Ouch

In an interview with RG magazine this month, Julian Hall takes aim at, well, just about everything.

On Jennifer Smith:

"I certainly wasn't within Jennifer Smith's circle, didn't want to be either because I really couldn't handle the vacuity. I think she was being insecure and I don't think she ever had the depth, really, to be Premier of Bermuda."

On Alex Scott:

"Now Alex is in charge, it is perfectly clear we have nothing more than a continuation of the nothingness that represented Jennifer Smith's administration."

On the situation with Pro-Active:

"The Government is out UBP-ing the UBP and the result will be disaster."

On the way the PLP is running the country:

"[I have become] increasingly appalled at the emphasis of style over substance. There is an inability to close a deal with just about anybody."

On the Cabinet:

"Half the members of the Cabinet are the direct application of the principle that people rise in any bureaucracy to the level of their own incompetence."

On Parliament:

"It is background noise at best. There isn't the appreciation of research and preparation."

On independence:

"[The issue is disappearing because of] vacuous and inane posturing by the parties... who are incapable of listening to the logic of the other's positions."

On the use of the race card:

"Race is never a solid base for a political ideology anyway. I don't think they can do it much longer because the racial divide is more in their imagination than in reality... The racial divide is being narrowed all the time yet the party politics are based on a paradigm that is crazy, that is not relevant anymore."

Amen to that.

Comments

[Cancundreaming on 26.07.05 at 13:33]

Perfectly valid opinions. Not sure why it warrants Front Page coverage however.

[Martin on 26.07.05 at 14:25]

I guess that now his name is cleard "in law" if not in every sense, he wants to get back into society and politics?

An interesting attack...and one is really left wondering "why"?

No doubt someone will tell me!

[jake on 26.07.05 at 14:37]

Right guys. If it was the UBP saying the same thing you would be shouting it from the rooftops.

Here's a question: why not?

It is good to see divergence of opinion in the PLP as it makes manifest the point I have been making all this time: there is divergence of opinion in the black community.

As for your comment Martin that his name is cleared in law I would remind you that it is the same law that says you are cleared. If it does not apply to him, why should we not think the same of you?

The reality (like it or not) is that Julian Hall is smarter than most. His comments on the level of research today in comparison to earlier Parliaments is spot on.

He should know...he was there.

[Tiger Bay on 26.07.05 at 14:41]

Reestablishing his street cred as an independent thinker. We need more people shaking the tree like this. Bermuda is too accepting, people feel very isolated from the government - which means that the politicians and civil servants do pretty much whatever they want. International business does pretty much whatever they want. There is zero accountability. That leaves normal joes like and me with a f*cked up community.

I hear the mellifluous bullsh*t coming from the mouths of ministers and politicians - sounds great but most of it is exaggerated or simply not true. Yet we accept it. Do we want to believe it? Are we too lazy? Or do we think the situation is hopeless?

I am so disappointed at the travesty that Parliament has become - there is no debate. The legislation is rushed and desgned to shut out the opposition on principle.

I don't trust Julian but I respect his brains and think he improves the quality of our public debate. Break up the established positions some - after all, he's the bad boy of both the UBP and PLP!

[Martin on 26.07.05 at 14:43]

Jake...

Not trying to be difficult, simply saying that I think there is a very real distinction here in this case that many recognise, that whilst the jury says he is not guilty, many believe he is.

I don't doubt for one moment that he is intellectually bright...although having read his article written in London recently around the issue of the bombings, he will never make a novelist.

[Bill Cook on 26.07.05 at 15:06]

Julian

The penultimate chameleon.

Will the real Julian Hall please stand up ?

Intelligent,gifted, and charasmatic he charms most he meets (if he wants to )

Like many similar he has a an EGO that ultimately did him in or there is no telling just what he may have acheived.

Julian was given opportunities not afforded to many, but squandered so much possibly thinking he was invincible,he came close.

In the final analysis however Julians main interest was Julian and to survive he in my opinion embraces whatever helps him suceed.

He is young enough yet experienced enough to change and may yet fulfill his true potential and this may need humility.

