Google Ads

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Latinos, Be Careful What You Wish For

Hispanic Link Service, Commentary by Arnoldo Torres




There is growing doubt today whether our political system is able to deal with the realities that confront us and significantly impact our futures. U.S. voters were uneasy with the two presidential candidates they had before them. The turnout, lower than in 2008, reflects this disconnect.

In the country where newscasts and networks speak daily about democracy and its greatness and candidates are compelled to wear a U.S. flag pin on their lapels, 93 million eligible citizens did not vote: 57.5 percent of all eligible voters turned out this month, compared with 62.3 percent in 2008 and 60.4 percent in 2004.

I have been involved in Latino politics and public policy since 1975. I have participated in, and observed, national elections since 1976. I have been through the "sleeping giant" claims about Latino political power, the so- called "Decade of the Hispanic" in the 1980s, the steady ascendance to elected office by Latinos in the 1990s, and the recognition that both political parties are committed to the attainment and maintenance of power at the expense of Latinos.

Throughout this time, the liberal and conservative media controlled and set the narrative for Latino political growth. We were talked about and analyzed but seldom were we part of that discussion on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, Fox, CSPAN or MSNBC.

Now, for the very first time, I believe Latino voters have arrived at a point where we can claim political power. The role we played in the election outcomes in key swing states of Nevada, Colorado and Florida are proof that we have arrived. The facts allow me to reach that conclusion. We went out and voted probably for the lesser of two damaged products.

While our turnout efficiency was less in 2012 (78 percent) than in 2008 (84 percent), we now comprise 10 percent of the national electorate. This is consistent with the constant increase since 2004 at 8 percent and 2008 at 9 percent. Nationally, as demonstrated in these three key states, Latinos made up a growing share of voters.

We have spent better than four decades working to get to this position. Many of our political mentors have been in the Democratic and Republican parties. We have run for office on the platform that to be fair and democratic, politics needs more Latinos. Seldom have we pressed political visions of specific policies we would introduce to remedy the problems we have talked about for the last 40 years. I believe we have not prepared to get to this point. We spent entirely too much time talking about our desire to get here.

Now that we have arrived, what will we do?

Think about it. We have three Latinos in the U.S. Senate, all of Cuban heritage. One each from Florida and New Jersey and now one born in Canada representing Texas. We have 28 in the House of Representatives, a net gain of four in an institution that has little support or respect from the public. It has been phenomenally dysfunctional during times when it needed to be at its best.

Few of the newly elected Latino members have spoken yet about how they would help change these serious structural problems in Congress. Their campaigns were standard fare as campaigns go. In other words, they were not campaigns of new ideas, vision and specifics. With the exception of the Texas U.S. Senate race, most of these campaigns hit Republican incumbents hard or criticized the Republican position and philosophy. The campaigns were not about competing ideas, solutions or philosophies. The Texas race hardly addressed any of the main issues of concern to Latinos or the fact that the Republican and Democratic strategies had excluded the reality of Latinos that "one size does not fit all."

Before the ink was dry on President Obama's victory speech, the liberal left in D.C. was orchestrating Latino immigrant groups to call out the president to move on immigration now that Latinos had "elected him." This is so very disconcerting. Once again rather than initiate, we demand, we complain, we request - we react. Rather than propose our version of what should be done on the issues of the day, we demand payment.

This history-making contingency of Latino members of Congress should begin a serious and inclusive dialogue within our own large and complex Latino community on the economic issues that have historically hamstrung our future. Since we argue that the political establishment does not take such interest, our Latino politicos should demonstrate how to do it. While we are at it, we should include the issues of education, health and crime in our communities.

We should not allow Senators Chuck Schumer and Lindsay Graham to lead the way on immigration reform legislation. They are not solution-driven, they are elements of appeasement! Both members are very far removed from the realities that are necessary to reach reasonable and practical solutions. We cannot afford to approach this challenge from an ideological or political angle.

