There is no provision under the Bermuda Constitution to file a motion of no confidence against the Premier. Our Constiution requires that the UBP file a motion of no confidence in the PLP Government.
The UBP's motion is based on section 59(1) of the Bermuda Constitution which is a statuatory provision consistent with what is the established convention and practice of Westminster. This section of the Constitution stipulates that, in order to revoke the Premier's appointment, the House of Assembly must past "a resolution that it has no confidence in the Government." Not a Minister. Not the Premier. Not a Member. Government.
The UBP motion is worded incorrectly and cannot, under the Bermuda Constitution, stand for a vote. In order for the motion to be considered, the UBP must move to vote no confidence in the PLP Government
It's ironic that the party that is claiming to uphold the Constitution may very well have violated the Constitution and our democracy so that they can appease the angry mob calling for the Premier's political scalp.
Comments
Done with this site
Rocksolid,
I cannot say for sure that it was you that has done this. But the fact that a post which specifically highlighted the Constitutional section (section 59) concerning the motion of No Confidence, specifically highlighting the fact that the Governor may choose to EITHER revoke the Premier's appointment OR dissolve parliament, has been censored, and then you post this, leads me to think you are manipulating this site. Also a post 'An Open Letter To My Fellow Black Bermudians' countering some of the fearmongering spin has been censored. I tried to republish both of these, as THERE WAS NOTHING IN THEM CONTRARY TO THE IDEALS OF THIS SITE, but the minute I did so they were taken down. And eventually my Admin powers were stripped from me. I contacted two other actual PMers to address this issue, and they too had similar expereinces and now have had their Admin powers stripped from them. Fortunately I had the foresight to copy and paste at least the latter post.
Such actions are contrary to the ideals of this site. They are contrary to the long term goals of the Party and the progressive labour movement. Such censoring and manipulation will not benefit us, but only increasingly alienate supporters and members.
You, Rocksolid, were never a member of Progressive Minds. It is true I can no longer confirm that it was you that was behind these actions. Nor do I care. This site, those of us who were in PM, were very proud of it. We know the conversation was at times not the best. But it was a beginning and we had high hopes for its development. Instead it has increasingly been manipulated and abused by powers outside of PM, and has now become little more than a tool for those who would defend the Leadership at any costs. Ends do not justify means Rocksolid. Means determine ends.
The actions of those who have hijacked this site are beyond despicable. They have directly acted against the very purpose of this site, to stimulate critical discussion. Instead it has become a tool to bait and spin. There should be no place for that in this site, or the Party.
From 'bermyhouse':
Subject: An Open Letter to My Fellow Black Bermudians
To my fellow black Bermudians,
Whilst today's hott topic for discussion should have focused on disturbing reports that our Premier has again misled the electorate and potentially his own MP's in the House of Assembly on Friday by stating that the Police Commissioner had assessed the four detainees and deemed that they were "absolutely no security risk", only for the Police Commissioner to state on Tuesday that this was not in fact the case and that based on a lack of information the Governor and Minister Burch on Friday had been informed that they were actually "high risk", the media and powers that be have chosen instead to once again attempt to divide Bermuda along racial lines by focusing on the racial makeup of Tuesday's lunchtime demonstration.
BERMUDA WAKE UP!
How long are we going to allow the race card to be played against us and our greater sensibilities? Yesterday's demonstration was in fact organized in part by a black lifelong PLP supporter and attended by black Bermudians, some of whom were PLP supporters. That individuals would have us completely disregard those facts in an attempt to depict the crowd as a "lynch mob" is an insult to the intelligence and yet another indication that the powers that be thrive on us being a racially divided nation in order to distract us from holding them accountable. That individuals who once demonstrated and fought against their race being used against them as an impediment to progress would now attempt to use our blackness against us to keep themselves in power is an affront to each and every black Bermudian and can no longer be tolerated.
As the descendents of marchers and civil activists we can ill-afford to sit back whilst individuals run roughshod over our rights, with elected and non-elected officials deliberately withholding information and making decisions without having gone through the proper process - let alone the consultation of us, the people that they HAVE BEEN CHOSEN to represent.
That the makeup of the crowd was not representative of the general population was less indicative of white Bermudians "out for blood" and more indicative of the fact that whilst our ancestors fought long and hard to give us all the right to vote, the right to have our say, all too often our say is limited to our living rooms and water cooler conversations, but rarely go any further than that, providing our leaders with our own ammunition - apathy - to be turned around and used against us. Standing up for one's rights - even it be shoulder to shoulder with other Bermudians who happen to be white does not make one an Uncle Tom or a sell-out... the fact that we have even allowed this argument to be made and infect our psyche and limit our own progress is unfortunate.
