By Keva Lightbourne ~ Guardian Senior Reporter ~ kdl@nasguard.com:
Reported cases of child sexual abuse are up 42 percent over last year, according to Deputy Director of Social Services Carolyn Hepburn.
Hepburn revealed to The Nassau Guardian yesterday that so far for 2010, 118 cases have been reported, up from 83 in the same period last year.
"That is primarily due to the enactment of the Child Protection Act 2007 in October last year. So therefore persons are mandated by law to report abuse and we find that children are stepping forward, relatives and concerned individuals are becoming more vigilant," Hepburn said.
Of the 118 reported child sexual abuse cases, 26 have been recorded in New Providence and 92 in the Family Islands.
Chairman of the National Child Protection Council Pastor Gil Maycock said he believes child sexual abuse is far greater than what is being reported.
"We do have an alarming epidemic in our nation and it drives me crazy," he said. "These numbers seem to be increasing over the last three or four years. They just seem to be going up. We do know in certain pockets in The Bahama Islands we are having serious problems. The Council plans to travel to at least 10 or 11 Family Islands for the remainder of 2010 to get that message out (that children are off limits) and we know it is an uphill battle."
Last year, there were 218 reported cases of child sexual abuse in the country. Of that number, 155 were recorded in New Providence, with the remaining 63 reported in the Family Islands.
"In our efforts throughout this year we are going to continue to make sure that we are addressing it in the schools," Maycock said.
He pointed to the Council's 'Say No Then Go' campaign, which has been launched in primary schools to educate students about the difference between "a good touch and a bad touch."
Maycock reminded that anyone below the age of 16 "is considered to be a child and should not be touched by anyone."
"One of the reasons we feel the increase in reporting of cases [has occurred] is because we have been getting the message out. [With] the Ministry of Labour [and] Social Development', [the] Child Protection Council and other agencies, we have over the last 10 years been really getting the message out and so a lot more children know about what child abuse is; they know who to report it to and that is one of the reasons we believe we are starting to see a greater number of cases being reported to the various agencies. We know the battle is still great," said Maycock.
April 01, 2010
thenassauguardian
An International Caribbean Online Log about the news and opinions in the Americas and World. This Caribbean Blog of global reach and appeal is maintained by Bahamian Blogger - Dennis Dames with all readers and subscribers in mind.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Sexual assault in Bahamas 'has reached unacceptable heights'
By ALESHA CADET:
WHILE the number of reported rape cases in the Bahamas is increasing, convictions of sexual offenders are not, according to the Bahamas Crisis Centre.
Dr Sandra Dean Patterson, director of the Centre, told The Tribune that sexual assault in the Bahamas has reached "unacceptable heights."
"Rape has almost become endemic in our society," she said.
Donna Nicolls, a counsellor at the Centre added: "There is certainly an increase in the number reported because of the advocacy and the laws. There are also cases that came to our attention that are not being reported - that goes without saying."
"We see a lot of the results now of the rapes and molestation that have never been documented because of fear.
"What is not happening is convictions. I personally get excited when I see convictions.
"But the women are choosing to not go through the legal process, the process is demeaning," Mrs Nicolls said.
According to Dr Patterson, the system for dealing with sex crimes has to be improved. Victims currently wait up to eight years to get justice, she pointed out.
"We have to do more to address it. It is very important that people be charged."
Head of the Central Detective Unit (CDU) Asst Supt Leon Bethel told The Tribune that sexual offences are difficult to police and investigate.
"As long as the matter comes to us we investigate it and send them to court, (but) is hard to police sexual intercourse, it normally happens behind closed doors," he said. "It is a manifestation to what is going on in the society."
According to Assistant Superintendent Moxey, head of the CDU's Technology Management Section: "The basic approach we have is an educational awareness programme.
"In addition we are trying to put the persons before the court. The penalties are stiff, the laws are adequate," he said.
ASP Moxey told The Tribune one of the biggest areas of concern in recent years has been sex crimes committed by minors, but the police's efforts to speak with and educate students seem to be having a positive impact.
"We cannot eradicate it totally, but we can have the problem reduced to a minimum through educational changes," he said.
March 31, 2010
tribune242
WHILE the number of reported rape cases in the Bahamas is increasing, convictions of sexual offenders are not, according to the Bahamas Crisis Centre.
Dr Sandra Dean Patterson, director of the Centre, told The Tribune that sexual assault in the Bahamas has reached "unacceptable heights."
"Rape has almost become endemic in our society," she said.
Donna Nicolls, a counsellor at the Centre added: "There is certainly an increase in the number reported because of the advocacy and the laws. There are also cases that came to our attention that are not being reported - that goes without saying."
"We see a lot of the results now of the rapes and molestation that have never been documented because of fear.
"What is not happening is convictions. I personally get excited when I see convictions.
"But the women are choosing to not go through the legal process, the process is demeaning," Mrs Nicolls said.
According to Dr Patterson, the system for dealing with sex crimes has to be improved. Victims currently wait up to eight years to get justice, she pointed out.
"We have to do more to address it. It is very important that people be charged."
Head of the Central Detective Unit (CDU) Asst Supt Leon Bethel told The Tribune that sexual offences are difficult to police and investigate.
"As long as the matter comes to us we investigate it and send them to court, (but) is hard to police sexual intercourse, it normally happens behind closed doors," he said. "It is a manifestation to what is going on in the society."
According to Assistant Superintendent Moxey, head of the CDU's Technology Management Section: "The basic approach we have is an educational awareness programme.
"In addition we are trying to put the persons before the court. The penalties are stiff, the laws are adequate," he said.
ASP Moxey told The Tribune one of the biggest areas of concern in recent years has been sex crimes committed by minors, but the police's efforts to speak with and educate students seem to be having a positive impact.
"We cannot eradicate it totally, but we can have the problem reduced to a minimum through educational changes," he said.
March 31, 2010
tribune242
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
The secrecy of the Commonwealth Secretariat: Time for reform
By Andrew Smith, (Intern, Human Rights Advocacy Programme, CHRI):
After more than 60 years in existence, the Commonwealth Secretariat (the Secretariat) continues to operate in an environment of secrecy, largely insulated from public scrutiny and the full involvement of civil society organisations.
