Open-minded politics and the Caribbean

By Oliver Mills:

Caribbean politics in many ways can be regarded as being a closed-minded activity. We as Caribbean people often have our allegiance to political parties pre-determined for us by our political culture, and through political socialisation. Through these processes, our minds from very early are shaped to accept designated political beliefs, which very often we do not question, or even revise, despite the fact that the political organisations we support can often behave in unacceptable ways. We therefore become the victims of our own choice. We are therefore not open-minded about the political beliefs we hold.

William Hare, a former professor at Dalhousie University, says that open-mindedness is the ability to hold particular views, but to revise them when new evidence that contradicts them is presented. To me this means we remain open to the possibility that what we currently hold to be true; can be found to have no basis or substance when new evidence is presented to the contrary. We should therefore revise our original position, and adopt the new, evidence-based one, despite the psychological unease we may experience, because of the changes necessary to put things right.

The lack of open-minded thinking in Caribbean politics is seen most starkly just before independence, when Caribbean governments had other political systems to choose from, but instead retained the one they inherited. This meant continued governance by the well-off and parliamentary legislation being formulated to benefit the elites. Since the system benefited only a minority at the expense of the majority, there was no consideration of reflecting in an open-minded way, on whether it needed to be evaluated, and replaced by one which was more equitable.

A closed-minded view of politics therefore prevailed from the eve of independence to the present. Independence itself was a gift to the Caribbean closed-minded elite. This is why every Caribbean independent country is experiencing the same problems in some form presently, since the content of the gift was worse than the packaging.

Apart from not being open-minded about the inherited political institutions, there was, and still is no attempt to politically educate citizens of the independent countries in a serious way to rid their minds of the myths their previous controllers had, and still have about them.

One Caribbean author states that myths were used to make people contented with their lot. For example, they were told the social order under which they lived was natural, and even divine. This led to a cowed ambition, and an existence without any serious purpose, since everything was fixed. Few Caribbean countries since independence have sought to free the minds of their citizens in a systematic way from the complexes the pre-independence period imposed on them.

Because of this, unhealthy negative thinking remains, and some of the coping mechanisms in the pre- and post-independence period were and are to submit to the system and be contented with it, while seeking to be recruited into the ranks of those who wielded, and still possess power and authority, so they could be a part of the system of dominance, and so help to keep their own people quiet and obedient. This is the closed-minded way of coping, and these behaviours remain in the present era.

Some who used this strategy, and still employ it, include the educated middle class. Closed-minded thinking has therefore led to economic stagnancy, exhausted political ideas and, most frightening of all, it has led to ministers of government behaving like civil servants, rather than transformational leaders.

The political directorate in the Caribbean has therefore become copycats of other systems, because they have not employed open-minded thinking to find alternative social arrangements that would work in their respective countries.

In one area where the Caribbean political directorate has become most open-minded though, is in the role of the maximum political leader, or prime minister, simply because it gives them more power, and authority. This is shown where, according to Trevor Munroe, the Caribbean prime minister dominates the executive or cabinet, more than does the British prime minister, and we also have a political culture which defers to our leaders.

The prime minister in the Caribbean also exercises greater control over his or her party than what obtains in Britain, since party candidates are approved by the leader. In Britain, the candidate for election is chosen by the people in the constituency. The Caribbean prime minister’s power over the legislature is also greater than that of the British prime minister, because he or she has the power to dissolve parliament.

We have seen, then, that open-mindedness in Caribbean politics exists only where it benefits the leaders. If they see where being open-minded gives them an edge, they revise their views on certain practices. If no political mileage is gained, closed-mindedness prevails.

But open-mindedness goes beyond personal advantage. It is about being constantly alert to the possibility that the political environment might change and so endanger progressive policies. It is being constantly open to the changes in the way the electorate measures the political winds, and decides to change with them. It is being open to new political ideas and philosophies, which are transformational in character. And it is having the willingness to adopt, make decisions based on evidence, and so provide citizens of the Caribbean with a prosperous, happy, and viable society.

Most importantly, open-mindedness involves the willingness of Caribbean leaders to give up their most cherished ideas, once new evidence shows they no longer have credence, and change them for those that have.

