Double standards

July 23, 2009

Dear Sir,

As my contribution to the Big Conversation, I would like to unburden onto your readers some of my guilt and later reflections upon a hurtful racist mistake I made last week – may it bring an ounce of healing to Bermuda.

Last week, while casually drinking with a group of prominent black, white and biracial men, I attempted to tell a somewhat tongue-in-cheek sexist joke.

Before I knew what I had said, my intended sexist joke slipped out of my mouth as a sexist and racist joke, as if by unconscious programming. We've all told inappropriate jokes, whether sexist, racist, ethnic, or what have you, in "safe" company, but this was not the case that fateful evening. I surely offended people's feelings, and I also degraded myself.

I hope none of the men of colour around me heard the awful thing I said – if they heard me, I will be forever sullied in their eyes, because I said something overtly racist. If anyone reading this letter is one of the people who heard the deplorable thing I said, I beg your forgiveness and ask that my open regret, as expressed in this letter, serves as a sign that I care NOT to be a racist, and that I seek to better myself.

But what caused me to say such a thing in the first place? How did such a thing "slip out of my mouth"?

As a Jew, I now realise I was too sceptical of the good Reverend Jesse Jackson and the Honourable Minister Louis Farrakhan – they have each been heard to utter anti-Jewish comments, and have each since apologised publicly disavowed those comments as mistakes that "slipped out" of their mouths. Now I know what it feels like to have hurtful speech be heard from my mouth, so when Jackson and Farrakhan say they didn't mean it, I trust them more than I used to.

My newfound willingness to take Jackson and Farrakhan's apologies at their word then made me realize that when white people have apologized for racist remarks or actions, I automatically trusted them more than I did persons of colour in the same situation, without even realizing it.

The proof can be found in the case of US Senator Byrd of West Virginia. Senator Byrd is a staunch liberal, known for decades as a champion of the poor and the underprivileged, staunchly anti-war, and white liberal protector of minorities. Byrd is so old, however, that few people alive know he was more than 50 years ago a member of the dreaded racist group called the KKK, and that he for a time even officially opposed racial desegregation in America. Since that time, he has disavowed his mistakes, apologized, and worked hard to prove his good intentions. The American media, the general white population in America, and even President Obama have publicly forgiven Senator Byrd, and everyone trusts him when he says he's sorry, because he's been such a fierce champion of the underdog since his days of hatred and intolerance.

Jackson and Farrakhan, however, still suffer from perceptions that they are anti-Jewish, despite their apologies and long record of interfaith worship. We heard the Honourable Minister, a devout Muslim, just this week reverently quoting Old and New Testament Scripture – he does not hate Jews; Reverend Jackson, a trusted insider to Martin Luther King Jr, knows that white Jewish college students risked and even surrendered their very lives alongside rural Mississippi Blacks in the struggle for Black voting rights in 1963 – he, too, does not hate Jews. Farrakhan and Jackson might have complaints about Israeli government hard-line policy in the Middle East, but neither of them hate Jews, and yet still the myth follows them, far worse than white Senator Byrd's past baggage.

I hope your Black and White readers find some value in these tales of US racial tolerance evolution and my reflections on them. I would be the recipient of a lucky break if persons of colour could as easily forgive me as I now forgive the good Reverend and Honourable Minister – the only way someone could arrive at such forgiveness, for the most part, is if something awful had once slipped out of their mouth. It's not a nice feeling to have erred like that. May God forgive me, because I can't do it alone.

Having appealed to that higher power, for my sake and for your readership's I would now ask another higher power to weigh in on the matter: the good Dr. Eva Hodgson, our Grand Dame of racial prejudice awareness. As Bermuda's most vigilant sentinel against racism, Dr. Hodgson's perspectives are almost always alarming and/or eye-opening to many of us whites, and I for one would be honoured and interested to benefit from her wisdom on the matter. The fact that I predictably won't like what she has to say only heightens the need for her to be heard.

ALAN R. GORDON

St. David's

UBP's concrete proposals

August 3, 2009

Dear Sir,

Mr. James Jackson asserts in his letter of July 29 that the United Bermuda Party "consistently questions the Premier's decisions, which they should, but they don't offer any alternatives." Mr. Jackson is completely wrong about that.

The record over the past year is awash with United Bermuda Party suggestions to improve Bermuda's overall performance and the delivery of services to the people.

Our aim, in the broadest sense, is to provide the people of Bermuda with a government that is attentive to their needs, morally upright and competent in the management of public money, dedicated to creating and spreading opportunity, fair in its decision-making and committed to building an island home all can be proud of and share in.

The following is a summary – by no means complete given your space restrictions – of ideas and recommendations we put forward since the start of the Parliamentary year in November when our leader, Mr. Kim Swan, made his formal Reply to the Throne.

Much of what we have said has been in response to government actions that we object to or differ with, which is in keeping with our role as the Opposition party. But in examining how we would do things differently, one can also know how we would govern.