Over a decade has passed since the right of access to information was recognised as ‘legal’ and ‘enforceable’ at the 1999 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM). Its importance has since been reiterated at the 2007 CHOGM and Commonwealth bodies have described it as “fundamental” and “a cornerstone of democracy and good governance.” A model law has also been drafted to assist domestic legislators.
However, the Secretariat’s own information disclosure practices fall far short of international standards. Comparable organisations such as the World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the European Union and the Council of Europe have all adopted comprehensive access to information policies with many progressive provisions. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is currently reforming its disclosure policy.
The comparison highlights that the Secretariat’s disclosure practices do not adhere to international best practice standards, that they do not adequately serve its goals of democracy, freedom and sustainable development and that the need for reform is urgent.
Most interstate policies adopt strong object clauses, affirming their commitment to access to information as a fundamental human right. Further to this, their common aim is to maximise the ‘effectiveness’, ‘quality’ and ‘legitimacy’ of their organisation’s output through increased transparency, civic engagement and accountability.
The World Bank states that its commitment to openness is “driven by a desire to foster public ownership, partnership, and participation in operations and is central to achieving the Bank’s mission to alleviate poverty and to improve the design and implementation of their projects and policies.”
The European Union reflects this sentiment, emphasising the importance of openness in its democratic system. As publicly funded organisations, they recognise the democratic right of their stakeholders to hold them to account.
The UNDP identifies its stakeholders as the parliaments, tax payers and public of their donor and programme countries.
The World Bank and IMF both report increased demand for accountability following the financial crisis, the former promising to hold itself to the same human rights standards it expects of its member states.
The Secretariat is a publicly funded body mandated to act in the ‘common interest of the people’. As such it must adopt an access to informational policy which facilitates civic engagement and accountability. This will increase the legitimacy of the Secretariat as a democratic organisation and improve the effectiveness of its policy outcomes.
The rhetoric of the object clauses are mostly supported by substantive policy provisions. Whilst not entirely compliant with international standards, they are substantially more progressive than the Secretariat’s practices.
The Secretariat currently operates a ‘positive list’ approach to disclosure, voluntarily publishing a limited range of documents on its website on a routine basis. Documents include ministerial communiqués, commonwealth declarations, newsletters, speeches, statements, reports and strategic documents.
This discretionary ‘positive list’ policy presumes the confidentiality of undisclosed documents without considering the nature of the information’s content or the interests at stake. All of the aforementioned interstate organisations have abandoned ‘positive lists’ in favour of the principle of ‘maximum disclosure’.
The World Bank regards this as the ‘paradigm shift’ in its policy whilst the Council of Europe explains that now “transparency is the rule and confidentiality the exception.”
The principle of maximum disclosure is formulated to maximise the availability of information, guaranteeing access to information as a fundamental human right. The principle has two features.
Firstly it presumes that all information is eligible for disclosure on request, unless specified under the exemption schedules.
Secondly, there must be an obligation to routinely publish a specified list of documents. Applying this obligation to as broad a range of documents as possible at various developmental stages facilitates civil society involvement whilst reducing the costs associated with information requests. All of the aforementioned policies comply with both features of the maximum disclosure principle.
The Secretariat must broaden its practice of routine disclosure, establish it as a duty and reverse the presumption of confidentiality for unpublished documents. This would represent a substantial departure from current practice and a positive step towards compliance with international standards.
The presumption of disclosure is not absolute and is constrained by the principle of limited exemptions. Confidentiality may be upheld in narrowly defined circumstances for the protection of legitimate interests from specified harms. This requires a case by case assessment and does not permit blanket exclusions based on official classifications or document type.
The Council of Europe schedule is weakest, excluding all classified information from disclosure. The World Bank refuses to disclose information falling within its schedule as it “could” cause harm, presuming confidentiality and failing to engage in an individual assessment of relevant interests. Some exemptions are overly broad, including those relating to ‘corporate administrative matters’ and ‘deliberative information’.
Similarly, the UNDP excludes ‘draft documents’ entirely, limiting the scope for civil society engagement.
The European Union has two exemption schedules. The first complies with international standards, citing legitimate interests. It is also the only schedule with a ‘severability clause’, allowing for the partial publication of documents. A second schedule entirely excludes ‘sensitive documents’ from disclosure due to their confidentiality statuses.
It is critical that exemptions are subject to a ‘public interest override’. If the public interest in disclosure is greater than the likely harm, then there must be an obligation to disclose. The UNDP and Council of Europe policies both lack public interest overrides. The World Bank only provides a discretionary override which can also be reversed to withhold information otherwise routinely disclosed.
The European Union only provides a public interest override for two categories of ‘interests’ under its first schedule and none under the second. The Secretariat must note that these policies fail to provide adequate safeguards against the abuse of the limited exemptions principle.
Documents ‘excluded’ from disclosure must only retain their confidentiality for as long as the public interest demands. Retention schedules must also be available to respondents whose applications are refused. Documents that are scheduled for destruction are presumed to be of no use to the originator, and therefore disclosure cannot be deemed harmful to the public interest.
It is the Secretariat’s blanket policy to retain the confidentiality of all undisclosed documents for thirty years. They are then only made publicly available subject to the Secretariat’s discretion and the consent of concerned third parties. None of the interstate organisations analysed have a default thirty year declassification period.
The European Union and the Council of Europe both set thirty years as the maximum period for refusing disclosure. Within this limit, the European Union provides that excepted material may only remain confidential for the period which it remains harmful.
The Council of Europe and World Bank adopt tiers of confidentiality with limitation periods dependant on document type. The former has periods of one, ten and thirty years and the latter has periods of five, ten and twenty years.
The UNDP does not specify its declassification periods. When initiating reforms the Secretariat must strive to disclose confidential information as promptly as the public interest test allows.
International standards require that refusals to disclose documents are accompanied with reasons and the availability of two tiers of appeal. The independence of the second tier must be guaranteed. The Secretariat has no procedure for requesting documents and therefore no appeals mechanism.
The European Union provides the opportunity for a ‘confirmatory request’ to the original decision maker followed by an appeal to an Independent Ombudsman or the Court of First Instance. This does not apply to ‘sensitive documents’.
