December 5, 2006

Dear Sir,

Members of Citizens Uprooting Racism in Bermuda (CURB) were disappointed with the way charges of racism were levelled or implied during the recent Motion to Adjourn exchanges in the House of Assembly by our elected Members of Parliament.

The Premier, Dr. Brown, has indicated that the Government will be seeking open and honest dialogue on race. This is something that CURB supports and believes is necessary to address the racial undertones that pervade many issues in Bermuda. The Premier appeared to be contributing to that meaningful discourse in the House when he explained the sensitivity amongst blacks surrounding castration and the use of the term 'eunuch' when describing a black man. CURB recognises that some words and terminology are racially loaded and have differing impacts on persons of different races. By openly discussing these issues we can further the understanding between races and promote discourse that avoids such sensitive terminology.

It is unfortunate that the comments in the House were not limited to such constructive dialogue and that the exchange degraded to veiled accusations of racism. Where elements of racism actually exist, or are suspected, they should of course be challenged. It is important, however, to ensure that such challenges clearly describe the offending behaviour and explain why it is deemed to be offensive or possibly racist. When we simply label people as racists without any supporting argument we do nothing to improve the issue of race and racism in Bermuda. We would argue that doing so actually aggravates the issue. If race, and accusations of racism, are being used to simply take cheap shots and make political points, it is a deplorable situation.

CURB implores our elected officials to take the high road when it comes to the issues of race and racism. Demonstrate how to effectively discuss the impact of race and racism in Bermuda so that the meaningful discourse can take place throughout the community. Racism is too important an issue in Bermuda to be used as a political football.

December 5, 2006

Dear Sir,

Even by Dr. Brown's own tawdry standards, his outburst in Parliament on Friday night qualifies as something of a nadir.

It reveals a great deal of a man's character, when he responds to criticism with veiled threats and cries of racism. But after over a decade in Bermudian politics, that particular flaw has long been evident in Dr. Brown.

Of course Dr. Brown was never in want of the sort of divisive, racially charged rhetoric with which he made his name. He's been doing the same routine for years. Yet, previously we could take comfort in the reassurance that there were calmer minds above him and that reason could prevail. That's no longer the case.

The criticisms levelled at the Premier by Dr. Gibbons were, of course, not the type that would move ordinary men to hysteria. They were reasonable questions concerning an unregistered charity, foreign fundraising and the still-unresolved pay-to-play affair. It must be understood that by doing this Dr. Gibbons was merely upholding the very basic responsibilities of the Opposition and performing his duty to the people he was elected to serve. But Dr. Brown's shameful response was not just a craven insult at a member of the Opposition, but an affront to our long parliamentary tradition. Contrary to Dr. Brown's angry assertions last Friday, Dr. Gibbons ? and any other member of the Opposition ? has every right to question the Government's record. Indeed, it is their duty to do precisely that. They are bound by their oaths to bring the Government to account when it errs and to truth when it deceives. That Dr. Brown and his colleagues need reminding of these democratic tenets is alarming but sadly revealing.

It appears to me, sir, that since attaining office ? and, indeed, long before then ? Dr. Brown has begun to consider himself a Bermudian statesman. He has adopted the speech and habits of an American president; introduced teleprompters, press secretaries and chiefs of staff to our politics. Yet before he gets carried away, Dr. Brown should be reminded of a few things. A statesman would not brand his critics corrupt racists nor would he issue threats or use terms like "racist dog" on the floor of Parliament only a week after calling for a "frank and open" discussion on the subject of race.

I need hardly remind your readers that this Island has reared many statesmen in its history, some of whom served in the same office Dr. Brown now holds. Most of them were able to see above the divisions of party and race and to carry out the affairs of state with a certain dignity and honour. All of them, I am sure, would be appalled to witness the disgraceful scene in Parliament last Friday.

