paid position, while page 26 provides information concerning his salary. Regarding the salary question, the relevant paragraphs are:

“The delegates also approved the formulation of a President’s Post Review Committee that was tasked with determining appropriate remuneration for the post and to explore the feasibility of this post being filled in the future by secondments and leaves of absence.”

“On September 9, 2015, the General Council decided that the salary for the post of the President will be set at $119,478.70. This salary was based on a review completed by a Presidents Post Review Committee (PPRC) and an independent HR firm. The PPRC recommended a salary of $141,458.77 and the HR firm recommended salaries of $110,000 (entry level), $131,000 (midpoint level), $154,000 (maximum level). Other factors that were taken into consideration were salaries of the Secretariat Staff, the President’s current responsibility, and financial sustainability.”

Attendance Records, etc.

The report makes for some interesting reading, and I think it’s good for all members (and the general public) to review it to learn more about what the union has been doing and where it’s going. Members, for instance, might find the attendance records of Officers (pages 39-41) interesting for example, amongst other interesting bits in the report.

“To Hell With Paradise”

Readers will perhaps be aware that, stemming from the recent sea glass incident, I thought it might be a good idea to try and have a conversation about tourism in general and what kind of tourism we want for Bermuda. This post seeks to continue that.

It’s not my intention here really to give an opinion, per se.

Rather, what I want to do is put forward some excerpts from a speech, dating from the 1970s, by the then Prime Minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines. The idea is for readers to reflect on his ideas and ask themselves to what degree his sentiments then are still applicable today, not just for Bermuda but for the entire Caribbean.

I’m not able to find an online link to his speech, so I’ve taken these excerpts from a Sports Illustrated article. The entire article is well worth reading, and can be found here.

Speech by Prime Minister James Mitchell in Haiti, 1972

“As premier of my state, you will pardon me, I hope, if I appear not too anxious to grab the easiest dollar. The tourist dollar alone, unrestricted, is not worth the devastation of my people. A country where the people have lost their soul is no longer a country—and not worth visiting.” 

“It is inappropriate to talk about trade winds whispering on islands where poverty shouts.” 

James Mitchell, former Prime Minister of St Vincent & the Grenadines.

James Mitchell, former Prime Minister of St Vincent & the Grenadines.

“[Government policy should be] development of our people while giving good value.”

“One myth that needs to be exploded is the idea of the Caribbean paradise. There is no paradise, only different ways of life. The North American trying to escape a big-city problem like air pollution may not recognise the West Indian’s problem of lack of opportunity in a small island – but it is a problem just the same.”

“[St Vincent will concentrate on small numbers of tourists] whose idea of holiday is not heaven but participation in a different experience.”

“St Vincent needs tourism, but we must deal in realities. That’s why it’s wrong to talk of paradise. It’s an image that can only disappoint; tourists come and find roads potholed or they find poverty and ignorance. It’s the same with yachtsmen. We’re not going to control the tides. Some days it might be rainy or rough. But in these islands you have a better run for your money.”

“We mustn’t become overdependent on tourism. We want balanced tourism. This means serving homegrown vegetables and lobster caught the same day instead of imported caviar and steak. This will preserve our agriculture and keep tourist revenues going out for imported food. It’s what visitors want, too. They want to see things indigenous to the islands, like cultivated fields and fishing boats leaving.”

Thoughts?

As said, I don’t intend to give an opinion here. I just thought that these excerpts were interesting, and I wonder how relevant they may still be some forty years later.

What do you think?

Branding Bermuda – An Addendum

In my previous post I intended to provide the relevant excepts of the various legislation that the America’s Cup Act 2014 exempts the America’s Cup (and its associated ‘corporate’ partners) from in Bermuda. Unfortunately, it was just getting to be a far too big an article, so I ended up just dealing with the most relevant one for that article.

And so, here, I provide the remaining advertising exemptions granted by the America’s Cup Act 2014.

