Do not be distracted

May 26, 2005

Dear Sir,

Responsibility for the debacle in Parliament on Friday, May 20th, lies squarely at the feet of the Premier, his Government and the PLP controlled House Speaker. The public knows that and more importantly the 180 residents of Mary Victoria and Alexandra Roads know that. Premier Alex ?the man? Scott, whose modus operandi seems to be distract ?em from de facts?, has tried unsuccessfully to admonish the UBP MPs for leaving the House, suggesting it was disrespectful. Either the Premier really believes what he?s saying or he?s trying stand up comedy, either one is concerning. He and his Government like to talk about openness and transparency but demonstrate the exact opposite. If they truly stood by these principles they would have allowed the motion to progress to debate and then try to defend their position and Minister, during the debate. Respect is earned and when they begin to demonstrate that they are respectable, perhaps they will earn some respect.

The fact is that John Barritt followed proper procedure by obtaining prior approval from the Speaker before presenting his motion. It was the Speaker who either forgot that he had approved it or was foolishly influenced, once again, by his Party colleagues, to object to the very motion he had approved (the fact that the Minister?s name was mentioned instead of his position is pure semantics). Indeed it is the Speaker who lacks respect. I?d suggest he resign if I didn?t know who would be standing there ready to jump in his shoes. Speaking of whom, the Deputy Speaker?s suggestion that there is more than one rule book is quite amusing since we already know the PLP operates from different rule books. They just pull out which ever one suits them best at the time they need it. Are we to respect that?

The interesting fact is that Mr. Barritt isn?t even the MP for the area concerned (which is in Constituency 13). It is Glenn Blakeney, who appears to have been silent throughout the entire process. Surely as MP for the area, Mr. Blakeney should have facilitated meetings between his constituents and the Minister, to ensure they were sufficiently consulted. He could have also escalated the matter to the Premier if he was not satisfied. However, it appears he did neither, indicating he supports his Party?s position on the issue. Is it that he and the PLP don?t appreciate that 180 voters can ?make a difference?, to steal a phrase.

Instead, The Premier is once again trying to distract us from the fact that his PLP government, in seven years, has done absolutely nothing to relieve the housing problem in Bermuda. The few initiatives they have attempted have failed miserably, something they ought to be embarrassed about. Imagine the number of houses they could have built if they had managed the Berkley project properly instead of allowing it to escalate some 20- 30 million dollars over the original amount. You may recall how ?the Man? tried to detract us from the facts then as well. On the subject of different rule books, the recent comment by the Attorney General, Larry Mussenden, that the Opposition should not play politics with the justice system, is an interesting one. Sen. Mussenden?s position is, most certainly, a political one, made so by his party?s change to the Constitution. He was politically appointed by the Premier which itself makes him and the part of Government he represents, a political target. We really do have a new set of rules.

We can reach black boys

May 20, 2005

Dear Sir,

It does not seem over a decade ago since I was asked to do a survey of 100 young black males, I am sure that the current study initiated by Rolfe Commissiong will be in much greater depth and more far reaching. Despite the limitations there were some conclusions that were evident to me. One of the most significant was that young men who were successful came not only from two parent families but were often the out of wedlock offspring of single mothers. Some of those who had made destructive, self-destroying choices had come from two parent families. The conclusion that I drew was that regardless of whether there were two parents or only one, if the discipline was consistent, strong and caring there was likely to be success but if there were two parents, they must show a united front. There were too many, whether they were successful or not, that had stories of bitterness because of unfair treatment, often by some guest worker.

There was one phenomenon that I found striking. I surveyed a number of black females. Some of both the young men and the young women had out of wedlock children. All of the women showed some sense of responsibility and concern about these children while the young men showed little sense of responsibility or concern. While the numbers were far too few to draw any final conclusion I did draw another. The environment in which our young men were growing up was so overwhelmingly negative that there is likely to be no major shift in the problem of young black men until we change the environment. Sir John Swan once said that young black men were a problem. The real problem is the kind of society which we have created.

The disintegration of the black community is part of that environment. Black men have always had to face racism and racism has always been more destructive to men than to women but at one time there was the sense that ?we ware all in this together? and black people respected each other in a way that they do not today. Hence the increasing alienation. Senator Bob Richards showed remarkable insight for his generation when acknowledged that his generation had failed to pass on those traditional values which they had received. His generation was the first generation of Blacks to receive high salaries and ?good? jobs with a measure of status and high profile. Thus it was his generation of Blacks had any value, neither they nor their values. In many ways the black community lost as much as it gained with our very limited ?integration?. There is often a sense of irony when I hear the lawless being lectured by the very black who began the process of disrespect to other blacks.

If we are to save young black men we have to find some way to save young black boys. We are unlikely to turn around young men who are 30 or 40 without a spiritual conversion. But we could reach out to at risk young boys who are clearly in trouble and undisciplined while they are still in school and reachable, and if drugs are our greatest problem we would be in a far better position to encourage them not to start drugs. If this approach were to save just one young men it would be worth the effort. I hope that Mr. Commissiong takes the nest step to save young boys before they become young men. I commend the efforts being made by DeBoys Day Out Club but Government needs to ensure that there is a programme that reaches every young boy.

A note of thanks

May 21, 2005

Dear Sir,

The Continental Society Tag Days held on April 8 and 9 were a resounding success. In large measure this is due to the support of individual?s service, organisations and businesses; each contributing in a special way. We are indeed grateful and wish to thank everyone for the part they played to enable us to reach our goal. Funds raised will ensure that we continue our programmes to assist disadvantaged children in the community. The Mission of the Continental Society is to foster, promote and develop the welfare of disadvantaged children and youth in our Community; and to foster a climate of security and well being in their environment.

For the past forty years the Continental Society programmes included: promoting breakfast and the importance of nutrition in our primary schools, provision of food hampers, school uniforms, Bermuda College Scholarships, promoting asthma awareness, sponsoring summer camps and cultural events, encouraging literacy by providing books for children and school libraries and generally giving help where there is a need. We trust that we may continue to merit community support in our future endeavours.

Ban the deed, not the breed

May 25, 2005

Dear Sir,

I just finished catching up on my reading of the last few weeks and what caught my eye was the article on dog owner?s victory to save pit bulls, well this is no cause for celebration, those dogs are lethal weapons. It will not be a cat that gets killed next time, it could be a child. This whole dog issue is so full of inconstancies there have been dogs in the past that have been destroyed for doing a lot less. When the dog ban was in discussion, all the good people showed up at the meeting etc. to voice their concerns and there were many. I for one do not like discriminating against people ? let alone dogs. Ban the bad deed and not the breed would have made more sense in the long run, because people who do bad things are still doing them.

I can remember well at one of those meetings, a certain dog warden came up to me and said that I own a vicious dog, he was referring to my Rottweiler/Fila Cross who is a gentle giant and I might add got her certificate for Good Citizen Dog at nine months of age. Anyway, I knew that us good dog folks would be in real trouble, because he is supposed to know the difference between a friendly dog and one who could have the potential to be vicious and there is a big difference. Nothing will change for the future unless you really get tough with the irresponsible owners. They need to realise that they are solely responsible for the actions of these animals. There are still dogs being bred that are on the ban list, and the puppies were all given homes, so who is going to take responsible for breaking those rules.