Birthright

Writing in yesterday’s Bermuda Sun, Stuart Hayward argues that only born Bermudians should be able to vote on the issue of Independence. Those who have acquired Bermudian status by other means, or other long term residents, should have no say.

His argument seems to be based on three things: jealousy (foreigners granted Bermudian status have already experienced the full citizenship and sense of belonging to their homeland that Bermudians have been denied), revenge (in the past some foreigners resident here were able to vote when born Bermudians were not) and ignorance (the loyalties of all foreigners ultimately lie with their homeland, to which they can always return if things go wrong here). His reasoning is not only insulting, it’s wrong.

The independence debate has barely started, yet already there have been no shortage of people bemoaning the fact that they can’t feel any pride in being Bermudian while it’s still a British territory. Those who feel that way should recognise that that’s just their hang-up rather than an inevitable consequence of Bermuda’s colonial status: I know plenty of born Bermudians who find no difficulty in taking great pride in being Bermudian despite the link with the UK.

That Bermuda’s voting laws were horribly unjust in the past is undeniable, but as Mr. Hayward himself admits, those policies are no longer in existence. Those who spend their time today still railing against past injustices need to stop trying to foist that particular chip onto the shoulders of the rest of us.

As for the assertion that all foreigners’ loyalties lie ultimately with their homeland, that’s just insulting, especially to any who might have had to renounce their previous citizenship in order to take Bermudian status.

Just because there’s somewhere else in the world I can move to if things go belly-up in Bermuda doesn’t mean I wouldn’t prefer to stay here if I can. It certainly doesn’t mean I would put the UK’s interests above Bermuda’s. Indeed, right now I feel more loyalty to Bermuda than I do to the UK, simply because Bermuda is now my home and what goes on here affects me much more than what happens in the UK. I can see the argument for denying temporary residents the right to vote, but as a spouse of a Bermudian I find it insulting that I can’t vote in a general election until I’ve been living in Bermuda for 10 years. Especially when any Bermudian living in the UK, whether married to a Brit or not, can vote in a general election there even if he or she is planning to leave the country tomorrow.

I’d also like to know what Mr. Hayward thinks about Bermudians with British citizenship (and therefore the right to move to anywhere in the EU at any time)? Would he deny them the right to vote too, just because they theoretically have an escape route?

Everyone registered to vote in Bermuda's general elections should be able to vote on the Independence issue. And that list should include spouses of Bermudians too.

Comments

[jake on 25.03.04 at 13:15]

Phil,

As a resident of a small island for less than one year you would not be able to understand Stuart's position, and many Bermudians support for (part of) it.

In no way would I support the inclusion of spouses of Bermudians resident for less than 10 years in a vote on anything. This is your country of choice - today. This is my heritage.

It is also a small place. Make no mistake, if the quantitative value of foreignors was so significant as to mean it would swing a Labour / Conservative election, the electoral policies would be reviewed and removed.

In the United States Green Card holders are not allowed to vote. It makes sense. They have applied for certain rights, but have not made the ultimate choice of citizenship. Citizenship - that which the independence supporters seek - is special and has been denied Bermudians of African heritage for generations. You are correct that this is no longer the case. But you swiftly conclude from this premise that because that period has passed it is irrelevant. It is not.

It sets the context for why Bermudians jealously guard their exclusive rights to choose their destiny. In many respects we cannot even do that (Chief Justice) - and many on this web log think that was a good thing - an elected Government being denied its choice of Senior Judicial Figure. No one would accept that in the US, the UK or any other country. But you ask us to here.

A better place for you to begin would be to accept that you are not one of us - yet. Look at some of the "status" Bermudians (a term I dislike). Many of them have made Bermuda their home. They are a part of the community because they have made the effort so to be. You too may be on that track, but walk a few more miles in the shoes of those, whose future you would seek to determine - before deeming yourself elegible simply as a result of your marriage.

A marriage which has already granted you the right to seek employment without recourse to a work permit. This has an economic effect on Bermudians, but is a valid and just concession to make to those who enter our society through the ultimate union. Asking for more than that - immediately - and without the value of experience is insensitive.

As for "status" Bermudians, they are Bermudians. They are members of our society and as such they are entitled to vote on our issues because they have an insight into our condition as a people. Stuart is wrong to call for their exclusion on any issue as this is their country too. See you at the polls in 10 years Phil, as I suspect you are here for the long haul. In the mean time, I welcome your input to the discussion.

[The Limey on 25.03.04 at 13:43]

Jake - I'd like to thank you for your comments. You always make your points clearly and courteously, and that's very much appreciated. We may not always agree on things but your calm, reasoned arguments often make me go away and reconsider my position. Keep 'em coming!

[true person on 25.03.04 at 19:30]

Isn't it nice, how not very long ago in the early 1980's, the United Kingdom stopped granting those people, who were born on UK soil from gaining automatic UK citizenship, unless one of the person's parents was a UK citizen or resident.

This was essentially done to stem the increase in the population of people of color (black, red, brown, and yellow).

Moreover, in the apartheid past, many black people in Bermuda were not allowed to even vote, even though they were born in Bermuda and lived there all their lives and contributed to the society there.

There is nothing wrong if a resident has to wait for 10 years before they are allowed to vote.

In the US, the average time for a person to gain citizenship is at least 10 years, in Britain it takes about a similar number of years.

One cannot expect a person to develop any loyalty for a nation, when they already have another passport to turn to in times of internal turmoil in a nation and also 10 years waiting time is widespread in many countries especially Europe, UK, and the US.

There are millions of immigrants, many of them from African nations, like Zaire, etc, who have lived and worked all of their lives in places like UK, Italy, Belgium, etc, who are not allowed to vote, mostly because their skin color is not white.

