Human Rights In Bermuda

I have written before about discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but today I write not to make any particular argument, but to urge those who may be reading and who share a commitment to universal human rights without concern for who you love to come and show your support on the 25th of May  from 13:00 - 14:00.

The organizer gives a bit of background:

"On Tuesday May 1, within two days of returning home from school, I was given 15 minutes to leave Windsong Guest Apartments after its owner canceled my reservation, refused to accept my money, and attempted to slam the door in my face. She told me I could go "stay with my girlfriend." I ended up outside of the apartments with my two suitcases, angry and in tears.

Regardless of how you feel about homosexuality, respect is respect and fair is fair. I am organizing Home is Where the Hatred Is in order to raise awareness about discrimination against gay people on the island. From 1:00-2:00pm, we will stand in front of City Hall asking for our lawmakers to take complaints of discrimination seriously and to move towards an amendment of the Human Rights Act quickly.

I have contacted the Human Rights Comission to lodge a complaint, but because sexual orientation is NOT a protected ground under the Human Rights Act, the Human Rights Commission can't do anything about it. With sexual orientation in the HRA, people who have been discriminated against on the basis of their sexual preference - gay or straight - would be able to file a complaint against offenders and have justice done.

Thanks for your committment to equality and non-discrimination. Let Bermuda's decision makers that we won't be bullied out of our beautiful home by hateful, hurtful people. See you at City Hall."

Lets send a message that we've waited long enough and leave no doubt in the minds of our parliamentarians that we expect action now.

Someone Get This Man A Spine!

It seems that Ms. Cox's lack of spine as Finance Minister has spread (or perhaps jumped) to our Transport Minister Terry Liste. Despite a good portion seemingly in favour of Government standing up to the BIU they have backed down, reinstated the man who's firing caused the whole thing AND agreed to pay the drivers for the shift they missed on strike on Thursday. It is absolutely ridiculous!

The only thing more ridiculous is Mr. Lister's attempt to explain himself.

On why the legal avenue was not taken he said:

“The decision was on us. We were in the position where we would have started taking bus drivers and putting them in front of the courts. An individual was wrong but a 100 people in front of a judge? Sometimes you have to think for yourself and sometimes you have to think about other people.”

Which amounts to as much as saying that he didn't want to inconvenience the bus drivers who had just walked out on strike for no good reason. Lets be honest here, the BIU is PLP constituency and he didn't want to piss off his party's die hard voters, he might as well admit it.

On whether this sets a worrying precedent he said:

“That precedent is a risk and something Cabinet will have to make a decision on, when we go forward.”

Well ladies and gentlemen there you have it, prime 100% politrick. Talk a lot and say a little. I'll answer the question for him, yes and no. It didn't set the precedent because that was already there, he has simply added to it.

On why Government had done exactly the opposite of what the people wanted (Democracy at work right?):

“valid to ask, and a question that must be put to the Government as a whole”

Translated: We have no excuse, please don't ever ask us this question again.

And finally:

“For us to have to endure a full frontal assault and win, we would only have won against a strike. We would not have won the hearts and minds. Right now is not the time to have a disgruntled team.”

A disgruntled team? What team is that exactly? Is it perhaps the PLP base that he is talking about? It certainly seems that way to me. So what we have here is nothing more than putting shameless politics ahead of principles and what is actually good for the country. Letting the BIU have/do whatever it wants is not good for Bermuda, we need a government that will knock them down a few levels.

I'm no anti-union man, all labour has the right to organize itself and fight for its rights and better conditions, but there is such thing as a union that is too powerful. The BIU is one such union and until its deflated a bit I have a feeling that this with happen again and again.

In What World?

In case any one is wondering, private school students do actually ride the bus. Contrary to popular belief (and the apparent belief of Decosta in the afternoon) they're not all born with silver spoon's in their mouth and not all have a chauffeur to take them to and from school every day.

