Balancing Safety and Civil Rights

During our present period of heightened public sensitivity around violent crime there are urgent calls for  action. People want to see the Bermuda Police Service making tangible progress in this area and they want to see the perpetrators of such crime brought to justice. One tool adopted by the BPS in arresting criminal behavour is the stop and search policy. Use of this policy, though, has raised important human rights questions the merit examination. Tonight’s forum on this issue organized by the newly formed Centre for Justice will no doubt prove instructive.

Under current laws the police have the authority to stop and search persons as part of a preemptive crime reduction initiative. So far this year about 15,000 stop and searches have been carried out and, according to the BPS, they are focused on “prolific priority offenders.”  With reported crime showing declines over last year this no doubt reinforces the view that stop and searches are both a credible and effective part of reducing crime.

An opposing view urges caution and restraint. Amid claims that persons with no criminal record are routinely stop and searched, there are concerns that one’s human rights, particularly regarding the presumption of innocence, have been comprised under this power. Lawyers and other human rights advocates arguing this see it as part of the slippery slope of the erosion of civil liberties.  

From the public perspective there is likely to be greater emphasis given to public safety over public freedom given that criminal behaviour has permeated our community in ways never before witnessed. Moreover, residents, generally, want to see the police more assertive and more in control in contrast to what for many seemed like police passivity amidst growing lawlessness. 

To be fair, those advocating caution equally want to see a community free of crime and where pervasive public safety is a fact of life and not merely an aspiration. Their concern is that in our quest to significantly reduce crime, in “policing the crisis”, we do not sacrifice the liberties so many fought for for so long. 

Specifically, there is concern that any member of the public can be stopped while travelling on our roads and be subjected to search of their vehicle and person. There is concern that this has a level of arbitrariness to it that impinges on the larger principle of freedom. Further, the argument is made that if we allow our freedoms to be carved back because of this issue a precedent will have been set for dealing with other issues.

Crime, particularly violent crime, is a fact of modern Bermuda that requires a strong and effective response. The BPS has a number of tools at their disposal to tackle their responsibilities in dealing with this issue, with stop and search powers one such tool. What we are prepared or, indeed required to give up in terms of freedoms to grant the authorities the power to act should be a matter of public debate.

The Centre for Justice needs to be commended for taking the initiative and bringing forward and juxtaposing  views on this important national problem. I have no doubt the panelists will inform, enlighten and help us to see a clearer way forward.

The OBA and Racism

“The legacy of racism is the root cause of many of the social ills and the dysfunction we are grappling with today….white supremacy has imposed injustice…and still works to maintain the status quo.” Powerful words coming from a new voice. These are neither the exhortations of the venerable Dr Eva Hodgson nor of the irrepressible Mr Rolf Commissiong . This is the voice of the leader of the One Bermuda Alliance, Mr Craig Cannonier. That this is now the official position of the official opposition on the impact of racism is instructive.

To begin with, there is recognition that racism not only has contoured our island home in significant and deliberate ways, but more importantly, its impact continues.  The OBA, then, has embraced the position long held by the much maligned Dr Hodgson and, effectively, endorsed the work of the Big Conversation, led by Mr Commissiong, to raise awareness of the legacy of racism. If the OBA Members of Parliament who were elected under the UBP label and who previously excoriated the work of the Big Conversation have embraced the perspective of their leader then Bermuda is moving in a better direction.

One of the challenges for the OBA will be to persuade many of their supporters—the thousands who previously supported the UBP—that racism has had a real and meaningful impact on the lives of people today. Too often we hear comments such as “I am not responsible for what my grandparents did” or “I worked hard to get where I am today” as if our racial past never matters. Mr Cannonier is correct to remind us that it does. That he chose to give it prominence in his Reply to the Throne Speech suggests the OBA will make racial injustice a theme in their future campaign.

While it is important to recognize the legacy and ongoing impact of racism and white supremacy as the OBA does, that is merely the first critical step. The more difficult challenge is what to do about it. On this front the OBA has not provided any direction. If one recognizes the playing field is unequal and unjust because of racism it is illogical to fall onto the false notion of equality of opportunity. Mr Cannonier: “We should all have a chance to make the most of our God given gifts no matter what colour we are.” Asserting equal opportunity without equal capacity is a false construct. In simple terms, a new business owner with $1 million of family money in backing has a greater capacity to succeed than a new business owner with $10,000 in savings. 

  

If the OBA is to be taken seriously on an issue their leader argues is responsible for many of our social ills they have an obligation to inform us what they plan to do about it. The PLP government initiated the Big Conversation, introduced the Economic Empowerment Zones to provide greater opportunities for marginalized groups and began discussions on work equity legislation. I look forward to the OBA proposals to address the injustice created as a result of racism.