It is imperative that Latinos lead this debate with ideas that solve the human suffering, dilemmas and conflicts, unintended consequences that undocumented flows from various countries to the United States cause in this nation as well as in the countries of origin. Since we have bitterly pointed out the poor leadership this issue has received from both parties, since we have long been troubled by the separation of families, abuse of workers and discriminatory treatment of immigrants, we must set the standard for approaching this complex issue and not forget that it impacts all of society in one form or another. We cannot be myopic!

We should be proud of what everyday Latinos and Latinas did this month. We all participated in a process that can lead to change. We must not lose sight of the fact that this is simply the first step followed by the responsibility to govern. The hard part is making things happen, bringing about the policies that benefit a nation, not one group. Remember the saying, "Be careful what you wish for!"

Our wish has come true and we better perform a lot better than those we have been criticizing for decades.

Sacramento-based public policy consultant Arnoldo Torres served as the national executive director of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) in D.C. from 1979 to 1985. He testified more than 100 times on immigration legislation and wrote several provisions of the 1986 reform bill signed by President Ronald Reagan. He has served as an expert on Latino issues for Univisión network over the last 12 years. Reach him at arnoldots@yahoo.com.

November 20, 2012

Newamericamedia


BRIDGETOWN, Barbados – The number of children born with the deadly HIV declined significantly in the Caribbean during the period 2009 and 2011, according to the 2012 global report by UNAIDS.
The report noted that the Caribbean, which has the second highest incidence of HIV/AIDS after sub-Saharan Africa, also recorded the highest decline in AIDS-related deaths of any region between 2005 and 2011.


Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/Caribbean-records-significant-decrease-in-HIV-infections#ixzz2CrjfcV9r
BRIDGETOWN, Barbados – The number of children born with the deadly HIV declined significantly in the Caribbean during the period 2009 and 2011, according to the 2012 global report by UNAIDS.
The report noted that the Caribbean, which has the second highest incidence of HIV/AIDS after sub-Saharan Africa, also recorded the highest decline in AIDS-related deaths of any region between 2005 and 2011.


Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/Caribbean-records-significant-decrease-in-HIV-infections#ixzz2CrjfcV9r

Saturday, November 17, 2012

I want to join with all peace loving friends in the global community ...to support the United Nations' vote ...and continue to press for the lifting of the United States of America's (USA's) embargo against the government and people of the Republic of Cuba

Cuba: Time for Washington to act




By Ian Francis


It was indeed another historic vote at the United Nations when 188 nations clearly said "it is time to end the embargo". This message was clearly directed at the United States of America, which has embarked upon a policy of embargos and isolation against the Cuban regime. I want to join with all peace loving friends in the global community to support the vote and continue to press for the lifting of USA embargo against the government and people of the Republic of Cuba.

Ian Francis resides in Toronto and is a frequent contributor on Caribbean affairs. He is a former Assistant Secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Grenada and can be reached at ianf505@gmail.com
Washington should recognize and accept the overwhelming vote and immediately begin the dismantling process. The embargo has gone on too long and Washington's hawkish attitude should ease and demonstrate a more conciliatory tone. At the same time, the government of Cuba also has a responsibility to find creative and innovative ways for engaging Washington to resolve all outstanding issues between the two nations.

Given that CARICOM nations supported the resolution and the growing bilateral friendship between Havana and CARICOM states, the latter has a responsibility to press Havana on changing its hard line attitude to Washington. The cold war is over and new foreign policy engagements are essential to bring about and sustain the necessary changes.

The Republic of Cuba is part of the Caribbean and this must always be understood and accepted. Manley of Jamaica, Barrow of Barbados, Burnham of Guyana and Williams of Trinidad must all be remembered and recognized for their political courage shown in establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba. These leaders were strong regionalists and in spite of the enormous pressure placed on them by Washington and the United Kingdom to isolate Cuba, they did not succumb to Washington's pressure. May these leaders continue to rest in peace. Your leadership strength will always be remembered and recognized.

