Amendment to protect sharks signed into law
KRYSTEL ROLLE
Guardian Staff Reporter
thenassauguardian
krystel@nasguard.com
Nassau, Bahamas
An increase in the global demand for shark meat has prompted government officials to regulate the multi-million-dollar industry for the first time in Bahamian history.
Government officials yesterday signed into law an amendment aimed at protecting sharks that populate the more than 200,000 miles of Bahamian waters.
The Bahamas has long been considered one of the premier shark-watching destinations for divers.
According to statistics compiled by the Bahamas Diving Association, over the past two decades shark-related tourism has contributed more than $800 million to the Bahamian economy.
Yesterday morning an amendment was made to the Fisheries Resources Act that will now prohibit all commercial shark fishing in The Bahamas.
Agriculture and Marine Resources Minister Larry Cartwright said the new provision will permanently protect more than 40 species of shark in Bahamian waters.
“The Bahamas government has determined to enhance the protection extended to sharks found in Bahamian waters,” Cartwright said while speaking at the signing ceremony at the British Colonial Hilton yesterday morning. “This is in keeping with the government’s commitment to pursue appropriate conservation measures and strategies in order to safeguard marine and terrestrial environment. This also responds to concerns expressed by citizens and by local, international and non-governmental organizations to the Government of The Bahamas, calling for strengthened protection of sharks in The Bahamas.
“As we are all aware sharks are heavily fished in many of the world’s oceans and there is concern in many quarters that the current level of fishing including an increased level of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing cannot be sustained and will lead to the collapse of many shark stocks if we permit it.”
Under the 2011 amendment, commercial shark fishing as well as the import, export and sale of shark products are now prohibited.
But the amendment does allow for the recreational catch and release of sharks and the incidental catch and release of sharks by Bahamian citizens, assuming the subsequent sharks or shark products are not sold.
Cartwright said while the amendment took affect yesterday, it still has to be tabled in the House of Assembly.
Since 1993, Department of Fisheries officials have prohibited long line fishing – a move they insist helped maintain the region’s healthy shark population.
“The Bahamas’ prohibition on longline fishing gear 20 years ago protected the marine resources of The Bahamas and ensured that our shark populations would remain healthy,” said Eric Carey, executive director of the Bahamas National Trust (BNT).
“But there were no specific laws in The Bahamas for sharks, the crown jewels of ocean health. The new regulations will ensure that sharks can continue to thrive for generations in our waters, one of the world’s best places to see sharks.”
The effort to bring about shark regulations started last fall after a local seafood company expressed interest in the catching of sharks to meet the global demand for shark fin soup.
A collaboration between the PEW Environment Group and the BNT produced popular public service announcements and a petition that garnered more than 5,000 supporters.
Jill Hepp, manager of global shark conservation for the PEW Environment Group, said “[Tuesday’s] announcement permanently protects shark species in Bahamian waters. We applaud the people and Government of The Bahamas for being bold leaders in marine conservation.”
With the amendment, The Bahamas now joins Palau, the Maldives and Honduras in banning the commercial fishing of sharks.
It is estimated that commercial shark fishers kill up to 73 million sharks annually, mainly for their fins.
Jul 06, 2011
thenassauguardian
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.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
...renewed call in some circles for The Bahamas to sever its links with the Privy Council as its final court of appeal
Is it time to abandon the Privy Council?
Decades old debate resurfaces with controversial ruling
BY CANDIA DAMES
Guardian News Editor
thenassauguardian
candia@nasguard.com
Nassau, Bahamas
In recent times, some Bahamians have been intensely engaged in a debate over the June 15 Privy Council ruling in the matter of the Maxo Tido murder case.
The Privy Council held that the circumstances that led to the death of 16-year-old Donnell Conover were not gruesome enough to mandate the death sentence on the convicted murderer.
Conover’s skull was crushed and her body was burnt.
Many people have denounced the reasoning of the court and have expressed open disappointment in the decision.
This has led to a renewed call in some circles for The Bahamas to sever its links with the Privy Council as our final court of appeal.
Since our independence in 1973, the Privy Council has maintained this position as the head of the Bahamian judicial system.
Article 105 (1) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas states: “Parliament may provide for an appeal to lie from decisions of the Court of Appeal established by Part 2 of this Chapter to the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty’s Privy Council or to such other court as may be prescribed by Parliament under this Article, either as of right or with the leave of the said Court of Appeal, in such cases other than those referred to in Article 104 (2) of this Constitution as may be prescribed by Parliament.”
As noted on its website, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council originated as the highest court of civil and criminal appeal for the British Empire.
It now fulfills the same purpose for many current and former Commonwealth countries, as well as the United Kingdom’s overseas territories, crown dependencies, and military sovereign base areas.
The judicial experience of the foreign Law Lords has been garnered from their experiences at the bar and on the courts in the United Kingdom.
In recent years, members of the Privy Council have traveled to The Bahamas on the invitation of the former President of the Court of Appeal retired Madam Justice Dame Joan Sawyer and have sat in The Bahamas and have heard and determined cases.
During their 2009 visit, then Attorney General and now Chief Justice Sir Michael Barnett noted that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council affects “the lives of Bahamians, the region and people in the wider common-law world.”
The Law Lords’ visits have perhaps been the executive’s and the judiciary’s way of familiarizing the Privy Council with some of the customs and norms that we enjoy in The Bahamas.
The compelling question in light of the Maxo Tido decision is whether the Privy Council remains relevant to the evolving customs and norms of Bahamian society.
Through its various decisions, the Privy Council continues to write policy for The Bahamas and other such jurisdictions that send it appeals.
The most contentious have related to the death penalty.
In some quarters in The Bahamas, there is a widely held view that convicted murderers ought to be subject to the death penalty — as stated by the law.
Even with opponents continuing to point out that there is no evidence to show that capital punishment serves as a deterrent to crime, the call for the resumption of hangings more than 11 years after the last one was carried out continues to resound.
However, there are some Bahamians who remain opposed to any form of capital punishment.
No government, in light of the years of debate since the landmark Pratt and Morgan decision in 1993, has thought it appropriate to have a referendum on this vexing question of the death penalty.
In that judgment, the Privy Council ruled that it would be cruel and inhumane to execute someone who has been under the sentence of death for more than five years.
Given the lack of any timelines, the appeals process in many instances since that ruling has dragged well beyond the five-year mark, and many murder convicts have escaped execution.
There is also a push in some legal circles for The Bahamas to withdraw from the Inter American Commission on Human Rights, another avenue for appeal for murder convicts.
In 2006, the Privy Council imposed an even stricter standard for the imposition of the death penalty when it ruled that the mandatory death sentence was unconstitutional.
All the men who at the time were under the sentence of death had to be resentenced, and according to the Office of the Attorney General, a few still await resentencing.
A referendum is perhaps the only way that any government could know with a degree of certainty the views and opinions of the Bahamian people on the issue of the death penalty.
It is generally accepted that the talk shows and the public commentary emanating from certain quarters may not give the impression of a broad based support or opposition to the death penalty.
Continuing support for Privy Council
There are some lawyers, including the recently re-elected President of the Bar Association Ruth Bowe-Darville, who have expressed continuing support for the Privy Council as our final court of appeal.
Bowe-Darville’s recent comments came in the context of discussing civil and commercial matters arising from the use of our country as an international commercial center.
The point that she was advocating is that the Privy Council is still relevant for the certainty of these disputes and to confirm the country’s reputation as a stable judicial center for the determination of major commercial cases.
There are perhaps few lawyers who would disagree with this proposition.
Veteran attorney Maurice Glinton said, “We need the Privy Council.”
“The Privy Council represents competence,” he said.
“It also represents a standard of performance that we are not accustomed to in this jurisdiction...The concern for all of us who believe in the rule of law is that we always have judges who are competent. That minimizes the opportunity for error. No person should die because of judicial oversight.
“And to the extent that we have a further court to hear us, so that they can see finally with more objective eyes, then that speaks to our humanity, that speaks to our civility.”
However, it does not appear that the distinction between commercial matters and criminal matters generates a similar liking to continue with the Privy Council.
Some proponents who wish to sever our links to the Privy Council appear to be in favor of The Bahamas joining the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) as our final court of appeal.
The CCJ, inaugurated in 2005, sits in Port of Spain, Trinidad & Tobago.
As noted by the regional appellate court, there is still some lingering opposition to the CCJ. Surveys in some CARICOM member states, however, have showed as many as 80 percent of the persons surveyed supported the court, the CCJ says on its website.
In some jurisdictions, while there is little opposition to the court in its original jurisdiction, there is more opposition to it in its appellate jurisdiction.
In 2005, then Minister of Foreign Affairs Fred Mitchell announced that The Bahamas will not join the CCJ. And the current administration has also shown no interest in that court.
The Bahamian Constitution allows us to amend the necessary article to sever our ties with the Privy Council.
