One point that got lost a bit in the hullabaloo about the PLP engaging in their usual histrionics around the gun crime legislation, is the BDA getting a bit carried away blowing their vuvuzelas about Mark Pettingill riding in on his horse to save the day with some unprecedented legal wrangling in Parliament.
Here's what the BDA has on their website:
The Firearms Legislation Act 2010 was passed unanimously in the house on June 4th, 2010. Thanks to the Bermuda Democratic Alliance. Although the BDA was in agreement with Government's approach to take a harder line on gun crime, we felt that, as presented, the law was flawed and lacking balance.Thanks to the legal wrangling of Mark Pettingill, the law was passed and Bermuda for once WON and Parliament actually worked with the vision that the Bermuda Democratic Alliance has advocated for. A BETTER WAY!!
Now I understand that political parties, particularly a new one which has yet to make a real mark since its launch, wants to blow its horn and get some credit.
But this is a bit much.
I caught an interview with Mark on VSB news where he was patting himself on the back for guiding Parliament to something he had never witnessed in his time in the House, namely amendments being worked in real time during debate and the Government accepting and passing a bill with amendments.
Really? As I watched that interview I chuckled, because it was so clearly an overreach.
Firstly, this is not unprecedented, it was a better way, but it certainly wasn't a new way. It happens more than casual observers would think. If you listen to Parliament you'll often hear the UBP, usually through John Barritt, moving and proposing amendments.
Secondly, on this specific firearms legislation, the UBP was involved both before and during the debate to craft amendments. Both John Barritt and Trevor Moniz.
But the BDA acts as if they were the lone voice and contributors. Now certainly Mark contributed and made himself the spotlight, but the BDA is not practicing "a better way" by claiming something is unprecedented when it isn't, nor giving credit to others when due.
I get it, I really do, that they're looking for an issue to try and grab the spotlight and position themselves as bridging some intractable divide and pioneering a new kind of politics. But this one wasn't it. It was a success, a joint effort by the UBP and BDA, but it wasn't earth-shattering.
A better way would be to acknowledge the efforts of all involved.
