Shameful - The Caribbean and whaling
caribbeannewsnow editorial
It was a shameful sight -- three Caribbean countries walking in obedience behind Japan, discarding even the appearance of independence.
Joji Morishitain, the Japanese representative to a meeting last week in Jersey of the International Whaling Commission (IWC), announced he was walking out of the meeting, and the delegates of the three Caribbean countries – St Kitts-Nevis, Grenada and St Lucia – dutifully joined him.
What was the walk out about? Latin American nations, led by Brazil and Argentina, had proposed the creation of a sanctuary for whales in the South Atlantic. Currently there are two such whale havens, one in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica and the other in the Indian Ocean. When it was obvious that a majority of countries supported the Latin American proposal, the Japanese staged the walk out so as undermine a consensus decision.
There was no legitimate reason for the Caribbean countries to join Japan. Not one of them is a whale-hunting nation. Nor do any of them derive any economic or dietary benefit from whale-killing. Further, by joining Japan, the Caribbean countries ruptured their relations with their Latin American neighbours, with whom they are associated in the Latin American and Caribbean Group in the United Nations system.
In the creation of the South Atlantic sanctuary, the Latin American countries would have viewed Caribbean countries as their natural allies, particularly as they place considerable importance in its establishment. Undoubtedly, there will be a price to pay for this sabotage by Caribbean countries of Latin American interests, however stonily silent the Latin Americans have been so far.
Brazil and Argentina – two of the biggest nations in Latin America and the Caribbean – may have forgiven the Caribbean countries for not supporting them if there was a direct Caribbean interest in rejecting the whale sanctuary proposal. But, there is no direct Caribbean interest in saying “no” to the sanctuary. Many Caribbean countries, including the Bahamas, the Dominican Republic, St Vincent and the Grenadines, St Lucia, Dominica, Guadeloupe and Martinique operate healthy whale-watching businesses that have helped to diversify their tourism product, earn millions of dollars in foreign exchange and provide employment. A whale sanctuary is in their interest.
The blind walk-out by the three Caribbean countries, holding on to a Japanese kimono, reconfirmed an expose by the British Sunday Times newspaper last year that revealed Japan paying the accommodation and “expenses” of several delegates of Caribbean countries to the 2010 IWC meeting in Morocco.
Last week, a feisty Antiguan government minister employed evangelical zeal in opposing a resolution from European Union countries to stop some delegations (those that vote with Japan) from paying cash for their countries’ subscription to the IWC. The resolution was adopted despite the machinations of the Antigua minister, who played a supporting role to the representative of St Kitts-Nevis.
From now on, the IWC will only accept bank transfers directly from government accounts. This may well have the effect of stopping a few of these countries from attending the IWC meetings, unless Japan pays the money to the governments directly, proving what has been alleged all along.
Had the Antigua minister been present at the IWC meeting on the day the Japanese-led walk out was staged, undoubtedly there would have been a fourth Caribbean country in the procession.
The Caribbean delegates have returned to the Caribbean and given no account of why they opposed – albeit unsuccessfully – a resolution for transparency and accountability in paying the subscriptions of governments, and why they voted against their Latin American neighbours that wanted a South Atlantic whale sanctuary.
In the past, the Caribbean representatives to the IWC meetings have slavishly followed the Japanese line that whales devour fish stocks once they get to Caribbean waters, depriving Caribbean people of food. This claim has long been debunked as a falsehood, even though, as recently as last month, ministers from Antigua and St Lucia were repeating it parrot-fashion after a Japanese-organised meeting in St Lucia to prepare the participating Caribbean countries for last week’s IWC meeting in Jersey.
It is noteworthy that the government of Dominica, which was once part of the Japanese-kimono group, has held fast to a decision of its prime minister, Roosevelt Skerrit, to divorce his country from voting with Japan. Dominica sent no delegation to the IWC, maintaining its position that as the “nature isle of the Caribbean” it has a responsibility to its own reputation to sustain the marine life of its environment. The Skerrit government has won the respect and support of environmental and conservation organizations world-wide, whereas the other IWC-Caribbean countries are earning the odium of environmentalist organizations and the distrust of major governments, including those in Latin America.
The problem is that the world views the Caribbean as one area, and the actions of these four Caribbean countries, with a yen for Japan’s “kill-whale” position, are sullying the standing of other Caribbean countries that conduct their international business in their own interests.
We urge the governments of the majority of Caribbean nations to call the governments of these four countries to book on this issue in the interest of the region’s standing.