The World Bank and UNDP provide for a first review by an internal panel and a secondary review by an independent panel. The World Bank only permits appeals where a prima facie case is made of a policy violation or where there is a public interest case to be made for disclosure. Appeals on the latter ground may not be heard by the secondary panel, meaning the public interest is never determined independently.
The Council of Europe does not have an appeals mechanism. The Secretariat must incorporate a two tier appeals mechanism with a guarantee of independence into its information disclosure policy.
Information request procedures must be accessible and user-friendly, communicating decisions or the requested documents promptly and at a reasonable price. The aforementioned policies all adopt provisions to this effect.
The Secretariat only permits access to unpublished public documents by appointment at the library of its London headquarters, refusing to provide copies. This is extremely restrictive for the majority of commonwealth citizens. Increased accessibility must become a reform priority.
The Secretariat has the opportunity to advance to the forefront of international transparency and democratic standards by adopting a progressive access to information policy. It must undertake reforms immediately in the spirit of transparency with the maximum involvement of Commonwealth stakeholders.
This consultation, along with an assessment of existing access to information policies and model laws, will greatly assist the Secretariat in remedying the deficiencies of its current practices and enable the Commonwealth to better pursue its goals of freedom, democracy and sustainable development.
March 30, 2010
caribbeannetnews
After more than 60 years in existence, the Commonwealth Secretariat (the Secretariat) continues to operate in an environment of secrecy, largely insulated from public scrutiny and the full involvement of civil society organisations.
Over a decade has passed since the right of access to information was recognised as ‘legal’ and ‘enforceable’ at the 1999 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM). Its importance has since been reiterated at the 2007 CHOGM and Commonwealth bodies have described it as “fundamental” and “a cornerstone of democracy and good governance.” A model law has also been drafted to assist domestic legislators.
However, the Secretariat’s own information disclosure practices fall far short of international standards. Comparable organisations such as the World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the European Union and the Council of Europe have all adopted comprehensive access to information policies with many progressive provisions. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is currently reforming its disclosure policy.
The comparison highlights that the Secretariat’s disclosure practices do not adhere to international best practice standards, that they do not adequately serve its goals of democracy, freedom and sustainable development and that the need for reform is urgent.
Most interstate policies adopt strong object clauses, affirming their commitment to access to information as a fundamental human right. Further to this, their common aim is to maximise the ‘effectiveness’, ‘quality’ and ‘legitimacy’ of their organisation’s output through increased transparency, civic engagement and accountability.
The World Bank states that its commitment to openness is “driven by a desire to foster public ownership, partnership, and participation in operations and is central to achieving the Bank’s mission to alleviate poverty and to improve the design and implementation of their projects and policies.”
The European Union reflects this sentiment, emphasising the importance of openness in its democratic system. As publicly funded organisations, they recognise the democratic right of their stakeholders to hold them to account.
The UNDP identifies its stakeholders as the parliaments, tax payers and public of their donor and programme countries.
The World Bank and IMF both report increased demand for accountability following the financial crisis, the former promising to hold itself to the same human rights standards it expects of its member states.
The Secretariat is a publicly funded body mandated to act in the ‘common interest of the people’. As such it must adopt an access to informational policy which facilitates civic engagement and accountability. This will increase the legitimacy of the Secretariat as a democratic organisation and improve the effectiveness of its policy outcomes.
The rhetoric of the object clauses are mostly supported by substantive policy provisions. Whilst not entirely compliant with international standards, they are substantially more progressive than the Secretariat’s practices.
The Secretariat currently operates a ‘positive list’ approach to disclosure, voluntarily publishing a limited range of documents on its website on a routine basis. Documents include ministerial communiqués, commonwealth declarations, newsletters, speeches, statements, reports and strategic documents.
This discretionary ‘positive list’ policy presumes the confidentiality of undisclosed documents without considering the nature of the information’s content or the interests at stake. All of the aforementioned interstate organisations have abandoned ‘positive lists’ in favour of the principle of ‘maximum disclosure’.
The World Bank regards this as the ‘paradigm shift’ in its policy whilst the Council of Europe explains that now “transparency is the rule and confidentiality the exception.”
The principle of maximum disclosure is formulated to maximise the availability of information, guaranteeing access to information as a fundamental human right. The principle has two features.
Firstly it presumes that all information is eligible for disclosure on request, unless specified under the exemption schedules.
Secondly, there must be an obligation to routinely publish a specified list of documents. Applying this obligation to as broad a range of documents as possible at various developmental stages facilitates civil society involvement whilst reducing the costs associated with information requests. All of the aforementioned policies comply with both features of the maximum disclosure principle.
The Secretariat must broaden its practice of routine disclosure, establish it as a duty and reverse the presumption of confidentiality for unpublished documents. This would represent a substantial departure from current practice and a positive step towards compliance with international standards.
The presumption of disclosure is not absolute and is constrained by the principle of limited exemptions. Confidentiality may be upheld in narrowly defined circumstances for the protection of legitimate interests from specified harms. This requires a case by case assessment and does not permit blanket exclusions based on official classifications or document type.
The Council of Europe schedule is weakest, excluding all classified information from disclosure. The World Bank refuses to disclose information falling within its schedule as it “could” cause harm, presuming confidentiality and failing to engage in an individual assessment of relevant interests. Some exemptions are overly broad, including those relating to ‘corporate administrative matters’ and ‘deliberative information’.
Similarly, the UNDP excludes ‘draft documents’ entirely, limiting the scope for civil society engagement.
The European Union has two exemption schedules. The first complies with international standards, citing legitimate interests. It is also the only schedule with a ‘severability clause’, allowing for the partial publication of documents. A second schedule entirely excludes ‘sensitive documents’ from disclosure due to their confidentiality statuses.
It is critical that exemptions are subject to a ‘public interest override’. If the public interest in disclosure is greater than the likely harm, then there must be an obligation to disclose. The UNDP and Council of Europe policies both lack public interest overrides. The World Bank only provides a discretionary override which can also be reversed to withhold information otherwise routinely disclosed.
The European Union only provides a public interest override for two categories of ‘interests’ under its first schedule and none under the second. The Secretariat must note that these policies fail to provide adequate safeguards against the abuse of the limited exemptions principle.