April 03, 2014

Caribbeannewsnow

The cost element of a National Health Insurance (NHI) proposal is a major concern ...says The Bahamas Chamber of Commerce and Employers Confederation (BCCEC)

 Chamber: Nhi Costs 'A Major Concern'

By NATARIO McKENZIE

Tribune Business Reporter

nmckenzie@tribunemedia.net

Nassau, The Bahamas

THE Bahamas Chamber of Commerce and Employers Confederation (BCCEC) is finalising the formation of a committee to review the Government’s National Health Insurance (NHI) proposals, its chief executive agreeing that implementation costs were a major concern.

Edison Sumner, who is also a member of the Government’s NHI steering committee, told Tribune Business: “We are in the process of finalising the formation of a committee who will be reviewing the NHI proposals, and once that committee is formed we will start to put positions together based on the information that we have.

“There was a private sector committee established several years ago, who looked at the work of the Blue Ribbon Commission, and we are going to be studying the work already done and looking at revisions made to the current plan.”

“Once our committee would have had a chance to review those details, then we would be able to begin putting a position forward. As it stands at the moment, I have been representing the private sector on the NHI steering committee,” Mr Sumner said.

“It’s been more of an exploratory process to see what’s available, what’s out there and getting reports in from the consultant, Sanigest. We haven’t formed an opinion as yet. We are reviewing the information we have, and the committee, once they complete their work, then we will begin to formulate a comprehensive private sector response to the NHI proposals.”

National Health Insurance was first developed as a policy priority under the first Christie administration. A 15-member Blue Ribbon Commission was appointed to review the feasibility of a National Health Insurance Plan. The National Health Insurance Act 2006 was then tabled in Parliament by the Christie government on November 2006.

The Government is now moving towards the “full implementation” of a National Health Insurance scheme, having appointed a 12-member steering committee to oversee the full implementation of the National Insurance Act 2006. The main fears, now as then, were the likely cost burden an NHI scheme would impose on the Bahamian economy and business community, and who will pay for it.

“The cost element is a major concern, and even that hasn’t been determined yet. We have some ideas and indications but we don’t know; we don’t know for sure yet how it’s going to be funded. These are questions being asked and issues being addressed. I suppose we won’t have a final determination until the work of the consultants and the cost analysis is complete. We expect to be very engaged in the process,” said Mr Sumner.

March 31, 2014

Tribune 242

Anatomy of slavery and reparations

By Franklin JOHNSTON

One author says slavery as an institution was an assault on the African male’s role of husband and father

IT is time to deconstruct slavery. We must peel the onion layer by layer and examine each without the hype and emotion.

New World slavery was the first global, cutting-edge enterprise — Europe's banking, manufacture, finance, insurance, shipbuilding. Yet men were sold as slaves in Africa and Jamaica, not Europe. Slavery was the model for commodities trading — buy and sell by specs, divert cargo on the high seas, no need to see the goods. A lot of evil was done, but to personalise slavery as "race hate" perverts history and blurs our insight. The enterprise spanned four continents, major nations, and here — the 17th century New World Logistics Hub under Henry Morgan — was the 19th century node of a global triangular trade. The slave trade was risky, exciting, but did not get you entry to exclusive club "Boodles"; owning a plantation did. Reparations came to mind when I examined MSS in the Public Records Office.

I learnt about slavery beyond the insipid local armed struggle and Wilberforce's crafting a weak political solution. I was flippin' angry that Africans traded my Dad for "brass bands, tobacco and beads" — what? Coloured beads? Not even a rifle? An outrage! Sue them! Life is still cheap there. The slave trade was distinct from slavery; both began randomly for Europe, but were a way of life in Africa. We do not have the nous to move slavery from tearful diatribe to cogent analysis, despite Eric Williams' Capitalism and Slavery. Today, barbarity reigns in Jamaica. They rape kids, slash throats, gut women, and hack men into pieces. This makes slavery look good. So weep for yourself, not your ancestors. The slavery chronicles need scholarship as Africa has not told its side of the story.

New World slavery was not social, political, tribal or God punishing black people, it was business. Europe and Africa did not invest to watch men squirm. Europeans worked Tainos to extinction and, while Africa was not their first choice, they found men with a devalued sense of self as substitutes. Europe could not buy men in China or India, but in Africa men were on sale. Slavery went viral when cane farmers' demand for workers exceeded the normal supply of men; prices rocketed. Caboceers — native slave traders — made super margins, so "let's trawl the next village and steal some men!" The rest is history. The slave trade and slavery had different investor profiles. Let's unbundle them.