July 20, 2011
caribbeannewsnow editorial
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.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Serious problems developing in Belize
By Wellington C. Ramos
Seine Bight village is located in Stann Creek District, which is one of the southern districts where the Garifuna people have resided since they first landed in Belize. This village was founded by a group of Garifuna people, who migrated from the country of Honduras in the mid-1800s because of their involvement in the Revolutionary War for Honduras independence, when many of them were slaughtered.
The village was named after the net that the Garifuna people make to catch fish and the geographical location where it exists.
The Garifuna people are people that are mixed with African and Carib Indian from the island of Saint Vincent, who fought against the Spanish, French and British that were trying to take away their territory from them. On March 11, 1797, the British succeeded in conquering the Garifuna people and they were assembled and imprisoned on the island of Baliceaux before being deported to Roatán, Honduras, where they arrived on April 12, 1797.
South of Seine Bight village is Placencia village, a peninsula that is populated by people who are mostly of European ancestry. This village was founded by a group of British Puritans, who migrated from Nova Scotia in Canada to Belize in the 1600s when the British took Belize from Spain and started to bring their citizens to occupy the territory. This settlement died out during the Central American war for independence in the 1820s.
The Spaniards that travelled the southern coast of Belize gave Placencia its name. During that time Placencia was called Placentia, with the point being called Punta Placentia or Pleasant Point. The people of Placencia survived mainly by fishing up to the 19th century but since the 20th century, this village has been attracting a large number of tourists to its shores because of the beautiful beaches and the cayes that are adjacent to it.
Commercial activity has also stepped up and the population is growing fast with white foreigners. The demand for land is becoming a problem for Placencia residents because most of the land is in the area where Seine Bight is, which is closer to the Southern Highway.
These are two villages with different cultures and they want to live independently of each other but the Garifuna people are beginning to suspect that, since the people of Placencia are better off economically than they are, the Belize government will decide to side with the people from Placencia.
Historically, the people from Placencia have always supported the United Democratic Party, while the people from Seine Bight favoured the People’s United Party. The younger generation of Seinebightians is not loyal to the People’s United Party like their ancestors so the United Democratic Party should move cautiously with their expansion plan.
The People’s United Party has governed Belize more than the United Democratic Party and may have favoured Seine Bight over Placencia to get political support.
In 1962, shortly after hurricane Hattie, Prime Minister George Price had asked the Garifuna people to leave Dangriga Town, Seine Beight and Hopkins villages to live elsewhere. The two villages that were created for the Garifuna people were Georgetown, which was named after him, and Silk Grass. Some Garifuna families moved from Seine Bight to Georgetown but none from Dangriga Town or Hopkins.
Garifuna people felt that George Price was planning to move them to sell the land to rich investors and this would have had a severe impact on their culture because they are attached to the sea. Also, Silk Grass at the time was infested with sandflies, so that when we were children growing up in Dangriga Town we would refer to it as Sandfly village.
Recently, it was brought to my attention by a Belizean American woman serving in the American Armed Services, that she purchased a property in the village of Seine Bight. To her surprise, when she received her title to this property, the document had on the conveyance Northern Placencia. How can there be a Northern Placencia in the village of Seine Bight? I can more understand that in the description of the property the location could read north of Placencia which is completely different from what the document contains.
I was told that there is a proposal to change the name of Seine Bight to a new name. If the government of Belize or a group of people are planning to change the name of Seine Bight to another name, I would strongly advise them to bring that proposal to the Garifuna people from Seine Bight to decide. Such a proposal should be agreed upon at a town hall meeting and a referendum by the people of Seine Bight and then passage through the Belize House of Representatives and the Senate.
Any attempt by the government of Belize or any group to try and change the name of Seine Bight without going through this process will lead to retaliation from the Garifuna community in Belize and worldwide. I am not convinced that this government under Prime Minister Barrow will engage itself in such a foolish political exercise.
I am now calling on the Garifuna people from Seine Bight to take this issue seriously and start to ask some questions. Also, to request from the government that the boundaries of Seine Bight and Placencia villages be clearly defined. If the government of Belize is planning to exercise its right to eminent domain on the citizens of these two villages, that it be exercised fairly through consultations with the residents of both villages.
Seine Bight residents might be forced to sell their lands due to their economic conditions but they better make sure that they obtain the real value for their properties.
While Placencia is attracting tourists and Seine Bight has the Garifuna culture to display, both villages can benefit from this relationship. The Garifuna people in Seine Bight must now organize themselves to sell their culture while their neighbours in Placencia sell their beaches and cayes.
