A CLAIM by a former Government Senator that Premier Ewart Brown was within his rights to threaten an Opposition MP has been slammed by colleagues.Several members of the United Bermuda Party reacted angrily after reading an Opinion column in yesterday's Royal Gazette by former Senator Calvin Smith.

Mr. Smith referred to a heated debate in the House of Assembly two weeks ago, in which the Premier threatened to physically assault former UBP leader Grant Gibbons. The Premier spoke out after the Opposition member had raised concerns about a charitable organisation set up by Dr. Brown's wife which had received donations from US companies awarded Government contracts.

Mr. Smith told his readers: "It seems fairly clear that the Brown-Gibbons dispute in the House of Assembly during the motion to adjourn was triggered by aspersions made by Dr.Gibbons with respect to Wanda Brown — the very charming, very intelligent and highly skilled wife of Dr. Brown. If Dr. Gibbons understood anything about black Bermudian men, he should have known that any negative comments about women important to us is a direct invitation to a physical encounter. Yet this is what he threatened by making unkind remarks about the wife of Dr. Brown."

But Mr. Smith's comments have been condemned as a "smokescreen" and "gangland" tactics by the Opposition, who also denied Dr. Gibbons had made any "negative coments" about Mrs. Brown.

Deputy Party leader Michael Dunkley provided this newspaper with a recording of Dr. Gibbons' original statement, pointing out that the UBP MP made only one reference to Mrs. Brown — referring to the charity in question as "the initiative from the current Premier, the Honourable Member, and his wife Wanda Brown". The recording reveals that Dr. Gibbons was prevented from commenting further by the Speaker of the House.

Last night Mr. Dunkley said: "The Premier will continue to be upset because it's not that he or his wife is being criticised but the manner in which they do business.

"Clearly the excuse that the Premier was warranted in saying what he said is just window dressing. Anyone who listened to what Dr. Gibbons said will see that the Premier's wife was not mentioned. For the Premier to say that he wants to cross the floor is totally unacceptable. For Calvin Smith to say that any insult is 'a direct invitation to a physical encounter' is total nonsense and an attempt to change the focus of what we're talking about. The Premier is in no position to threaten anyone and he was very clearly just trying to switch the focus.

"Bermuda seems to be going along that road. Rather than dealing with issues it seems that, whatever level of society, people want to get into a physical encounter. For it to come from the Premier shows how far we have slipped.

"I don't care what is said about someone, you just don't threaten physical violence — there are other ways of doing things. Why do we have to resort to this gangland mentality? That's not the way to go.

"When you get involved in politics you do so knowing that you are going to be questioned. It was the Premier who thrust his wife into the limelight and said that questions should be directed at his wife.

"Grant Gibbons was trying to find out what had gone on, started asking questions in the House of Assembly, and the Speaker stopped him. How wrong can that be?

"If we are living in a society where the Opposition cannot ask questions then we are heading down a very long, dark road. We are not going to back down from asking questions, otherwise we will be living in a dictatorship."

Party whip John Barritt echoed Mr. Dunkley's comments.

"It's a ruse designed to distract from the real issues and that is that Grant Gibbons raised some very serious questions about raising funds and the awarding of contracts — those questions have still not been answered," He said.

"It just so happens that the organisation involved is headed up by the Premier's wife — that's the only context in which she was mentioned. I would advise members of the public to listen to the tape and draw their own conclusions. This is clearly a fabrication, a smokescreen to avoid answering the questions.

A party spokesman added: "Cal Smith's column this morning is just an example of how something can be twisted into a grossly inaccurate version of an event in order to divert people's attention from legitimate concerns about PLP fund-raising."

But Mr. Smith defended his column saying that, regardless of what Dr. Gibbons meant, Dr. Brown was justified in getting angry.

He admitted that he had not heard a recording of Dr. Gibbon's remarks, but made his judgement from newspaper reports.

And he added that blacks were still angry and that whites failing to recognise that did so "at their own peril".

"It doesn't matter what is meant — every time we are charged with something like this resentment rises," he said.

"Whatever was said made Dr. Brown angry and he would not have got mad for nothing. Just because white people are concerned, if you think the black middle-class are concerned they are not, they're angry and if you don't recognise that you do so at your own peril."