Like a wave heralding the approach of a hurricane, the news of incoming Commissioner of Police Amanda Stewart’s interview with the Belfast Telegraph, published on 4th August 2015, swept over Anguilla crushing the optimism with which she was welcomed to our shores. The now infamous article “From Ardoyne to Paradise” was obviously meant to showcase the accomplishment of the new Commissioner in securing this position after many long years of service in the Police Service of Northern Ireland. While the article may have accomplished that objective, it did nothing to endear the new Commissioner to the people of Anguilla. Many expressed dismay, disappointment and outrage at the remarks attributed to her in the interview. Some even took to social media demanding her resignation or the revocation of her appointment. If the remarks attributed to the Commissioner are accurate, they are at best insensitive and at worst disdainful.
According to the article, the Commissioner in the course of the interview referred to Anguilla as “a village trying to be a country” and indicated that “the island feels stuck in the 1960s”. If the Commissioner had taken the time, before taking up her position, to do some research on the history of Anguilla she would have recognized that our size has never limited our dreams or perceptions of what is possible for our country. She would have recognized that in the 1960s Anguilla had no electricity, paved roads or proper infrastructure – and that the things that were taken for granted by those in the developed world, were not a reality for us. She would also have recognized that in less than a half century, Anguilla has progressed by leaps and bounds and, though our lifestyle may not mirror that of the United Kingdom, we are proud of it and we like it that way.
Additionally, the article quotes the Commissioner as saying: “The ordinary people of Anguilla don’t have that much to be truthful, it’s a real typical Caribbean island”. Having never served in the Caribbean previously, this statement suggests that the Commissioner came to the position with her own preconceived stereotype of people living in the Caribbean. Again, if the Commissioner had taken the time to examine the fabric of Caribbean society, and the way of life of ordinary Anguillians, she could not have made such a statement. The ordinary people of Anguilla own land, homes with yards, cars, and have access to all the amenities of modern day society, plus the added advantage of warm weather and beautiful beaches. We don’t have much of what, I must ask the Commissioner? Many of us have travelled to the United Kingdom, and when we observe ordinary people living in compact homes with shared walls, whose only means of transportation is via the underground – and who have to contend with pollution, congestion and the blistering cold – we don’t assert that they don’t have much. By what standards then are we being judged?
To my mind, the most telling of all the statements the article indicates was made by the Commissioner is this: “The Governor Christina Scott basically rules the place, they have their own internal government but I think British rule is accepted and it’s the way it needs to run.” In making this statement, the Commissioner was totally dismissive of our democratically elected Government, referring to them with such flippant disregard that it suggests that, in her mind, their existence is inconsequential. On the other hand, her outlook appears to assert and respect British dominance in Anguilla. One must wonder whether someone taking up the position of top cop in Anguilla, and needing the cooperation of the people to be successful in the post, should not have demonstrated more sensitivity and tact in the statements made, particularly given the distrust many residents of Anguilla have for the motives of the United Kingdom Government in relation to Anguilla.
To the Commissioner’s credit, she attempted an apology. It appeared two days later in a press release from her office. It stated in part:
“The sentiment expressed in the article is not a true representation of the interview and is a mischaracterization of what I believe.” One must ponder on the interesting use of words “the sentiment expressed” rather than “the words stated” – “mischaracterization of what I believe” rather than “misrepresentation of what I said”. In short, based on her own press release, the Commissioner does not seem to be denying that she said the words the article attributed to her.
The release continued: “If I have offended anyone without meaning to, I apologize.” Doesn’t this bring to mind the apology rendered to teachers by the former Minister of Education Jerome Roberts in relation to the disparaging remarks he addressed to them in the House of Assembly? If we research the word “if” we would recognize that it qualifies or places a condition on what is to follow – it is a proviso. Do the Commissioner’s words premised by “if” then constitute a real apology?
Finally, “I feel that I have been completely misrepresented in the views expressed in the article as published. The journalist I spoke to has created a political slant to the interview which at no point in time did I intend, by changing completely the context of what I was actually saying.” Again the Commissioner indicates that the views were misrepresented – and the context was changed – but she does not say that the words were not spoken by her.
Commissioner, the people of Anguilla will determine for themselves whether or not to accept your apology. My humble advice to you is to get to know the people you serve. Understand our history and our way of life. Discard any perceptions of Anguilla, and Anguillians, that may have been shared with you by others – and be open to learning for yourself who we are as a people and, yes, as a country. It will take much more than your apology to mend the relationship between you and the people of Anguilla, and to build trust in your leadership of the Royal Anguilla Police Force. You have a difficult task ahead. I wish you the best of luck.