So, one has to wait the requisite number of years, before they are allowed to vote, as is the tradition and law in so many developed nations of the world.

[The Limey on 25.03.04 at 22:47]

Jake,

It seems to me that the case against letting spouses of Bermudians vote until they have status (i.e. for 10 years) rests on two premises: one, they are not committed to Bermuda and could choose to return to their "homeland" at any time, and two, until they've been here that length of time they can't understand Bermuda well enough to make an informed decision about who they should vote for.

I have to admit, I don’t fully understand the logic here. I’d be no more committed to Bermuda if I had status than I am now: I’ll always be a British citizen, with the right to return to the UK at any time. Indeed, no Bermudian with British citizenship (which these days means anyone who chooses to apply) is committed to Bermuda either: they could also choose to emigrate to Europe at any time. Moreover, surely there are Bermudians - born and status - who have lived here for years and yet remain clueless about those on the other side of the black/white, rich/poor divide? Should these groups also be barred from voting until they commit unequivocally to Bermuda or form more balanced opinions?

Democracy is not about giving only those with informed opinions a vote, it's about giving everyone who is directly affected by a Government a say in who that Government should be. As such, I believe that residency should be the factor that determines who can vote, not status. The actions taken by Bermuda's government affect me just as much as any born Bermudian living here, and more so than any Bermudian living abroad. I don’t want the vote because I want to tell Bermudians what to do or determine their future. I want the vote because I don’t want my child’s education subject to Terry Lister’s whim and I don’t want my payroll tax going to anyone without some good ideas on how to spend it.

An aside: while grateful that I can now work here without a permit, I actually believe this is in Bermuda’s own self-interest and shouldn’t be viewed by any Bermudian as a “concession”. Were this not the case, many intelligent Bermudians who meet their partner while studying or working abroad may never return home, and that would be Bermuda’s loss. If I did not have permission to work here, my wife and I would still be working in London and Bermuda would have lost the services of a first class teacher and swimming instructor (my wife) and a mediocre software developer (myself).

[jake on 26.03.04 at 07:36]

A little self deprecation Phil, - I like it.

I do not think your premises for the 10 year argument are exhaustive, nor the primary reasons.

The ten year waiting period is not solely so that you can gain an understanding of the country and its people. It is also because Bermudian status - our substitute for Citizenship - is a limited resource because we are a small island. Once granted Bermuda status cannot be revoked, except if the party leaves the jurisdiction for an extended period of time (I think it is defined as takes up residency outside of the jurisdiction). Most who obtain status do not leave however. So imagine the population growth that would result from the immediate granting of status to every person marrying a Bermudian. If sadly their union did not last there would be created another Bermudian with the right to marry another non Bermudian who would gain status right away. That short turnaround would create a potentially burdensome numerical effect, and would have a significant impact on our population growth. As a policy, it is stemmed by the 10 year period. A greater cycle time is created which reduces the possible numerical effect.

Secondly, Democracy is not, and has never been an absolute. It has never been about giving everyone who is directly affected a say. I am directly affected by the policies of about three Governments (the UK, USA, and BDA). To a lessor effect, others play a role as well (European Union, OPEC Nations, Iran/North Korea). To date however, it is only the Bermudian Government whose make up I have a say in. Children are not allowed to vote, and must obtain the age of majority before they can participate. Prisoners cannot vote, a policy decision supported in many countries.

It was even the case in Bermuda before the PLP Government that those who had failed to register - annually - would be left off the electoral register. So yes, the country has move toward greater inclusion, but there are limits. The people of Bermuda do not want to have a possibly unchecked growth of permanent foreign citizens. That should not be surprising viewed through the lense of their own historical exclusion, and the limited resources of a 20 square mile island.

And in fact you do have a say...you are having it right now. I am sure that you are able to monitor the eyes that visit your website. In no small way do those who speak their minds have an effect on Bermudian thought, and by extension, Bermudian perception and policy. Your (electronic) pen is mighty even if people tune in simply to see what they will disagree with next. You have even made it to my list of daily websites to visit.

With respect to the spouses of Bermudians not requiring a work permit, I agree that it is in Bermuda's best interests, but it was bitterly opposed in many circles. I dare say if a referendum had been held on this issue the results would have not turned out in favor. In fact, it is even more recent an innovation that the policy was made gender nuetral. As the husband of a Bermudian, the previous expectation was that your wife would go to your country. Gladly that has changed, and Bermuda is better for it. But recognise that the immediate granting of status is pushing the limits too far. The people have been known to push back at the polls for policies like that.

[Tiger Bay on 26.03.04 at 12:26]

Bermuda had no native population; all we Bermudians are the ancestors of immigrants ... first from England, Scotland, and the American settlements ... and later from the Azores and most recently the Caribbean.

We are not like Jamaica or other countries which had their own existence before colonisation. We were borne from colonial culture. It's not something that was inflicted on us; we defined it!

Of course it makes sense to continue to evolve that colonial culture -- but I cannot see how independence provides liberation.

Islands worldwide are, well, insular in their attitudes. But the fact is that Bermuda has grown and improved tremendously over the centuries by the commitment and input of newcomers who have chosen to join us as Bermudians (nevermind widening our little gene pool!)

[Nitjanirasu on 26.03.04 at 13:41]

Tiger Bay, what would you define as "a native population"?

If Bermuda doesn't have a native population, then the same would have to be said of the US and Canada (the populations of "native americans" in each of these places is extremely low; in the US less that 1%, in Canada less than 3%). However, at least in the US, is is acceptable to be of "United States" ancestry (so, by that standard, we can have a native population).

And Jamaica. While it did have an existance prior to European colonisation, it was then just a colony of South America (it is believed that the colony was established in the 600s AD).

So when would you say that a population becomes native (and why)?