With the airport coming in that area soon, the value of the properties will likely increase, so it would not be wise to rush and sell your properties now.
July 18, 2011
caribbeannewsnow
Seine Bight village is located in Stann Creek District, which is one of the southern districts where the Garifuna people have resided since they first landed in Belize. This village was founded by a group of Garifuna people, who migrated from the country of Honduras in the mid-1800s because of their involvement in the Revolutionary War for Honduras independence, when many of them were slaughtered.
The village was named after the net that the Garifuna people make to catch fish and the geographical location where it exists. The Garifuna people are people that are mixed with African and Carib Indian from the island of Saint Vincent, who fought against the Spanish, French and British that were trying to take away their territory from them. On March 11, 1797, the British succeeded in conquering the Garifuna people and they were assembled and imprisoned on the island of Baliceaux before being deported to Roatán, Honduras, where they arrived on April 12, 1797.
South of Seine Bight village is Placencia village, a peninsula that is populated by people who are mostly of European ancestry. This village was founded by a group of British Puritans, who migrated from Nova Scotia in Canada to Belize in the 1600s when the British took Belize from Spain and started to bring their citizens to occupy the territory. This settlement died out during the Central American war for independence in the 1820s.
The Spaniards that travelled the southern coast of Belize gave Placencia its name. During that time Placencia was called Placentia, with the point being called Punta Placentia or Pleasant Point. The people of Placencia survived mainly by fishing up to the 19th century but since the 20th century, this village has been attracting a large number of tourists to its shores because of the beautiful beaches and the cayes that are adjacent to it.
Commercial activity has also stepped up and the population is growing fast with white foreigners. The demand for land is becoming a problem for Placencia residents because most of the land is in the area where Seine Bight is, which is closer to the Southern Highway.
These are two villages with different cultures and they want to live independently of each other but the Garifuna people are beginning to suspect that, since the people of Placencia are better off economically than they are, the Belize government will decide to side with the people from Placencia.
Historically, the people from Placencia have always supported the United Democratic Party, while the people from Seine Bight favoured the People’s United Party. The younger generation of Seinebightians is not loyal to the People’s United Party like their ancestors so the United Democratic Party should move cautiously with their expansion plan.
The People’s United Party has governed Belize more than the United Democratic Party and may have favoured Seine Bight over Placencia to get political support.
In 1962, shortly after hurricane Hattie, Prime Minister George Price had asked the Garifuna people to leave Dangriga Town, Seine Beight and Hopkins villages to live elsewhere. The two villages that were created for the Garifuna people were Georgetown, which was named after him, and Silk Grass. Some Garifuna families moved from Seine Bight to Georgetown but none from Dangriga Town or Hopkins.
Garifuna people felt that George Price was planning to move them to sell the land to rich investors and this would have had a severe impact on their culture because they are attached to the sea. Also, Silk Grass at the time was infested with sandflies, so that when we were children growing up in Dangriga Town we would refer to it as Sandfly village.
Recently, it was brought to my attention by a Belizean American woman serving in the American Armed Services, that she purchased a property in the village of Seine Bight. To her surprise, when she received her title to this property, the document had on the conveyance Northern Placencia. How can there be a Northern Placencia in the village of Seine Bight? I can more understand that in the description of the property the location could read north of Placencia which is completely different from what the document contains.
I was told that there is a proposal to change the name of Seine Bight to a new name. If the government of Belize or a group of people are planning to change the name of Seine Bight to another name, I would strongly advise them to bring that proposal to the Garifuna people from Seine Bight to decide. Such a proposal should be agreed upon at a town hall meeting and a referendum by the people of Seine Bight and then passage through the Belize House of Representatives and the Senate.
Any attempt by the government of Belize or any group to try and change the name of Seine Bight without going through this process will lead to retaliation from the Garifuna community in Belize and worldwide. I am not convinced that this government under Prime Minister Barrow will engage itself in such a foolish political exercise.
I am now calling on the Garifuna people from Seine Bight to take this issue seriously and start to ask some questions. Also, to request from the government that the boundaries of Seine Bight and Placencia villages be clearly defined. If the government of Belize is planning to exercise its right to eminent domain on the citizens of these two villages, that it be exercised fairly through consultations with the residents of both villages.
Seine Bight residents might be forced to sell their lands due to their economic conditions but they better make sure that they obtain the real value for their properties.
