Dr. Myles Munroe's ignorance, arrogance, prejudice and bigotry toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights

Dr. Myles Munroe’s uncharitable arrogance and bigotry

By frontporchguardian
Nassau, The Bahamas

In response to comments made by Pope Francis last August concerning judgmentalism towards gays and lesbians, and recent remarks by Foreign Affairs Minister Fred Mitchell in Trinidad and Tobago on LGBT rights, Bahamas Faith Ministries (BFM) Pastor Dr. Myles Munroe has appeared bigoted, ignorant and prejudiced. And, arrogant.

In contrast to Pope Francis, Anglican Bishop Laish Boyd and other Christian leaders, Munroe appears uncharitable, not disposed to mercy, unwilling to support efforts to stem discrimination and violence against gays and lesbians.

While many church leaders do not support state-recognized same-sex marriages, they are challenging the dehumanization and demonization of gays and lesbians. Munroe’s remarks may give comfort to the demonizers.

For the sake of Christian love and charity Munroe must state whether he sides with those who would do violence towards his gay brothers and sisters in the name of God or whether he stands with the likes of former Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham, U.S. President Barack Obama, Pope Francis, Mitchell and countless others who are seeking to confront violence against those of God’s children who happen to be gay.

In his various remarks, Munroe has also displayed a curious ignorance, in two senses: He seems uninformed of certain facts and information, and lacking in a basic understanding of whatever information he may have reviewed.

Either he is intellectually unable to grasp certain matters or he is being purposefully misleading, or some combination of these, none of which suggests acuity and credibility on these issues.

In criticizing Pope Francis, Munroe demonstrated stunning ignorance of and a poor ability to grasp basic elements of theology and ecclesiology in the Roman Catholic tradition.

He was factually wrong in the assertion that the pope was expressing his own opinion. He was also factually wrong in his assertion that the pope was contradicting his predecessor and the position of the Catholic Church.

Doctorate

Roman Catholic Archbishop Patrick Pinder, who has an earned doctorate in theology from the prestigious Catholic University of America, but who chooses not to be referred to as Dr. Pinder, noted in a Guardian story that those who asserted that Pope Francis was breaking with Roman Catholic teachings in his remarks about gays and lesbians were incorrect in their assertion.

Munroe’s criticism of Mitchell’s Trinidad and Tobago remarks was curious and baffling, as the minister’s remarks in question were limited and generally measured. Mitchell broke no new substantive ground in terms of the policies of successive Bahamian governments.

Essentially, the foreign minister was calling for protection of gays and lesbians from discrimination. Sadly, in the minds of some, efforts to stem discrimination and violence against gays and lesbians, providing them with the security of basic human rights, are unacceptable and egregious. The name for this is bigotry.

Munroe stands in a succession of religious leaders who, over the millennia, seem more seized by the strictures of the Hebrew Scriptures than they are by the example, ministry and teachings of Jesus Christ as exemplified in the Gospels.

There are no warrants for racism, sexism or homophobia in the New Testament. But bigots have for centuries engaged in all manner of proof-texting of the Hebrew Scriptures to bolster and promote their ancient prejudices and hatreds.

White racist pastors used the Hebrew texts for centuries as a basis for slavery, colonialism and the degradation of black people. Gracefully, abolitionists religious leaders found in the ministry of Jesus the moral power to confront slavery and the slave trade.

For millennia and still, many found in the Hebrew Scriptures a warrant for their misogyny and bigotry towards women. The respect for the dignity of women by Jesus in the Gospels was in various ways a radical break from the culture into which he was born. His was a liberating message of equality.

In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus speaks of mercy, of not judging others, of eschewing revenge, of giving to the needy. He also speaks of adultery. Sadly, for contemporary bigots, there is no mention of homosexuality.

According to a recent Nassau Guardian story Munroe noted: “‘He [Mitchell] seems to have an agenda that may disqualify him from serving in the position as minister of foreign affairs, because there is a great possibility that he may be more inclined to present his own views than those of the people of The Bahamas.

“‘Therefore, I am recommending that the prime minister reconsider him from being minister of foreign affairs because his personal opinions may interfere with his objectivity in the carrying out of his duties.’”

There is an agenda and a lack of objectivity. But it is by Munroe.

Resolution

Mitchell’s remarks on non-discrimination against gays and lesbians were in keeping with the views of successive governments, including the Ingraham administration which supported “a U.N. Human Rights Council resolution promoting equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation”.

