Unions promoting 'social unrest'
By KEVA LIGHTBOURNE
Guardian Senior Reporter
kdl@nasguard.com
Labour minister hits out over 'small Egypt' comment
Minister of Labour Dion Foulkes has accused Bahamas Communications and Public Officers Union (BCPOU) President Bernard Evans of promoting social unrest and seeking to destabilize the government and the economy.
It came after Evans on Tuesday threatened to turn The Bahamas into a “small Egypt” as a result of the government signing a deal with Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC) to purchase a majority interest in the Bahamas Telecommunications Company.
“The security of thousands of Bahamian jobs depends on political and social stability,” Foulkes said in a statement released by the Free National Movement Communication Unit.
The labor minister urged Evans to withdraw his “offensive comment and apologize to the Bahamian people.”
But Evans said yesterday, “I will do no such thing.
“What I said was those persons in Egypt who rose up against oppression, against a dictatorial type of governance, were very peaceful in the beginning when they started. It was only [in] the latter days when the armed forces and/or proponents of (Egyptian President Hosni) Mubarak started to [have] confrontations with those persons that it became out of hand.”
On Tuesday, as he stood on the steps of the Churchill Building, Evans warned of industrial action.
“I see now the police are putting up barricades again as if they are preparing for animals, but the will of the people is the strength of the people,” he said at the time.
“I guess if The Bahamas is ready and if the government is ready to see a small Egypt, then they are going to get it.”
Yesterday, Evans added that by nature, Bahamians are very peaceful people.
“I have always been very cordial and very peaceful, so I don’t know why the minister would want to insinuate that we are trying to wreak havoc on the community or on this nation. Nothing could be further from the truth,” Evans said.
Blasting the “small Egypt” comment, Foulkes noted that many people were killed and hundreds injured in Egypt in recent weeks.
“To urge members of the BCPOU to engage in similar behavior in The Bahamas is unbecoming of a union leader,” he said.
Evans — who has been threatening industrial unrest for weeks — went a step further on Tuesday, apologizing to the Bahamian public for the disruption in services he said will come.
2/10/2011
thenassauguardian
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.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC) business plan outlines 36% reduction in per-minute phone rates within three years
Lower phone rates for BTC customers
By STEWART MILLER
Guardian Business Reporter
stewart@nasguard.com
CWC business plan outlines 36% reduction in three years
BTC customers can expect to see a 36 percent reduction in per-minute phone rates within three years of Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC) taking control of the Bahamas Telecommunications Corporation (BTC), but the price reductions should commence within the first year.
Prime Minister Hubert A. Ingraham tabled the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the government and CWC in the House yesterday, which outlined the commitments between the two parties.
During his communication, the prime minister disclosed key aspects of CWC’s five-year business plan, submitted by CWC as one of the requirements of the MOU. Several matters directly related to customer costs were addressed in the business plan.
“CWC’s plans will reduce the present rates significantly within the next three years, starting with the first year of operations here in The Bahamas,” Ingraham said, later adding, “It is not just about price reductions. It is also about value for money. We expect consumers and businesses in The Bahamas to be pleased with a new array of products and services that CWC will introduce — that is to say, more services for less cost.”
Around noon yesterday, ahead of the tabling of the MOU, the government and Cable and Wireless signed a share purchase agreement and shareholders agreement governing the terms of CWC’s acquisition of 51 percent of the shares of BTC for a consideration of $210 million plus $7 million stamp tax. During that signing, the prime minister said that the completion of the transaction is expected to occur around the end of March 2011. CWC would then take responsibility for the management and operation of BTC under terms defined in the shareholders agreement.
Under the CWC business plan, BTC customers within The Bahamas calling the Family Islands will no longer have to pay long distance charges when using a mobile-to-mobile connection. There will also be a simplification of billing schedules. The practice of charging different prices for cellular services based on the time of day the call is made will also be eliminated under the business plan.
CWC’s five-year plan also promises ‘reasonable prices’ for smartphones, such as the Blackberry, Android and iPhone. Customers using smartphones will also be able to take fuller advantage of features such as mobile banking, television, and other types of content delivery.
The plan also outlined a number of additional improvements, including better roaming arrangements, faster broadband, more connectivity, consolidated billing, Pay TV, and increased outlets to access BTC services. The prime minister said these would be delivered “while achieving an up to 36% reduction in the cost per minute of both prepaid and postpaid services over the next three years, before cellular competition begins.”
