On this latest House of Assembly protest, I have to first acknowledge my own bias. My sister, who is a retired senior citizen, was one of those pepper-sprayed and I believe her portrayal of events.

She is a sympathiser and supporter of the Progressive Labour Party. On this issue of the airport, she genuinely believes something untoward took place in the awarding of the contract. We should take note; her suspicions were confirmed in the recent Commission of Inquiry when it was disclosed that the Government sought a retroactive waiver from the Accountant-General in May to bring into compliance the sole-sourcing to Canadian Commercial Corporation, which had escaped from protocol.

In reality, she, along with others, stood at the gates of Parliament as a “conscientious objector”, not a puppet supporter. She claims that suddenly a mob of riot police descended on to the gate. She saw the MP behind them and without a word spoken, such as “move” or “clear the gate”, or rebuttal from her, she was sprayed in the face. Near by, she could see another lady sprayed and dragged to the ground — all this before the crowds jumped in between.

OK, the police were only doing their job, I get that. They went there to assist and to allow the parliamentarians to enter. So the question becomes, who gave them the order to clear the gates by any means, using force if necessary?

I have heard commentaries such as the Speaker of the House declared Parliament to be open at 1pm, and that constituted an order. Yes, the Speaker controls Parliament and can order someone be removed. However, riot police is another matter; the Speaker could not order them. In the past, it would have been the minister of delegated affairs, which is now the Minister of National Security Senator Jeff Baron, who would ensure that the police were in concert with the will of the Government.

So, who gave the order? The Acting Governor would not act unilaterally and the Commissioner of Police should have been in contact with someone. But, who was it?

The argument will be put that Parliament is the seat of government and access to it is sacrosanct, making anyone who blocks or attempts to block guilty of obstruction, which prima facie is a valid legal argument.

However, this was a protest move where those engaged felt they had no other tools. Civil disobedience is by its very nature an act of breaking the law. The march on Selma blocking a bridge and roads was civil disobedience. How a government responds becomes the issue and tells the story.

There are two things at play here: one is the nature of the deal between Bermuda and CCC/Aecon, and the other is the relevance of a new airport. They are two separate matters, which the proposed legislation intends to bind. We can debate and be drawn to a 50-50 verdict on whether we need a new airport, but the other issue of how the contract was arranged is as relevant, if not as critically important to the equation.

Under oaths and with the limited remit of the COI, it became very clear that protocol was broken and the sole-sourcing waver was not approved in 2014, allowing them to select a contractor and build a new airport. The waiver allowed the Government and CCC only to come towards an initial agreement to move forward, which would then be opened to the item allowing procurement of contracts as a next step.

Therefore, tendering and public input or expression of interest all through 2015 was prevented, which speaks to the issue of value for money and transparency being totally avoided. If the COI had a greater authority to forensically look at the way the deal was struck, it might have looked very ugly, given the few details that did emerge.

Through the COI, it was learnt that the Government sought to fix its tracks by getting a retroactive waiver to legitimise its sole sourcing to CCC and Aecon. We should have learnt by now the last time the Government engaged in a retroactive practice, it exposed the taxpayer to millions of dollars of serious litigation. But that was to cancel a contract; this time, it is to ratify one. The sad issue in all of this is the public are made to appear too dumb to understand the mechanics of the deal or the relevance of the airport. It is portrayed as the role of the intelligent versus the ignorance of the mob.

For clarity, the debate on the relevance or irrelevance of a new airport can go on for ever with no clear winner. However the debate on the deal between CCC/Aecon and the Government, one would have to be truly dumb not to recognise it was smelly. From the very inception, with the leaked e-mails and the big question of “when did you know?”, I find it amazing that a commission of inquiry has yet to emerge in Canada because one of its Crown corporations is now at the centre of a national dispute that closed our Parliament.

At the heart of this conflict is that people are not as dumb as some would like to portray, leaving the prevailing question: what other tools do they have to effect their displeasure?