Is Munroe wilfully ignorant or being purposefully misleading? Prejudice and bigotry tend to induce jaundiced thinking.

The Guardian story quoted Munroe as saying: “‘I have nothing personal against Minister Mitchell.

“‘I think he is an excellent politician and man, like I am. It is nothing personal. It is more of a deep concern of his representation of our country in his position as minister...’”

The story continued: “Let me state for the record publically, [sic] Mr. Foreign Minister, I have no interest in your private life,” said Munroe in the sermon.

“Personally, I really don’t care about your private life. But when you step in our house that we are paying you to represent us in, you keep your private life in your closet and you deal with our public business in our interest.”

There is a well-known rhetorical device and political trick of suggesting no interest in a certain matter. But by raising the matter whether obliquely or not one is clearly seeking to make a point.

By employing the language he did, Munroe used his position to hurl an innuendo against another. It was unbecoming of him as a Christian and as a fellow-citizen. It was mean-spirited and uncharitable. It is a low moment in his ministry. If he has policy disagreements with the minister, fine. But to reference another’s personal life is contemptuous.

Munroe’s views on gambling are well-known. Tourism Minister Obie Wilchcombe has spoken at home and abroad of making The Bahamas a gambling mecca. Wilchcombe continues to press the idea of regulating the numbers houses, something Munroe opposes.

Unacceptable

But in opposing Wilchcombe’s policy views Munroe would not stoop so low as to raise his private life. Indeed, he would not likely to do so of any minister. What Munroe said in reference to Mitchell is unacceptable and unworthy of anyone who purports to have moral authority.

Recall that Munroe labelled Pope Francis as “reckless” pertaining to his comments on being judgmental toward gays and lesbians. Francis was reckless with love. Munroe was reckless in the manner in which he contemptuously referenced Mitchell, while feigning respect.

Munroe also impugned Pope Francis’ motives as a bid to revive Roman Catholicism. The suggestion was that the pope was engaging in marketing and public relations, rather than motivated by love. One imagines that Munroe knows quite a bit about marketing and public relations.

The Guardian story noted Munroe as stating that, “He [Fred Mitchell] began to intellectually try to [discombobulate us]’ ...” As suggested previously, Munroe seems easily intellectually discombobulated, as Mitchell’s comments were clear and easily understandable.

The story further noted that, “Munroe said he has travelled to 138 countries, something he said Mitchell has not done.

“‘So I’ve been to more countries representing this country than anyone else in this government,’ he said.”

What was his point in making such as statement, which came across to many as arrogant and self-aggrandizing?

No matter how many countries Munroe has travelled to he is not the moral ambassador of The Bahamas. Indeed in his bigotry toward gays and lesbians he does not represent many Bahamians or the future, nor does he seem to be able to represent clearly our laws regarding non-discrimination.

We have a foreign minister. Though he will rightly be criticized for various policies, he has represented clearly, articulately and intelligently, the policies of successive administrations in terms of non-discrimination toward gays and lesbians. It is more than can be said for Munroe.

 • frontporchguardian@gmail.com, www.bahamapundit.com.

March 06, 2014

thenassauguardian

Drug trafficking connections between The Bahamas and Haiti

Concerns Over Increased Drug Traffic Between Haiti And The Bahamas

By KHRISNA VIRGIL

Tribune Staff Reporter

kvirgil@tribunemedia.net

Nassau, The Bahamas



THE Bahamas was a prominent feature in a newly published United States narcotics report that cited concerns of increased drug trafficking connections between the Bahamas and Haiti.

 

According to the March 2014 Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs - International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, smugglers exploit the wide distribution of numerous islands and the high number of recreational vessels flowing through The Bahamas in 2013.

 

Despite a long-standing co-operation between The Bahamas and US authorities, the report noted challenges which included delays in extradition requests and a lack of Creole speakers in key Bahamian law enforcement units.

 

“Haitian and Haitian-Bahamian drug trafficking organisations,” the report said, “increasingly networked between Haiti and the significant Haitian diaspora in the Bahamas, continue to play a major role in the movement of cocaine.

 

“Investigation of these organsations is hindered by a lack of appropriately vetted and assigned Creole speakers within the Royal Bahamas Police Force (RBPF) Drug Enforcement Unit.