Documents ‘excluded’ from disclosure must only retain their confidentiality for as long as the public interest demands. Retention schedules must also be available to respondents whose applications are refused. Documents that are scheduled for destruction are presumed to be of no use to the originator, and therefore disclosure cannot be deemed harmful to the public interest.
It is the Secretariat’s blanket policy to retain the confidentiality of all undisclosed documents for thirty years. They are then only made publicly available subject to the Secretariat’s discretion and the consent of concerned third parties. None of the interstate organisations analysed have a default thirty year declassification period.
The European Union and the Council of Europe both set thirty years as the maximum period for refusing disclosure. Within this limit, the European Union provides that excepted material may only remain confidential for the period which it remains harmful.
The Council of Europe and World Bank adopt tiers of confidentiality with limitation periods dependant on document type. The former has periods of one, ten and thirty years and the latter has periods of five, ten and twenty years.
The UNDP does not specify its declassification periods. When initiating reforms the Secretariat must strive to disclose confidential information as promptly as the public interest test allows.
International standards require that refusals to disclose documents are accompanied with reasons and the availability of two tiers of appeal. The independence of the second tier must be guaranteed. The Secretariat has no procedure for requesting documents and therefore no appeals mechanism.
The European Union provides the opportunity for a ‘confirmatory request’ to the original decision maker followed by an appeal to an Independent Ombudsman or the Court of First Instance. This does not apply to ‘sensitive documents’.
The World Bank and UNDP provide for a first review by an internal panel and a secondary review by an independent panel. The World Bank only permits appeals where a prima facie case is made of a policy violation or where there is a public interest case to be made for disclosure. Appeals on the latter ground may not be heard by the secondary panel, meaning the public interest is never determined independently.
The Council of Europe does not have an appeals mechanism. The Secretariat must incorporate a two tier appeals mechanism with a guarantee of independence into its information disclosure policy.
Information request procedures must be accessible and user-friendly, communicating decisions or the requested documents promptly and at a reasonable price. The aforementioned policies all adopt provisions to this effect.
The Secretariat only permits access to unpublished public documents by appointment at the library of its London headquarters, refusing to provide copies. This is extremely restrictive for the majority of commonwealth citizens. Increased accessibility must become a reform priority.
The Secretariat has the opportunity to advance to the forefront of international transparency and democratic standards by adopting a progressive access to information policy. It must undertake reforms immediately in the spirit of transparency with the maximum involvement of Commonwealth stakeholders.
This consultation, along with an assessment of existing access to information policies and model laws, will greatly assist the Secretariat in remedying the deficiencies of its current practices and enable the Commonwealth to better pursue its goals of freedom, democracy and sustainable development.
March 30, 2010
caribbeannetnews
Monday, March 29, 2010
Jamaican appointed Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) judge - will this prompt progress?
By Oscar Ramjeet:
The Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission (RJLSC) appointed a Jamaican as the newest judge in the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).
He is Professor Charles Anderson, an academic who replaces Duke Pollard, who goes into retirement on June 10 next when the new judge will assume duties.
He is the first Jamaican to be appointed to the regional court, and the omission of a judge from the largest country in the region has been criticised, especially since that country contributes 27 percent of the costs to run and administer the Court.
Former Attorney General of Jamaica, Dr Osward Harding, who is now the President of the Senate, had indicated to me two years ago that several highly qualified Jamaicans, including a few outstanding Senior Counsel, were overlooked five years ago.
Now that that a Jamaican has been appointed as a judge, one wonders if this will accelerate the powers that be in Kingston to join the Appellate Division of the Court.
Pollard's appointment in the regional court was criticized in some quarters since he was never in active law practice, never served as an advocate either as counsel or prosecutor and has never sat as a judge. He has been an academic throughout his legal career and was involved in preparatory work for the establishment of the CCJ.
The tenure of CCJ judges expires at 72 years of age, but Pollard was given a three year extension two and a half years ago.
Since Pollard's appointment was criticised, legal practitioners want to know why the RJLSC chose a law professor rather than an experienced judge.
Anderson holds a law degree from the University of the West Indies and a Doctorate in Philosophy (Phd) in international law from the University of Cambridge. For most of his career, he has been a member of the Law Faculty of UWI. He was appointed lecturer in 1994, senior lecturer in 1999 and was made professor in 2006. He spent a year as a research fellow at the University of Sheffield between 1994 and 1995, and a year as senior lecturer on fellowship at the University of Western Australia in 1996. He is currently the executive director of the Caribbean Law Institute Centre (CLIC).
Professor Anderson and Professor Simeon McIntosh were involved during the past two years travelling around the Caribbean participating in seminars promoting the CCJ, and urging governments to join the Appellate Division of the Regional Court
The lone female judge in the Court, Desiree Bernard, who was Chief Justice and former Chancellor of Guyana, will reach the age of retirement in March next year, and already there are discussions in the legal circles whether she will be given an extension and, if not, whether another female will be appointed to replace the distinguished Guyanese, who had many firsts in her homeland - the first female judge, first female Court of Appeal Judge, first female Chief Justice, first female Chancellor of Guyana and first female Head of the Judiciary in the Caribbean. She is also the first solicitor to be appointed a judge, the reason being that the legal profession in Guyana was fused in 1979 and Justice Bernard, a practicing solicitor, automatically became an attorney at law since both solicitors and barristers were known as attorneys as of November 1979.
Justice Bernard was appointed a High Court Judge in 1980. I recall writing a piece in the local newspapers under the headline "High time for a female judge in Guyana" and I suggested her appointment although she was from the practicing Bar, and the following week she was named.
Belize will soon be on board as the third jurisdiction to join the CCJ, and I look forward for Dominica and Jamaica to do so soon rather than later. I am also hopeful that Trinidad and Tobago will consider joining now that there is a new opposition leader in Kamla Persad Bissessar, a West Indian trained attorney who served as attorney general in the Basdeo Panday administration.
March 29, 2010
caribbeannetnews
The Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission (RJLSC) appointed a Jamaican as the newest judge in the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).
He is Professor Charles Anderson, an academic who replaces Duke Pollard, who goes into retirement on June 10 next when the new judge will assume duties. He is the first Jamaican to be appointed to the regional court, and the omission of a judge from the largest country in the region has been criticised, especially since that country contributes 27 percent of the costs to run and administer the Court.