[jake on 26.03.04 at 15:10]

Tiger Bay,

Your chronolgy is factually incorrect. Most black Bermudians came as slaves from the Caribbean before Bermudians from the Azores, who arrived later as workers in Agriculture.

Black Bermudians' existence dates back to the earliest times. Venturilla is one of the earliest recorded black men to arrive in Bermuda circa 1600's. So perhaps after a few hundred years you could say that many people, both white and black, in the population are in fact native.

And slavery, was inflicted upon black Bermudians, and so Colonialism was inflicted on this group. It was not a choice.

But you make an excellent point about our gene pool. I believe that we are improved as a society when we have additions. This is why, on average, societies like the USA are more progressive. Each new generation of immigrants brings innovation to the society and the whole benefits.

Where did Reinsurance and the Captive market come from? A Mr. Reiss (I cannot recall his first name, but his son still lives in Bermuda and works in Accounting) came from overseas and brought the industry to life through his sale of the concept to East Coast companies. Investment for Tourism? From companies overseas like Lonrho (the Princess hotels) and men like Tiny Rowland.

So clearly we are better off for the input. But some regulation helps to maintain a balance for those who begin life here, and those who join.

[Eric on 26.03.04 at 15:37]

Jake, I am not an expert on local history, but that was recent enough that I think I can say that Fred Reiss is the name you are looking for.

Nitjanirasu, I have some distant relatives that would take issue with your reference that the Native American population is so small that it should be discounted.

In terms of trying to determine "who was here first" and then giving them the power and/or prestige is going against logic and political power throughout history.
Technically we can all trace our roots back to a single place anyway if we really want to go that way. The resultant changes in power over time are largely due to luck, location, and viruses.

The only thing that matters right now is what is current... which is "right now".

Slavery was and is a horrible thing, but last I looked, that's gone in Bermuda, the States, the UK, Canada, etc.

My distant relatives on one side that are Native American are distant enough that I don't bristle over the concept of what was done to them in the past. That was the past, I live in the present. I don't currently have people from the UK trying to give me smallpox or liquor me up. Nobody (as far as I know) has barged into my house and raped my fiancee).

If we are going to discuss something on this issue - if anything the future should be looked at. The past can teach us a lot, but proves nothing other than what happened. We can't change the past by punishing those in the present that had nothing to do with it.
If you commit a crime now, it doesn't make any sense to imprison your son 10 years from now for that crime that you committed (imprison physically or via the restriction of rights).

In the same way, if we look back and see that there were wrongs (blacks and women denied the vote), it doesn't somehow resolve those wrongs (which currently don't even exist), by instating more wrongs.
Saying "group X wasn't allowed to do this N years ago, therefore right now group Y has no right to complain about not being able to do it."

All of that said, I'm rather ambivalent about voting rights here - I don't have kids yet, so my future is maleable.
I'm currently more concerned with America removing the religious ties in the government. If Bermudians do decide that they are going to get rid of "my kind", I hope that the America I chose to leave gets better than when I left it.

In the end, I think discussions about anything on the net usually end up like any discussion on religion or government. Due to human behavior, in one's eyes, anyone that disagrees with your views is wrong, and that doesn't change.
But at least we are freely talk about it without fear of repercussions.

[jake on 26.03.04 at 17:53]

Eric,

Thank you. Fred Reiss. We should put a statue up to him for how much we as a country yield from his efforts.

Jake

[Bryant Trew on 26.03.04 at 19:29]

Phil,

Re your initial comment, I'd love to know how many people have a problem with being linked with the UK versus being a colony or dependent territory of the UK. I personally think that a link is great, but colonialism (imposed Government) and dependent territory status is what I'd like to get rid of. Removing the link and disliking colonialism/dts is not quite the same IMO.

[Black Seal on 26.03.04 at 21:24]

Couldnt find your email, so, sorry to post this here... ;)
Running a contest tonight mate...come check it out (and some tunes) if you get back from the pub in time! :)
http://homepage.mac.com/blackseal/iblog/SealRadio/index.html

[graeme Outerbridge on 27.03.04 at 20:18]

I think that all Bermudians (and note I exclude categories) should be allowed to vote on Independence. I think man's inhumanity to man is an equal oppurtunity employer there is plenty of lagacies of injustice for all humanity. I'm interested in what brings us all together the rest is not to waste the future with. Cut any human arm with a knife the blood runs red! Bermuda should be Indepentent--It should of been Indepentent forty years ago--Its not a big deal and will be a progressive step--there are no negatives and then we learn very quickly we are all intra dependent---So All Bermudians should come together and stop all the petty arguments--

[The Limey on 27.03.04 at 21:34]

Jake - I understand your concerns about granting status to every spouse of a Bermudian. But I'm not asking for that. All I want is a say in who forms the Government that creates the laws under which I must live. Status and voting rights should be two distinct things, granted separately. I'm quite happy to wait 10 years for the former, but it seems way too long for the latter.

[Bryant Trew on 28.03.04 at 11:52]

I strongly disagree...

I think ten years is entirely appropriate. Marrying a Bermudian simply does not make one Bermudian. And given the rate of divorce these days, I'd have an even greater problem with someone voting before those 10 years are up. Marriage is a sign of commitment to the person you are marrying - not to their country. Thus, you shouldn't have a hand in deciding national issues yet. Just think of a worst case scenario where someone get's divorced and married to an expatriate every 4yrs. Yikes!

This reminds me of when I was in Canada 10+ years ago and there was a Quebec independence referendum. This was such a serious issue for Canadians that as a foreigner you just knew that you should butt out. It was written on all their faces - as a non-Canadian, your opinion does not count. My opinion would not have been accepted any differently had I had married a Canadian, because marriage simply does not make me Canadian.

I wholeheartedly agree with their sentiment, and no one should be offended by the notion IMO.