 

“Strong familial connections between the Turks and Caicos Islands and the Bahamas, coupled with direct flights between Haiti and the Turks and Caicos Islands, compel many Bahamian smugglers to travel to Haiti via the Turks and Caicos Islands with large amounts of cash for future smuggling ventures.

 

“There was an increase in cocaine and marijuana washing ashore on Florida’s coastline during the year, which indicates a parallel growth in the use of airdrops by traffickers.”

 

In addition, US officials noted that an agreement between the Bahamas and Panama based Copa Airlines in 2011 lead to an increase in cocaine seizures at the Lynden Pindling International Airport.

 

“Aviation routes are a cause of concern. Small, privately owned and operated planes ferry loads of cocaine from and between significant source countries in South America into the Caribbean. Law enforcement information suggests that drug trafficking organisations utilise airdrops and remote airfields to deliver large cocaine shipments to the Turks and Caicos Islands and to the Bahamas from Venezuela and Colombia.”

 

The report urged additional resources for drug abuse programmes in an effort to bring improvement to the rate of retention among patients at the Sandilands Rehabilitation Centre and inmates at Her Majesty’s Prison.

 

“Current, comprehensive drug consumption and use data is not available.

 

“Intake surveys and testing found that many inmates at Her Majesty’s Prison at Fox Hill, the only prison in the Bahamas, tested positive for drugs and some of these inmates maintain access to drugs during their incarceration,” the report read.

 

March 04, 2014

 

Tribune 242 

The political storm across the Cuban-American diplomatic landscape

By Keith Bolender
Guest Scholar at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs



The winds of change are beginning to shift in the direction of those who favor a normalization of relations between Cuba and the United States. These include recent revelations from a sugar baron and a former governor, both of whom were once bitter foes of the Castro brothers.

The movement towards reconciliation between Havana and Washington was given a significant boost from an unexpected source last month. On that occasion, Alfonso Fanjul, one of the most influential and steadfast supporters of Florida’s anti-revolutionary community, announced he had been to Cuba twice in the past several years and was contemplating the possibility of future investments in his former homeland, “under the right circumstances.” [1] He spoke extensively of ending the differences between the two nations in order to “reunite the Cuban family.” [2]

Fanjul fled Cuba as a young man, leaving behind his family’s mansion (now Cuba’s Museum of Decorative Arts) and their lucrative sugar cane operations. Re-locating in South Florida, the Fanjuls soon re-established their sugar empire and now are among the wealthiest families in the state. The holdings of the parent company Fanjul Corp. include Domino Sugar, Florida Crystals, La Romana International Airport, and the luxury private resort known as Casa de Campo. During his recent visits to Cuba, Fanjul toured Havana, visited his old mansion and was able to tour state-run farms and sugar mills after meeting with Cuban agricultural officials and the country’s foreign minister.

A long-time opponent of Castro, Fanjul more habitually keeps a low public profile while maintaining financial and political sway in support of Washington’s right-wing initiatives against Cuba through heavy donations to the Cuban-American members of congress , who for years have been the face of America’s policy of regime change. Connected to many high ranking politicians – Fanjul informed good friend Hillary Clinton of his change of view regarding Cuba -- his political hand was most noticeable and muddled when he and younger brother Jose were able to guide through controversial provisions of the Helms-Burton Act in 1996, which helped to tighten the Anti-Castro embargo by penalizing anyone ‘trafficking’ in properties nationalized by the revolutionary government.

Alfonso’s announcement that he had met with Cuban officials in April 2012 and February 2013 smacked the hard-right Cuban American community with the force of a hurricane. Florida Republican Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen blew off a considerable amount of steam in attacking Fanjul’s newly found position. “Talked about #Fanjul’s pathetic idea of investing in the #Castro regime while #Cubans suffer,” she posted on Twitter immediately after. [3]

South Florida Republican Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart was just as caustic, commenting, “I am outraged by reports that a fellow Cuban-American, who has witnessed the atrocities inflicted by the Castro regime, has apparently chosen short-term profit over standing with the Cuban people.” [4] In contrast, fellow Florida Representative Joe Garcia, a moderate Democrat and the son of Cuban exiles, said Fanjul was coming to terms with an emerging movement within the Cuban-American community that favors engagement with Havana – a reality reflected in a recent Atlantic Council national poll.

