What was Branville McCartney thinking?
thenassauguardian national review
The headline for this piece is the question that just about everyone has been asking since McCartney made the now famous statement — that Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham has no compassion.
McCartney, a sitting FNM MP who has made no secret of his leadership aspirations, made the startling statement last week Tuesday during an appearance on Star 106.5 FM’s talk show, “Jeffrey”, hosted by Jeff Lloyd.
This is exactly what McCartney told Lloyd: “At this stage, I’d certainly want [the FNM] to succeed, but we have our challenges. We seem to not be connected to the people, from the leader straight down. [We’re] showing a lack of compassion and not listening to the people.
“Although, yes we’re the ones who were put here to make decisions, the people are the ones who put us here. We need to listen. We don’t have all of the answers but the way we go about things, it’s not good. We have a number of new voters and even old supporters are concerned. I hope we get our act together.”
When asked if he was referring to a particular personality within the party, McCartney said Ingraham has to take responsibility for the challenges the party faces going into the next election.
“The prime minister is the leader of the FNM. The buck stops with the prime minister. Yes, there’s a lack of compassion — probably not intentionally. Perhaps that’s just the way he is. That type of governance was necessary in 1992. In 2011 and 2012, I don’t think it is.”
For anyone who doubted the statement or its context reported exclusively by The Nassau Guardian on Wednesday, McCartney repeated his feelings about the Prime Minister and the state of the Free National Movement during an interview with NB12 TV news later that night.
The statement drew a strong response from the public, much like his decision to resign from Ingraham’s Cabinet after serving just under two years as a junior minister in the ministries of tourism and immigration. McCartney thought he was being “underutilized”.
Now a new round of questions surrounding McCartney’s political strategy and his political future hang heavily over the relative newcomer to politics.
Is this the final chapter in McCartney’s political career? Maybe not, but the young politician does not appear to be making any friends in the FNM.
“His (McCartney’s) support in the party has collapsed,” said a well-placed source within the FNM who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak on behalf of the party. “Any residual support he had has collapsed.
“You can’t keep going around lacerating the Prime Minister and the FNM for all the wrong things they are doing, but then say, ‘I support the party’. “It doesn’t make sense.”
PARTY VS. PUBLIC SUPPORT
Those outside the FNM seem similarly confused.
“If Branville is listening to people out there who may be clamoring for him to be the leader of the FNM, the question is are they people who can vote for him at convention. If not, he ought to recognize that it’s not meaningful support,” said Raynard Rigby, a former chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party.
“If he has support within the FNM he ought to figure out and think through how his open criticism of the leader will factor into the minds of his supporters. You can be popular in the eyes of the public, but party support is what matters if you are interested in a leadership position, and you saw that in the deputy leadership race in the PLP. Obie Wilchcombe was seen as more popular but Brave (Davis) beat him convincingly because he had the support of the party.”
George Smith, a veteran politician who served in the Sir Lynden Pindling administration, suggests that McCartney has failed to do just that — think things through, at least when it came to last week’s statement.
“The statement probably reflects what he is thinking, but he obviously did not weigh it carefully. In politics when you say something that makes you appear bold and courageous you may have to pay a price,” said Smith.
Only time will tell what that price will be, but there are already the obvious suggestions that McCartney may not receive the FNM nomination to run in Bamboo Town as a result of the “no compassion” remark.
“Make no mistake, FNMs have their own problems with Hubert Ingraham, but the party does not like these attacks which are seen as extremely disloyal to the party,” said the FNM source. “He is providing attack lines to the opposition. That’s a serious thing.”
McCartney has said that if he does not get the nomination he would run as an independent or “otherwise”. That “otherwise” is unlikely to be the PLP, given the boost an independent McCartney in Bamboo Town would give to the chances of the opposition winning that seat.
POLITICAL EXPERIENCE
Independents, generally, fare very poorly in general elections in The Bahamas, unless they receive the support of a political party that may decide not to run anyone in that seat.
While there have been success stories, such as Perry Christie and Hubert Ingraham (Tennyson Wells and Pierre Dupuch to a lesser extent), those men had years and years of experience in office and serving in Cabinet before turning independent, and had been battle-tested.
McCartney has neither the wealth of experience nor the political battle wounds to carry him through the trials of the “political wilderness”, and cast him as a maverick independent.
But what McCartney does appear to have is a certain appeal to a segment of the public that is hungry for a new face to lead the country. “Sick of Ingraham and Scared of Christie” is becoming a mantra among many young professional Bahamians who are openly declaring their intentions of sitting out the next general election.
McCartney is a successful lawyer and a seemingly dedicated and conscientious MP. He has a certain talent for public relations and is good at using technology and social media to connect with young voters. And whatever his critics may say, he is not afraid to publically criticize the government or his party, which in some quarters has been interpreted as ambitious and courageous.
McCartney has also taken a tough stance on two hot button issues in the country — illegal immigration and crime — and while everyone has not always agreed with his approach, his decision to publically state his positions has been generally well-received by the public.
Whether McCartney decides to bide his time in the FNM — although that seems unlikely in light of his recent statements — or become an independent, the road ahead will not be easy.
“When you are in Cabinet you have a level of public persona associated with the position. In the back bench you have to continually redefine who you are politically to maintain a public presence,” said Rigby.
This is a point obviously not lost on McCartney, who since resigning from Cabinet has made a number of headlines, more recently for showing up at a BTC unions anti-privatization rally, and telling reporters that he was undecided on an issue that his party obviously supports.
