By Gwynne Dyer:
THE FLAGS have been waved, the anthem has been sung, and the new currency will be in circulation next week: the Republic of South Sudan has been launched, and is off to who knows where? Perdition, probably, for it is a 'pre-failed state', condemned by its extreme poverty, 15 per cent literacy and bitter ethnic rivalries to more decades of violence and misery. But what about the country it leaves behind?
It's telling that there is a South Sudan, but no North Sudan. What's left is still just Sudan. It's still the second-biggest country in Africa, and it still has four-fifths of the people it had before the south broke away. But it has lost a big chunk of its income: almost three-quarters of the old united country's oil was in the south. It's also an Arab country run by a dictator who has been in power for 22 years. So we know what comes next, don't we?
The dictator, President Omar al-Bashir, is unquestionably a Bad Man. He seized power in a military coup in 1989, and he is the first serving head of state to be indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC). In 2009, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Bashir for war crimes and crimes against humanity in his conduct of the war in the rebellious province of Darfur. It added three counts of genocide last year. But he's not all bad.
He inherited a much bigger war, between the predominantly Muslim north of the country and what is now South Sudan. It was a squalid, dreadful affair that killed about two million southerners and drove another four million - about half the southern population - from their homes. Bashir has a lot of blood on his hands. But he eventually realised that the south could not be held by force, and he had the wisdom and courage to act on his insight.
In 2005, he ended the fighting by agreeing that the two parts of the country would be run by separate governments for six years, after which the south would hold a referendum on independence. He knew that the south would say "yes" overwhelmingly - in the end, 98.83 percent of southern Sudanese voted to have their own country - yet he never reneged on the deal.
"President Bashir and (his) National Congress Party deserve a reward," said Salva Kiir, now the president of South Sudan, after the votes were counted in February. And Bashir said: "We will come and congratulate and celebrate with you ... . We will not hold a mourning tent." His decision made him very vulnerable politically in the north, but he stuck to it for all these years, and as a result many tens of thousands of people who would have died are still alive.
That doesn't necessarily mean that north-south relations will be smooth after the South's independence. Most of the oil is in South Sudan, but the new country is landlocked: the oil can only be exported through pipelines that cross Sudan proper to reach the Red Sea. Yet there is not a deal on revenue-sharing yet, nor even on the border between the two countries.
Immediate problem
Bashir's immediate problem is economic. The deal to split the oil revenue equally between north and south lapsed with South Sudan's independence, and he is bringing in harsh austerity measures and a new currency as part of a three-year 'emergency programme' to stabilise the economy. But the price of food is already soaring in Khartoum as confidence in the Sudanese pound collapses.
Unaffordable food was a major factor in the popular revolts against oppressive Arab regimes in recent months, and Bashir is trying to insulate himself against that by promising stricter enforcement of Islamic law in Sudan. That may win him some support among the Muslim, Arabic-speaking majority, but by the same token, it will further alienate the north's remaining religious and ethnic minorities. So more rebellions in the outlying regions.
On top of all that, Bashir will forever be seen, however unfairly, as the man who 'lost' the south. His status as an indicted war criminal does him no harm with the majority population at home; his failure to crush the southerners by force is what really undermines him. So he may soon have to go abroad and live with his money.
He did one good thing in his life, and no good deed goes unpunished.
Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.
July 14, 2011
jamaica-gleaner
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.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Tomorrow's Bahamas depends on today's Bahamian
tribune242 editorial
Nassau, Bahamas
TODAY WE hear so much about outsiders -- particularly Haitians--insinuating themselves into our society in such large numbers that they will eventually take over the country and push Bahamians into the background.
Before we consider the validity of that claim, let's take a moment to discover who Bahamians really are. Each and every one of us claims to be Bahamian. For example, The Tribune family is fourth generation Bahamian, entering into a sixth generation. Others go back much further than that, but together we all regard ourselves as native Bahamians. However, each of us has come to this country by a different route, at a different time and for different reasons.
When the forebears of today's Bahamians arrived they were foreigners. Many did not even speak the same language, some formed small communities and stayed to themselves, keeping their own language and history alive among their children. However, eventually after a generation or two they all meshed seamlessly into a society with which they identified and called their own. They are today's Bahamians.
None of us can trace our roots back to the Lucayans who Columbus found here when he put this small country on the map in 1492. And so none of us can claim to be the true original.
Wrote the late Dr Paul Albury in The Story of the Bahamas: "After the Lucayans were taken away to slavery and death, a human silence settled over the Bahamas. The forests once again claimed the land which they had cleared to build their houses, to grow their crops and to lay their batos. It was as if the Island People had never existed."
No matter how far back one goes in their lineage today no Bahamian can claim a link to a Lucayan. But we consider ourselves the real McCoy -- the true Bahamian.
Much history passed between then and the granting of these islands -- first to Sir Robert Heath in 1629 and later to the Eleutheran Adventurers in 1647. Eventually slavery was introduced.
With the passage of history, much of it filled with human tragedy, today's Bahamian and our mixed society was formed. This society's roots go way back into Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Asia and the Americas -- almost every ethnic group is represented, including the Haitian -- but nowhere is the Lucayan to be found.
The reason that the Haitians have created such a problem for the Bahamas today is that they have arrived in such large numbers, and, other than their labour, and a willingness to learn, they have little to offer. They have even less to offer when so many of them are illegal and cannot fully participate in the society. Even Bahamians of Haitian heritage find their presence an embarrassing strain on our social services.
It is for this reason that the Haitian question should be high on the agenda after the next election. Those Haitians with jobs and family ties should be regularised so that they can contribute to the society in which they live by paying national insurance, opening bank accounts, being able to get a mortgage to purchase their own homes and generally do business in a normal way. Decisions have to be made about the future of children born here of Haitian parents, who attend school, know no other country, and think of themselves as Bahamians. They are in the same position in this country as were the forebears of each us at some stage of our personal history.
It depends upon how we treat them today as to what kind of citizens they will make tomorrow. If they are not assimilated into the society, then, yes, possibly as time passes they will take over.
Bahamians have fought long and hard for a unified society -- a One Bahamas. This is no time to fracture it further by introducing another equation of inequality for the future.
No one wants our children and grandchildren to have to face a new Bahamian with an inferiority complex, a chip on the shoulder or, one who is ready in every encounter to show a clenched fist and quietly plot an overthrown. One doesn't have to look too far around the world today to find examples of what could happen if we don't tread carefully in considering this human problem.
Therefore, the Haitian question has to be debated, carefully considered and solved as humanely as possible.
Really it is up to today's Bahamian as to what the future holds for tomorrow's Bahamas.
July 13, 2011
tribune242 editorial
Nassau, Bahamas
TODAY WE hear so much about outsiders -- particularly Haitians--insinuating themselves into our society in such large numbers that they will eventually take over the country and push Bahamians into the background.
Before we consider the validity of that claim, let's take a moment to discover who Bahamians really are. Each and every one of us claims to be Bahamian. For example, The Tribune family is fourth generation Bahamian, entering into a sixth generation. Others go back much further than that, but together we all regard ourselves as native Bahamians. However, each of us has come to this country by a different route, at a different time and for different reasons.
When the forebears of today's Bahamians arrived they were foreigners. Many did not even speak the same language, some formed small communities and stayed to themselves, keeping their own language and history alive among their children. However, eventually after a generation or two they all meshed seamlessly into a society with which they identified and called their own. They are today's Bahamians.