Since Havana's diplomatic recognition within the CARICOM region, the Republic has had its encouraging and dull moments. The bombing of a Cuban Airline of Barbados, which resulted in the death of many Cuban nationals, is a historical moment that cannot be ignored. The Estrada affair in Jamaica, which saw former Prime Minister Eddy Seaga ordering the ambassador's expulsion and pursuing a policy of isolation against Cuba.

The 1983 Grenada conflict which led to United States military intervention resulted in the humiliation, capture and deportation of many Cuban workers from Grenada who were at the time engaged in the building of the Maurice Bishop International Airport (MBIA). In addition to the humiliation by the US military, the Republic also suffered the destruction of heavy equipment, including an aircraft that was parked at Pearls Airport on the eastern side of Grenada. These dull moments never deterred Havana's commitment to the region. The Republic of Cuba remains the largest donor of foreign assistance to CARICOM nations.

Cuba has also had some enduring moments in the region. Although Bishop's assassination was seen as a great setback for Cuba and the regional revolutionary movement, the former Grenada Mitchell administration recognized the importance of Cuba and benefits to be derived in Grenada led to a state visit to Grenada by Fidel Castro and afforded him to land at the MBIA, which was started with Cuban labour and completed with United States assistance as a result of the military intervention. Grenada has benefitted significantly from Cuba in rebuilding Grenada's health infrastructure which has been destroyed by the current NDC Thomas administration.

In my view, Cuba has proven its worth to CARICOM and, while the United Nations General Assembly vote is a step in the right direction, CARICOM nations need to expand their work by jointly telling Washington that it is time to lift the embargo against Cuba. It is not too clear if our leaders are prepared to demonstrate the leadership shown by Burnham, Barrow, Williams and Manley.

So the embargo limbo continues and it is not too certain that the hawkish State Department officials are placing any importance of the overwhelming vote. It is quite possible that many of the State Department hawks are privately saying that it is just one of the annual UN rituals outside of the General Assembly talk shop.

It only shows that Cuba-United States diplomatic relations are far from resolution and the interest sections in both capitals will continue with their allegations of diplomatic misconduct by each other.

The Republic of Cuba maintains an interest section housed in the Embassy of Switzerland in Washington. The United States maintain in a similar arrangement at the Embassy of Switzerland in Havana.

November 15, 2012

Caribbeannewsnow

Friday, November 16, 2012

AT THE UN: ...The world reiterates overwhelming opposition to U.S. blockade of Cuba


By Juan Diego Nusa Peñalver




"THERE is nothing worse than a blind man who does not want to see," is a popular expression among Cubans, and can be perfectly applied to recently reelected U.S. President Barack Obama. During his first term in office, Obama has not strayed an inch from the policy of economic, commercial and financial blockade of Cuba which he inherited from successive previous administrations and is directed at destroying the Cuban Revolution.

On November 13, 1991, the UN General Assembly made the decision to include on the agenda of its next session a Cuban resolution entitled, "The necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed on Cuba by the United States."

Those were the times when the U.S. was opportunistically tightening its blockade of Cuba, which was struggling given the collapse of the USSR. The Torricelli Act was being implemented, limiting sales of medicine and food to the country by subsidiaries of U.S. companies established in other nations. It was this official act which exposed the notorious extraterritorial nature of the U.S. blockade.

As if this weren’t enough, in 1996, the Helms-Burton Act was approved, further extending the extraterritorial application of blockade regulations and explicitly citing the goal of "regime change" and plans for subsequent U.S. intervention in Cuba. Moreover, no one in the current U.S. administration has indicated whether the 2004 Bush plan for Cuba, intended to re-colonize the country, remains in effect.

Thus two decades have transpired and the UN General Assembly continues to condemn the genocidal White House policy, recognizing the issue as one of respect for national self-determination, international law and established trade norms, all of which are fundamental to the United Nations.