Just as a reminder, this is the relevant section of the America’s Cup Act 2014 concerning advertising exemptions:

3 – In relation to advertising of and at the Bermuda Events, ACEA and its designated commercial partners, and the Teams and their designated commercial partners, shall be exempt from –

(a) sections 2, 3, 4 and 6(c) of the Advertisements Regulation Act 1911;

(b) section 14(4) of the Development and Planning Act 1974;

(c) the Motor Car (Control of Design, Colour and Advertising Matter) Regulations 1952; and

(d) sections 3 and 4 of the Alcohol Advertisement (Health Warning) Act 1993.

I addressed subsection (a) in my previous post. As the entire Motor Car (Control of Design, Colour and Advertising Matter) Regulations 1952 is exempted, I’m simply going to direct you to read the entire Act than reproduce it here… (opens as a pdf).

Development and Planning Act 1974

Section 14 (Development requiring planning permission) – Only subsection (4) of this section is exempted under the America’s Cup Act 2014.

Section 14(4)

Without prejudice to the Advertisements Regulation Act 1911 [title 20 item 9], the use for the display of advertisements of any external part of a building that is not normally used for that purpose shall be treated for the purposes of this section as involving a material change in the use of that part of the building.

Alcohol Advertisement (Health Warning) Act 1993 – Only sections 3 and 4 are exempted under the America’s Cup Act 2014.

Section 3 (Alcohol advertisement in printed publications; Schedule)

(1) No person shall print or publish an alcohol advertisement in a printed publication to which this section applies unless the advertisement bears the health warning as set out in the Schedule.

(2) This section applies to – 

(a) any newspaper with majority ownership by Bermudians printed or published in Bermuda;

(b) any periodical, magazine or other publication with majority ownership by Bermudians printed or published in Bermuda.

Section 4 (Health warning when alcohol advertisement displayed; Schedule)

No person shall – 

(a) display; or

(b) publish or distribute for the purpose of display,

an alcohol advertisement in writing or other permanent form or semi-permanent form unless the advertisement bears the health warning as set out in the Schedule.

Summary

Basically the America’s Cup Act 2014 exemptions here remove the need to include health warnings regarding alcohol and remove the need for planning permission (and all the related checks and balances that involves) for advertising on the outsides of buildings.

Although I haven’t included the Motor Car (Control of Design, Colour and Advertising Matter) Regulations 1952, it is a relatively short Act (six pages). Some of the key sections though are:

Section 4 (General Principles)

The superficial design and colour of restricted motor cars and trailers and of any advertising matter displayed thereon shall be regulated and controlled by order of the Minister –

(a) so as to conduce to road safety; and

(b) so as to preserve as far as possible the amenities of Bermuda, notwithstanding any consideration of private gain.

Other sections generally provide regulations for lettering, colour, designs, etc, mostly with regard to ensuring road safety. I encourage readers to read through it fully though. It is mostly an Act about advertising on vehicles, as is indicated by its name.

Thoughts?

Branding Bermuda

“As a private person, I have a passion for landscape, and I have never seen one improved by a billboard. Where every prospect pleases, man is at his vilest when he erects a billboard. When I retire from Madison Avenue, I am going to start a secret society of masked vigilantes who will travel around the world on silent motor bicycles, chopping down posters at the dark of the moon. How many juries will convict us when we are caught in these acts of beneficent citizenship? —David Ogilvy, founder of the Ogilvy & Mather advertising agency, in Confessions of an Advertising Man, 1963”An excerpt from Naomi Klein’s No Logo.

There’s some questions on social media about the erection of various giant-sized corporate logos around the island, on various key landmarks. The first one I believe went up on Seon Place the other day, however most of the focus (and, I think it should be said, concern) is on Gibbs Hill Lighthouse.

From the America's Cup Twitter account.

From the America’s Cup Twitter account.

Quite a few people are pointing out the apparent hypocrisy between the Government recently clamping down on various breaches of the Advertising Regulations Act 1911 and this America’s Cup advertising campaign.

So, why is the America’s Cup advertising okay?

