In an article which, I guess, was supposed to be Shawn Crockwell's cry of righteous indignation in response to mention being made of his criminal conviction at the PLP rally, it was suggested that I should be outraged by the references that have been made to his past by members of my party.

First of all, and I mean no disrespect to my good friend, but what does he expect? He has been self declared as being worthy of election to one of the highest offices in the country. He has voluntarily placed himself inside one of the harshest crucibles of criticism that could ever exist, i.e. the court of public opinion. It is inevitable that comments will be made about his past convictions, and it is then for the people of Bermuda to decide how much weight they give to these criticisms.

Perhaps they key question should not be whether mention of his past conviction is permissible ¿ of course it is ¿ but more so to what extent is it relevant to his suitability as a candidate.

Just recently I too contemplated being a candidate for the PLP in the next election. For personal reasons I have decided to forego such a step at this time. I fully intend to ask the party consider me again in the future, and I remain loyal and faithful to the PLP.

With that said, let me also make it clear that I was, and still am, fully aware that the people of Bermuda are entitled to take into consideration, and comment upon, my past convictions in the context of deciding whether I am suitable to represent their bosom interests. That is their right. But, when it comes to the question of the weight or relevance of my past convictions, or Mr. Crockwell's for that matter, as the old axiom goes 'The devil is in the detail'.

I take the view that in this instance it is in the court of public opinion as it is in a court of law ¿ if that past conviction is logically relevant to a present circumstance it is permissible to make mention of it and to weigh it in the balance when reaching a final determination. The question then seems to be: 'Is critical comment upon the past convictions of Mr. Crockwell relevant to the decisions the electorate must now make about him? Of course they are!

Mr. Crockwell was a bright, well-mannered young man from a settled domestic background. He was educated at some of the finest schools in Bermuda and abroad. He had the benefit of all of the preparatory mechanisms that me and my peers only heard about. Mr. Crockwell was on his way to law school and was employed in a position of extreme trust as a clerk to the Supreme Court. He breached that trust and dishonestly removed a large quantity of heroin which he then took away and sold. The money was intended to be used to fund law school. Those are the facts.

I was bright, but not well behaved. I was not, through no fault of any particular person, from a settled domestic background. I was expelled from one of the best schools in Bermuda and never graduated from any of them. I did not have the benefit of any of the preparatory mechanisms that me and my peers heard about. I was unable to hold down a steady job and had never asked for nor been placed in any positions of trust. I was not on my way to college. I was an ignorant, mindless fool who was convicted of shooting two young men during a fight in a nightclub. Those are also the facts.

What transpired once we both got to prison is a twice told story which need not be repeated here, but suffice it to say that my ultimate goal was to finally be acceptable to and accepted by mainstream society as a person in whom they could place confidence. On the other hand, Shawn's mission was always to regain, reacquire, and rebuild the trust that he had shattered. Those are two very different journeys. Those are two very different stories.

Mr. Crockwell is asking the people of Bermuda to ignore the relevance of the fact that when in a position of trust as an officer of the court, and in the absence of any conventional social factors or dire economic exigency, he stole heroin which was an exhibit in his custody and sold it. That is a relevant consideration which is open to critical comment.

I, too, have been, and still am, subject to critical comment (even by members of my own party). Am I outraged by it? No. Not when it is substantially true.

"Unlike some candidates he didn't have to get punished by the law to learn to be honest." (Jahmal Simmons)

Fact: Mr. Crockwell is the only candidate that we know of who has criminal convictions;

Fact: This conviction involved the theft of drugs from our Supreme Court. Subsequent to the theft of the heroin, and based upon the belief that he had gotten away with that theft, he also removed a quantity of marijuana which was subsequently recovered by the police;

Fact: There was a strong element of dishonesty and breach of trust inherent in those offences;

Fact: He was punished by being sent to prison;

Fact: He has since then earned his law degree, completed his overseas training, and has publicly admitted that he has learned from those mistakes.

So, although the comment by Mr. Simmons was critical, in the circumstances it was not irrelevant or improper. Indeed, it is substantially true. The question of how important it is for the people of Bermuda that Shawn was at one time guilty of dishonesty and a major breach of trust is one for each Bermudian to answer. Just as it would be relevant for them to ask how important it is that I was convicted of violent offences. Some people say it is like comparing apples and oranges. Yes, they are both fruit, but to the discerning chef one may not be as suitable as the other for a specified purpose.

Why should I be outraged? When people raise my past in a relevant way I deal with it. It happened. It is a part of who I am. I make no secrets about who I was and what I did.

I do get irritated when people attempt to use my past experience for irrelevant purposes. That concerns me. For instance when a person who has declared himself as a candidate comes in for criticism on the basis of his trustworthiness for public office in light of documented acts of gross dishonesty committed by him, I fail to see how that is relevant to my conviction for a violent offence.

Each of the publicized criticisms of Mr. Crockwell have been personally and fact specific. He has never been criticized simply because of the fact that he went to prison, he has been criticized for what he done to get there in light of his present aspirations. My good friend, and I still consider him to be my friend, really needs to leave me out of this. He has been impliedly asked a question: "In light of these breaches of trust, can we trust you?" He has not answered it, and attempts to blur the issue by recasting Mr. Simmons's comments as a general attack on all men who have been convicted of offences. This is tantamount to the same dirty tactics he now decries.

Why should I be outraged? Mr. Simmons was not criticising all men who have been to prison; he was talking specifically about Shawn Crockwell. I am far from outraged, but I am curious as to what he intends to tell the people of Bermuda? I'm equally curious as to whether his own party made the most damaging criticism of him when they did not place him in the neighborhood he so eloquently describes as a virtual utopian melting pot, but instead placed him in one of the safest UBP seats in the country?

Mr. Crockwell is the only one who can answer those questions, and as much as it seems he would like me to join his choir¿¿sorry buddy¿¿on this one we aint singing the same tune.