The blockade is now one of the traditional issues addressed by the General Assembly. Calls to end the policy are reiterated again and again, and while Cuba’s resolution receives overwhelming majority support, the isolation and shameful behavior of an aggressive nation is exposed. The U.S. is publicly reminded every year of the heroic resistance of the Cuban people who will not surrender our right to sovereignty.

Shortly after the announcement of Obama’s reelection, Bolivian President Evo Morales called on him to change U.S. policy toward Cuba, saying, "Thanks to the Latino vote, he is the President-elect. I would say that the least he could do would be to lift or end the economic blockade of Cuba. That’s the best thing he can do to acknowledge the votes of Latin Americans in the United States," Morales said during a speech in Potosí.

Nevertheless, with its customary arrogance and increasingly absurd arguments, Washington is totally ignoring international demands, preferring to rely on force rather than the moral strength of its policies.

In the 21st UN vote, taken on November 13, 188 nations supported the Cuban resolution, expressing a practically unanimous international opinion in opposition to a unilateral policy, the reprehensible goal of which is to force the Cuban people to surrender because of hunger and illness and not, as alleged, to promote human rights and democracy. In this vendetta, the U.S. is accompanied only by Israel and Palau, while the Marshall Islands and Micronesia abstained.

The Obama administration has maintained the principal elements of the longstanding U.S. economic war on Cuba; in fact, there have been more extensive attacks on international companies which had commercial relations with Cuba or processed related financial transactions.

According to the annual report published by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), at the close of 2011, the value of Cuban funds frozen in that country amounted to $245 million.

Washington has even created obstacles to Cuba’s attempts to pay its contributions to UN organizations, supported the theft of Cuban trademarks by U.S. companies and taken reprisals against those who have chosen to do business with the country.

According to conservative estimates, the Obama administration’s anti-Cuban crusade, just this last year, has cost Cuba $3,553,602,645, 15% more than in 2010.

Over the same period, the fact that blockade regulations prohibit Cuba from using U.S. dollars in financial transactions with other countries has cost the country 57% more this year. Financial losses caused by frozen funds, the breaking of contracts and litigation have all increased.

In the tourist sector alone, damages were estimated to have been 2.3 billion dollars.

Over the course of 50 years, through 11 U.S. federal administrations, the blockade has caused enormous human suffering and extensive economic damage, reaching the astronomical figure of $1.066 trillion, considering the devaluation of the U.S. dollar as compared to gold on the international market.

In Fidel’s Reflection of April 21, 2009, entitled ‘Obama and the Blockade,’ Cuba’s historical leader wrote, "Do we have to wait many more years for him to end the blockade? He didn’t invent it, but he has made it his own, just as 10 other United States Presidents have. He can expect sure failure following this route, just like all his predecessors. This was not the dream of Martin Luther King, whose role in the struggle for human rights will increasingly illuminate the path forward for the U.S. people."

Thus Cuba stands firm, continuing its political, economic and social project, despite this uncivilized policy. The vast majority of the world’s people support the country, recognizing that it has reason and truth on its side. •
November 15, 2012
 
 
 
The table below shows the actual UN General Assembly vote on “the need to end the embargo against Cuba” ...as it was cast year by year.

Year by Year Count of the UN General Assembly Vote on the Need to End the Embargo against Cuba

End It
Keep It
Abs
1992
59
3
79
1993
88
4
57
1994
101
2
48
1995
117
3
38
1996
137
3
25
1997
143
3
17
1998
157
2
12
1999
155
2
8
2000
167
3
4
2001
167
3
3
2002
173
3
0
2003
175
3
2
2004
179
4
1
2005
182
4
1
2006
183
4
1
2007
184
4
1
2008
185
3
2
2009
187
3
2
2010
187
2
2
2011
186
2
3
2012
188
3
2




Totals
3300
63
308
 

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

...the report on the potential for the Bahamas Petroleum Company (BPC) to drill oil in The Bahamas... and the impending referendum question on drilling for oil in The Islands

Oil Referendum Before BEST Report




By Kendea Smith
The Bahama Journal
Nassau, The Bahamas




Before the Bahamas Environment, Science and Technology (BEST) Commission completes its report on the potential for the Bahamas Petroleum Company (BPC) to drill oil in The Bahamas, the government will present an oil referendum to Bahamians, according to Environment Minister Kenred Dorsett.