This has been a public information announcement paid for by Common Sense

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?

Reefer Madness 2.0

Walton Brown has made his opposition to in any way loosening Bermuda's Marijuana laws quite clear in his opinion post published today in the Royal Gazette. But do his arguments hold up under scrutiny?

Let's identify what his arguments actually were:

1. "My objection in this respect has little to do with moral outrage and everything to do with health: smoking anything is simply not good for you. No government that cares about its people should want to validate the use of something that is so clearly destructive." A.K.A. The government has a right and a duty to stop you from doing anything that is unhealthy.

2. "It is far more important to think about the example being set for impressionable young people, some of whom already consider it normal to get high on ganja, influenced as they are by the power of parental practice" A.K.A. When something is legal it is obviously encouraged.

3. "I am unmoved by the juvenile juxtaposition of alcohol's legality and marijuana's illegality. The research is clear: moderate amounts of alcohol consumption can actually enhance one's health, notwithstanding the conclusions just reached by the UK Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs." A.K.A. Apart from the studies that show it is more harmful than Marijuana, Alcohol is less harmful than Marijuana

On the first argument, it comes down to whether or not you have the right to make your own decisions regarding health or not. The government gives you the right to drink yourself stupid, eat yourself to death and smoke (Tobacco) until your lungs curl up and die. Why then should it prevent you from smoking a relatively harmless (compared to Alcohol according to a study that Mr. Brown would have you ignore) drug which is generally believed to be impossible to overdose on (unlike Alcohol)?


Oh dear, there I go being "juvenile". How dare I make logical comparisons that don't support Mr. Brown's argument! Ah well, the damage is done, I might as well come out and say it: How can you justify the illegality of Marijuana considering legality of Alcohol?


Concerning Mr. Brown's third point (which basically says: Alcohol isn't harmful, except that it is), one must wonder why we should put the conclusions of UK Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs aside. Considering it is the only study Mr. Brown actually referenced it seems strange that we are then told to ignore it... But lets refresh ourselves on what this study actually says, in the hopes that we may be reminded why it is to be ignored.

It says: Alcohol is the most harmful drug when its effects on the user are combined with the effects on those around them (beating out Heroin by 17 points) and is the most harmful drug when effects on those around users are considered alone (beating Heroin again by 25 points). In total Alcohol scores over 70 while Cannabis scores just over 20 according to the BBC article on the study.

Ah... I remember why we were supposed to put it aside now, because it basically disproves the core argument of Mr. Brown's case. Oops!


Now lets get back to that second argument. That the legalization of something equates to an encouragement to commit that act. Well that doesn't really makes sense does it? There is a basic presumption of legality in all things and a need to prove there is a clear benefit from making something illegal that outweighs any potential costs before doing so. Legality is no encouragement and is in fact the natural state of things, any argument otherwise simply cannot be justified. Consuming large amounts of alcohol to the point where one is in danger of alcohol poisoning is legal, but not encouraged. Committing suicide is legal, but not encouraged. Smoking is legal, but not encouraged etc. The world simply does not work as Mr. Brown suggests.


The reality is clear. Unfortunately it seems to have a bias that leaves Mr. Brown's arguments without a leg to stand on. Getting beyond Reefer Madness... Ha!

Try Reefer Madness 2.0. 


It's time to accept that society is not going to collapse if Marijuana is legalized, time to accept that legalization doesn't mean that suddenly the island's youth are replaced by an army of stoner zombies and time to accept that the social costs of Marijuana are simply too low to justify an outright ban. If we can trust an adult with Alcohol, we can trust an adult with Marijuana. Either way they hurt no one but themselves. You and I may turn our nose up at it and fear the negative effects it could have on our lives, but we have no right to impose those fears on others in the form of a ban.

A Step Forward And More Of The Same

Our new Premier just won a a little bit more respect from me.