[The Limey on 28.03.04 at 12:07]

Bryant - What is a sign of commitment to a country? Living here for 10 years makes me no more committed to Bermuda than living here for 5 - with British Citizenship I could still return to the UK at any time.

If my wife and I were to divorce I'd have to apply for a regular work permit to be able to stay in Bermuda. As I'm not advocating voting rights for those on time-limited work permits (you could still make a case for it, but I wouldn't push it), I would lose my voting rights with divorce.

[graeme Outerbridge on 28.03.04 at 14:07]

Limey---un uhun no far as I'm concerned you joined the tribe---your Bermudian.

[Bryant Trew on 28.03.04 at 14:36]

I'm not saying that length of stay is the ultimate test, but I am saying that getting married to a Bermudian does not at all make one a Bermudian. Succinctly, we do not become what we marry.

IMO Living here for 10yrs certainly is more of an indication than living here for 5yrs. But the overriding point is that rights granted by marriage are flaky. Let's say that you and your Bermudian wife got married and lived in the UK instead of Bermuda. If by being married you deserve the same rights as me, then by extension you both could fly into Bermuda and cast a vote - this could take place even if you'd never lived a single day on the rock. How could that be right?

Maybe I'm being thick, but how is it that being married to someone makes you of that nationality and due the rights of those who were born there? If I married a woman from India, I wouldn't magically know the experience, issues, language and customs of her country. So what right should I have to vote on issues in India? You can quite easily separate the person you love from their family and country. They aren'y synonymous, so IMO marriage on its own should not automatically confer the same rights to a spouse of a Bermudian (on day 1) as a born Bermudian (and vice-versa for the Bermudian in the other country).

More to the point, people these days are hardly commited to the marriage in the first place - not that I'm judging - but why should marriage on its own be "the test" for the right to vote in a country?

Case in Point: http://www.eonline.com/Facts/People/Bio/0,128,15440,00.html

If we are what we marry, Elizabeth Taylor was a teamster for 5yrs, Senator for 6yrs, Singer for 5yrs, etc., etc.

I have a lot of respect for the institution of marriage, but I see it as a bond between two people, and little if nothing to do with confering nationality (or other traits) on one another.

[Bryant Trew on 28.03.04 at 14:42]

PS: You wrote earlier "All I want is a say in who forms the Government that creates the laws under which I must live."

"Must live" is not at all true for the spouse of a Bermudian. It's your choice to be here. And even with UK passports being granted to Bermudians, there is still a huge difference IMO.

[The Limey on 28.03.04 at 19:41]

Bryant - You say it's my choice to be here. What are you suggesting? That my wife should live in Bermuda and I should live in the UK? As a married couple we make a joint decision about where we live. True, we could have both chosen to live in the UK. But as I mentioned before, I do think Bermudians should be grateful that some of their sons and daughters choose to return home after being educated or living abroad instead of taking their experience away from the Island.

You also misunderstand my argument. What I'm suggesting is that all residents of Bermuda who are not here on a time-limited basis (i.e. holders of work permits) should have voting rights. That means those with status, long-term residency rights, and spouses of Bermudians who are living on the Island. The issue is *residency*, not marriage per se. I do not think that spouses of Bermudians who do not live in Bermuda should have these rights - as you say, how can anyone understand what's happening here if they don't live here? What's more, if my wife and I chose to live in the UK, I don't think I should have voting rights even if I *did* have Bermudian status.

Also, I never suggested being married to a Bermudian makes me a Bermudian. That was Graeme. ;-)

[graeme Outerbridge on 28.03.04 at 20:11]

Yes you are Bermudian in my books along with many others who are presently married to Bermudians---If they divorce I guess they want to leave the tribe--but in your present state you are two things at once--a Limey and a Bermudian.Just like me with the exception that I have an American mother. Jshee all these words about a vote---seems a little over wraught.

[swing voter on 28.03.04 at 20:25]

Bryant, sort of tangential to the discussion but you are incorrect when you say that "Let's say that you and your Bermudian wife got married and lived in the UK instead of Bermuda. If by being married you deserve the same rights as me, then by extension you both could fly into Bermuda and cast a vote - this could take place even if you'd never lived a single day on the rock".

In fact if you are not resident you are not technically an eligible voter until you re-establish residency in Bermuda. You would be declaring a false residence on your voter registration form which is an offence. This is much the same as the hundreds if not thousands of people who don't bother to re-register and the Registrar refused to invalidate even if the current tenant notified them that the individual no longer lived in that house. It's voter fraud in that scenario.

Voter fraud was rampant in the last election - with the consent of the registrar (who removed the ability to seach online by address to see who was registered in a house after some people objected to individuals who were incorrectly registered).

This registrar is useless and derelict in her duties as she knowingly endorsed voter fraud in the last election. She should be replaced.

[on a completely unrelated note on 28.03.04 at 23:00]

It took the Bermudian Government almost 37 years to grant my father status.

He has been married to my mother for 26 years this June.

Unfortunately, my mother just missed one of the deadlines.. and wasn't applicable for status.

The verdict?

She must be married to my father for another 10 years, before she can get status.

[Bryant Trew on 29.03.04 at 00:53]

"Bryant - You say it's my choice to be here. What are you suggesting? That my wife should live in Bermuda and I should live in the UK?"

I'm saying that you should wait the "ten year less than perfect test" before being allowed to vote. When you stood at the altar, I sincerely doubt that the word "Bermuda" ever came into your vows. When I got married, I made a vow to my wife - not to her family, place of residence, etc. And if we moved into her parent's house, you can bet your boots that I'd know the difference. I'd get my own apartment real fast, or go with the family flow until they were comfortable with me being around the house.