But if McCartney is to succeed in one of the mainstream political parties, he will have to work on how his actions and statements are being interpreted by those who make the decisions in those parties — the more experienced politicians who in this political climate call the shots.
AMBITION OR ARROGANCE
What some have interpreted as ambition and courage, others have interpreted as arrogance and inexperience.
“If he had said what he said in a way that people could better interpret he would have shown good political acumen, but by being so (publicly) honest he clearly has positioned himself in a way that the party has to deal with him,” said Smith, who emphasized that personally he is very fond of McCartney.
“Longevity is not on his side. He has not been around long enough. He’s a newcomer.
“He must have tremendous talent and personality which permits him to be effective, courteous, respectful and show that he has learned the game well enough and get people to say of him the many things he says of himself.”
A former politician who spent decades in frontline politics said of McCartney:
“He was in Cabinet for less than two years and then said he wanted to be leader or a substantive minister. It’s admirable to have ambition to go to the top but there’s a road, a protocol. Dion (Foulkes) and Tommy (Turnquest) came up through the party.
“I thought he was trying to do a good job in immigration, he made some errors but at least he was doing something. If he is able to control this particular situation he may survive but he has to get a handle on his public posturing.”
Among his colleagues, McCartney reportedly has little support.
“None of his Cabinet colleagues take him seriously. I don’t think he is seen as a contender. By resigning from Cabinet he removed himself as a contender for leadership,” said the FNM source.
McCartney was appointed to the Cabinet in his first term in office, took many by surprise when he decided to resign last year February.
According to his resignation letter: “The factors that motivated this run the full gamut of issues and emotions, some more compelling than others. In the forefront are my feelings of stagnation and the inability to fully utilize my political potential at this time.”
He went on to say: “It is also my belief that our current political system is headed in the wrong direction…I have already proven myself on many levels and have much to be proud of, but it would be wrong of me to assume that I have proven myself to you without demonstrating the strength and diversity of knowledge you deserve.”
An interview following that resignation only added to the confusion.
McCartney said that as a member of the Cabinet he was required to tow the party line, and thought he could do more outside of the Ingraham Cabinet, “speak out on what is right and not based on party lines”.
He said at the time: “There is no doubt that the prime minister, Hubert Alexander Ingraham, is the best man for the job at this time. He is no doubt the best leader that we have had in our party and he remains that way today… I respect him, I support him. He has my full, full support.”
McCartney said at the time that he had no intention of challenging Ingraham for the leadership of the party. But that line changed later that year when McCartney made it known that if the FNM held its convention that year he would offer himself for leader. The FNM decided not to hold the convention, citing financial and other reasons.
WASTED OPPORTUNITY
Some thought that the opportunity to serve in the Cabinet was a great training ground for anyone with leadership aspirations, even if you disliked the style or some of the decisions of the prime minister.
“He had a chance to make his mark but he left. It takes years to make change but he didn’t give himself a chance,” said the FNM source, who pointed out that Ingraham obviously saw potential in McCartney or else he would not have been appointed to the Cabinet in his first term in office.
Another criticism that has been leveled against McCartney is that he is not a team player, and had to be reminded that “Branville does not have a policy, the government has a policy”.
Some of his actions as junior minister in immigration were controversial and interpreted as grandstanding. Not only did it raise eyebrows in the country but warranted review by the prime minister.
“If he had remained in the cabinet, continued to perform and perform well, show that he was more politically savvy he would have had a good shot in serving in the leadership of the FNM,” said Rigby.
“His future may look dim today but that could change down the road. He must demonstrate that he is a man of conviction, at times it may be necessary to publicly criticize the party and leader but you have to be prepared to be an agent of change.”
2/7/2011
thenassauguardian national review
A political blog about Bahamian politics in The Bahamas, Bahamian Politicans - and the entire Bahamas political lot. Bahamian Blogger Dennis Dames keeps you updated on the political news and views throughout the islands of The Bahamas without fear or favor. Bahamian Politicians and the Bahamian Political Arena: Updates one Post at a time on Bahamas Politics and Bahamas Politicans; and their local, regional and international policies and perspectives.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Abortion should be legalized in The Bahamas... Bahamian women should have the right to choose
I am pro-choice - but see abortion as a last resort
By ADRIAN GIBSON
ajbahama@hotmail.com
IN the 21st century, Bahamian women should have the right to choose (pro-choice), that is, open access to safe and legal abortions. Abortion, however, must be seen as a last resort that should only be considered conditionally rather than carried out in routine, willy-nilly fashion.
According to Colliers Encyclopedia, abortion is the "expulsion or removal from the uterus of a fetus before it has attained viability, that is, before the born infant with appropriate life support, has become capable of surviving and eventually maintaining an independent life outside the uterus."
Notably, chapter 84 of the Statue Laws of the Bahamas, 2002--the current incarnation of The Penal Code, section 295--states that "whoever intentionally and unlawfully causes abortion or miscarriage shall be liable to imprisonment for 10 years."
Although our government's position on abortion is not explicitly implemented and enforced (obviously many local doctors would be imprisoned), most people know that it is illegal.
It is well-known that scores of Bahamian women with unplanned pregnancies go to desperate measures to perform an abortion on themselves or find a medical practitioner who would surreptitiously conduct an abortion. I am told that due to the contentious and seemingly illicit nature of an abortion, doctors risking their licenses carrying out this procedure could charge anywhere from $200-$500 depending on the stage of a pregnancy. It is also known that Bahamian women frequently travel to the US to have abortions.