My view has long been that race is the prism through which many issues are refracted. Understanding racism is a critical part of understanding the making of modern Bermuda. But it should never be a crutch on which everything rests. Rather, we should recognize it, understand it and then devise suitable initiatives, policies and programmes to remedy the damage it has caused. If the OBA can contribute toward this end we should welcome their input.

De-Occupying Wall Street

The movement to challenge corporate greed and excess that began on Wall Street and rapidly became a global protest movement is nearing its end. Many countries have seen working people, and the formerly working, come out in the tens of thousands to lend their voice and bodies to the clarion call for a fairer, a more equitable society. As governments exercise the ‘rule of law’ to close down the tents and end the demonstrations—“illegal tenting”, “sanitation”, “obstruction”—while still claiming to embrace free speech and expression, there are important lessons to be learned from the Occupy movement.

Firstly, as much as people are legitimately aggrieved by the destructive policies pursued in the realm of high finance, it is critical for any protest movement to have a clear goal in mind. The Occupy movement is a genuine eruption of the collective will of everyday people but its objective has been limited to consciousness raising and calling out corporate crooks. Many participants, though, longed for changes in policies or laws that would limit the seeming free rein financiers appear to enjoy. If the goal is to raise consciousness the organizers have achieved this; and at some point further protest loses its relevance. 

Those commentators who liken this movement to the Arab Spring misunderstand: those movements in the Middle East had the explicit political objective of toppling authoritarian rule and developed mass consciousness as part of that effort. If there is any parallel to be drawn it is that 2011 saw a rupture of people power in raw, unadulterated form.  Indeed, this year can be seen as a tamer version of that pivotal year, 1968, which saw students, peace activists, black power activists and Prague Spring all challenge hegemonic power.

Secondly, the Occupy protesters set out to challenge a group who has no requirement or obligation to answer to the public. This is an altogether different undertaking than going after those who hold political office. And given their objective of merely raising consciousness, the men in suits could simply ignore them publicly while working vigorously behind the scenes to bring an end to the protesters’ campaign. If there is a weakness in their strategy there was a failure to link politicians with Wall Street: bailouts using tax payers’ money, repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act separating retail and investment banking, and tax loopholes for major corporations, were all designed and passed by legislators with cozy relationships with the corporate world buttressed by campaign donations.

Thirdly, while the Occupy protests may well be at an end entirely by week’s end, there is an important message they leave behind: people have a voice outside of the formal political process, they have power irrespective of their wealth and they have the capacity to make change, even if in this instance, it remains at the level of consciousness raising. 

Alice Walker once said, “The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don’t have any.” The Occupiers have given away none of their power.  And through their example they have inspired everyday people everywhere with the notion that elites do not have a monopoly on power  and they power they do have will not go unchallenged.

Term Limits: No Simple Solutions

Immigration policy has long been intertwined with Bermuda's political discourse. In its current form, the issue of term limits has taken centre stage with strongly held views coming from multiple sides. While the development and implementation of the six year term limit policy in 2001 was in response to a specific set of concerns, now is a good time to revisit and assess if its current form is best suited to Bermuda today.

Government introduced term limits to discourage the expectation that work permit approval was effectively the same as permanent residency rights. The rationale is that at the time there were 12,000 work permit holders and their dependents, and over any five year period 6,000 of them would still reside on the island after five years.

With such renewals, government felt there would be a legitimate expectation of permanent residency status. But no government, anywhere, would likely grant or be allowed to grant permanent residency in one fell swoop to a group of people who comprise more than ten percent of the local population.

Employers have criticised this policy because they argue some of their best talent is lost; further, many have called for employees to simply sign a waiver saying they accept they have no legitimate claim to permanent residency. Because most employers only care about their employment needs they are silent on the issue of what happens to that long serving employee, who having given some of her most productive years to that company and Bermuda, has no security of tenure in her later years. 

This is precisely the issue with those workers who came to the island after 1989 the year Bermuda status grants were abolished and have had permits renewed simply on application.

A number of discussions have taken place between government and the Association of Bermuda Insurers and Reinsurers (ABIR) and the Bermuda First group and it appears there is movement toward some common, even if not completely satisfactory ground on term limits. The goal is to find the right balance between creating and sustaining an attractive business environment, the long term interests of Bermuda and Bermudians and fair treatment of our guest workers. 

Political posturing and anonymous invective do not help. The issues are complex and intertwined and do not lend themselves to simplistic solutions. The OBA has seemingly offered such a solution: “End term limits for job categories that normally get 90 percent waivers” says Shadow Finance Minister Mr Bob Richards.

