Pot calling the kettle black?

Ask any heavy PLP supporter about the BHC allegations and they’ll use the old, “but they were exonerated”.  Investigations were carried out, noone was arrested and the best that people could come up with was that no illegal crime was committed.  Of course, some actions could be deemed unethical and due to our antiquated laws, they could have been deemed illegal, but weren’t.  So that’s it. Wipe your hands, sweep it under the rug, clear your mind.  Forget that BHC ever happened.  It wasn’t illegal, unethical maybe, but that doesn’t matter.  Only things that are illegal are worth pursuing.  Only things that are illegal deserve admissions of guilt.  Only things that are illegal deserve reparations.  There’s no need to update our laws to make these things illegal now because they weren’t illegal before.

This is where I draw the very striking line between BHC and another “not illegal, but unethical” practice.  Go back and reread the above paragraph replacing PLP with UBP and BHC with Slavery.

It wasn’t illegal, only unethical.  Does that make it right?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized by . Bookmark the permalink.

3 thoughts on “Pot calling the kettle black?

  1. Denis,
    As a frequent reader of your blog, I do enjoy your point of view.
    But I have to raise an objection with your last paragraph. Please don’t try and rewrite history – or muddy the waters. The UBP was not even formed until 130 years after slavery was abolished in Bermuda.

  2. Somers,
    I am aware of the date of formation of the UBP.
    I said “ask any heavy [party name here] supporter”.
    Do you contest that no present heavy UBP supporters (note supporter is different from party) have benefited from historical injustices that were once legal but unethical? How about heavy PLP supporters and more recent injustices? Do you contest those too?
    I made no claims of the UBP being responsible for anything in the past just as I have made no claims of the PLP being responsible for what happened in the recent past. However, allegations do ensue on either side which, while tied to individuals often gets linked with parties because issues usually fall along party lines.
    Ultimately it is specific individuals who are most likely to be at the root of such unethical behaviour and not either party.
    My piece was not intended to muddy the waters. Instead it was to draw lines connecting two issues where each side of our polarized society hold different hands.
    In the end, we may not be able to achieve admissions of guilt, present or past, nor reparations. However the one thing that was achieved that can be again is the admission that unethical behaviour is worthy of being made illegal so that it is not allowed to continue.

  3. Hi Denis – I see where you are coming from now. I think when I read your original post I wasn’t paying enough attention to where you were going with your argument – sorry, my fault.
    In any event I do agree with you that behaviour that is deemed to be unethical by the majority of the populace should be worthy of being made illegal.

Comments are closed.