As a talented singer he may start by singing
that song " oh God its not easy to be humble when your are perfect in every way ! "

[SmokingGun on 26.07.05 at 15:11]

"Will the real Julian Hall please stand up ?"

I for one would much prefer it if he'd just sit down.

[jake on 26.07.05 at 15:17]

That is crap Bill.

People like to say that Julian was "given" something. What about his peers who were "given" Daddy's business?

Julian was the smartest of his era and took what came his way. He failed in business. Fair enough - many do. He lived a fast life - many wished they could, but could never quite figure it out.

Julian was no angel, but he is not a devil either. I welcome his return to the debate. He does not need to feed his ego - he has already out performed - even in his most recent (and hopefully not last) trial.

Brilliance.

Economically he will be back. Julian has another comeback left in him. I am happy to see it taking place.

[Terry on 26.07.05 at 15:19]

Martin, you remind me of Brit. "Terry got his head in the sand". Cancundreaming, Trust me.......Trust me.

I have know Juiliana Hall for 40yrs, and always thought he was an asshole. As I grew older and made mistakes like him, I overcame them, so has he. One thing about Julian, he stands on principals and LAW. He is not fool. His Father took the same crap from Government whilst he served as a Police Officer for 40yrs. I guess you can call it a reflection and standing up for your rights.
It takes a lot of guts to stand up and do and say what he has done. He maybe looking for another job or party affiliation, so what.

He has never in my memory made any bad or misguided statements that have affected the Country.

He is one of the greatest Barristers Bermuda will ever see in our times, though I believe still disbarred.

His words remind me that there are still people of concience that want us to move forward.

At least he is not a babbling L. Peniston etc.

Lets see how many more come out and support him.
As said, I don't like the guy that much but to me this is a breath of fresh air in a stale situation.

[Steve Moffat on 26.07.05 at 15:24]

Just the very man to head up a new BDA political party.......

[JJ on 26.07.05 at 15:27]

"Race is never a solid base for a political ideology anyway. I don't think they can do it much longer because the racial divide is more in their imagination than in reality... The racial divide is being narrowed all the time yet the party politics are based on a paradigm that is crazy, that is not relevant anymore."
Surely this statement flies in the face of what many have argued on this site.
Care to comment Onion??

[Tiger Bay on 26.07.05 at 15:40]

Julian himself is guilty of stirring the pot (whipping actually) on racial issues when it suits him. Defense lawyer; can't resist it. Hence my lingering distrust.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 26.07.05 at 15:52]

JJ,

I believe Julian was giving his opinion, to which he is entitled. Are things better than they once were? Yes. Are we continuing to progress? Yes. Is the racial divide getting narrower? Yes. However, the fact remains that the management ranks in Bermuda are not reflective of the racial make up of Bermuda. The fact remains that according to the last census blacks earn less than whites for the same job. Therefore, there is still a need to address racism in Bermuda.

I have a great deal of respect for Julian but that does not mean I agree with everything he says or does. Did he not state during his trial that the matter was based on race? Maybe Julian needs to make up his mind what he believes to be the case.

[Tiger Bay on 26.07.05 at 16:13]

"Continuation of the nothingness" goes down as one of the most memorable quotes so far of Bda 2005.

[Terry on 26.07.05 at 16:18]

Tiger, remember those stripes? There was more Whipping in the 1800-circa ealy1900's than there is today.

Just depends who is, you know, stirring the p...

And to Mr. Cancunvacation, Stanley, It warrants front page coverage because it affects Bermuda, not another country. He may have taken a leap of Faith, but I doubt I will see to many Lemmings following. Mabe Limeys........

[lickinalong on 26.07.05 at 16:39]

Good old Julian brings with him a lot of baggage. What is also true is that we all bring with us a lot of baggage with Julian! He has managed to anger and alienate just about every constituency in Bermuda so it is not suprising the lukewarm reaction to his musings.

I just went back and took a look at the quotes given by Limey and tried to put out of mind who said them. Try it. Forget about Julian, his history, background and failings and just read the statements as if they came from someone you do not know. You may be suprised by the results.