It is to be noted that in the ill-fated 2002 attempt to amend the constitution that this was not a provision that the Free National Movement government sought to put before the Bahamian people for approval.
At the very crux of this discussion are two questions: whether The Bahamas can have a dual final court of appeal (that is the Privy Council for civil and commercial matters) and the CCJ for criminal matters.
Secondly, whether it is within our national interest, long term and short term, to sever ties with the Privy Council in circumstances where we appear to be opposed to that court’s standing on the issue of capital punishment.
As an aside, the Privy Council does not appear to be that enthused about the demands placed on it by Commonwealth countries.
In 2009, Lord Phillips, the senior Law Lord of the Judicial Committee, expressed the view that the Privy Council was feeling burdened by appeals emanating from jurisdictions like The Bahamas.
In an interview reported in the Financial Times, he was quoted as saying that he was searching for ways to curb the “disproportionate” time he and his fellow senior justices spent hearing legal appeals from independent Commonwealth countries to the Privy Council in London.
Lord Phillips also suggested that “in an ideal world”, Commonwealth countries would stop using the Privy Council and set up their own final courts of appeal.
Clarifying death penalty cases
The European Court of Human Rights has taken a position on the death penalty, which it appears is a universal approach and therefore the further question that has to be asked is whether The Bahamas wishes to be out of step with a universally recognized principle of the sanctity of life.
The question of the sanctity of life is one which is embodied in a religious concept which stems from the Golden Rule — that you ought to do unto others as you wish others to do to you.
The Catholic denomination has always been strongly opposed to capital punishment based on religious reasons. Some other denominations have generally been pro-capital punishment and this is perhaps in line with the recent comments made by a group of pastors.
The pastors — among them former crime commission chairman Bishop Simeon Hall — expressed outrage at the recent Maxo Tido ruling.
They said in a statement, “This ruling of the Law Lords is more than a ruling. It is a message to all would be murderers, and the message is: ‘As long as you can benchmark your murder to the level of brutality of murders like that of Donnell Conover’s, you can fully expect to be spared the death penalty’.”
After the Maxo Tido ruling, Hall said it is time for The Bahamas to abandon the Privy Council.
“The ruling by the Privy Council raises serious questions as to what is happening,” Hall said.
“I understand to some degree the Privy Council has the last word, but certainly my big problem I’m wrestling with is what is the justice system saying to families of victims of murder, and then to persons who do the murder?
“It seems that the whole system now is lending its way to criminality. For the Law Lords to conclude that this was a bad murder but it’s not counted as the worst of the worst, I think it’s time for us to cry shame on the justice system.”
Even among church leaders, there exists a divergence of views on this question of capital punishment.
There is no doubt that the death penalty issue is an emotive one.
Some observers argue that the balanced approach, however, requires not just an appreciation and sympathy toward the families of the victims of murder, but there ought also to be a willingness to understand and to sympathize with the anguish that will be felt by the murderers’ families.
Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham recently announced that he intends to table before Parliament a bill to address the issue of the death penalty.
That bill will set the criteria of murders that require the death penalty and those that may require life sentences or lesser sentences.
This bill is also likely to address the factors that the court must take into account when it exercises its discretion when sentencing a convicted murderer.
The need for clarity in the law emanated from the 2006 Forrester and Bowe ruling handed down by the Privy Council outlawing the mandatory death sentence.
Retired Supreme Court Justice Jeanne Thompson noted in a recent letter to the editor that this was a clear signal to the legislature that it was necessary to put in place guidelines for judges to use in sentencing convicted murderers.
Indeed, Dame Joan, then president of the Court of Appeal about four years ago, called upon the government to put in place the necessary guidelines, Justice Thompson noted.
“However, nothing was done and judges were obliged to use their discretion with the aid of attorneys, social workers and psychiatrists to decide upon appropriate sentences,” she wrote.
“This created a lacuna in our law and has allowed the Privy Council to use its own principles in adjudging what is an appropriate punishment for persons convicted of murder in The Bahamas.
“Ideally we should have followed the example of the United Kingdom, which, prior to the complete abolition of the death penalty, divided murder into capital and non-capital.”
In the recent Tido ruling, the Privy Council repeated the kinds of murders that warrant the death penalty.
The Law Lords said the worst cases of murder that may call for the imposition of capital punishment would be those in which the murder is carefully planned and carried out in furtherance of another crime, such as robbery, rape, drug smuggling, human smuggling, drug wars, gang enforcement policies, kidnapping, preventing witnesses from testifying, serial killers, as well as the killing of innocents “for the gratification of base desires”.
“The legislation which will be tabled in Parliament is a step in the right direction, but it is very, very late,” said Damian Gomez, a prominent defense attorney, who also pointed to Dame Joan’s call for legislation to be passed to bring some certainty in the area of sentencing.
“Her calls for statutory clarification fell on deaf ears for quite a while, and we’re paying the price for it.”
Clearly, there has been some time that has lagged between the 2006 decision and the formulation of clear guidelines to assist the court in its determination on this issue.
One has to wait to see the contents of the bill to fully assess its suitability and whether in fact it will answer this question of the death penalty once and for all.
One jurist told us that it is likely that the bill if passed by Parliament may lead to constitutional challenges which may further delay but will hopefully make certain the law in The Bahamas on the issue of the death penalty.
Other details of the bill are uncertain at this time.
What is clear though is the question of the Privy Council as the final court of appeal for The Bahamas remains a controversial one — not unlike the question of the death penalty itself.
Jul 04, 2011
thenassauguardian
Decades old debate resurfaces with controversial ruling
BY CANDIA DAMES
Guardian News Editor
thenassauguardian
candia@nasguard.com
Nassau, Bahamas
In recent times, some Bahamians have been intensely engaged in a debate over the June 15 Privy Council ruling in the matter of the Maxo Tido murder case.
The Privy Council held that the circumstances that led to the death of 16-year-old Donnell Conover were not gruesome enough to mandate the death sentence on the convicted murderer.
Conover’s skull was crushed and her body was burnt.
Many people have denounced the reasoning of the court and have expressed open disappointment in the decision.
This has led to a renewed call in some circles for The Bahamas to sever its links with the Privy Council as our final court of appeal.
Since our independence in 1973, the Privy Council has maintained this position as the head of the Bahamian judicial system.
Article 105 (1) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas states: “Parliament may provide for an appeal to lie from decisions of the Court of Appeal established by Part 2 of this Chapter to the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty’s Privy Council or to such other court as may be prescribed by Parliament under this Article, either as of right or with the leave of the said Court of Appeal, in such cases other than those referred to in Article 104 (2) of this Constitution as may be prescribed by Parliament.”
As noted on its website, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council originated as the highest court of civil and criminal appeal for the British Empire.
It now fulfills the same purpose for many current and former Commonwealth countries, as well as the United Kingdom’s overseas territories, crown dependencies, and military sovereign base areas.
The judicial experience of the foreign Law Lords has been garnered from their experiences at the bar and on the courts in the United Kingdom.
In recent years, members of the Privy Council have traveled to The Bahamas on the invitation of the former President of the Court of Appeal retired Madam Justice Dame Joan Sawyer and have sat in The Bahamas and have heard and determined cases.
During their 2009 visit, then Attorney General and now Chief Justice Sir Michael Barnett noted that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council affects “the lives of Bahamians, the region and people in the wider common-law world.”
The Law Lords’ visits have perhaps been the executive’s and the judiciary’s way of familiarizing the Privy Council with some of the customs and norms that we enjoy in The Bahamas.
The compelling question in light of the Maxo Tido decision is whether the Privy Council remains relevant to the evolving customs and norms of Bahamian society.
Through its various decisions, the Privy Council continues to write policy for The Bahamas and other such jurisdictions that send it appeals.
The most contentious have related to the death penalty.
In some quarters in The Bahamas, there is a widely held view that convicted murderers ought to be subject to the death penalty — as stated by the law.
Even with opponents continuing to point out that there is no evidence to show that capital punishment serves as a deterrent to crime, the call for the resumption of hangings more than 11 years after the last one was carried out continues to resound.
However, there are some Bahamians who remain opposed to any form of capital punishment.
No government, in light of the years of debate since the landmark Pratt and Morgan decision in 1993, has thought it appropriate to have a referendum on this vexing question of the death penalty.
In that judgment, the Privy Council ruled that it would be cruel and inhumane to execute someone who has been under the sentence of death for more than five years.
Given the lack of any timelines, the appeals process in many instances since that ruling has dragged well beyond the five-year mark, and many murder convicts have escaped execution.
There is also a push in some legal circles for The Bahamas to withdraw from the Inter American Commission on Human Rights, another avenue for appeal for murder convicts.
In 2006, the Privy Council imposed an even stricter standard for the imposition of the death penalty when it ruled that the mandatory death sentence was unconstitutional.
All the men who at the time were under the sentence of death had to be resentenced, and according to the Office of the Attorney General, a few still await resentencing.