Ms. Cox has announced that she has terminated the bodyguards that her Predecessor insisted on through some strange mix of egotism and paranoid. She rightly points out that no other leader in the Caribbean (except that criminal Misick) had bodyguards before Dr. Brown and has not only saved us the money previously wasted on protecting something that wasn't in danger, but also removed a symbolic barrier between the Premier and the people she is supposed to represent. For both of those reasons she is to be applauded.

On a less positive note, it seems like the hope that Rolfe Commissiong would get the boot from his high paid consultancy, considering that his main achievement thus far has been to create racial tension and infuriate large portions of the population., was only wishful thinking. He has been kept on to implement the recommendations of the Mincy Report despite the fact that, as far as I can see, he has no relevant qualifications or experience.

It is completely possible that there is a legitimate reason for his continued employment, but good luck ever finding out either way. Ms. Cox's commitment to transparency apparently ends as soon as anything involving Mr. Commissiong begins since she has refused to even release what his actual responsibilities are (something that one would assume the public has a right to know). Let's hope that this is an exception to how she will conduct herself as Premier, but exception or not it is unacceptable that our money is being spent on something we are apparently not allowed to know about. When will the Government realize that the money they're spending isn't theirs? It's ours and we deserve it to be spent well and to be spent openly, I won't hold my breath though. That's nothing more than wishful thinking.

A Little Redesign

Thanks to some changes in the interface that I've been playing around with I've finally been able to figure out how to make the blog a little bit easier on the eyes.

I do apologize for the way it was before but, it was the best I could manage with my blog-illiterate ways.

The Senate

A re-post from a topic on BIAW found here

Should the Senate be an Elected house?

The issue really comes down to 2 questions as I see it:

• What is the senate's purpose?
• How can it best fulfill that purpose?

In answer to the first question I believe its purpose should be to advise and to balance the highly political nature of the House of Assembly. If we lived in a world where the electorate made purely rational choices it is my belief that we wouldn't need two chambers and that the only reason we have two right now is to attempt to mitigate some of the failings of democracy in reality. Ideally it would retain the restrictions it has now on its ability to delay legislation and specifically those relating to money bills.

The answer to the second question is a little more complicated. To me it seems that it is obvious that it must be a non-political entity (something that we come close to achieving by giving the Government the same number of senators as everyone else) comprised of highly educated professionals like lawyers, doctors and economists (people who can truly consider the implications and rationale behind legislation). On whether it is elected or not I find myself torn between conflicting ideas. On one hand the will of the people is the primary source of power in a democracy. On the other however, the whole purpose of the senate should be to avoid politics and emotion while focusing purely on the legal, financial, rational etc. basis for legislation which would be impossible if its very composition was based on the often emotional responses of the voting public. Thus I cannot decide between two possible options for a reformed senate:

Firstly, a purely appointed body. Appointed either by the governor or by a commission which was appointed by the governor in which members would sit for long terms (7-10 years perhaps) after which they could be appointed again but, would be an equal footing in the commissions considerations as all other potential candidates selected from the pool of professionals in the country.

Secondly, a body where 50% + 1 were appointed in the same manner as the first and the rest were elected through proportional representation.

I think I lean towards the first option because we already have a chamber that is completely elected but, I think either could work as well as the other.

A Glimmer Of Sense?

We could soon see Bermuda take a step into the 21st Century when it comes to Human Rights. 

The new Youth, Families and Community Development Minister Mr. Blakeney has announced that the government hopes to be in a position to move forward on guaranteeing protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation before the end of this session. A step forward that is long overdue.


I am slightly concerned about what Mr. Blakeney meant when he said: "without compromising the integrity or the moral fibre for some who might be concerned with regard to their particular spiritual and/or religious beliefs," despite my wish to give them the benefit of the doubt. Especially now that Laverne Furbert, who on record as saying "... show me where I ever said I was against equal rights for gays. What I have said consistently is that I would have a problem renting one of my apartments to an openly gay couple." and who has argued consistently that there should be protections for those who wish to make decisions based on the sexual preferences of others when it comes to things like renting apartments, has been appointed Senator, I worry that what we will get is not a firm enshrinement of a fundamental human right within the law but, rather a wishy washy half-arsed change, watered down in an attempt to pander to the Church. Of course I might be being unnecessarily cynical but, I think there is reason for being that way.