And now a word on Dr. Gibbons. He is not ? as the Premier contended ? the leader of the Opposition, de facto or otherwise. We might be better off if he was. For no other member of the Opposition has so consistently held this Government to its pledge of transparency and accountability for so long.

So fight on, Dr. Gibbons, fight on. Have faith, and be of good cheer. Know that whilst you may be the last voice of reason around here, there are plenty of us still listening.

November 29, 2006

Dear Sir,

This morning while travelling in to work, I listened to the David Lopes talk show with Carol Hill. I was shocked, disgusted and astonished by the comments one caller decided to make. A previous caller had made comments about the KKK organisation. This man then called in to say that people had the right to join the KKK, Nazi brotherhood or any other organisation they wanted, and went on to say that we have the Black Panthers and the like so what was the difference. That comment was bad enough, but the caller then went on to state something to the likes of 'with the way things are that he doesn't blame people for joining the KKK'.

For the record, I'm black. I turned to my husband ? who is white ? and said 'tell me I didn't hear what I just heard' as he just sat there stunned as well. My husband, again who is white, then went on to make some very valid points that I would like to point out to this man, who is obviously a racist (and that is a term that I am very careful about using).

As my husband pointed out, it is a person's right to join these organisations (unfortunately). But the problem with the KKK, the Aryan Nation and other such groups is their mentality that the white race is the master race ? period. They do not believe in the right for other races to exist ? which is what makes them so dangerous. Historically, it is a fact that the KKK has hurt and killed black people for no other reason than that they are black. They get together and spout out venom and look at ways of taking back their countries (mainly USA) and eliminating blacks, Jews, Hispanics, gays and whoever they believe have no right to exist on this planet. Again, that is what makes them dangerous. As long as they just talk and do not take action, there is nothing that authorities can do. However, they are on the FBI's radar and under observation should they do decide to cross that line, initiate their plans and hurt innocent people.

I admit that I don't know very much about the Black Panthers, but I think that historically they were started to radically change the system and get justice and equal rights for black people. I don't even know if they are still around. However, whether they are or not ? if they used violent means as some say and hurt innocent white people, I hold them in the wrong as well. I don't believe in hurting innocent people based on their skin colour to get one's agenda across ? period.

I keep hearing that we have racist people in Bermuda and although I didn't doubt it, a lot of the time I thought it was just rhetoric. I have heard others labelling this caller a racist on the talk shows before (due to his political comment), and gave him the benefit of the doubt. Then to hear this guy making his hateful comments this morning was a real shock. I want to ask this guy what does he have against black people? Would you join the KKK if you had the chance? Your mindset is very scary. I want to advise you to take people as you find them ? you have good and bad and decent and worthless people in every race. Maybe you're just frustrated over the way things are in the country right now, I know some people just hate not to be in control. I hope you were just venting and don't really mean what you say. However, I'd advise you to be careful what you say, because stirring up that kind of hate can have some very terrible consequences.

December 5, 2006

Dear Sir,

Why is the focus of the term limit discussion on international companies when they account for only 15 to 20 percent of work permits? Why isn't the focus of the discussion on local businesses/Government which account for the other 80 to 85 percent?

Undoubtedly concessions will have to be made to the international companies because we don't want them to leave, but such concessions should not also be made to local businesses/Government.

Term limits will play a very important secondary role in addition to preventing large numbers of long term residents i.e. they will ensure that Bermudians get the opportunity at all the jobs they are qualified for. Yes I know that Immigration regulations are supposed to do that, but they fail because employers tailor job descriptions and requirements to the incumbents and not the requirements of the position.

By doing this they exclude qualified Bermudians. Once term limits become active there will be no incumbent, so the job descriptions can only request the actual requirements for the position.

I therefore have no sympathy for the unscrupulous employers who have systematically denied Bermudians their birth right for many years. You brought it upon yourselves. I believe that term limits should be tightened up for local business by getting rid of the loopholes such as key employee provisions.

OBSERVER

Warwick