A referendum is perhaps the only way that any government could know with a degree of certainty the views and opinions of the Bahamian people on the issue of the death penalty.
It is generally accepted that the talk shows and the public commentary emanating from certain quarters may not give the impression of a broad based support or opposition to the death penalty.
Continuing support for Privy Council
There are some lawyers, including the recently re-elected President of the Bar Association Ruth Bowe-Darville, who have expressed continuing support for the Privy Council as our final court of appeal.
Bowe-Darville’s recent comments came in the context of discussing civil and commercial matters arising from the use of our country as an international commercial center.
The point that she was advocating is that the Privy Council is still relevant for the certainty of these disputes and to confirm the country’s reputation as a stable judicial center for the determination of major commercial cases.
There are perhaps few lawyers who would disagree with this proposition.
Veteran attorney Maurice Glinton said, “We need the Privy Council.”
“The Privy Council represents competence,” he said.
“It also represents a standard of performance that we are not accustomed to in this jurisdiction...The concern for all of us who believe in the rule of law is that we always have judges who are competent. That minimizes the opportunity for error. No person should die because of judicial oversight.
“And to the extent that we have a further court to hear us, so that they can see finally with more objective eyes, then that speaks to our humanity, that speaks to our civility.”
However, it does not appear that the distinction between commercial matters and criminal matters generates a similar liking to continue with the Privy Council.
Some proponents who wish to sever our links to the Privy Council appear to be in favor of The Bahamas joining the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) as our final court of appeal.
The CCJ, inaugurated in 2005, sits in Port of Spain, Trinidad & Tobago.
As noted by the regional appellate court, there is still some lingering opposition to the CCJ. Surveys in some CARICOM member states, however, have showed as many as 80 percent of the persons surveyed supported the court, the CCJ says on its website.
In some jurisdictions, while there is little opposition to the court in its original jurisdiction, there is more opposition to it in its appellate jurisdiction.
In 2005, then Minister of Foreign Affairs Fred Mitchell announced that The Bahamas will not join the CCJ. And the current administration has also shown no interest in that court.
The Bahamian Constitution allows us to amend the necessary article to sever our ties with the Privy Council.
It is to be noted that in the ill-fated 2002 attempt to amend the constitution that this was not a provision that the Free National Movement government sought to put before the Bahamian people for approval.
At the very crux of this discussion are two questions: whether The Bahamas can have a dual final court of appeal (that is the Privy Council for civil and commercial matters) and the CCJ for criminal matters.
Secondly, whether it is within our national interest, long term and short term, to sever ties with the Privy Council in circumstances where we appear to be opposed to that court’s standing on the issue of capital punishment.
As an aside, the Privy Council does not appear to be that enthused about the demands placed on it by Commonwealth countries.
In 2009, Lord Phillips, the senior Law Lord of the Judicial Committee, expressed the view that the Privy Council was feeling burdened by appeals emanating from jurisdictions like The Bahamas.
In an interview reported in the Financial Times, he was quoted as saying that he was searching for ways to curb the “disproportionate” time he and his fellow senior justices spent hearing legal appeals from independent Commonwealth countries to the Privy Council in London.
Lord Phillips also suggested that “in an ideal world”, Commonwealth countries would stop using the Privy Council and set up their own final courts of appeal.
Clarifying death penalty cases
The European Court of Human Rights has taken a position on the death penalty, which it appears is a universal approach and therefore the further question that has to be asked is whether The Bahamas wishes to be out of step with a universally recognized principle of the sanctity of life.
The question of the sanctity of life is one which is embodied in a religious concept which stems from the Golden Rule — that you ought to do unto others as you wish others to do to you.
The Catholic denomination has always been strongly opposed to capital punishment based on religious reasons. Some other denominations have generally been pro-capital punishment and this is perhaps in line with the recent comments made by a group of pastors.
The pastors — among them former crime commission chairman Bishop Simeon Hall — expressed outrage at the recent Maxo Tido ruling.
They said in a statement, “This ruling of the Law Lords is more than a ruling. It is a message to all would be murderers, and the message is: ‘As long as you can benchmark your murder to the level of brutality of murders like that of Donnell Conover’s, you can fully expect to be spared the death penalty’.”
After the Maxo Tido ruling, Hall said it is time for The Bahamas to abandon the Privy Council.
“The ruling by the Privy Council raises serious questions as to what is happening,” Hall said.
“I understand to some degree the Privy Council has the last word, but certainly my big problem I’m wrestling with is what is the justice system saying to families of victims of murder, and then to persons who do the murder?
“It seems that the whole system now is lending its way to criminality. For the Law Lords to conclude that this was a bad murder but it’s not counted as the worst of the worst, I think it’s time for us to cry shame on the justice system.”
Even among church leaders, there exists a divergence of views on this question of capital punishment.
There is no doubt that the death penalty issue is an emotive one.
Some observers argue that the balanced approach, however, requires not just an appreciation and sympathy toward the families of the victims of murder, but there ought also to be a willingness to understand and to sympathize with the anguish that will be felt by the murderers’ families.
Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham recently announced that he intends to table before Parliament a bill to address the issue of the death penalty.
That bill will set the criteria of murders that require the death penalty and those that may require life sentences or lesser sentences.
This bill is also likely to address the factors that the court must take into account when it exercises its discretion when sentencing a convicted murderer.
The need for clarity in the law emanated from the 2006 Forrester and Bowe ruling handed down by the Privy Council outlawing the mandatory death sentence.
Retired Supreme Court Justice Jeanne Thompson noted in a recent letter to the editor that this was a clear signal to the legislature that it was necessary to put in place guidelines for judges to use in sentencing convicted murderers.
Indeed, Dame Joan, then president of the Court of Appeal about four years ago, called upon the government to put in place the necessary guidelines, Justice Thompson noted.
“However, nothing was done and judges were obliged to use their discretion with the aid of attorneys, social workers and psychiatrists to decide upon appropriate sentences,” she wrote.
“This created a lacuna in our law and has allowed the Privy Council to use its own principles in adjudging what is an appropriate punishment for persons convicted of murder in The Bahamas.
“Ideally we should have followed the example of the United Kingdom, which, prior to the complete abolition of the death penalty, divided murder into capital and non-capital.”
In the recent Tido ruling, the Privy Council repeated the kinds of murders that warrant the death penalty.
The Law Lords said the worst cases of murder that may call for the imposition of capital punishment would be those in which the murder is carefully planned and carried out in furtherance of another crime, such as robbery, rape, drug smuggling, human smuggling, drug wars, gang enforcement policies, kidnapping, preventing witnesses from testifying, serial killers, as well as the killing of innocents “for the gratification of base desires”.
“The legislation which will be tabled in Parliament is a step in the right direction, but it is very, very late,” said Damian Gomez, a prominent defense attorney, who also pointed to Dame Joan’s call for legislation to be passed to bring some certainty in the area of sentencing.
“Her calls for statutory clarification fell on deaf ears for quite a while, and we’re paying the price for it.”
Clearly, there has been some time that has lagged between the 2006 decision and the formulation of clear guidelines to assist the court in its determination on this issue.
One has to wait to see the contents of the bill to fully assess its suitability and whether in fact it will answer this question of the death penalty once and for all.
One jurist told us that it is likely that the bill if passed by Parliament may lead to constitutional challenges which may further delay but will hopefully make certain the law in The Bahamas on the issue of the death penalty.
Other details of the bill are uncertain at this time.
What is clear though is the question of the Privy Council as the final court of appeal for The Bahamas remains a controversial one — not unlike the question of the death penalty itself.
Jul 04, 2011
thenassauguardian
Monday, July 4, 2011
Haiti and the issue of colour
By Jean H Charles
There has been recently continuous chatting on the Haitian cyber space regarding the issue of colour.
The chatting might have been caused by the pictures sent by those opposing the government of the inaugural ball, where most were of light skin colour, in a sea of black skinned Haitians in the country.
It might also have been caused by the rejection of the proposed prime minister, Gerard Rouzier, by the Haitian parliament. Gerard Rouzier is a mulatto; the Parliament is in majority black. Haiti for the past sixty years has been discriminating against the mulattos on the political side. They can succeed economically but they should not occupy high political positions in the government. This form of discrimination has been a secret code of modus operandi in the Haitian political panorama.
The debate started with an essay by one of the most talented Haitian economists cum agronomists, Jean Erich Rene, titled The Issue of Colour Is an Old Story in Haiti.
Daly Valet the director of one of the most important newspapers in the country, Le Matin, responded: the issue of colour is not dead!
I have entered into the fray to conclude and rule that the issue of colour is indeed alive and well in Haiti.