The answer to this lies in the exemptions, regarding advertising, granted in the America’s Cup Act 2014 (which Bernews pointed out). Specifically, the exemptions in question are in Part 2 of the Act ‘Concessions & Exemptions’:

Advertising

3 – In relation to advertising of and at the Bermuda Events, ACEA and its designated commercial partners, and the Teams and their designated commercial partners, shall be exempt from –

(a) sections 2, 3, 4 and 6(c) of the Advertisements Regulation Act 1911;

(b) section 14(4) of the Development and Planning Act 1974;

(c) the Motor Car (Control of Design, Colour and Advertising Matter) Regulations 1952; and

(d) sections 3 and 4 of the Alcohol Advertisement (Health Warning) Act 1993.

I won’t go into detail on (c) above, however I thought it might be educational for readers to understand what the other exemptions above are. So below, to save people the trouble of going through all the various Acts themselves, are the relevant sections relating to advertising that the America’s Cup Act 2014 allows.

Advertisements Regulation Act 1911

Section 2 (Restriction of exhibition of advertisements)

No person shall, except as otherwise provided by this Act, exhibit any advertisement, upon or over any land except – 

(a) advertisements upon any land relating solely to any entertainment, meeting, auction or sale to be held upon, or in relation to such land or to any property thereon; or

(b) announcements of the sale or letting of such land; or

(c) announcements or copies of any proclamation or official notice published by authority of the Governor, the Supreme Court, any Justice of the Peace, either branch of the Legislature, any Government Department, any Government Board, or any officer holding a commission in Her Majesty’s Forces; or

(d) announcements or notices duly published by proper authority of any meeting of freeholders or others for any parliamentary, municipal or parochial election, or other purpose; or

(e) advertisements or announcements upon any land, within either municipal area, being land duly licensed for the exhibition of advertisements by the respective municipal corporations : Provided that in all such excepted cases, the advertisements shall not contain letters, effigies, figures or other advertising emblems exceeding twelve inches in height; or

(f) advertisements or announcements exhibited inside a display window of an agent’s business premises of any business, entertainment or occurrence in respect of which such agent acts; or

(g) advertisements or announcements exhibited inside of any shop, store or place of business, other than any public vehicle or ferry boat; or

(h) advertisements relating to the sale of land at auction or otherwise; or

(i) advertisements relating to the arrival or departure of any ship belonging to or employed by any line or company the ships of which ordinarily ply between Bermuda and elsewhere; or

(j) advertisements published in any book, newspaper, magazine, calendar or periodical; or

(k) announcements, in letters not exceeding fifteen inches each in height or width, of the business name of the company, firm or person carrying on business on the premises and the general character of the business carried on therein.

Section 3 (Illuminated and other signs visible from street; sky-signs)

(1) No person shall – 

(a) erect upon, or fix to, or exhibit above, any land, any advertisement supported on or attached to, any post, pole, standard, framework or other support which, or any part of which, or the support of which, is visible against the sky from some point in any street or public way; or

(b) use or exhibit any kite, balloon, parachute or other similar device, employed wholly or in part for the purpose of any advertisement or announcement, over any land or street; or

(c) exhibit any flashing or illuminated sign which is visible to any person on any public street or public way.

(2) For the  purposes of subsection (1)(a), an advertisement, the uppermost part of which is no higher than the roof line of any building on the plot on which it is situate, shall not be deemed to contravene the provisions of that paragraph.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)(c), an “illuminated sign” means a sign used or intended to be used for the purpose of advertising the lettering or design of which is illuminated from within the components constituting the lettering or design. 

Section 4 (Vehicle exhibiting advertisements; sandwich man)

No person shall – 

(a) act, or employ any other person to act, as a sandwich man or for similar purposes to walk through any public street or highway, solely or chiefly for the purposes of exhibiting advertisements; (b) in any public street or highway draw, wheel, ride or drive any vehicle used solely or chiefly for the purpose of exhibiting advertisements.

Section 6 (Corporation of Hamilton)

The Corporation of Hamilton may grant a licence in respect of any land within the municipal area of the City of Hamilton, for the purpose of posting, placing or exhibiting advertisements:

Provided that – 

(a) before any licence is granted in respect of any land not the property of the Corporation, the permission of the owner or occupier shall be first obtained;

(b) any such licence shall be subject to such terms, conditions and notice of discontinuance as the Corporation may deem expedient; and

(c) the space on any hoarding, or other structure used for advertising purposes, shall not exceed six feet in height.

