Senator Daniels: Time To Reevaluate PRCs

August 15, 2014

[Opinion column written by Senator Marc G. Daniels]

On Wednesday, July 23, 2014, Minister Michael Fahy, without any consultation or open dialogue, made an announcement that OBA would drop the PRC appeal.

Having read MP Sylvan Richards’s recent opinion piece dated July 29, 2014, it seems as if we are now truly witnessing a game of Masterpiece Theatre.

Contrary to previous OBA statements, parliament could have closed this loophole via an amendment. The Hon. Walton Brown Jr. led the charge in the Lower House of Assembly when the Chief Justice’s decision came to public attention.

When an attempt was made at collaboration on this issue, the concerns of Bermudians were greeted with sheer contempt by the OBA.

Legal judgments are merely an interpretation of the law juxtaposed with particular facts, but it is Parliament that makes the law. Whenever Parliament considers the law to be insufficient, it may repeal the law or make amendments.

This demonstrates leadership that falls within our legal parameters and, most importantly, reflects the will of the people of Bermuda.

For Junior Minister Richards to suggest that we cannot make laws retroactively is ironic. Junior Minister Sylvan Richards is responsible for the OBA rescinding the Waterfront contract and risking our country incurring legal fees in arbitration and potentially a costs award in excess of $150 million.

Yes, you read correctly. The OBA has made Bermudian taxpayers liable for up to $150 million. Junior Minister Richards fails to speak to this truth.

There is an immigration hierarchy policy that clearly lists Bermudians above PRC holders.

Minister Fahy is avoiding stating that there is such a policy produced by his Ministry of Home Affairs [Department of Immigration] in April 2013.

It is expected that employers will fill jobs in Bermuda in the following order:

  • Bermudian
  • non-Bermudian spouse [including the widow or widower] of a Bermudian
  • divorced parent of a Bermudian
  • Permanent Resident‘s Certificate holder
  • non-Bermudian with a qualifying Bermudian connection
  • other non-Bermudians

PRCs also have restrictions regarding the acquisition of property. Removing these restrictions further places them in direct competition with all Bermudians.

In the Senate, we have repeatedly raised the question, “What is Bermuda’s optimal number for residency?” The answer to this question is crucial in protecting future generations of Bermudians.

Despite some trying to advance a certain argument, this is not a human rights issue. The right to vote is intrinsically linked to the right of the people of a given country to determine the politics and vision for their country.

While some hate to acknowledge our horrid racial past, we must do so if we are ever to truly progress. The UBP strategically used racial polarization to further the divide; as race was paramount to why so many English persons were given status 40 years ago.

The OBA is well aware of these voting habits and the race dynamics that play in elections. Yet they are repeating historical wrongs on the gamble that PRC holders will increase their voter base.

It was the PLP who made it possible for long-term residents to remain in Bermuda indefinitely. However, with that privilege came an understanding that such a gift was not to be extended to their offspring.

Since our current predicament arises from a loophole that was challenged in court, what would stop thousands of other PRC holders from making further legal challenges and possibly being successful?

What argument or lobbying will be made for those who were born or arrived after July 31, 1989?

If more applications become successful in the future, do we risk marginalizing our society even further? Especially against the backdrop of a government that has had near zero public consultation on the issues that concern us most.

The truth is that the ‘sleeping provision’ was never the intention of Parliament or the Bermudian people. Against this backdrop, how can any right thinking member of society not see this for what it is: an opportunity to increase the voter base as was alluded to in last year’s OBA Throne Speech.

If anything, the OBA has changed its focus from bringing amendments “to provide pathways to Bermuda status to persons born in Bermuda or persons who have been adopted by Bermudian parents,” to an immediate advantage to those who are not Bermudian born.

Bermuda, we are at a political and social crossroads. We now risk permanent social and economic division. It is important that we all take the required time to come to mutual agreements.

- Senator Marc G. Daniels

Share via email

Read More About

Category: All, News

Comments (148)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. watching says:

    Well said Senator Daniels, as usual.

    • flikel says:

      It is amazing how the OBA essentially says they are powerless to do anything and have to sit idly by an grant thousands of potential status applications.

      I find this argument absurd. A government has the power to enact legislation, but cannot change or repeal the legislation they enacted.

      This makes no sense.

      • Lois Frederick says:

        Read Kevin Comeau’s piece it will help you make sense of it.

        • Joonya says:

          THANK YOU

          • Roger says:

            Case is closed on this one, the senator is clearly talking from a brainwashed perspective without considering the facts or other articles written.

            Liar liar pants on fire

            • Truly Facts says:

              The problem I have is that Mr. Kevin Comeau’s piece is riddle with a lack of facts. Many fall for it as it reads like a narrative they would love to support.

              Sen. Daniels piece is based upon FACTS. Well written and on point.

              • Allan --#ith says:

                This argument goes both ways. Come to your own conclusion. Read the Human rights act, the consitutation, the immigration and protection act and the work permit policy.

              • Lack of facts?? says:

                Mr. Comeau’s piece is completely factual and reference those parts of the law and constitution that apply.

                On the other hand Mr. Daniel’s piece is full of factual errors.

              • hmmm says:

                You have that the wrong way around.

                Shame on you for attempting to decieve.

                • hmmm says:

                  @ Truly Facts

                  You have that the wrong way around.

                  Shame on you for attempting to decieve.

                  • Luis Suarez says:

                    This is ugly protectionism. There are many families that came to Bermuda in 2001 for the IB boom post 9.11, and whose kids are now approaching 18, and must leave. Many know no different, but these families control hundreds of Bermudian jobs, like it or not.

                    IB isn’t revolting, it is draining slowly, leaving because of their children not because of them.

                    This isn’t an influx of migrant workers sending money home, these are the producers, the men and women who make jobs. They are ones Sen Daniels should be concerned about.

        • flikel says:

          I did read Comeau’s piece, and many parts did not make sense. Our government can change the laws, and can even take steps to change the constitution.

          To suggest a government can handcuff itself is crazy.

          If the vast majority of these PRCs fit the demographic of a likely PLP voter, I am very sure this loophole would have been closed by this government yesterday.

          • LiarLiar says:

            You want the constitution to be changed so that protection of rights are eliminated for certain people so that your xenophobic tendencies can be appeased?

            That is exactly what you are saying.

          • Trulytruly says:

            Even if the law was amended those currently eligible PRC’s could not be denied status. It is that simple.

          • bdaboy says:

            “I did read Comeau’s piece, and many parts did not make sense.”

            perhaps keeping a dictionary by your side would help in the future.