While Placencia is attracting tourists and Seine Bight has the Garifuna culture to display, both villages can benefit from this relationship. The Garifuna people in Seine Bight must now organize themselves to sell their culture while their neighbours in Placencia sell their beaches and cayes.
With the airport coming in that area soon, the value of the properties will likely increase, so it would not be wise to rush and sell your properties now.
July 18, 2011
caribbeannewsnow
Monday, July 18, 2011
Jamaica's Supreme Court ruled that certain amendments to Jamaica's Bail Act were unconstitutional... as The Bahamas attempts to craft amendments to its Bail and Criminal Justice Acts to keep serious offenders off the streets, and meet Privy Council standards to justify capital punishment in murder cases
Jamaica Supreme Court against mandatory bail
tribune242 editorial
Nassau, Bahamas
AS THE Bahamas attempts to craft amendments to the Bail and Criminal Justice Acts to keep serious offenders off the streets, and meet Privy Council standards to justify capital punishment in murder cases, Jamaica's Supreme Court ruled Friday that certain amendments to Jamaica's Bail Act were unconstitutional.
Like the Bahamas, serious crime has bedeviled Jamaica for many years, and, again like the Bahamas, Jamaica has attempted to stiffen its laws to protect its citizens.
In July last year, under the amendments, persons charged with serious offences in Jamaica could be denied bail up to 60 days.
However, two Jamaican lawyers, whose clients, charged with murder, were affected by the provision, challenged the amendment's removal of the citizen's right to bail. Of course, in all of these arguments, legal luminaries fail to factor in the law-abiding citizen's right to security and the government's duty to provide that security.
The two Jamaican lawyers also objected to the amendment's interference with the role of the judge to decide who should or should not get bail. It is true that judges should have the right to use their discretion in each case as to how each accused is treated. However, how does a community protect itself against a liberal judiciary that does not seem to appreciate the difficulties of the society in which it exists?
We have only to scan Nassau's murders of the past few weeks to appreciate what it would have meant if we had had a mandatory time in which murder accused, for example, could be held without bail. Several accused who are now dead would still be alive today to face trial. But no, a judge exercised his discretion, a lawyer won his client's case for bail, a gun was fired, and a funeral followed.
The cynic would say that the courts have been saved much time, and their criminal calendar reduced by the criminals taking the law into their own hands, by-passing trial and carrying out executions on the sidewalks. Vigilante justice will send our crime figures through the roof, threaten the country's reputation as a safe tourist resort, and our communities as safe places in which to live. We now have a choice -- mandatory bail for a reasonable period of time so that an accused person can get a fair trial, or let cases slide through the courts as they now do with the criminal deciding the verdict and becoming the executioner. Maybe these lawyers, who are trying to score brownie points with the number of clients they can get out on bail, should stop and think of the safety of their clients, even if they apparently give no thought to the safety of the community.
According to the report in Jamaica's Gleaner "the 60-day period in custody was subject to the right of the person being held to be brought before the court after seven days, and thereafter at 14-day intervals, at which time the court reviews the question of whether the person should continue to be held in custody or bail be considered. The prosecution also had the right to appeal against the granting of bail."
It seemed a reasonable proposal, especially in view of the danger zone in which the average Jamaican was being forced to live because of that country's level of crime. However, Jamaica's Supreme Court in a unanimous vote struck it out as unconstitutional.
The Independent Jamaica Council for Human Rights praised the Supreme Court ruling saying that some human rights are protected by the constitution.
Some years ago Jamaicans were vocal about the Caribbean having its own court to replace the Privy Council, presumably on the very issue of being able to impose capital punishment in murder cases. Now that the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) is a reality -- established on February 14, 2001, coming into force in 2003-- the only countries so far to sign on have been Barbados, Belize and Guyana -- the rest, including Jamaica, are still with the judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
In fact the very issue that brought the Caribbean Court into existence -- the refusal of the Privy Council to allow capital punishment for persons convicted of murder who had spent more than five years in prison -- was in the end what kept Jamaica out.
The Jamaica Labour Party resisted the full powers of the CCJ on the grounds that it was a hanging court.
It's now up to the Bahamas government to bring in amendments that will help this community to curb crime and keep a serious offender behind bars until his case can be heard -- within a reasonable time -- before the courts.
July 18, 2011
tribune242 editorial
tribune242 editorial
Nassau, Bahamas
AS THE Bahamas attempts to craft amendments to the Bail and Criminal Justice Acts to keep serious offenders off the streets, and meet Privy Council standards to justify capital punishment in murder cases, Jamaica's Supreme Court ruled Friday that certain amendments to Jamaica's Bail Act were unconstitutional.