None of us can trace our roots back to the Lucayans who Columbus found here when he put this small country on the map in 1492. And so none of us can claim to be the true original.
Wrote the late Dr Paul Albury in The Story of the Bahamas: "After the Lucayans were taken away to slavery and death, a human silence settled over the Bahamas. The forests once again claimed the land which they had cleared to build their houses, to grow their crops and to lay their batos. It was as if the Island People had never existed."
No matter how far back one goes in their lineage today no Bahamian can claim a link to a Lucayan. But we consider ourselves the real McCoy -- the true Bahamian.
Much history passed between then and the granting of these islands -- first to Sir Robert Heath in 1629 and later to the Eleutheran Adventurers in 1647. Eventually slavery was introduced.
With the passage of history, much of it filled with human tragedy, today's Bahamian and our mixed society was formed. This society's roots go way back into Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Asia and the Americas -- almost every ethnic group is represented, including the Haitian -- but nowhere is the Lucayan to be found.
The reason that the Haitians have created such a problem for the Bahamas today is that they have arrived in such large numbers, and, other than their labour, and a willingness to learn, they have little to offer. They have even less to offer when so many of them are illegal and cannot fully participate in the society. Even Bahamians of Haitian heritage find their presence an embarrassing strain on our social services.
It is for this reason that the Haitian question should be high on the agenda after the next election. Those Haitians with jobs and family ties should be regularised so that they can contribute to the society in which they live by paying national insurance, opening bank accounts, being able to get a mortgage to purchase their own homes and generally do business in a normal way. Decisions have to be made about the future of children born here of Haitian parents, who attend school, know no other country, and think of themselves as Bahamians. They are in the same position in this country as were the forebears of each us at some stage of our personal history.
It depends upon how we treat them today as to what kind of citizens they will make tomorrow. If they are not assimilated into the society, then, yes, possibly as time passes they will take over.
Bahamians have fought long and hard for a unified society -- a One Bahamas. This is no time to fracture it further by introducing another equation of inequality for the future.
No one wants our children and grandchildren to have to face a new Bahamian with an inferiority complex, a chip on the shoulder or, one who is ready in every encounter to show a clenched fist and quietly plot an overthrown. One doesn't have to look too far around the world today to find examples of what could happen if we don't tread carefully in considering this human problem.
Therefore, the Haitian question has to be debated, carefully considered and solved as humanely as possible.
Really it is up to today's Bahamian as to what the future holds for tomorrow's Bahamas.
July 13, 2011
tribune242 editorial
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Bahamas: ...an illegal immigration problem that has grown too large for such a small country
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
tribune242 editorial
Nassau, The Bahamas
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION has become an emotional problem -- in fact it has become a Haitian problem.
"They cluttering up my road; they too biggety; they think they own the place; the women breed too many children; they going to take us over... we got to get rid of them," is the oft heard Bahamian bleat.
To hear many Bahamians talk one would think they are talking of eradicating a swarm of locusts, not human beings with the same hopes and dreams as the rest of us. As a matter of fact these people expect little, but they too have hopes for a better future for their children. They are too humble to expect much, but to be able to put a roof over the heads of their families and provide them a meal a day, no matter how meagre, can bring a smile to their faces.
We always hear about Haitians, but the problem is far wider and more problematic than that. There is also a problem with other undocumented immigrants -- Jamaicans for example -- who are quietly imbedded in our society. And so, it is not only a Haitian problem, it's an illegal immigration problem that has grown too large for such a small country.
Each government has expended much effort and expense on rounding them up and returning them to Haiti. In the early days it was handled in a most inhumane way. They were hunted in the bush by dogs; they were yanked from their homes at the crack of dawn and their empty homes left to the thieving paws of marauding Bahamians. Families were broken up, no compassion was shown. The inhumanity was so severe during an earlier period that many of them fled in rickety boats headed for the US. However, many drowned in the Gulf. We recall writing at the time how we could not understand how many government ministers of that era could sleep at night with such human tragedy on their doorsteps. But sleep they did as the raids grew even more cruel, with many callous Bahamians cheering them on. We often wondered if these Bahamians ever thought of these poor people as they dressed up in their Sunday finery, clutching their Bibles as they made their fashion parade to church.
And then we noticed that the absence of the Haitians was starting to show. Many beautiful gardens throughout the island were growing up in weeds -- no Bahamians wanted to do Haitian work. And so, obviously, these Haitians had provided a service that Bahamians felt was too demeaning for them. Haitians were obviously needed to fill the gap. Added to which many of them have a work ethic that many Bahamians are yet to grasp. The illegal question has to be debated humanely. For example, what should be the policy when a Bahamian man goes to Jamaica, marries a Jamaican woman and brings her to Nassau. Shortly afterwards children who she had in a previous relationship want to visit their step dad. They come, they go to school and they stay. What is their position or what should it be? Already the Immigration Department has issued about 130 spousal permits for Jamaican wives.
Our suggestion is that there should be a period of amnesty during which time all undocumented immigrants could register. Those who have jobs are obviously needed, and should be documented. Those who have no steady means of employment, should be individually interviewed and, depending on their situation, a decision should be made about their future.
But a panel of upstanding Bahamians - pastors among them - should discuss the matter. Meetings should be held in each of the constituencies to discover the impact the immigrants are having in each particular area, and suggestions from residents of how they think those problems should be resolved.
After many meetings and much debate the government should prepare a White Paper outlining future policy.
The immigrants will then know what is required of them. Immigration officers also will know what is expected of them and the penalties for operating a side-door racket.
This is a thorny subject that must be aired and dealt with humanely if there is to be peace in this country. And to ensure that peace, ways and means must be found to integrate these immigrants into our society so that their succeeding generations truly will be Bahamian.
As a matter of fact over the years many immigrants -- including Haitians -- have been successfully integrated into our society. One must never forget that the first black Bahamian to sit in our parliament was of Haitian heritage.
Also we must never forget that as the world turns misfortune could set our own grandchildren and great grandchildren adrift on the open seas looking for a safe haven to cast anchor. Hopefully they will be treated with the same compassion that these helpless ones are now seeking from us.
And in your deliberations never forget Matthew 7:12 - the Golden Rule:
"All things therefore whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do you also to them. For this is the law and the prophets."
July 08, 2011
tribune242 editorial
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Bahamas: 50% of beds at the Princess Margaret Hospital (PMH) are registered to diabetic or hypertensive patients while 70% of Bahamians have chronic illnesses
70 per cent of Bahamians 'have chronic illnesses'
By LAMECH JOHNSON
tribune242
Nassau, Bahamas
FIFTY per cent of beds at the Princess Margaret Hospital are registered to diabetic or hypertensive patients while 70 per cent of Bahamians have chronic illnesses, it was revealed yesterday.
Health Minister Dr Hubert Minnis said treating the number of patients for chronic illnesses places a strain on the public purse, though he did not give an exact figure.
"At PMH, approximately 50 per cent of the beds are registered to persons with diabetes or hypertension. The government spends about $200 million on health care so that should give you an indication as to how much is spent on medication and treatment of patients with chronic illnesses," said Dr Minnis on the sidelines of the launch of the National Insurance Board's 12-week Employee Health and Wellness Programme.
The public hospital has been taxed with an influx of trauma patients due to a rise in violent crime, but "before this it was mostly diabetic and hypertensive patients," he said.