Trade is a willing buyer engaging a willing seller. The English buyer and African seller were not slavers per se, they were traders; they sold anything. The slave trade was high risk-high gain; an adrenalin rush to some investors. Slaves were a premium — a poor risk profile, short shelf life, disease, injury, robbers; A rapid stock turn given the time value of money. Who in Europe bought goods to trade in Africa? Who in Africa traded people for goods? Who were the investors in Africa and England? Sea captains were fast-talking men who attracted rabid investors. Royals were involved, merchants, MPs, captains and crew, even widows. Just as today's stock market, no investor saw product or factory (did you visit the Salada factory before you bought shares yesterday?), the deal was the thing. The slave trader was a seaman adventurer doing business with likeminded land-based Africans. The captain and the caboceer were united in cash. Ponzi schemes existed long before Carlo Pietro Ponzi and captains exaggerated profits and oversold to entice investors. Will Africans tell us caboceers did the same thing to fund raids on villages? Write the history damn you!

The English slave trader was usually a seafarer and entrepreneur using leased ships and investor's cash. The captain risked his life — ocean, pirates, disease, mutinous crew. In Africa he bought broken people; the French or Spanish might steal his cargo at sea; some died; others were decanted overboard to escape pirates. Caboceers caught or bought people to fill the warehouses. Do you worry that the elephants in the z oo are not happy? Same difference! The trade in fabrics, beads, guns, ammunition, animals, salt, metals, cotton, pots, pans, and people was good. The seafarer made big profit, big loss and some died — high risk. Caboceers profited and lost lives too? What of slavery?

New World slavery was to farm sugar cane. The farming was tedious, the factories cutting-edge; sugar and rum had strong demand, but you could lose given the long wait for a crop. Farming and manufacture is not trade. Farm work varies for planting, crop care, reaping, and despite slave theory, no one cuts cane all year. Reaping and factoring time was short, intense; planting relaxed; crop care easier. In Europe many fought slavery by writing, protest and in Parliament. Will they be excluded from reparations? As today, there was no such activism against slavery in Africa. Why not? Should all Africa pay reparations?

I once thought reparations meant those paid should return their immoral gains. Who should pay? Should those who paid Africa cash for a man pay again? Is the original sinner the African who caught your ancestor? The captain who sold him to a cane farmer within six weeks? The investor (English and African), who sought profit? The cane farmer who used slaves for years? One prime target should be Africans who caught our ancestors and abridged their freedom. This is original sin! Repent! I don't want money, but may accept "mea culpas". Their kids must know truth. The second target is the English trader — his Christian faith condemns him — he knew it was morally wrong. Every English ship's flag to fly at half-staff; a major monument to Africans lost at sea in Bristol, London, every slave port and on the 4th plinth in Trafalgar Square. Or will you trade a race's dignity for cash? Do not allow them to say, "Shut up nigger you took the cash in 2015!" I want slavery seared into Europe's conscience like the Holocaust numbers; monuments down Pall Mall, Buckingham Palace, stately homes "to the nameless Africans who built this land!" Selah!

We need economic scholarship to deconstruct slavery and its the bleeding heart history — slaves in chains and on auction blocks. Don't screw up your kids. Invent a cathartic video game "Ultimate Slave Trader" with ships, lazer spears and have fun. Don't let history freak you out; make money from it, innovate! No European said, "let's invest cash, go to Africa to jerk-up a few black people". Caboceers chasing men for sale through the jungle were not having fun. Africa was the epicentre of slavery — trans-Sahara, Indian Ocean, trans-Atlantic, and their domestic type; up to today! Why Africa? God only knows!

We need research to fathom slavery, but the Africans say nothing so we should help them. UWI needs a Chair in Slavery and Diaspora Studies (African, Chinese, Indian, Jamaican); professors from business, not bleeding hearts. I am all cried out. What's Africa's take on slavery, reparations? Can their oil tycoons, rich entertainers, the diaspora endow a Chair? Most African historians are white; no black writes Europe's history; go figure! "Up you mighty race!" Stay conscious, my friend!

Dr Franklin Johnston is a strategist, project manager and advises the minister of education. Comments: franklinjohnstontoo@gmail.com

March 28, 2014

Jamaica Observer

The Bahamas National Reparations Committee has been established to prepare a legal claim ...to present to the International Court of Justice (ICOJ) ...for reparations for the infliction of slavery on Caribbean colonies ...by certain former European colonisers

 Govt Forms Reparation Committee

By Jones Bahamas:

The government has established The Bahamas National Reparations Committee and its members were revealed yesterday.