This has nothing to do with Bermudians returning home to the island - it's simply that marrying a Bermudian does not put one in the same boat as a Bermudian - thus 10yrs is a reasonable amount of time for a non-Bermudian to wait before they are able to have the same nation-chainging powers as Bermudians.

"You also misunderstand my argument. What I'm suggesting is that all residents of Bermuda who are not here on a time-limited basis (i.e. holders of work permits) should have voting rights."

If your long term residency is granted by marriage, then my point still holds. Status Bermudians should have the right to vote. I can't comment on long term residents, because I haven't really given that much thought. Nevertheless, getting married does not place one in the same boat as a status Bermudian or long term resident either.

SwingVoter - Thanks for the correction.

All I'm saying Phil is that when I am a stranger to another land, I don't think that I should have the right to decide how that land should be run. In a way I think it's dangerous, because you lack context. And worse, those who get married with no real sense of commitment will be leverage their short-term interests against Bermudians' long term interests. That's just not right IMO.

I'm here because I'm Bermudian - married or not, the problems here are mine. I carry a far greater burden than you do, despite the level of commitment you might feel to the island. I'm sure the same would be seen if I got a British passport and moved to the UK.

10yrs is the best test we've got at the moment. It's not perfect, but it's all we've got.

Don't worry - the time will go by real fast anyway.

[Bryant Trew on 29.03.04 at 00:56]

"She must be married to my father for another 10 years, before she can get status."

Daaaaaaaamn that sucks.

[The Limey on 29.03.04 at 13:38]

Bryant -

"... because you lack context"

I was here for the last general election. I observed a number of white Bermudians voting for the UBP because they are the "white party" and a number of black Bermudians voting for the PLP because they are the "black party". If that's the kind of context you gain from living in Bermuda for any length of time, I'm not sure I want to acquire it.

"Those who get married with no real sense of commitment will be leverage their short-term interests against Bermudians' long term interests"

What do you base this assertion on? Why do you assume the interests of any spouse are contrary to Bermudians' long term interests?

[Bryant Trew on 29.03.04 at 15:25]

This is getting silly and a tad bit insulting - Staunch party politics can be seen in every democracy. Republicans tend to be Republicans for life. Labour sticks with labour - born a Tory, die a Tory. This is not unique to Bermuda, and if I married a woman from the UK, I would not feel right about voting on UK issues until I have been there long enough to vote within context.

The critical difference is understanding why the dynamics are the way they are - hence, why no one should be able to enter any country and vote on national issues without having spent an extended amount of time in that society. It doesn't get any more complicated than that. That is the basis of the assertion, thus you should wait the ten year term before being allowed to vote. It is time enough for you to understand the place you live in.

The staunch methodologies some Bermudians employ to choose their party of choice has nothing to do with whether or not a spouse of a Bermudian should be given the right to vote just because they are married a Bermudian, or become their residency isn't short term. They are two completely separate issues.

Simply put, you made a vow to your wife - not to Bermuda. I'll ask a simple question: If you and your wife moved in her parent's house, would you expect them to give you the same equal rights as everyone else in the house? I've never seen that happen, so why would that be any different from national issues?

[Nitjanirasu on 29.03.04 at 17:43]

Bryant, say you marry a woman from another country, move to that country, and the government decides to hold a referendum on whether people are allowed to drive cars.

Can you honestly tell us that you wouldn't want any say in that matter?

Of course, you did say that you would marry a woman without knowing anything about her country's customs, etc...

[Alice Paul on 29.03.04 at 19:50]

Bryant

Wake up and smell the immigrants.

They're smart, educated, and informed.

'Equality' is not a four-letter word. It's the future. And it includes white people too.

[Bryant Trew on 29.03.04 at 20:07]

"Of course, you did say that you would marry a woman without knowing anything about her country's customs, etc..."

Falling in love is not physics - it just happens. Your wife's behaviours can be completely separate from her country's customs and Government's actions. That's all there is to it. Like I said earlier, when you took your vow, does the country and customs ever come into it? I've never seen or heard of someone taking a vow that includes the spouse's country. Heck, vows rarely even include the spouse's family members.

Wanting a say in a matter and thinking I should have equal democratic rights are very different things. I totally respect Phil's desire to be involved and have a say in matters. He has any number of ways to have his voice heard, including this blog (I believe Jake mentioned this earlier). Regardless of Phil's sincere desire, I think that voting on national issues should not be granted simply by being married. Unless someone has a better measure than the 10 year rule, I believe the existing policy should remain in place.

I go back to the simple analogy of living in my wife's family home (please point out if this analogy does not hold water). If her father wanted to blast his TV until 1:00am, I'd probably drop a few hints about the noise, then maybe have a few words about it. But I'm not about to tell her father, in his house, that he can't watch his TV, at the volume of his choosing, past 1:00am. I wouldn't dare. But I'd be more than happy to take whatever freedoms he grants me once he gets to know me better.

This is a healthy and realistic balance in my opinion. You could take it a step further and ask what if the two people moved to a country that neither of them had status in. Should there be a X year rule for the both of them to be able to vote in that country? If yes, then why should it be any different here for the spouse of a Bermudian?

[Bryant Trew on 29.03.04 at 20:12]

"Bryant

Wake up and smell the immigrants.

They're smart, educated, and informed.

'Equality' is not a four-letter word. It's the future. And it includes white people too."

What????? I'm sorry but EXACTLY where does that statement come from? And correct me if I'm wrong but it appears that you are inferring that my support of the policy is racist and xenophobic.

[Bryant Trew on 29.03.04 at 20:48]

Not sure how accurate this is, but here is the U.S. comparison:
http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/ObjectID/E8D77EA4-2156-48E8-926209D0AAB7F174/catID/E597E251-BB1C-4AA4-9D0AE7EC758B6391

Again, another set of tests before one is granted citizenship. Just to apply (not receive) for citizenship, and thus the right to vote in the US, you have had a green card for X number of years, be able to speak the language depending on your age, take a history test and then swear to the US constitution.