          • Derek A. G. Jones says:

            @ flikel, the main part of Mr Comeau’s argument is that it would likely never get through as it would be discriminatory. We have come a long way in getting rid of discriminatory practices, why would we want to go back to doing it?

          • bdaboy says:

            “If the vast majority of these PRCs fit the demographic of a likely PLP voter, I am very sure this loophole would have been closed by this government yesterday.”

            Why did the PLP create this loophole in the first place?

          • Cow Polly says:

            Governments can change laws and even change constitutions but they cannot do it retroactively. To spell it out, if any PRC applies for status whilst the current law is in existence, that is the law that applies regardless of what changes are made in the future. Re-read Mr Comeau’s piece with an open mind and heart, he really did spell it out for you.

          • Creamy says:

            The government does have to follow the law. That’s the point.

            Comeau addressed the idea of whether the law can be changed.

            And are you now suggesting that the constitution is changed so that legal rights can be withheld by governmental decree based on race? Isn’t that a lot like 1930′s Germany? What other rights and liberties would a PLP government withhold for white people? Just so we’re clear. It will turn Bermuda into a PLP Police State where no one can rely on their legal and constitutional rights.

          • Edmund Wells says:

            Flikel-

            Is your opinion based on your extensive legal background, and years practicing law on the Island, like Mr. Comeau’s? If it is, please elaborate on your assertion of what’s crazy and Government’s ability to close the loophole.

            If it’s not, then please stop making unfounded assertions with no basis in fact that only make you look foolish and mislead other readers.

            Thank you.

            EW

          • Ty says:

            @fikkel

            What would your opinion be of this issue if the PLP WERE still in power today? Would you and your team still be fighting this with such rigor??

        • Ian says:

          You really think Bermuda will accept Kevin’s (a Canadian who has left the island to return home)legal “opinion” as Gospel for how we should address this foul-smelling conduct by our government going forward? Thats rich. Two words come to mind as you folks continue with attempts to arrogantly and obnoxiously push your agenda pass real Bermudians in OUR country – powder keg.

          • Franklin Jr says:

            is that a threat?

          • So tell us ... says:

            So tell us what’s wrong with Mr Comeau’s arguments.

            • aceboy says:

              He’s Canadian. I thought Ian made that clear. He can’t possibly be able to READ and practise law here for many years.

              • So tell us ... says:

                So tell us what’s wrong with Kevin’s arguments (or did you just forget to add a sarcasm tag to your post)

            • LiarLiar says:

              They don’t aagree with his POV.

              So they must be wrong.

              Now threaten some more violence you ignorant being.

          • hmmm says:

            IAN, THE PLP BASED OUR ECONOMIC DEBT MODEL on the advice of AMERICAN consultants. We are nothing like America.

            Perhaps a lawyer that understood Bermuda Law like Mr. Comeau should be listened to rather than this current PLP bias drivel that ignored the basic concepts of law.

          • jt says:

            Comeau presented the most coherent and apparently factual view on the issue yet. It is what the oba should have communicated and what the plp or pc would prefer to ignore. Until someone can tear down what he has provided…with facts to the contrary…it holds its own.
            Which part of the piece are you prepared to do this for Ian? You’re bit above smacks of the big X word you try to distance yourself from.

          • street wise says:

            “…you folks…” Really?!

            And you know more about the PRC non-issue than Mr Comeau? Really?!

            This is what’s wrong with our Country….

          • Chaos Theory says:

            I guess you don’t like his conclusions because (a) he is not Bermudian, and (b) they don’t tie into your script.

            Pretty sad…

          • James Herald says:

            Ian you really are a joke. You question Kevin’s contribution although he was well versed in business and law, yet you accept Tweeds version – who’s only qualification is he sells tickets on the weekend to an imaginary place you can go to after you die.

    • GTA says:

      “The OBA has made Bermudian taxpayers liable for up to $150 million” What does this have to do with the PRC issue? Not to mention the $1,505,000,000 of debt the PLP left the OBA and the Bermudian taxpayers liable for!

      Once again the PLP try to spin this PRC issue as best they can, with their unjustified financial liability claims, and racial undertones (overtones for that matter). The PLP created this mess, their negligence created this legal loophole, and now the Government of the day, the elected majority of the people, has to once again try to clean up the PLP’s trash. Fortunately enough, one man’s trash is another man’s treasure, and in this case the treasure is Bermudian status for all PRC holders who are eligible (as not all of them are unlike what the PLP want you to believe) and choose to apply for status and no longer be treated like second class citizen by the PLP!

    • Harlot says:

      Government may well amend the law, but such an amendment cannot take away the right to apply for Bermuda status currently enjoyed by PRC holders. Sen. Daniels knows that perfectly well. He is a lawyer.

      If the Government were to change the law tomorrow, PRC holders who have not yet applied for status will still be allowed to apply for status the day after tomorrow. That little piece of information is missing from this opinion of the learned Senator.

  2. bdaboy says:

    “While some hate to acknowledge our horrid racial past,”

    It’s present, and due mostly to the PLP and their constant race baiting. The PLP has done nothing but to divide the island along racial lines.

    • street wise says:

      The plp are very good at race politics. But, that’s it!

      • hmmm says:

        I think every day more people are coming to the realization that the destructive and divise political power hungry PLP are not good for their country or them.

    • Build a Better Bermuda says:

      I was particularly interested by his statement “The UBP strategically used racial polarization to further the divide” in that he is trying to transpose a historic strategy, with the current OBA. The reason this is so interesting, is that it flys in the face of facts. Fact, should the OBA attempt such a strategy, it would lead to their defeat, so why would they. Fact the OBA represents the most racially diverse party, in line with the racial dynamic of Bermuda. Fact, the voting dynamic with the influx of PRC’s would not be enough to tips the scales and provide then OBA with a guaranteed win. In fact, the only party that would benefit from division by racial polarization is the PLP, and when you look at their election strategies and constant use of divisive rhetoric, the PLP make it no secret that it is the only the black vote they are truly interested in. Those in the core oligarchy have even publicly degraded black Bermudians who don’t support the PLP, particularly successful ones, and promoting their belief that the only ‘real Bermudian’ is a PLP member. They repeated promote the notion that there is 2 Bermudas, when in fact there are many more.
      The PLP, simply have not evolved with society, and are still intent with keeping us living in past notions, because they do not know how to not live in them, much like they had no idea how to handle a struggling economy

  3. Navin Johnson says:

    obviously Senator Daniels has not read the letter by Kevin Comeau..

    If he had he would have realized that the above letter is meaningless..