Frankly, much of the crime occurring in our society nowadays is at the hands of poorly socialized brutes who were unwanted children likely born to teenage or unfit parents who didn't have access to adoption programmes, contraceptives, legal abortion clinics, etcetera. Indeed, many of these errant individuals come from homes where they were never cultured or taught values, particularly as their parents saw them as unnecessary burdens and mistakes, and have thereby rejected them.
While I consider myself to be pro-choice, because I believe that a woman has a right to individual liberty and reproductive freedom, I am opposed to the notion that abortion should occur every time a women gets pregnant or should serve as an excuse for licentiousness.
However, whilst advocating for women's reproductive rights, I believe that in a developing country such as the Bahamas, citizens should have comprehensive access to sex education, that contraceptives such as the morning after pill should be readily available, and that women should be legally protected from any form of forced abortions.
In Bahamian society, whether legal or not, abortions do and will continue to happen. With this in mind, we must become mindful of the reality that an abortion carried out under medically sound conditions is safer than an abortion done in a dark alley or some shadowy backroom without proper medical oversight. It is widely known that due to obvious restrictions and the stigmatization associated with having an abortion, many Bahamian women have used homemade techniques such as drinking "hot Guinness," beating themselves on the abdomen with a "cold" hanger, drinking bitters and salt water, etc.
While I support a woman's right to choose, it is my belief that abortions should only be considered in instances where a woman is raped and she is in absolute distress; when her life or the life of the fetus is at risk due to health concerns; when contraceptives have proven futile; to terminate teenage/pre-teen pregnancies and to abort unwanted pregnancies in the most extreme of cases. Adoption programmes/facilities and parenting courses should be made available to women who prefer to give birth but may realize that she's unable to raise a child.
Many countries throughout the developed world have legalized abortion. The Bahamas, I feel, should follow suit in its push to enter the stratosphere of the developed countries. In the US, for example, the landmark 1973 case--Roe v. Wade--led to the decriminalization of abortion by that nation's Supreme Court after a woman challenged the Texas laws that classified an abortion as a criminal offence. European countries such as the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Belgium, Portugal, Italy, Spain and Poland have not only recognized abortion by legalizing it, but have also actively promoted sex education.
In late 2006, the Food and Drug Administration (US) approved the over-the-counter use of the "morning after" (Plan B) pill, which permits women (18 or older) to purchase the emergency contraceptive after a night of unprotected sex. At that time, the usually inactive Bahamas Christian Council (BCC) immediately flew into action, arguing that Bahamian women should not have this choice. The BCC vowed to fight any law that proposed to make the Plan B pill available--over the counter--in local pharmacies. Then BCC administrative assistant, Reverend CB Moss, told another daily that the council stood firmly against any kind of abortion.
However, one wonders how the BCC, with their very own moral dilemmas, can argue that women in a democratic nation such as the Bahamas cannot have access to a contraceptive? Why is it that the BCC speedily and opportunely seems to find its voice only when issues such as abortion or homosexuality arise?
Whilst abortion should not be seen as an "easy-out", one should not attempt to morally legislate or readily exude an air of sanctimony in their condemnation of abortion before understanding the circumstances, some of which carry great weight. Indeed, beyond the pontificating done by some churchmen, the church must positively seek to stem the number of Bahamian women who had abortions.
As it relates to a woman's right to choose, in a true democracy, we must advocate tolerance although we may disagree with a person's choice. When it comes to abortion a woman must be free to make choices--of course, all within reason.
February 04, 2011
tribune242
By ADRIAN GIBSON
ajbahama@hotmail.com
IN the 21st century, Bahamian women should have the right to choose (pro-choice), that is, open access to safe and legal abortions. Abortion, however, must be seen as a last resort that should only be considered conditionally rather than carried out in routine, willy-nilly fashion.
According to Colliers Encyclopedia, abortion is the "expulsion or removal from the uterus of a fetus before it has attained viability, that is, before the born infant with appropriate life support, has become capable of surviving and eventually maintaining an independent life outside the uterus."
Notably, chapter 84 of the Statue Laws of the Bahamas, 2002--the current incarnation of The Penal Code, section 295--states that "whoever intentionally and unlawfully causes abortion or miscarriage shall be liable to imprisonment for 10 years."
Although our government's position on abortion is not explicitly implemented and enforced (obviously many local doctors would be imprisoned), most people know that it is illegal.
It is well-known that scores of Bahamian women with unplanned pregnancies go to desperate measures to perform an abortion on themselves or find a medical practitioner who would surreptitiously conduct an abortion. I am told that due to the contentious and seemingly illicit nature of an abortion, doctors risking their licenses carrying out this procedure could charge anywhere from $200-$500 depending on the stage of a pregnancy. It is also known that Bahamian women frequently travel to the US to have abortions.
Frankly, much of the crime occurring in our society nowadays is at the hands of poorly socialized brutes who were unwanted children likely born to teenage or unfit parents who didn't have access to adoption programmes, contraceptives, legal abortion clinics, etcetera. Indeed, many of these errant individuals come from homes where they were never cultured or taught values, particularly as their parents saw them as unnecessary burdens and mistakes, and have thereby rejected them.
While I consider myself to be pro-choice, because I believe that a woman has a right to individual liberty and reproductive freedom, I am opposed to the notion that abortion should occur every time a women gets pregnant or should serve as an excuse for licentiousness.
However, whilst advocating for women's reproductive rights, I believe that in a developing country such as the Bahamas, citizens should have comprehensive access to sex education, that contraceptives such as the morning after pill should be readily available, and that women should be legally protected from any form of forced abortions.