I’ll post in a separate article what those other exemptions are, as I think this post is long enough as it is.

NB – Only subsection (c) of section 6 (Corporation of Hamilton) above is relevant as regards the America’s Cup Act 2014, however I felt it wouldn’t make sense without reading it in the context of the entire section.

So, what do you think? Are you happy with these big advertisements going up on our landmarks? Are you looking forward to the other exemptions relating to advertising still to come?

This post is essentially a public service announcement, an ‘educational’ article. Happy to hear people’s views on it all though.

If anyone wants to read Ms Klein’s excellent book ‘No Logo’, this link opens to a pdf version of it.

Service/Servitude/Tourism/Whorism?

There has been an interesting response to my story on responsible tourism, where I hoped to at least get some people thinking about what kind of tourism do we want for Bermuda (and what kind of tourism do we not want).

One can read the full response here on BIAW. AMCAM

I thought it would be a good idea t quickly respond to it though:

  1. AMCAM wonders how I figure the actions of Ms Fox constituted ‘irresponsible tourism’. To understand that one needs to look at how I define ‘responsible tourism’, which I do in the same article (for just this purpose). The definition I use, which I think is a good one, is that used by the International Ecotourism society ‘responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and improves the well-being of local people’. A tourist coming, carting of some 70 pounds of sea glass (part of our environment), and in doing so hurting local artisans, would seem to be very much contrary to any interpretation of responsible tourism. Thus my reasoning that her actions constituted ‘irresponsible tourism’. I’m surprised I had to explain that. AMCAM is usually one of the most insightful commentators on tourism issues after all…
  2. ‘Imperialist mindset of a White American tourist’ – AMCAM takes particular exception to my choice of phrasing here. Perhaps it’s useful to expand on it for his (and others) benefits. Ms Fox is a White American tourist. That’s a statement of fact. That in itself means little, in as much as the vast majority of our tourists could be so defined. And that’s fine. However, to believe that there’s no racial dynamics involved in tourism featuring Whites expecting to be served hand and foot by a majority Black population in a country with a history of slavery and segregation where Blacks were forced (overtly and covertly) to serve Whites for centuries is to be delusional. Service doesn’t need to be servitude, that’s clear. And it shouldn’t be. The relationship should be one of hospitality to guests – a host-guest relationship, rather than a master-servant relationship. However, there are certain things such as White privilege here, as well as power dynamics and historical factors at play. We shouldn’t kid ourselves that this is not a reality. As for ‘imperialist mindset’, that seems quite an apt fit for describing a mindset of someone coming to someones homeland and simply helping themselves to the resources there and seeing no problem in doing so. It is an exploitative and imperialist mindset. The history of the Americas is full of this tendency, of Whites coming, expecting the ‘natives’ to be their ‘happy’ servants and generally raping and pillaging the environment. Ms Fox’s actions, while obviously no where as barbaric as the conquests of the Americas, follows this general mindset, and accordingly is resented as such within the general prism of our collective (Americas) history. I don’t need to ‘think twice’ before describing the incident in question as representative of an imperialist mindset by a White American tourist. It simply strips away the niceties that usually obscure these things. It quite aptly describes the incident. It may not be in terms that make AMCAM or others comfortable, as it touches on matters of race and exploitation, but so what? If the description fits and all…
  3. ‘Claims are conjecture’ ‘rant’ – All I did was provide a general summary of what was reported in the media, and by Ms Fox herself. It is a fact that Ms Fox came to Bermuda for the explicit purpose of collecting sea glass for her business. It is a fact that she collected approximately 70 pounds worth of sea glass. It is a fact that she then exported this sea glass back to the USA. It is a fact that she is using this sea glass for the purpose of making a profit. How any of that equals ‘conjecture’ is beyond me. What is circumstantial is where she collected all her 70 pounds worth of sea glass (was it at sea glass beach – which seems probable – where there is a sign forbidding such?), and I didn’t make any firm statement on that at all. It is my understanding that removing sea glass and doing so for business reasons like she did, is illegal. It may be okay for local artisans to do so in a small-scale sustainable way, but it is not okay for a ‘tourist’ to act in such an unsustainable way. Not quite sure how it constitutes a ‘rant’ however. I’m happy with people disagreeing with me and putting forward a counter-argument. Heck, that’s what I called for, a conversation. Not barbs. If AMCAM want’s to put forward a counter-position, I welcome him to do just that.
  4. ‘Jonathan, Bermuda does not need your brand of tourism!’ – And which brand of tourism is that? The brand of tourism I explicitly suggested Bermuda should adopt was that or responsible tourism, of which I provided a definition. Is AMCAM saying that Bermuda doesn’t need a brand of tourism based on ‘responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and improves the well-being of local people’? Is AMCAM suggesting we should instead advocate a brand of tourism that does the opposite, that seeks to damage the environment and hurt the well-being of local people? If that’s the kind of tourism AMCAM believes we should have, I’m sure the majority of our people would respectfully disagree. And if that’s not what AMCAM means, then what does he mean, and what sort of ‘brand of tourism’ does he think I’m advocating then? It’s either a poor argument on his part (misrepresenting my argument) or, well, I don’t know what else. If I’m charitable I’d suggest he only read the first half of the post and didn’t bother to read it all and consider the argument.