I have often commented in my column that Haiti and Guyana occupy the last wagon on the economic locomotive of the Caribbean. That situation is due chiefly because of the issue of colour. In Guyana, the PPP (People’s Progressive Party) with a majority of Indo Guyanese and white descendants of the Portuguese (52%) hold control of power with a clear disdain of the black minority (48%) who took refuge in the PNC (People’s National Congress). It is a country with two heads, one looking on the right and the other head looking on the left.
Thank God, Haiti does not have this radical political division, but on the political, social and economic side, Haiti, after the assassination of its founding father Jean Jacques Dessalines, is also a country with two heads; one looking at the right the other looking at the left.
Dessalines wanted to create a country where black and mulatto would live in peace and harmony in a hospitable Haiti. He failed lamentably in that dream. To immortalize the sentiment of hospitality, he offered his daughter Celimene to Alexander Petion. He was rejected. Dessalines believing that Petion had rejected Celimene because she was black never forgave him.
In fact, two hundred years later, Haiti has less inter marriage between black and mulatto than the United States, which started its experience of nation building only forty years ago, circa 1968. America in general, downtown Brooklyn in particular, has more marriages between white and black than Haiti between mulatto and black (of course, all proportion respected).
Henry Christophe, the second president of the country, was so vexed by that situation he took refuge in the northern part of Haiti when the parliament led by Alexander Petion in cohorts with the French took the decision to strip him of most the presidential powers.
On his way from Port au Prince to Cape Haitian he ordered to kill all the mulattos with the quip that “these citizens will never become true Haitians!”
The kingdom of Henry Christophe was destroyed seventeen years later with all the ethos of nation building sentiments. The republic of Alexander Petion survived for 150 years. It is a republic with disdain for the majority of the Haitian population that gravitated to the mountains to people rural Haiti. The only state presence in the rural village has been and is a decrepit school where the teachers arrive at 12.00 pm to leave at 2.00 pm.
During those 150 years there were two window opening opportunities. The first one occurred in 1902 when Antenor Firmin opposed Nord Alexis in the presidential election. The second took place in 1930 when Jean Price Mars was running against Louis Eugene Roy. Both Antenor Firmin and Jean Price Mars were advocating the concept that the Haitian elite should take in consideration the fate of the majority poor in bringing about fundamental change in the way the country treated its citizens.
On each of these occasions, the Haitian parliament supported by international hands has defeated these champions of human rights and of hospitality for all. They have forestalled all efforts towards nation building.
Jean Price Mars, an eminent anthropologist, crisscrossed the country with his lectures about the intrinsic beauty of the black race. He was indeed the forefather of the concept of black is beautiful. Yet his school was prostituted by the politicians such as Lorimer Denis, Francois Duvalier, Dumarsais Estime into a concept that now it is time for blacks to have their fair share to the detriment of all others.
That philosophy, called noirisme, is now the politics of the day. It started with Dumarsais Estime as president in 1946; it did have a hiatus under the presidency of Paul E Magloire, who ruled under the ostrich ideology that the issue of race is not important and it is over.
The noirisme concept came back with a vengeance under Francois and his son Jean Claude Duvalier. It has been muted into a clan politics in full force under Jean Bertrand Aristide and Rene Preval.
These successive governments have refused to look into the welfare of the majority of the population. The Duvalier clan, the Lavalas clan, and the Lespwa (Preval) have lived high and well while the people were vegetating in misery. It was one of the most elaborate political schemes of imposture that now is entrenched after sixty years on the Haitian firmament. They are pretending that their unlimited ambition, greed and avarice are in harmony with the fundamental interests of the nation.
The correct solution, pruned by Mars and Firmin, was Haiti should belong to all its children, black and mulattos -- rural Haiti as well as the Diaspora; they should all enjoy the abundant and the resilient resources of the country.
The year 2011 represents for Haiti a new beginning. Akin to 1902 with Antenor Firmin and 1930 with Jean Price Mars, Haiti is yearning for a country where the rule of law is in force where the peasants are seen like human beings with the right to health, education, spiritual and material prosperity.
Joseph Michel Martelly who won on the political platform of repons paysan (the peasant challenge) can play the ostrich game like Paul Eugene Magloire and pretend that the issue of colour is dead and over.
He can also extend the life of the predatory culture of Aristide and Preval that pays no attention to the distress of the population.
He can also, because he has been elected with a large mandate to bring about radical change into the Haitian ethos, challenge the retrograde mentality of exclusion so proper to Haiti and to the Haitians.
He should put an end to the political, economic and social discrimination against rural Haiti that comprises 85 percent of the population. He should also attack the social and the political discrimination against the Diaspora (4 percent of the population) and last but not least he should stop the political discrimination against the mulattos (1 percent of the population).
That culture of discrimination cannot end with pious wishes but must be confronted with laser beam targeted affirmative action of economic incubation for the rural and urban poor. The government should immediately take steps to facilitate the voting process of the Haitian residents in foreign lands in the Haitian consulates or any other facility provided by organizations such as Woman’s League of voters or its equivalent.
Last but not least, President Martelly should end the political discrimination against the mulattos. It may have been his intention in nominating Gerard Rouzier as his prime minister, but he must engage first into the leadership of education and training before making such a bold step. Machiavelli is still right. It is never easy to bring about a new form of political order.
The year 2012 will be the Guyanese year. Presidential elections will take place. The indo Guyanese and the black Guyanese will have to decide to create the rule of law in their own country where all the composites – black, indo and white -- will enjoy the bliss of hospitality for all.
When this is done, the Caribbean will enter into a new era where the concept of one market of good and human services is possible from The Bahamas to Belize. The two social gangrenes of the region, Haiti and Guyana, have put their house in order. Their citizens will travel to enjoy, buy and socialize in the sister nations. They will be no more, international nomads always seeking for a better sky to compensate for an unfriendly home, inhospitable to their human needs and aspirations.
July 4, 2011
caribbeannewsnow
There has been recently continuous chatting on the Haitian cyber space regarding the issue of colour.
The chatting might have been caused by the pictures sent by those opposing the government of the inaugural ball, where most were of light skin colour, in a sea of black skinned Haitians in the country.
It might also have been caused by the rejection of the proposed prime minister, Gerard Rouzier, by the Haitian parliament. Gerard Rouzier is a mulatto; the Parliament is in majority black. Haiti for the past sixty years has been discriminating against the mulattos on the political side. They can succeed economically but they should not occupy high political positions in the government. This form of discrimination has been a secret code of modus operandi in the Haitian political panorama. The debate started with an essay by one of the most talented Haitian economists cum agronomists, Jean Erich Rene, titled The Issue of Colour Is an Old Story in Haiti.
Daly Valet the director of one of the most important newspapers in the country, Le Matin, responded: the issue of colour is not dead!
I have entered into the fray to conclude and rule that the issue of colour is indeed alive and well in Haiti.
I have often commented in my column that Haiti and Guyana occupy the last wagon on the economic locomotive of the Caribbean. That situation is due chiefly because of the issue of colour. In Guyana, the PPP (People’s Progressive Party) with a majority of Indo Guyanese and white descendants of the Portuguese (52%) hold control of power with a clear disdain of the black minority (48%) who took refuge in the PNC (People’s National Congress). It is a country with two heads, one looking on the right and the other head looking on the left.
Thank God, Haiti does not have this radical political division, but on the political, social and economic side, Haiti, after the assassination of its founding father Jean Jacques Dessalines, is also a country with two heads; one looking at the right the other looking at the left.
Dessalines wanted to create a country where black and mulatto would live in peace and harmony in a hospitable Haiti. He failed lamentably in that dream. To immortalize the sentiment of hospitality, he offered his daughter Celimene to Alexander Petion. He was rejected. Dessalines believing that Petion had rejected Celimene because she was black never forgave him.
In fact, two hundred years later, Haiti has less inter marriage between black and mulatto than the United States, which started its experience of nation building only forty years ago, circa 1968. America in general, downtown Brooklyn in particular, has more marriages between white and black than Haiti between mulatto and black (of course, all proportion respected).
Henry Christophe, the second president of the country, was so vexed by that situation he took refuge in the northern part of Haiti when the parliament led by Alexander Petion in cohorts with the French took the decision to strip him of most the presidential powers.
On his way from Port au Prince to Cape Haitian he ordered to kill all the mulattos with the quip that “these citizens will never become true Haitians!”
The kingdom of Henry Christophe was destroyed seventeen years later with all the ethos of nation building sentiments. The republic of Alexander Petion survived for 150 years. It is a republic with disdain for the majority of the Haitian population that gravitated to the mountains to people rural Haiti. The only state presence in the rural village has been and is a decrepit school where the teachers arrive at 12.00 pm to leave at 2.00 pm.
During those 150 years there were two window opening opportunities. The first one occurred in 1902 when Antenor Firmin opposed Nord Alexis in the presidential election. The second took place in 1930 when Jean Price Mars was running against Louis Eugene Roy. Both Antenor Firmin and Jean Price Mars were advocating the concept that the Haitian elite should take in consideration the fate of the majority poor in bringing about fundamental change in the way the country treated its citizens.