The committee will be responsible for preparing a legal claim to present to the International Court of Justice (ICOJ) for reparations for the infliction of slavery on Caribbean colonies by certain former European colonisers.

The committee will also be responsible for an educational campaign and invoking dialogue on the issue which Minister of Foreign Affairs Fred Mitchell said is in the best interest of the country.

“The government thinks that this is in the best interest of the country to have research done,” he said during a press conference at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Goodman’s Bay Corporate Centre. “What often happens with these things is as [they] unfold people will tend to accept that it is the right thing to do.”

“As I tried to indicate in as gentle way as I can, those of us who came up in the 60s and 70s are astounded at how polite a society we have become on this subject which still resonates throughout all of the things that we do.”

Reparations is the process of repairing the consequences of crimes committed and the attempt to reasonably remove debilitating effects of such crimes upon victims and their descendants.

National Reparation Committees have been established on the islands of Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Guyana, Jamaica, Saint Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago.

In preparation for a legal claim, each National Reparation Commission is to gather information pertaining to each claimant state; illustrate the link between historic discrimination and present day racial discrimination; outline modern racial discrimination resulting from slavery in areas of health.

In addition, illustrate the link between, socio-economic deprivation and social disadvantage, education, living conditions, property and land ownership, employment participation in public life and migration and identity policies of the United Kingdom, which have perpetuated the discriminatory effects of slavery in The Bahamas.

Minster Mitchell said the committee is expected to have a legal claim developed by this June.

Recently, CARICOM leaders unanimously adopted a 10-point plan for reparations during the first day of heads of government meetings in St. Vincent and the Grenadines.

The 10-point plan includes calling for a formal apology for slavery and debt cancellation from former colonisers such as Britain, France, Spain and the Netherlands and reparation payments to repair the persisting “psychological trauma.”

Former parliamentarians, Alfred Sears and Philip Smith serve as chair and co-chair of the committee.

Additionally, there are 22 committee members who include, Dr. Chris Curry, Dr. Gail Saunders, Fr. Dacid Cooper, Rev. Williams Higgs, Ms. Marion Bethel, Rev. Timothy Stewart, Ms. Keisha Ellis, Mr. Pedro Rolle, Ms. Theresa Moxey-Ingraham, Dr. Niambi Hall-Campbell, Mr. Michael Symonette, Mr. Michael Stevenson, Ms. Elaine Toote, Ms. Kim Outten-Stubbs, Dr. Tracy Thompson, Mr. Whitman McKinney, Mr. Elsworth Johnson, Mr. Bianca Beneby, Ms. Alesha Hart, Mr. Travis Cartwright, Mr. Cecil Thompson and an attorney from the Office of the Attorney General.

According to Minister Mitchell, the members were chosen because of their broad expertise and their representation of the Bahamian Society.

March 25, 2014

The Bahama Journal

We don’t like Value Added Tax (VAT) in The Bahamas

'We Don't Want V.A.T., Even At 1/100 Of 1%'

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

Super Value’s owner yesterday said Bahamians “don’t want VAT under any circumstances, even at 1/100th of 1 per cent”, and called for the Government to instead implement a wide-ranging fiscal reform package that included a sales tax.

Rupert Roberts told Tribune Business that the private sector and consumer’s main complaint was not the level of taxation, but the “complex and evil system” that VAT will introduce should it be implemented in the Bahamas.

His comments indicate that Prime Minister Perry Christie’s conciliatory Mid-Year Budget address, in which he pledged that VAT would be implemented at a lower rate than the initially proposed 15 per cent, has failed to win over the tax’s greatest opponents.

It also contradicts Ryan Pinder, minister of financial services, who in his MId-Year Budget contribution suggested that a 10 per cent VAT, which was introduced on New Year’s Day 2015, would be acceptable to many in the business community based on the feedback he has received.

Mr Roberts’s comments suggest, though, that the Government is unlikely to win over many in the business conmmunity and wider Bahamian public who seem opposed to VAT in any form.

Responding to the Prime Minister’s address last week, in which he indicated that the Government would also likely push back VAT’s planned July 1 implementation date, Mr Roberts said such a move was inevitable.