[SmokingGun on 26.07.05 at 16:41]

Sorry but the guy sounds vindictive and self serving.
Trust is a mighty big word and built up layer by layer over many acts and years so whatever he's trying to accomplish I don't get it. He's just postulating and it comes accross as crass and belligerent. If he took some time off to research and prepare then present with some proposals for helping create a positive future instead of claiming he had nothing to do with our negative history, then I might be inclined to listen.

And as far as the BUI going bankrupt? Let it.
If there is still a legitimate reason for a local union it will resurface as a leaner, cleaner union without all the top-heavy bulk to it.

[Terry on 26.07.05 at 16:50]

Just off the top of my head, well you know guys there ain't too much in it, tink abowt it. Alex Scott, or Julian Hall. Me, well, I would go with a Man with a track record, not one that is an LP.33 on and on and on and on and on. You are what you eat. It's time for a new diet.

[Onion on 26.07.05 at 16:53]

Bill, that is a load of rubbish about Hall being a chameleon.

This interview puts to bed any idea that all blacks think and act alike - all on pure emotion!

These words needed to be spoken.

[Bill Cook on 26.07.05 at 17:13]

My new novel title thanks.

How to succeed without emotion,an unauthorised biography of the mercurial Mr Hall !

[Martin on 26.07.05 at 17:20]

Guilden ...just one point.

Ensuring people are paid the same, for the same work, is a matter of statutorily enforced job evaluation together with supportive equal pay legislation.

There are schemes around that are "per se" non-discriminatory.

Given the 2000 Act, I was somewhat surprised that there was no attempt to tackle this thorny issue.

Of course, employers will twist and turn to defend pay differentials (often on spurious and unsuportable merit grounds) - so it does not clear up the issue totally, but would go someway towards it.

Neither would implementing it necessarily impact on racism....in my opinion.

[ruby tuesday on 26.07.05 at 17:57]

It is a sad indictment of the body politic in Bermuda when that ethically challenged ponce can actually make some sense - although the quotations used today seem too succinct and full of clarity not to be edited from their original verbosity.

Bermuda is a small place and most like me will first look at the speaker and not the text and look for motives rather than any sense of purpose in what he is saying.

It doesn't take a fellow of All Souls to deduce that Smith was a vacuous hypocrite and that Scott is a woefully dim-witted mountebank. Still, it's nice to have their bubble burst every now and then.

[Cancundreaming on 26.07.05 at 18:16]

What I’m confused about is why this is such a big deal. He's a good lawyer? Apparently a great lawyer, apparently one of the best ever (Bermudian) . But he doesn't seem to be a PLP supporter, i skimmed the article and i recall him saying he joined the UBP early on one of his first jobs. If he was one of the founders (PLP) or even a son of a founder, then i could see how this might hurt them (PLP), but he's just a lawyer, albeit a famous or infamous one depending on who you talk too.

So what’s the big deal?

PS. Onion, I feel sorry for anyone who needed Julian Hall to confirm for them that not all blacks think or alike using pure emotion.

PS 2. I think it’s great that he has an opinion on, seemingly, everything. But I think if you genuinely care about your country, and it’s people and think it’s going in the wrong direction, and if you have the means, opportunity and ability, which I think he does, I feel you should run for elected office, as it’s always a bit easier on the side lines. (I was tempted for a moment to call it the cheap seats)

[jake on 26.07.05 at 18:32]

Cancun,

Do a little research hmmm?

He was a member of the UBP and left it to join the PLP where he ran and was succesfully an MP. Many thought one day he would be Premier.

He certainly had more in the talent box than anyone on this site.

Think about it - his comments warrant coverage. We talk everyday and no-one cares.

[Onion on 26.07.05 at 18:33]

JJ quotes Hall:

"Race is never a solid base for a political ideology anyway. I don't think they can do it much longer because the racial divide is more in their imagination than in reality... The racial divide is being narrowed all the time yet the party politics are based on a paradigm that is crazy, that is not relevant anymore."
Surely this statement flies in the face of what many have argued on this site.
Care to comment Onion??"

JJ, I'd love to comment.