In Bahamian society, whether legal or not, abortions do and will continue to happen. With this in mind, we must become mindful of the reality that an abortion carried out under medically sound conditions is safer than an abortion done in a dark alley or some shadowy backroom without proper medical oversight. It is widely known that due to obvious restrictions and the stigmatization associated with having an abortion, many Bahamian women have used homemade techniques such as drinking "hot Guinness," beating themselves on the abdomen with a "cold" hanger, drinking bitters and salt water, etc.
While I support a woman's right to choose, it is my belief that abortions should only be considered in instances where a woman is raped and she is in absolute distress; when her life or the life of the fetus is at risk due to health concerns; when contraceptives have proven futile; to terminate teenage/pre-teen pregnancies and to abort unwanted pregnancies in the most extreme of cases. Adoption programmes/facilities and parenting courses should be made available to women who prefer to give birth but may realize that she's unable to raise a child.
Many countries throughout the developed world have legalized abortion. The Bahamas, I feel, should follow suit in its push to enter the stratosphere of the developed countries. In the US, for example, the landmark 1973 case--Roe v. Wade--led to the decriminalization of abortion by that nation's Supreme Court after a woman challenged the Texas laws that classified an abortion as a criminal offence. European countries such as the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Belgium, Portugal, Italy, Spain and Poland have not only recognized abortion by legalizing it, but have also actively promoted sex education.
In late 2006, the Food and Drug Administration (US) approved the over-the-counter use of the "morning after" (Plan B) pill, which permits women (18 or older) to purchase the emergency contraceptive after a night of unprotected sex. At that time, the usually inactive Bahamas Christian Council (BCC) immediately flew into action, arguing that Bahamian women should not have this choice. The BCC vowed to fight any law that proposed to make the Plan B pill available--over the counter--in local pharmacies. Then BCC administrative assistant, Reverend CB Moss, told another daily that the council stood firmly against any kind of abortion.
However, one wonders how the BCC, with their very own moral dilemmas, can argue that women in a democratic nation such as the Bahamas cannot have access to a contraceptive? Why is it that the BCC speedily and opportunely seems to find its voice only when issues such as abortion or homosexuality arise?
Whilst abortion should not be seen as an "easy-out", one should not attempt to morally legislate or readily exude an air of sanctimony in their condemnation of abortion before understanding the circumstances, some of which carry great weight. Indeed, beyond the pontificating done by some churchmen, the church must positively seek to stem the number of Bahamian women who had abortions.
As it relates to a woman's right to choose, in a true democracy, we must advocate tolerance although we may disagree with a person's choice. When it comes to abortion a woman must be free to make choices--of course, all within reason.
February 04, 2011
tribune242
Saturday, February 5, 2011
No number of raids or repatriations will solve The Bahamas' immigration problem
The Bahamas and Haiti: Forty years of missed opportunities
By NOELLE NICOLLS
Tribune Staff Reporter
nnicolls@tribunemedia.net
When the African world needed a sign that its certain fate would not be decided by the interests of slave masters and colonial rulers, it was a group of disparate Africans on the island of Hispaniola, with the backing of their ancestors and the divine spirits, who rose to the occasion.
Empowered by a collective will they planted the seed in the African consciousness that we are more than they say we are; we deserve more than what they want for us.
Two hundred years later, Haiti that gave us hope, faces a seemingly hopeless fate. All we see of its people is that of their apparent worst side.
The eyes of the world take an interest only when the story line is of strife and scandal; when the images fit the narrative of poor, desolate, pagan and black.
In the minds of most Bahamians, the light that is Haiti has faded: obscured by fatigue, resentment, tough love, scarcity, indifference, misinformation and prejudice.
The light has also faded in the minds of many Haitians: obscured by exhaustion, hunger, insecurity, anger, self-hate.
Experience tells us that in our weakest times as human beings, it often takes a light, whether shone by an external source or a spark in our own spirits, to help us overcome.
In an Avatarish way that light speaks to us and says: "I see you." In an African way that light says, harambe, "the community needs you." In the language of psychotherapy, the light says, "tap into the greatness that lies within and live it." And in the language of our queen mothers it says, "I love you."
The call to Africans across the globe is to inform/educate yourself; elevate your consciousness about Haiti so our people and the entire world knows, Haiti is more and Haiti deserves more.
It is more than what the international media depicts. It is more than the actions of its political electorate. It is more than the folly that befalls it. It is more than what our eyes see.
As African people we need to care enough to demand that Haiti fulfil its revolutionary promise of being the beacon of light.
In this season of suffering, Haiti needs not our pity nor our charity, it needs our great expectations, and with our collective consciousness, we will call out its greatness.
Haiti has much work to do, but I wonder if we as African people will start to play our part. Certainly, in the history of our relationship with Haiti, the Bahamas has missed countless opportunities, largely because of our singular focus on immigration.
If we date the start of diplomatic relations to 1971, when the Bahamas signed the first of three bilateral treaties, then we can claim the 40-year prize of missed opportunities in building a meaningful relationship.
With newly acquired rights to self governance, and a dispatch from the UK Foreign Common Law Office giving it limited authority to conduct external affairs, the Bahamas government negotiated its first bilateral agreement in 1971. Haiti was the foreign partner.
Whatever promise this sign may have represented was short lived because the 1971 agreement was "never really actualised," according to Joshua Sears, director general, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
And it was the only agreement that envisaged a broad range of relationships, including commercial trade and technical cooperation, education exchanges and cultural linkages. The central issue of subsequent agreements - 1985 and 1995 - was immigration.
Although Haitians have been migrating to the Bahamas for centuries, the Haitian immigration "problem" only dates back to the 1950s.