Fanjul’s about face represents yet another example of the shift in the complex relationship between Cuba and the United States, where pragmatism is replacing long, outmoded-ideological intransigence. State officials were able to discuss the economic and political reforms taking place on the island with the 76-year-old Fanjul, placing aside the inflammatory anti-capitalist rhetoric previously used against his family’s pre-revolutionary sugar operations. Moreover, it demonstrated the continued maturing of Cuban society, where new leaders will soon take over from the Castros and the rest of the first-generation revolutionary hardliners.

Fanjul established his ability to put the past behind him by not insisting upon discussing return of confiscated property, instead accepting the reality of Cuba’s social/economic system that has been in place for more than half a century, and to rationally consider working within such confines for both sides’ mutual future benefit. Deliberation for the ending of sugar subsides in the United States [5] (which Fanjul exerted considerable political pressure to block) may have had a partial role in his decision to contemplate exploring future investment in Cuba, as much as his desire to reconcile Cuban realities on both shores of the Florida Straits.

Fanjul’s declaration was the first in a number of blows against those striving to maintain the hostile status-quo. Shortly after the sugar baron’s pronouncements, former Florida Governor Charlie Crist came out against the embargo, a position he very much opposed while in office under the Republican banner. Since his switch to the Democratic party in 2012, Crist apparently is now able to recognize the economic short-sightedness of America’s hostility, commenting on the subject during his campaign to re-take the governor’s office from Republican Rick Scott.

“The embargo has done nothing in more than fifty years to change the regime in Cuba. If we want to bring democracy to Cuba, we need to encourage American values and investment there, not block ourselves out and cede influence to China. It will take time, and we must do it in a way where American investment helps people, not ideologies. But the reality is that no state’s economy is hurt more by America’s Cuba policies than Florida. Changing these policies to allow Florida’s’ farmers, manufacturers, and construction industry to sell goods and services in Cuba would boost Florida’s economy and help businesses create more jobs in our state,” Crist said. [6]

While Crist’s traditional use of the tired expressions demanding ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ under US terms, his volte-face discloses a level of economic pragmatism that finds kinship with Fanjul’s revealed position, and increasingly is becoming the dominant perspective within the Cuban-American community.

On the heels of the two announcements came a report that gave statistical backing to the radical shift that both Fanjul and Crist have embraced. The Atlantic Council release of its national poll indicated the majority of Cuban-Americans, and US citizens in general, favor normalization with the island nation. [7] The Washington think tank, a mainstream organization that focuses on international affairs, publicized that 56 percent of Americans and more than 60 percent of Floridians desire a new US policy towards Cuba. Florida residents, including Latinos, favor normalization by eight percentage points more than the country as a whole. The support is bi-partisan, as 60 percent of Democrats and 52 percent Republicans favor change. An impressive 60-plus percent of those polled want the United States to lift all economic restrictions, and 77 percent of Americans favor diplomatic engagement with Cuba. A majority would back Cuba being taken off the US list of states that sponsor terrorism, a designation Cuban officials find particularly onerous considering the hundreds of acts of terrorism they argue have been committed against Cuban citizens by various Cuban-American groups based in greater Miami. [8]

Cuba’s economic reforms of the past few years, the realization that a Castro is not expected to be in a leadership role after 2018 as Raul plans to step down, and the ending of travel restrictions for Cuban-Americans to return to their homeland and for Cubans to travel off the island, is having an impact in south Florida. The current generation of Cuban-Americans are becoming increasingly intolerant against the hard-liners who want to maintain the embargo and policy of regime change. Those who favor normalization desire to be involved in the changes taking place in Cuba, to maintain and augment their ability to travel to their former homeland whenever they want, and to assist friends and family. As they see their Cuban-American congressmen now in the majority, and continue to spout out-of-date rhetoric in favor of a harsh status quo, the new generation is rapidly become politically active in order to vote for those who more closely reflect their views.

When a well-respected figure such as Fanjul publicly declares his inclination towards engagement with the revolutionary government and reconciliation with all Cubans, it carries a tremendous amount of political weight among those moderates, and even soft anti-Castroites, to join the side favoring normalization.

Just as significant, Fanjul’s financial muscle when it comes to campaign donations could easily be utilized to either convince the current crop of Cuban-American congressmen to start altering their stance, or to assist a new breed of politician who support a majority who seek a dramatic change in US policy. It is a vitally important development that has weakened the foundation of the pro-embargo side dramatically. Former Florida governor Charlie Crist’s newfound declarations of support, along with like-minded steps from Tampa congresswoman Kathy Castor, simply add credence to the movement towards normalization that is rapidly gaining energy.

