I just spent two weeks in the United States and could not help but be impressed at the way Americans cherish liberty. Students of politics are all too aware of the high regard with which Americans hold freedom in all its various forms. And this respect for the basic freedoms - speech, religion and association - is deeply imbedded in the American Constitution. Bermudians, who slavishly copy Americans in terms of lifestyle, might pay equal attention to the very high value Americans assign to personal freedom, in all its aspects.

I arrived in New York on August 26, just before the commencement of the Republican convention held to nominate George Bush as their presidential candidate. It was clear, even three days before the opening of the convention that many Americans felt strongly enough about preventing a re-election of George Bush to engage in demonstrations that they knew would land them in prison. These people were serious. So serious in fact that by the time the convention officially opened on August 29, some 1,800 had been thrown in jail.

Amazingly, despite the widespread concerns with security, the police actually showed remarkable constraint. I had two experiences that made me very conscious of the severe task facing the police in a country that valued its freedom highly. The first occurred as I was returning to my hotel after seeing the exciting documentary, “Fahrenheit 9/11”. At the beginning of the block on which my hotel was situated and in front of the door to the hotel, there were two lines of uniformed police. I was stopped by the first line of police as I entered the block containing my hotel. “I'm sorry but you cannot continue on this street” said two constables who were of a size that resembled “football linebackers”. I told them with mild hostility, “I need to get to my hotel”. “What hotel” was the response? Before annoyance got the better of me, my wife produced the room key explaining that I was with her. This got me pass the first line of security. The second line of security was avoided because one of the police in the first line shouted to the guards lined up at the door that we were guests in the hotel.

After entering the hotel, we were required again to show our pass keys to a security person stationed at the elevator to our room.

After the bother of the frequent security checks, we cancelled a planned walk to observe the protestors outside of Madison Square Garden. Instead, we agreed to pack our suitcases in preparation for an early departure in the morning and watched the fireworks at the convention via television and in the safety of our room.

The next day, we had a bellman assist us with our bags and secure a taxi. As we loaded our bags into the taxi, I noticed that my briefcase was missing. I had to acquire another key and the permission of the security guard to return to my former room to look for the missing briefcase.

When I reached the door of the room, I saw five men crouching around something on the floor. One of the men had some sort of indicator in his hand examining the object without actually touching it. As I got closer, I realised it was the missing briefcase. I shouted, “Hey that's my briefcase.” They all stopped and looked at me and one of them said, “Are you sure? ” Then laughing he continued “you're lucky, we were just about to shoot it?' Between the time I had left the room and had loaded my bags into the taxi, a mere ten minutes had passed. Yet in that time, an isolated bag had been discovered and was being checked for potential explosives. An even more vivid example of the government's respect for personal liberty was afforded when we attended the showing of “Fahrenheit 9/11”. This movie was a satirical documentary of the response of President Bush to the events leading up to and following the terrorist attacks on the United States. At the end of the movie, there was thunderous applause indicating widespread acceptance of the strongly anti-Bush theme of the movie.

“Fahrenheit 9/11” was playing in the vast AMC movie network at the same time that New York was hosting the National Convention of the Republican Party.

Of even more interest, Michael Moore, the director and producer of the movie, was among the demonstrators at the site of the convention.

So what has all this to do with freedom? I thought my experiences during my vacation provided excellent examples of the value that Americans place on individual liberty.

The respect for freedom of expression was amply illustrated by the fact that a movie severely criticising the President of the most powerful country in the world, could be shown while his party was holding its convention next door to the largest theatre in which it was being shown.

The respect for personal freedom was reflected also in the polite and efficient manner that security measures were implemented by all of the American security services. In carrying out their duties, security personnel seemed always to have deep respect for each individual no matter their apparent station in life.

Fast forward to Bermuda. Generally, this Island is showing a growing respect for differences of opinion.

Increasingly, either in the print or other media, opinions are being expressed that defy traditional behaviour. People now criticise Government policies and administration to an extent that was once unthinkable by anyone except the boldest politician, wealthiest businessman or most powerful trade union leader. There can be no doubt that this new found boldness has been the result of the election of the Progressive Labour Party as the Government of Bermuda.

For the majority of Bermudians, the fear of facing an economic penalty should they express an anti-government viewpoint is rapidly disappearing. That can only be good in terms of the creation of a stable democracy. Some may think that this freedom will not be continued, if the UBP is re-elected. I don't believe this to be the case. My disbelief is not based on a view that there is a respect for freedom of speech by the members of the UBP. I hold this view simply because now that Bermudians have enjoyed the luxury of free speech, it would take the institution of a police state to stop their exercise of that right.

Still there is legitimate concern that at least one high ranking member of the UBP, the Deputy Leader Mr. Michael Dunkley, does not place a high value on freedom of speech.

This man has declared that whatever I have to say has no relevance because I am a political “has been”. This is a strange logic. If I am a “has been”, then I have been there and done that. In which case, I have something of value to contribute to the public understanding of the political process. However, according to the UBP Deputy Leader, the privilege of commentary on political issues is the sole preserve of elected members of Parliament.