The Department of Immigration was formed as a statutory body from 1939, but for all its efforts over 60 plus years, the solution to the "immigration problem" still evades the government.
This is not withstanding the notoriously draconian efforts of Minister of Immigration Loftus Roker to round up "illegals."
One day, hopefully, Bahamians will wake up and realise, as sure as a man cannot cheat death, no number of raids or repatriations will solve the "immigration problem."
Neither the Department of Immigration, the Defence Force nor the entire might of the state has the power to ease the desire of desperate-minded people seeking a better life.
And we have no friend in the Haitian government, where that is concerned. In a country of 10 million, with a Diaspora probably twice that size, the hundreds of people who migrate to the Bahamas, whether legally or illegally, is not a problem on the minds of most.
For centuries, migration has been the answer to populations seeking a better life, said Leonard Archer, former CARICOM Ambassador. This is the story of Europe, Asia, Africa, everywhere in the world. When people experience scarcity, drought, famine, hardship, persecution in one area they move to another.
"If you interview the Haitian people who are coming, a number of them have been deported two, three, four times. People are desperate. The reality is desperate people will always move and we can't afford to put a wall around the country," said Mr Archer.
"We have been deporting people to Haiti since the 1970s. Has it helped? Has it worked?" he asked.
We are banging our heads on the wall with our hysteria over the so-called illegals. History has shown us, we are inextricably linked to Haiti. Today is no different. Waves of immigration are seen anytime public confidence wanes, during economic crises, at the mere threat of political instability, and at times of natural disaster, of which Haiti is no stranger.
Short of Haiti being restored as the pride of the world, the migration is not going to stop. Not that the Bahamas should ignore its national interests, but all that banging is just giving us a headache.
January 31, 2011
tribune242
By NOELLE NICOLLS
Tribune Staff Reporter
nnicolls@tribunemedia.net
When the African world needed a sign that its certain fate would not be decided by the interests of slave masters and colonial rulers, it was a group of disparate Africans on the island of Hispaniola, with the backing of their ancestors and the divine spirits, who rose to the occasion.
Empowered by a collective will they planted the seed in the African consciousness that we are more than they say we are; we deserve more than what they want for us.
Two hundred years later, Haiti that gave us hope, faces a seemingly hopeless fate. All we see of its people is that of their apparent worst side.
The eyes of the world take an interest only when the story line is of strife and scandal; when the images fit the narrative of poor, desolate, pagan and black.
In the minds of most Bahamians, the light that is Haiti has faded: obscured by fatigue, resentment, tough love, scarcity, indifference, misinformation and prejudice.
The light has also faded in the minds of many Haitians: obscured by exhaustion, hunger, insecurity, anger, self-hate.
Experience tells us that in our weakest times as human beings, it often takes a light, whether shone by an external source or a spark in our own spirits, to help us overcome.
In an Avatarish way that light speaks to us and says: "I see you." In an African way that light says, harambe, "the community needs you." In the language of psychotherapy, the light says, "tap into the greatness that lies within and live it." And in the language of our queen mothers it says, "I love you."
The call to Africans across the globe is to inform/educate yourself; elevate your consciousness about Haiti so our people and the entire world knows, Haiti is more and Haiti deserves more.
It is more than what the international media depicts. It is more than the actions of its political electorate. It is more than the folly that befalls it. It is more than what our eyes see.
As African people we need to care enough to demand that Haiti fulfil its revolutionary promise of being the beacon of light.
In this season of suffering, Haiti needs not our pity nor our charity, it needs our great expectations, and with our collective consciousness, we will call out its greatness.
Haiti has much work to do, but I wonder if we as African people will start to play our part. Certainly, in the history of our relationship with Haiti, the Bahamas has missed countless opportunities, largely because of our singular focus on immigration.
If we date the start of diplomatic relations to 1971, when the Bahamas signed the first of three bilateral treaties, then we can claim the 40-year prize of missed opportunities in building a meaningful relationship.
With newly acquired rights to self governance, and a dispatch from the UK Foreign Common Law Office giving it limited authority to conduct external affairs, the Bahamas government negotiated its first bilateral agreement in 1971. Haiti was the foreign partner.
Whatever promise this sign may have represented was short lived because the 1971 agreement was "never really actualised," according to Joshua Sears, director general, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
And it was the only agreement that envisaged a broad range of relationships, including commercial trade and technical cooperation, education exchanges and cultural linkages. The central issue of subsequent agreements - 1985 and 1995 - was immigration.
Although Haitians have been migrating to the Bahamas for centuries, the Haitian immigration "problem" only dates back to the 1950s.
The Department of Immigration was formed as a statutory body from 1939, but for all its efforts over 60 plus years, the solution to the "immigration problem" still evades the government.
This is not withstanding the notoriously draconian efforts of Minister of Immigration Loftus Roker to round up "illegals."
One day, hopefully, Bahamians will wake up and realise, as sure as a man cannot cheat death, no number of raids or repatriations will solve the "immigration problem."
Neither the Department of Immigration, the Defence Force nor the entire might of the state has the power to ease the desire of desperate-minded people seeking a better life.
And we have no friend in the Haitian government, where that is concerned. In a country of 10 million, with a Diaspora probably twice that size, the hundreds of people who migrate to the Bahamas, whether legally or illegally, is not a problem on the minds of most.
For centuries, migration has been the answer to populations seeking a better life, said Leonard Archer, former CARICOM Ambassador. This is the story of Europe, Asia, Africa, everywhere in the world. When people experience scarcity, drought, famine, hardship, persecution in one area they move to another.