“That is my understanding,” the minister told the Bahama Journal recently. “It is my understanding that the matter is going to be put to referendum when it comes to drilling but they are licensed and there is an existing renewal framework, which still gives me the ability to have discussions with them regarding the terms of renewal and so those discussions are being had.”

He continued, “Clearly BPC is aware of the policy by the Government of The Bahamas is to proceed to the referendum the question of drilling. They understand that and they have been very cooperative.”

BPC has reportedly met all of its licensing requirements for oil exploration.

However, Minister Dorsett said the company still has some loose ends to tie up.

“There are issues that the Bahamas Environment, Science and Technology Commission have raised with them. The advice that I have been given is that some information that has been forthcoming – some of it not all of it,” he said.

“But we remain in dialogue with BPC in relation to its application for renewal and I think that over the next coming months those discussions will probably be more frequent. But they are in contact with the BEST Commission so I will be awaiting further advice from that body.”

Minister Dorsett said there is currently oil drilling legislation on the books.

However, he said the question is if whether or not the regulatory framework in place for oil drilling is sufficient.

“We’ve had numerous discussions with the director of legal affairs in the Attorney General’s Office regarding the regulatory framework that we hope to advance in relation to oil exploration and drilling and hopefully making some significant changes to the regulatory environment, which I think will not only provide better protection but I think enhance the regulatory generating opportunities for the country as a whole in the event it is something that the people of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas decide on,” he said.

BPC officials say the country can make $30 billion a year if it engages in oil drilling.

Prime Minister Perry Christie has said that an oil drilling referendum will be put to the Bahamian people next year.

13 November, 2012

Jones Bahamas

Saturday, November 10, 2012

...prostate cancer has become a major public health issue in The Bahamas ...particularly for black Bahamian males ...as an average of two new cases are being diagnosed on a weekly basis - - - says Bahamian urologist and Director of the University of West Indies School of Clinical Medicine and Research ...Bahamas Campus, Dr. Robin Roberts

Local Researchers Join Global Search For Prostate Cancer Link In Blacks




The Bahama Journal
Nassau, The Bahamas





Bahamian cancer researchers are stepping up their research efforts to determine why Prostate Cancer is so much more prevalent and aggressive in black males than their Caucasian counterparts.

The heightened local research is part of ongoing regional and global search to determine the facts relative to the disease and men of African descent. It also comes amidst local findings that the disease is impacting  Black, Bahamian males at a far greater rate than their Caucasian brothers.

According to renowned Bahamian urologist and Director of the University of West Indies School of Clinical Medicine and Research, Bahamas Campus, Dr. Robin Roberts, prostate cancer has become a major public health issue in The Bahamas – particularly for black, Bahamian males, as an average of two new cases are being diagnosed on a weekly basis.

Statistics further show that one Bahamian male dies from prostate cancer every two weeks.

“Age-for-age, we have a disease that occurs at an earlier onset than when it occurs, is at a more advanced stage than when found in our Caucasian counterparts, and a disease that grows more quickly; spreads more quickly and is more likely to result in death for males of African descent and so there is no denying that it is of major significance for black men,” Dr. Roberts said.

“We are trying to find out why there is this difference,” Dr. Roberts continued, “one would automatically think it is because of a lack of education; because of a lack of access to healthcare, or of a lack of affordability (and) while those things may – in some instances – turn out to have some merit, by and large, when we do studies that wipe out all of those differences; when we level the playing field in terms of getting them educated, in terms of getting them the same kind of healthcare as their Caucasian counterparts, we do pick up the disease earlier, but the disease has still grown more quickly and is much more aggressive in Black men.

