July 7, 2009

Dear Sir,

On the issue of Minister Walter Roban's response to Ms. Claire Smith, I submit the following:

How did you Mr. Roban, in your hatefully ignorant response to Ms. Smith, know her ethnicity? Because her name sounded 'white'? Did she send a picture of herself along with the email, or identify herself in any way as white? In one of your responses, you claimed to not know Ms. Smith, so I assume that meant you had no idea whether she was white, black, pink, or green. So speaking out against Dr. Ewart Brown is now automatically white racist behaviour? What happens when a black person speaks out against the good doctor, are they simply a 'confused negro'?

I ask you Mr. Roban, what would your response have been to someone who, in your mind, you assumed to be a black person? I also question what the public's response would be if a white MP spoke such words to a black voter. I extend this to the PLP brass who continually use the race card (you know who you are): Do any of you possess words in your vocabulary other than black, white, PLP, UBP, plantation, bigots, and racists? If so, kindly use them every once in a while. The race card is stale, old, tired, and worn, and some of us do possess the ability to see beyond the wool. Marginalising the white population, if that is your aim, as some form of 'payback' for the past doesn't make you any better than the slave masters of yesteryear. Two wrongs do not make a right.

I voted for you in 1998, because I wanted Bermudians first, and I wanted the races united. You will never get my vote again with your current behaviour. You continue to pit the races against each other with your racial rhetoric, it's a classic case of divide and conquer. Do what you were elected to do, and put Bermuda first. Move Bermuda forward, and I mean all Bermudians, of all races. Not only your aceboys and girls, not only your family members, or only the ones that look like you, all of us!

RGP, 31-YEAR-OLD BLACK –BORN BERMUDIAN

Warwick

July 8, 2009

Dear Sir,

Thank you once again for affording me space within your paper. I think it is without much doubt that I have been one of the most vocal (via the Letters to the Editor sections) supporters of the Progressive Labour Party over the last 20 years but I am now truly beginning to reconsider my level of support for the Party because the ethics and principles of the Party appear to be going downhill very, very quickly. I refer to the email correspondence between Minister without Portfolio, Walter Roban and Ms. Claire Smith.

How dare Minister Roban (a servant of the people, all people of Bermuda) automatically assume that just because Ms Smith is white that she must be racist and a bigot? Walter, my mother is white, do you also consider her a racist? Are all whites who are not supporters of the PLP racist?

Mr. Wentworth Christopher addresses a very valid point when he states, "Racial hatred has never been on the PLP agenda. To the contrary, the party was formed by victims of racial hatred. We know first hand the pain that can be inflicted."

The valid point in his statement is that the PLP was formed by victims of racial hatred, where he goes wrong is in the very first sentence because at this point the PLP is using racial hatred as its agenda to hold on to political power. This concerns me gravely because I believe the legacy of the PLP and its ideologies shows it has much greater depth than relying solely on race to hold on to political power. The way the Party is currently conducting itself is not based on the reasons for the Party being formed. Was the intent of the PLP founders to one day return the favour of inflicting racial pain on whites? From what I know of the PLP and its history that clearly was not the intent, it was simply about equal opportunity to all.

The racial segregation of Bermuda's past is very real and clearly there are some ramifications still being felt today, however, there is no justification in swinging the pendulum completely in the other direction, which is exactly what is now occurring and two wrongs do not make a right. Many, not all, PLP members and supporters want to disenfranchise white Bermuda the way that white Bermuda disenfranchised black Bermuda not too long ago.

Doing this is not progress, it is simply an attempt to exact revenge on the children and grandchildren of those who disenfranchised black Bermuda. I have always believed, from a race relations perspective, that the PLP was about righting the racial wrongs in Bermuda, not through pushing the pendulum in the exact opposite direction but ensuring that the pendulum hung in the very middle so that all in Bermuda can freely participate and take advantage of what Bermuda has to offer.

I always believed that the PLP was about making certain that each and every person is entitled to freely express himself politically without fear of retribution. Either I was highly mistaken or the Party of today has gone against the principles on which it was founded. To call the protesters an out of control mob or a lynching party, which was formed based on race is absolute and utter nonsense as it ignores that fact that the lead organiser Ms. Battersbee is a black Bermuda who has been a long time PLP supporter and probably like myself, a supporter that has no issue with taking the PLP to task when it has done wrong, which does not make one a traitor to the Party.