“One day we hope that the United States and Cuba would find a way so the whole Cuban community could be able to live and work together,” [9] Fanjul declared. He holds the ability to back up his expectation with political power and financial persuasion, which is providing inspiration for all who favor an end of America’s half-century of hostility against Cuba, and is dealing a heavy blow to those struggling against these winds of change.

References

[1] Wallsten, Peter, Manuel Roig-Franzia and Tom Hamburger. “Sugar tycoon Alfonso Fanjul now open to investing in Cuba under ‘right circumstances,’” The Washington Post, February 2.
[2] Ibid.
[3] “Shameful for a Cuban-American Who Fled the Castro Regime to Consider Putting Business Interests Ahead of Cuban People’s Democratic Aspirations, Says Ros-Lehtinen,” February 3, 2014.
[4] Ibid.
[5] “U.S. Farm Bill,” The Washington Post
[6] Smith, Adam C. “Charlie Crist: Time to End Cuba Embargo,” Tampa Bay Times, February 7, 2014
[7] Arsht, Adrienne. U.S. – Cuba: A New Public Survey Supports Policy Change, Atlantic Council, 2014.
[8] Bolender, Keith. Voices From the Other Side: An Oral History of Terrorism Against Cuba, Pluto Press: London 2010.
[9] Wallsten, et al.

The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, founded in 1975, is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and information organization. It has been described on the Senate floor as being "one of the nation's most respected bodies of scholars and policy makers." For more information, visit www.coha.org or email coha@coha.org

February 27, 2014 

Caribbean News Now

The Barbados value-added tax (VAT) experience debated in The Bahamas

Govt urged to learn from Barbados on VAT

By TANEKA THOMPSON
Guardian Senior Reporter
taneka@nasguard.com
Nassau, The Bahamas

Days after Governor of the Central Bank of Barbados Dr. Delisle Worrell said value-added tax (VAT) has hurt that island’s tourism industry, Free National Movement (FNM) Chairman Darron Cash said the criticism should give The Bahamas government another reason to delay VAT’s introduction.

Last week, Worrell told The Nassau Guardian that he has seen “declining enthusiasm” for VAT in Barbados, adding that the tax is “anti-tourism”.

Worrell also said Barbados’ VAT system is a “mess”.

“The recent comments from the governor of the Central Bank of Barbados provide a great example of good advice from a credible source,” Cash said.

“Dr. Delisle Worrell’s statements that in his country VAT has emerged as the anti-tourism tax should give the Christie government reason to stop, review and cancel their July 1 VAT implementation date.

“If the prime minister and his dutiful junior minister (Michael Halkitis) were listening they would have already come to the conclusion that there is an overwhelming strong public view that this administration has not thought [out] its proposed VAT program sufficiently.”

When asked for his take on Worrell’s criticism, Halkitis said several Barbadian government officials see the tax as beneficial.

“For example, I had the opportunity to speak with the Minister of Finance of Barbados Christopher Sinckler at a meeting in Trinidad last week,” Halkitis said.

“He is of the opinion that it is a suitable tax, but that we should be extra vigilant in collections and not allow arrears to build up from businesses that do not pay. Otherwise, he felt that the tax has served them well.

“Former Prime Minister of Barbados and Minister of Finance Owen Arthur is also a supporter of VAT as a tax.”

Halkitis stressed that the government has reviewed a number of studies that estimate VAT’s impact on economic growth.

He said these studies forecast greater productivity and growth if the government moves away from a system of high customs duties and toward a broad-based consumption tax such as VAT.

“Another warning we have received is to avoid a system that has too many different rates and exemptions,” Halkitis said.

“This leads to greater administration costs and could possibly lead to the mess Dr. Worrell is referring to,” he said.

Halkitis said The Bahamas can “avoid the mistakes made by earlier adopters” of VAT.

He said the government’s main concern is that delayed action in getting its fiscal house in order would have a negative impact on the economy.

During an interview with The Nassau Guardian, Worrell said his views on the tax are “very radical”.

“I think VAT is an inappropriate tax for a tourism-based economy,” he said.

“The rationale for VAT is that it is an export promoting tax, because if you are exporting physical goods (VAT is not charged on) those goods, but the producers are able to claim refunds/rebates on their inputs.