This alone completely side steps the reason for term limits being introduced in the first place. What does the OBA propose to do with the work permit holder after he has worked for ten years? Grant PRC, status, or allow them to continue without security of tenure? If the decision is to grant PRC or status, how many people are we talking about on an annual basis? And what are the infrastructure implications? We should recall that one of the reasons why the Department of Immigration sought to limit the number of work permit holders with children (as insensitive as it sounds) was because there were limited places in schools for children.

Term limit policy has to be discussed in tandem with the rights and privileges of long term residents. As these discussions continue we should be mindful not to inject a class bias into the formulation of policy; one that gives the wealthy and powerful guest worker disproportionate benefits in contrast to those granted to the weak and poor. This is where government has to speak for those who have no voice, those silenced by intimidation. The contribution of the unskilled or less skilled guest worker is also vital for our economy.

Introducing the term limit policy has been one of the most controversial polices of this government and its implementation was designed to address a potent political problem. Ten years later it is important to re-assess and determine how the policy can be modified while taking into consideration multiple factors. The key here is balance.

Time for a new paradigm

Monday’s Labour Day celebration offered us an opportunity to reflect on the essential role played by working people in both building and sustaining our country. While foreign investors and savvy entrepreneurs inject capital, establish companies and create opportunities, none of this is possible without the work of labourers, sales assistants, secretaries and couriers. It is this duality of efforts that keeps the economic engine running. These efforts, though, have always been framed by confrontation and mistrust. With our engine running sluggishly and fundamental changes on a global scale this may well be the time to move toward an enhanced labour—management paradigm.

Any new paradigm should include, minimally, the following characteristics: (1) the interests of the country should transcend any more narrowly defined interest; (2) deliberations should be rooted in transparency and full disclosure; and (3) a sense of social responsibility should envelop decision-making.

The right of workers and business owners/managers to pursue their interests is inalienable but not absolute. I think reasonable people will agree that keeping buses running for our tourists and students is more important than a labour/management dispute over a bus driver; that the protection of our national image and profile abroad is a better guarantor of our long term sustainability than bad managers fomenting labour unrest in their pursuit of a narrow economic agenda. We will make progress when the specific pursuits of workers and business owners/managers are placed in the broader national context. It may well mean that some issues are dropped because there is a larger area of concern more pressing, which if not addressed will weaken our country in ways which will take a long time to recover from.

There is often a cat ‘n’ mouse game played between management and labour as they seek to win some concession, akin to a game of high stakes poker: some information is revealed, some concealed, much left to speculation and interpretation. I believe if both parties shared more information and provided a clear rationale for the positions taken better decisions could be arrived at, faster.  Aiming high and settling somewhere below what was first sought months later is an old approach ill-suited to the exigencies of Bermuda today. Deliberations based on all available information with advocates also looking at the national interest are more likely to come to agreement more quickly than deliberations shrouded in secrecy and the incremental release of data.

One of the ironies of today is that while trade union radicalism has abated as progress has been won we have seen, worldwide, and unrelenting pursuit of profit maximization and greater shareholder value at almost any cost. Some people will simply call this greed. This provided the backdrop for the financial crisis, pushing some countries to the brink of collapse and, because business has been successful in arguing “what’s good for them is good for the country” governments have stepped in to back them. We did that here as well. When juxtaposed with the concessions unions have made to retain jobs the call for greater corporate social responsibility makes sense. Progressive companies view their employees as partners and involve them in key decisions and provide a level of profit sharing as well. A radical shift in thinking for Bermuda but perhaps one we need to consider seriously.

 It is often said that Bermuda is small enough with all key decision makers within close proximity of each other that we should be able to sit down and work out all of our challenges. Aside from the political divide—which is more imagined than real—we have the opportunity to move toward a more collaborative, socially responsible relationship between labour and management. Such a move would benefit the countryl. All that seems to be lacking is the courage and vision for one party to take the first step.

The OBA and new politics

With the One Bermuda Alliance having now elected a new leader and a slate of officers, Bermuda is poised to enter the next election cycle with a new look party challenging the PLP’s 13-year record of governance. This will be an election fought perhaps with greater vigour than previously as alternative views about how best to address the needs of the people will be debated against the backdrop of the most challenging economic times in living memory for most of us.

As this debate escalates and evolves there are some important aspects of Bermuda’s current political terrain I think we all need to be mindful of.

Firstly, the group that supported the UBP in the last election (some 47 percent of voters) has largely transferred their support to the OBA. Whether the OBA creation was part of a strategy based on a leaked UBP consultant’s report or whether it was the spontaneous creation of disgruntled politicians and voters is less relevant now. The party is with us and it is a credible political force. That two former Premiers, Gibbons and Swan, lent their support to the OBA almost immediately after formation no doubt sent a strong message to the former UBP supporters. 