On each of these occasions, the Haitian parliament supported by international hands has defeated these champions of human rights and of hospitality for all. They have forestalled all efforts towards nation building.
Jean Price Mars, an eminent anthropologist, crisscrossed the country with his lectures about the intrinsic beauty of the black race. He was indeed the forefather of the concept of black is beautiful. Yet his school was prostituted by the politicians such as Lorimer Denis, Francois Duvalier, Dumarsais Estime into a concept that now it is time for blacks to have their fair share to the detriment of all others.
That philosophy, called noirisme, is now the politics of the day. It started with Dumarsais Estime as president in 1946; it did have a hiatus under the presidency of Paul E Magloire, who ruled under the ostrich ideology that the issue of race is not important and it is over.
The noirisme concept came back with a vengeance under Francois and his son Jean Claude Duvalier. It has been muted into a clan politics in full force under Jean Bertrand Aristide and Rene Preval.
These successive governments have refused to look into the welfare of the majority of the population. The Duvalier clan, the Lavalas clan, and the Lespwa (Preval) have lived high and well while the people were vegetating in misery. It was one of the most elaborate political schemes of imposture that now is entrenched after sixty years on the Haitian firmament. They are pretending that their unlimited ambition, greed and avarice are in harmony with the fundamental interests of the nation.
The correct solution, pruned by Mars and Firmin, was Haiti should belong to all its children, black and mulattos -- rural Haiti as well as the Diaspora; they should all enjoy the abundant and the resilient resources of the country.
The year 2011 represents for Haiti a new beginning. Akin to 1902 with Antenor Firmin and 1930 with Jean Price Mars, Haiti is yearning for a country where the rule of law is in force where the peasants are seen like human beings with the right to health, education, spiritual and material prosperity.
Joseph Michel Martelly who won on the political platform of repons paysan (the peasant challenge) can play the ostrich game like Paul Eugene Magloire and pretend that the issue of colour is dead and over.
He can also extend the life of the predatory culture of Aristide and Preval that pays no attention to the distress of the population.
He can also, because he has been elected with a large mandate to bring about radical change into the Haitian ethos, challenge the retrograde mentality of exclusion so proper to Haiti and to the Haitians.
He should put an end to the political, economic and social discrimination against rural Haiti that comprises 85 percent of the population. He should also attack the social and the political discrimination against the Diaspora (4 percent of the population) and last but not least he should stop the political discrimination against the mulattos (1 percent of the population).
That culture of discrimination cannot end with pious wishes but must be confronted with laser beam targeted affirmative action of economic incubation for the rural and urban poor. The government should immediately take steps to facilitate the voting process of the Haitian residents in foreign lands in the Haitian consulates or any other facility provided by organizations such as Woman’s League of voters or its equivalent.
Last but not least, President Martelly should end the political discrimination against the mulattos. It may have been his intention in nominating Gerard Rouzier as his prime minister, but he must engage first into the leadership of education and training before making such a bold step. Machiavelli is still right. It is never easy to bring about a new form of political order.
The year 2012 will be the Guyanese year. Presidential elections will take place. The indo Guyanese and the black Guyanese will have to decide to create the rule of law in their own country where all the composites – black, indo and white -- will enjoy the bliss of hospitality for all.
When this is done, the Caribbean will enter into a new era where the concept of one market of good and human services is possible from The Bahamas to Belize. The two social gangrenes of the region, Haiti and Guyana, have put their house in order. Their citizens will travel to enjoy, buy and socialize in the sister nations. They will be no more, international nomads always seeking for a better sky to compensate for an unfriendly home, inhospitable to their human needs and aspirations.
July 4, 2011
caribbeannewsnow
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Dominique Strauss-Kahn's willingness to engage in casual, reckless sex with a stranger and the lore of his previous capricious affairs
Rape: A Case Where No One Wins
jamaica-gleaner editorial
It took just a few hours for Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the former leading steward of the world economy, and contender for the French presidency, to fall from grace, accused of molesting a maid in a posh New York hotel.
On May 14, images of the 62-year-old Strauss-Kahn were being beamed all over the world, paraded as an alleged criminal facing eight counts, including alleged rape and criminal sexual acts. But now as the case against him begins to unravel, the French multimillionaire is looking more like the victim. It has also renewed claims that he was set up by political rivals.
The latest buzz is that prosecutors doubt the veracity of claims made by the 32-year-old Guinean chambermaid who is being characterised to be an old hand at lying about being raped. There are also charges that she is linked to a drug dealer, and she has received hefty inflows into her bank account.
Strauss-Kahn's defence will claim consensual sex to explain the DNA evidence found by investigators.
The case, with its many twists and turns, is being hotly debated around the world and is likely to come down to whom is seen as more credible - him or her - since there were no witnesses. It has also raised some interesting questions about the issue of rape, including how it is investigated and how there can be equally fair treatment for the accused and the accuser.
highly under-reported
First, we submit that rape is a horrible crime. It is also a disturbingly under-reported crime. Rape and other sexual crimes should be thoroughly investigated, especially since the victims are usually young, poor and marginalised. Therefore, only proper and meticulous investigation will guarantee a restoration of credibility in the prosecutorial process.
In rape cases, the victim usually remains anonymous, while the accused is paraded before the world. Would it be more reasonable in the administration of justice that a person accused of sexual crimes to be only identified on conviction in a court of law?
Take the case of Mr Strauss-Kahn, who was forced to give up his job as head of the International Monetary Fund. Was he the target of extortion? If, indeed, his accuser lied, how will he begin to repair his tarnished reputation?
And what of the alleged complainant? It has been reported that the woman involved in this case is a single mother and a devout Muslim. How will this affect her life and that of her child? Will she be stigmatised by those who can identify her? In the end, no one seems to come out of such encounters victorious.
There are suggestions that, as the case appears near to collapse, Strauss-Kahn's backers think he still has a chance to snatch the presidency from the incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy. Yesterday's press conference and counter-press conference by the victim's attorney and the District Attorney's Office, respectively, are turning the case into more of a sensational circus than it already was.
Whatever the outcome of this highly publicised case, the French electorate might very well weigh, in the presidential ballot, Strauss-Kahn's willingness to engage in casual, reckless sex with a stranger and the lore of his previous capricious affairs.
The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.
July 2, 2011
jamaica-gleaner editorial
July 2, 2011
jamaica-gleaner editorial
It took just a few hours for Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the former leading steward of the world economy, and contender for the French presidency, to fall from grace, accused of molesting a maid in a posh New York hotel.
On May 14, images of the 62-year-old Strauss-Kahn were being beamed all over the world, paraded as an alleged criminal facing eight counts, including alleged rape and criminal sexual acts. But now as the case against him begins to unravel, the French multimillionaire is looking more like the victim. It has also renewed claims that he was set up by political rivals.
The latest buzz is that prosecutors doubt the veracity of claims made by the 32-year-old Guinean chambermaid who is being characterised to be an old hand at lying about being raped. There are also charges that she is linked to a drug dealer, and she has received hefty inflows into her bank account.
Strauss-Kahn's defence will claim consensual sex to explain the DNA evidence found by investigators.
The case, with its many twists and turns, is being hotly debated around the world and is likely to come down to whom is seen as more credible - him or her - since there were no witnesses. It has also raised some interesting questions about the issue of rape, including how it is investigated and how there can be equally fair treatment for the accused and the accuser.
highly under-reported
First, we submit that rape is a horrible crime. It is also a disturbingly under-reported crime. Rape and other sexual crimes should be thoroughly investigated, especially since the victims are usually young, poor and marginalised. Therefore, only proper and meticulous investigation will guarantee a restoration of credibility in the prosecutorial process.
In rape cases, the victim usually remains anonymous, while the accused is paraded before the world. Would it be more reasonable in the administration of justice that a person accused of sexual crimes to be only identified on conviction in a court of law?
Take the case of Mr Strauss-Kahn, who was forced to give up his job as head of the International Monetary Fund. Was he the target of extortion? If, indeed, his accuser lied, how will he begin to repair his tarnished reputation?
And what of the alleged complainant? It has been reported that the woman involved in this case is a single mother and a devout Muslim. How will this affect her life and that of her child? Will she be stigmatised by those who can identify her? In the end, no one seems to come out of such encounters victorious.
There are suggestions that, as the case appears near to collapse, Strauss-Kahn's backers think he still has a chance to snatch the presidency from the incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy. Yesterday's press conference and counter-press conference by the victim's attorney and the District Attorney's Office, respectively, are turning the case into more of a sensational circus than it already was.
Whatever the outcome of this highly publicised case, the French electorate might very well weigh, in the presidential ballot, Strauss-Kahn's willingness to engage in casual, reckless sex with a stranger and the lore of his previous capricious affairs.
The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.