“ . . .So there’s a bias in the VAT in favor of export industries; that is if you are exporting physical things that are consumed outside, but not if you are exporting tourism, because the tourists come to you to consume.

“So VAT is an anti-tourism tax if you are a tourism producer because it makes your tourism more expensive than the people who don’t charge VAT, and that’s why all tourism countries who apply VAT have to apply it at a lower rate. A simple sales tax would be much better.”

February 24, 2014

thenassauguardian

Cuba — A growing threat to the Caribbean?

By Anton E Edmunds:

Outputs from the recent Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) Summit in Cuba included calls for equality, the creation of a zone of peace, and for the US embargo on Cuba to be lifted.  This call by one Caribbean leader after another masks a serious issue for a Caribbean too often focused on statements of regional solidarity versus implementing policy that would exemplify such statements -- Cuba is a growing threat to the region.

To be clear, Cuba is no longer the cold war proxy, challenging socio-political stability, but rather the country has emerged as a growing threat as a location for foreign direct investment and development inputs from the outside world.   The unveiling of a mega-port in Mariel -- that famous hub for the export of Cubans to the United States -- should serve notice to Jamaica, The Bahamas and the Dominican Republic that in their midst is a trans-shipment hub that may one day soon directly compete with them for one of the few industries in which they have an advantage, which is the movement of goods to and from the US.

For Jamaica, Cuba's Mariel may make it that much more difficult to find the financing and shipping partners necessary for that country to position itself as a major hub, though Panama Canal delays may be helpful in buying time to address environmental issues and funding needs for the locations currently under consideration.

More critically, however, is the interest by entities such as the European Union (EU) and others in determining ways to work with Cuba.   The fact that the EU now seeks to deepen relations with Cuba on trade and investment should be worrying to Caribbean governments and organisations.   This, especially considering the increasingly fractious relationship that exists between many countries and the EU.

A relationship that brings new capital and technical assistance to Cuba should not be ignored, as Cuba's efforts at free market reform offer the EU and others an opportunity to position their companies for future market openings while the wider Caribbean region continues to stagnate and lose ground as a place to do business.  As it relates to the improving of EU relations with Cuba, the lifting of sanctions in 2008, visits by various EU government officials, and a push to recalibrate the relationship with the country all highlight an EU interest in expanding its role as Cuba's biggest foreign investor.  A large market in need of infrastructure and private sector investment, Cuba remains largely untapped and it is opportunities for investment rather than trade that drives the EU agenda.  Much like with the rest of the Caribbean, Cuba exports little to the EU.

For the Caribbean, there is the perception that the region is weak in executing initiatives and, further, that it is a space seen as increasingly leaning towards mendicancy.   Efforts by some countries to sue for reparations do little to position the region as friendly to an EU which, in its own evolution, now includes countries with no shared history with the region, and who are increasingly likely to view the Caribbean as hostile.  Sadly, all of the above can only serve to allow EU policymakers to see Cuba as an easier partner to deal with -- even with its human rights issues -- than, in particular, the English-speaking Caribbean countries that make up Caricom.

A lack of responsiveness to outreach by the United States Government on issues like trade and energy, a weakness in security vis-à-vis the supply chain, and dalliances with economic structures proposed by Venezuela can further position the region as a difficult neighbour and friend.   Turning a blind eye to the jailing of dissidents in Cuba and the weakening of institutions that may allow the development of de facto leaders for life in the wider Latin America region are also challenges that Caribbean countries have to face -- all while they claim to be a bastion of political fairness.   The inability of Caricom countries to negotiate with Canada, a trade agreement that largely mirrors what was negotiated with the EU, is also not positive.

The harsh reality for the wider Caribbean is that any improved relationship between Cuba and the US would mean an increased focus by US agencies and the Congress to direct funding towards that country's development.  Fundamentally, this means the appropriation of resources to support infrastructure and agriculture development, capacity building and energy, all areas where Caribbean countries need support to meet their own stated regional goals.

From a private sector standpoint, a Caribbean region still fragmented despite its best efforts at integration will see investment flow to a market that is new and larger, and one that would operate under one framework, however underdeveloped.   While a private sector rush to Cuba may not be immediate, the reality is that foreign direct investment in the Caribbean has slowed, and in some instances the region has lost ground as a place where it is easy to do business.  Any shift of interest to Cuba would hurt.