“The poor merchant doesn’t know how it works, so it has to be pushed back,” the Super Value president told Tribune Business.

Then, suggesting the Government had misread why many Bahamians were so opposed to VAT, he added: “The merchants and public are not complaining about the rate; they’re complaining about the complx and evil system of VAT.

“If VAT was 1/10th of 1 per cent, they don’t want it. We don’t want VAT under any circumstances, even at 1/100th of 1 per cent. VAT is a system that nobody in the Bahamas wants execpt the politicians.”

This assertion says Bahamians, both private sector and consumer, are opposed to the VAT concept, rather than the substance or details. Yet VAT, which taxes the value added at each stage of the production chain, or some form of general consumption tax has been implemented in more than 140 countries.

But one senior banking industry source, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Tribune Business that the pledged lower VAT rate was merely a tactic to “get the camel’s nose under the tent”.

They suggested the cut to the proposed 15 per cent rate was a shrewd negotiating tactic by the Government that was designed to pacify the VAT opposition.

Once VAT was implemented at a lower rate, the banker suggested it was only a matter of time - possibly just a few years - before the Government sought to raise it, as has happened in many other countries. They also predicted that the Bahamas would likely follow Barbados in introducing some form of income tax, too.

While welcoming the Government’s decision to lower the 15 per cent rate, Mr Roberts argued: “The country doesn’t want VAT, and the country doesn’t realise that VAT allows the Government millions and millions of dollars up front.

“We have no VAT now, and the minute we have it, merchants will pay it when we import products. It may be six months before we sell that merchandise, but the Government collects its money right away. They have millions and millions of cash flow, and I might not even sell it after six months if it becomes spoiled or someone steals it.”

Philip Beneby, president of the Retail Grocers Association, yesterday told Tribune Business that the food retail/wholesale sector was still unsure whether VAT was “the right fit” for it and the Bahamas.

He argued that it was “not as fair to the grocery trade as it is to other industries because we cannot reclaim 100 per cent of our inputs”.

Breadbasket items, which typically are price controlled and account for 75-80 per cent of food store inventories, will be treated as ‘exempt’ under the proposed VAT legislation. Vendors of ‘exempt’ items cannot claim back the VAT they pay on these products’ inputs, meaning supermarket operators will only be able to recover 20-25 per cent of their tax payments.

As previously reported in Tribune Business, food store operators fear this will result in reduced profit margins and increased costs, resulting in job losses and outlet closures.

Mr Beneby said the Government had shown no sign to-date of moving from this position, adding: “It’s not fair to us in its present form. I don’t think our industry is treated in that fashion anywhere else. The grocery trade and retailers are carrying some of the burden for Government and it’s not fair to us.”

Mr Roberts reiterated: ‘We just don’t want the system of VAT. It’s not the concept of taxation; we’re willing and able to pay the taxes for them in a system we like.

“If the Government came to the business community and said look, we have a deficit, we’re cutting our expenditure, and we want you to help us collect the money.......... if they were to package it, we’d have been collecting a sales tax for them, at 15 per cent.

“We don’t like VAT. I hope the Government realises that’s the problem. We like the Government; we don’t like the system. It doesn’t work well elsewhere, so why should it work here?”

March 20, 2014

Tribune242

The lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) debate in The Bahamas

The LGBT debate: A historic perspective

Nassau, The Bahamas

Although Foreign Affairs Minister Fred Mitchell has come under fire over comments he made in support of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people, The Bahamas has a long history of legislatively supporting all people, regardless of race, creed or sexual orientation.

Mitchell recently told a group of university students in Trinidad that his political career suffers because he supports the rights of LGBT people.

Bahamas Faith Ministries International President Dr. Myles Munroe has accused Mitchell of having convictions that are not shared by the majority of Bahamians and has called for his removal.

However, as Mitchell has said, his views are nothing new.

In fact, many politicians have spoken in support of the rights of LGBT people in The Bahamas from as far back as 1989.

During the last term of the Pindling administration, the government brought two amendments to the Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Act, the first in 1989 and the latter in 1991.

Both amendments dealt with a wide range of matters, including the controversial issue of homosexuality and sparked debate in the House of Assembly and the country.

1989

In October 1989, the government made amendments to the Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Act that, among other things, made buggery and “unnatural connection” with any animal an offense with a prison term of 20 years. The amendment also made sex between two women an offense that also carried a 20-year penalty.