Perhaps hoping that they will do this right isn't just wishful thinking. Only time will tell.

What's The Plan Mrs. Premier

No mention of Education in the Throne Speech on Friday although I'm going to give Ms. Cox the benefit of the doubt and assume that it was because she wants to give the new Education Minister Jennifer Smith time to run her own department.

All the same though, someone from Government needs to lay out their plan soon. This recent talk about school closures and now redefining what a school is (Yeah I don't understand that one either) is causing a lot of uncertainty and also quite a bit of worry too. Closing schools is the last thing they should be doing right now, if the education system is failing even with the current class sizes how could anyone think it's not going to get a lot worse by increasing the class sizes?


If the options are increasing education funding or raising class sizes the government should fork out the extra money. Cuts need to be made, we all know that, but education is the complete wrong place to be looking for them. It is simply too important for that.

There may well be efficiency savings that can be made in the Ministry but, we must be very careful to make sure that they have no effect on the already below standard education that public school students are receiving and closing schools is a perfect example of a cut that will have an effect on that education.

Start teaching Bermuda's youth properly, then we can talk about saving money.

Edumacation 2

Expanding on the theme of education, new research discovers something most people already know.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11646978

'Pushy parents' help children make the grade at school

Parents who push their children to work hard at school have a bigger impact on their child's academic success than their teachers, research suggests.

The effort a parent puts into ensuring their child buckles down to schoolwork has a greater impact than that put in by the child or the school, it says.

Researchers at Leicester and Leeds universities found parents put less effort in the more children they had.

They looked at how much they read to a child and attended school meetings.
And also at teachers' perceptions of their involvement.

The academics used data from the National Child Development Study for pupils born in 1958.
And to judge how much was down to parental influences and how much was down to pupils being self-starting individuals, the researchers also studied the children's attitudes, such as whether, at the age of 16, they thought school was a waste of time.

Family backgroundSchools were assessed on how they tried to involve parents, what disciplinary methods they used and and whether 16-year-olds were offered careers advice.
The findings suggest that there is something of a perfect circle. Parents encourage their children to make more of an effort, and then when their child tries harder, the parents put in even more effort.

The background of a family affects the schools' effort, the study found.

Professor Gianni De Fraja, head of economics at Leicester University, said: "The main channel through which parental socio-economic background affects achievement is via effort.
"Parents from a more advantaged environment exert more effort, and this influences positively the educational attainment of their children.

"The parents' background also increases the school's effort, which increases the school achievement. Why schools work harder where parents are from a more privileged background we do not know. It might be because middle class parents are more vocal in demanding that the school works hard."

The researchers found children were more likely to put more effort into their schooling if their parents showed that commitment too.

Professor De Fraja added: "We found that children work harder whose parents put more effort into their education."

Big families The report says parents put less effort into their children's education the more offspring they have.

"There is a trade-off between quantity and quality of children: a child's number of siblings influences negatively the effort exerted by that child's parents toward that child's education," it says.

The researchers suggest policies aimed at improving parental effort - such as parenting classes - might help to boost children's achievements.
The research is published in the latest issue of Review of Economics and Statistics.

I've thrown out a few of my ideas about how to overhaul the public education system but, the question now becomes, how are we to increase the involvement of parent's in their child's education?

On this one I must admit that I am stumped. How does one change the culture of parenting in Bermuda? My first thought is through education but, if success in education is dependent on the culture of parenting changing how is that possible? I really have no idea.

Maybe Ms. Cox our new Premier and her new Education minister will know the answer but, I won't hold my breath on that one.