There are a number of positive initiatives that have taken place under the PLP government. The demonstration yesterday was not a demonstration against the PLP. But let's be clear - one man does not and should not make the Government. Let alone one that has shown that he is willing to flout the laws of the land including due process and has failed to act with honesty and integrity, disrespecting the very followers who CHOSE HIM TO LEAD.
WAKE UP BERMUDA!
Securing the future of our children depends on us not allowing our black leaders to use our blackness against us. We are a patient people who have given Ewart Brown enough free reign... IT'S TIME TO PUT THE
POWER BACK WHERE IT BELONGS - WITH THE PEOPLE.
Your Accusation
I do not know anything about this letter or your admin privileges. I am frankly insulted by your accusation.
I explicitly stated that I
I explicitly stated that I cannot say for sure that you were behind it. My point was simply that it was rather coincidental.
Regardless, if you were not behind it, do you think that it was right for the Open Letter to have been censored, or that actual PM admins were stripped of their power?
Yes and No
1) Last time I checked, this was a PLP site and not a place to spew opposition propaganda. I support the posts on this site being largely pro-PLP. Those that are not are certainly acceptable, but, I personally, would prefer them being about substantive policy disagreements and not an emotional appeal, that, looks to me arranged by some protest PR machine, against the PLP.
2) I don't know of any admins that were stripped of their power. But, there are a few out there who seem to be PLP-In-Name-Only these days, one of whom has tentatively committed to joining another party. Let me ask it this way, if Vexed or Christian Dunleavy wanted to post on this site, do you think they should be able to? If so, why?
The above is my opinion and NOT site policy. I hope that you will apologise for your unfair and untrue accusations.
Pro PLP shouldn't mean lying
Or censoring or silencing or making bizarre accusations based on nothing or spewing racist hate.
If it DOES mean that, then I want no part of it, either.
Are you actually saying in the second part that you would censor Vexed or Christian? That you would stop them posting here?
Why would you do this? I thought you wanted to be progressive. I thought this was about free expression and ideas...
You'd actually censor someone, or, since you're not an admin, you approve with censoring someone simply because they have opposing views to you? Or because they say things you don't like about your political party?
You actually think that this is ok?
You are mistaken
From the inception of this site I argued that CONTENT should only be available to Party Members, and at that, restricted SOLELY to MEMBERS IN GOOD STANDING within PM (as in active). I lost the argument at the time, and the result is that ANYONE is allowed to post here. Those who argued in favour of that, and which I conceded to, argued that the site should serve as a PLATFORM for ALL CRITICAL DISCUSSION, and that the aim of PMers and PLPers would be to WIN ARGUMENTS THROUGH REASONED DEBATE and not manipulation. As such, whether or not anti-PLPers posted here or not was irrelevant, it was up to PLPers to counter their arguments. This was done because at the time it was percieved that ALL OTHER FORUMS for online debate were biased and deliberately manipulating the threads, weeding out pro-PLP sentiment. On this site, which we controlled moderation but not content, it was hoped we would level the playing field. Instead this site has increasingly become a caricature of what it was set up against. It actively, and BLATANTLY so manipulates threads and contents rather than relying on criticial pro-PLP discussion to win the argument. I hope that answers you first point.
As for your second point, I do not know which of the Party members/supporters you refer to concerning joining a another party. That the depths to which manipulation and spin of the last few days have led some members and supporters to regard the PLP as moving to far away from its ideals or spirit and as such are considering forming a new party should send alarm bells ringing for the Party though. 'PLP-in-name-only' is that your phrase now for any member/supporter who dares to express independence of mind and critical thought? Blind loyalty is more akin to the Plantation that the Party is supposed to fight against. How ironic. Perhaps you forget Bob's lyrics 'emancipate yourself from mental slavery'? His point was that true liberation comes from the ability to use ones critical faculties and decision making, not blind allegiance and toeing of lines.
If Mr. Dunleavy wants to post on this site, so be it. Again the point was TO DEFEAT ANTI-PLP ARGUMENTS USING CRITICAL DISCUSSION ON A FAIR AND LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. If we could not defeat such arguments that we had to admit such and reframe our positions. NOT MANIPULATE AD CENSOR.
Point Taken
1) I stated my opinion of what the site should be, not the site's policy. That said, I would certainly argue that this forum also has become one where the online debate is biased against the PLP and pro-PLP sentiment is weeded out by an avalanche of anti-PLP and anti-Brown zealots.
