If Only The World Had More Of This

It's images like this that give me hope for humanity.

Protesters Are Awesome: Look at This Beautiful Photo of Christians Protecting Praying Muslims in Egypt

Depicted in this photo, an image from an anonymous source on the ground in Egypt, is a team of Egyptian Christians forming a massive human shield to protect their Muslim countrymen as they prayed during the violent protests yesterday. Beauty amid the chaos.

The Right Move

While not officially confirmed by the two parties, sources from the BDA and UBP have apparently reported to the Royal Gazette that there is a merge in their future.

A number of things would be necessary if such a merge were to be successful: A new leader who is both well respected and well spoken, the new post-merge party would require such a leader to allow it to define itself and not be defined as the New-BP by the PLP as the BDA was; A new structure, somewhere in between the openness of the BDA and the traditional structure of the UBP; A clear statement (or re-statement) of the political views of the party, to avoid the disaster that was the launch of the BDA; And finally (as much as I hate to admit it) potentially a new name, I'm completely opposed in principle to a change in name, but if that's what it would take to make the new party a viable choice for future government then that's what needs to be done.

It will be very interesting to get more information as this situation develops, but I think that it is certainly a positive development.

I Just Don't Understand

How can this:

"Commodities broker Seaboard Overseas Ltd is to close its Bermuda office with loss of 12 jobs.

The Royal Gazette understands that the operation will be relocated to the Isle of Man, following the closure of the Bermuda office on April 30.

The posts to go are held by seven Bermudians and five expatriates. The company, which is based in Schroders House, on Front Street, has had a presence on the Island for some three decades... A source with knowledge of the situation said the decision to relocate was taken for a number of reasons, including the rising cost of doing business, the restrictions imposed by work permit time limits and the comparative advantages of the Isle of Man",

and this:

"The Progressive Labour Party now has more support than at any time since winning the 2007 general election, according to a new poll"

be in the newspaper on the exact same day?

I have written previously that I'm completely in favour of giving Paula Cox a chance to prove herself as Premier, but the Progressive Labour Party has been in power for over a decade now. When does Bermuda put its foot down and say they've had long enough to prove themselves?

Reform? Ha!

Straight from the horse's mouth:

"Out of a commitment to putting Teaching and Learning at the forefront of the Ministry of Education's mission, Minister Dame Jennifer Smith announced more education reform on Friday

Dame Jennifer reassigned Mrs. Wendy McDonnell, former Commissioner of Education. Mrs. McDonnell will no longer focus on day to day operations. She will now lead the transformation of the Bermuda Public School System"

Are you as underwhelmed as I am?

One day there will be meaningful education reform





I hope.

More On Defamation

It is incredible to me that there is a pervasive inability to distinguish between the open and frank discussion necessary in a properly functioning democracy and the abuse of the right to freedom of speech.

In general an abuse of a right involves using the right in such a way as it infringes on the rights of others. The simplest way to illustrate this point is the example: “Your right to swing your fist stops where my face begins”. This is what laws restricting rights are for: protecting others.

In terms of freedom of speech you have to add one exception to the principle: whether the action is in the public interest (i.e. all political discussions), but even then there are many times when that particular restriction on freedom of speech can be applied legitimately.

In Bermuda such legitimate restrictions do exist in our Criminal Code, with numerous safeguards. The Royal Gazette has registered their opinion that “Only dictators determined to quell all dissent can have a use for a law like this” but let’s have a look at the law and see if that assessment really holds water.

"211         (1)          It is lawful to publish a fair comment respecting—

(a)          any of the matters with respect to which the publication of a fair report in

(b)          good faith for the information of the public is by section 210 declared to be lawful;

(c)           the public conduct of any person who takes part in public affairs,(i.e. Politicians) or respecting the character of any such person, so far as his character appears in that conduct; the conduct of any public officer or public servant in the discharge of his public functions, or respecting the character of any such person, so far as his character appears in that conduct;

(d)          the merits of any case, civil or criminal, which has been decided by any court of justice, or respecting the conduct of any person as a judge, party, witness, counsel or officer of the court, in any such case, or respecting the character of any such person, so far as his character appears in that conduct;

(e)          any published book or other literary production, or respecting the character of the author, so far as his character appears by such book or production;

(f)           any composition or work of art, or performance publicly exhibited, or respecting the character of the author or performer or exhibitor, so far as his character appears from the matter exhibited;

(g)          any public entertainment or sports, or respecting the character of any person conducting or taking part therein, so far as his character appears from the matter of the entertainment or sports, or the manner of conducting the same; or

(h)          any communication made to the public on any subject.

212         It is lawful to publish defamatory matter if the matter is true, and if it is for the

public benefit that the publication complained of should be made."