“So there is something about the biology of prostate cancer in black men that is different,” Dr. Roberts added.

Dr. Roberts said local researchers will also take a look at both the potential cultural and biological causes for the imbalance in order to fully understand the “complexities” involved with the disease and its impact on Black men in particular.

He said part of that cultural research will involve trying to determine why “men in our country who, although they know about prostate cancer, who know they may be at risk, still do not go and get tested.”

“So what is it that makes them take this approach. What is it in their culture that makes them act this way? Those are important areas in our research if we want to learn where those barriers are and how do we overcome them,” Dr. Roberts said.

“On the other side, if we look purely at the biology of the cancer, we are going to address what are the factors – from a research perspective – that cause the cancer to be so aggressive in Black men.

“We realise this requires a lot of high-level research and scientific expertise, and can be very expensive because we are now entering the field of genetics,” Dr. Roberts continued, “so what it says to us in developing countries is that we have to form relationships with those countries that have that level of financial assistance and the technology for us to be able to collaborate with them and share our resources and share the information.”

Dr. Roberts said the recently concluded Second Biennial Science of Global Prostate Cancer Disparities in Black Men Conference, held at the SuperClubs Breezes Resort, allowed experts, researchers and scientists from Africa, the Caribbean, the United States of America and Great Britain the opportunity to do just that.

“Male and female experts from around the globe all gathered in one place to meet and discuss and share and so this was a great opportunity for us in The Bahamas that really put us on the map with regards to prostate cancer research,” Dr. Roberts added.

07 November, 2012

Jones Bahamas

Thursday, November 8, 2012

Minister of Health Dr. Perry Gomez has appointed a task force to produce recommendations for the regulation of stem cell therapy in The Bahamas

Govt to explore stem cell therapy


Krystel Rolle
Guardian Staff Reporter
krystel@nasguard.com


Nassau, The Bahamas


Minister of Health Dr. Perry Gomez has appointed a task force to produce recommendations for the regulation of stem cell therapy, which was banned in The Bahamas by the Christie administration a few years ago.

Gomez said the increasingly popular and effective medical procedures, once fully implemented in The Bahamas, could enhance medical tourism.

Dr. Duane Sands, a cardiovascular surgeon and member of the task force, said The Bahamas could become a premier destination for stem cell therapy.

“We want to ultimately lead the world in the development of this new industry," said Sands at a press conference at the Ministry of Health yesterday.

"Bear in mind that the United States has had some challenges in part due to the political proclamations of George W. Bush that slowed down stem cell research.

“So there are opportunities and if it is done right, done ethically and done with real attention to the moral implications, The Bahamas and the Bahamian people can not only accrue some benefits, but we can advance medicine in the world."

Sands noted that medical tourism internationally is a huge industry. He said it accounts for as much as $70 billion per year.

"When you imagine the potential for medical tourism, the question is whether a new jurisdiction like The Bahamas can combine science with ethics and morality," he said.

Stem cells are undifferentiated cells that have the capacity to renew themselves and to differentiate into various cell types, such as blood, muscle and nerve cells.

Under the former Christie administration, then Minister of Health Dr. Marcus Bethel halted stem cell procedures at the Immuno-Augmentative Therapy clinic in Freeport, saying it had not secured the necessary approvals to engage in such research in 2004.

Asked why the government has now decided to regulate the industry, Gomez said there is no doubt that stem cell therapy has many advantages.

"Stem cell therapy is not medicine of tomorrow; it is medicine of today. Science has moved on," he said.

Giving examples of the advantages of stem cell therapy, Gomez said an AIDS patient who received stem cell treatment lost HIV status, and an NFL player who had a neck injury that would not heal, recovered after receiving stem cell treatment.