In the first instance, we believe more government attention needs to be paid to people who are struggling to get by. We have called for tax relief for lower income families, special assistance to our seniors and the boosting of budgets to meet needs created by economic dislocation.

We would commit 20% of all government contracts to support small businesses, creating more than $90 million in opportunities for small operators and entrepreneurs.

We would significantly cut back perks and travel. The government has appeared more interested in serving itself first. Governing must be about serving the people, not the people of government. Leading by example is vitally important.

We would clamp down on crime. The government's cutback in the Police budget in the face of rising crime remains inexplicable. We have called for a stronger, more visible Police presence across the island for safer homes and streets and the construction of a Warwick Police station for its potential to improve quality of life in surrounding communities. We would also allocate money for community policing because it has proved effective in the fight against crime and drugs.

We would make our roads safer through a series of initiatives that includes breathalyzer testing, the installation of speed cameras and road reflectors, and increased manpower for the Police traffic division with a commitment to greater sustained Police presence on the roads.

We would implement a broad programme to raise the standards of governance, including freedom of information, anti-corruption legislation, whistleblower protection; a code of conduct for all parliamentarians and a non-political Attorney General.

We would broaden bipartisan cooperation in the Legislature, opening its committees to the public, strengthening financial oversight and allowing MPs each day on the floor of the House to question ministers directly on government actions as things happen.

We believe these and other reforms could do much to promote consensus-building into the system and diminish the partisanship that has done so much to hamper and hurt our ability to work together as one people.

We would create a Contractor General to ensure government contracts are awarded openly, fairly and cleanly. Right now, a significant portion of government contracts are held by friends and associates of the Premier. We need to spread the wealth beyond the favoured few.

As a matter of national survival, we would dial back the shocking reliance on overseas consultants who are now receiving more than $90 million - nearly 10% of the island's budget - from the Bermuda Government. This runaway practice - this Shadow Government - is without precedent. It deprives Bermudians of professional opportunities to grow their expertise and confidence.

We would be a better partner to international business, the anchor of our economy. The government's adversarial approach to it has made no sense. We would drop the term limit policy because it has proved to unnecessary and counter-productive.

We are extremely concerned with the lack of urgency in education reform. It has been more than two years since the Hopkins Report and we are disturbed by the lack of consultation with stakeholders, the installation of new layers of bureaucracy, the lack of forward momentum and, ultimately, the lack of classroom-based results.

There is no more important issue in government today than education reform, no single issue that has more potential to improve island life.

We would be more energetic, more inclusive in moving forward with reforms in the classroom which, after all, is where the kids are. We would bring forward school readiness programmes, which are critical to the success of students over the long term.

In Tourism, we would establish a Tourism Authority to put the leadership of industry on a more professional footing, making it accountable for its performance.

The government's management of this portfolio The government's management of this portfolio has been a disgrace – qualifying as a business school case of how not to market and sell a product.

Overseas, we would have maintained a stronger, more consistent, more effective presence in Washington to make sure US legislators understand Bermuda. We're not sure why the government has not focused more in this area, but in its absence a grave threat to Bermuda's economy in the form of punitive Congressional legislation has reared its head.

One of the major weaknesses of the present government has been the inability to get things done well and on time. The United Bermuda Party would do a better job governing. The effective, timely delivery of government services is essential to how well a society functions, and it has been missing in recent years, doing nothing to strengthen national self-confidence, morale or performance.

The complacency that lies at its root has hurt our reputation as evidenced in criticisms by outside agencies – the International Monetary Fund on the government's failure to implement IMF recommendations over four years, the OECD's grey-listing of the island, and serial downgrades of our financial strength and reputation by international rating agencies.

The people of Bermuda deserve better.

On that score, we would respect the people by talking straight with them. We would end the tiresome spin and distortion that plays such a big part in government communications, particularly in tourism and economic matters.

Government, in the end, means making decisions and taking action to make things better for the citizenry it serves. This government has been slow, sometimes indifferent, self-serving and disorganized in governing.

Most disappointingly, it has not brought Bermudians together as one people when there is so much to build on. It has used divisive language, played divisive politics, putting political gain ahead of national health. This politics offers nothing but a dead end for Bermuda. The only future for this island is one that brings people together. That requires a government dedicated to Bermuda first, not itself; a government that does its best to encourage respect, dignity, fair play and awareness that we are one family, one people together in a very tough world.

Bermuda is best served by a steadier hand on the wheel and total focus on the needs of the island. PLP politics has become more important than any government issue – more important that education reform, public safety and clean, open government.

The UBP, when all is said and done, wants the chance to show it can provide Bermuda with a government dedicated to serving the people and the broad interests of the island.

All we need to do is convince enough people we offer that alternative. It is a tough challenge, but we're working on it.

SEAN PITCHER

Chairman

United Bermuda Party