Why Canon Alan?

March 2, 2005

Dear Sir,

Most Bishops and Archdeacons would be doing everything in their power to ensure that one of the most supported churches on the Island continues to flourish. The Rev. Canon Alan Tilson has been able to relate to and reach people of all ages, races and backgrounds. As a result, Holy Trinity Church has one of the highest attendance records (if not the highest), the Sunday School is extremely popular and very successful and the congregation loves its Rector more than is obviously understood. Unfortunately for Holy Trinity and its congregation, this "protection" one would expect from the Bishop and Archdeacon is not only lacking but both the Bishop and Archdeacon have taken proactive steps to ensure Canon Alan's work permit application is not submitted.

There are so many churches that have very low attendance on this Island (I shall refrain from naming these) but yet for some reason, the Bishop unilaterally feels the need to attack one of the few churches that has a full congregation. Why we ask? The Bishop has stated that it is because he "perceives a need for change" and "the time to move on had come". How has the Bishop come to this conclusion?

One would assume that such a conclusion is based, at the very least, on consultation with the Synod, the Vestry and the people of the Parish. Or even, a visit to Holy Trinity, as surely to "perceive" means to see, notice, take in, observe and in order to do that one must at a minimum venture down to Bailey's Bay. A more honourable and dare I say democratic approach however would be, in addition to a consultation with the above parties, to put this "perceived need" to a vote of the Synod.

Instead, not even a consultation has taken place with the Synod and I understand that the Bishop has even gone to the lengths of cancelling the only Synod meeting between now and the Canon's probably departure so that (one can only conclude) the Bishop's "democracy" succeeds and continues to run according to his undisclosed agenda.

To a lay person analysing this fiasco, many questions arise (in addition to the above). Why Canon Alan? Why fix/change something that is far from "broke"? Do the Bishop and/or Archdeacon have a personal gripe against Canon Alan? Should any personal issues the Bishop and/or the Archdeacon have be allowed to impact a very happy church family? Isn't a time for change required when someone is not doing a good job or there are complaints? Surely this time for change criteria doesn't include someone who is doing an outstanding job? Isn't it the Bishop's and Archdeacon's job to interfere only if the congregation is not happy or if one or both believe that there has been some breach of Church conduct/rules? Why have the Bishop and Archdeacon not consulted with the Synod and more specifically the Vestry and the people of the Parish? Why have they not even approached Canon Alan with their concerns if there are indeed real concerns? The list could go on but perhaps once this fiasco is rectified, one should also be asking what can be done to: (1) ensure the accountability of the Bishop and Archdeacon; and (2) protect the Synod's rights of consultation to ensure a "real" democracy exists so that parish churches can be protected from the whims of those seriously out of touch with the needs of the relevant church.

I have always believed that the Church, by its very nature, must be free of politics, backstabbing, underhandedness and importantly free of people acting selfishly to protect their own interests. I am shocked to see that this is not the case. I sincerely hope that the Bishop and Archdeacon of our Anglican Church do not allow such un-Christian behaviour to continue to exist. Canon Alan should not be considered a great embarrassment to the Bishop and Archdeacon because he has a flourishing church family. He should be the example. He certainly is doing something right and if anyone needs to be convinced of that, I'd encourage that person (specifically the Bishop and Archdeacon) to go to Holy Trinity any Sunday morning where they will be welcomed by Canon Alan and his wife, Jenny and will instantly be made to feel part of a very happy church family. No doubt those persons will also want to return the following Sunday to hear the ever inspiring words and sermon given by Canon Alan. I sincerely hope the Bishop acknowledges that his "perception" was at the very least premature and instead accepts that the time has not come but will only come when Canon Alan retires in a few years time.

I am certain that in the years before Canon Alan's retirement he will contribute significantly to all aspects of the Anglican Church in Bermuda and if given the opportunity will continue to do what today's Anglican Church has great difficulty in doing: that being to relate to and reach the younger generations and to encourage such a widely diverse church family as we have at the Holy Trinity Church.

Consider the negatives

March 6, 2005

Dear Sir,

In response to the recent talk of Independence, as a concerned student overseas, I have a few ideas that I need to express. It seems to me that most of the fuel behind the fire of the talks of Independence is sparked by "possible" economic well being. I have been reading articles on website over the last few weeks and this seems to be the force behind the Government's push for Independence. However, as a young ambitious Bermudian who for once in his life does not have to graduate college and face the prospect of having no choice but to come back home, I don't see the reasoning behind this recent campaign.