    • hmmm says:

      He is a little slow on this one.

    • Tolerate says:

      Yup, and to think the majority of Bermudians had no issue with this? The topic is being beaten to death due to a minority of voters.
      I believe the issue is more with Fahy for his brave decision.
      Admit it; he scares the s out of the PLP.

    • MPP says:

      Perfectly said, Navin Johnson.

  4. Liarliar says:

    Not too sure why the PLP keep on harping on about this hiring hierarchy. It has already been determined that this was for the civil service only as there are no immigration restrictions on the PRC’s right to work in Bermuda.

    So for the hard of hearing that means that a PRC has the freedom to seek employment with any business in Bermuda WITHOUT having to seek permission from the Dept. of Immigration. That means no private sector employer in Bermuda is required to hire a Bermudian over a PRC.

    Even the People’s Campaign admonished people, like Sen. Daniels, who have employed this false fear mongering insinuation in their anti-PRC quest.

    So it appears that the Sen. Daniels is continuing on with the lies and deception as a means to rile up hate and fear against PRCs. It is a disgusting tactic that should never be utilized in a democracy. Lies, fear and hate seems to be the order of the day for the Opposition when it comes to this subject.

    Also, it is quite telling that Sen. Daniels has purposefully omitted the fact that implementing retroactive legislation closing this clause (it is not a loophole) would be in direct contravention of BDA’s Constitution and that as such the affected persons could lodge an appeal against any such legislation and win while at the same time costing BDA taxpayer’s thousands upon thousands of legal fees.

  5. Derek A. G. Jones says:

    As a white Bermudian who’s livelihood depends on helping Bermuda prosper I was told point blank by a black Bermudian Civil Servant that I am not allowed to vote as I reside in Boston. He said the government was working on fixing that. This was seven years ago. I have been told I can cheat the system as others do but that’s not what I want. I want an honest system that sees me as an equal. I think the problem goes a lot deeper than reevaluating PRC’s, let’s just start with treating each other as equals no matter our skin color. If Bermudians are meant to be everything they claim to be then prove it. Be open minded, be honest and truthful, be fair and above all be one.

  6. Yahoo says:

    Say there is a hierarchy for hiring (outside of government) as many times as you want PLP – it doesn’t make it true. As an employer, I can hire a PRC or spouse of Bermudian over a Bermudian any time, no explanation to Immigration necessary.

  7. aceboy says:

    You don’t want the PRCs to get status because you have completely alienated them and they won’t vote for you. We get it. There is a human rights issue that takes precidence over your politics.

    • Ian says:

      Please explain how this is a human rights issue when these people are not stateless and signed off on PRC status per the basis of NO EXPECTATION for gaining status? Give you folks and inch and you try to take a mile. The lifestyle, money and (in many cases) corporate housing/tuition/travel/utility/transportation allowances werent enough. Now you want the right in vote in MY country and have the audacity to feel hard done by if you cant have it. Interesting…

      • Creamy says:

        First, you’re wrong about the “no expectation” bit. There was an expectation in 1989.

        Second, it’s a HR issue because you’re talking about denying a group of people their legal and constitutional right. That makes it a human rights issue.

        By the way, it’s MY country as well.

        • Exactly ... says:

          The reason for the 1989 cutoff date in the original PRC legislation is simple – that was the date that the government of the day stopped discretionary grants of status which meant that anyone that came to the island prior to that date had a legitimate expectation (when they arrived) that they would eventually be eligible for status.

        • hmmm says:

          and Mine.

      • aceboy says:

        They have no say in the country they live in and contribute to. It’s that simple Ian.

        • Ian says:

          Then why have they stuck around aceboy? “Simple” question.

          • hmmm says:

            Because this is where their friends, family and life are.

            More than 25 years here. these folks are just as much a part of the fabric of society as you or me.

            Why can’t you see that ?

            • Ian says:

              So if they are THAT close to Bermuda and its people they should naturally emphathize with many peoples disgust at what is clearly the OBA’s endorsement of exploiting a sleeping provision (in clearly intended legislation) to grant status to PRC holders WHICH FURTHERMORE LEAVES OUT MANY WHO SHOULD HAVE A PATH TO STATUS. If you’re THAT close to Bermuda how the hell do you hold your head up with pride having essentially “secured” access to our voting right in a way that was riddled with controversy, dishonesty and political agenda. Have fun bragging to your Bermudian friends about that one.

              • Ian says:

                “…you should emphathize…”

              • So tell us .... says:

                So tell us what the OBA is supposed to do? They’ve inherited this law that requires them to grant status. They have no choice.

                But they did their best not to be in that position. First the Minister refused the applications. Then they fought it in court and when the Supreme Court ruled against them they filed an appeal with the Privy Council and sought expert legal advice on the matter. It was only when that legal advice (provided by a highly respected Queens Counsel) said that the government would not win their appeal (i.e., the Privy Council would conclude that Justice Kawaley was correct in his ruling) that they withdrew the appeal. All that proceeding would have accomplished is to spend a few million dollars of taxpayer money (money the government doesn’t have by the way).

                And while they can change the law they can only do so prospectively so every application that they received up until the date the “new” law took effect would have to be considered under the law as it exists today.

                • Ian says:

                  Oh yeah… they fought tooth and nail to suspend applications and correct legislation didn’t they! Once again, save the BS for the OBA strategy meetings and blind faithful followers.

              • Hmmm says:

                The law granted them sthe right to seek status. End of.

                Who are these many that should have status…let’s raise that to the government for future consideration, but let us not punish or spite these PRC holders who have a genuine and legal RIGHT to apply for Status today.

          • Allan --#ith says:

            Becuase everything and everyone I have ever known is here.

            I cant afford to leave and I have no-where to go.

            • Ian says:

              And to you as well, if you are THAT close to Bermuda and its people you should naturally emphathize with many peoples disgust at what is clearly the OBA’s endorsement of exploiting a sleeping provision (in clearly intended legislation) to grant status to PRC holders WHICH FURTHERMORE LEAVES OUT MANY WHO SHOULD HAVE A PATH TO STATUS. If you’re THAT close to Bermuda how the hell do you hold your head up with pride having essentially “secured” access to our voting right in a way that was riddled with controversy, dishonesty and political agenda as opposed to a clearly defined, transparent, intended path. Have fun bragging to your Bermudian friends about that one.

              • Toodle-oo says:

                Get over yourself Ian , and all the others like you .
                You’ve already made it abundantly clear that you just cannot stomach the possibility of what you deem to be a ‘bunch of whites’ getting the opportunity to vote.

                That’s all this comes down to . Plain and simple .