Firstly, if what Julian says flies in the face of what you think some have said on this site, then so what? People are entitled to their views. Simply because he is intelligent and is a black man, doesn't mean all black people must somehow feel hamstrung to each and every one of his opinions.

Secondly, in any event, I have never endorsed the view that race is a solid base for a political ideology - not in this forum or any other. I argued at great length against the insinuation that was made by some on this list that if you make the slightest criticism of the UBP then you have a chip on your shoulder, you hate white people and want to see them pay for all the ills of the world, and politics is all about revenge, blah blah blah.

I have argued that people must be prepared to view the UBP under the same microscope under which they would view the PLP. On this blog this has clearly not been done.

I have also clearly stated a number of problems I have with BOTH parties. I have never blindly followed any party. The difference between JH and some of you is that he will dissect the UBP with an equal amount of discernment.

As regards, the opinions of others on this thread, this is an example of why people use a pseudonymn when writing letters/blogs. Some of you are so caught up in what you THINK of the individual that you miss out on the point that the person is making. Even when Julian states opinions that I KNOW 99% of you agree with, some of you still like to throw in what you think of him or his lifestyle etc etc. You can't win!

I would venture to say that if each and every one of us had our lives put under a microscope in the way that JH has it would be interesting to see what would come up.

[Cancundreaming on 26.07.05 at 18:35]

Hmmm sorry no, my summers are a book and research free zone, i do enough sept-may otherwise I’ll go crazy.

What's the time line in regards to the things you mentioned, I’m a bit young to recall firsthand.

[SmokingGun on 26.07.05 at 18:36]

Cancun,

Would you vote for him knowing his history?
I mean after all it begins with "he's a lawyer". ;)

[Cancundreaming on 26.07.05 at 18:38]

HEY! i like lawyers, really i do, no really i do, i'm not joking! please don't laugh! i'm being serious....

taking the LSAT's in Dec. :P

[SmokingGun on 26.07.05 at 19:07]

"Even when Julian states opinions that I KNOW 99% of you agree with, some of you still like to throw in what you think of him or his lifestyle etc etc. You can't win!"

Onion - I'll agree 99% with what you state. The "you can't win" part is wrong. If you choose to get up and berate, slander or sling mud at people then you'd better be prepared to get it tossed back: even from those who might agree with you on some of the things you speak of. There are proper forums for everything and Julian Hall getting high on his horse on the front of RG is a joke. But that's just me tossing my opinion.

I just don't get it as to what he's trying to accomplish. He's a lawyer who by all accounts was/is extremely bright and well respected for his legal mind. He let his ego and lifestyle get the better of him and he became less respected. He got himself caught up in a few court cases that saw him on the wrong side of the bench. Doesn't matter wether he was guilty or not he automatically gets less respect. Now he's raging on about stuff that he had a history with. Why?

I'm sorry but a far more useful and winning strategy would be to use his brilliant mind in coming up with a well thought out and insightful article on where the mistakes were made and how he thinks he can make things better. By shooting his mouth off and taking pot shots at those that apparently "distanced" themselves from him you're right: he can't win.

[nicolette on 26.07.05 at 19:14]

As a defense lawyer you must provide the defendant (even if it is yourself) with the best possible defense you can. That has no bearing whatsoever on the lawyer's personal code, beliefs etc. Julian made the statement about playing the "race card" with regard to politics and politicians and he is quite right. Whatever he states during the course of a trial can be an entirely different matter and it is all about winning for the client. Many lawyers do not see eye to eye with their clients or their clients actions, principles or philosophies but argue their client's position effectively if they are any good. If playing the race card helps you win (like it did with OJ Simpson) then the lawyer should damn well play the card and convince the jury he believes what he is arguing. This is one reason Julian is so good. Don't go delibertately looking for inconsistencies for the sake of putting the author down - in this case there's no comparison.

[Bill Cook on 26.07.05 at 19:18]

I keep hearing Rossini's overture to the thieving Magpie,its one of those darn toons thats hard to ignore !

[SmokingGun on 26.07.05 at 19:30]

Just to clarify Nicolette, are you responding to this post?