Ultimately, I’m all for serving our tourists as hosts do guests. I think that’s healthy. I do not support a form of tourism predicated on servitude, in a master-servant dynamic. And I’m for a tourism where tourists come here to enjoy our natural environment and culture, that engages in a non-exploitative manner with our environment, culture and economy.

I’m not for a form of tourism that, in the Caribbean, has been called ‘whorism’, a wholly exploitative form of tourism. This doesn’t necessarily mean sex tourism, but rather the general approach of engaging with our environment, culture and economy in a fundamentally exploitative manner.

But let’s have that conversation.

Derek Walcott, 1992 Nobel prize winner for literature.

Derek Walcott, 1992 Nobel prize winner for literature.

I think it’s appropriate here to conclude with an excerpt from Derek Walcott’s Nobel prize speech:

“But in our tourist brochures the Caribbean is a blue pool into which the republic dangles the extended foot of Florida as inflated rubber islands bob, and drinks with umbrellas float towards here on a raft. This is how the islands from shame of necessity sell themselves; this is the seasonal erosion of their identity, that high-pitched repetition of the same images of service that cannot distinguish one island from the other, with a future of polluted marinas, land deals negotiated by ministers, and all of this conducted to the music of Happy Hour and the rictus of a smile. What is the earthly paradise for our visitors? Two weeks without rain and a mahogany tan, and, at sunset, local troubadours in straw hats and floral shirts beating ‘Yellow Bird’ and ‘Banana Boat Song’ to death.”

Freedom of Speech – An Update

Just yesterday I wrote that the way Mr Kimathi was put on the stop list would make him a martyr and would be counterproductive. I wrote that:

“It actually benefits Mr Kimathi as he can now appeal to his followers about an injustice, and use it to fuel his ravings. It’s easy to spin – the reason I was banned was because I spoke the truth and threatened the White elite who rule Bermuda! Easily done.”

And today there’s this article where Mr Kimathi argues he was banned because “special interest groups, particularly the promosexuals and homosexuals have conspired” resulting in him being “banned from a black country.”

Now, I’m not a PR person or a spin doctor or nothing. Surely though if I could see this was going to be the reaction, others could do?

Mr Kimathi can now complain of a conspiracy, of an injustice. And those on island who agree with him will likely harden their views now. Surely it would have been better to have allowed the Human Rights Commission to finish and publish its investigation first, and allow for his views to be defeated with counter-arguments (which really shouldn’t have been hard)?

Hopefully lesson learned and we’ll handle any future incident differently. In the mean time, while this may well pass soon enough, how do we go about now constructively dismissing Mr Kimathi’s hateful pseudo-scientific propaganda?

***Updated***

There is now also an e-petition calling for Mr Kimathi to be removed from the stop-list:

“Bermuda as a whole can decide whether Mr Kimathi is welcome again in Bermuda . His opinions no matter how they are said . should not be used as a political foothold to silence the voices of people in Bermuda.”