                How’s the manufacturing of all your powder kegs coming along , by the way ?

                • Ian says:

                  You really dont have anything of substance to contribute huh?

                  • Hmmm says:

                    Ian, you want to punish people and take away their rights. dress it up as much as you want, but the true spitful you has been exposed many times and here in this article. Your young and think you know everything.

                    How about growing up and realizing that you are wrong.to do so.

                    • Ian says:

                      Sorry Hmmm… once again there is NOTHING you can say/spin that will stop the masses [at this point] from seeing what is going on here. And it is relations between blacks/whites, OBA supporters/PLP supporters, non-Bermudians/Bermudians that will be punished as a result. You all know it provided you could take a break from the endless denial, so you won’t be shocked as things play out the way you expect the will even if its only in the deepest recesses of your minds.

          • aceboy says:

            They have good jobs and a good standard of living. Many have Bermudian children.

            They are already here and working. They aren’t a threat and in fact have contributed alot more than most Bermudians, myself probably included. Given our current economic situation we NEED them to stay, to keep paying taxes, groceries, Belco bills, education costs etc etc.

            You somehow think it is YOUR island to decide who gets to stay and who has to leave. Why? It is just as much mine as yours. I think they should be allowed to stay and vote…no matter who they vote for.

            • Ian says:

              And to you as well… if they are THAT close to Bermuda and its people they should naturally emphathize with many peoples disgust at what is clearly the OBA’s endorsement of exploiting a sleeping provision (in clearly intended legislation) to grant status to PRC holders WHICH FURTHERMORE LEAVES OUT MANY WHO SHOULD HAVE A PATH TO STATUS. If you’re THAT close to Bermuda how the hell do you hold your head up with pride having essentially “secured” access to our voting right in a way that was riddled with controversy, dishonesty and political agenda as opposed to a clearly defined, transparent, intended path.

              Furthermore, when exactly did the absence of status for PRCs that have been here for years, with kids, contributing etc become a sudden deal breaker or basis for threating to leave??? ITS NOT! PRC holders that have been here for decades are clearly NOT leaving. that said, why would the OBA IN HASTE endorse foul, dishonest, exploitive measures for (as we all know) bolstering their support base and alienating/marginalizing the people how “benefit” in the process while also leaving out so many in that haste?

      • stan1976 says:

        Technically, Ian, you are not a country. Technically, you are a British Overseas Territory. Technically, if the UK wanted to, you would not have Bermuda money, as well as the other freedoms you have. But because of a wrong worded structure in a piece of law that was read through and passed by the Former Government, PRC’s can now get status. This is not the fault of the Government of the day. Really, this is the fault of the PLP lawyers, whom obviously could not comprehend what this little but of wrong worded structure would do. And just so you know, Ian, not every PRC is this person who has “lifestyle, money and (in many cases) corporate housing/tuition/travel/utility/transportation allowances”. Some do, don’t get me wrong, but the majority, IMO, don’t.

        • Ian says:

          Thanks for your “opinion” stan1976… The fact that you speak to the FAULT of the PLP that this is happening inherently suggests this path to giving away status to PRCs is less than above board doesn’t it…

  8. Trulytruly says:

    I thought he was a more astute lawyer than that. Comeau’s piece is the best presentation of the facts so far.

    • Ian says:

      Thats because you support the idea of PRCs gaining access to our vote through a back door avenue. Its really that simple so dont fool yourself into thinking there is anything that can be said to the contrarty that you would agree with or respect as “astute”…

      • Edmund Wells says:

        Ian-

        Please, Ian, enlighten all of us.

        What are the “contrarty” legal arguments to what Mr. Comeau has laid out?

        Mr. Comeau’s piece is clear and straightforward; surely you can provide an equivalent piece showing the errors in his arguments, can’t you?

        Especially the “back door” avenue that, as pointed out in his comments, was highly unlikely to have been created accidentally?

        Please. Educate us. Or educate yourself.

        EW

        • Ian says:

          EW, this will be the last time I even offer the courtesy to Kevin of acknowleging his comments.

          The good lawyers legal “opinion” lost all credibility the moment it was apparent it took a position that trivialized the facts that:
          - the OBA did nothing to amend legislation in accord with its clear intent (if not simply for the sake of trying to appear tostick to campaign promises re granting status to PRCs)

          - the OBA did nothing to work with Opposition on comprehensive intelligent immigration reform so as to include as many stakeholders as possible on subject a hugely important subject

          - the OBAs handling of this (through inaction) was (ironically) in haste and to date has had the effect of deepening the rift between segments of this community and significantly increasing anti-foreigner sentiments

          Good luck finding others who arent capable seeing the bigger picture re the OBAs continual campaign of empowering non Bermudians to secure subsequent election victories.

          • Edmund Wells says:

            Ian-

            That’s harsh. I’ve got no doubt that Mr. Comeau will be devastated when he learns that you intend to no longer acknowledge his comments.

            With regard to your other points, I’d similarly offer you good luck in finding elements of the Opposition that propose concrete, well-thought-out alternatives to Government policy, and not simple-minded, pandering criticisms and superficial, off-the-cuff suggestions.

            And please, ask the PLP and the Peoples Campaign to stop moving the goalposts. One day it’s no more PRCs (the red line), the next day its something else, and the next day its something else again. Pivot, pander, pivot, pander, pivot, pander. It’s really hard to keep up. Or is that the point?

            EW

            • Ian says:

              EW,

              As I say to others like you, condescension does not make you any less average, incorrect, dim-witted and/or [at times] idiotic.

              Recall it was the OBA they did not give ANY consideration to working with the Opposition on drafting “concrete, well-thought-out alternatives”… not vice versa.

              You’re not really saying anything in your last comment…

              • Edmund Wells says:

                Ian-

                Sticks and stones, love. Sticks and stones.

                But I’ll keep your words in mind when I read about the mean, nasty, hurtful OBA posters that so many PLP supporters whine about when they feel like disparaging the quality of dialogue on these boards.

                And I think you might want to haul old Mr. Dictionary off the shelf, and look up the difference between condescension and sarcasm. This paragraph is one. My comment about Mr. Comeau is the other.

                Your second paragraph simply confirms my point. Saying, “Let’s work together” isn’t a plan, or a proposal, or anything concrete. It’s a weak excuse to say “We tried” without actually ever trying, and it’s sickening.

                And with regard to my last paragraph, Ian, actually, I am. Really.

                EW

      • hmmm says:

        It is the law, not a back door.