With the EU poised to seek out ways to partner with Cuba, and with Canada, Brazil, and China already geared up to move in, there should be an awareness by Caribbean leaders that there is probably a back room plan being developed in the US to do the same.  The writing on the wall is clear: Cuba is a threat for development support as well as investment from many who were once bullish on the Caribbean's development and integration agenda.

The times for speeches on solidarity need to be replaced with actionable items and tangible efforts that the external community can commit to supporting before it is too late.

Anton Edmunds is the head of The Edmunds Group, a business and government advisory service firm that focuses on emerging markets. Anton is also a senior associate at the Centre for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS). Comments: www.cisis.org; ww.onthecaribbean.com; @theedmundsgroup; anton@theedmundsgroup.com.

February 17, 2014

Jamaica Observer

Jamaica: 100 years of black consciousness advocacy

By Louis MOYSTON

JAMAICA has had a rich history of creative resistance during slavery. Similarly, during the post-slavery era, many Jamaicans have played pioneering roles in the development and the advancement of the black consciousness idea and movement. This article seizes the opportunity of black history celebration to open a window into stories of some Jamaicans who have made their mark on the idea and movement. The article focuses on those to whom very little attention has been paid, such as John Brown Russwurm, Dr T E S Scholes and Una Marson. It is important to pay special attention to the quality of their contribution in order to ask, how well have we built on what they started? It is important for us to explore how some of these ideas may awaken the "years of lethargy" among black people in Jamaica.

Before and after 1776, Jamaica had an active trade relationship with North America. Port Antonio was one of those active trading ports; it was the setting in which John Brown Russwurm's father, a white American businessman, lived. Winston James (2010) in The Struggles of John Brown Russwurm, 1799 to 1851, writes about his birth to a black woman and his journey to the USA, with his father, where he attended school. The writer notes that, at the time of his graduation from Bowdoin College, he may have been the earliest or one of the earliest blacks to graduate from a tertiary institution in America. James notes that it was during his years in college that he began writing on black struggles. Inspired by the Haitian Revolution and the black Republic, he made it his duty to defend the young black regime against propaganda depicting the Haitian people as savages. He moved to New York after graduation. There he developed and published his ideas instilling greatness in racial pride and the back-to-Africa message. He emerged during the earlier period before another early pan-Africanist and back-to-Africa advocate Edward Wilmot Blyden (1823-1912).

Russwurm met Samuel Cornish, a fellow African-American, in New York during the 1820s. They established Freedom's Journal, the first newspaper to be owned and operated by Africans in the USA. According to James, the editors announced in their opening statement if the Journal that "we wish to plead our own cause, for too long have others spoken for us". Russwurm saw the paper as an "organising force" among unorganised blacks in America, aiming to "awaken African-Americans from the lethargy years". His writings advocated the role of family and the cultivation and growth of industry among blacks by way of education and training. He saw education as that driving force towards higher achievements in science. He guided black people in America along the path of race consciousness through which they could become useful and responsible citizens. He became disillusioned with America and went to live in Liberia, where he was established as a governor of that new Republic. A few years after his death, in 1851, and in one of the neighbouring parishes to Portland, the Paul Bogle movement advanced the black consciousness struggles in another context at Morant Bay, St Thomas.

During the 1850s the systematic programme of land deprivation among the black masses continued; the setting in St Thomas and Jamaica was characterised by high taxation, high unemployment, high prices for basic food stuff, and severe and oppressive injustice. Thee clarion call for "skin for skin", black unity was condensed into an assault against the agents of the planter/colonial power relations in that parish. This violent insurgency of 1865 may have inspired a new thrust of black consciousness among a few emerging black intellectuals: Dr Robert Love (a Bahamian who resided in Jamaica) and Dr T E S Scholes. Both thinkers noted the role of the colonial/planter society and its systematic deprivation of the black masses' access to land. They saw this as a deliberate strategy to keep blacks and the country underdeveloped. Gordon K Lewis (1968) in The Growth of the Modern West Indies, describes Dr Love as the publisher of the old Jamaican Advocate newspaper calling for black representation in the Legislative Council, as well as, his advocacy of black consciousness. According to the writer, he lived in Haiti, where he encountered 'negritude' and black political representation. In the book, The Jamaican People 1880-1902 Race, Class and Social Control, Patrick Bryan (2000) describes Dr Love, an Anglican pastor, as a secular-pragmatist; and Dr Scholes, a Baptist, as another secular intellectual, and that they expressed their concerns about the land for the ex-slaves of Jamaica. Bryan writes that Scholes placed the question of land tenure in the broader context of the imperial system of the appropriation of "native resources", and that it was a conspiracy by the British Empire to systematically deprive the black masses access to land in Jamaica. Noting the endless sources of labourers among the black masses, Bryan writes that Scholes spoke about the high rate of taxation, land hunger, and the ignorance of scientific agriculture as hindrances to the development of the black masses and the country. Scholes was a significant Jamaican scholar; his major works are: Sugar in the West Indies and The British Empire and Alliances. This tradition, especially the role of spirituality and religion in politics, continued at the level of the role of revivalist preacher, such as Alexander Bedward, his native Baptist tradition rooted in the race thinking of Paul Bogle.