Former Attorney General of Jamaica, Dr Osward Harding, who is now the President of the Senate, had indicated to me two years ago that several highly qualified Jamaicans, including a few outstanding Senior Counsel, were overlooked five years ago.
Now that that a Jamaican has been appointed as a judge, one wonders if this will accelerate the powers that be in Kingston to join the Appellate Division of the Court.
Pollard's appointment in the regional court was criticized in some quarters since he was never in active law practice, never served as an advocate either as counsel or prosecutor and has never sat as a judge. He has been an academic throughout his legal career and was involved in preparatory work for the establishment of the CCJ.
The tenure of CCJ judges expires at 72 years of age, but Pollard was given a three year extension two and a half years ago.
Since Pollard's appointment was criticised, legal practitioners want to know why the RJLSC chose a law professor rather than an experienced judge.
Anderson holds a law degree from the University of the West Indies and a Doctorate in Philosophy (Phd) in international law from the University of Cambridge. For most of his career, he has been a member of the Law Faculty of UWI. He was appointed lecturer in 1994, senior lecturer in 1999 and was made professor in 2006. He spent a year as a research fellow at the University of Sheffield between 1994 and 1995, and a year as senior lecturer on fellowship at the University of Western Australia in 1996. He is currently the executive director of the Caribbean Law Institute Centre (CLIC).
Professor Anderson and Professor Simeon McIntosh were involved during the past two years travelling around the Caribbean participating in seminars promoting the CCJ, and urging governments to join the Appellate Division of the Regional Court
The lone female judge in the Court, Desiree Bernard, who was Chief Justice and former Chancellor of Guyana, will reach the age of retirement in March next year, and already there are discussions in the legal circles whether she will be given an extension and, if not, whether another female will be appointed to replace the distinguished Guyanese, who had many firsts in her homeland - the first female judge, first female Court of Appeal Judge, first female Chief Justice, first female Chancellor of Guyana and first female Head of the Judiciary in the Caribbean. She is also the first solicitor to be appointed a judge, the reason being that the legal profession in Guyana was fused in 1979 and Justice Bernard, a practicing solicitor, automatically became an attorney at law since both solicitors and barristers were known as attorneys as of November 1979.
Justice Bernard was appointed a High Court Judge in 1980. I recall writing a piece in the local newspapers under the headline "High time for a female judge in Guyana" and I suggested her appointment although she was from the practicing Bar, and the following week she was named.
Belize will soon be on board as the third jurisdiction to join the CCJ, and I look forward for Dominica and Jamaica to do so soon rather than later. I am also hopeful that Trinidad and Tobago will consider joining now that there is a new opposition leader in Kamla Persad Bissessar, a West Indian trained attorney who served as attorney general in the Basdeo Panday administration.
March 29, 2010
caribbeannetnews
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Jamaica: Deceptions, dons and underdevelopment
Claude Clarke, Contributor:
It was Mahatma Gandhi who said "to believe in something, and not to live it, is dishonest". In election after election in post-Independence Jamaica our leaders have invited us to trust what they professed to have been their beliefs; but they have failed in almost every instance to live up to them. Gandhi would have condemned them all as dishonest.
We need only compare the ideals expressed by our recent prime ministers while campaigning for office to their actions when those beliefs were put to the test. The most recent and I believe most striking example of this is Bruce Golding's abrupt about-face on his professed abhorrence of garrison politics.
We should have known better. Many of us were prepared to put the most favourable interpretation on this 'new and different' Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) leader's choice of 'the mother of all garrisons' to be his home constituency; and were willing to believe that his purpose was to reform from within, and in so doing create a model on which all other garrisons could be reformed. But recent events have proven us to have been far too generous with our trust.
Two and a half years after coming to office, and 15 years since he walked away from the JLP and declared his independence from the garrison form of politics, Golding's constituency is as deeply steeped in garrison politics as it ever was.
In two and a half years as chief executive of our country, Mr Golding, despite his earlier strong human-rights advocacy, has missed every opportunity to take a public stand in defence of the rights of our citizens; that is until he was confronted by the case of Christopher Coke. His stout defence of Mr. Coke's rights, from all appearances at the risk of Jamaica's international relationships and economic well-being, speaks powerfully to the value he places on this individual.
Not that the Government is not duty bound to stand up to the mightiest of forces in defence of the rights of the least of our citizens. It is. Not that the Government does not have the right to deny an extradition request in Jamaica's public interest. It does. What is remarkable about the prime minister making Coke's extradition case his first notable effort to protect the rights of a Jamaican citizen is that he has obviously calculated that, notwithstanding the consequences to Jamaica, a greater interest is served by protecting Coke.
Since the prime minister's human-rights epiphany so strains credibility and logic, we are forced to conclude that he believes that Coke's protection is in the public interest; in which case he is allowed by the treaty to deny the request.
But what is it about Mr Coke that makes him so valuable? 'Dudus' Coke is widely believed to be the country's most prominent and effective practitioner of the garrison style of social and economic organisation. He is Jamaica's 'chief don' and commands the title 'President' in the area that he controls. What is the message conveyed to him and his 'subjects', to Jamaica and to the world, when a prime minister invests him with such high national value?
So much so that the Government now has to be defending allegations that it directly or indirectly engaged a firm of US lawyers to lobby the United States government, with a view to preventing his extradition. Doesn't this effectively provide the ultimate imprimatur for the activities for which Mr. Coke is notorious? And doesn't this seriously contradict the anti-don, anti-garrison beliefs Mr Golding earlier espoused?
For those of us who believe economic development cannot take place in a social and economic environment dominated by garrisons, this is a most frightening situation. Not simply because of our opposition to garrisons and dons, but because we recognise that the growing control of our society by garrisons and their dons has been a major cause of the underdevelopment of our economy and society. Their suppression of our people's 'unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' is manifested in the growing lawlessness and fear under which we have lived since this freakish phenomenon began to engulf our society in the 1960s.
The right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is no less an entitlement of the Jamaican citizen than it is of the American. And the obligation to secure these rights for Jamaicans is as binding on the Jamaican Government as securing them for Americans is binding on the US government. But garrisons undermine the ability of Government to deliver on this obligation. Dons usurp the role of government, and have no purpose but to use the people under their control to secure and strengthen their own wealth and power.
