Those who can’t make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. – Voltaire.
I am indebted to the Canadian pundit and pollster Allan Gregg for the above Voltaire quotation which he used in a critique of the Conservative government issuing a clarion call for policy to be based on evidence, facts and reason.
It reinforced a suggestion in this space a few weeks ago that Barbadians remain ever vigilant not only about the content but also the real intent of legislation introduced in our Parliament.
In his speech entitled 1984 In 2012 – The Assault On Reason, Gregg drew parallels between the “nightmarish future” envisioned by the satirist George Orwell in his famous novel 1984 and the attitude displayed by the Conservatives in the present towards scientists, environmentalists and public servants.
The pundit noted that Orwell’s fanciful state of Oceania is ruled by doublethink: “To know and not to know. To be conscious of complete truthfulness, while telling carefully construed lies . . . to use logic against logic; to repudiate morality while laying claim to it.
“As Orwell summarizes, ‘In Oceania the heresy of heresy was common sense,” Gregg said.
He pointed to an example of political “misdirection” that would be hilarious if it weren’t so serious.
“Written in the shadow of the war, Orwell had seen . . . misdirection used to mask evil intent, in real time and in real life,” Gregg noted.
“When Hitler circumvented the German parliament and seized power in 1933, he did so under legislation named The Law To Remedy The Distress Of The People. When the horrors of the holocaust were revealed, they were accompanied by the unforgettable image of the gate into Auschwitz with its Orwellian slogan Work Will Set You Free.
“And today, more and more, we see this same kind of misdirection and news speak in the behaviour of our legislators.”
In a review of bills passed this session in parliament by the Conservatives, Gregg noted Bill C-5, The Continuing Air Service For Passengers Act, which does not offer a guarantee but removes the prospect of a lockout or strike; Bill C-10, an act to enact the Justice For Victims Of Terrorism Act, which stiffens penalties for possession of marijuana and builds more prisons; Bill C-18, the Marketing Freedom For Grain Farmers Act, which dismantled the Canadian Wheat Board; and Bill C-30.
“The purpose of Bill C-30 is stated to be The Protect Children from Internet Predators Act and it, among other things, forces ISP [Internet service providers] to hand over user names to police without a warrant. When opponents protested this deliberate obfuscation, Safety Minister Vic Toews famously countered that ‘you are either with us or the child pornographers’.
“The thing that is disconcerting and unsettling about all this,” Gregg said,” is not just the substance of these bills, but why a government would want to disguise that substance.
“Maybe dismantling the Wheat Board, or preemptively squashing collective bargaining, or sending more potheads to jail is a good thing. But before we make those decisions, let’s look at all the facts, have a fulsome and rational debate, and make a reasoned decision of what is in the best interests of all the parties involved.
“For voters to determine whether these are measures they support or oppose requires that they know what is at stake and what the government is actually doing. Moreover, for the rule of law to work, the public must have respect for the law.
“By obfuscating the true purpose of laws under the gobbledygook of double speak, governments are admitting that their intentions probably lack both support and respect. Again, the lesson here is Orwellian . . . in the same way that reason requires consciousness, tyranny demands ignorance.”
I crave Gregg’s indulgence for drawing so heavily on his remarks, but I think they are important for democracies around the world.
Which brings me to our own Legislature.
Last week, the House of Assembly passed a bill, the objectives and reasons of which were to provide for the opening of certain facilities on cruise ships while those ships are berthed in the Port of Bridgetown.
Essentially, the legislation would allow cruise ships to open casinos, bars and duty free shops between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. to registered passengers.
Minister of International Transport George Hutson said the intent of allowing the ships to stay longer – they usually leave between 4 p.m. and 8 p.m. – was to benefit taxi drivers, food suppliers and others.
In the face of declining cruise ship visits – although the number of passengers rose slightly during the first half of the year – Government is trying to boost its intake from cruise tourism as it seeks to increase foreign exchange earnings.
The obvious intent of the bill then is the twin target of increased cruise arrivals and increased visitor spend.
But to do so, this Government is going to allow casino gambling, which is prohibited by law on land to take place on ships within the Port.
How can Barbadians “support and respect” a law that denies their indulgence while allowing a visitor’s?
Now, if there is one policy on which both major political parties are agreed, it is that neither would allow casino gambling no matter the need for additional foreign exchange sources or the attraction of hundreds of alleged deep-pocketed card-carrying members of a supposed Gamblers International and their entourages descending in hordes on these shores.
One of the amazing spectacles of the House debate was the sight of Minister of Tourism Richard Sealy, who incidentally was acting as Prime Minister and should have access to every study done on casino gambling, restating his and the party’s opposition but couching his acceptance of this thin edge of the wedge behind some gobbledygook of a “dichotomization” of what happens on a cruise ship and what happens in Barbados.
“I said it straight: I do not support casinos within the concept of Barbados’ tourism development,” Sealy told the House.
“And I still maintain that position. I say that because I’m not convinced that I’ve seen anything empirical to suggest to me that we’re going to see some major increase in arrivals or spend as a result of allowing casinos to operate in Barbados.”
Now, if there is no evidence of a likely increase in tourist numbers or their spending, where is the logic in legalizing casino gambling in the port when it is still illegal on land?
How would taxi drivers and food suppliers benefit if cruise passengers spent their money in the casinos, bars and duty-free shops on the ship while it is in the port?
This Government owes it to its people to say who will be the real beneficiaries of this proposed new law which was floated by the late Prime Minister David Thompson in April 2010 in remarks at the Limegrove Lifestyle Centre in St James with the same specious suggestion that the extended hours would allow passengers to visit places such as Holetown and Speightstown, and shops would open longer to cater to those tourists.
That was bull crap then and it remains so now, even as it is so embarrassing and unconvincingly parroted by his successors.
He even offered up the suggestion that ships left early because of their inability to open their casinos!
But it seems that Thompson continues to rule Barbados from his grave because in his first Budget in 2008, he declared that the “obsolete” Betting & Gaming Committee would be replaced and new legislation would address emerging challenges which included “Internet gaming, co-mingling (and most important) applications for casino gaming, requests for the use of locally based vessels as floating casinos, [and] attempts by non-nationals to establish gaming operations in this jurisdiction for the operation of bingo clubs islandwide”.
What next? Barbadians are not unaware of plans for a new US$300 million Sugar Point Cruise Development on 15 acres of reclaimed land off Trevor’s Way.
What assurances do Barbadians have that casino gambling won’t jump from the ships in harbour into commercial space in this and other developments?
Perhaps Sealy and the other Government spokesmen could tell Barbadians what has changed their opposition, as captured in the Bishop Commission’s Report, that they no longer believe the moral and social aspects of casino gambling on land (or in port?) outweigh any benefits such as increased investment in tourism, more jobs, and greater foreign exchange earnings.
• Albert Brandford is an independent political correspondent.