2/9/2011
thenassauguardian
By STEWART MILLER
Guardian Business Reporter
stewart@nasguard.com
CWC business plan outlines 36% reduction in three years
BTC customers can expect to see a 36 percent reduction in per-minute phone rates within three years of Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC) taking control of the Bahamas Telecommunications Corporation (BTC), but the price reductions should commence within the first year.
Prime Minister Hubert A. Ingraham tabled the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the government and CWC in the House yesterday, which outlined the commitments between the two parties.
During his communication, the prime minister disclosed key aspects of CWC’s five-year business plan, submitted by CWC as one of the requirements of the MOU. Several matters directly related to customer costs were addressed in the business plan.
“CWC’s plans will reduce the present rates significantly within the next three years, starting with the first year of operations here in The Bahamas,” Ingraham said, later adding, “It is not just about price reductions. It is also about value for money. We expect consumers and businesses in The Bahamas to be pleased with a new array of products and services that CWC will introduce — that is to say, more services for less cost.”
Around noon yesterday, ahead of the tabling of the MOU, the government and Cable and Wireless signed a share purchase agreement and shareholders agreement governing the terms of CWC’s acquisition of 51 percent of the shares of BTC for a consideration of $210 million plus $7 million stamp tax. During that signing, the prime minister said that the completion of the transaction is expected to occur around the end of March 2011. CWC would then take responsibility for the management and operation of BTC under terms defined in the shareholders agreement.
Under the CWC business plan, BTC customers within The Bahamas calling the Family Islands will no longer have to pay long distance charges when using a mobile-to-mobile connection. There will also be a simplification of billing schedules. The practice of charging different prices for cellular services based on the time of day the call is made will also be eliminated under the business plan.
CWC’s five-year plan also promises ‘reasonable prices’ for smartphones, such as the Blackberry, Android and iPhone. Customers using smartphones will also be able to take fuller advantage of features such as mobile banking, television, and other types of content delivery.
The plan also outlined a number of additional improvements, including better roaming arrangements, faster broadband, more connectivity, consolidated billing, Pay TV, and increased outlets to access BTC services. The prime minister said these would be delivered “while achieving an up to 36% reduction in the cost per minute of both prepaid and postpaid services over the next three years, before cellular competition begins.”
2/9/2011
thenassauguardian
After Bahamas Communications and Public Officers Union (BCPOU) president Bernard Evans would have destroyed The Bahamas, what does he plan to salvage from the ruins to pass on to his children?
Union leader promises a 'small Egypt'
tribune242 editorial
YESTERDAY the Government laid on the table of the House the much anticipated agreement to sell 51 per cent of Bahamas Telecommunications Company to Cable and Wireless Communications. The transaction is still subject to parliamentary and regulatory approvals.
Opposition leader Perry Christie quickly announced that his party will not support the sale. He said the Opposition was particularly "grieved that even though the decision was made to sell, the decision was made to sell 51 per cent." To him that was "an error of judgment on the part of this government and certainly does not serve the best interests of the people of the Bahamas."
We know that Mr Christie, a lawyer, probably does not have much practical experience in the business world, but when a purchaser is so hobbled in a sale -- as is Cable & Wireless -- the vendor has to relinquish something to keep him interested in the purchase. An early snag in the negotiations was C&W's need to slash 30 per cent of BTC's 1,150 work force to put the company in a position to compete in an open market. Obviously, Mr Ingraham, fighting desperately to save BTC jobs and making it clear that his government would not tolerate any forced redundancies, had to somehow "sweeten the pie" to keep C&W at the negotiating table. Many benefits, such as very generous pensions among other perks, had to be protected for current staff.
We presume 51 per cent and the three year period of exclusivity for its cellular service had to be the bait to clinch the deal.
And yet BTC employees are screaming that government is not thinking of the Bahamian people. Maybe they have a point there. An argument can be made that in his effort to protect BTC staff, he did indeed defer many of the benefits that the Bahamian people want now for another three years. This is to protect BTC staff and give them time to decide their future.
If this had been an ordinary sale -- or even if BTC workers had become the owners of the company -- reality would have set in very quickly. They would have become business men and women overnight, and about 300 staff would have had to have been made redundant immediately for the overburdened company to survive.
We presume that 51 per cent was the price that government had to pay to protect the jobs of many ungrateful staff.
