July 1, 2004

Dear Sir,

Let me begin by declaring my interest in the subject matter that I wish to address. I am a taxi owner/driver and my reason for writing today is to try and shed some light on the current dispute between operators and Government. I want to begin by clearing up a misconception which I believe goes right to the heart of the matter, and which will enable us to focus on the core issue of this sorry mess.

Several persons have suggested that Government has superior and prior rights over owners of taxis because we are talking about a public service vehicle and the Government is the licensing and regulating authority. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Let me explain. Whenever you see the term public service vehicle in any regulation or law regarding taxis, it is almost exclusively (99.9999 percent) used in connection with the licence to drive public service vehicles. In other words, I hold a public service vehicle licence to drive a public service vehicle. The name "public service vehicle" simply describes a class of vehicle, not unlike the terms heavy truck, moped, or private car, which are descriptive of classes of vehicles. A "public service vehicle" is just that: it may only be used for public hire service, just as a private vehicle can only be used for personal purposes - not for hire. Just because a taxi is called, a "public service vehicle" by the legislation, it in no way grants the licensing authority proprietary rights over that vehicle or any licence. They don't own the trucks or the bikes they licence, nor do they own the taxis. Therefore, PSV simply and solely refers to a class of vehicle and nothing else. They could have called that class of vehicle "Star Ships" or "NASCARs".

In any legislation pertaining to the vehicle itself, the word taxi is used exclusively. Therefore, the legal instrument of ownership is called a "taxi permit", and that instrument allows me to own as many as four taxis. I bought my permit together with the car on the open market at the going rate. Having paid the requisite fees to Government for both, the permit and the car were registered in my name as owner. I have the proprietary rights over both. I can sell both and I can use them as collateral for a loan or mortgage. Should the Government want my taxi permit, it must make a genuine offer which I can refuse or accept, because, I am the owner and not the Government.

We know that the Government, or rather various departments of the Government, act as the licensing and regulatory authority to everything from A to Z. From inanimate to animate, two legs, four legs and none. They licence and regulate the activities of bars and betting shops, dogs and dentists, hotels and horse drawn carriages. They licence and regulate marriage officers and mortuary attendants. All these licences have conditions attached to them which give rise to punishable offences if infringed. And taxis have more than most. Should, for instance, the Government have some suspicion that a bar is in breach of its licence. do you think the Government has the moral or legal right to pass legislation that mandates all bar owners. Install and pay for web cams and microphones. These, when connected to recording instruments, in the control of the Government, or its agent, are used for no other purpose than to uncover possible infringements? Of course not! But that is the Government's stated aim in introducing this legislation in respect of the already disproportionately policed taxi industry. Improving efficiency is not the real purpose for this GPS legislation because, the Premier himself admitted, that the introduction of the GPS will not appreciably improve the overall efficiency of taxis. That is true, because 90 percent of the work done by taxis is just not amenable to any form of dispatching, voice or digital. Taxis will still have to queue in sufficient numbers to meet the immediate needs of clients at the airport, ships, hotels, beach and taxi stands. Dispatching companies have nothing to do with those areas or any pre-arranged work. The Government knows that, which is why they insist on having the GPS to spy on taxi operators. No Government in any other parliamentary democracy would be foolish enough to try such a thing. Only a totalitarian dictatorship would have the testicular fortitude to attempt such an oppressive measure. Today its taxi operators, tomorrow it could be undertakers! Only in Bermuda could the Government have the nerve to select a particular group of its citizens and insist on spying on the whole lot because of the transgressions of the few. Only in this 'Alice in Wonderland' place would the spy master ask its victims to pay for the privilege, and then in a macabre show of sympathy, offer to spy on them for free. To paraphrase the former President Bill Clinton, "It's not the money, stupid, its our constitutional proprietary rights."

This most necessary struggle pits the superior proprietary rights of taxi owners, against the purposefully limited responsibilities and powers of the Government - a Government which has done its best to minimise our efforts. They have deceived themselves, or rather, they are trying to deceive the public into believing that this protest action was the work of a few radicals in the face of almost unanimous support. The Premier's attempt last Friday to equate our struggle simply with money, and then to offset that with the feigned offer to install the so called GPS units free, was the effort of a Government blind to the truth and uncaring of the constitutional rights of others. But unless they are deaf as well, they heard the truth in a resounding, "NO!" That "NO" is the line in the sand which separates those who stand for the truth, that constitutional rights must be preserved, no matter what the personal cost: and those who would sacrifice unalienable rights of others, for whom they have a duty of care, on the altar of political expediency, economic self interest and subterfuge. But should we have expected any better, because that pitiful Bill which linked the well deserved increases in fares to the unjust provisions making GPS mandatory, was tabled by the self confessed master of deceit himself, the Hon. Dr. Brown. I'll give you this, if The Hon. Dr. Jennifer Smith had GPS to track the comings and goings of the deceitful Dr. Brown, she would still be Premier today.

Let me end with a plea to those states persons within the Cabinet. Please, please stop this mad rush along the path of benevolent dictatorial government before you carry the whole country over the precipice into the pit of anarchy. Stop before we lose all respect for you, whom we elected in good faith, just because of one man's machinations. Announce the withdrawal of this oppressive and offensive bill. Do the right thing and just say, Doctor "No". Dispose of this bill where not even the GPS will find it in a million years. Then think about what you must do to restore confidence in the decisions of cabinet and to establish good governance, based on that which is just, equitable and fair and which establishes health and wholeness in our island home. Have the testicular fortitude to say, "Yes" to a genuinely new Bermuda devoid of all that which is a hangover from the old: all those old structures of sin which corrupt and destroy. Let's all stay focused on the important issues at hand. If we truly desire what's best for our island home encourage our Government to withdraw the unconstitutional and unjust GPS legislation and to establish what taxi drivers have been calling for, as long as I have been driving, a comprehensive review of the Transport Industry, which is the only sensible way forward. A call which always seems to become ship wrecked on the dangerous shoals of political expediency and economic self-interest, corruption and cronyism. These are the venomous poisons that murder the common good. No! to that which kills and "Yes!" to that which protects life - our constitutional rights.

Dr. Brown take off your shoes: you're treading on the holy ground of constitutional rights.

Radical for a just cause