Just the facts, please

January 5, 2005

Dear Sir,

After reading the article "Report slams Scott for blinkered view of Independence" in today's Royal Gazette and listening to the many voices on talk radio and to people in general on the subject of Bermuda going independent by way of a General Election or a referendum, I have come to the conclusion that Premier Scott has to be deaf, dumb, blind or indifferent not to see, or hear, what's on the minds of the people.

According to the article in today's Royal Gazette, his approval rating has dropped from 80 percent to a low 37.3 percent within a year and if he doesn't want to believe this, then he is living is what used to be Bermuda's theme song, "Another World!" What part of "unpopular" is it that he does not understand?

When he was put in place after the disgraceful, colossal kick-in-the-rear-end of former Premier Jennifer Smith (mind you, she had to go, but not in such a "dishonourable" and cowardly way), many people, including myself, thought maybe, just maybe, we would have a government that we could depend on - one that operated in the sunshine of transparency (like many others, I'm still waiting to see what that paper Minister Butler signed in Cuba), but no, we the people only received more of the same rhetoric, if not worse, than when Jennifer Smith was at the helm.

We got a scandal (BHC) of gigantic proportions that was called "unethical but not illegal", which saw millions of taxpayer's dollars fly out of the window or into someone's pocket! A scandal that has been covered up and covered over, with only one person being charged, and others left with smirks on their faces (I will never believe that one person only was responsible for that disgrace)! Then we had the Coco Reef "deal of the century!"

The Berkeley Senior School project which was shamefully mismanaged, resulting in millions more of taxpayers money being wasted or misappropriated. Plus, we have the Hospital Pension Fund scandal to be dealt with along with the millions missing from Immigration. I wonder if there were other "unethical but not illegal" activities perpetrated that we do not know about!

It seems that Premier Scott is bent on taking this Island to Independence by way of a General Election. I would like to know why is he trying to deny Bermudians their right to the democratic way of selection, which is by way of a referendum? What is he afraid of? Does he feel that if he goes for Independence by way of a General Election that all of the PLP supporters will vote for this just because they are PLP supporters? Does he think that all PLP supporters are for Independence? Does he think that the UBP supporters who are for Independence will vote for the PLP because they want Independence? Me thinks, he thinks, wrong!

I would like for the Premier to publish a list of all that would be involved and required for Bermuda to go independent. If he can produce all information on what it would entail from A to Z so that people of this country can get a clearer picture of what lies ahead for their future and the future of this Island. Give us something to think about! Give us some facts that we can ponder, discuss, and make up our minds about.

But for the Premier to be stuck on taking us to Independence by way of a General Election is undemocratic and selfish … a referendum is the only and sure way to tell that this is what the people want. And, please, do not tell us that there is an independent Commission on Independence to handle this information. How can this Commission be called independent when the President of the BIU, who is also a sitting PLP member of the House, is on this Commission?

There is much more involved here than what meets the eye! We as Bermudians need to be more vigilant as to what is going on in this Island. Our future is in our own hands so we have to be sure that a select few do not take our rights away from us! Remember, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely!

PAT FERGUSON

Warwick

The maturity argument

January 5, 2004

Dear Sir,

I am so done with the idea that nationhood is part of some natural progression to maturity. In the Independence debate I hear it again and again. Yes, children grow up to become people by a biological disposition. We call that maturity. We like to think that adults behave in a more aware, realised and productive way than children. I have even met some adults who fit this ideal of maturity.

Nationhood is an entirely different development. It happens to groups of people. It started really in the midst of Europe's blood-drenched history. It's clearest progenitor was Cardinal Richelieu, a consummate manipulator who made France into the first state as we understand it. The development of nations had a long history of appalling violence before the Cardinal and after him. The invention of the nation state made the violence more efficient. Is that maturity? This propensity for organised violence spread worldwide with the rise of European empires. Yes, that's right, nation states did not develop naturally in the rest of the world. Different people developed the systems they required. They got on as well as could be expected and never even heard of the idea. But that all changed when Europe began to swing its weight around. Everywhere people were told to become nations or the servants of nations. When they became independent of their masters, they were cozened into the idea of a nation state.

Where has it worked? The Middle East had a Caliphate system for centuries that worked very well in the beginning. Note how well things work now with their European-ordained nation states. Look at Russia. Look at South America. Look at Southeast Asia. And if you really want to to see the grossest failure of nations look at Africa. The national division of Africa should be the shame of anyone who had anything to do with it. It would make Stalin blush. It is a machine for producing human misery. But it is only the latest chapter in the history of failed nation state systems. The Middle East is proverbial for endless war.

The only places nation states seem to work is Europe, North America, Australia and Japan. In all those countries, minorities had to be suppressed to the point of near extinction in order to maintain the national definition. And now Europe, the inventor of the system, doesn't want it anymore. They want to become a cooperative of cultural identities.

Since the idea of abandoning the national idea was first presented, the European continent has had peace - that's for almost 60 years; the longest period of peace in European history. Remember, this is a continent whose mature nations had wars called "The Hundred Years War" and "The Thirty Years War". It's almost banal to remember that they couldn't have just one world war.

All this historical/ maturity/ nation state rhetoric is nothing but a way to sell Independence when no other argument is possible. The history of nations is not a progression to fulfilment. It has been, for most people in the world, a pointless journey through a nightmare. The sooner people give it up, the better. And they are giving it up, slowly. Well, except us of course. This wretched, outmoded, ugly garment is something we must put on to be mature, according this bizarre argument.

I am so done with it.

JOHN ZUILL

Pembroke

Stop whining!

January 5, 2004

Dear Sir,

After reading the letter by "I in the Sky" about the CableVision gift channels not coming through, it is no wonder that so many of our other problems on the Island stick around.

For some reason it is in our Bermudian nature to simply whine and complain every time something does not go our way, even if we have nothing do to with it. The fact that someone would take the time to attack CableVision because they did not receive a "free gift" for the holidays is ridiculous. We have serious issues on the Island and all some people can do is complain that we were cheated because we did not receive a gift! Stop whining.

BDA ONION

Smith's Parish

Stealing from passengers

December 4, 2005

Dear Sir,

How do the taxi drivers get away with stealing from their passengers?

Owing to a shortage of taxis at the Airport on Sunday, my partner had to share a taxi with two other solo travellers (both also women) and therefore had to travel to Devonshire via Smith's; when the first passenger alighted they were charged the full fare on the metre - about $22, when the second was dropped off they too paid the full fare (around $25), and when finally our home was reached the driver demanded the full $30 and my partner, being all alone, felt she had no choice but to pay. So the driver made over $75 for one trip, and my partner had to pay more than the usual fare (about $22 if the taxi goes direct) for the privilege of a longer journey home.

I wish this was an isolated incident but we all know it is all too common, and I was wondering what the exact legal position is? If I had been in the taxi maybe he wouldn't have tried it on as he would perhaps feel that he could not bully and intimidate a man as easily as a woman, if he had tried I think I would have asked him to take me straight to the Police station so they could sort it out.

RIPPED OFF

Devonshire