        They are Bermuda’s people since before 1989. they have worked hard for this country. Initial I was skeptical, but after giving thought to what they have done here for Bermuda and most of their lives, and because it is their right as per the law, I really have no objection.

        Nor do the Peoples campaign object to them having status, So it’s just IAN and a small minority of haters.

        • Ian says:

          Where have a ever said there should not be a path to status as opposed to a back door path tainted by controversy, exploitation, dishonesty and political agenda? Funny how you dont speak up for the scores of PRC that probably should have access to a path to status but dont per the conditions of this exploited sleeping provision… Point blank people are not stupid enough to see what is happening here for anything other than it is – the OBA moving to bolster its support base. And youre delusional if you for a minute thing sentiments on this island toward certain segments will get any better if the OBA continue on with this foulness.

          • hmmm says:

            The foulness and stench is coming from you Ian.

            Your below rant proves you are not welcoming the PRC holders, by whatever path.

            “Give you folks and inch and you try to take a mile. The lifestyle, money and (in many cases) corporate housing/tuition/travel/utility/transportation allowances werent enough. Now you want the right in vote in MY country and have the audacity to feel hard done by if you cant have it. Interesting…”

            • Ian says:

              And again… Where have a ever said there should not be a path to status as opposed to a back door path tainted by controversy, exploitation, dishonesty and political agenda? Funny how you dont speak up for the scores of PRC that probably should have access to a path to status but dont per the conditions of this exploited sleeping provision…

              And my sentiments hold re your referenced quote as it is not synonymous with the position there shouldnt be a clearly defined/intended, comprehensive path to status not the foulness many are looking to exploit at this very moment.

      • Tolerate says:

        I believe, it could be also said that you think OPPOSITE because you DO NOT support the idea of PRC’s gaining access to vote?
        Who is fooling who?
        SMH

        • Ian says:

          Or it could be said that I DO NOT support the idea of PRCs gaining status to a back door deliberate exploitation of a sleeping provision in legislation with clear intent which speaks to the contrary… Its amazing how insistent you guys are on playing dumb.

          • James Herald says:

            There’s nothing ‘back door’ about this Ian. It is also not a ‘LOO-POYAL’. It is quiet simply the law – and it is a law that the PLP made. If they were too incompetent to understand what they did, then complain to them.

            Frankly, I’m surprised you’d want such an incompetent party to be incharge of Bermuda. I mean who knows what silly law they’ll pass next given the chance. Such ignorance should not be allowed to see the light of day – yet your PLP did enormous damage to us due to their stupidity and incompetence. Stop blaming OBA for what your MPs did.

            Really Ian, you are embarrassing yourself.

            • Ian says:

              Really James… Is it not obvious to you yet why ignore your commentary? Youre one of the biggest poster children of denial.

          • Allan --#ith says:

            So do you support me and my family getting status now or not? I fall under the ruling of Kawaley, who intepreted the act the PLP brought it.

            I do think I deserve status and I have wanted status for over 30 years. if you had your way you would stop me getting it now under the pretense of a “loophole”. If the PLP get in they would stop it from ever happening. thisis obvious – look how scared they are of me getting status. really they should have supported me and they would have had my loyatly and support

            • Ian says:

              Getting status through a clearly defined path that reflects the will of the people is one thing… Getting it through essentially being a pawn in the OBA’s exploition of a sleeping provision which goes against the BLATENTLY OBVIOUS INTENT OF LEGISLATION is quite another. Surely you can understand that.

              • will of the people says:

                I dont understand what you are saying Ian.

                The recent polls show that processing the applications is the will of the people. you dont agree, but you are in a minority. That happens in democracy. no doubt if this is all SO awful as you say the OBA will be outvoted in the next election. Then the PLP can change the law and take back the status (which is what Marc Daniesl and you seem to say is possible?)

                good luck.

                • Ian says:

                  lol… thats right.. “the poll” says so…

                  • will of the people says:

                    whose getting petty now. you lost this point Ian – que sarcastic comment about one of issues. classic troll

          • hmmm says:

            You covered it quit clearly when you wrote:

            “Give you folks and inch and you try to take a mile. The lifestyle, money and (in many cases) corporate housing/tuition/travel/utility/transportation allowances werent enough. Now you want the right in vote in MY country and have the audacity to feel hard done by if you cant have it. Interesting…”

            • hmmm says:

              Ian you covered your stance (quite) clearly.

              sorry about the misspelling

              • Ian says:

                Firstly explain where Im wrong in the statement you reference.

                Secondly tell me if that statement is synonymous with the position PRC holders that have been here for decades should have NO path to status.

                • Allan says:

                  “The lifestyle

                  [agreed, I like my life]

                  money

                  [not agreed - I am poor]

                  and (in many cases) corporate housing/tuition/travel/utility/transportation allowances werent enough.

                  [none of this applies to me adn is wrong]

                  Now you want the right in vote in MY country and have the audacity to feel hard done by if you cant have it.

                  [you say above in another post to me that you thinks it is fair for us to have status - here you say it is not. you flip flop. anyway you are right - I do feel hard done by. I also feel anger towards your nationalist views]

          • Anon says:

            Hi Ian,

            Why to I hear the theme to Deliverence being played on ghe banjo whenever I read one of your comments? You represent a loud minority, middle aged, unionised employee with limited education. Try stepping outside your narrow minded, xenophobic, “real” Bermudian little box every now and then and let a little fresh air into that closed mind of yours. Of course as you say, it’s MY country but unfortunately a lot of wish it weren’t!!!

  9. Chaos Theory says:

    “However, with that privilege came an understanding that such a gift was not to be extended to their offspring.”

    Au contraire mon frere, please see S.31B, which does allow the children of a person granted a PRC under S.31A to be granted a PRC.

    • Sorta says:

      Actually, it’s children, spouses and siblings. But 31B is different from 31A in that someone that obtains a PRC under 31B cannot pass it on to their spouses or children.

      • Chaos Theory says:

        Agreed that a 31B PRC can not pass on, but to be clear, 31B now only applies to children (see sub (e)) and spouses (see sub(f)), all others, including siblings, had to apply by 1 August 2010.

    • Onion says:

      Oops, someone read the legislation.