So here we have a law that protects, among other things, all political discussion and truths that are in the public’s best interest to be shared. Doesn’t it really seem like the Royal Gazette and I are talking about the same law does it?

For the benefit of truly understanding the implications of the argument being made by the Royal Gazette let’s assume that they are correct and that it is wrong to restrict freedom of speech in this way. Wording this argument in a different way: We should have the right to make “Any imputation concerning any person, or any member of his family, whether living or dead, by which the reputation of that person is likely to be injured, or by which he is likely to be injured in his profession, occupation or trade, or by which other persons are likely to be induced to shun, or avoid, or ridicule, or despise him” regardless of whether or not what we are saying is true or if it is in the public interest to say it because to remove such a right is an unacceptable restriction of freedom of speech. What does that actually mean?

Well it seems as though not even the one making that argument (i.e. the RG) knows what it actually means. While with their right hand they defend that right, with their left they suggest that it isn’t really a right at all. In fact they explicitly say “He [The alleged “victim”] can still bring a civil action. That was the right course at the beginning and it is the right course now.” Indicating clearly that they believe one should be punished if one is guilty of defamation and that it therefore isn’t a right (since one is not punished for exercising a right). So what is it that they really think? Does it really come down to a disagreement with the word crime?

I think partly yes. The other part seems to come from a disagreement with the punishment (the possibility of imprisonment rather than a monetary punishment) which, in itself, is no reason to declare the law unconstitutional or wrong. Coming back to the issue with the “c word” I find it difficult to understand  why civil action is preferred in this case over criminal. In both cases the idea is to prevent defamation by providing a punishment, in both cases lawyers are involved and in both cases the test for guilt is pretty much the same from what I understand. The only difference is that one path requires the alleged victim to understand the law and to have the money or guts to take their defamer on, the other doesn't.

We need to decide, as a country, what we believe is right. This does not come down to freedom of opinion as the Royal Gazette sought to portray it. It is about protecting people from unrestricted abuse of a right. Let’s accept it, there is no such thing as a right that remains a right no matter what extreme we wish to take it to, there is always a line. That line is at the point where we begin to infringe on the rights of others.  That is what this issue is really about. Do we believe that it is wrong to defame someone? Do we believe it is right that someone is punished for defaming someone? If the answer to both questions is yes then it’s the punishment that we must debate, not whether it is a crime or not since the answer to that question is clear if prejudice is put aside.

It would be a terrible shame if the Supreme Court were to declare this law unconstitutional.

That's The Spirit!

What does one do when charged with a crime which one is almost certainly guilty of?

Challenge the constitutionality of the law making crime illegal obviously... Or so the lawyer of Charles Richardson (charged with defamation) thinks.

Never mind that even many states in the country with arguably the most intense obsession with freedom of speech (the USA) accepts defamation as an illegal abuse of that freedom,  apparently this lawyer has uncovered a fundamental kernel of truth that we have all missed. I can't wait to watch this one play out.

For what it's worth, I welcome this new challenge to the ridiculous and tyrannical idea that our rights don't extend to the point at which they allow us to harm others. It's about time that I have the right to make

"any imputation concerning any person, or any member of his family, whether living or dead, by which the reputation of that person is likely to be injured, or by which he is likely to be injured in his profession, occupation or trade, or by which other persons are likely to be induced to shun, or avoid, or ridicule, or despise him." - Criminal Code 1907 Section 205 (2)

Without that right this country is no better than a authoritarian dictatorship!

Next target for this crusading protector of justice?

The right to shout fire in a crowded theatre.

Dr. Eva Hodgson Speaks About Race

Some people really are stuck in the past.

Every community has a men and women who insist on framing the modern world in the thinking of a time now passed. In Bermuda one such a person is Dr. Eva Hodgson. I intend no criticism of her personally, but I must admit there was palm-to-face action as I read her recent two part opinion piece in the Royal Gazette.

As far I can tell her point was twofold. Firstly that more needs to be done to combat the racism that she believes still exists in Bermuda and secondly that Bermuda needs to abandon the party system. On both counts I disagree..

On the first suggestion, that not enough is being done to combat racism Dr. Hodgson has a number of arguments which she unfortunately begins with the suggestion that:

"All whites benefited from the system even if they were neither employers nor politicians."

 Which unfortunately is neither true, nor helpful in combating the racial divisions in our society.

Let us take as an example to illustrate why that statement is not true whites who have immigrated from Eastern Europe since the end of slavery, they certainly weren't benefiting from the racist system of the 60s were they? Nor were the Irish, many of whom were only just getting out of poverty themselves after centuries of subjugation under the English.