Like the Bahamas, serious crime has bedeviled Jamaica for many years, and, again like the Bahamas, Jamaica has attempted to stiffen its laws to protect its citizens.
In July last year, under the amendments, persons charged with serious offences in Jamaica could be denied bail up to 60 days.
However, two Jamaican lawyers, whose clients, charged with murder, were affected by the provision, challenged the amendment's removal of the citizen's right to bail. Of course, in all of these arguments, legal luminaries fail to factor in the law-abiding citizen's right to security and the government's duty to provide that security.
The two Jamaican lawyers also objected to the amendment's interference with the role of the judge to decide who should or should not get bail. It is true that judges should have the right to use their discretion in each case as to how each accused is treated. However, how does a community protect itself against a liberal judiciary that does not seem to appreciate the difficulties of the society in which it exists?
We have only to scan Nassau's murders of the past few weeks to appreciate what it would have meant if we had had a mandatory time in which murder accused, for example, could be held without bail. Several accused who are now dead would still be alive today to face trial. But no, a judge exercised his discretion, a lawyer won his client's case for bail, a gun was fired, and a funeral followed.
The cynic would say that the courts have been saved much time, and their criminal calendar reduced by the criminals taking the law into their own hands, by-passing trial and carrying out executions on the sidewalks. Vigilante justice will send our crime figures through the roof, threaten the country's reputation as a safe tourist resort, and our communities as safe places in which to live. We now have a choice -- mandatory bail for a reasonable period of time so that an accused person can get a fair trial, or let cases slide through the courts as they now do with the criminal deciding the verdict and becoming the executioner. Maybe these lawyers, who are trying to score brownie points with the number of clients they can get out on bail, should stop and think of the safety of their clients, even if they apparently give no thought to the safety of the community.
According to the report in Jamaica's Gleaner "the 60-day period in custody was subject to the right of the person being held to be brought before the court after seven days, and thereafter at 14-day intervals, at which time the court reviews the question of whether the person should continue to be held in custody or bail be considered. The prosecution also had the right to appeal against the granting of bail."
It seemed a reasonable proposal, especially in view of the danger zone in which the average Jamaican was being forced to live because of that country's level of crime. However, Jamaica's Supreme Court in a unanimous vote struck it out as unconstitutional.
The Independent Jamaica Council for Human Rights praised the Supreme Court ruling saying that some human rights are protected by the constitution.
Some years ago Jamaicans were vocal about the Caribbean having its own court to replace the Privy Council, presumably on the very issue of being able to impose capital punishment in murder cases. Now that the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) is a reality -- established on February 14, 2001, coming into force in 2003-- the only countries so far to sign on have been Barbados, Belize and Guyana -- the rest, including Jamaica, are still with the judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
In fact the very issue that brought the Caribbean Court into existence -- the refusal of the Privy Council to allow capital punishment for persons convicted of murder who had spent more than five years in prison -- was in the end what kept Jamaica out.
The Jamaica Labour Party resisted the full powers of the CCJ on the grounds that it was a hanging court.
It's now up to the Bahamas government to bring in amendments that will help this community to curb crime and keep a serious offender behind bars until his case can be heard -- within a reasonable time -- before the courts.
July 18, 2011
tribune242 editorial
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Prime Minister Hon. Dr. Denzil L. Douglas says: ...anyone in St. Kitts and Nevis or anywhere in the Caribbean, who possesses an illegal firearm, is distributing illegal firearms, or is selling illegal firearms, poses a serious threat to the stability of the region
Illegal weapons, a serious threat to stability of the Caribbean says PM Douglas
South Florida Caribbean News
BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – St. Kitts and Nevis Prime Minister Hon. Dr. Denzil L. Douglas says anyone in St. Kitts and Nevis or anywhere in the Caribbean, who possesses an illegal firearm, is distributing illegal firearms, or is selling illegal firearms, poses a serious threat to the stability of the region.
“And they pose a serious threat to the stability of his or her country,” says Dr. Douglas during his weekly radio programme on Tuesday.
Dr. Douglas said that as Chairman of the Caribbean Heads of Government over the next six months the trafficking of small arms in the region will be a matter for discussion and noted that the use of guns in the settlement of scores in recent years is alarming.
“This never, ever used to be the Caribbean way. But now, gang tensions, drug-related conflicts, and other forms of hostility are leading to this ugly and unacceptable conclusion. And so, CARICOM is taking this on frontally by pushing forward to break the illicit trade in small arms and weapons throughout the region,” said the Prime Minister.