  10. js says:

    there has always been a permanent social and economic division in Bermuda something perhaps the PLP failed to appreciate when they were government

    my view on the PRC sleeping provision is that the former PLP government was probably well aware before the last election of the number of potential applicants involved however didn’t consider those numbers as a political threat until after the election had been lost

    as such logic may dictate that the number of potential applicants out there may not be enough to concern a PLP with a strong voter base but more than enough to concern a PLP with a weak voter base

    however as both parties are equally vulnerable it wouldn’t seem surprising that a vulnerable PLP would seek to inflate the numbers and a vulnerable OBA would seek to deflate the numbers

    the true numbers are probably somewhere in the middle

    if anything these numbers will more accurately reflect the already well established social and economic divisions however they will unlikely be enough to politically push one on top of the other

    rather they will serve to narrow the gap

    • hmmm says:

      I wish folks would leave politics out of this. These PRC holders are people, not pawns.

  11. Enough says:

    If Marc Daniels is indeed such a great lawyer as he self-proclaims, then this article isn’t doing him any favours at all. The whole piece is a complete load of tripe. Every time a member of the PLP comes out and says something it is quite clear it is off the cuff and has absolutely nothing behind it to substantiate it.

    Some examples;
    “For Junior Minister Richards to suggest that we cannot make laws retroactively is ironic. Junior Minister Sylvan Richards is responsible for the OBA rescinding the Waterfront contract” – I’m not a lawyer, as you portray yourself to be Marc, but I do believe there is a huge difference between a Law and a Contract…….

    “The UBP strategically used racial polarization to further the divide; as race was paramount to why so many English persons were given status 40 years ago.” – Anyone with half a brain can see the irony in this statement given the PLP’s recent track record on racial issues. Also, it is worth pointing out that the first settlers in Bermuda were English but let’s not go down that road. I may stand corrected but if you go back one, two, three generations aren’t the majority of PLP members originally from overseas??

    “It was the PLP who made it possible for long-term residents to remain in Bermuda indefinitely. However, with that privilege came an understanding that such a gift was not to be extended to their offspring.” – Read the Law, you are a lawyer and that is your job, notwithstanding the fact that it was your party that created the Law. Also, Law isn’t based on an understanding; it is based upon fact and not good faith as you may hope it to be.

    If you are able to let the rest of Bermuda know when we can access your crystal ball that states that all PRC holders will vote OBA that would be fantastic. I think I could put it to much better use than you currently are.

  12. Ask a silly question ... says:

    “In the Senate, we have repeatedly raised the question, “What is Bermuda’s optimal number for residency?” ”

    =======================================

    When applied to eligible PRC’s that’s definitely a silly question. Since they are already resident on the island whether or not they have status will make absolutely no difference.

  13. Creamy says:

    For a lawyer he’s completely clueless. Or pretends to be, when it suits him.

  14. Onion says:

    Daniels is also making up the $150 million in damages.

  15. Yup yup says:

    A few thoughts on this opinion piece:

    ‘Legal judgments are merely an interpretation of the law juxtaposed with particular facts, but it is Parliament that makes the law. Whenever Parliament considers the law to be insufficient, it may repeal the law or make amendments.’

    - This may be true but the Parliament can not usurp the Constitution; which as Kevin Comeau pointed out would be the case in this situation.

    ‘For Junior Minister Richards to suggest that we cannot make laws retroactively is ironic.’

    - Again this point has been made by Comeau but the introduction of retroactive legislation is very often impossible. The mention of the waterfront contract is of complete irrelevance and thus you can only assume is an obvious and blatant attempt at mudslinging to hide this rather large hole in the PLP position.

    ‘Minister Fahy is avoiding stating that there is such a policy produced by his Ministry of Home Affairs [Department of Immigration] in April 2013.’

    - Surely as a lawyer and Senator you are aware of the difference between a policy and a Consitutional Provision?

    Finally, I’d like to address this misconception that all PRC’s would vote for the OBA. I know a fair number of PRC’s, SOB’s and so forth. I know some that would vote for a conservative party and some that would vote for a labour party if given the opportunity. So my question to Senator Daniels and others in the PLP is why do you instantly reject these potential voters? Why not try to appeal to this new cohort of votes? Is it because you see the continuation of racial divisions as the best means to relection?

    • Onion says:

      The OBA is more liberal than the PLP.

    • Ian says:

      Does answering your last question YOURSELF answer the question for you?

    • street wise says:

      “Divide & Conquer”… it’s an ancient warfare strategy.

      • Tolerate says:

        Yup, however the 14 month prediction by Marc Bean was being ambitious. Failed to factor in the Summer Break and the U.K. telling them to stuff it.

  16. Steve Davis says:

    So what Marc is saying is a complete contradiction when the PLP and their many radicalized factions were stating that they support PRC’s pursuit of status through a reformed approach? So according to Marc, because the eligible PRC’s are most likely to be white and maybe English then they therefore should not be allowed Citizenship under the current LAW because they are not Black and may not vote PLP!? I mean seriously, you say that the OBA are trying to engineer a small fraction of the voting base, but in reality it is you who are admitting that peoples rights under LAW should be denied because they have a certain skin color, heritage and political persuasion!? All of these assumptions made by the PLP are also unproven, like most of the insinuations they regularly make.

    Again, false information. This is not a loophole, it is LAW!

    If the PLP wanted reform, is it only immigration reform for people of a certain color and heritage? according to Marc it is!

    The PLP and their brain washed up and coming need to stop flogging the dead horse. The Government had every right to uphold the law without consultation, it happens everyday in Bermuda. If we debated every law every time it was upheld we would never get anywhere on this Island.

    The GDP of this Island has declined dramatically, the loss in Tax revenues leaves the Government unable to pay it’s bills, most notably civil service wages that suck 80% of public funding out of the Government coffers. Any bets on who the majority of BIU civil servants vote for?

    You either bring people in with the money to spend in our economy or you continue to contract GDP by allowing PLP/BIU civil servants to leech off the system.

    The deflection by the PLP on non-issues, that have nothing to do with economic recovery is an attempt to distract and drag the country back in the hole it is trying to creep out of.

    The economic divide Marc speaks of is common sense in any democratic/capitalist society. Which Bermuda is! Education and your ability to participate in the work force is what dictates your quality of life. You either make something of yourself, accept what you have or move elsewhere. That is the reality the rest of the world lives with. The audacity of people who have sucked this Island into a mountain of debt, who contributed to the economic collapse and the loss of jobs for many Bermudians. For the PLP to come out and say that they care about the average Bermudian is hog wash. They don’t care, otherwise after 14 years of rule, we would have never ended up in this situation.

    The PLP does not represent most Bermudians, they represent the few. And those few are the biggest tax on our economy. Daniels and Bean will drag Bermuda into a Zimbabwe like state, where refugees will be fleeing everyday and violence and poverty take hold.

  17. Rhonnie aka Blue Familiar says:

    Point one, absolutely no consultation or dialogue was/is necessary. Guess what people, they’re the Government.It’s nice when they do discuss etc, but they by no means have to, and in this case what the heck were they going to say? The same thing they said when the pulled the appeal.