It should be noted that buggery was a crime in the country long before the 1989 amendment.

At the time, National Security Minister Paul Adderley said the bill sought to “limit people’s choice in the matter of sexual preference”.

Even then, MPs were outspoken against policing the “bedroom business of Bahamians”.

Bamboo Town MP Tennyson Wells said the government “had no right to legislate the private lives of individuals”.

While he described homosexuality and lesbianism as unnatural, Wells said if the bill was passed, it could never be fully enforced, unless the country became a police state.

Ann’s Town MP A.D. Hanna, who spoke out against the bill, said the issue was a question of morality.

“And as we are tidying up…go all the way, like true PLPs, and spell out what adultery is permitted and what adultery is not permitted in the law,” he said.

Hanna said the government should think twice before making homosexuality a crime without investigating it.

He said he did not think gays and lesbians were a scourge on society or that homosexuality was practiced widely in the country.

Hubert Ingraham, who at the time was the MP for Cooper’s Town, retorted that Hanna was wrong and that “even Parliament is not excluded from having its per centum of gays”.

House Speaker Sir Clifford Darling said that was news to him.

“I didn’t know parliamentarians were gay,” he said.

The amendments were later passed.

1991

In 1991, the government made further amendments to the Sexual Offences Act.

Section 16 of the bill made it an offense for someone to have sex with a member of the same sex, with or without the consent of that other person, in a public place or with a minor.

The amended law removed the criminalization of buggery and lesbianism in private. But that was not how the bill entered Parliament.

According to previous Nassau Guardian stories at the time, the government’s first draft seems not to have included the phrase, in a public place.

Many MPs voiced opposition to legislating morality.

Marathon MP Algernon Allen asked, “Is homosexuality so heinous and offensive a form of social conduct that we ought to imprison persons for that conduct?”

He said Parliament is “really the worst judge of morality”.

Rolleville MP George Smith said while he does not support unnatural sexual acts, he had to temper his views. He said the government should be careful that the bill does not result in a police force conducting witch-hunts for homosexuals.

Saint Barnabas MP Matthew Rose said it was nobody’s business if someone wants to engage in homosexual acts.

At the time, he said the government should address the topic of homosexuality instead of trying to send homosexuals to prison.

Opposition Leader Hubert Ingraham said he had never seen so many MPs better prepared for a debate nor had he seen them do so much research for one either.

“Hopefully these tongues are not only going to be loosened when they are talking about homosexuality and lesbians,” he said at the time.

The bill was later amended and passed.

1998

On February 3, 1998, members of the Bahamas Christian Council along with at least 100 supporters protested on Bay Street against a gay cruise ship that was scheduled to visit the Berry Islands. The ship reportedly had 900 openly gay visitors.

Christian Council Vice President Simeon Hall said while the group had no quarrel with lesbian and gay people, it did not want the promotion of homosexuality on Bahamian shores.

In March of that year, the Save The Bahamas group, made up of church leaders, led hundreds of people in a protest on Bay Street against a Holland American cruise ship, that was allegedly carrying gay passengers.

Pastor Mario Moxey, president of the group, called on the government to acknowledge that Bahamians were outraged by gay cruises visits.

A day before the protest, Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham said the country would not turn away any tourists who classified themselves as gay.

On March 8, Ingraham released the government’s official position on gay cruises.

He said he was “chilled by the vehemence of expressions” against gay and lesbian people by the public.

Ingraham added that the future of the country would not be placed in “danger because chartered cruises by gay persons is permitted to continue to call at Bahamian ports”.

A cruise ship carrying 800 lesbians in April faced similar anti-gay protestors. Confronted by hundreds of angry protestors and anti-gay placards, passengers of the Seabreeze reportedly vowed never to return to The Bahamas.

Amid the controversy, National Security Minister Frank Watson affirmed the government’s position of gay and lesbians serving in the country’s armed forces.

He said the government will not discriminate against homosexuals in the police force, Defence Force and officers serving at the prison.

“What consenting adults do between themselves in the privacy of their home is nobody’s business,” he said.

This was a far cry from the 1989 amendments that criminalized sexual intercourse between homosexuals.

2004

In 2004, gay and lesbian passengers on the Norwegian Dawn that docked in Nassau were greeted by hundreds of angry protestors from Save The Bahamas.

Protestors were yelling anti-gay chants, “Gay ways are not God’s ways”.