Dr Minnis endorsed NIB's encouragement to staff to live a healthy lifestyle. He said he hopes the publicity generated from the programme will spur more Bahamians to live better and "decrease the need for us to utilise the medical services."
NIB Director Algernon Cargill implored all employees at the insurance board to participate in the initiative, not only to lower overall health costs for the board but to become examples for the community. The goal is to have all employees reduce current weight by eight per cent and live healthier lives.
He said: "This programme that we have that was modelled after the healthy people programme, as a part of the National Prescription Drug Plan will allow us to be ambassadors of health to show the public that we believe in what we're saying."
Employees at NIB expressed gratitude for the initiative during the launch at NIB headquarters on Baillou Hill Road.
"It's an excellent programme because it's going to encourage the staff to live and be healthy. I applaud Mr Cargill and the committee who put this all together for us, it was very considerate," said Antonette Sands, after dancing with the Colours junkanoo group during a celebratory rush out.
Camille Rolle, who is also registered for the programme, joked: "Lord knows, the staff at NIB needed it."
NIB's Medical Director Dr Kevin Bowe hopes his participation will allow the public to see the agency can practice what it preaches.
He said: "As medical practitioners and health care professionals, we promote the importance of being healthy to others but sometimes don't follow it ourselves and so we're doing this to show Bahamians that we are going to be living what we preach."
Every member of NIB is asked to participate in the campaign, which will be held from July 11 to October 7.
July 08, 2011
tribune242
By LAMECH JOHNSON
tribune242
Nassau, Bahamas
FIFTY per cent of beds at the Princess Margaret Hospital are registered to diabetic or hypertensive patients while 70 per cent of Bahamians have chronic illnesses, it was revealed yesterday.
Health Minister Dr Hubert Minnis said treating the number of patients for chronic illnesses places a strain on the public purse, though he did not give an exact figure.
"At PMH, approximately 50 per cent of the beds are registered to persons with diabetes or hypertension. The government spends about $200 million on health care so that should give you an indication as to how much is spent on medication and treatment of patients with chronic illnesses," said Dr Minnis on the sidelines of the launch of the National Insurance Board's 12-week Employee Health and Wellness Programme.
The public hospital has been taxed with an influx of trauma patients due to a rise in violent crime, but "before this it was mostly diabetic and hypertensive patients," he said.
Dr Minnis endorsed NIB's encouragement to staff to live a healthy lifestyle. He said he hopes the publicity generated from the programme will spur more Bahamians to live better and "decrease the need for us to utilise the medical services."
NIB Director Algernon Cargill implored all employees at the insurance board to participate in the initiative, not only to lower overall health costs for the board but to become examples for the community. The goal is to have all employees reduce current weight by eight per cent and live healthier lives.
He said: "This programme that we have that was modelled after the healthy people programme, as a part of the National Prescription Drug Plan will allow us to be ambassadors of health to show the public that we believe in what we're saying."
Employees at NIB expressed gratitude for the initiative during the launch at NIB headquarters on Baillou Hill Road.
"It's an excellent programme because it's going to encourage the staff to live and be healthy. I applaud Mr Cargill and the committee who put this all together for us, it was very considerate," said Antonette Sands, after dancing with the Colours junkanoo group during a celebratory rush out.
Camille Rolle, who is also registered for the programme, joked: "Lord knows, the staff at NIB needed it."
NIB's Medical Director Dr Kevin Bowe hopes his participation will allow the public to see the agency can practice what it preaches.
He said: "As medical practitioners and health care professionals, we promote the importance of being healthy to others but sometimes don't follow it ourselves and so we're doing this to show Bahamians that we are going to be living what we preach."
Every member of NIB is asked to participate in the campaign, which will be held from July 11 to October 7.
July 08, 2011
tribune242
Friday, July 8, 2011
There are four kinds of Bahamian politicians in The Bahamas: the lotioner, the grunt, the lone wolf and the bulldog
Portrait of the ‘lone wolf’
By Ian Strachan
Nassau, Bahamas
Last week I told you there were three kinds of Bahamian politicians. I was wrong. There are actually four. And since I neglected to even say what the three were, let’s get the four names out of the way early. The four types are the ‘lotioner’, the ‘grunt’, the ‘lone wolf’ and the ‘bulldog’. I told you last week about the Lotioner. The leader who leads from behind. The lotioner is the prototypical or classic politician, when you really think about it. Mostly talk, very little action.
The grunt I won’t waste time on. He’s just the kind of guy who hangs onto the coattails of the people in charge. He does what he’s told. He’s a follower really, a drone. So let’s leave him alone and deal with the big boys.
Next up: The lone wolf. Lone wolves can make inspiring, innovative, political leaders. But the truth is they are happier people if they lead in some other sphere than politics—some sphere where you don’t need people to vote for you. They probably do best as businessmen or civic leaders. They are natural leaders, don’t get me wrong. They are driven by passion, by ideals, not by the desire for attention or the desire for power. Well, to be precise, they want power, certainly, but they want it so they can turn the world into what they want it to be. They’re not all charismatic but they can all get in front of the crowd when they have to. The Lone Wolf wants you to hear him more than he wants you to see him.
He has strength of purpose. He can be visionary. But it’s hard for him to play the game of politics. It’s easy for the lone wolf to be political, but he often fails at being a “politician.” The lone wolf has a hard time doing what political survival and political success often call for: Lying, bribing, flattering or BSing the people. Which probably means he won’t last long. Lone wolves make great martyrs. They can’t keep their big mouths shut.
Sometimes, the lone wolf wants to be in charge but he doesn’t want to earn it. He wants you to just hand it to him because heck, he’s obviously the best man for the job. He will probably never earn it because he has a very hard time playing the game of hand go hand come. He’s rarely a good broker of deals. He has trouble understanding why everybody is not motivated by the same thing he is. In short, he wants to be in the game, needs to be in the game, will have no peace if he doesn’t get in there and t’row his blow, but he doesn’t want to play the game by the game’s rules. He wants a different set of rules. He wants to make the game over. He is prone to delusions of grandeur, you might say.
You see, hundreds and thousands have been playing the game just as it is and have no desire or will to change it. And to get to the top of a political party, you need to slip the delegates some cash, promise this one and that one a contract, guarantee this one a job for their louse of a son and that one a promotion they don’t deserve, grin up with scummies of various stripes, but he can’t bring himself, won’t bring himself to do it. He therefore can never really rise to number one under normal circumstances. He fails to understand that though he may be in politics because of a high sense of duty, or because he has what he thinks is something unique to contribute, others are there because they are trying to get over, trying to get ahead or trying to just plain survive. He won’t grease and he won’t lotion, so he remains respected but never trusted. He is a man of action, a man who gets things done. But secret deals often get made after he leaves the room. He is only made aware and included when the leader needs ideas and needs the right language. He is included when the organization needs to really get a difficult job done, a job that requires strategic thinking, analysis, eloquence, hard work and vigilance. But he’s not there when the spoils, the “unofficial spoils” are being discussed and divided.
On a basic level, politics, for the politician, is not so much about right and wrong as it is about compromise. Half measures are often the only measures that are possible. The lone wolf has an all or nothing personality, but in politics you never get “all”, so he usually settles for nothing. (Lone wolves do better as political advisers and consultants, speech writers and strategists, the power behind the throne. They last longer).