    We’re not going to do this because we’ll lose and we don’t think it’s worth wasting the money over. I’m pretty good with this.

    Point two, yep, laws can be changed, but it needs to be done with research so that we don’t end up in another position like this one. In the mean time, anyone who is able to apply under the law as it stands, can apply. Government can’t arbitrarily say we’re not going to let you use this law, just because it turns out it allows something that the writers of the law didn’t want it to. This is why any change needs to be researched, get it?

    Point three, they can’t change a law retroactively, because seriously if that was allowed, there’s a whole bunch of people who want their money back on the whole non-bermudian spouse home ownership licencing mess.

    Comes down to this, even if they jumped and changed the law now without thinking it through, anyone who has applied in the duration leading up to the enactment of the law would still be subject to that law, not the new one.

    So… seriously… get over it and start working on a fully reformed immigration policy and deal with what was created by the OBA’s predecessors.

  18. The man is a lawyer as well as a representative of the Progressive Labour Party…Need I say more? As mentioned above, “it’s a done deal”.

  19. Chaos Theory says:

    “For Junior Minister Richards to suggest that we cannot make laws retroactively is ironic. Junior Minister Sylvan Richards is responsible for the OBA rescinding the Waterfront contract and risking our country incurring legal fees in arbitration and potentially a costs award in excess of $150 million.”

    I think you just answered that question for us. If (as you indicate) the remedy for the Waterfront contract rescision is a penalty of $150M (and whether or not that is the case still have to be determined), what do you believe would be the remedy for retroactive legislation denying someone’s legal right to status? Perhaps an order directing that the applicants be granted status anyway.

    You can’t argue this both ways and expect to win !!

  20. 32n64w says:

    “On Wednesday, July 23, 2014, Minister Michael Fahy, without any consultation or open dialogue, made an announcement that OBA would drop the PRC appeal.

    - This is incorrect. The Minister stated there had been consultations with legal experts.

    “Contrary to previous OBA statements, parliament could have closed this loophole via an amendment. The Hon. Walton Brown Jr. led the charge in the Lower House of Assembly when the Chief Justice’s decision came to public attention.

    - Perhaps, but not retroactively.

    “When an attempt was made at collaboration on this issue, the concerns of Bermudians were greeted with sheer contempt by the OBA.

    - Given the PLP authored the alleged screw-up in the first instance why should they be trusted with providing a speedily drafted amendment? We witnessed first-hand the abysmal impact of the last seven years of the PLP’s reign on the economy so what reasonable expectation does the electorate have on their ability to now provide an alleged fix now? None.

    “This demonstrates leadership that falls within our legal parameters and, most importantly, reflects the will of the people of Bermuda.

    - Scientifically conducted poll results beg to differ regarding the people’s views.

    “For Junior Minister Richards to suggest that we cannot make laws retroactively is ironic.

    - Is Mr. Daniels a constitutional or business law expert?

    “There is an immigration hierarchy policy that clearly lists Bermudians above PRC holders.

    - And said policy has no basis in law and is apparently against the HR Act. Furthermore it only applies to the civil service. Surprised a member of the Bermuda Bar wasn’t aware of this.

    “In the Senate, we have repeatedly raised the question, “What is Bermuda’s optimal number for residency?” The answer to this question is crucial in protecting future generations of Bermudians.

    - Good question, but the PRCs are already here; living, working, contributing and retiring alongside Bermudians so for this matter at least it’s a non-issue.

    “Despite some trying to advance a certain argument, this is not a human rights issue. The right to vote is intrinsically linked to the right of the people of a given country to determine the politics and vision for their country.

    - Um, you just answered your own question. PRC’s have been here for +25 years so it’s safe to say they have a vested interest.

    “While some hate to acknowledge our horrid racial past, we must do so if we are ever to truly progress. The UBP strategically used racial polarization to further the divide; as race was paramount to why so many English persons were given status 40 years ago.

    - How is this relevant again?

    “The OBA is well aware of these voting habits and the race dynamics that play in elections. Yet they are repeating historical wrongs on the gamble that PRC holders will increase their voter base.

    - Apples and oranges. They are simply following a law promulgated under the PLP.

    “It was the PLP who made it possible for long-term residents to remain in Bermuda indefinitely. However, with that privilege came an understanding that such a gift was not to be extended to their offspring.

    - So you consider the PRC move as a gift? Talk about polarization with such a demeaning remark.

    “Since our current predicament arises from a loophole that was challenged in court, what would stop thousands of other PRC holders from making further legal challenges and possibly being successful?

    - A law is not a loophole, it’s the law.

    “What argument or lobbying will be made for those who were born or arrived after July 31, 1989?

    - Please tell us.

    “The truth is that the ‘sleeping provision’ was never the intention of Parliament or the Bermudian people. Against this backdrop, how can any right thinking member of society not see this for what it is: an opportunity to increase the voter base as was alluded to in last year’s OBA Throne Speech.

    - Wrong. This was the doing of the PLP. Stop trying to ascribe blame to anyone else.

    “If anything, the OBA has changed its focus from bringing amendments “to provide pathways to Bermuda status to persons born in Bermuda or persons who have been adopted by Bermudian parents,” to an immediate advantage to those who are not Bermudian born.

    - Wrong. This was the doing of the PLP. Stop trying to ascribe blame to anyone else.

    Bermuda, we are at a political and social crossroads. We now risk permanent social and economic division. It is important that we all take the required time to come to mutual agreements.

    - Good point but I thought this was a red line issue for the PLP that must not be crossed? Now you want to find a collaborative way forward after publicly denouncing the Government, supporters and PRC holders? The hypocrisy is strong in you young Daniels (Yoda voice).

  21. Allan --#ith says:

    I have worked here since 1979, really really hard. I am of mixed race. I am poor by Bermuda standards and have never owed a house. I would traditionally view my self as a “worker”. I am part of a union.

    I am a PRC holder. My standard of living at the momement is domniated at hearing right wing nationalists like you spout nonsense without educating yourself properly on the topic nor the effect of your words on me and my family.

    I have applied for Bermuda status – I have been told I will likely get it, as will my wife and two children.

    We will never vote for the PLP given their position on this. Never. If I dont like the OBA at that time I simply wont vote. I am disgusted, shocked and angry by the stance and I cant see me ever fogiving them.

    And you, your threats at unrest and trouble?

    Fine. Keep talking the talk – you dont scare me.