2) I do have a specific example with a citation, but, it would be quite unfair to that person as I'm still hoping they stay PLP. There's not much of a difference between blind loyalty and blind opposition. There are a lot of PLP-In-Name-Only folks floating around that I haven't seen make a pro-PLP argument in ages.
3) There are enough places for anti-PLP voices to be heard. There are not enough places where there are pro-PLP voices. You admit this yourself. Why should the PLP create a space for anti-PLP voices to dominate the discussion? That's clearly what has happened to this site, do you disagree?
Again
1) I have detailed the history of this sites original operating concept for your benefit as you were unaware of it. Why there are less pro-PLP voices is an issue that needs addressed. How do you propose we do that? The original intention was to level the playing field and allow critical discussion, including criticisng the Party when it was felt to be neccessary.
2) No offence, but then you shouldn't even have mentioned it. How does anyone know you haven't just -made it up? If there are a lot of 'PLP-in-name-only' who haven't made, what you consider, a pro-PLP argument, then maybe, just maybe, that might be becasue these members/supporters have an issue with the current direction and action of the Party? Which includes direct manipulation and censoring of this blog. Such actions, running contrary to the ideal of the forum, breeds mistrust in BOTH critical thinking PLPers and non-PLPers.
3) The Bdian forums are free to anyone, pro-PLP or anti-PLP to express their opinions. This goes back to #1. Again, I was in favour of restricting content creation to active PMers ONLY. I lost that argument, and we decided to allow any and all to post with the intention of providing a fair and level playing field. The idea in so doing was to develop trust and respect, develop critical thinking (for the future benefit of the Party) and maybe, just maybe, bring new members or supporters to the Party through so doing.
Responses
1) Point taken on the original intent. You asked for my opinion and I was stating it. You must admit that we've crossed the line and this site has been hijacked by anti-PLP forces. I don't have a solution in the short term. There are certainly plenty of pro-PLP folks expressing themselves on Facebook. If that is their preferred place to express themselves, I think that's perfectly fine. This site was founded when facebook was popular, but, not THAT popular. Maybe this is anachronistic and no longer needed?
2) Because I have evidence. But, if you insist, there's a quote on another online forum about a new party. A self identified PLP person said, and I paraphrase, 'where do I sign up?' That's an expression of a desire to join another party. Clearly if you listen to HOTT and read Facebook, there ARE a lot of members/supporters that are quite supportive of the current direction and action of the party. They're just not here. Perhaps they're not hear because this site has been hijacked by anti-PLP zealots.
3) That was the original intent, but, in practice, that policy has resulted in anti-PLP voices dominating the discussion. Do you disagree?
Response to Response
1) This site had not been hijacked by anti-PLP forces. It has been hijacked by an admin outside of PM who is manipulating and censoring threads and other content. We knew when we started this site that there would be more anti-PLP voices on it. It was up to Party members to come and counter their arguments. That is still what should be happening and not censoring and manipulating content. Even if there are 100 to ever one PLPer, as long as we argue properly and rationally, we should either win the argument, give the anti-PLPers enough rope to hang themselves with, OR admit that our positions were wrong and rethink them.
2) They cannot be threatening to join another Party when such Party does not yet exist. It should instead be taken as evidence of how the spin and manipulation from certain desperate factions within the Party has aleinated members and supporters. This should set alarm bells off at Alaska Hall that maybe, just maybe, they're actions are counter-productive and contrary to the long-term goals and objectives of the national liberation movement. Perhaps PLP voices are not here because there is a rather obvious intimidation of PLPers who happen to voice independent and critical opinions that differ from the Party Line. Even you admittance that you have been observing other forums to such a degree as to point out the comment in question is percieved as a form of Big Brother intimidation. Perhaps if such intimidation and manipulation and censoring of this site did not occur we could rebuild trust and support from these members/supporters?
3) No, you are mistaken. It is up to PLPers to join the battle, not desert the field to anti-PLPers and resort to the very tactics we criticised and set this forum up to oppose.
Quote Unquote
You wrote:
"This was done because at the time it was percieved that ALL OTHER FORUMS for online debate were biased and deliberately manipulating the threads, weeding out pro-PLP sentiment."
Simple question: how is that not the case with this forum?
Clarification
I do not understand what you mean. If you mean that this site NOW operates in the same way (manipulating and censoring content) as we percieved the other forums to, then yes, that is, sadly, true.
Clarification
I mean that this site has been hijacked by anti-PLP zealots and PLP voices have been drowned out. They've moved to other forums (Facebook, radio).