"If you interview the Haitian people who are coming, a number of them have been deported two, three, four times. People are desperate. The reality is desperate people will always move and we can't afford to put a wall around the country," said Mr Archer.
"We have been deporting people to Haiti since the 1970s. Has it helped? Has it worked?" he asked.
We are banging our heads on the wall with our hysteria over the so-called illegals. History has shown us, we are inextricably linked to Haiti. Today is no different. Waves of immigration are seen anytime public confidence wanes, during economic crises, at the mere threat of political instability, and at times of natural disaster, of which Haiti is no stranger.
Short of Haiti being restored as the pride of the world, the migration is not going to stop. Not that the Bahamas should ignore its national interests, but all that banging is just giving us a headache.
January 31, 2011
tribune242
Friday, February 4, 2011
Majority in poll supports the privatisation of the Bahamas Telecommunications Corporation (BTC)
Majority in poll back BTC privatisation
tribune242
THE majority of the persons polled in a recent exercise by Consumer Voices Bahamas said they are in support of the privatisation of the Bahamas Telecommunications Corporation.
On January 28, CVB representatives standing on the corner of Bay and Parliament Streets polled 236 persons ranging in age from 16 to 75.
According to a press statement from the group, the majority of those polled supported privatisation.
"One hundred and twenty three persons, or 52 per cent, support the sale. Ninety six individuals, or 41 per cent, do not support the sale. Seventeen individuals, or 7 percent, are undecided about the sale.
"There was also a question on the quality of service at BTC. Sixty per cent of all respondents polled are displeased with the current services BTC offers," the statement read.
According to CVB, some of the most of the comments reflected a "desire for cheaper long distance rates, reduced texting rates, less dropped calls, as well as improved customer service and better service for the Family Islands. Many respondents also want more features and a 4G network.
"The CVB surveys will be ongoing and will be conducted in various areas so that we can continue to hear from the consumer," the statement read.
February 04, 2011
tribune242
tribune242
THE majority of the persons polled in a recent exercise by Consumer Voices Bahamas said they are in support of the privatisation of the Bahamas Telecommunications Corporation.
On January 28, CVB representatives standing on the corner of Bay and Parliament Streets polled 236 persons ranging in age from 16 to 75.
According to a press statement from the group, the majority of those polled supported privatisation.
"One hundred and twenty three persons, or 52 per cent, support the sale. Ninety six individuals, or 41 per cent, do not support the sale. Seventeen individuals, or 7 percent, are undecided about the sale.
"There was also a question on the quality of service at BTC. Sixty per cent of all respondents polled are displeased with the current services BTC offers," the statement read.
According to CVB, some of the most of the comments reflected a "desire for cheaper long distance rates, reduced texting rates, less dropped calls, as well as improved customer service and better service for the Family Islands. Many respondents also want more features and a 4G network.
"The CVB surveys will be ongoing and will be conducted in various areas so that we can continue to hear from the consumer," the statement read.
February 04, 2011
tribune242
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham has been condemned by one of his own... Branville McCartney
FNM blasts ‘attack on PM’
By KRYSTEL ROLLE
Guardian Staff Reporter
krystel@nasguard.com
PLP says PM Ingraham was condemned by one of his own
Bamboo Town MP Branville McCartney’s assertion that Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham lacks compassion was described yesterday by Free National Movement (FNM)Chairman Carl Bethel as an attack and “political posturing.”
“There is no question that such an attack upon the prime minister is totally without any foundation and must be viewed as merely the manifestation of a personal agenda,” said Bethel in a statement.
Bethel was responding to comments made by McCartney while he was a guest Tuesday on the Star 106.5 FM radio talk show ‘Jeffrey’ with host Jeffrey Lloyd.
At the time McCartney predicted that the FNM would be challenged at the next general election, in part because of Ingraham’s lack of compassion toward the Bahamian people.
“At this stage, I’d certainly want [the FNM] to succeed, but we have our challenges,” said McCartney. “We seem to not be connected to the people, from the leader straight down. [We’re] showing a lack of compassion and not listening to the people,” he said.
When pressed by Lloyd, McCartney added: “The prime minister is the leader of the FNM. The buck stops with the prime minister. Yes, there’s a lack of compassion — probably not intentionally. Perhaps that’s just the way he is. That type of governance was necessary in 1992. In 2011 and 2012, I don’t think it is.”
Bethel said McCartney’s assessment was incorrect.
“Indeed, compassion is a virtue best expressed by actions, not words; and the prime minister throughout his political career has always shown great compassion for others,” he said.
“His policy initiatives, infrastructural improvements, stimulus packages, assistance with electricity bills, social spending, unemployment insurance and educational innovations in these tough times all speak louder than words of the prime minister’s compassion.”
Bethel said many people in the FNM were surprised at McCartney’s comments, as McCartney has always had the right to express concerns about compassion, or the lack thereof, at party council meetings.
“Indeed, Mr. McCartney attended the Central Council meeting of the party last week and had every opportunity to voice his feelings to his colleagues, peers, and those party officers and activists who he hopes to lead someday. He said nothing about compassion even though he spoke about other issues,” he said.
Bethel added that the prime minister’s personal journey from the “bowels of dire poverty” in his childhood to the heights of achievement for the Bahamian people as a “visionary” and “compassionate” leader is well-known.
He is of the view that Ingraham’s love and compassion for the Bahamian people is second to none.
“There may be policy differences which divide politicians, but any attack based upon an alleged lack of compassion is nothing short of political posturing,” said Bethel.
Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Chairman Bradley Roberts also issued a statement yesterday on McCartney’s remarks on Tuesday.