Contrast that to the idea of Bermuda granting the right purely based on marriage.

Caveat: No, I do not believe that we should be doing whatever America does.

[jake on 29.03.04 at 21:25]

Alice,

It goes without saying that white people are part of Bermuda's future. White people are a part of our past, and our present. So are black people and Portuguese people (as the three "ethnic" groups in the Bermudian context).

Statements like yours seem to suggest a fear of some sort (and I say this with respect, and stand to be corrected). Do you feel that as a white woman, the immigration policy is discriminatory against you?

Does some other aspect of Bryant's contribution make you question his views of white people? I have never seen anything which suggests that he has negative views on white people or foreigners.

It would be interesting to hear what the basis of your view is.

As for you point about immigrants as, "They're smart, educated, and informed." That is often the case, but not always. I am uncomfortable with the view held by some that foreign workers form some kind of educated elite. Many are certainly hard working, and talented. Others are mediocre and in search of an adventure. They cannot be painted with a broad brush in any sense.

But be that as it may, their intelligence does not equate to a moral absolute with respect to decision making in Bermuda, a country that is not their home. Those who choose to make it their home aquire that right. But Bermuda should not throw that privilege to every person who arrives on the island. No other country does this, including the countries that our foreign workers come from. The expectation is unrealistic and insensitive to the people who made the country what it is before the foreign workers arrived. (and yes, there was a high standard of living before international business, which is the latest iteration of economic and industrial development). Earn your spot. Is that so hard to understand?

[Nitjanirasu on 29.03.04 at 21:40]

I think that we have strayed too far into expat rights and voting in general. Let's focus on who gets to decide on Independance itself. This is a far more important matter than your average election, because it will be a permanent decision. So:

•Who will independance affect?

•Of these people, who should get control over whether it happens or not?

•Why should the others not be allowed any control?

[Sunil on 30.03.04 at 06:01]

Marrying a Bermudian doesn’t make you a Bermudian. Bryant, we all agree, even Phil. No need for another three posts on the same argument.

Some states link voting rights, citizenship, property ownership and employment rights. Some don’t. Some link these things to marriage. Some have probationary periods, some a lot shorter than 10 years. It’s a choice to be justified, not an immutable fact of life. If Phil’s marriage breaks down, disenfranchise him, throw him off the island, tar and feather him for all I care – it’s not what we’re talking about here. Phil does not want to wait 10 years for a chance to have a say in how he’s governed: a real say, a vote, on whatever issue. Not screaming from the sidelines like some electronic suffragette.

It takes 10 years to understand Bermuda? Why? You have problems with racism, housing, immigrants, education and people wanting independence? Well, where doesn’t? There may be a change in emphasis, but Bermudian politics is a new dialect, not a new language. It’s just not that tricky.

Democracy has never given everyone affected a say? That this is true is hardly a justification for the policy, and Phil’s position is not analogous to that of a child or a prisoner. That some things are by their nature out of your control is also a true. It doesn’t follow that you must accept things being placed out of your control artificially.

We don’t allow children to vote because we don’t feel they can understand the relevant issues. We have to pick some arbitrary age at which we feel they can. What are they doing before this which entitles them to a vote as soon as they’re 18? We’ve already decided they can’t understand the issues. A child - a sheltered, disinterested, undeveloped mind - will not build up an understanding of politics in 18 years even closely equivalent to that a working expat will in 10.

Building up understanding can’t be the reason for the delay.

Phil is in Bermuda by choice? Sure, but this doesn’t weaken his commitment, it strengthens it. Any Bermudian can leave the country permanently the second they save the plane fare. Phil has already saved the plane fare, but he flew to Bermuda, not away from it. He’s demonstrated that he wants to live there. Those ‘born Bermudians’ living in Bermuda may well be committed to the island’s future, but all they can demonstrate is that they live in Bermuda because they can’t be bothered not to.

There’s no guarantee that anyone who votes now will be there in 10 years. We know they won’t be there in 100. If the vote goes that way, Bermuda will still be independent. Decisions are made by those there at the time. There’s no other way the system can work.

Phil may leave, he may not, but he’s there now and that’s what gives him a case. A probation period is fine, you don’t want tourists voting, but Phil is resident. If you didn’t want him to affect Bermuda, you didn’t have to let him in. I’m not sure what happens over the next 10 years that turns him into a better voter.

[Bryant Trew on 30.03.04 at 07:10]

"If you didn’t want him to affect Bermuda, you didn’t have to let him in. I’m not sure what happens over the next 10 years that turns him into a better voter."

Sunil,

Things are not as black and white as your statement above proposes. Phil is welcome in Bermuda, and I am thrilled that he has fallen in love with a sister of the soil. I look at his wedding photos and think, "well done, mate." As I said before, the ten year waiting period is not a perfect test of when someone can make an educated decision on national issues, but it is the only one we have. If someone has a better idea for determining when a non-Bermudian/spouse of a Bermudian should have the right to determine national issues, I'd like to hear it. I'm sure we don't want to adopt the American model, yet, all I keep hearing is that one should be able to vote because they are a permanent resident via X means. No other country does that, so why should Bermuda be the exception? More to the point, is the position invalid in the first place? I happen to think that decisions should be made by those nationals there at the time, because it is their country. - You look at any organisation, company, etc., and you will consistently find similar prerequisites.

I'll ask again - if two "foreigners" (I hate to use that word) travelled to a third country that neither of them are a citizen of, should they be granted the right to vote? Case in point, should America grant the right to vote to all green card users or just American Citizens?