Incorrect then
In that case you are incorrect. There are the same, if not more PLP voices on this site now than ever before. The forum has not been hijacked by anti-PLPers at any time. It has the same number of non-PLP voices as always, in fact, if anyhting, the PLP-nonPLP balance is more even now.
It would be better if more PLP voices were here, no doubt. However, the personal attacks and other heavy-handed methods applied to PLPers that happen to think independently and criticise certain policies/actions of the Party or its Leadership, is not conducive to encouraging more PLP voices. Nor is the manipulation and censoring of content.
Such actions send the message that if you disagree with the Party, then don't voice your thoughts. Only pro whatever the Party is doing is allowed. People can't post very well when they cannot deviate from the Party Line, it reduces people to slavish cutting and pasting or rewording of official statements.
This site has not been hijacked by anti-PLPers. Unless by that you mean an overzealous Admin that acts contrary to the ideals of this site and the spirit of the Party. Such an Admin no doubt believes they are acting in the interests of the Party. They are incorrect. They are confirming the Party as being the same (or worse) as everything the Party originally stood for, and furthermore they are hurting the long-term prospects of the Party, both in preventing critical and free discussion by PLPers and by giving ample ammunition to the PArty's opponents. In so doing, while cloaked in the sheepskin of Party green, and thinking they are exposing wolves in sheepskins, in reality they are delusional and are the true threat to the Party. They are the wolf.
Enjoy the Weekend
You seem to be pretty good at "critical and free discussion by PLPers" and from the looks of it, its not being prevented.
Your idea of free discussion seems to be calling for the Leader's head on a PLP Website. Guess what, its not going to happen. Cut and paste and cry wolf all you like. If you are done with the site, be done with it, if you are done with the Party, be done with it. If you don't like something, work to change it. But please don't give me your righteous indignation about how you think what you see is wrong; from what i hear you aren't even a current member of the PLP so please don't be upset that you've been stripped of something that by your own definition you aren't entitled to.
I've spoken with you on many occasions and I appreciate your support of the Party. But please do not think that your voice is the lone determination for how this Party should operate. None of us agree 100% on everything. If you were actually here or a Member of the Central Committee, Executive, or Parliamentary Group you would know the vigorous debate and opposing views that are raised. For just as many John Starlings there are in the Party there are those that have the opposing view, you call it delusional, i call it the Majority. My Job is to balance it all, if your view doesn't win, guess what, you are probably in the minority.
"Such actions send the message that if you disagree with the Party, then don't voice your thoughts." When have you ever felt the need not to speak out about something? Last time i checked you have your own site. This site has, on my direction, encouraged open discussion.
http://www.progressiveminds.bm/?q=node/378
http://www.progressiveminds.bm/?q=node/318
http://www.progressiveminds.bm/?q=node/318
Those posts don't tow the Party Line, and I don't even think are from party members, but they are posted here for discussion. This is what the Party needs to be about. What we will not discusss are internal matters on a PLP Forum, please feel free to use your website or anything else you want to use. But note, this site will NEVER BE USED to attack the elected leadership of the Party who sponsors it, Deal with it!
Also, Please don't claim censorship until your domain is blocked by Bermuda ISPs, seeing that will never happen your censorship arguement will always ring hollow. This is a PLP site, we can discuss what we do, but if you don't like how its run, feel free to stop posting.
I hope you have a good weekend. I'm off to Happy Hour
And you yours
Hi David.
Thankyou for your post. I do think you've rather missed the point.
Do you or do you not admit that posts have been censored in the sense of being rendered 'unpublished' even when they did not break any of the informal rules of this site, such as indecent language and personal attacks?
You have a rather bizarre idea of my concept of free speech. What you cite is but one incident. And sure, Party members and supporters, and, indeed, anyone who has a username on this site, should have the right to put forward any argument they so choose. Even arguing why the Party Leader should resign or be forced tocease being Party Leader. [I note your rather inflammatory phrase used by the way.]
Right, so I don't like something, like the deliberate manipulation and censoring of posts on this site. So try to change it? What on earth do you think I've been trying to do in these conversations? Fine, it is no secret my membership has lapsed. I concede that. But there is something called notifying people about the reasons for their powers to be stripped rather than doing it in such a way so as to make it appear as punishment for refusing to bow to censorship and manipulation.
David, you know full well I sat on the Central Committee as the representative of the Youth Wing. I know perfectly well how vigorous our debates can be. And yet, knowing such, you seem fit to condoning the silencing of such debate here. True, as far as I can tell the comments themselves are not edited, but posts are rendered unpublished without reason. That is still silencing debate.