July 2, 2011
jamaica-gleaner editorial
July 2, 2011
Friday, July 1, 2011
The "Lotioner" in Bahamian politics and other kinds of Bahamian politicians
Portrait of the ‘Lotioner’
East Street Blues
BY IAN STRACHAN
Nassau, Bahamas
There are three kinds of Bahamian politicians. The question for the Bahamian electorate is, which kind is the best kind for these times and which should they give the powers of the Prime Minister to?
The first kind I’d call “The Lotioner.” Our people seem to like this kind a lot. They smile a lot. Love to shake hands and hug people. They make sure the black dye in their hair is always done perfectly. They seem to genuinely enjoy high office. I’m not sure they enjoy hard work and making unpopular decisions but they do enjoy attention.
This type of man is popular and has been his whole life. More than anything, he wants to be liked, likes to be liked, and usually that’s not very hard for him because he’s a natural charmer. He never wants to get on the people’s bad side. In fact, he tends to choose his sides depending on where the people stand. As soon as he’s pretty sure where most people stand, he’ll get up and say “You don’t have to vote for me if you want, but such and such is my position!”
Now, as a politician this makes very good sense, since the people elected you and can easily remove you. Popular opinion and popularity are the oxygen and bread the politician needs to survive. But there’s a flip side. The flip side is that the majority are often wrong, often misinformed, often emotional, often short sighted, often bigoted, so the politician who focuses on what the people want to the neglect of all else can turn out to be a leader history has little good to say about.
Pandering to the people at all times is no way to lead. In fact, it makes you a fraud. There are times when the people must be made to do what they would rather not do; there are times when for their own sakes, their appetites must be curbed, their habits altered, their convenience sacrificed.
When power for its own sake is the only goal, not actual progress, the Lotioner becomes a liability. But there he is, constantly flattering us, telling us how great we are, how great our nation is, how blessed he is to have this opportunity, how humbled he is by the power we have bestowed upon him.
Oh, and let us not forget one other very important thing about the Lotioner: he prefers form over substance. Nuts and bolts are anathema to him. He doesn’t have the appetite for it. Or he just doesn’t care about it. He lives for the grand speech, not the backdoor planning meeting. He goes in for grand gestures, for emoting, his goal is to be the One. He rarely ever really has anything he really wants to accomplish once he is the One, so long as he remains the One. The Lotioner strikes as someone who should have been a Hollywood actor but found that the crowds enjoyed political rallies and therefore gave up on the Hollywood dream and pursued Parliament instead. It’s easier.
Lotioners are very astute politicians when it comes to reading the current of popular opinion; they are very adept at expressing things with certitude and conviction even if their actual commitment to what they are saying is paper thin. They love the performance of politics but produce little change. The Lotioner is far better at keeping this going the way they are than he is at making dramatic changes or reform that could get people worked up and angry at him. This leader works better in government than in opposition and works better when times are good than when times are hard. He needs a well oiled machine to sit on top of. Don’t ask him to build the machine.
Now, I must give credit where credit is due. The Lotioner, in his eloquence and shininess is able to bring the masses to a level of euphoria, hopefulness and optimism that the other two kinds of politicians can rarely match. To put it plainly, the man can make you feel good about your life and your world. They can make you believe the world can be a better place. They can make you believe they will deliver that world to you. When they are their best, the Lotioners can make the masses stronger and more united than anyone thought possible.
It helps is the Lotioner is a man of high intelligence. His intelligence doesn’t make him less of a B.S.-er, it makes him more likely to surround himself with people who actually know what they’re doing. A super smart Lotioner, like Barack Obama or Bill Clinton, has good judgement and knows to listen to the experts. Lotioners almost always marry wives that are smarter and more competent than they are. That’s no mistake. You will find that such men lean on their wives heavily for their actual career success.
IAN STRACHAN is Associate Professor of English at The College of The Bahamas. You can write him at strachantalk@gmail or visit www.ianstrachan.wordpress.com.
Jun 30, 2011
thenassauguardian
East Street Blues
BY IAN STRACHAN
Nassau, Bahamas
There are three kinds of Bahamian politicians. The question for the Bahamian electorate is, which kind is the best kind for these times and which should they give the powers of the Prime Minister to?
The first kind I’d call “The Lotioner.” Our people seem to like this kind a lot. They smile a lot. Love to shake hands and hug people. They make sure the black dye in their hair is always done perfectly. They seem to genuinely enjoy high office. I’m not sure they enjoy hard work and making unpopular decisions but they do enjoy attention.
This type of man is popular and has been his whole life. More than anything, he wants to be liked, likes to be liked, and usually that’s not very hard for him because he’s a natural charmer. He never wants to get on the people’s bad side. In fact, he tends to choose his sides depending on where the people stand. As soon as he’s pretty sure where most people stand, he’ll get up and say “You don’t have to vote for me if you want, but such and such is my position!”
Now, as a politician this makes very good sense, since the people elected you and can easily remove you. Popular opinion and popularity are the oxygen and bread the politician needs to survive. But there’s a flip side. The flip side is that the majority are often wrong, often misinformed, often emotional, often short sighted, often bigoted, so the politician who focuses on what the people want to the neglect of all else can turn out to be a leader history has little good to say about.
Pandering to the people at all times is no way to lead. In fact, it makes you a fraud. There are times when the people must be made to do what they would rather not do; there are times when for their own sakes, their appetites must be curbed, their habits altered, their convenience sacrificed.
When power for its own sake is the only goal, not actual progress, the Lotioner becomes a liability. But there he is, constantly flattering us, telling us how great we are, how great our nation is, how blessed he is to have this opportunity, how humbled he is by the power we have bestowed upon him.
Oh, and let us not forget one other very important thing about the Lotioner: he prefers form over substance. Nuts and bolts are anathema to him. He doesn’t have the appetite for it. Or he just doesn’t care about it. He lives for the grand speech, not the backdoor planning meeting. He goes in for grand gestures, for emoting, his goal is to be the One. He rarely ever really has anything he really wants to accomplish once he is the One, so long as he remains the One. The Lotioner strikes as someone who should have been a Hollywood actor but found that the crowds enjoyed political rallies and therefore gave up on the Hollywood dream and pursued Parliament instead. It’s easier.
Lotioners are very astute politicians when it comes to reading the current of popular opinion; they are very adept at expressing things with certitude and conviction even if their actual commitment to what they are saying is paper thin. They love the performance of politics but produce little change. The Lotioner is far better at keeping this going the way they are than he is at making dramatic changes or reform that could get people worked up and angry at him. This leader works better in government than in opposition and works better when times are good than when times are hard. He needs a well oiled machine to sit on top of. Don’t ask him to build the machine.
Now, I must give credit where credit is due. The Lotioner, in his eloquence and shininess is able to bring the masses to a level of euphoria, hopefulness and optimism that the other two kinds of politicians can rarely match. To put it plainly, the man can make you feel good about your life and your world. They can make you believe the world can be a better place. They can make you believe they will deliver that world to you. When they are their best, the Lotioners can make the masses stronger and more united than anyone thought possible.
It helps is the Lotioner is a man of high intelligence. His intelligence doesn’t make him less of a B.S.-er, it makes him more likely to surround himself with people who actually know what they’re doing. A super smart Lotioner, like Barack Obama or Bill Clinton, has good judgement and knows to listen to the experts. Lotioners almost always marry wives that are smarter and more competent than they are. That’s no mistake. You will find that such men lean on their wives heavily for their actual career success.
IAN STRACHAN is Associate Professor of English at The College of The Bahamas. You can write him at strachantalk@gmail or visit www.ianstrachan.wordpress.com.
Jun 30, 2011
thenassauguardian
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Bahamas: Many Bahamians have an irrational fear and hatered of homosexuals... It is not popular to support homosexuals in any way in The Islands
Parties views on gay rights appropriate
thenassauguardian editorial
Nassau, Bahamas
Many Bahamians have an irrational fear and hatered of homosexuals. It is not uncommon in this country to encounter people having conversations advocating for violence against homosexuals.
Such hostility is unfortunate. Homosexuality is a normal phenomenon in human societies. A certain small population of every human community is gay. Some display homosexual inclinations as children, suggesting they were born gay, and others come to this place later in life. Homosexuality is not new and it is not rare.
We therefore should all be reasonable enough and accept that homosexuals are people entitled to the same protection under the law as heterosexuals when it comes to discrimination. Certainly, no sensible person should assert that a person should be fired, beaten or molested for being gay.
The United Nations Human Rights Council resolution affirming equal rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) people, passed earlier this month, is a positive progressive step.
The resolution, which narrowly passed in the council 23 to 19 with three abstentions, expressed “grave concern” about discrimination against gays throughout the world and affirmed that freedom to choose sexuality is a human right. Surprisingly, when asked about the issue, both the Free National Movement (FNM) and the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) supported the resolution.
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Brent Symonette said the government supports the expansion of rights for “people of any persuasion.”
Opposition leader Perry Christie said the resolution is humane and therefore his party is in favor of it.