Alice Paul (Obviously not your real name) and an insult to the real Alice Paul for using it - This is the second time on this board that someone has taken a swipe at me without debating the merits of my points. Perhaps you are the same person who did it the week before last. In any case, what you did does absolutely nothing to progress the discussion - using a pseudonym to attack someone without debating the issues is cowardly and does little but demonstrate your own lack of integrity. What you did was pull the race card instead of discussing the issues, and that says a great deal more about you than it does about me.

[Sunil on 30.03.04 at 09:33]

If nobody else will answer your question, Bryant, allow me.

If two foreigners travelled to a third country that neither of them are a citizen of, should they be granted the right to vote? Yes. If they travel there to take up residence, yes. If they are affected by local policies and contribute to society, yes.

If you don’t want them to affect your country, don’t let them in.

[jake on 30.03.04 at 09:59]

Sunil,

I am glad that as a country we have never adopted the perspective you advocate. So we should either handover our birthright or not let foreign workers in? Farcical.

We compromise instead. Guest workers reading this, I am a Bermudian. You are welcome into my country as together we can make better lives for us both. If you would like to become a permanent part of this deal there are steps to take.

If you have married a Bermudian, you are double welcome. You are a part of our heritage. Immigration and diversity has helped to create an enviable society. It will continue.

Please understand however, that unchecked it would lead to certain civil unrest. Social displacement leads to a feeling of "homelessness" which we would both suffer from. Better, is to forge a balance in both our interests. Please understand, you are welcome, but on terms that suit both you and me, not just you.

I believe that the overwhelming majority of guest workers understand this. It is part of the deal for letting them enjoy more of the financial benefits they help to create, for themselves and their families, than they would do in their home countries.

Perhaps if you could spend more time with Bermudians, Sunil, you in time would too.

[Alice Paul on 30.03.04 at 10:58]

So, the crazy Bermudian who lives in the hole, on the side of the mountain, with an IQ of 65, gets to vote. And Phil doesn't.

And that's fair?

[Jonathan on 30.03.04 at 11:12]

I can empathize with Phil. I have spent a lot of money, effort, and time to become a legal Permanent Resident in the USA after marrying an American last year. To do things the right way took a lot of energy – and I’m from England, not North Korea. I have actively chosen to be a part of a new community, and a huge new country. Having invested much in my pursuit of my new life, I have made a conscious, informed decision as to where to live, and all that affects me in this future is now my personal (not theoretical) concern. This is not simply 'the area of space where I exist' but my real life, and I feel that I am entitled to influence that destiny. Consequently, I find it amusing that there are thousands (or millions) of people in this country, who are less well informed and less well educated, who get to vote, and have potentially huge impacts on *my* life, simply through their *birthright*, while I have none.

Being married, and thinking about children, only makes the feelings more strong. I want to be involved in the evolution of my community, to make sure my family is protected and provided for. With all the money I am going to give this new government here over the next few years, it irritates that I have no voice. 'No taxation without representation' - unless you're an immigrant.

If you live in a community, what happens to it affects you. You are entitled to a voice in what the destiny of your chosen community is. That's democracy. There's no qualification. Once you move in - you affect everyone around you, and they affect you.

[jake on 30.03.04 at 12:06]

Alice Paul,

Why are you unwilling to respond to the questions put to you?

I could answer your latest submission by a walk through the history of democracy, and its evolution, but I will not, unless you can respond to the valid questions surrounding your unfair characterization and attack on Bryant.

Jonathan,

I enjoyed reading your contribution.

jake

[The Limey on 30.03.04 at 13:46]

Just a couple of points.

On the living-in-your-inlaws'-house analogy: While I agree that I couldn't tell my inlaws what to do, I would hope that I wouldn't need to. If they liked and respected me I don't imagine they would play their TV at full volume at 1am. If I politely complained and they ignored me I'd probably draw the conclusion that they didn't give two hoots about me. They would be within their rights to do so, but their actions would still be inconsiderate. And if I had to live with that kind of treatment for any length of time, it'd probably create quite a bit of friction between us.

In answer to your question about two foreigners living in a third country, I echo what Sunil has already said: yes, they should be able to vote. Same reason: they're living under the laws of that Government and paying its taxes. Same goes for Green Card holders in the US.

I also acknowledge Bermuda is far from unique in the stance it takes on this matter and my opinion is a minority one. But the fact that many other countries do the same thing still doesn't make it right. Two hundred years ago it was common practice for rich white folk to have a black slave or two.

That said, upon reflecting on my position, I concede it probably wouldn't be appropriate for me to have a vote on the independence issue. That is a serious, irrevocable national issue which transcends party politics and it makes sense that only Bermudians (both born and status) should be able to vote on it. But as far as voting in general elections goes, I stand my ground.

[Jay Pedro on 30.03.04 at 15:36]

You can argue your points until you're blue in the face and even champion debaters like Phil aren't likely to change the minds of the majority of Bermudians who agree that giving a vote to newly arrived foreigners is not in our best interest. It is a privilege that must be earned and paid for in time as our ancestors did before us. You have made little to no commitment to Bermuda or it's people so far. Just as before you got married, I'm sure you didn't live together immediately or share all the things you do now, after having spent a period of TIME together. How much time it took was up to you. Some people are engaged for 10 years, some for 10 weeks. Our engagement to you happens to be 10 years, which, in my personal opinion, is a little excessive, but I would firmly reject the notion that you get these privileges immediately.

Bermuda doesn't know you from anyone else and before we as a people make a commitment to you, which we cannot back out of, we need to let your record speak for itself. What if you are a drug dealer ? A crack addict ? A child molester ? A kiddie porn ringleader ? An annoying weblogger who complains about everything and offers off the cuff solutions to complicated problems that he hasn't considered properly ?