R. Family Vacations, a company created by openly gay American TV talk show host Rosie O’Donnell and her wife Kelli, organized the cruise.

Members of The Bahamas Rainbow Alliance, a now defunct pro LGBT group, also greeted the passengers.

It was unclear if Prime Minister Perry Christie offered any position on the matter.

2005

In September 2005, Miss Teen Bahamas Gari McDonald, 18, was stripped of her crown a week after she publicly admitted that she was a lesbian.

McDonald alleged that the she was given an ultimatum by the beauty pageant’s committee of “gracefully stepping down or having to deal with the embarrassment of being stripped” on the basis of an accusation of harassment and her sexuality.

McDonald said prior to entering the pageant, the question of sexuality never arose. She was crowned on November 4, 2004.

Miss Teen Bahamas Director Richa Sands said McDonald “put to the media and the world at large her sexual orientation as a teenager”.

“For us that is a major problem because we don’t stand for that,” she said.

Sands said moving forward, the committee would have to deal with the matter and ensure that something similar never happens again.

2006

In 2006, the Bahamas Plays and Films Control Board banned the movie Brokeback Mountain because it featured “extreme homosexuality, nudity and profanity”.

The Rainbow Alliance called it “a farce” that a small group of people should try to “provide the moral compass for the entire country”.

2011

In 2011, Foreign Affairs Minister Brent Symonette said the government supported a United Nations Human Rights Council resolution that affirmed equal rights for LGBT people.

The resolution, which was introduced by South Africa, expressed grave concern about the discrimination of gays throughout the world and affirmed that freedom to choose sexuality is a human right.

It was the first ever UN resolution on the human rights of LGBT people.

While The Bahamas did not have a seat on the council, Symonette said the government is in favor of the resolution.

“Our record is clear, we continue to support freedom of expression and the right for people to express their opinions,” he said in June 2011.

Later that month at a press conference, Opposition Leader Perry Christie said the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) supported the resolution. He said the PLP has “always been committed to progressive policies - policies that emphasize our commitment to human rights”.

2014

The LGBT debate has once again hit the public consciousness with Dr. Myles Munroe and the foreign minister, Mitchell, being embroiled in a nasty public spat.

Speaking recently on the popular Love 97 FM talk show, Jones and Co., former Parliamentarian Algernon Allen said his Christianity is not confined, but all encompassing.

Allen spoke of tolerance and said the government has to pursue certain objectives for the good of the state.

Former parliamentarian George Smith told The Guardian recently that human rights transcends whether a person is gay or straight.

‘We have to hold up the rights of all human beings,” he said.

March 17, 2014

thenassauguardian

Caricom leaders move forward with the case for reparations ...for the transatlantic trade in enslaved Africans in the Caribbean ...from Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Denmark

The case for reparations for slavery from former European colonizers - in the transatlantic trade of enslaved Africans in the Caribbean and Americas generally

British traders alone - shipped more than three million men, women and children from Africa to slave markets in the Americas in what has been acknowledged to be the largest forced migration in human history

 

Britain must pay up on the black debt owed to subsequent generations of Caribbean peoples

By CLAUDE ROBINSON




The case for reparations for the transatlantic trade in enslaved Africans inched forward last week when Caricom leaders accepted a 10-point plan for negotiations with the European nations which planned, executed and profited immensely from this crime against humanity, a crime that cannot be allowed to disappear without settlement.

At their inter-sessional meeting in St Vincent and the Grenadines, leaders of the 15-member grouping of Caribbean states embraced the plan.  Among other things, it seeks a formal apology, debt forgiveness, greater development aid for public health, educational and cultural institutions as well as unspecified financial damages for the persisting "psychological trauma" from the days of plantation slavery.

Also, it calls for the creation of a "repatriation programme" to help resettle members of the Rastafarian movement in Africa.  Repatriation to Africa has long been a central belief of Jamaican Rastafarians and they have been pressing Britain to foot the bill, a claim the British have rejected.

The targeted countries are Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Denmark which participated, to varying degrees, in the slave trade that took place from the 16th through to the 19th centuries.

Meanwhile, at a press conference in Barbados Thursday, following the St Vincent summit, the chairman of Caricom's Reparations Commission (CRC), Professor Sir Hilary Beckles, said the region expects to host a major conference on reparations and reparatory justice shortly, and various European government delegations are expected to participate.