There’s another problem with the lone wolf. You have to follow before you can lead in this world and the lone wolf, in his impatience, in his passion, in his pride, in his faith and his own specialness has real trouble following. Lone wolves are never content unless they’re in charge; not really. Oh, they can endure someone else’s leadership for a while but eventually, inevitably, they get cross about something, and lose faith; eventually they’ll jump ship or do something that causes the captain to make them walk the plank.
Even if the lone wolf is in charge, he finds it extremely difficult to share leadership, even if it is going to strengthen his advantage or his cause. He does not trust anyone to properly implement his vision. So this kind of leader is normally less effective than he should be and is probably the most likely of all to burn himself out. (Which feeds his martyr complex).
Because the lone wolf is motivated most by his own principles (and ambitions?), not merely by the pleasures of being part of the winning side, he is the most likely to break party ranks. Because the lone wolf believes he’s the best man for the job, he normally can’t handle being passed over for someone else and can’t endure slowly climbing the ladder. He launches out alone. Better to be leader of a party with five thousand followers than a deputy in a party with forty thousand, apparently.
Oh, and one more thing; the lone wolf is blind to his limitations. He believes things are easier to accomplish than they actually are. And no matter how many times he fails, he is never cured of this affliction: this blind belief that he can do anything he sets his mind to and do it quickly and easily. What he thinks will take three months takes nine. What he thinks will take five years takes 15. But he charges on, normally blazing a trail. A trail ain’t nobody else interested in blazin’, cause they already know it’s too hard or will take too long.
Many political lone wolves die forgotten, penniless or heartbroken, haunted by the thousand good ideas they never brought to reality, the brilliant schemes left half-hatched, the scores of project blue prints gathering dust in the corner of some silent room in their homes. At his best, the lone wolf’s lack of conventional wisdom allows him to achieve remarkable feats. His lack of concern for his own long term political/professional survival challenges everybody around him to step up their game. His level of commitment and intensity makes others look bad. Unfortunately though, a lone wolf often ends up destroyed by the powerful people he helped gain that power, because he eventually decides to play the hero. He takes some principled stand instead of being quiet and being loyal to the team.
Who are the lone wolves? Randol Fawkes, Carlton Francis, Edmund Moxey and Cecil Wallace Whitfield come to mind. B.J. Nottage and Paul Moss perhaps.
Jul 07, 2011
thenassauguardian
By Ian Strachan
Nassau, Bahamas
Last week I told you there were three kinds of Bahamian politicians. I was wrong. There are actually four. And since I neglected to even say what the three were, let’s get the four names out of the way early. The four types are the ‘lotioner’, the ‘grunt’, the ‘lone wolf’ and the ‘bulldog’. I told you last week about the Lotioner. The leader who leads from behind. The lotioner is the prototypical or classic politician, when you really think about it. Mostly talk, very little action.
The grunt I won’t waste time on. He’s just the kind of guy who hangs onto the coattails of the people in charge. He does what he’s told. He’s a follower really, a drone. So let’s leave him alone and deal with the big boys.
Next up: The lone wolf. Lone wolves can make inspiring, innovative, political leaders. But the truth is they are happier people if they lead in some other sphere than politics—some sphere where you don’t need people to vote for you. They probably do best as businessmen or civic leaders. They are natural leaders, don’t get me wrong. They are driven by passion, by ideals, not by the desire for attention or the desire for power. Well, to be precise, they want power, certainly, but they want it so they can turn the world into what they want it to be. They’re not all charismatic but they can all get in front of the crowd when they have to. The Lone Wolf wants you to hear him more than he wants you to see him.
He has strength of purpose. He can be visionary. But it’s hard for him to play the game of politics. It’s easy for the lone wolf to be political, but he often fails at being a “politician.” The lone wolf has a hard time doing what political survival and political success often call for: Lying, bribing, flattering or BSing the people. Which probably means he won’t last long. Lone wolves make great martyrs. They can’t keep their big mouths shut.
Sometimes, the lone wolf wants to be in charge but he doesn’t want to earn it. He wants you to just hand it to him because heck, he’s obviously the best man for the job. He will probably never earn it because he has a very hard time playing the game of hand go hand come. He’s rarely a good broker of deals. He has trouble understanding why everybody is not motivated by the same thing he is. In short, he wants to be in the game, needs to be in the game, will have no peace if he doesn’t get in there and t’row his blow, but he doesn’t want to play the game by the game’s rules. He wants a different set of rules. He wants to make the game over. He is prone to delusions of grandeur, you might say.
You see, hundreds and thousands have been playing the game just as it is and have no desire or will to change it. And to get to the top of a political party, you need to slip the delegates some cash, promise this one and that one a contract, guarantee this one a job for their louse of a son and that one a promotion they don’t deserve, grin up with scummies of various stripes, but he can’t bring himself, won’t bring himself to do it. He therefore can never really rise to number one under normal circumstances. He fails to understand that though he may be in politics because of a high sense of duty, or because he has what he thinks is something unique to contribute, others are there because they are trying to get over, trying to get ahead or trying to just plain survive. He won’t grease and he won’t lotion, so he remains respected but never trusted. He is a man of action, a man who gets things done. But secret deals often get made after he leaves the room. He is only made aware and included when the leader needs ideas and needs the right language. He is included when the organization needs to really get a difficult job done, a job that requires strategic thinking, analysis, eloquence, hard work and vigilance. But he’s not there when the spoils, the “unofficial spoils” are being discussed and divided.
On a basic level, politics, for the politician, is not so much about right and wrong as it is about compromise. Half measures are often the only measures that are possible. The lone wolf has an all or nothing personality, but in politics you never get “all”, so he usually settles for nothing. (Lone wolves do better as political advisers and consultants, speech writers and strategists, the power behind the throne. They last longer).
There’s another problem with the lone wolf. You have to follow before you can lead in this world and the lone wolf, in his impatience, in his passion, in his pride, in his faith and his own specialness has real trouble following. Lone wolves are never content unless they’re in charge; not really. Oh, they can endure someone else’s leadership for a while but eventually, inevitably, they get cross about something, and lose faith; eventually they’ll jump ship or do something that causes the captain to make them walk the plank.
Even if the lone wolf is in charge, he finds it extremely difficult to share leadership, even if it is going to strengthen his advantage or his cause. He does not trust anyone to properly implement his vision. So this kind of leader is normally less effective than he should be and is probably the most likely of all to burn himself out. (Which feeds his martyr complex).
Because the lone wolf is motivated most by his own principles (and ambitions?), not merely by the pleasures of being part of the winning side, he is the most likely to break party ranks. Because the lone wolf believes he’s the best man for the job, he normally can’t handle being passed over for someone else and can’t endure slowly climbing the ladder. He launches out alone. Better to be leader of a party with five thousand followers than a deputy in a party with forty thousand, apparently.
Oh, and one more thing; the lone wolf is blind to his limitations. He believes things are easier to accomplish than they actually are. And no matter how many times he fails, he is never cured of this affliction: this blind belief that he can do anything he sets his mind to and do it quickly and easily. What he thinks will take three months takes nine. What he thinks will take five years takes 15. But he charges on, normally blazing a trail. A trail ain’t nobody else interested in blazin’, cause they already know it’s too hard or will take too long.
