I have to admit that the One Bermuda Alliance’s mishandling of the Permanent Resident Certificate issue has reminded me a lot of Brazil’s 7-1 World Cup loss against Germany.

Ever since referee Ian Kawaley dropped the ball onto the pitch, the OBA has chased the ball seemingly without strategy or cohesion of any kind.

Though the team desperately wants to win the game, their lack of skill on this issue will likely result in an epic loss.

I’ve found it equally curious/fascinating to see protesters claim that they aren’t really against PRCs getting status, but simply have strong reservations about the process.

In the Peoples’ Campaign’s July 24th statement, they expressed great concern for those who don’t qualify for status due to the July 31, 1989 cut off date.

They also questioned, “why should the spouse of such persons not be included in their application for status rather than having to wait ten years following the granting of status to their spouse”.

Indeed, they have raised valid points, but given the “second class citizen” fears expressed to date, I find it extremely difficult to believe that the People’s Campaign would have supported an OBA attempt to grant status to PRC spouses and to those who have “missed” the July 31 1989 cut off date.

More importantly, although they’ve raised valid questions about those who don’t qualify under existing law, their statement doesn’t explain why the applications of those who do presently qualify should be suspended.

Citizens Uprooting Racism in Bermuda (CURB) has also called for comprehensive reform, and has claimed that granting PRCs status would “water down” the black vote.

Regardless of the process taken, any decision that results in more white voters would “water down” the black vote.

This logic also makes me question whether or not CURB believes that white Spouses of Bermudians should be granted status, because they too would “water down” the black vote.

In my opinion, CURB’s call for comprehensive reform rings hollow, because their position discriminates against white PRCs while simultaneously patronising black voters.

When defining “the black vote” CURB assumes that blacks (and whites) are homogenous social groups that will always act against the other’s best interests. Ironically, the recent survey on PRCs indicates otherwise, with 51 percent of blacks supporting status for PRCs and 39 percent rejecting it.

Similarly 68 percent of whites were for and 22 percent against a grant of status. How does one then define “the black vote”?

Last, but not least, the Progressive Labour Party continues to exhibit a duplicitous position on granting PRCs status.

As of late they’ve proclaimed that they’re only against the OBA’s flawed process. But, they made their staunch opposition to granting PRCs status crystal clear in their June 23, 2014 statement:

“The latest attempt to grant Permanent Residency Certificate holders the right to compete with Bermudians for jobs, buy property and vote is one that the PLP opposes and with your support, intends to ensure, never becomes a reality.”

Some would also have us believe that the PLP’s approach would be different had the OBA addressed PRCs in a bipartisan fashion.

But to accept this we would first have to ignore the PLP’s increasing tendency of late to dismiss opposing viewpoints on PRCs as “White Mental Illness” or “colonial brainwashing”.

Second, we’d have to ignore the PLP’s 2013 Reply to the Throne Speech, which was made two months before Judge Kawaley’s 2014 decision:

“The PLP will not allow it. It is a red line that will not be crossed, lest the forgetful and arrogant be brought into remembrance of the modern political history of this country, and the lessons that should have been learned at that time.”

To summarise the above, although I fully believe that the OBA has gone about doing the right thing in the wrong manner, there is little doubt in my mind that we would still have faced massive protests from the People’s Campaign, CURB and the PLP, even had the OBA initially moved forward with comprehensive reform.

Nevertheless, instead of making the cowardly decision to announce the withdrawal of the appeal just after the summer recess began, the OBA should’ve made affirmative/deliberate changes to the law so that history shows that this decision was proposed, debated and supported, by our elected officials.

Tragically, the OBA’s greatest mistake is that they’ve failed to ask the one big question that should be on all our minds: Exactly what is a Bermudian?

Not in the legal sense of the word, but in the true essence of what makes us who we are. Are spouses of Bermudians more Bermudian than PRCs?

Is someone born, raised and lived abroad all their lives, more Bermudian than a PRC simply because they have a Bermudian parent?

In both instances I believe not, regardless of what the law currently states.

So, what is it that really makes us Bermudian, even though our community remains divided across so many different lines?

This is a question that should’ve been asked by the OBA, and it cannot be answered by telling voters to “give it a rest”.

E-mail: bryanttrew@mac.com