Professor Beckles said the conference would address "...this matter of continuing harm and continuing suffering within the tradition of international diplomacy.  The diplomatic initiative is designed... to ensure that there is reconciliation, to ensure that there is truth and justice, and to put an end to this terrible history so that the world may move on in the 21st century as a more harmonious place".

Also endorsing a "non-confrontational" approach, Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller says Caricom was seeking to engage a "process of reconciliation and dialogue, free from animosity".

But litigation should not be ruled out if diplomacy and negotiation failed.  That's why the region has engaged the British law firm, Leigh Day, to push the claim under international law, should that be necessary.

Not so long ago, Leigh Day secured a £20-million compensation award for Kenyans who were tortured by colonial authorities during the Mau Mau rebellion in the 1950s.  The financial settlement, though relatively small, confirms that remedies are possible.

In various media statements, Martin Day, a principal of the firm, has been arguing that there is a case for adjudication in the international court of justice in The Hague.  The United Kingdom accepts the jurisdiction of the court, but only in cases relating to disputes arising since 1974 and those that do not involve Commonwealth or former Commonwealth countries.  Day does not see this as an insurmountable hurdle.

With a huge footprint from its slaving imperial and colonial past, Britain's objection to litigating its past conduct is understandable, as cases could arise from the often violent exercise of authority in the vast empire once under its control.  Accepting a case for slavery could open a floodgate of claims for other human rights abuses.

Recently, a British junior minister, while on a visit to Jamaica to drum up business for his country, told us flatly to forget it and move on.  Slavery happened.  It wasn't pretty; but we should just get over it!  I don't think so.

Slave owners compensated for loss of their 'property'

The enslavement of millions of Africans and subsequent abuse for more than 400 years did not occur by happenstance.  Africans were classified in law as non-human, chattel, property and real estate.  They were denied recognition as members of the human family by laws and practices derived from the parliaments and policies of Europe.

British traders shipped more than three million men, women and children from Africa to slave markets in the Americas in what has been acknowledged to be the largest forced migration in human history.

In a compelling argument of the case for reparations, historian Professor Beckles argues in his recent book, Britain's Black Debt: Reparation for Caribbean Slavery and Native Genocide, that international law provides that chattel slavery, as practised by Britain, was a crime against humanity.

He documents that slavery was invested in by the royal family, the Government, the established church, most elite families, and large public institutions in the private and public sectors.  Citing the legal principles of unjust and criminal enrichment, he argues that Britain must pay up on the black debt owed to subsequent generations of Caribbean peoples.

Slavery ended throughout the Caribbean in the 1800s in the wake of slave revolts, and the realisation in Europe that the huge profits from the region's plantation economies were becoming unsustainable.

Since the abolition of slavery, numerous groups have been calling for reparations on the basis of social justice, equity, civil and human rights, education, and cultural identity.

However, that demand remains a divided issue.  Britain has steadfastly refused to apologise or consider financial compensation.  The closest positive response was in 2007 when Tony Blair, the then prime minister, expressed "deep sorrow and regret" for the "unbearable suffering" caused by Britain's role in slavery.

Some would wish that the campaigners for reparations would shut up.   Forget about slavery and move on to more practical issues of human and economic development.  The Europeans will neither pay nor apologise, they say.

Also, cynics suggest that our regional political leaders are using the reparations issue as a diversion from their inability to properly manage governmental institutions and natural resources for the advancement of Caribbean peoples.

No one can dispute that many of our administrations perform below expectations; examples of corruption, lack of adherence to good governance and accountability abound; and too many pressing social issues are not being seriously addressed.

But this does not undermine the case for reparations, which is likely to be a defining issue of the 21st century as peoples all over the world demand the righting of historical wrongs of enslavement and native genocide, whose negative effects are still clearly visible for all who care to see.

But as UWI historian Professor Verene Shepherd, chairman of Jamaica's reparations committee, told Britain's The Daily Telegraph in an interview last month, British colonisers had "disfigured the Caribbean", and their descendants should now pay to repair the damage.

"If you commit a crime against humanity, you are bound to make amends," she said.  "The planters were given compensation, but not one cent went to the freed Jamaicans."   The same countries that deny culpability for their misdeeds are now busy trying African and other leaders for crimes against humanity.  Justice demands that all wrongs be righted.

— kcr@cwjamaica.com

March 16, 2014

Jamaica Observer