Page 32 of today's Gazette contains a half page advertisement from the Bermuda Independence Committee pleading their case after taking a pounding for the past couple of months.
There's a few things of note about the letter:
1) Perhaps not the most obvious element of the release is that not every BIC Commissioner signed the statement (and bear in mind they all signed the report itself)
Who signed:
- Bishop Vernon Lambe (Chairman)
- Derrick Burgess
- Dianna Kempe
- Gary Phillips
- Janet Smith Bradshaw
- Mike Winfield
- Crystal Caesar
- Eddy DeMello
- David Rowntree
- Robert Steinhoff
Who didn't sign:
- Marc Bean
- Rolfe Commissiong
- Donna Pearman
- Dame Lois Browne Evans (legal advisor)
Three of the Commissioners (and Dame Lois) didn't sign. Coincidence? I doubt it.
Next, is this lame excuse for stupidly attempting to mislead the public around the use of a referendum:
"The Report went through many variations, seemingly endless re-drafts and edits. In editing this section, we left a misleading and inaccurate statement. We apologize for the confusion this has caused."
So the statement that the commission found no instances of referendum's in determining sovereignty was an editing error? Give me a break. Even Premier Scott's racist email excuse was more creative than that. It's inclusion was intentional.
3) In response to the exclusion of the UBP's submission, the commission argues that all written submissions were summarized in Annex 27 (true) and that only those referenced in the text of the report were printed in full.
An objective report would have printed all the submissions in full (or perhaps none at all). Picking and choosing which submissions were worthy of comment and full inclusion speaks to the bias of the report and its authors. Selectively using submissions was clearly intended to draw attention to certain perspectives at the expense of others to further the report's pro-independence stance.
4) While the report gave special mention to "Benefits" and promised to explode the "Myths and Misconceptions", no section was dedicated to the benefits of continuing a relationship with the UK. The explantion?
"Some have stated that the Report does not address the benefits of the Status Quo and is therefore unbalanced. We are confident that all those reading the Report, will recognize the advantages of maintaining the status quo, which are contained, in some details, in the Report, particularly in sections 3.7 and 3.9"
Excusing the final sentence's terrible use of commas (we all have our moments), this is simply another example of the report's bias.
If the public is smart enough to infer the downsides of independence wouldn't they be smart enough to pick up on the upsides as well without the need for special sections. It's quite simple really: the pro arguments get preferential treatment and high play while the downsides get buried throughout the report.
This attempt for redemption is as weak as the report itself. The commissioners should just accept that their report has been discredited and dismissed.
A report that was billed as the definitive document on Independence isn't even part of the debate; it's irrelevant, not even a blip on the radar screen.
These commissioners lack credibility and their pleas are too little too late.