"I have a great deal of respect for Julian but that does not mean I agree with everything he says or does. Did he not state during his trial that the matter was based on race? Maybe Julian needs to make up his mind what he believes to be the case."

Posted by: Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. | 26.07.05 15:52

If so then you have to hand it to Guilden that in the "Court of Public Opinion" Julian may have set himself up. Bermuda's a very small court and they don't permit flip flops.

[jake on 26.07.05 at 19:31]

Well said nicollete.

Over 400 years of English legal precedent and all of a sudden Julian is bad because he says that he was a victim of racism (he was) and that race is a pathetic ground to base your politics on (it is).

How is it so difficult to see the difference?

That polticians are wrong to base a political ideology on race does not mean that racism has disappeared.

[artemis on 26.07.05 at 20:08]

Terry,

"though I believe still disbarred"

I believe Mr. Hall's exact position vis a vis the Bermuda Bar Association is not that he was ever "disbarred", he simply was not entitled to apply for a practicing certificate and practice as a barrister in Bermuda whilst he was an undischarged bankrupt.

I would hope that in view of the outcome of his trial and the questions that must now be posed of what I believe was his primary creditor, (What did the estate's claim start at? How much was the eventual sum that he was prosecuted for? - a prosecution that 'failed') we might see Mr. Hall's bankruptcy discharged, within the foreseeable future.

Regardless of what one thinks of Mr. Hall there is no doubt in my mind that he is one of Bermuda's most talented advocates.

[Eve on 26.07.05 at 21:04]

Julian has the testicular fortitude to publicly dress down those incompetents. However, Julian didn't do this just to express his opinion, he no doubt has a personal reason which is probably political. I am guessing he is either working his way back into the UBP or will come out in support of Dr. Brown for Premier.

[Martin on 26.07.05 at 21:49]

Bill...

Know what you mean.

On a lighter note, I also reckon only you and Rossini see eye to eye on that.

After G. Tell...he should have retired.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 26.07.05 at 22:21]

Martin,

"Ensuring people are paid the same, for the same work, is a matter of statutorily enforced job evaluation together with supportive equal pay legislation."

As far as I am concerned there should be no need for such legislation. Further, I would never want to be in a position to receive equal pay because the law says so. If you and I are hired at the same time to perform the same job for the same employer than we should be paid the same salary. In many cases, the latest census reflects it, this is not the case. Whites are generally higher paid than blacks for performing the same job.

You cannot legislate morality and paying persons differently for the same job based on race is a moral issue to me.

[Onion on 26.07.05 at 23:46]

"I would hope that in view of the outcome of his trial and the questions that must now be posed of what I believe was his primary creditor, (What did the estate's claim start at? How much was the eventual sum that he was prosecuted for? - a prosecution that 'failed') we might see Mr. Hall's bankruptcy discharged, within the foreseeable future."

Bermuda is one of the few places in the world which prevents a bankrupt lawyer from practicing. There is no doubt that this absurd piece of legislation was enacted specifically for Julian.

In any event, getting back to the thread, why don't people focus more on what was said than on who said it?

[Bill Cook on 27.07.05 at 06:21]

Perhaps Julian may try for next minister of Finance ?

He knows how to take a licking and keep on ticking, just the man to keep our economy afloat.

A vote for Julian is a vote for continued prosperity.

[Martin on 27.07.05 at 08:13]

Guilden..

You're right - you cannot legislate morality.

That's why we have legislation to "drag" some people upto a minimum standard that society deems acceptable.

[Terry on 27.07.05 at 08:13]

I agree Bill, Julians comments do raise some questions. I just hope that the tickin comes from a Rolex, and not a Timex.

[Bill Cook on 27.07.05 at 08:35]

Martin,

If you cant legislate morality can you legislate immorality ?

First we have to define both.

Is it moral for a lawyer knowing his client has committed a crime or crimes and use all the power of his or her intellect plus the not inconsiderable power of emotional persuasion to save the client from paying the penality for the crime or crimes committed ?

If you consider that moral then its ok if like me you have huge problems with that then you are likely to view that immorality is legislated but not morality.