“The prime minister clearly stands condemned by one of his own,” Roberts said. “Who will be the next to step forward and to be frank and honest with the Bahamian people? McCartney’s projections that the FNM will face great challenges in the coming general election are correct. We indeed need change Bahamas.”
2/3/2011
thenassauguardian
By KRYSTEL ROLLE
Guardian Staff Reporter
krystel@nasguard.com
PLP says PM Ingraham was condemned by one of his own
Bamboo Town MP Branville McCartney’s assertion that Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham lacks compassion was described yesterday by Free National Movement (FNM)Chairman Carl Bethel as an attack and “political posturing.”
“There is no question that such an attack upon the prime minister is totally without any foundation and must be viewed as merely the manifestation of a personal agenda,” said Bethel in a statement.
Bethel was responding to comments made by McCartney while he was a guest Tuesday on the Star 106.5 FM radio talk show ‘Jeffrey’ with host Jeffrey Lloyd.
At the time McCartney predicted that the FNM would be challenged at the next general election, in part because of Ingraham’s lack of compassion toward the Bahamian people.
“At this stage, I’d certainly want [the FNM] to succeed, but we have our challenges,” said McCartney. “We seem to not be connected to the people, from the leader straight down. [We’re] showing a lack of compassion and not listening to the people,” he said.
When pressed by Lloyd, McCartney added: “The prime minister is the leader of the FNM. The buck stops with the prime minister. Yes, there’s a lack of compassion — probably not intentionally. Perhaps that’s just the way he is. That type of governance was necessary in 1992. In 2011 and 2012, I don’t think it is.”
Bethel said McCartney’s assessment was incorrect.
“Indeed, compassion is a virtue best expressed by actions, not words; and the prime minister throughout his political career has always shown great compassion for others,” he said.
“His policy initiatives, infrastructural improvements, stimulus packages, assistance with electricity bills, social spending, unemployment insurance and educational innovations in these tough times all speak louder than words of the prime minister’s compassion.”
Bethel said many people in the FNM were surprised at McCartney’s comments, as McCartney has always had the right to express concerns about compassion, or the lack thereof, at party council meetings.
“Indeed, Mr. McCartney attended the Central Council meeting of the party last week and had every opportunity to voice his feelings to his colleagues, peers, and those party officers and activists who he hopes to lead someday. He said nothing about compassion even though he spoke about other issues,” he said.
Bethel added that the prime minister’s personal journey from the “bowels of dire poverty” in his childhood to the heights of achievement for the Bahamian people as a “visionary” and “compassionate” leader is well-known.
He is of the view that Ingraham’s love and compassion for the Bahamian people is second to none.
“There may be policy differences which divide politicians, but any attack based upon an alleged lack of compassion is nothing short of political posturing,” said Bethel.
Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Chairman Bradley Roberts also issued a statement yesterday on McCartney’s remarks on Tuesday.
“The prime minister clearly stands condemned by one of his own,” Roberts said. “Who will be the next to step forward and to be frank and honest with the Bahamian people? McCartney’s projections that the FNM will face great challenges in the coming general election are correct. We indeed need change Bahamas.”
2/3/2011
thenassauguardian
Branville McCartney says he supports the FNM and its leadership... but its leader - Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham - lacks compassion in relation to the suffering, misfortune, and future of the Bahamian people
MP McCartney: PM LACKS COMPASSION
By KRYSTEL ROLLE
Guardian Staff Reporter
krystel@nasguard.com
Predicts FNM will face challenges in next election
Bamboo Town MP Branville McCartney predicted yesterday that the Free National Movement (FNM) will be challenged during the upcoming general election in part because of its leader’s lack of compassion toward the Bahamian people.
“At this stage, I’d certainly want [the FNM] to succeed, but we have our challenges,” said McCartney, while a guest on the Star 106.5 radio talk show ‘Jeffrey’ with host Jeff Lloyd.
“We seem to not be connected to the people, from the leader straight down. [We’re] showing a lack of compassion and not listening to the people.
“Although, yes we’re the ones who were put here to make decisions, the people are the ones who put us here. We need to listen. We don’t have all of the answers but the way we go about things, it’s not good. We have a number of new voters and even old supporters are concerned. I hope we get our act together.”
When asked if he was referring to a particular personality within the party, McCartney said Ingraham has to take responsibility for the challenges the party faces going into the next election.
“The prime minister is the leader of the FNM. The buck stops with the prime minister. Yes, there’s a lack of compassion — probably not intentionally. Perhaps that’s just the way he is. That type of governance was necessary in 1992. In 2011 and 2012, I don’t think it is.”
McCartney — who resigned from the Ingraham Cabinet nearly a year ago — said voters want to see a different approach to governance.
Among other things, he said Bahamians want to see the government’s plans for the future of the country and opportunities that would be provided to them.
“They want to know that this place called the Commonwealth of The Bahamas is for Bahamians,” he said.
McCartney has made it known that he wants to be a future leader of the FNM. Since stepping down as Minister of State for Immigration in February 2010, he has been careful, though, not to publicly criticize Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham in any strong terms.
He said yesterday that if he were leader, he would do things a little differently from Ingraham.
“The difference I think is you need to listen. I don’t profess to have all the answers. I will give persons the respect that they deserve,” he said.
McCartney was expected to challenge Ingraham for the leadership had the FNM held a convention last year.
Asked yesterday if he had conversations with Prime Minister Ingraham about his future with the party, McCartney said he has not spoken to Ingraham since he resigned from the Cabinet.
He said it is still unclear whether he will be chosen by the party to contest the Bamboo Town seat in the general election.