Marcus Garvey, the most popular pan-Africanist, whose movement excelled in the USA, inherited the rich legacy from Bogle to Love and Scholes, among others. After Garvey was Leonard P Howell, who showed the black masses that there was no hope in the colonial/planter Jamaican society, called for a rejection of the dominant European values and the wrong doctrine advanced by the Church. He inspired a new awareness among that black lower class that in part ushered a new era of black unity, setting the foundation for the emergence of the powerful trade union movement. Una Marson emerged during the rise of this movement. She was an early pan-Africanist and one of the earliest black feminists of international proportion during the 1930s. She lived in England where she worked with the likes of other pan-Africanist such as George Padmore, Jomo Kenyatta, and C L R James among others. She was also secretary to His Imperial Majesty Haile Selassie, whom she accompanied to the League of Nations conference where the Emperor submitted his case on the Italian aggression and occupation of Ethiopia.

These persons have set the standard. It is important that we take note of their worth and refine and expand on their works. They are important sites for historical excavation by young scholars.

Louis E A Moyston
thearchives01@yahoo.com

February 12, 2014

Jamaica Observer

Bahamas Union of Teachers (BUT) recommends that the Bahamian Government not implement Value Added Tax (VAT) on July 1, 2014 ....explore other forms of taxation instead

Teachers Join Vat Opposition

By NATARIO McKENZIE

Tribune Business Reporter

nmckenzie@tribunemedia.net

Nassau, The Bahamas

 

The BAHAMAS Union of Teachers’ (BUT) president said yesterday that its 4,000 members were adding their voices in opposition to the “regressive” Value-Added Tax (VAT), as there was still a “great deal of uncertainty” as to how the profession would be impacted.

In a notice to the BUT’s membership highlighting their opposition to VAT, Belinda Wilson said that while teachers were on the list of professionals set to be impacted, it was still unclear how.

“There is a listing of 86 professions in the VAT documents which says these are the professions which will be affected by VAT, and at number 80 it has teachers, but no one is able to say to us what that means,” Mrs Wilson said.

“There is a great deal of uncertainty. I believe that if you want VAT to be successfully implemented then we need to be sure that at the ground level every aspect of it is clear to the wider public.”

The BUT also contends that the revenue component of the taxation is unclear; that the Government has not given a detailed explanation with facts as to show how the fiscal deficit has occurred; and has not outlined measures to ensure that the problem will not be repeated.

The BUT added that VAT implementation has failed in other Caribbean countries such as Barbados, and the Government’s proposed 15 per cent rate is too high, with consumers left to bear the burden.

“The cost of living has increased, and even when you look at other workers, especially those at the minimum wage level, how do you on a minimum wage sustain yourself and family while taking on a regressive tax that they know from the onset will increase your expenditure at least 5 per cent?” Mrs Wilson queried.

She added “Teachers are citizens and consumers, so the teachers have light bills, water bills and they have to go into the grocery stores.

“Teachers are a part of the whole scheme of things. If VAT is going to be implemented in July, there should have been some discussions with teachers and the educational sector as to what changes may need to be made to the schemes of work.”

The BUT is recommending that the Government not implement VAT on July 1, and instead explore other forms of taxation.

The union is also calling on the Government to give a detailed plan on spending cuts for 2014 and beyond. It says that the Government should “not create a Central Revenue Agency but use the system that exists now, and improve monitoring and collection of outstanding taxes”.

Mrs Wilson has urged BUT members to sign the petitions against the implementation of VAT and make their views known to their respective MPs.

February 11, 2014

Tribune 242