"So for one who likes science and believes science is the basis of all good medicine, that's why we are looking at it," he added.

Gomez said many physicians in The Bahamas want to use the new technology.

Managing Director of the Cancer Centre Dr. Arthur Porter, who chairs the task force, said the government is taking the right steps.

"We feel that stem cell therapy is probably going to be the very important therapy for the next generation,” Porter said.  “And how it's handled, how research is conducted, how applications are used is going to be extremely important."

He said the task force will look at all the ramifications before any regulations are recommended.

In addition to Dr. Porter and Dr. Sands, members of the task force include Director of UWI School of Medicine Dr. Robin Roberts; Anglican hospital Chaplain Rev. Angela Palacious; obstetrician Dr. Paul Ward; Senior Anesthesiologist Dr. Barrett McCartney; Laboratory Researcher Dr. Indira Martin; President of the Medical Association of The Bahamas Dr. Wesley Francis; Medical Director of PHA Dr. Glen Beneby and attorney Michelle Pindling-Sands.

The committee is expected to deliver its report within the next 60 days.

November 08, 2012

thenassauguardian

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Doris Johnson and The Women’s Suffrage Movement in The Bahamas

Doris Johnson’s Role In The Suffrage Movement




Tribune242 Editorial
Nassau, The Bahamas




ON SUNDAY Prime Minister Perry Christie spoke at a special Bethel Baptist Church service to commemorate National Women’s Month and the 50th anniversary of the women’s suffrage movement in the Bahamas.
 
Doris Johnson
Lawyer Marion Bethel has worked long and hard on gathering information to put this movement into its historical context. She has produced a documentary for the record and has sent a letter to the Prime Minister suggesting that a woman representative from each of the two political parties in the House read Dr Doris Johnson’s speech to the House — a speech that Dr Johnson, being a “stranger” to the House — was not allowed to deliver by a UBP government.
 
If Mrs Bethel’s suggestion is accepted no rules of the House will be bent and no precedents set as the proposal is for women House members to read the Johnson speech. Many think that this is a vindication of Dr Johnson, who not being a member of the House, would have been setting a precedent if she were allowed to walk in and address the chamber. Added to which when she made her request the petition for a woman’s right to vote was already on the House agenda for first reading that day.
 
Dr Johnson’s plan was to have herself admitted to the floor of the House and in a speech launch the woman’s right to vote petition. Dr Johnson had just returned that week from university and, as she told several people at the time, was better educated than the women who had worked so hard over the years to push women’s rights. Dr Johnson felt that with her education she should be the one to take over the movement. Hence her suggestion to the suffragettes that she be allowed to address the House. The suffragettes agreed. In the House Lynden Pindling asked for the unanimous consent of members to agree to a petition from the suffragettes to allow Dr Johnson to address them.
 
Speaker Bobby Symonette said that the women’s petition would have to go to committee, the committee would have to report and the House could then adopt the report.
 
The debate went back and forth — there was a bit of tit-for-tat involved as earlier Sir Milo Butler had objected to Roy Solomon’s motion to spend £9,000 to entertain Prince Philip. It was now the turn of the UBP to object to the PLP’s petition, which is what they did in the case of the Johnson address.
 
However, in the end the matter was settled on precedent and the speech was delivered, but not in the House.
 
In reporting Mr Christie’s weekend address at Bethel our reporter wrote in yesterday’s Tribune:
 
“Doris Johnson’s 1959 address represented a turning point in the movement. It was delivered on the same day she and a group of suffragettes marched to the House of Assembly to present a petition to the government.
 
“The governing United Bahamian Party refused to have her address the House. To an audience of willing parliamentarians, led by Sir Lynden Pindling, Dame Doris delivered the petition and her address in a neighbouring magistrate’s court.”
 
If Mrs Mary Ingraham, one of the founders and chairman of the Movement, had been alive she would have been on the telephone to her good friend, the late Sir Etienne Dupuch, bristling with anger.
 