He said this will not be either simple or easy.
“But we are resolute. And we are empowering both national and regional security forces with enhanced border patrol, forensic, and intelligence gathering tools to confront the organized crime elements that spread these deadly weapons,” Dr. Douglas said.
He said Caribbean Governments are also moving to bring the laws of the countries into synch with each other, so as to prevent criminal elements from being able to transfer illegal weapons from one Caricom country to another.
Dr. Douglas said anyone who has information about any such possession, distribution, or sale of firearms has an obligation to let the authorities know – whether anonymously or not.
“Whenever there is a shooting, and whenever there is a killing, if the gun was not licensed, that is clear evidence that some person or persons within the Federation colluded to bring that instrument of death into the country, and into the region, without the knowledge of the authorities,” said Dr. Douglas.
“These acts, along with the acts of those who grow drugs, or who import drugs into the region, undermine and undercut the positive efforts of the overwhelming majority of law-abiding Caribbean nationals who try so hard, day after day, and year after year, to stay on the straight and narrow. None of us in the Caribbean can afford to look the other way when someone we know is involved in these activities. As sure as the day is long, precisely those illegal weapons or those illegal narcotics that are not reported to the authorities will, in all likelihood, one day claim either the person who looked the other way, or someone that person holds dear,” said the Prime Minister.
He expressed CARICOM’s determination to confront the spread of illegal firearms throughout the region was a major focus of CARICOM s recently concluded meeting.
He said not only does every Caribbean national need to know this, but they need to ensure that if ever and whenever they have information pertaining to the presence of illegal drugs and illegal weapons they have a pressing and urgent obligation to ensure that, one way or the other – and providing it anonymously is fine - information gets to the relevant authorities.
sflcn
South Florida Caribbean News
BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – St. Kitts and Nevis Prime Minister Hon. Dr. Denzil L. Douglas says anyone in St. Kitts and Nevis or anywhere in the Caribbean, who possesses an illegal firearm, is distributing illegal firearms, or is selling illegal firearms, poses a serious threat to the stability of the region.
“And they pose a serious threat to the stability of his or her country,” says Dr. Douglas during his weekly radio programme on Tuesday.
Dr. Douglas said that as Chairman of the Caribbean Heads of Government over the next six months the trafficking of small arms in the region will be a matter for discussion and noted that the use of guns in the settlement of scores in recent years is alarming.
“This never, ever used to be the Caribbean way. But now, gang tensions, drug-related conflicts, and other forms of hostility are leading to this ugly and unacceptable conclusion. And so, CARICOM is taking this on frontally by pushing forward to break the illicit trade in small arms and weapons throughout the region,” said the Prime Minister.
He said this will not be either simple or easy.
“But we are resolute. And we are empowering both national and regional security forces with enhanced border patrol, forensic, and intelligence gathering tools to confront the organized crime elements that spread these deadly weapons,” Dr. Douglas said.
He said Caribbean Governments are also moving to bring the laws of the countries into synch with each other, so as to prevent criminal elements from being able to transfer illegal weapons from one Caricom country to another.
Dr. Douglas said anyone who has information about any such possession, distribution, or sale of firearms has an obligation to let the authorities know – whether anonymously or not.
“Whenever there is a shooting, and whenever there is a killing, if the gun was not licensed, that is clear evidence that some person or persons within the Federation colluded to bring that instrument of death into the country, and into the region, without the knowledge of the authorities,” said Dr. Douglas.
“These acts, along with the acts of those who grow drugs, or who import drugs into the region, undermine and undercut the positive efforts of the overwhelming majority of law-abiding Caribbean nationals who try so hard, day after day, and year after year, to stay on the straight and narrow. None of us in the Caribbean can afford to look the other way when someone we know is involved in these activities. As sure as the day is long, precisely those illegal weapons or those illegal narcotics that are not reported to the authorities will, in all likelihood, one day claim either the person who looked the other way, or someone that person holds dear,” said the Prime Minister.
He expressed CARICOM’s determination to confront the spread of illegal firearms throughout the region was a major focus of CARICOM s recently concluded meeting.