Many political lone wolves die forgotten, penniless or heartbroken, haunted by the thousand good ideas they never brought to reality, the brilliant schemes left half-hatched, the scores of project blue prints gathering dust in the corner of some silent room in their homes. At his best, the lone wolf’s lack of conventional wisdom allows him to achieve remarkable feats. His lack of concern for his own long term political/professional survival challenges everybody around him to step up their game. His level of commitment and intensity makes others look bad. Unfortunately though, a lone wolf often ends up destroyed by the powerful people he helped gain that power, because he eventually decides to play the hero. He takes some principled stand instead of being quiet and being loyal to the team.
Who are the lone wolves? Randol Fawkes, Carlton Francis, Edmund Moxey and Cecil Wallace Whitfield come to mind. B.J. Nottage and Paul Moss perhaps.
Jul 07, 2011
thenassauguardian
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Commercial shark fishing in The Bahamas is prohibited
Amendment to protect sharks signed into law
KRYSTEL ROLLE
Guardian Staff Reporter
thenassauguardian
krystel@nasguard.com
Nassau, Bahamas
An increase in the global demand for shark meat has prompted government officials to regulate the multi-million-dollar industry for the first time in Bahamian history.
Government officials yesterday signed into law an amendment aimed at protecting sharks that populate the more than 200,000 miles of Bahamian waters.
The Bahamas has long been considered one of the premier shark-watching destinations for divers.
According to statistics compiled by the Bahamas Diving Association, over the past two decades shark-related tourism has contributed more than $800 million to the Bahamian economy.
Yesterday morning an amendment was made to the Fisheries Resources Act that will now prohibit all commercial shark fishing in The Bahamas.
Agriculture and Marine Resources Minister Larry Cartwright said the new provision will permanently protect more than 40 species of shark in Bahamian waters.
“The Bahamas government has determined to enhance the protection extended to sharks found in Bahamian waters,” Cartwright said while speaking at the signing ceremony at the British Colonial Hilton yesterday morning. “This is in keeping with the government’s commitment to pursue appropriate conservation measures and strategies in order to safeguard marine and terrestrial environment. This also responds to concerns expressed by citizens and by local, international and non-governmental organizations to the Government of The Bahamas, calling for strengthened protection of sharks in The Bahamas.
“As we are all aware sharks are heavily fished in many of the world’s oceans and there is concern in many quarters that the current level of fishing including an increased level of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing cannot be sustained and will lead to the collapse of many shark stocks if we permit it.”
Under the 2011 amendment, commercial shark fishing as well as the import, export and sale of shark products are now prohibited.
But the amendment does allow for the recreational catch and release of sharks and the incidental catch and release of sharks by Bahamian citizens, assuming the subsequent sharks or shark products are not sold.
Cartwright said while the amendment took affect yesterday, it still has to be tabled in the House of Assembly.
Since 1993, Department of Fisheries officials have prohibited long line fishing – a move they insist helped maintain the region’s healthy shark population.
“The Bahamas’ prohibition on longline fishing gear 20 years ago protected the marine resources of The Bahamas and ensured that our shark populations would remain healthy,” said Eric Carey, executive director of the Bahamas National Trust (BNT).
“But there were no specific laws in The Bahamas for sharks, the crown jewels of ocean health. The new regulations will ensure that sharks can continue to thrive for generations in our waters, one of the world’s best places to see sharks.”
The effort to bring about shark regulations started last fall after a local seafood company expressed interest in the catching of sharks to meet the global demand for shark fin soup.
A collaboration between the PEW Environment Group and the BNT produced popular public service announcements and a petition that garnered more than 5,000 supporters.
Jill Hepp, manager of global shark conservation for the PEW Environment Group, said “[Tuesday’s] announcement permanently protects shark species in Bahamian waters. We applaud the people and Government of The Bahamas for being bold leaders in marine conservation.”
With the amendment, The Bahamas now joins Palau, the Maldives and Honduras in banning the commercial fishing of sharks.
It is estimated that commercial shark fishers kill up to 73 million sharks annually, mainly for their fins.
Jul 06, 2011
thenassauguardian
KRYSTEL ROLLE
Guardian Staff Reporter
thenassauguardian
krystel@nasguard.com
Nassau, Bahamas
An increase in the global demand for shark meat has prompted government officials to regulate the multi-million-dollar industry for the first time in Bahamian history.
Government officials yesterday signed into law an amendment aimed at protecting sharks that populate the more than 200,000 miles of Bahamian waters.
The Bahamas has long been considered one of the premier shark-watching destinations for divers.
According to statistics compiled by the Bahamas Diving Association, over the past two decades shark-related tourism has contributed more than $800 million to the Bahamian economy.
Yesterday morning an amendment was made to the Fisheries Resources Act that will now prohibit all commercial shark fishing in The Bahamas.
Agriculture and Marine Resources Minister Larry Cartwright said the new provision will permanently protect more than 40 species of shark in Bahamian waters.
“The Bahamas government has determined to enhance the protection extended to sharks found in Bahamian waters,” Cartwright said while speaking at the signing ceremony at the British Colonial Hilton yesterday morning. “This is in keeping with the government’s commitment to pursue appropriate conservation measures and strategies in order to safeguard marine and terrestrial environment. This also responds to concerns expressed by citizens and by local, international and non-governmental organizations to the Government of The Bahamas, calling for strengthened protection of sharks in The Bahamas.
“As we are all aware sharks are heavily fished in many of the world’s oceans and there is concern in many quarters that the current level of fishing including an increased level of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing cannot be sustained and will lead to the collapse of many shark stocks if we permit it.”
Under the 2011 amendment, commercial shark fishing as well as the import, export and sale of shark products are now prohibited.
But the amendment does allow for the recreational catch and release of sharks and the incidental catch and release of sharks by Bahamian citizens, assuming the subsequent sharks or shark products are not sold.
Cartwright said while the amendment took affect yesterday, it still has to be tabled in the House of Assembly.
Since 1993, Department of Fisheries officials have prohibited long line fishing – a move they insist helped maintain the region’s healthy shark population.
“The Bahamas’ prohibition on longline fishing gear 20 years ago protected the marine resources of The Bahamas and ensured that our shark populations would remain healthy,” said Eric Carey, executive director of the Bahamas National Trust (BNT).
“But there were no specific laws in The Bahamas for sharks, the crown jewels of ocean health. The new regulations will ensure that sharks can continue to thrive for generations in our waters, one of the world’s best places to see sharks.”
The effort to bring about shark regulations started last fall after a local seafood company expressed interest in the catching of sharks to meet the global demand for shark fin soup.
A collaboration between the PEW Environment Group and the BNT produced popular public service announcements and a petition that garnered more than 5,000 supporters.
Jill Hepp, manager of global shark conservation for the PEW Environment Group, said “[Tuesday’s] announcement permanently protects shark species in Bahamian waters. We applaud the people and Government of The Bahamas for being bold leaders in marine conservation.”
With the amendment, The Bahamas now joins Palau, the Maldives and Honduras in banning the commercial fishing of sharks.
It is estimated that commercial shark fishers kill up to 73 million sharks annually, mainly for their fins.
Jul 06, 2011
thenassauguardian
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
...renewed call in some circles for The Bahamas to sever its links with the Privy Council as its final court of appeal
Is it time to abandon the Privy Council?