She would have been furious with The Tribune for “slanting the news” to make it seem that it was Sir Lynden and the PLP that had supported Bahamian women in their fight for human rights.
 
Mrs Ingraham, and her small band of women, had fought hard for many years to keep the movement out of politics, and here we were reporting in a way that gave the impression that it was a PLP fight on their behalf. Mrs Ingraham, a UBP did not go to her representative Sir Stafford Sands to present the petition in the House. Rather she selected Sir Gerald Cash to present the petition because he was an independent member.
 
Within the movement Doris Johnson, and the manner in which she elbowed the founders to the sidelines, was always a sore point within the movement — particularly with Mary Ingraham.
 
If Mrs Ingraham were alive today, she would have insisted that Sir Etienne reprint her 1975 letter “to keep the record straight and let the people know.”
 
In 1962 she presented a plaque to Sir Etienne on which these words were inscribed:
 
“To Sir Etienne Dupuch - In appreciation for his active part through the media of his newspaper in helping me and my colleagues in obtaining the vote for women.
 
“Sufferage Movement started 1952.
 
“Vote granted June 30, 1962.”
 
It was signed by Mary N. Ingraham, Mildred B Donaldson and Rev HW Brown.
 
And so, as she and Sir Etienne would have wished, “to keep the record straight” Mrs Ingraham’s 1975 letter follows:
 
“During this period (1951-52) meetings were held and signatures obtained. Dr Doris Johnson was away at school and had no activities involving this movement whatsoever.
 
“Signatures obtained were from Saint Hilda’s Chapter, Curfew Lodge, Star of the East Lodge of Samaritans.
 
“Active members were Mrs JK Symonette, vice president, Ms Eugenia Lockhart, secretary/treasurer, and Mrs Mary Ingraham, president.
 
“They were working together for many years until the announcement was made that the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Hon Lennox Boyd, was to arrive (April, 1958).
 
“Mary Ingraham made arrangements for an appointment with Mr Lennox-Boyd through Mr K M Wamsley, the then Colonial Secretary for the Colonies.
 
“The ladies that waited on Mr Lennox-Boyd to present him with the second petition was Mrs JK Symonette, Mrs Eugenia Lockhart, Mrs Mary Ingraham, president.
 
“After presenting the petition to him he assured us that it would be dealt with in the House of Commons, to which I have a receipt to prove where it was debated. After Mr Lennox-Boyd’s departure I was a member of the UBP party, but I never wished to force my will on anyone, even my children. I wouldn’t call on the late Sir Stafford Sands being my representative at that time.
 
“I, therefore, called on the Hon. Gerald Cash and asked him to present the petition to the House of Assembly for me because he was an independent member of the House.
 
“He accepted. I sent the petition to Mr Cash containing 9,500 signatures, which he presented to the House with notice to be read at the next meeting.
 
“In that week, Dr Doris Johnson arrived from school and Mrs JK Symonette brought her to the meeting and discussed the activities of the petition coming up for its first reading. Dr Johnson suggested we allow her to address the Assembly before the petition was read. It was a rough morning in the House. Sir Milo Butler objected to the motion by Mr Roy Solomon to spend £9,000 to entertain Prince Philip, therefore, when it was time for Dr Johnson to make her address, Mr Roy Solomon, therefore, objected to the ladies being allowed to address the Assembly.
 
“Sir Roland Symonette, then being Premier, went over to the Magistrate’s Court and got the Magistrate to vacate the courtroom, and brought the members of the House over to the Magistrate’s court to listen to the address of the ladies.
 
“Ladies and gentlemen, this is the only part Dr Johnson played in the vote for the women. And when the motion came for a vote in the House of Assembly not one member of the PLP government, including the Prime Minister (Pindling) voted for the women to vote. Instead every (PLP) member walked out.
 
“Therefore how can Women’s Week be celebrated by this PLP government.”
 
November 06, 2012