He said not only does every Caribbean national need to know this, but they need to ensure that if ever and whenever they have information pertaining to the presence of illegal drugs and illegal weapons they have a pressing and urgent obligation to ensure that, one way or the other – and providing it anonymously is fine - information gets to the relevant authorities.
sflcn
Saturday, July 16, 2011
...much of today's social problems in The Bahamas stem from the fact that young people have no respect for human life
Many youth have lost respect for human life
tribune242 editorial
Nassau, The Bahamas
IN THE wake of the three murders --double shooting and a stabbing Tuesday night -- that brought the murder count to 72 for the first seven months of the year, Police Commissioner Ellison Greenslade had some observations.
He restated his belief that much of today's social problems stem from the fact that young people have no respect for human life.
"All human beings have an inherent right to life and their dignity is to be respected," he said. "What is unfortunate is that there is still far too many relatively young people in our communities, adult young persons who have no respect for themselves, no respect for other persons, no respect for the laws of the land, and they continue to commit crime."
Bishop Laish Boyd, head of the Anglican Church, yesterday took up the theme. Everyone, said the Bishop, has to stop turning a blind eye to crime, not just violent crime, but also petty crimes, such as disrespect for law and order. We are living in a time, he said, when people no longer have respect for the church.
"For some people," said the Bishop, "any target is fair game, including the church. There used to be a time when people respected the church, but that is changing."
Bishop Boyd believes that only a minority feel this way. The "majority still see the church and its values as sacred," he said.
Some of us at The Tribune are not surprised at what is happening today. We have lived long enough to have seen the storm brewing, gathering strength and threatening to tear our society asunder. Go back in our files and read of how many times the editor of this newspaper warned of the vortex into which we were being sucked -- a vortex that would eventually tear a God-fearing society apart.
The late Sir Etienne Dupuch, who wrote those columns, had a special gift of being able to see the future with tremendous clarity. Those who did not like what they read from his pen, dismissed him as the "Voice of Doom." But, if he were here today, he could say with sad conviction: "I told you so."
Today's social problems did not just "growed like Topsy." They took a long time coming. They had their birth in politics.
There was early disrespect for institutions, community leaders, teachers, parents, each other and eventually ourselves.
We recall how the budding PLP encouraged young people to disrespect the leaders of this country by calling them by their first names -- this was the way government leaders were addressed in their party newspaper. We shall never forget the shock we got the day we saw the late Finance Minister Sir Stafford Sands cross Bay Street to enter the House of Assembly. From the pavement a youngster shouted at him: "Hey, Stafford!"
Something like that could never have happened in the Bahamas in which we grew up. But the disrespect of elders, particularly if they held positions of importance, was encouraged in the early days of the PLP. Those were the days when letter writers to The Tribune were afraid to sign their names for publication. We remember a house being stoned one night because the occupant was thought to have written a letter critical of the PLP to The Tribune.
Discipline was broken down in the schools. We recall the lament of the late headmaster Vince Ferguson of how school discipline was being undermined. He told us of the day that he disciplined a young boy by sending him home only to have a chauffeur-driven car arrive at the school the next morning, with instructions from Prime Minister Pindling that the boy was to be readmitted. The cheeky youngster swept past the headmaster, giving the high five sign as he grinned his way back to the classroom.
Mr Ferguson predicted that the boy faced a bleak future with the law. We believe that his prediction came to pass.
Today disgruntled parents go to school to "cus out" and "beat up" teachers if they don't like the manner in which a situation has been handled with their child. In earlier times, a child would be too scared to tell his parents about a teacher disciplining him, fearing that he would get a second belting from an angry parent. We can hear it now: "How dare you be rude to your teacher?"
So what can you expect of the children when the parents are out of control?
Elections became rowdy, stone-throwing events. Out of control PLP goon squads closed down political rallies, denying Bahamians their freedom of speech.
The late Eugene Dupuch, QC, would shake his head sadly with the Biblical words: "They know not what they do." He often commented on how human emotions could not be turned on and off like a water faucet. Once the floodgates are open, they cannot be closed, he said. In other words, what the PLP had unleashed on the community would come back to haunt them. It did, but in the end we have all been caught in the rush of those open floodgates -- human emotions run amok.
Sir Lynden lived long enough to look back on his past and admit at a PLP convention in 1990 that he had made a mistake.
"We told them," he said, "they were too good to be gardeners, too good to be sanitation men, too good to work with their hands" -- in the end it was bad advice. Attitudes, he said, had to change.
In this column tomorrow, we shall let Sir Lynden speak. He himself will tell you how it went wrong.
What he will say is the basis of many of today's problems - even the Haitian problem.
It is now time for these politicians - especially PLP politicians - to stop pointing accusing fingers, because it is their counterparts over the years who have been the major culprits in creating today's turmoil. It's now time for them to step down from their holier-than-thou pedestals and help find solutions.