They operate through patronage, intimidation and fear; it is never their purpose to secure freedom and opportunity for the people they control. Despite this, respective Jamaican governments have been prepared to condone and co-opt the garrison into their practice of politics, even while they grandly inveigh against them officially.
Social and economic freedom is at the core of successful economic activity. Without it, no effort by Government to promote investments, production and development will ever achieve the peace and prosperity our people crave. The garrison system not only denies our people these basic conditions, it sucks life and substance from the economy. It channels taxpayer-funded government contracts to dons, and feeds official corruption. The enforced 'protection services' of the dons is an unwanted and unproductive cost of doing public and private business, compounding the uncompetitiveness of our economy. They are a deterrent to production and the efficient functioning of the formal economy. Above all, the garrison form of organisation denies economic opportunity and employment for our people and leads them instead to a future of street scuffling, crime and servitude.
warlords
Garrisons must be seen and treated as what they really are: the means through which our people are kept enslaved and denied the right to be all that they can be. They will take us in the direction of Somalia, controlled by warlords, rather than Singapore, characterised by order and prosperity. They lead us towards backwardness and jungle justice, not modernity and the rule of law. The loud, clear and eloquent statement made by the prime minister by his stance in the Dudus affair is that he will pay any price and force the country to do likewise to protect the favourite don of his favourite garrison. In doing so, we may have crossed the Rubicon towards the utter failure of Somalia, rather than climb the first rung towards the success that is Singapore.
I do not know whether the prime minister will change direction before our final disintegration into the squalor of a failed state; but for Jamaica's sake, I hope that he or someone else will salvage the situation and pull us back towards sanity. Jamaica can still develop into a state which can deliver on the promise of freedom and the optimisation of human potential. But our approach to leadership must be radically changed.
This fiscal year, the Government spent almost 45 per cent of the country's output, and yet it could not provide the public goods and services that a modern democratic government is expected to deliver. When Government takes so much of what we produce, we have every right to expect top-quality affordable health care, education, water, electricity, public transportation, roads, public safety and justice.
We have every right to expect a social and economic environment that encourages and facilitates our hopes for economic upliftment. We have every right to expect our Government to foster a high-quality social capital that enables us to achieve levels of production that can create peace and prosperity. The Jamaican Government squanders much of our resources through general economic mismanagement, but has made the situation far worse by rendering itself hostage to dons and garrisons.
Now that the very leadership which we were led to believe was committed to breaking the links to these garrisons has instead elevated itself to a position of national importance, we seem to be perched on the precipice of social and economic disorder.
Our country desperately needs to be rescued. Do any of our political leaders have the honesty, moral authority, courage and political gravitas to make this change? Are there men and women who will live what they say they believe and summon the courage to act on those beliefs?
The Christopher Coke case has found our prime minister wanting. Can anyone else in the Government or the Opposition rise to the required standard of leadership? And will he or she speak up before it is too late?
Claude Clarke is a former trade minister and manufacturer. Send feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.
March 28, 2010
jamaica-gleaner
It was Mahatma Gandhi who said "to believe in something, and not to live it, is dishonest". In election after election in post-Independence Jamaica our leaders have invited us to trust what they professed to have been their beliefs; but they have failed in almost every instance to live up to them. Gandhi would have condemned them all as dishonest.
We need only compare the ideals expressed by our recent prime ministers while campaigning for office to their actions when those beliefs were put to the test. The most recent and I believe most striking example of this is Bruce Golding's abrupt about-face on his professed abhorrence of garrison politics.
We should have known better. Many of us were prepared to put the most favourable interpretation on this 'new and different' Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) leader's choice of 'the mother of all garrisons' to be his home constituency; and were willing to believe that his purpose was to reform from within, and in so doing create a model on which all other garrisons could be reformed. But recent events have proven us to have been far too generous with our trust.
Two and a half years after coming to office, and 15 years since he walked away from the JLP and declared his independence from the garrison form of politics, Golding's constituency is as deeply steeped in garrison politics as it ever was.
In two and a half years as chief executive of our country, Mr Golding, despite his earlier strong human-rights advocacy, has missed every opportunity to take a public stand in defence of the rights of our citizens; that is until he was confronted by the case of Christopher Coke. His stout defence of Mr. Coke's rights, from all appearances at the risk of Jamaica's international relationships and economic well-being, speaks powerfully to the value he places on this individual.
Not that the Government is not duty bound to stand up to the mightiest of forces in defence of the rights of the least of our citizens. It is. Not that the Government does not have the right to deny an extradition request in Jamaica's public interest. It does. What is remarkable about the prime minister making Coke's extradition case his first notable effort to protect the rights of a Jamaican citizen is that he has obviously calculated that, notwithstanding the consequences to Jamaica, a greater interest is served by protecting Coke.
Since the prime minister's human-rights epiphany so strains credibility and logic, we are forced to conclude that he believes that Coke's protection is in the public interest; in which case he is allowed by the treaty to deny the request.
But what is it about Mr Coke that makes him so valuable? 'Dudus' Coke is widely believed to be the country's most prominent and effective practitioner of the garrison style of social and economic organisation. He is Jamaica's 'chief don' and commands the title 'President' in the area that he controls. What is the message conveyed to him and his 'subjects', to Jamaica and to the world, when a prime minister invests him with such high national value?
So much so that the Government now has to be defending allegations that it directly or indirectly engaged a firm of US lawyers to lobby the United States government, with a view to preventing his extradition. Doesn't this effectively provide the ultimate imprimatur for the activities for which Mr. Coke is notorious? And doesn't this seriously contradict the anti-don, anti-garrison beliefs Mr Golding earlier espoused?
For those of us who believe economic development cannot take place in a social and economic environment dominated by garrisons, this is a most frightening situation. Not simply because of our opposition to garrisons and dons, but because we recognise that the growing control of our society by garrisons and their dons has been a major cause of the underdevelopment of our economy and society. Their suppression of our people's 'unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' is manifested in the growing lawlessness and fear under which we have lived since this freakish phenomenon began to engulf our society in the 1960s.
The right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is no less an entitlement of the Jamaican citizen than it is of the American. And the obligation to secure these rights for Jamaicans is as binding on the Jamaican Government as securing them for Americans is binding on the US government. But garrisons undermine the ability of Government to deliver on this obligation. Dons usurp the role of government, and have no purpose but to use the people under their control to secure and strengthen their own wealth and power.