Decades old debate resurfaces with controversial ruling
BY CANDIA DAMES
Guardian News Editor
thenassauguardian
candia@nasguard.com
Nassau, Bahamas
In recent times, some Bahamians have been intensely engaged in a debate over the June 15 Privy Council ruling in the matter of the Maxo Tido murder case.
The Privy Council held that the circumstances that led to the death of 16-year-old Donnell Conover were not gruesome enough to mandate the death sentence on the convicted murderer.
Conover’s skull was crushed and her body was burnt.
Many people have denounced the reasoning of the court and have expressed open disappointment in the decision.
This has led to a renewed call in some circles for The Bahamas to sever its links with the Privy Council as our final court of appeal.
Since our independence in 1973, the Privy Council has maintained this position as the head of the Bahamian judicial system.
Article 105 (1) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas states: “Parliament may provide for an appeal to lie from decisions of the Court of Appeal established by Part 2 of this Chapter to the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty’s Privy Council or to such other court as may be prescribed by Parliament under this Article, either as of right or with the leave of the said Court of Appeal, in such cases other than those referred to in Article 104 (2) of this Constitution as may be prescribed by Parliament.”
As noted on its website, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council originated as the highest court of civil and criminal appeal for the British Empire.
It now fulfills the same purpose for many current and former Commonwealth countries, as well as the United Kingdom’s overseas territories, crown dependencies, and military sovereign base areas.
The judicial experience of the foreign Law Lords has been garnered from their experiences at the bar and on the courts in the United Kingdom.
In recent years, members of the Privy Council have traveled to The Bahamas on the invitation of the former President of the Court of Appeal retired Madam Justice Dame Joan Sawyer and have sat in The Bahamas and have heard and determined cases.
During their 2009 visit, then Attorney General and now Chief Justice Sir Michael Barnett noted that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council affects “the lives of Bahamians, the region and people in the wider common-law world.”
The Law Lords’ visits have perhaps been the executive’s and the judiciary’s way of familiarizing the Privy Council with some of the customs and norms that we enjoy in The Bahamas.
The compelling question in light of the Maxo Tido decision is whether the Privy Council remains relevant to the evolving customs and norms of Bahamian society.
Through its various decisions, the Privy Council continues to write policy for The Bahamas and other such jurisdictions that send it appeals.
The most contentious have related to the death penalty.
In some quarters in The Bahamas, there is a widely held view that convicted murderers ought to be subject to the death penalty — as stated by the law.
Even with opponents continuing to point out that there is no evidence to show that capital punishment serves as a deterrent to crime, the call for the resumption of hangings more than 11 years after the last one was carried out continues to resound.
However, there are some Bahamians who remain opposed to any form of capital punishment.
No government, in light of the years of debate since the landmark Pratt and Morgan decision in 1993, has thought it appropriate to have a referendum on this vexing question of the death penalty.
In that judgment, the Privy Council ruled that it would be cruel and inhumane to execute someone who has been under the sentence of death for more than five years.
Given the lack of any timelines, the appeals process in many instances since that ruling has dragged well beyond the five-year mark, and many murder convicts have escaped execution.
There is also a push in some legal circles for The Bahamas to withdraw from the Inter American Commission on Human Rights, another avenue for appeal for murder convicts.
In 2006, the Privy Council imposed an even stricter standard for the imposition of the death penalty when it ruled that the mandatory death sentence was unconstitutional.
All the men who at the time were under the sentence of death had to be resentenced, and according to the Office of the Attorney General, a few still await resentencing.
A referendum is perhaps the only way that any government could know with a degree of certainty the views and opinions of the Bahamian people on the issue of the death penalty.
It is generally accepted that the talk shows and the public commentary emanating from certain quarters may not give the impression of a broad based support or opposition to the death penalty.
Continuing support for Privy Council
There are some lawyers, including the recently re-elected President of the Bar Association Ruth Bowe-Darville, who have expressed continuing support for the Privy Council as our final court of appeal.
Bowe-Darville’s recent comments came in the context of discussing civil and commercial matters arising from the use of our country as an international commercial center.
The point that she was advocating is that the Privy Council is still relevant for the certainty of these disputes and to confirm the country’s reputation as a stable judicial center for the determination of major commercial cases.
There are perhaps few lawyers who would disagree with this proposition.
Veteran attorney Maurice Glinton said, “We need the Privy Council.”
“The Privy Council represents competence,” he said.
“It also represents a standard of performance that we are not accustomed to in this jurisdiction...The concern for all of us who believe in the rule of law is that we always have judges who are competent. That minimizes the opportunity for error. No person should die because of judicial oversight.
“And to the extent that we have a further court to hear us, so that they can see finally with more objective eyes, then that speaks to our humanity, that speaks to our civility.”
However, it does not appear that the distinction between commercial matters and criminal matters generates a similar liking to continue with the Privy Council.
Some proponents who wish to sever our links to the Privy Council appear to be in favor of The Bahamas joining the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) as our final court of appeal.
The CCJ, inaugurated in 2005, sits in Port of Spain, Trinidad & Tobago.
As noted by the regional appellate court, there is still some lingering opposition to the CCJ. Surveys in some CARICOM member states, however, have showed as many as 80 percent of the persons surveyed supported the court, the CCJ says on its website.
In some jurisdictions, while there is little opposition to the court in its original jurisdiction, there is more opposition to it in its appellate jurisdiction.
In 2005, then Minister of Foreign Affairs Fred Mitchell announced that The Bahamas will not join the CCJ. And the current administration has also shown no interest in that court.
The Bahamian Constitution allows us to amend the necessary article to sever our ties with the Privy Council.
It is to be noted that in the ill-fated 2002 attempt to amend the constitution that this was not a provision that the Free National Movement government sought to put before the Bahamian people for approval.
At the very crux of this discussion are two questions: whether The Bahamas can have a dual final court of appeal (that is the Privy Council for civil and commercial matters) and the CCJ for criminal matters.
Secondly, whether it is within our national interest, long term and short term, to sever ties with the Privy Council in circumstances where we appear to be opposed to that court’s standing on the issue of capital punishment.
As an aside, the Privy Council does not appear to be that enthused about the demands placed on it by Commonwealth countries.
In 2009, Lord Phillips, the senior Law Lord of the Judicial Committee, expressed the view that the Privy Council was feeling burdened by appeals emanating from jurisdictions like The Bahamas.
In an interview reported in the Financial Times, he was quoted as saying that he was searching for ways to curb the “disproportionate” time he and his fellow senior justices spent hearing legal appeals from independent Commonwealth countries to the Privy Council in London.
Lord Phillips also suggested that “in an ideal world”, Commonwealth countries would stop using the Privy Council and set up their own final courts of appeal.
Clarifying death penalty cases
The European Court of Human Rights has taken a position on the death penalty, which it appears is a universal approach and therefore the further question that has to be asked is whether The Bahamas wishes to be out of step with a universally recognized principle of the sanctity of life.
The question of the sanctity of life is one which is embodied in a religious concept which stems from the Golden Rule — that you ought to do unto others as you wish others to do to you.
The Catholic denomination has always been strongly opposed to capital punishment based on religious reasons. Some other denominations have generally been pro-capital punishment and this is perhaps in line with the recent comments made by a group of pastors.
The pastors — among them former crime commission chairman Bishop Simeon Hall — expressed outrage at the recent Maxo Tido ruling.