Sentiments like that, which stereotype on the basis of race (i.e. are examples of racism), simply make it easier for certain people to adopt a "whites are bad" or "whites are out to get me" kind of mentality which, in turn, make it harder to tackle the disparities between the races and stoke racial tensions. It is through no malice that Dr. Hodgson makes that statement though, that I am sure. Her intentions are undoubtedly good, the problem is that she seems unable to widen her focus from anything, but race.

Let us examine the various examples of seeming preoccupation with race in the piece:

She says of the situation following universal suffrage:

"it was logical that the black Community would now wish to ensure that they had a majority of those who would represent their majority status and their interest among the decision makers."

Which is an understandable sentiment of that time.

Dr. Hodgson further comments on the racial make up of our legislature in lamenting the split in the PLP which:

"Reduced the number of blacks in Parliament." 

In both these statements we see one suggestion that is constant: that the colour of a politician trumps all, even looking back from today.Had this been presented in a "this was what the thinking was like then" way there would be no disagreement from me, but Dr. Hodgson seems to suggest she holds that view even now. I am sure it is self evident that basing a political decision on race is a bad idea, so I will simply leave it at that as an example of her unfailing focus on race.

It doesn't stop at politicians though. Dr. Hodgson also says:

"It also meant that as well intentioned blacks set their mind on positive social goals those goals became integration with whites and not justice for all blacks.

The general idea, that justice is more important than integration, is an interesting one. On the surface it seems reasonable, but when one actually considers what integration means it becomes significantly less rational sounding. Integration means, essentially, that race is irrelevant (because everyone lives and works together regardless) and that one is judged on the content of one's character, rather than on the colour of one's skin. If that isn't justice then I don't know what is. Leading civil rights activists have dreamed of such a world throughout the struggle, how strange now that Dr. Hodgson should decide that apparently it shouldn't be our priority. Apparently wide spread racial discrimination is still possible, even when race is no longer relevant in the decision making process of the majority of people! Go figure! When we remember Dr. Hodgson's borderline obsession with race it is no surprise that this argument is made, but once again the intentions are good. The only problem is that her obsession blinds her to reality.

As I have argued before, the disparities in income between the races now have little or nothing to do with race any more. If we imagined that everyone in Bermuda woke up tomorrow and found themselves coloured purple what would change? Would the next generation of purple people porn to those on or near the poverty line (many of whom were previously black) have it any easier than their parents? Or would the poverty trap prove itself just as inescapable in Bermuda as in other countries? I would hazard a guess that the poverty trap would be just as strong and the poor would stay poor, while the rich stayed rich. I.e. it is socioeconomic status, not race that causes the continuing disparity. Of course the origin of the problem is indeed race, but that is no longer what perpetuates it. We have two options:

• Large scale re-distribution of wealth from the wealthy to the poor so that everyone ends up equal
• Improving education/support for our youth so as to ensure that anyone who has the skills and the drive will succeed.

I know which one I prefer. What about Ms. Hodgson?

Neither! In fact there is only one thing that needs to be said about this topic according to Ms. Hodgson:

"Many of us have been angered by both the resistance and the dishonesty of the white community over the issue of the Equity Bill and the disparity between black and white salaries"

Ahh.. of course.. The implication that those who oppose it, oppose it because they're white, while any true black would support it.. That's constructive and, as usual, shows her inability to move beyond race.

In case we needed another example:

"even be occasions when some of those who are now white UBPers would agree with some of those who are now black PLPers"

 Goodness gracious I don't believe my eyes! A UBP supporter agreeing with a PLP supporter! Surely no!

Well firstly don't call me Surely (R.I.P.) and secondly don't overstate the level of racism in society. The UBP has been shown to have around a 50-50 black-white support base and from what I can tell the majority disagree with the PLP not because it has a lot of black people in it, but because they seriously believe it is taking the country in the wrong direction.

There was a time when race was the defining characteristic of a person and when it was necessary to take it into account when making decisions on how to better the country because that was how society worked and the only way to correct for society's obsession with race was to push back equally hard. However that time has passed, the majority of us no longer think in terms of black and white and I genuinely believe that the majority of employers in IB are no different. To continue to think in terms of black and white puts us at risk of ignoring the realities and problems of today in favour or assuming they are the same as yesterday. Dr. Hodgson correctly suggests that economic disparity and the existence of an underclass is a major problem in our society, but she illustrates my point in that the only cause she can conceive of is race. As good as her intentions are she is no better than the racists of old, both shared the same obsession with race. The legal guarantees of equality have all been won an it is now time to put race to bed. Our future, as much as even its mention causes anger in some sectors of the community, is colour blindness. I believe it's possible.

But perhaps thats just wishful thinking?