They operate through patronage, intimidation and fear; it is never their purpose to secure freedom and opportunity for the people they control. Despite this, respective Jamaican governments have been prepared to condone and co-opt the garrison into their practice of politics, even while they grandly inveigh against them officially.
Social and economic freedom is at the core of successful economic activity. Without it, no effort by Government to promote investments, production and development will ever achieve the peace and prosperity our people crave. The garrison system not only denies our people these basic conditions, it sucks life and substance from the economy. It channels taxpayer-funded government contracts to dons, and feeds official corruption. The enforced 'protection services' of the dons is an unwanted and unproductive cost of doing public and private business, compounding the uncompetitiveness of our economy. They are a deterrent to production and the efficient functioning of the formal economy. Above all, the garrison form of organisation denies economic opportunity and employment for our people and leads them instead to a future of street scuffling, crime and servitude.
warlords
Garrisons must be seen and treated as what they really are: the means through which our people are kept enslaved and denied the right to be all that they can be. They will take us in the direction of Somalia, controlled by warlords, rather than Singapore, characterised by order and prosperity. They lead us towards backwardness and jungle justice, not modernity and the rule of law. The loud, clear and eloquent statement made by the prime minister by his stance in the Dudus affair is that he will pay any price and force the country to do likewise to protect the favourite don of his favourite garrison. In doing so, we may have crossed the Rubicon towards the utter failure of Somalia, rather than climb the first rung towards the success that is Singapore.
I do not know whether the prime minister will change direction before our final disintegration into the squalor of a failed state; but for Jamaica's sake, I hope that he or someone else will salvage the situation and pull us back towards sanity. Jamaica can still develop into a state which can deliver on the promise of freedom and the optimisation of human potential. But our approach to leadership must be radically changed.
This fiscal year, the Government spent almost 45 per cent of the country's output, and yet it could not provide the public goods and services that a modern democratic government is expected to deliver. When Government takes so much of what we produce, we have every right to expect top-quality affordable health care, education, water, electricity, public transportation, roads, public safety and justice.
We have every right to expect a social and economic environment that encourages and facilitates our hopes for economic upliftment. We have every right to expect our Government to foster a high-quality social capital that enables us to achieve levels of production that can create peace and prosperity. The Jamaican Government squanders much of our resources through general economic mismanagement, but has made the situation far worse by rendering itself hostage to dons and garrisons.
Now that the very leadership which we were led to believe was committed to breaking the links to these garrisons has instead elevated itself to a position of national importance, we seem to be perched on the precipice of social and economic disorder.
Our country desperately needs to be rescued. Do any of our political leaders have the honesty, moral authority, courage and political gravitas to make this change? Are there men and women who will live what they say they believe and summon the courage to act on those beliefs?
The Christopher Coke case has found our prime minister wanting. Can anyone else in the Government or the Opposition rise to the required standard of leadership? And will he or she speak up before it is too late?
Claude Clarke is a former trade minister and manufacturer. Send feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.
March 28, 2010
jamaica-gleaner
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Barbados cannot allow unmanaged migration to continue, says PM
By Andre Skeete:
BRIDGETOWN, Barbados (JIS) -- Barbados cannot continue to "bury its head in the sand" and ignore the fact that there is a serious problem with undocumented immigrants.
This from Prime Minister, David Thompson, who stressed that Barbados was being presented with many challenges due to increased pressure on its limited resources.
"We don't have the financial resources to do it, we don't have the physical space, we have housing challenges, [and] we have big health issues because of squatting.
"It has created a situation where you have substandard housing in some areas, squatting in water zones in this country... elements of corruption in the public sector have been encouraged, with people seeking to get false identification cards, with persons renting ID cards that don't carry photographs so that children can go and receive benefits in the polyclinic system...we are not going to allow that to happen," he said.
Thompson was speaking during the final Town Hall meeting to discuss the Green Paper on Immigration last evening at the Barbados Workers' Union headquarters, Solidarity House, Harmony Hall, St. Michael.
The Prime Minister explained that all Government was seeking to do was to implement a managed migration programme, which would reduce too many decisions being placed at the discretion of a minister, allow persons travelling to Barbados to know what was expected of them or what they are entitled to and the requisite body they would have to report to have any concerns addressed.
He stressed that the idea was not "to chase everybody out" but to find ways to deal with it, taking into account Barbados' financial commitments, its obligations to CARICOM and to international bodies.
Responding to critics who point out that many Barbadians had migrated to the Caribbean and other countries some years ago, the Prime Minister stated the majority of these persons travelled under legal guest worker programmes or other official migrant schemes.
"The vast majority of Barbadians migrated under schemes...the Windrush scheme, many other people went to work in the London transport or to train as nurses. They went under orderly immigration programmes. That is all we are saying is necessary," Thompson contended.
The three hour meeting was attended by newly appointed Parliamentary Secretary with responsibility for Immigration and the Social Partnership, Senator Harry Husbands; Permanent Secretary with responsibility for Immigration, Gilbert Greaves; and Chief Immigration Officer, Erine Griffith.
March 27, 2010
caribbeannetnews
BRIDGETOWN, Barbados (JIS) -- Barbados cannot continue to "bury its head in the sand" and ignore the fact that there is a serious problem with undocumented immigrants.
This from Prime Minister, David Thompson, who stressed that Barbados was being presented with many challenges due to increased pressure on its limited resources. "We don't have the financial resources to do it, we don't have the physical space, we have housing challenges, [and] we have big health issues because of squatting.
"It has created a situation where you have substandard housing in some areas, squatting in water zones in this country... elements of corruption in the public sector have been encouraged, with people seeking to get false identification cards, with persons renting ID cards that don't carry photographs so that children can go and receive benefits in the polyclinic system...we are not going to allow that to happen," he said.
Thompson was speaking during the final Town Hall meeting to discuss the Green Paper on Immigration last evening at the Barbados Workers' Union headquarters, Solidarity House, Harmony Hall, St. Michael.
The Prime Minister explained that all Government was seeking to do was to implement a managed migration programme, which would reduce too many decisions being placed at the discretion of a minister, allow persons travelling to Barbados to know what was expected of them or what they are entitled to and the requisite body they would have to report to have any concerns addressed.