When did I claim to be special? I fully recognise and have stated several times I am but one member (well, usually) or supporter amongst many. I have never advocated silencing others, no matter how much I disagree with them. I encourage the discussion.
I have my own site, yes. Whoever denied that? This isn't about my site, this is about this one, and how posts are being censored. Discussion has at times been tolerated, yes. At other times it has been stifled. Such as right now, when posts have been censored. I have written about what this does to the concept of frank discussion.
You have a curious definition of censorship as per your last paragraph. I repeat my request that this site cease defaming the name of Progressive Minds. It no longer has anything to do with it. Likewise, the banner needs to be removed along the same lines.
Enjoy your happy hour sir.
Please post the ACTUAL constitution
Jonny - can you put up the actual 59 please?
Rocksolid, are you therefore admitting you deliberately cut out the relevant part of the constition to suit your purposes? Or did the version you copied from just happen to omit that?
Constitution
http://www.cmseducation.org/wconsts/bermuda.html
If the motion of no confidence in Government is passed, the Governor has the sole, unchecked power to dissolve Parliament at his discretion.
Section 59: Tenure of office
Section 59: Tenure of office of Premier and other Ministers
1. If the House of Assembly by the affirmative votes of a majority of all the members thereof passes a resolution that it has no confidence in the Government, the Governor shall, by instrument under the Public Seal, revoke the Premier's appointment:
Provided that before so doing the Governor shall consult with the Premier and may dissolve the Legislature in accordance with the provisions of section 49(1) of this Constitution instead of revoking the Premier's appointment.
Wouldn't call that unchecked power since it is up to the House representatives to conduct a no confidence vote.
Clearly
But, if the motion is passed - and, it MUST be a motion of no confidence in GOVERNMENT - it is at the sole discretion of the Governor to decide whether or not he wants to dissolve Parliament.
But Kim Swan has amended the
But Kim Swan has amended the wording and even stated that they are looking for a change in leadership and not Government. No one here (well myself at least) is aksing for the PLP to step aside, as they have provided some invaluable programs to the community, but rather people are highly concerned about the actions and decisions which are being made by one individual.
That is not a democracy and not what the voters voted for and not what BDA deserves.
And, that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Kim Swan changed the wording to make the motion unconstitutional! One CAN'T file a motion of no confidence against an individual under the Constiution. Given that your such a guardian of Bermuda's constitution, I'm shocked that you're not appalled by Kim's blatantly unconstitutional move.
It is not democracy to throw out the Constitution and pass an unconstitiutional amendment to appease an angry mob.
please show
where it says you're not allowed to do that.
OH! Dammit, I missed it. You're doing that thing again, aren't you? Where you mimic the person your opposing and just use their own words back at them. Like when you copied my post and changed a couple of words, just to be childish?
Dr. Brown does something unconstitutional, so you have to try to make it a catchphrase...
Sorry. I keep thinking you're interested in dialogue. Silly me. I'll try not to make that mistake again.
Sure.
Section 59 is the only place in the Bermuda constitution that mentions a vote of no confidence to, at the discretion of the Governor, either remove the Premier or dissolve Parliament. In order for these consequences to matter, a "a resolution that it has no confidence in the Government" must be passed.
If it is not stipulated in the Constitution, it is out of order to submit a motion of no confidence against an individual. So, in other words, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. As a defender of the Constitution, why aren't you outraged that the UBP would use unconstitutional means to try to bring down the Premier?
Because I disagree with you
that it IS unconstitutional. Again, it needs to be said that your biased opinion is NOT fact.
Thankyou
You beat me to it. As I read the Constitution it states that the Governor, in repsonse to a successful No Confidence motion, shall EITHER revoke the Premier's appointment and appoint another MP who he feels commands a majority of the House OR dissolve Parliament and call and election.
I fail to see where the confusion comes from. Its pretty simple.
It's not confusion
It's misdirection and spin. Rocksolid completely understands what the constitution says. Unfortunately it doesn't suit his agenda.
Rocksolid - if the elected house of representatives vote for the Governor to make this decision, shouldn't you support it?
Agreed, Jonny...
However, that's not quite "There's no possible way to do a vote of no confidence against the Premier", isn't it?
Wow
If this reply is correct, you agreed with me! Thanks UE, we're really getting somewhere.
It's unconstitutional to do a vote of no confidence against the Premier. As a so-called guardian of the Constitution, I'm shocked that you're not appalled with the UBP for this move.
No, sir.
Please don't twist my words.