You have made your commitment to Mandy and Bermuda and are now asking the people of Bermuda to make their commitment to you. It is now on us to decide whether or not we want you and give you concessions as we feel you have earned them. You already may live and work here freely without spending any time at all with us. Do you want strangers in your house telling you it's decorated all wrong? Would you even bother to explain why you decorated the way you did, or would you tell them to get stuffed, it's my house and I'll do what I want with it? How about people you've known for a long time? You would be more likely to entertain their questions and comments because you have spent time together getting to know one another and it is then somehow easier to have such a conversation. What if they were poking through your cupboards?

A good example is my daughter and my wife's parents. They do not speak much English, being from Belgium and my daughter does not speak much Flemmish. At first my daughter was scared of them, unsure, worried, confused. After spending some time together, however, they have warmed up to each other nicely and now get along great.

So, until we spend some quality time together, I don't want you in my cupboards and you certainly can't play with my toys. Maybe in a few years.

[Jay Pedro on 30.03.04 at 15:47]

Further to that, you cannot argue political points purely on logic. As the majority of the population decides their opinions based on emotion plus logic, or some purely on emotion, the will of the people as a whole is not based purely on logic. Therefore any law based purely on logic is not representative of the will of the people. Although a better system would involve more logic and less emotion, democracy is about the will of the people and therefore your will will be ignored until such time as you willingly will be included by the people you wish to be included with. By then you will be an emotional wreck and likely to vote similarly to the rest of us.

[The Limey on 30.03.04 at 18:11]

Coincidentally, the European Court of Human Rights ruled today that British laws that bar prisoners from voting breach human rights. The UK government is now reconsidering its position on the issue. More details here.

[Bryant Trew on 30.03.04 at 18:36]

Sunil:

"If two foreigners travelled to a third country that neither of them are a citizen of, should they be granted the right to vote? Yes. If they travel there to take up residence, yes. If they are affected by local policies and contribute to society, yes. If you don’t want them to affect your country, don’t let them in."

1. What you are proposing is equivalent to saying don't invite someone to stay at your house unless you are willing to put their name on the deeds - good luck with that one.

2. Saying that you want to gradually extend rights to a spouse of a Bermudian is not the same as saying that you do not want them to affect your country at all. You've stretched that well beyond the intent of the policy.

Phil:

"On the living-in-your-inlaws'-house analogy: While I agree that I couldn't tell my inlaws what to do, I would hope that I wouldn't need to. If they liked and respected me I don't imagine they would play their TV at full volume at 1am. If I politely complained and they ignored me I'd probably draw the conclusion that they didn't give two hoots about me. They would be within their rights to do so, but their actions would still be inconsiderate."

There is more than enough evidence to show that Bermudians welcome spouses of Bermudians (and many others) into this country. To assert that this is not so by denying a spouse the right to vote on national issues for 10 years is inaccurate and unfair IMO.

"That said, upon reflecting on my position, I concede it probably wouldn't be appropriate for me to have a vote on the independence issue. That is a serious, irrevocable national issue which transcends party politics and it makes sense that only Bermudians (both born and status) should be able to vote on it."

I count myself among many Bermudians who regard every general election to be a serious, irrevocable national event. For some, general elections transcend party politics, and for others, party politics is all that matters. Still general elections are serious and irrevocable.

[The Limey on 30.03.04 at 19:28]

Bryant - The only evidence that matters as far as how welcome spouses of Bermudians feel here is what those spouses think. In this at least, it's the opinion of Bermudians that's irrelevant. As it happens, however, on the whole I do feel welcome here. But when I don't, I'm going to tell you, on the basis that it's best to air feelings like that rather than keep them pent up. The lack of a vote is something I put up with, but don't expect me to be happy about it.

Respectfully, a general election just isn't as serious as a vote on independence. In no way is an election an irrevocable event. If the party you elect make a complete hash of things, you kick them out four years later. But once Bermuda goes independent, that's it, regardless of who gets back into power in the future. Surely we can agree on that?

[Bryant Trew on 30.03.04 at 21:54]

"The only evidence that matters as far as how welcome spouses of Bermudians feel here is what those spouses think. In this at least, it's the opinion of Bermudians that's irrelevant."

Phil, Bermudians cannot control how each and every non-Bermudian feels about being here. It is entirely possible that each and every non-Bermudian could feel completely unwelcome for completely illogical reasons. Our responsibility as Bermudians is to do what we feel is right for us. Consequently, we think that we've set down a policy that considers your feelings while protecting our birthright. In Bermuda, the opinions of Bermudians is never irrelevant.

A general election is as, if not more, serious and is irrevocable. The Government of the day could at any time enact policies that could decimate this country. This is possible with or without independence, and electing a party in four years is not going to make everything better. I'd actually argue that the choice of Government for the next four years is far more important than an independence referendum, because ultimately it is the policies and practices of the Government that will dictate reactions. Independence on its own changes nothing - idiotic Government changes everything IMO.

Case in point: Look at the US and the Iraq War. You can't erase that by electing Democrats at the next Presidential Election. The damage is done.

PS: You've got a really cool discussion going on this board, and I'd hate to see it turn grossly ignorant a-la Yahoo BDA Free Speech forum. It might be a good idea to make a statement about unjustified attacks like what Alice Paul made last night. Personally, I don't mind being accused of bigotry or xenophobia as long as someone is willing to back their claim up. But if all they are going to do is make baseless accusations, the board will indeed suffer. I'd hate to see that happen.

[graeme Outerbridge on 30.03.04 at 22:23]

VOTE FOR INDEPENDENCE_I'VE DONE IT ONCE AND LOST__THIS TIME THE WOLF SMELLS VICTORY!^..^

[Nitjanirasu on 30.03.04 at 23:31]

The Iraw War occured. But, the next US government can always pull out of the country.

When we go independent, we can't go back if the going gets rough.

Though a government can do smart or stupid things, the next government can often do things that counter the effects.