They said in a statement, “This ruling of the Law Lords is more than a ruling. It is a message to all would be murderers, and the message is: ‘As long as you can benchmark your murder to the level of brutality of murders like that of Donnell Conover’s, you can fully expect to be spared the death penalty’.”
After the Maxo Tido ruling, Hall said it is time for The Bahamas to abandon the Privy Council.
“The ruling by the Privy Council raises serious questions as to what is happening,” Hall said.
“I understand to some degree the Privy Council has the last word, but certainly my big problem I’m wrestling with is what is the justice system saying to families of victims of murder, and then to persons who do the murder?
“It seems that the whole system now is lending its way to criminality. For the Law Lords to conclude that this was a bad murder but it’s not counted as the worst of the worst, I think it’s time for us to cry shame on the justice system.”
Even among church leaders, there exists a divergence of views on this question of capital punishment.
There is no doubt that the death penalty issue is an emotive one.
Some observers argue that the balanced approach, however, requires not just an appreciation and sympathy toward the families of the victims of murder, but there ought also to be a willingness to understand and to sympathize with the anguish that will be felt by the murderers’ families.
Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham recently announced that he intends to table before Parliament a bill to address the issue of the death penalty.
That bill will set the criteria of murders that require the death penalty and those that may require life sentences or lesser sentences.
This bill is also likely to address the factors that the court must take into account when it exercises its discretion when sentencing a convicted murderer.
The need for clarity in the law emanated from the 2006 Forrester and Bowe ruling handed down by the Privy Council outlawing the mandatory death sentence.
Retired Supreme Court Justice Jeanne Thompson noted in a recent letter to the editor that this was a clear signal to the legislature that it was necessary to put in place guidelines for judges to use in sentencing convicted murderers.
Indeed, Dame Joan, then president of the Court of Appeal about four years ago, called upon the government to put in place the necessary guidelines, Justice Thompson noted.
“However, nothing was done and judges were obliged to use their discretion with the aid of attorneys, social workers and psychiatrists to decide upon appropriate sentences,” she wrote.
“This created a lacuna in our law and has allowed the Privy Council to use its own principles in adjudging what is an appropriate punishment for persons convicted of murder in The Bahamas.
“Ideally we should have followed the example of the United Kingdom, which, prior to the complete abolition of the death penalty, divided murder into capital and non-capital.”
In the recent Tido ruling, the Privy Council repeated the kinds of murders that warrant the death penalty.
The Law Lords said the worst cases of murder that may call for the imposition of capital punishment would be those in which the murder is carefully planned and carried out in furtherance of another crime, such as robbery, rape, drug smuggling, human smuggling, drug wars, gang enforcement policies, kidnapping, preventing witnesses from testifying, serial killers, as well as the killing of innocents “for the gratification of base desires”.
“The legislation which will be tabled in Parliament is a step in the right direction, but it is very, very late,” said Damian Gomez, a prominent defense attorney, who also pointed to Dame Joan’s call for legislation to be passed to bring some certainty in the area of sentencing.
“Her calls for statutory clarification fell on deaf ears for quite a while, and we’re paying the price for it.”
Clearly, there has been some time that has lagged between the 2006 decision and the formulation of clear guidelines to assist the court in its determination on this issue.
One has to wait to see the contents of the bill to fully assess its suitability and whether in fact it will answer this question of the death penalty once and for all.
One jurist told us that it is likely that the bill if passed by Parliament may lead to constitutional challenges which may further delay but will hopefully make certain the law in The Bahamas on the issue of the death penalty.
Other details of the bill are uncertain at this time.
What is clear though is the question of the Privy Council as the final court of appeal for The Bahamas remains a controversial one — not unlike the question of the death penalty itself.
Jul 04, 2011
thenassauguardian
Decades old debate resurfaces with controversial ruling
BY CANDIA DAMES
Guardian News Editor
thenassauguardian
candia@nasguard.com
Nassau, Bahamas
In recent times, some Bahamians have been intensely engaged in a debate over the June 15 Privy Council ruling in the matter of the Maxo Tido murder case.
The Privy Council held that the circumstances that led to the death of 16-year-old Donnell Conover were not gruesome enough to mandate the death sentence on the convicted murderer.
Conover’s skull was crushed and her body was burnt.
Many people have denounced the reasoning of the court and have expressed open disappointment in the decision.
This has led to a renewed call in some circles for The Bahamas to sever its links with the Privy Council as our final court of appeal.
Since our independence in 1973, the Privy Council has maintained this position as the head of the Bahamian judicial system.
Article 105 (1) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas states: “Parliament may provide for an appeal to lie from decisions of the Court of Appeal established by Part 2 of this Chapter to the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty’s Privy Council or to such other court as may be prescribed by Parliament under this Article, either as of right or with the leave of the said Court of Appeal, in such cases other than those referred to in Article 104 (2) of this Constitution as may be prescribed by Parliament.”
As noted on its website, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council originated as the highest court of civil and criminal appeal for the British Empire.
It now fulfills the same purpose for many current and former Commonwealth countries, as well as the United Kingdom’s overseas territories, crown dependencies, and military sovereign base areas.
The judicial experience of the foreign Law Lords has been garnered from their experiences at the bar and on the courts in the United Kingdom.
In recent years, members of the Privy Council have traveled to The Bahamas on the invitation of the former President of the Court of Appeal retired Madam Justice Dame Joan Sawyer and have sat in The Bahamas and have heard and determined cases.
During their 2009 visit, then Attorney General and now Chief Justice Sir Michael Barnett noted that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council affects “the lives of Bahamians, the region and people in the wider common-law world.”
The Law Lords’ visits have perhaps been the executive’s and the judiciary’s way of familiarizing the Privy Council with some of the customs and norms that we enjoy in The Bahamas.
The compelling question in light of the Maxo Tido decision is whether the Privy Council remains relevant to the evolving customs and norms of Bahamian society.
Through its various decisions, the Privy Council continues to write policy for The Bahamas and other such jurisdictions that send it appeals.
The most contentious have related to the death penalty.
In some quarters in The Bahamas, there is a widely held view that convicted murderers ought to be subject to the death penalty — as stated by the law.
Even with opponents continuing to point out that there is no evidence to show that capital punishment serves as a deterrent to crime, the call for the resumption of hangings more than 11 years after the last one was carried out continues to resound.
However, there are some Bahamians who remain opposed to any form of capital punishment.
No government, in light of the years of debate since the landmark Pratt and Morgan decision in 1993, has thought it appropriate to have a referendum on this vexing question of the death penalty.
In that judgment, the Privy Council ruled that it would be cruel and inhumane to execute someone who has been under the sentence of death for more than five years.
Given the lack of any timelines, the appeals process in many instances since that ruling has dragged well beyond the five-year mark, and many murder convicts have escaped execution.
There is also a push in some legal circles for The Bahamas to withdraw from the Inter American Commission on Human Rights, another avenue for appeal for murder convicts.
In 2006, the Privy Council imposed an even stricter standard for the imposition of the death penalty when it ruled that the mandatory death sentence was unconstitutional.
All the men who at the time were under the sentence of death had to be resentenced, and according to the Office of the Attorney General, a few still await resentencing.
A referendum is perhaps the only way that any government could know with a degree of certainty the views and opinions of the Bahamian people on the issue of the death penalty.
It is generally accepted that the talk shows and the public commentary emanating from certain quarters may not give the impression of a broad based support or opposition to the death penalty.
