Senator points to PLP leader in Tucker’s Town graves row
Government Senator Nalton Brangman has described Opposition leader Marc Bean as the “real culprit” for the desecration of historic tombstones at Tucker’s Point.
Mr Bean was Environment Minister during 2012 when Ombudsman Arlene Brock recommended that the Department of Planning give the Marsden Methodist Memorial Cemetery, already an Historic Protection Area, an “extra layer of protection”.
But the Department did nothing, according to Ms Brock’s critical report ‘A Grave Error’, which was released on Friday, and the tombstones were razed later that year.
Senator Brangman said yesterday that the blame for that desecration should not be placed on the One Bermuda Alliance but on the previous administration, and especially Mr Bean.
“The real culprit is the now leader of the Opposition, who was the Minister responsible,” wrote Sen Brangman on Facebook. “Let us see how much will be said by them.”
Ms Brock describes in her report how the cemetery was the “last relatively intact relic that evidences the communal life of a wholly unique population in Bermuda” — a largely black population removed from its land in Tucker’s Town in 1920 to make way for a hotel.
The tombstones were destroyed in October 2012, after an agreement between cemetery custodian Marsden First United Methodist Church, Rosewood Tucker’s Point and Edward Harris, archaeologist and director of the National Museum of Bermuda.
They believed mistakenly that the tombstones had only been put in place in 1992.
Ms Brock discovered that the cement top covers were put there in 1992 but the stone walls of the tombs dated back to at least the mid-19th century.
She said in her report: “Although the decision to remove the ancient tombstones was actually made by bodies that are not within my jurisdiction, the evidence is quite clear that they would not have destroyed the tombs had the Department [of Planning] started the process of consulting with them prior to mid-October in order to implement the recommendation.”
She added: “I find evidence of maladministration by the Ministry and the Department in their negligence, poor internal communication, unreasonable delay and inexplicable failure to take any steps to implement my recommendation.”
Ms Brock revealed that the Ministry responded to her finding by saying it did not agree that Government had “any liability at all for the destruction of the stones”.
Sen Brangman got into an online debate on the topic after a commentator called Nash Shak described the destruction of the tombstones as an outrage, adding: “Really OBA? Anything to erase our history. Who is responsible for this?”
Sen Brangman wrote: “The original decision to force blacks and whites out of Tucker’s Town was wrong, without question. Does the blame for that rest with the OBA?”
He said the compulsory acquisition of the land in 1920 was unacceptable, adding: “It is also unacceptable that for 14 years the PLP sat by and did nothing but destroy the grave sites of those who were already insulted and defamed by this.
“There should have been a commission of inquiry and the facts made public. This travesty was not to blacks by whites or Portuguese in political power. It was done under the watch of the political of blacks (sic) under the PLP.
“That is the greatest insult of all. We continue to do ourselves our own injustices and cry foul and blame whites. So is the OBA to blame for this? No! Should the OBA engage in a dialogue to bring this and other crimes done against blacks to the floor? I can certainly agree with that.
“Are blacks prepared to take responsibility for what we have done to ourselves? I doubt it.”
Reaction to Ms Brock’s report also prompted a post apparently from former Premier Ewart Brown. He wrote on a news website: “The name calling, the outright refusal of whites to accept any responsibility for the horrible history of racism/white supremacy, the need to change the subject to black-on-black misdeeds and to blame Marc Bean, because the was the Minister of the Environment in 2012 (sic), all lend themselves to a toxic and possible violent future.
“Bermuda is too small to absorb this nasty and bitter atmosphere.”
Mr Bean did not respond to an e-mailed request for comment yesterday. A Progressive Labour Party spokesman noted the request for comment but did not provide one by press time.
Neither did Premier Craig Cannonier, a member of the congregation of Marsden First United Methodist Church.
It wasn’t possible to reach Marsden pastor Joseph Whalen, Dr Harris or anyone at Rosewood Tucker’s Point yesterday.
However, the Ministry of Home Affairs did release a statement on the matter last night (see sidebar story).
Planning officials have hit back at allegations that they failed to protect the historic graveyard at Tucker’s Point, claiming that the criticism was unwarranted.
Ombudsman Arlene Brock last week accused Department of Planning administrators of failing to carry out her recommendation that the site be listed as a historic building — despite giving assurances that they would.
But in a statement last night, a spokesman for the department said: “First and foremost, one of our primary missions at the Department of Planning is to responsibly serve the people of Bermuda to ensure the sustainable management of the natural and built environment. In fact, recognising that eight of Bermuda’s historic cemeteries were not properly zoned, it was a conscious decision to ensure these cemeteries, including the Tucker’s Town Cemetery, were designated as Historic Protection Areas under the Bermuda Plan 2008.”
The spokesman said that former Environment Minister, now Opposition Leader, Marc Bean had to consult with a number or organisations in order “to assist in making a decision on the recommendation to add Tucker’s Town Cemetery to the list”.
“There was no time frame attached to the undertaking to gather information that would assist in making a decision on listing.
“This was a commitment to review the case to be made for a possible listing and the Ombudsman misunderstood that. While the Minister chose not to undertake this task immediately, it should be noted the cemetery already had the necessary protection as a zoned Historic Protection Area.”
The spokesman pointed out that the site did not qualify for Listed Building status because it is not a building, although it was suggested to Mr Bean that it could be designated a historic monument.
“Regarding the damaging actions undertaken by others, which resulted in the destruction of the tombstones, the Department of Planning and the Ministry had no role in that at all,” the spokesman said.
“There is no cause or connection between the task of reviewing the cemetery for possible listing and the devastating event that unfolded in October 2012, which involved the destruction of headstones and partial dismantling of the perimeter wall of the cemetery.
“That event was a separate damaging action on the part of others, at least one of whom was fully aware of the protective zoning of the site. Unfortunately, the zonings of a development plan cannot prevent poor judgement and bad behaviour on the part of those determined upon a particular course of action. For the Ombudsman to suggest otherwise is incorrect and gives a mistaken impression to the public. The Department of Planning did not participate in, and does not condone, those actions undertaken by the third parties.
“We brought to the attention of the Ombudsman our reservations regarding the conclusions in the report, however it appears the report is unchanged despite our clarifications. As a final note, it will be for the Marsden Church to decide upon remedial measures and we know the Historic Buildings Advisory Committee is happy to provide guidance on this matter. It is not the role of the Development Applications Board to lead discussion on such issues.”