An old clich? comes to mind, "if it ain't broke, then why fix it"? It seems to me that Bermuda and its economy is doing just fine the way it is and that the only reason why the current Government is pushing for this is so that their own pockets can be lined fatter than what they already are.

Have they considered all of the negative side effects of going independent? Have they considered that some of the very people who voted for them to be in power will be the ones affected the most? History has a way of repeating itself and as history would have it, all of the former British colonies that I am familiar with who also pushed for Independence are all either Third World countries or countries that cannot boast of an economy that is as stable and lucrative as Bermuda's is now. Is this to be the fate of my Island home? I think not, not as long as I have breath in my body and not as long as I have the wherewithal to speak up and voice my opinion.

Has the current Government lost its mind? A referendum was presented ten years ago and overwhelmingly rejected Independence. Now, with the recent approval of our European status and passports does the Government really think that people are going to give up this passage of freedom just so that they can find more ways to get rich? Not once have I heard or seen any positive outcomes of going independent that will benefit every day Bermudians. If anything, generations to come will be stripped of their right to travel freely with a UK passport; a treat, in light of a post 9/11 era, when travelling on a Bermuda passport can sometimes be a hassle.

I speak on behalf of myself and thousands of other young Bermudians who are in school and are now troubled with the fact that their UK passports could possibly be revoked as well as their chance at a better life outside the confines of Bermuda.

I will rally as much as I have to, to make sure this doesn't happen and when they do have a vote for this independent forum I will make sure that I, along with everyone I know votes against an independent Bermuda.

Idea worth exploring

March 5, 2005

Dear Sir,

As we go into a new budget year, guided by a Finance Minister who just congratulated herself for overcharging us last year and hot on the heels of the BHC reassuring us that while nothing nefarious went on, they have drastically revamped their processes (but not the legislation) to prevent future opportunities for mischief, I have had another thought on the topics of housing, capital projects and economic empowerment.

Ever the victim of collective myopia, the Government relies almost entirely on taxation as a means of funding capital projects, driving up the tax burden on for everyone but ensuring that only a select few contractors and cronies benefit financially. Governments around the world fund major projects by issuing a bond for a project or class of projects which solicit funds, usually for a defined period of time and with a guaranteed level of return for the period.

Bonds are an investment available to any person with a little spare cash which will usually reward them with a better rate of interest than a saving or deposit account and with less risk than equity stocks. If the project has merit, it may even attract overseas investment.

In return for guaranteeing a reasonable minimum rate of return, the Government would get the use of some of the spare money drifting around the Island for worthy projects like housing, relocating the docks and the redevelopment of the Hamilton waterfront.

The response to a bond issue would be an indirect referendum on the public's perception of the merit of the project, the guarantee would force long term planning and good corporate governance and the benefits, both practical and financial, would be shared widely.

The taxpayer gets a break, the small investor gets an opportunity to participate in the local economy and those without the resources to purchase a home still get to participate in the burgeoning real-estate market. Sounds like empowerment to me.

Sunday Shopping: Say no

March 7, 2005

Dear Sir,

My wife and I just returned home after our first visit to Bermuda. My father had visited Bermuda several times as a member of the Royal Canadian Navy and he often said that it was one of the most beautiful places in the world. It took only a few hours in Bermuda for us to understand what he meant. The natural and man-made beauty of the Island is only surpassed by the beauty of the people. The only other place we've found that has a population of such friendly, outgoing and helpful people is the province of Newfoundland in Canada. I'm sure that you hear similar praise for you country on a regular basis so let me go on to my reason for writing to you.

I would like to express an opinion on a subject that seems to be under discussion in Bermuda at this time, that being the proposal to allow Sunday shopping. There may be those who will say: "Why doesn't he mind his own business, he's not Bermudian". This is just my opinion and I can only hope that someone might find some value in it.

I have been a serving Police Officer here in Canada for close to 29 years and have seen a lot of political and social changes during that time. One of those changes was the move to wide open Sunday shopping that was adopted here close to 20 years ago. I firmly believe that this change in combination with other political, educational and social changes have done much to devalue the traditional family unit. Family is the the glue that holds our societies together. The economic pressures of modern society already takes away time that families should be spending together. Sunday shopping will result in yet another day when families are separated in the quest for cash.

Are there those who might benefit from the adoption of Sunday shopping? Of course there are. Are there those who might suffer as a result? Yes, I believe that in time the entire social structure of Bermuda will suffer as a result. Those results will be a decrease in respect for authority, an increase in the number of marriage break-ups, an increase in addictive behaviour and an increase in crime. Canada has been there and today we are reaping the negative results in many ways. It is my hope that one of the most beautiful places in the world see fit to remain so both physically and socially.