What it clearly shows is that we are not blind supporters of the Party, no one should be a blind supporter of any political organisation or an individual politician. To do so means that you really stand for nothing and that you cannot or you refuse to think for yourself.

I stand up loudly and firmly in saying that I have no issues with the Uighurs being in Bermuda, I do applaud the humanitarian effort but I also stand up loudly and firmly in saying that no one should be able to operate outside the bounds of the Bermuda Constitutional Order even if one is a very strong proponent of Independence for Bermuda. The Constitution is too important a document to be treated in such a trivial manner. No one in Bermuda should stand for such treatment of our Constitution, no one!

I have supported and vehemently defended the PLP over the past 20 years, so much so that in 2006 I was informed by then Premier of Bermuda, Mr. Alex Scott, in his office that my name was on a list of potential PLP candidates and he asked if I would return to Bermuda to contest a seat for the PLP in the next elections (2007). With that said, I am certain that because I have chosen to publicly show my disagreement with, there will be many who will now question my loyalty.

What I want for my country, I may no longer reside in Bermuda but it will always be my country, is for the elected Government to govern for the betterment of all Bermuda residents (expats are residents as long as they live and work in the country) and not for a select group of persons based on race or political affiliation. We will never move past the racial divide if we continue to use it to win arguments and/or elections. I see the role of the Government, not as the one to swing the pendulum but the one to ensure the pendulum remains in the middle. The Government has to at all times operate above the politics of race and political affiliation. The Government has be conciliatory.

Some have gone as far as to compare Dr. Brown to President Barack Obama, the difference, however, is that President Obama is doing all he can to reconcile prior differences and put aside petty politics to move his country forward. I have to admit that I have not heard or read of Dr. Brown specifically labelling anyone a racists and I do not recall him calling the recent protesters a lynch mob but one of his Ministers has done so without correction and a few PLP members have done so without correction, this implies agreement.

At some point in the development of Bermuda we need to put racial differences aside and work together for the betterment of Bermuda. Someone has to be the bigger person and with maturity step up to the plate to move the country forward and truly begin to heal the racial differences. I always thought the PLP as Government was ready, able and prepared to assume this role. I must have been severely mistaken. Recently there was a call for whites to offer an apology for the racial injustices of the past, what good is an apology unless there is also acceptance of the apology? What does it profit to continue to call people racists because they do not support you politically?

Are there still racists in Bermuda, I have no doubt that there are. There are also many blacks who wish the pendulum to be swung strongly in the other direction. None of these should be successful in their desires, we should strive to work together as a people

GUILDEN M. GILBERT JR.

Nassau, Bahamas

July 8, 2009

Dear Sir,

I read the recent correspondence between Mrs Smith and Mr. Roban and then re-read their correspondence very carefully this time to understand both parties' point of view and suggest the following:

I start with Mrs Smith as she sent the email and will stand corrected if my facts are incorrect. Your e-mail was sent to a host of PLP and UBP members of Parliament including Mr. Roban. The wording within your statement is one of someone offering their opinion and wishing your personal feelings be known to the recipients, and that is your right to do as a voter. I do not see mention of a reply being asked for by the recipients, if you had wished a reply back I'm sure you would have made it clear in your e-mail. There were no racist remarks within the correspondence.

Mr. Roban I comment on you and please feel free to comment back. Your correspondence back to Mrs Smith was uncalled for and not necessary and I recommend that you carefully review your goals as a politician here in Bermuda as it suggests in your response to Mrs Smith that any views which differ from your own will not be tolerated.

You put your foot in it when you responded back to Mrs Smith's e-mail statement and then you jumped in all the way and really set off the lady with your second response, what on earth were you thinking; maybe you weren't, maybe you had had a bad day and this topped it off when you got home.

I understand how it can be when all those e-mails come in, God knows we all get enough of them with various opinions, advice, suggestions and statements. The secret is first count to ten before making a reply, if you don't you run the risk of writing something that you may regret later, case in point. I don't think you really meant to write those comments and I don't think you are uninterested in what your community thinks... are you?