Secondly, race regrettably remains a key factor in our electoral politics. While black voters have always split their votes across the parties, white voters always voted virtually in unison for the UBP. Given the old UBP support being transferred to the OBA, whites are almost certainly to vote en masse for the OBA. This white voting pattern remained during the 1990s when the PLP deliberately eschewed invoking anything based on a racially positioned strategy. This pattern remains during the tenure of the PLP government when there has not been a single law enacted or policy adopted based on any form of racial discrimination. We will make progress when whites are less racial in their voting pattern. It is certainly true that there is a small minority PLP members who inflame racial sentiment with provocative commentary and this needs to cease; but their rhetoric alone cannot explain the minuscule white electoral support given over the decades. 

Thirdly, when the economy is in trouble, the government gets blamed. We seem to reject the conventional wisdom contained in the adage, “When American sneezes, Bermuda gets a cold.” It is without question that the global economic crisis has more significantly weakened our economy than anything done locally by this government. It does not take an economics degree to know this; just look at what most countries in the world are now experiencing. Could we do a better job repositioning tourism? Without question. Could we have better controlled the public purse on capital projects? Indeed. Those who speak of the PLP government as if it has destroyed our economy are continuing a story begun in the 1970s, when the PLP first showed electoral growth. The line then, as it is now, is that the PLP cannot run the country and certainly not the economy. Former Legislative Council President Arnott Jackson wondered out loud if this really was a non too subtle attack on black people (Royal Gazette, December 4, 1979). 

Finally, disrespect for voters will almost always come at a price. We need to respect the voting decisions made by our electorate. Calling the support for one party “emotional” devalues a decision made by a voter who is voting in their best interest as they see it. Parties are required to work to win the support of voters and should take none of them for granted. Regrettably, the OBA’s first electoral step seems set to do precisely this: In Mr John Barritt agreeing to resign his seat and “handing it over” to Mr Cannnonier there is the clear (some might say, arrogant) assumption that the voters of Devonshire South Central will merely follow the lead and endorse the new OBA leader. Given that Mr Barritt won 85 percent of the vote in the 2007 election, voting turnout and party support in the upcoming by-election there will be a barometer of how voters feel about being taken for granted.

History has Vindicated Walter Brangman

One summer afternoon in 1984 I was sitting off in my parent’s den engaged in a discussion about the future direction of the Progressive Labour Party with my uncle, Walter Brangman. Back in Bermuda during a summer break in my graduate studies and imbued with the socialist sensibilities that dominated my academic programme, I challenged my uncle—then a dissenting member of the PLP—for not being radical enough, for not addressing the plight of the working masses. At the time I thought we were embroiled in a heated debate but on reflection the heat and agitation was unidirectional, coming solely from me. My uncle was calm and respectful as he patiently heard me out. At one point he exposed his signature warm smile and said, “Walton, I was a lot like you when I was your age. In twenty years’ time you’ll be thinking a lot more like me.”

Walter Brangman was a man of strong convictions about what was right for Bermuda; and he never shied away from making his point. When he helped form the Members for Change inside the PLP in 1984 he wanted to see the party move to a more centrist disposition because he felt the party needed to be more inclusive and because it would enhance the party’s electability. He was a founding member of the National Liberal Party because he felt a centrist party, and one that was genuinely bi-racial, could better serve the interests of the people. That the NLP had an uphill battle in a polarized Bermuda compounded by the weakening of third parties under our first-past-the-pots electoral system takes nothing away from sincerity of the NLP’s raison d’être. 

In his later years, Mr Brangman would offer his insights and experience to help elucidate the public on any number of public issues that were prominent at the time. I have often wondered why no government has ever seen fit to empanel a team of experienced and retired great thinkers as both a sounding and advisory board so that policy can be better informed. Walter Brangman would have been an excellent contributor to such a group.

No matter what the topic, no matter what the circumstances, my uncle set the standard for calm and reflective deliberation. While some of us are prone to raising our voices and vigourous gesticulation to make a point; and while the weak go for a more demeaning approach; Walter Brangman managed to be dispassionate while caring deeply about the issues. He showed me this on that summer afternoon, he reflected that during his tenure in Parliament (1976-1985) and he lived that during his successful post-Parliament career. 

The island-wide outpouring of affection for this quiet, humble soldier in the battle for a more just, a fairer Bermuda is telling. He was one of many who worked selflessly to improve our social condition.  As a member of the PLP while in opposition, he worked alongside a team of people who pricked the conscience of Government, oftentimes persuading it to provide for more socially progressive legislation and policy. He was not one of those MPs who sat in Parliament barely uttering a word; rather he was always engaged, always offering his views and campaigning for reform. 

History has vindicated him and the Members for Change since the PLP did eventually move to a more centrist position and in large part because of this, won the seat of power in 1998. In some respects, he was also right about me.