Continuing support for Privy Council
There are some lawyers, including the recently re-elected President of the Bar Association Ruth Bowe-Darville, who have expressed continuing support for the Privy Council as our final court of appeal.
Bowe-Darville’s recent comments came in the context of discussing civil and commercial matters arising from the use of our country as an international commercial center.
The point that she was advocating is that the Privy Council is still relevant for the certainty of these disputes and to confirm the country’s reputation as a stable judicial center for the determination of major commercial cases.
There are perhaps few lawyers who would disagree with this proposition.
Veteran attorney Maurice Glinton said, “We need the Privy Council.”
“The Privy Council represents competence,” he said.
“It also represents a standard of performance that we are not accustomed to in this jurisdiction...The concern for all of us who believe in the rule of law is that we always have judges who are competent. That minimizes the opportunity for error. No person should die because of judicial oversight.
“And to the extent that we have a further court to hear us, so that they can see finally with more objective eyes, then that speaks to our humanity, that speaks to our civility.”
However, it does not appear that the distinction between commercial matters and criminal matters generates a similar liking to continue with the Privy Council.
Some proponents who wish to sever our links to the Privy Council appear to be in favor of The Bahamas joining the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) as our final court of appeal.
The CCJ, inaugurated in 2005, sits in Port of Spain, Trinidad & Tobago.
As noted by the regional appellate court, there is still some lingering opposition to the CCJ. Surveys in some CARICOM member states, however, have showed as many as 80 percent of the persons surveyed supported the court, the CCJ says on its website.
In some jurisdictions, while there is little opposition to the court in its original jurisdiction, there is more opposition to it in its appellate jurisdiction.
In 2005, then Minister of Foreign Affairs Fred Mitchell announced that The Bahamas will not join the CCJ. And the current administration has also shown no interest in that court.
The Bahamian Constitution allows us to amend the necessary article to sever our ties with the Privy Council.
It is to be noted that in the ill-fated 2002 attempt to amend the constitution that this was not a provision that the Free National Movement government sought to put before the Bahamian people for approval.
At the very crux of this discussion are two questions: whether The Bahamas can have a dual final court of appeal (that is the Privy Council for civil and commercial matters) and the CCJ for criminal matters.
Secondly, whether it is within our national interest, long term and short term, to sever ties with the Privy Council in circumstances where we appear to be opposed to that court’s standing on the issue of capital punishment.
As an aside, the Privy Council does not appear to be that enthused about the demands placed on it by Commonwealth countries.
In 2009, Lord Phillips, the senior Law Lord of the Judicial Committee, expressed the view that the Privy Council was feeling burdened by appeals emanating from jurisdictions like The Bahamas.
In an interview reported in the Financial Times, he was quoted as saying that he was searching for ways to curb the “disproportionate” time he and his fellow senior justices spent hearing legal appeals from independent Commonwealth countries to the Privy Council in London.
Lord Phillips also suggested that “in an ideal world”, Commonwealth countries would stop using the Privy Council and set up their own final courts of appeal.
Clarifying death penalty cases
The European Court of Human Rights has taken a position on the death penalty, which it appears is a universal approach and therefore the further question that has to be asked is whether The Bahamas wishes to be out of step with a universally recognized principle of the sanctity of life.
The question of the sanctity of life is one which is embodied in a religious concept which stems from the Golden Rule — that you ought to do unto others as you wish others to do to you.
The Catholic denomination has always been strongly opposed to capital punishment based on religious reasons. Some other denominations have generally been pro-capital punishment and this is perhaps in line with the recent comments made by a group of pastors.
The pastors — among them former crime commission chairman Bishop Simeon Hall — expressed outrage at the recent Maxo Tido ruling.
They said in a statement, “This ruling of the Law Lords is more than a ruling. It is a message to all would be murderers, and the message is: ‘As long as you can benchmark your murder to the level of brutality of murders like that of Donnell Conover’s, you can fully expect to be spared the death penalty’.”
After the Maxo Tido ruling, Hall said it is time for The Bahamas to abandon the Privy Council.
“The ruling by the Privy Council raises serious questions as to what is happening,” Hall said.
“I understand to some degree the Privy Council has the last word, but certainly my big problem I’m wrestling with is what is the justice system saying to families of victims of murder, and then to persons who do the murder?
“It seems that the whole system now is lending its way to criminality. For the Law Lords to conclude that this was a bad murder but it’s not counted as the worst of the worst, I think it’s time for us to cry shame on the justice system.”
Even among church leaders, there exists a divergence of views on this question of capital punishment.
There is no doubt that the death penalty issue is an emotive one.
Some observers argue that the balanced approach, however, requires not just an appreciation and sympathy toward the families of the victims of murder, but there ought also to be a willingness to understand and to sympathize with the anguish that will be felt by the murderers’ families.
Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham recently announced that he intends to table before Parliament a bill to address the issue of the death penalty.
That bill will set the criteria of murders that require the death penalty and those that may require life sentences or lesser sentences.
This bill is also likely to address the factors that the court must take into account when it exercises its discretion when sentencing a convicted murderer.
The need for clarity in the law emanated from the 2006 Forrester and Bowe ruling handed down by the Privy Council outlawing the mandatory death sentence.
Retired Supreme Court Justice Jeanne Thompson noted in a recent letter to the editor that this was a clear signal to the legislature that it was necessary to put in place guidelines for judges to use in sentencing convicted murderers.
Indeed, Dame Joan, then president of the Court of Appeal about four years ago, called upon the government to put in place the necessary guidelines, Justice Thompson noted.
“However, nothing was done and judges were obliged to use their discretion with the aid of attorneys, social workers and psychiatrists to decide upon appropriate sentences,” she wrote.
“This created a lacuna in our law and has allowed the Privy Council to use its own principles in adjudging what is an appropriate punishment for persons convicted of murder in The Bahamas.
“Ideally we should have followed the example of the United Kingdom, which, prior to the complete abolition of the death penalty, divided murder into capital and non-capital.”
In the recent Tido ruling, the Privy Council repeated the kinds of murders that warrant the death penalty.
The Law Lords said the worst cases of murder that may call for the imposition of capital punishment would be those in which the murder is carefully planned and carried out in furtherance of another crime, such as robbery, rape, drug smuggling, human smuggling, drug wars, gang enforcement policies, kidnapping, preventing witnesses from testifying, serial killers, as well as the killing of innocents “for the gratification of base desires”.
“The legislation which will be tabled in Parliament is a step in the right direction, but it is very, very late,” said Damian Gomez, a prominent defense attorney, who also pointed to Dame Joan’s call for legislation to be passed to bring some certainty in the area of sentencing.
“Her calls for statutory clarification fell on deaf ears for quite a while, and we’re paying the price for it.”
Clearly, there has been some time that has lagged between the 2006 decision and the formulation of clear guidelines to assist the court in its determination on this issue.
One has to wait to see the contents of the bill to fully assess its suitability and whether in fact it will answer this question of the death penalty once and for all.
One jurist told us that it is likely that the bill if passed by Parliament may lead to constitutional challenges which may further delay but will hopefully make certain the law in The Bahamas on the issue of the death penalty.
Other details of the bill are uncertain at this time.
What is clear though is the question of the Privy Council as the final court of appeal for The Bahamas remains a controversial one — not unlike the question of the death penalty itself.
Jul 04, 2011
thenassauguardian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)