PONTIOUS PILOT

Smith's

July 8, 2009

Dear Sir,

Now that the furore over the Premier's actions to bring the Uighurs to Bermuda has lessened, I would like to revisit the wording of the No Confidence Motion that was debated in the House of Assembly. Because of the failure of the motion, there has been criticism in the community that the United Bermuda Party's motion was inept and criticism that our inability to word it properly doomed the debate to failure from the start. That's simply not true. We made a strategic choice at the beginning of our discussion to ask Parliament to express a lack of confidence in the Premier. Furthermore, we received advice and representation from the PLP side that supported this approach. We could have introduced a motion of censure, as was done with the Honourable David Saul when he was Premier some years ago. However, such a motion carries no penalty: it is left to the Premier and his Party to decide what to do in its wake.

We lacked confidence in the PLP to take any action following a successful motion of censure. As the constitution does provide for an expression of no confidence resulting in the removal of the Premier, we believed that was the correct route to take. This is what the Constitution says:

"59 (1) If the House of Assembly by the affirmative votes of a majority of all the members thereof passes a resolution that it has no confidence in the Government, the Governor shall, by instrument under the Public Seal, revoke the Premier's appointment:

"Provided that before so doing the Governor shall consult with the Premier and may dissolve the Legislature in accordance with the provisions of section 49(1) of this Constitution instead of revoking the Premier's appointment."

Legal documents are very often worded in ways that laymen find confusing. But however this clause was worded, our advisers assured us that if the motion passed, the effect would likely be that the Governor would remove Dr. Brown. He and the Premier, having consulted, would have been unlikely to agree to dissolve the legislature, because no matter how strong people's feelings about the Premier's actions, there was never any threat to the PLP's majority in Parliament. Such a threat would be the principal reason the Governor would ask the electorate to confirm its choice of Government by a general election.

However, as things turned out, it wasn't just laymen who found Section 59 (1) confusing, it was many of the PLP's Members of Parliament.

We worded our motion so that there was no question that it was in accordance with the terms of the Constitution, as one is meant to in such circumstances. Our motion was this: "That this Honourable House has no confidence in the Government led by Premier Ewart F. Brown JP, MP, in accordance with section 59(1) of the Bermuda Constitution Order 1968."

The Speaker of the House, though, for reasons that were not clear to us, announced just as the debate was to begin that he wouldn't accept it as we had worded it, and presented us with an amended motion: "That this Honourable House has no confidence in the Government and deplores the Premier's handling of the recent national affair surrounding the Guantánamo Bay detainees."

You'll notice that the Speaker's version contained no mention of the Constitution, removing any reference to the UBP's assurance that we had no wish to depose the Government. The effect was to create further confusion about a motion that was already difficult for many people to get straight. We immediately proposed another amended motion so that the Government was not its sole focus, and the motion that was then finally debated became: "That this Honourable House has no confidence in the Government led by the Premier."

I believe the United Bermuda Party behaved logically and sensibly, making a motion that was consistent with the Constitution, as it should have been. Because of the PLP's three-line whip, and in the uncertainty created by the rejection of our original motion, it was not surprising that we did not receive PLP support and the motion did not succeed. Nevertheless, the debate what was said and what was heard was still critical and for that, I believe the United Bermuda Party can take credit.

SEAN PITCHER

Chairman, United Bermuda Party

July 8, 2009

Dear Sir,

Coming back into Bermuda after a short absence, almost feels like walking into a war zone. I've read, I have listened and digested and from that comes a suggestion to all those who look like me, i.e. white. It's time to stop falling into the traps of those who seek to goad and push whites. The multiracial crowds protesting against the Premier have recently been likened by some at the extreme in society, to a lynch mob. Indeed, they say, the only thing that was missing was a rope. The Police didn't interpret them that way, but hey, that's just a technicality no doubt.

It's quite clever really simple, but clever nonetheless. The old 'Civil Rights Guard', stirring up the masses, or at least attempting to. Their musings can have no other purpose; after all the PLP is the Government and will be for some time yet I suspect. So you need to consider the motives behind such remarks with some care. Well white folk my suggestion is that we must stop responding to these remarks. You might even want to think through the wisdom of Letters to the Editor. I am sure The Royal Gazette can find something to fill that space. Words only hurt if you let them. Time to stop and look at the bigger picture. Time to stop and think about what is happening around us.

TIME TO REFLECT

Hamilton Parish