I've run out of wishful thinking when it comes to Education.

Edumacation

Tonight is a big night for Bermuda. We are about to discover at last who is to follow the illustrious Dr. Brown as Premier of Bermuda. What better night than tonight then to discuss Education, one of the most important issues as Bermuda goes forward. perhaps our new Premier will be more inclined to take discussion in the community on board than the outgoing one and actually arrive at a satisfactory solution or perhaps we're in for more of the same. Who knows?

Either way, here's my wish list for reform:

Firstly, employ the best teachers available, Bermudian or Non-Bermudian. Education is not the place to play immigration politics.

Secondly, introduce British GCSE (or IGCSE), A Level and BTEC external examinations for all students.

Thirdly, ensure that any student who is unable to pass an end of year exam in both Math and English every year is made to repeat the year and provided with extra support so they won't fail it twice.

Fourthly, stream students beginning at GCSE level into 3 groups: Top, Middle and Bottom. Call the streams what you like but, make it happen whether it be internal to schools or a situation where each level is at a different school. Ensure that the ability to move between the streams exists for students that show an improvement (or decline).

Fifthly, consider offering vouchers to parents who wish to send their children to private/boarding schools for an amount equal to the spending per student within the public education system (with the rest of any costs to be funded by the parent).

Sixthly, eventually remove all Government involvement in education beyond paying for it.

Seventhly, ensure that all students public or private participate in a Critical Thinking and a Citizenship class. The first to teach rudimentary logic, the construction of arguments, the difference between fact and assertion, the ability to infer information and identify assumptions behind a text etc. and the second to teach the political system in Bermuda and other major countries in the world as well as to discuss alternatives that have been suggested/tried in the past.

Those are the things that I would like to see as part of any meaningful reform of Bermuda's education system.

If wanting that kind of reform isn't Wishful Thinking (given the PLP's past record) I really don't know what is.

Some Good News?

For once it seems I can write about something positive. How refreshing.

It would seem as though we are actually going to get a Park Hyatt Hotel up in St. Georges unless planning manages to turn the developers away even at this late stage. The need to redevelop our tourism product is well recognized by all people regardless of political belief and I'm sure everyone will see this as a positive step when/if it happens. You can't blame people for people being cynical about it though. We've been disappointed quite a few times before.

It's just a shame that this is the exception to business as usual with Dr. Brown.

The Worst Kind Of Pathetic

Let's start with one question.

Can one expect fair judicial proceedings Bermuda if accused of a crime?

I would be inclined to say yes. Especially because we can't even convict people who are guilty never mind those who are innocent.

Have established that I think it's fair to say that were I to be falsely accused of a crime I would be eager to demonstrate the charges as false as soon as possible. I think that's something we all share.

Now consider Jahmel Blakeney.

Were I to want to give him the benefit of the doubt when he fled the country he's as good as extinguished that desire by challenging the extradition request filed by the Bermudian Government.

Here now we have nothing more than an obvious, pathetic attempt to keep himself out of jail and shirk all responsibility for his actions. He has been transformed before our very eyes from a full grown man into a pathetic coward running from what's coming to him.

He claims the Bermuda government hasn't presented enough evidence to prove him guilty. Although if that's true it's strange to me that he refuses to come before Bermuda courts. If the prosecutions case is so weak that it can't justify his transportation to Bermuda to face trial then surely there's no hope in hell of it securing a conviction. Clearly someone is counting on a sympathetic American judge.

Ignoring completely the unjust practice of allowing one country to decide whether or not another country should have the right to try someone accused in that country of breaking that country's laws (assuming a fair judicial process) just the fact that he is fighting the extradition comes across to me as proof of his guilt.

I look forward to when Bermuda get its chance to try this pathetic excuse for a man and lose the case on a technicality or out of incompetence. Or perhaps I'm being too harsh. Although we can be sure that in the event of a conviction the judge definitely won't.