    Unlike you when I get my status I will use it wisely and appreciate its worth and the worth of my fellow man.

    Allan

    • js says:

      I think you just made the PLP’s case

      • Double Standards says:

        PLP made their own case with their ceaseless demonization of these people. It is now a self fulfilling prophecy.

        • Ian says:

          Then why did they create a path the long term residency in the first place? Funny how PRC holders forget they are so BECAUSE THE PLP CREATED PRC STATUS…

  22. Sandman says:

    Marc, you’re something else.

    When the senate passed laws enabling the voiding of the waterfront lease, you said that retroactive legislation was unacceptable.

    Now here you are popping up and saying that it is necessary to retrospectively deny people the right to apply for status in order to correct a mistake that YOUR party made.

    How many generations do you have to go back in your family, Marc, to find an immigrant to Bermuda? Not far I reckon. If so then you are seeking to deny other people the opportunity that your own family members had.

  23. Ringmaster says:

    Unfortunately this opinion piece destroys my view that Marc Daniels was a lawyer who understood law. I will give him the benefit that he understands criminal law, but his lack of knowledge of civil and constitutional law has been made clear in this opinion. He should have kept quiet.

    The law he, and the PLP and many supporters, are endlessly condemning was created by the PLP and passed in The House by the PLP. Even if the PLP were the administration they could not retroactively change it. It has been said over and over again it cannot be changed yet the PLP try to change realty. It is not going to happen and the PLP will have to live with the law they created.

  24. Gombey Liberation Partier says:

    Wow! Truly amazing and sad that persons have no issue with potentially flawed Legislation which affects everyone, simply because their Party wasn’t the one that wrote or passed it. Pure proof of how party politics has ruined good governance worldwide.

    • No issue ????? says:

      I don’t think it’s necessarily a case of having “no issue” with the legislation as it is simply recognizing that the law is the law and the government has no choice but to obey it.

      If and how it should be amended going forward is a separate question.

      • Gombey Liberation Partier says:

        LOL Okay then “Less Issue” as they have articulated more who’s fault it was than agreeing it needs amending. Still a sad commentary on Bermuda society.

  25. Legal Eagle says:

    Why do people even respond to Ian???–as it is not only a pointless exercize–but also provides him with more opportunities to drivel on further by responding back!!

  26. Ian says:

    And without Bermuda PRCs would not have gotten used to the standard of living they have become accustomed to…

  27. Alan Smith says:

    I heard a similiar argument in a classroom once Ian. Your a joke, and deep down you know it. Please you need to educate yourself on this issue.

  28. Toodle-oo says:

    That’s as stupid as the belief that white people are born with a silver spoon in their mouth and all have this mythical white privilege .

    You think all PRCs came here poor and became super wealthy ? We know you already think they ALL get housing and school allowances plus huge bonuses .

  29. Allan --#ith says:

    I have worked here since 1979, really really hard. I am of mixed race. I am poor by Bermuda standards and have never owed a house. I would traditionally view my self as a “worker”. I am part of a union.

    I am a PRC holder. My standard of living at the momement is domniated at hearing right wing nationalists like you spout nonsense without educating yourself properly on the topic nor the effect of your words on me and my family.

    I have applied for Bermuda status – I have been told I will likely get it, as will my wife and two children.

    We will never vote for the PLP given their position on this. Never. If I dont like the OBA at that time I simply wont vote. I am disgusted, shocked and angry by the stance and I cant see me ever fogiving them.

    And you, your threats at unrest and trouble?

    Fine. Keep talking the talk – you dont scare me.

    Unlike you when I get my status I will use it wisely and appreciate its worth and the worth of my fellow man.

    Allan

  30. Ian says:

    Any more insults to share with the class Alan?

  31. Ian says:

    who said anything about poor white people??? Fact is however people come here and stick around because its the better alternative to going home. The poor find themselves better off, the rich find themselves better off – black, white or asian… And being you KNOW what I think please cite were I said the ALL get corporate subsidized lifestyles.

  32. Allan --#ith says:

    your right I shouldnt’ have insulted you personally. I loathe what you stand for – not you. I dont know you.

  33. hmmm says:

    Don’t like him treading on your turf is it?

  34. hmmm says:

    Thanks for sharing your view Alan

    Refreshing to read.

  35. Redman says:

    @ Allan –#ith,

    Well said and good luck on becoming an Onion.

  36. Ian says:

    Allan, you have been here long enough to know why people are pissed off about the OBAs exploitation of a BACK DOOR path to granting status to PRC holders. And I can assure you they are perfectly aware of the fact you would never vote for the PLP.

    By the way, wake me up when you can find a single instance where I have threatened “violence”/”trouble”…

  37. Ian says:

    Because everything you stand for is just absolutely righteous and without fault right?

  38. Allan --#ith says:

    What does this have to do with the debate? I apologised for insulting you personally, you respond with a sacarstic general comment on “eveything I stand for”.huh?

    I loathe your position on this – I think its misguided and rigth wing nationalist.

    Your comments on here hurt me personally and upset my family when they read them.

    No I dont think everything I stand for is absolutley righteous and without fault. Of course not.But what has that got to do with my position on status?

    Clearly this discussion is over.I hope to see you at the voting booth at the next election where I will shake your hand as a fellow Bermudian.

    A

  39. Derek A. G. Jones says:

    Ian, you sound like someone who’d have no problem exploiting an expat for your personal gain only to throw them out once your done with them. Is that how you feel all Bermudians living abroad should be treated? If so you might find a lot of Bermudians coming home to roost looking to take your job.

    As to your threat of violence I think most people assumed your ‘two words, gun powder’ comment was suggesting some sort of violent response.

  40. Ian says:

    Next time you make “assumptions” regarding my comments, at least get your references to them right – “powder keg”… Very commonly used metaphor which is not necessarily used to describe violence.

  41. Creamy says:

    You constantly bamg the myth that expats working here live luxury corporate-subsidized lifestyles. Some do, most don’t. But it’s a myth the PLP loves to perpetuate because it fits their divisive nsrrative.

  42. Edmund Wells says:

    Ian says: August 15, 2014 at 12:07 pm”

    Two words come to mind as you folks continue with attempts to arrogantly and obnoxiously push your agenda pass real Bermudians in OUR country – powder keg.”

    Ian-

    Pander: Let’s make a veiled reference to violence- powder keg – like Mr. Williams’ “Sampson option”.

    Pivot: “Oh, don’t assume I meant violence! That phrase doesn’t necessarily describe violence.”

    Pander. Pivot. Pander. Pivot.

    Way to run away from what you meant. And what you said.

    EW