“I would like a nomination, but if I don’t get it I’m going to move on. The party makes that decision, not me. That’s out of my hands,” he said.
McCartney added that whether or not he is chosen to run on the FNM’s ticket for Bamboo Town, he will offer as a candidate in the election.
“[I would run] independent or otherwise; we will see what happens,” he said when pressed on the matter.
McCartney added however that he supports the FNM and its leadership.
2/2/2011
thenassauguardian
By KRYSTEL ROLLE
Guardian Staff Reporter
krystel@nasguard.com
Predicts FNM will face challenges in next election
Bamboo Town MP Branville McCartney predicted yesterday that the Free National Movement (FNM) will be challenged during the upcoming general election in part because of its leader’s lack of compassion toward the Bahamian people.
“At this stage, I’d certainly want [the FNM] to succeed, but we have our challenges,” said McCartney, while a guest on the Star 106.5 radio talk show ‘Jeffrey’ with host Jeff Lloyd.
“We seem to not be connected to the people, from the leader straight down. [We’re] showing a lack of compassion and not listening to the people.
“Although, yes we’re the ones who were put here to make decisions, the people are the ones who put us here. We need to listen. We don’t have all of the answers but the way we go about things, it’s not good. We have a number of new voters and even old supporters are concerned. I hope we get our act together.”
When asked if he was referring to a particular personality within the party, McCartney said Ingraham has to take responsibility for the challenges the party faces going into the next election.
“The prime minister is the leader of the FNM. The buck stops with the prime minister. Yes, there’s a lack of compassion — probably not intentionally. Perhaps that’s just the way he is. That type of governance was necessary in 1992. In 2011 and 2012, I don’t think it is.”
McCartney — who resigned from the Ingraham Cabinet nearly a year ago — said voters want to see a different approach to governance.
Among other things, he said Bahamians want to see the government’s plans for the future of the country and opportunities that would be provided to them.
“They want to know that this place called the Commonwealth of The Bahamas is for Bahamians,” he said.
McCartney has made it known that he wants to be a future leader of the FNM. Since stepping down as Minister of State for Immigration in February 2010, he has been careful, though, not to publicly criticize Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham in any strong terms.
He said yesterday that if he were leader, he would do things a little differently from Ingraham.
“The difference I think is you need to listen. I don’t profess to have all the answers. I will give persons the respect that they deserve,” he said.
McCartney was expected to challenge Ingraham for the leadership had the FNM held a convention last year.
Asked yesterday if he had conversations with Prime Minister Ingraham about his future with the party, McCartney said he has not spoken to Ingraham since he resigned from the Cabinet.
He said it is still unclear whether he will be chosen by the party to contest the Bamboo Town seat in the general election.
“I would like a nomination, but if I don’t get it I’m going to move on. The party makes that decision, not me. That’s out of my hands,” he said.
McCartney added that whether or not he is chosen to run on the FNM’s ticket for Bamboo Town, he will offer as a candidate in the election.
“[I would run] independent or otherwise; we will see what happens,” he said when pressed on the matter.
McCartney added however that he supports the FNM and its leadership.
2/2/2011
thenassauguardian
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
The Vanguard Party has been revived...
Journalist and businesman revives the Vanguard Party
tribune242
THE socialist Vanguard Party has been revived under the interim leadership of journalist and businessman, Charles Fawkes.
Mr Fawkes, who will serve as the party's first secretary, is also the president of the National Consumer Association and organiser for the Commonwealth Group of Unions.
Founded in 1971 and originally known as the Vanguard Nationalist and Socialist Party, the party suspended political activities in 1995.
According to Mr Fawkes while the party's old slogan - "Dare to Struggle - Dare to Win" - will be preserved, the words "socialist and "nationalist" will be dropped.
"Henceforth, the grouping will simply be known as the Vanguard Party (VP). However, the party will remain as a party of the left, exclusively committed to the workers of The Bahamas, the wider Caribbean and the world and will participate in the ongoing debate and struggles from that perspective," said the party in a statement.
Over the next six months, it said, VP will reorganise its Central Committee, other party organs and its supporters.
In addition, the party's newspaper, "The Vanguard" will begin publication once again.
"In the coming months, the organisation's philosophy will be further explicated and disseminated to the public as the second edition of the party's book, The Struggle for Freedom in The Bahamas" will be published. Other officers of the party will also be named and elected from the reorganised general membership and supporters in the immediate future," the statement said.
It went on to emphasise that in the "new type" of party that "New Vanguard" hopes to become, the First Secretary will serve as leader.
"Additionally, it should be noted that to be a party of the people, it is not enough to say that the party represents the masses. The party must be an actual weapon of the masses, articulating their needs and demands and struggling untiringly for their interest.
"In a class divided society, no party can speak for all the classes. Those who serve the interests of the rich who profit from the present economic system must of necessity work against the interests of the poor and oppressed masses. And the neo-colonial PLP and FNM can no more serve the working-class majority in Bahamian society than could the old UBP.
"Only the Vanguard is a workers' party today, and the political awakening of the Bahamian working class will be measured by the strength and militancy of their support for the Vanguard."
When first organised in the early 1970s, the Vanguard Party grew out of the youth arm of the Progressive Liberal Party, and drew inspiration from the Black Panther Party in the United States.
Despite running candidates in elections in 1977 and 1979, the first Vanguard Party was unable to win a seat in parliament, never garnering more than 173 votes.
From 1979 to 1985, the party was led by academic and political theorist John T McCartney, now the department head and associate professor of government and law at Lafayette College in Easton, Pennsylvania.
February 02, 2011
tribune242
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)