Dear Sir,

In the RG of August 20, Derrick Burgess stated that I was “out of touch” by writing inflammatory articles about Bermuda. Really?

He was referring to a recent article in the Cayman Financial Review (CFR), which I had written some months ago in response to a request from Dan Mitchell, of the Cato Institute, in the United States.

Mr Mitchell writes frequently in support of low-tax jurisdictions such as Bermuda, and provides much intellectual ammunition for Bermuda, Cayman and others who are under constant attack from high-tax governments such as Britain, France and the US, as well as hostile international organisations such as OECD based in Paris.

He is a strong and welcome ally of Bermuda.

In the 2015 Budget Statement page 3, Mr Richards quoted an official of the US Treasury Department as saying “to be blunt, we really do need to kill the zero-tax jurisdictions”. Kill the economy of Bermuda? That is why we need the help of people like Mr Mitchell, and that is why I write for the CFR.

But back to my most recent article. It was reviewed by an editorial board, for accuracy, scholarship and fairness, and I would hope that “inflammatory” articles would be rejected.

It is bizarre that on the day Mr Burgess’s comments were published by the RG, Wayne Furbert was arguing that there was no free speech in Bermuda.

Yet when I exercise my right of free speech, I am falsely accused and Mr Burgess wants to shut me up.

Anyone who wants to read what I wrote can find it on the website of the Cayman Financial Review, but it is long and tightly argued. http://caymanianfinancialreview.cay.newsmemory.com/ It is on page 48.

In closing, may I just quote the final words of what I wrote: “Although there are many merits to the existing immigration policy, it is hard to escape the conclusion that, as with all forms of protectionism, immigration laws do not protect, they destroy.”

Hardly inflammatory.

Yours faithfully,

ROBERT STEWART