“I think from our point of view we understand the sensitivity of this matter,” said Christie, adding that the PLP has “always been committed to progressive policies — policies that emphasize our commitment to human rights.”
The parties demonstrated maturity by taking the public stands they did. It is not popular to support homosexuals in any way in The Bahamas. However, at times public officials must lead debates of conscience and not merely follow ignorant popular views.
The Christian church in The Bahamas has been vocal in its opposition to the more welcoming attitudes towards homosexuality that are being demonstrated in developed western societies in recent years. The church, as is its right, has affirmed that homosexuality is a sin.
The Bahamas Christian Council (BCC), in its release after the UN resolution, said it supports the protection of everyone from all forms of discrimination. However, it warned that The Bahamas government’s support of the UN resolution could open the door to all rights afforded heterosexuals to be offered to GLBT people, including marriage.
“We in the Christian church firmly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman — period. As imperfect as that might be at times, it is between a man and woman — full stop,” said the BCC.
For now the issues are separate. The step the Bahamian political parties have taken by embracing the resolution is simply to state that they support the right of homosexuals to live their lives free of discrimination based on their sexual orientation.
This should mean that the parties will not support laws or practices that discriminate against gays.
As the Bahamian democracy evolves, however, the parties will be confronted with more difficult issues. The law in democracies usually evolves through citizens challenging discriminatory practices via the court. The court, which is entrusted with the responsibility of protecting minority rights, has to determine if statues violate the broad principles of liberty enshrined in democratic constitutions.
Courts around the world have forced the hands of legislatures when it comes to gay rights. Some have argued that laws declaring that marriage is between one man and one woman discriminate against homosexuals. Hence, the old way is ruled unconstitutional and gay marriage is allowed.
Homosexuals understand that their fight for equality, as it was for blacks, has to be won one step at a time. As the homosexual lobby becomes more organized in The Bahamas and it understands that the court can help its cause, The Bahamas may be forced to accept gay marriage, gay adoption and further normalization of homosexuality.
Human societies are fickle – norms are always changing. Who knows what will be acceptable in The Bahamas a century from now. A century ago the thought of blacks and whites being equal and then ‘inter-marrying’ was offensive to many. Now, interracial marriage is a non-issue.
A century from now maybe Mr. Smith marrying Mr. Smith on a beach on one of our islands too may be normal.
Jun 29, 2011
thenassauguardian editorial
thenassauguardian editorial
Nassau, Bahamas
Many Bahamians have an irrational fear and hatered of homosexuals. It is not uncommon in this country to encounter people having conversations advocating for violence against homosexuals.
Such hostility is unfortunate. Homosexuality is a normal phenomenon in human societies. A certain small population of every human community is gay. Some display homosexual inclinations as children, suggesting they were born gay, and others come to this place later in life. Homosexuality is not new and it is not rare.
We therefore should all be reasonable enough and accept that homosexuals are people entitled to the same protection under the law as heterosexuals when it comes to discrimination. Certainly, no sensible person should assert that a person should be fired, beaten or molested for being gay.
The United Nations Human Rights Council resolution affirming equal rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) people, passed earlier this month, is a positive progressive step.
The resolution, which narrowly passed in the council 23 to 19 with three abstentions, expressed “grave concern” about discrimination against gays throughout the world and affirmed that freedom to choose sexuality is a human right. Surprisingly, when asked about the issue, both the Free National Movement (FNM) and the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) supported the resolution.
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Brent Symonette said the government supports the expansion of rights for “people of any persuasion.”
Opposition leader Perry Christie said the resolution is humane and therefore his party is in favor of it.
“I think from our point of view we understand the sensitivity of this matter,” said Christie, adding that the PLP has “always been committed to progressive policies — policies that emphasize our commitment to human rights.”
The parties demonstrated maturity by taking the public stands they did. It is not popular to support homosexuals in any way in The Bahamas. However, at times public officials must lead debates of conscience and not merely follow ignorant popular views.
The Christian church in The Bahamas has been vocal in its opposition to the more welcoming attitudes towards homosexuality that are being demonstrated in developed western societies in recent years. The church, as is its right, has affirmed that homosexuality is a sin.
The Bahamas Christian Council (BCC), in its release after the UN resolution, said it supports the protection of everyone from all forms of discrimination. However, it warned that The Bahamas government’s support of the UN resolution could open the door to all rights afforded heterosexuals to be offered to GLBT people, including marriage.
“We in the Christian church firmly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman — period. As imperfect as that might be at times, it is between a man and woman — full stop,” said the BCC.
For now the issues are separate. The step the Bahamian political parties have taken by embracing the resolution is simply to state that they support the right of homosexuals to live their lives free of discrimination based on their sexual orientation.
This should mean that the parties will not support laws or practices that discriminate against gays.
As the Bahamian democracy evolves, however, the parties will be confronted with more difficult issues. The law in democracies usually evolves through citizens challenging discriminatory practices via the court. The court, which is entrusted with the responsibility of protecting minority rights, has to determine if statues violate the broad principles of liberty enshrined in democratic constitutions.
Courts around the world have forced the hands of legislatures when it comes to gay rights. Some have argued that laws declaring that marriage is between one man and one woman discriminate against homosexuals. Hence, the old way is ruled unconstitutional and gay marriage is allowed.
Homosexuals understand that their fight for equality, as it was for blacks, has to be won one step at a time. As the homosexual lobby becomes more organized in The Bahamas and it understands that the court can help its cause, The Bahamas may be forced to accept gay marriage, gay adoption and further normalization of homosexuality.
Human societies are fickle – norms are always changing. Who knows what will be acceptable in The Bahamas a century from now. A century ago the thought of blacks and whites being equal and then ‘inter-marrying’ was offensive to many. Now, interracial marriage is a non-issue.
A century from now maybe Mr. Smith marrying Mr. Smith on a beach on one of our islands too may be normal.
Jun 29, 2011
thenassauguardian editorial
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Turks and Caicos Islands: 'United we fall and divided we stand'
By Ben Roberts
In recent discussions in the UK between Honourable Minister Henry Bellingham’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), and an FCO-chosen team of Turks and Caicos Islands “representatives”, the good minister said the following: “I am grateful to the delegation for accepting my invitation to come to London so that I could hear first-hand their views on the Draft Constitution” (he should have added his gratefulness at their acceptance at being chosen by him and his FCO).
Well, good for Honourable Bellingham. He got to hear first-hand where this group stood on crucial issues regarding a document very important to the lives of Turks and Caicos Islands citizens.
Their Constitution. Bellingham is way ahead of Turks and Caicos citizens in this regard, and beat them to the punch. He had the benefit of hearing their positions even before the people this group claimed to be going to represent, the citizens of Turks and Caicos, heard what their positions were.
Yes. No one can dispute this. The group went to Britain without engaging the citizenry in town meetings, or any other informative setting, to hear their views on what was important to them. They did not disclose their own views of where they stood on issues. In fact, they could not wait to pack their bags to get across the ocean to be “representatives” because HE Governor, Honourable Bellingham, and his FCO, designated them as such.
Before leaving they were a fractured and disjointed group, arguing about why the next guy on the team should not be going. They had no common strategy on the issues to be discussed (though one must credit Doug Parnell with making an effort to put heads together so as to speak with one voice), had no foreman to be the lead-off in discussions, and had no idea of what they would hold fast on and what they would give in on (a key strategy of anyone negotiating anything).
The British, and their people set to sit across the table must have been having a good laugh at the Turks and Caicos and its limitations, and their own brilliance at hand-picking.
Now a change of scenery. To England. Turks and Caicos “representatives” are there having discussions with the people who hand-picked them. These people must still be having a good laugh, because here the Turks and Caicos team still cannot agree on anything. Still arguing why the guy seated next to them should not be there; pushing the argument that the Draft Constitution was quite fine, only needing minor changes, and acknowledging the constitutional consultant for her diligence in securing submissions (but putting on the brakes here for a major concern of Turks and Caicos citizens about the glaring absence of their input submissions into the document); taking the opportunity here to outline political party positions instead of matters pertinent to the collective well-being of the Turks and Caicos citizenry.
At the conclusion of discussions there was an FCO press release of the outcome of the event, but no single on-the-same-page Turks and Caicos team release of what was accomplished (how can there have been when we had no single one-minded team). This was a negotiating team? And they were united against the common enemy? And they were negotiating on our behalf? And we should thank the creator, the moon and the stars for what they achieved and not critique them in any way? Please!
There is reason for no “Team TCI” press release. Nothing to report other than they were chosen by, crossed the ocean to the UK, sat in discussions with British career officials and negotiators, and came back with little changed from before. Period!
What is different? The change from “Belonger” to “Turks & Caicos Islander”? That is what we called ourselves since forever. It would only amount to something if those who came to Turks and Caicos and acquired citizenship were differentiated from those born there.