I guess morality and basic human decency like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Let me confess up front that I am not a great admirer of the legal proffession for very solid reasons in my own lifes experience,that coloured my viewpoint.

[Onion on 27.07.05 at 09:28]

Bill asks:

"Is it moral for a lawyer knowing his client has committed a crime or crimes and use all the power of his or her intellect plus the not inconsiderable power of emotional persuasion to save the client from paying the penality for the crime or crimes committed ?"

This is not moral, ethical, or legal. A lawyer who knows, as a matter of FACT, that his client committed a crime is NOT permitted to represent that client on a not guilty plea. He is bound by the barristers code of conduct. He may represent him on a guilty plea and give a plea in mitigation before sentencing. Havign a hunch that your client is guilty is not sufficient to say you KNOW he is guilty. There have been many cases where the evidence might at first appear to show that the defendant is guilty but then it turns out that that was not the case. Just look at the Brazilian guy in London who was shot by police! he won't get a retrial though.

People often stereotype lawyers by suggesting that they represent persons known to be guilty. So long as OJ never confesses to Cochrane that he murdered Nicole then Cochrance is bound by an oath to render the finest legal representation he can muster. In the same was Julian must act for the likes of Mike Merideth.

In practice I am sure some lawyers breach this code of conduct. If they are caught out then can be disbarred.But lawyers are not the only ones who have been breaching codes of conduct lately, as we look at Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, etc etc.

[jake on 27.07.05 at 09:38]

I think it goes further than that. A lawyer is entitled to represent a client and test the evidence of the prosecution, but not put forward a positive case of innocence. She or he cannot, for example, put the client on the stand to tell a tissue of lies.

However, if the case for the prosecution is not proved, then there can be no guilty finding in our system. If the defendant is not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt he is free to go.

This is the system that governs us all - not just Julian. How can we criticise him when he works within our rules simply because we don't like him.

How can we complain about his valid political points (several of which I don't agree with, but they are validly held) simply because he had a storied life. Does that make him more wrong or more right?

It is sad to see that people cannot suspend their own hatred of a man who never asked for their love.

[loki on 27.07.05 at 09:39]

"A lawyer who knows, as a matter of FACT, that his client committed a crime is NOT permitted to represent that client on a not guilty plea."

Incorrect - he may still represent the client on a not guilty plea and put the prosecution to proof of its case. What he can't do is put forward a positive defence and actually come out and say "he didn't do it".

[Onion on 27.07.05 at 09:53]

What annoys me about the PLP is that they never seem to be able to converse, toe to toe, with self-professed, self appointed pseudo business analysts like David Ezekiel when the issue on independence arises.

This guy has become the voice of bermuda in the FT, WSJ, NY Times and the PLP have no answer to him. It makes them look weak. If you are for independence have a business voice to speak on Gov.'s behalf when the issue arises. Have a business voice that international business will respect, if not always agree with.

John Swan is another who has been elevated to the level of guru. He makes all these predictions about the way Bermuda is going and what is best for the island.

These two individuals fill voids that are left that should be filled by PLP ministers. Perhaps this is part of the "nothngness" to which Hall refers.

[jake on 27.07.05 at 09:54]

loki,

Two opinions which agree on the point. Well done!

I think Onion missed that day in Bar School. I think he was at some other Bar Stool.

What is that Bar called next to the ICSL just outside Gray's Inn?

[Terry on 27.07.05 at 09:55]

Well, since we have all the Crown Counsels and American Lawyers on the Post, I am Not Guilty. As one poster stated, can we get back to what he said. I am still trying to digest his comments. I know I am slow but I just want to be a little more accurate.

I will be in Chambers if needed. Please keep the smart ass replies to a minimum. Just my opinion all you Cief Justicess.

[Tiger Bay on 27.07.05 at 09:58]

There's a reason why most of the PLoP's cabinet ministers sound like beginner's night at Toastmasters: they are inexperienced and out of their depth.

[loki on 27.07.05 at 09:58]

"What is that Bar called next to the ICSL just outside Gray's Inn?"

That, sir, would be "The City of York". I have very fond memories of quaffing pints of bitter in the back bar of that pub.