March 17, 2013Dear Sir,Unfortunately I am not a Parliamentarian hence I could not rise to the floor to include another position after the member from Constituency 21, Rolfe Commissiong who spoke during the motion to adjourn. I also read the Letter to the Editor which raised ire of Mr Commissiong and which has created a debate about The Royal Gazette allowing persons to write under anonymous titles or names. The author of the article, who goes under the title Warwick drew 66 comments. I think Warwick’s article got what it deserved and behind the veneer he may have learned a few things, if not others did. The point being it was an open forum and people were free to agree with or criticise his position online. Three issues come to mind, that of freedom speech, the right or role of being anonymous, the role of the press to protect the public against libellous, defamatory or inflammatory comments. In reverse order I think The Royal Gazette rightfully has placed a button at the bottom of the blog which the public can press which automatically alerts the Editor about comments that are indecent.Beyond that the editors should, and I assume would, screen articles to ensure that aside from defamation and libel, they are not containing profanity or lewd comments. However, the Editor should not be in the business of selecting opinions that can be offered, whether political religious or otherwise. The meaning of free speech should mean the freedom to express your opinion whether it meets the favour or disfavour of the public, and that it is a matter of public adjudication. The role of anonymous has been essential to freedom. Understandably, it is noble to place ones name behind their opinion, but history has shown that it comes with a price and where there is repression, a heavy price. The road to freedom has often been fuelled by anonymous efforts and writers. As brave a soul as would be that of Ben Franklin who made many open stands, would have also written anonymously at times. In Bermuda it was the anonymous Progressive Group who led to the 1959 Theatre Boycott and much of the progressive movement towards ending the property vote. The right to a secret ballot underlies the principle support for the anonymous contrary to the showing of hands and declaring ‘aye’ in private and public elections. Some are going to argue the days of intimidation and victimisation for expressing opinions are over now, but I can assure you that they are not.I would tread carefully when tinkering with the notion of banning pen names. I do understand the issue of decency and decorum in comments but we don’t need to throw the baby out with the wash. We do not want to stifle freedom of speech and create repression believing somehow you have made a better society because nothing is spoken. If people’s thoughts are not dealt with in an open forum it creates a neurosis that eats away at the core. I use my name and freely express my opinion and continue to suffer dearly for it. Bermuda is a very difficult place to obtain rights. You pay, your family pay, jobs, services and opportunities denied, contracts pulled and avoided, it all happens in Bermuda unabated by time.I don’t need Tel Aviv or Ireland as an example for me in Bermuda, I am a black man who feels confident in defending my heritage against any pen name, criticism only exposes my vulnerability and I embrace it to become stronger. In 1938 Marcus Garvey spoke to a black church congregation in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. He said about their predicament: “I cannot do anything for you in Halifax until you have made up your minds to do something for yourself. No man is completely helped from without, he is helped from within. The thing must be from within.” He also said if you don’t use your own mind you can’t blame others who will use it for you”. He went on to say: “Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery none but yourselves can free your minds”. That’s where Bob Marley’s words came from.KHALID A WASI