He stressed that the idea was not "to chase everybody out" but to find ways to deal with it, taking into account Barbados' financial commitments, its obligations to CARICOM and to international bodies.
Responding to critics who point out that many Barbadians had migrated to the Caribbean and other countries some years ago, the Prime Minister stated the majority of these persons travelled under legal guest worker programmes or other official migrant schemes.
"The vast majority of Barbadians migrated under schemes...the Windrush scheme, many other people went to work in the London transport or to train as nurses. They went under orderly immigration programmes. That is all we are saying is necessary," Thompson contended.
The three hour meeting was attended by newly appointed Parliamentary Secretary with responsibility for Immigration and the Social Partnership, Senator Harry Husbands; Permanent Secretary with responsibility for Immigration, Gilbert Greaves; and Chief Immigration Officer, Erine Griffith.
March 27, 2010
caribbeannetnews
Guyana's president says Caribbean is on the verge of bankruptcy
GEORGETOWN, Guyana -- Guyana's President Bharrat Jagdeo says the Caribbean is on the verge of bankruptcy as many countries are spending more on servicing external debt than their national revenue and has reiterated his call for urgent debt relief by the international financial institutions (IFIs).
Jagdeo who heads a special task force by the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) to assess the financial crisis and come up with solutions told a media conference here on Friday that region’s debt situation is worsening.
“The region is heading towards bankruptcy if countries could be declared bankrupt, many of the countries simply cannot pay their way, and they can’t meet recurring cost and pay their debts, unless there is radical restructuring or increase sources of revenue, the situation will get worse,” Jagdeo declared.
The president believes the poor productivity and the heavy debt build up in the region was responsible for this situation in many Caribbean countries.
This, he said, was exacerbated by the global financial crisis as the demand for exports, remittances and tourism were negatively impacted
“We hope with the abatement of the crisis, not that we are out of the woods as yet and it is still very tenuous , but this may improve the macro-economic fundamentals of these countries, but they simply can’t sustain their large quantity of debts,” he explained.
Jagdeo said during the CARICOM heads meeting with top officials of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) earlier this month in Dominica the region’s crisis was highlighted.
He however explained that there is a huge challenge of crafting a regional debt strategy since individual countries have unique debt problems and this must be address on a case by case basis.
The president said that “many countries will not have a good future unless their debt problems are tackled.”
Jagdeo said the situation despite not being amplified is very serious and noted that Guyana was once in this position where it was faced with a huge debt overhang.
“We had that when the debt burden use to suck up over 94 percent of our revenue, it sucked the life out of our economy, and we had tough period of dealing with that,” the president added.
During the heads meeting in Dominica, the World Bank President Robert Zoellick committed to sending experts to the various Caribbean countries to assess their debt management strategies.
Only recently a senior St Lucia government official has said Caribbean countries are facing serious challenges of a similar nature as a result of their high levels of debt.
Director of Finance Isaac Anthony told a Caribbean Development Bank (CDB)/Institutional Investor Roundtable discussion that high debt levels have become a feature of most countries in the region.
“If you look right across the region the story is essentially the same. Revenues have declined substantially, while expenditure has remained pretty high, particularly given the needs of the government to provide much needed social safety net programmes,” said Anthony.
“This has resulted in a significant amount of debt by a number of countries. The question is: how do you really deal with this particular situation; clearly there will be need for the governments to maintain a fiscal policy stance that seeks to boost revenue, keep recurrent revenue under control while maintaining sustainable debt levels,” he told the forum.
Anthony pointed this Eastern Caribbean island as an example, where last year, the economy contracted by 5.2 per cent as a result of the global economic and financial crisis.
March 27, 2010
caribbeannetnews
Jagdeo who heads a special task force by the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) to assess the financial crisis and come up with solutions told a media conference here on Friday that region’s debt situation is worsening.
“The region is heading towards bankruptcy if countries could be declared bankrupt, many of the countries simply cannot pay their way, and they can’t meet recurring cost and pay their debts, unless there is radical restructuring or increase sources of revenue, the situation will get worse,” Jagdeo declared. The president believes the poor productivity and the heavy debt build up in the region was responsible for this situation in many Caribbean countries.
This, he said, was exacerbated by the global financial crisis as the demand for exports, remittances and tourism were negatively impacted
“We hope with the abatement of the crisis, not that we are out of the woods as yet and it is still very tenuous , but this may improve the macro-economic fundamentals of these countries, but they simply can’t sustain their large quantity of debts,” he explained.
Jagdeo said during the CARICOM heads meeting with top officials of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) earlier this month in Dominica the region’s crisis was highlighted.
He however explained that there is a huge challenge of crafting a regional debt strategy since individual countries have unique debt problems and this must be address on a case by case basis.
The president said that “many countries will not have a good future unless their debt problems are tackled.”
Jagdeo said the situation despite not being amplified is very serious and noted that Guyana was once in this position where it was faced with a huge debt overhang.
“We had that when the debt burden use to suck up over 94 percent of our revenue, it sucked the life out of our economy, and we had tough period of dealing with that,” the president added.
During the heads meeting in Dominica, the World Bank President Robert Zoellick committed to sending experts to the various Caribbean countries to assess their debt management strategies.
Only recently a senior St Lucia government official has said Caribbean countries are facing serious challenges of a similar nature as a result of their high levels of debt.
Director of Finance Isaac Anthony told a Caribbean Development Bank (CDB)/Institutional Investor Roundtable discussion that high debt levels have become a feature of most countries in the region.
“If you look right across the region the story is essentially the same. Revenues have declined substantially, while expenditure has remained pretty high, particularly given the needs of the government to provide much needed social safety net programmes,” said Anthony.
“This has resulted in a significant amount of debt by a number of countries. The question is: how do you really deal with this particular situation; clearly there will be need for the governments to maintain a fiscal policy stance that seeks to boost revenue, keep recurrent revenue under control while maintaining sustainable debt levels,” he told the forum.
Anthony pointed this Eastern Caribbean island as an example, where last year, the economy contracted by 5.2 per cent as a result of the global economic and financial crisis.
March 27, 2010
caribbeannetnews
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)