July 14, 2011
tribune242 editorial
tribune242 editorial
Nassau, The Bahamas
He restated his belief that much of today's social problems stem from the fact that young people have no respect for human life.
"All human beings have an inherent right to life and their dignity is to be respected," he said. "What is unfortunate is that there is still far too many relatively young people in our communities, adult young persons who have no respect for themselves, no respect for other persons, no respect for the laws of the land, and they continue to commit crime."
Bishop Laish Boyd, head of the Anglican Church, yesterday took up the theme. Everyone, said the Bishop, has to stop turning a blind eye to crime, not just violent crime, but also petty crimes, such as disrespect for law and order. We are living in a time, he said, when people no longer have respect for the church.
"For some people," said the Bishop, "any target is fair game, including the church. There used to be a time when people respected the church, but that is changing."
Bishop Boyd believes that only a minority feel this way. The "majority still see the church and its values as sacred," he said.
Some of us at The Tribune are not surprised at what is happening today. We have lived long enough to have seen the storm brewing, gathering strength and threatening to tear our society asunder. Go back in our files and read of how many times the editor of this newspaper warned of the vortex into which we were being sucked -- a vortex that would eventually tear a God-fearing society apart.
The late Sir Etienne Dupuch, who wrote those columns, had a special gift of being able to see the future with tremendous clarity. Those who did not like what they read from his pen, dismissed him as the "Voice of Doom." But, if he were here today, he could say with sad conviction: "I told you so."
Today's social problems did not just "growed like Topsy." They took a long time coming. They had their birth in politics.
There was early disrespect for institutions, community leaders, teachers, parents, each other and eventually ourselves.
We recall how the budding PLP encouraged young people to disrespect the leaders of this country by calling them by their first names -- this was the way government leaders were addressed in their party newspaper. We shall never forget the shock we got the day we saw the late Finance Minister Sir Stafford Sands cross Bay Street to enter the House of Assembly. From the pavement a youngster shouted at him: "Hey, Stafford!"
Something like that could never have happened in the Bahamas in which we grew up. But the disrespect of elders, particularly if they held positions of importance, was encouraged in the early days of the PLP. Those were the days when letter writers to The Tribune were afraid to sign their names for publication. We remember a house being stoned one night because the occupant was thought to have written a letter critical of the PLP to The Tribune.
Discipline was broken down in the schools. We recall the lament of the late headmaster Vince Ferguson of how school discipline was being undermined. He told us of the day that he disciplined a young boy by sending him home only to have a chauffeur-driven car arrive at the school the next morning, with instructions from Prime Minister Pindling that the boy was to be readmitted. The cheeky youngster swept past the headmaster, giving the high five sign as he grinned his way back to the classroom.
Mr Ferguson predicted that the boy faced a bleak future with the law. We believe that his prediction came to pass.
Today disgruntled parents go to school to "cus out" and "beat up" teachers if they don't like the manner in which a situation has been handled with their child. In earlier times, a child would be too scared to tell his parents about a teacher disciplining him, fearing that he would get a second belting from an angry parent. We can hear it now: "How dare you be rude to your teacher?"
So what can you expect of the children when the parents are out of control?
Elections became rowdy, stone-throwing events. Out of control PLP goon squads closed down political rallies, denying Bahamians their freedom of speech.
The late Eugene Dupuch, QC, would shake his head sadly with the Biblical words: "They know not what they do." He often commented on how human emotions could not be turned on and off like a water faucet. Once the floodgates are open, they cannot be closed, he said. In other words, what the PLP had unleashed on the community would come back to haunt them. It did, but in the end we have all been caught in the rush of those open floodgates -- human emotions run amok.
Sir Lynden lived long enough to look back on his past and admit at a PLP convention in 1990 that he had made a mistake.
"We told them," he said, "they were too good to be gardeners, too good to be sanitation men, too good to work with their hands" -- in the end it was bad advice. Attitudes, he said, had to change.
In this column tomorrow, we shall let Sir Lynden speak. He himself will tell you how it went wrong.
What he will say is the basis of many of today's problems - even the Haitian problem.
It is now time for these politicians - especially PLP politicians - to stop pointing accusing fingers, because it is their counterparts over the years who have been the major culprits in creating today's turmoil. It's now time for them to step down from their holier-than-thou pedestals and help find solutions.
July 14, 2011
tribune242 editorial
Friday, July 15, 2011
Sudan: The Leftover Country
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)