The UK has such a system: Once, we in the Territories were “British Subject: Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies” (as described in my first passport). Then suddenly, in 1985, a notable change to that document labels me: “British Dependent Territories Citizen: Turks & Caicos Islands”. All occurring without Turks and Caicos citizens knowing about or having any input in the process.
The drastic change came about due to British paranoia about possible waves of British citizens from their Hong Kong Territory flooding their shores as handover to the Chinese drew near. That is how my citizenship category was decided.
We should be able to implement such categorizations without the accompanying paranoia, and with respect for all our citizens regardless of category.
I digress. The matter of the Deputy Governor a success? How does that change the price of fish in the Turks and Caicos marketplace where people are losing jobs, are yoked with poorly thought out British tax schemes, are at the whim of British officials and advisors who make decisions “at their discretion”, are having a hard time overall making ends meet, and remain under threat of being undermined by the British disingenuous and unheard of attempt to “expand the franchise”.
Deputy Governor means little when put alongside these hardships. Effort would have been far better served championing issues like the Complaints Commissioner and absentee balloting for Turks and Caicos Islanders abroad.
This Turks and Caicos team going to the UK brings to mind the hilarious and wildly funny British comedian Benny Hill. You name it and he has poked fun at it: The British National Health scheme; British horse racing illegal activity; British intelligence; the Royal family; the French; the British welfare system. And on and on.
However, he does a skit about the British Foreign Office and diplomatic corps that is priceless. Here, Hill plays the part of this stodgy and stuffy high level British representative in discussions with an African leader. They are walking along a path and Hill is going on non-stop, selling his host a line about the British being his ally, how he can rely on them through thick and thin, and how they have his and his country’s interest at heart. During all this the host shakes his head vigorously and says over and over the word “Bulla,” “Bulla,” “Bulla,” as if he is in total agreement. Hill seems quite pleased with the headway he is making until the leader suddenly shouts, “Stop!” Hill freezes, wondering what is up. The leader points at the ground and says, “Careful before you step into that pile of Bulla.” You can figure out for yourself what the translation for “Bulla” was in the African leader’s language. Hill, the British Foreign representative, gives this facial expression of being embarrassed, bested, frustrated, and found out by someone he was sure he had the better of. Quite funny.
But seriously, was the Turks and Caicos group to the UK comparable to the savvy African leader who could see all the pitfalls and angles, or were they the ones stepping into the “Bulla”? In the Turks and Caicos our best asset are the minds of our people. It is also our worst prison, shutting us away from our future. Was this trip to the UK an example of using our best asset or showing how imprisoned our minds really are?
Ben Roberts is a Turks & Caicos Islander. He is a newsletter editor, freelance writer, published author, and member of TC FORUM. He is the author of numerous articles that have been carried by a variety of Internet websites and read worldwide. He is often published in Turks & Caicos news media, and in the local newspapers where he resides. His action adventure novel, Jackals of Samarra, is available at Amazon.com, and at major Internet book outlet sites. He can be contacted at: grandt730@aol.com
June 29, 2011
caribbeannewsnow
In recent discussions in the UK between Honourable Minister Henry Bellingham’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), and an FCO-chosen team of Turks and Caicos Islands “representatives”, the good minister said the following: “I am grateful to the delegation for accepting my invitation to come to London so that I could hear first-hand their views on the Draft Constitution” (he should have added his gratefulness at their acceptance at being chosen by him and his FCO).
Well, good for Honourable Bellingham. He got to hear first-hand where this group stood on crucial issues regarding a document very important to the lives of Turks and Caicos Islands citizens.
Their Constitution. Bellingham is way ahead of Turks and Caicos citizens in this regard, and beat them to the punch. He had the benefit of hearing their positions even before the people this group claimed to be going to represent, the citizens of Turks and Caicos, heard what their positions were.
Yes. No one can dispute this. The group went to Britain without engaging the citizenry in town meetings, or any other informative setting, to hear their views on what was important to them. They did not disclose their own views of where they stood on issues. In fact, they could not wait to pack their bags to get across the ocean to be “representatives” because HE Governor, Honourable Bellingham, and his FCO, designated them as such.
Before leaving they were a fractured and disjointed group, arguing about why the next guy on the team should not be going. They had no common strategy on the issues to be discussed (though one must credit Doug Parnell with making an effort to put heads together so as to speak with one voice), had no foreman to be the lead-off in discussions, and had no idea of what they would hold fast on and what they would give in on (a key strategy of anyone negotiating anything).
The British, and their people set to sit across the table must have been having a good laugh at the Turks and Caicos and its limitations, and their own brilliance at hand-picking.
Now a change of scenery. To England. Turks and Caicos “representatives” are there having discussions with the people who hand-picked them. These people must still be having a good laugh, because here the Turks and Caicos team still cannot agree on anything. Still arguing why the guy seated next to them should not be there; pushing the argument that the Draft Constitution was quite fine, only needing minor changes, and acknowledging the constitutional consultant for her diligence in securing submissions (but putting on the brakes here for a major concern of Turks and Caicos citizens about the glaring absence of their input submissions into the document); taking the opportunity here to outline political party positions instead of matters pertinent to the collective well-being of the Turks and Caicos citizenry.
At the conclusion of discussions there was an FCO press release of the outcome of the event, but no single on-the-same-page Turks and Caicos team release of what was accomplished (how can there have been when we had no single one-minded team). This was a negotiating team? And they were united against the common enemy? And they were negotiating on our behalf? And we should thank the creator, the moon and the stars for what they achieved and not critique them in any way? Please!
There is reason for no “Team TCI” press release. Nothing to report other than they were chosen by, crossed the ocean to the UK, sat in discussions with British career officials and negotiators, and came back with little changed from before. Period!
What is different? The change from “Belonger” to “Turks & Caicos Islander”? That is what we called ourselves since forever. It would only amount to something if those who came to Turks and Caicos and acquired citizenship were differentiated from those born there.
The UK has such a system: Once, we in the Territories were “British Subject: Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies” (as described in my first passport). Then suddenly, in 1985, a notable change to that document labels me: “British Dependent Territories Citizen: Turks & Caicos Islands”. All occurring without Turks and Caicos citizens knowing about or having any input in the process.
The drastic change came about due to British paranoia about possible waves of British citizens from their Hong Kong Territory flooding their shores as handover to the Chinese drew near. That is how my citizenship category was decided.
We should be able to implement such categorizations without the accompanying paranoia, and with respect for all our citizens regardless of category.
I digress. The matter of the Deputy Governor a success? How does that change the price of fish in the Turks and Caicos marketplace where people are losing jobs, are yoked with poorly thought out British tax schemes, are at the whim of British officials and advisors who make decisions “at their discretion”, are having a hard time overall making ends meet, and remain under threat of being undermined by the British disingenuous and unheard of attempt to “expand the franchise”.
Deputy Governor means little when put alongside these hardships. Effort would have been far better served championing issues like the Complaints Commissioner and absentee balloting for Turks and Caicos Islanders abroad.
This Turks and Caicos team going to the UK brings to mind the hilarious and wildly funny British comedian Benny Hill. You name it and he has poked fun at it: The British National Health scheme; British horse racing illegal activity; British intelligence; the Royal family; the French; the British welfare system. And on and on.
However, he does a skit about the British Foreign Office and diplomatic corps that is priceless. Here, Hill plays the part of this stodgy and stuffy high level British representative in discussions with an African leader. They are walking along a path and Hill is going on non-stop, selling his host a line about the British being his ally, how he can rely on them through thick and thin, and how they have his and his country’s interest at heart. During all this the host shakes his head vigorously and says over and over the word “Bulla,” “Bulla,” “Bulla,” as if he is in total agreement. Hill seems quite pleased with the headway he is making until the leader suddenly shouts, “Stop!” Hill freezes, wondering what is up. The leader points at the ground and says, “Careful before you step into that pile of Bulla.” You can figure out for yourself what the translation for “Bulla” was in the African leader’s language. Hill, the British Foreign representative, gives this facial expression of being embarrassed, bested, frustrated, and found out by someone he was sure he had the better of. Quite funny.
But seriously, was the Turks and Caicos group to the UK comparable to the savvy African leader who could see all the pitfalls and angles, or were they the ones stepping into the “Bulla”? In the Turks and Caicos our best asset are the minds of our people. It is also our worst prison, shutting us away from our future. Was this trip to the UK an example of using our best asset or showing how imprisoned our minds really are?
Ben Roberts is a Turks & Caicos Islander. He is a newsletter editor, freelance writer, published author, and member of TC FORUM. He is the author of numerous articles that have been carried by a variety of Internet websites and read worldwide. He is often published in Turks & Caicos news media, and in the local newspapers where he resides. His action adventure novel, Jackals of Samarra, is available at Amazon.com, and at major Internet book outlet sites. He can be contacted at: grandt730@aol.com
June 29, 2011
caribbeannewsnow
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)