Denise Wilson, BCPOU secretary general, declared that even though some Bahamians might not understand why unions are continuing to fight the sale, "it comes down to our rights." We understand only too well why they are fighting, they are not thinking of the country, or the Bahamians who pay their salaries, their focus is solely on themselves.
As for BCPOU president Bernard Evans, despite wanting us to believe that unionists are fighting the sale for the sake of future generations, he has vowed to turn this country into a "small Egypt." Those of us who have watched television these past two weeks know exactly what that means -- destruction. And after he has destroyed the nation, what does he plan to salvage from the ruins to pass on to his children?
He talks about showing the strength of the people.
Mr Evans is fooling himself if he thinks his minority, now trying to hold the government hostage, represents the will of the majority of Bahamians.
"I want to apologise right now publicly to all of our valued customers," said Mr Evans. "Be patient with us, but needless to say that services will be affected somewhat. Be patient with us, we are fighting for a cause we believe, we know, is bigger than BTC's members and employees. We are fighting for the future of our children."
Mr Evans forgets that Bahamians have been patient will their performance for too long now. The patience of most of us has run out.
Either the Bahamas is going to forge ahead for the sake of our children, or it is going to be held back in the cesspool of inefficiency.
After Mr Evans has turned us into another Egypt and jeopardised the jobs of all Bahamians, there won't be much left for another generation.
Nor have we any patience with an unreasonable people who reject an invitation to at least sit down and have a discussion with the Prime Minister.
What should be remembered is that Prime Minister Ingraham is the elected representative of the Bahamian people, not Mr Evans or union leaders.
February 09, 2011
tribune242 editorial
tribune242 editorial
YESTERDAY the Government laid on the table of the House the much anticipated agreement to sell 51 per cent of Bahamas Telecommunications Company to Cable and Wireless Communications. The transaction is still subject to parliamentary and regulatory approvals.
Opposition leader Perry Christie quickly announced that his party will not support the sale. He said the Opposition was particularly "grieved that even though the decision was made to sell, the decision was made to sell 51 per cent." To him that was "an error of judgment on the part of this government and certainly does not serve the best interests of the people of the Bahamas."
We know that Mr Christie, a lawyer, probably does not have much practical experience in the business world, but when a purchaser is so hobbled in a sale -- as is Cable & Wireless -- the vendor has to relinquish something to keep him interested in the purchase. An early snag in the negotiations was C&W's need to slash 30 per cent of BTC's 1,150 work force to put the company in a position to compete in an open market. Obviously, Mr Ingraham, fighting desperately to save BTC jobs and making it clear that his government would not tolerate any forced redundancies, had to somehow "sweeten the pie" to keep C&W at the negotiating table. Many benefits, such as very generous pensions among other perks, had to be protected for current staff.
We presume 51 per cent and the three year period of exclusivity for its cellular service had to be the bait to clinch the deal.
And yet BTC employees are screaming that government is not thinking of the Bahamian people. Maybe they have a point there. An argument can be made that in his effort to protect BTC staff, he did indeed defer many of the benefits that the Bahamian people want now for another three years. This is to protect BTC staff and give them time to decide their future.
If this had been an ordinary sale -- or even if BTC workers had become the owners of the company -- reality would have set in very quickly. They would have become business men and women overnight, and about 300 staff would have had to have been made redundant immediately for the overburdened company to survive.
We presume that 51 per cent was the price that government had to pay to protect the jobs of many ungrateful staff.
Denise Wilson, BCPOU secretary general, declared that even though some Bahamians might not understand why unions are continuing to fight the sale, "it comes down to our rights." We understand only too well why they are fighting, they are not thinking of the country, or the Bahamians who pay their salaries, their focus is solely on themselves.
As for BCPOU president Bernard Evans, despite wanting us to believe that unionists are fighting the sale for the sake of future generations, he has vowed to turn this country into a "small Egypt." Those of us who have watched television these past two weeks know exactly what that means -- destruction. And after he has destroyed the nation, what does he plan to salvage from the ruins to pass on to his children?
He talks about showing the strength of the people.
Mr Evans is fooling himself if he thinks his minority, now trying to hold the government hostage, represents the will of the majority of Bahamians.
"I want to apologise right now publicly to all of our valued customers," said Mr Evans. "Be patient with us, but needless to say that services will be affected somewhat. Be patient with us, we are fighting for a cause we believe, we know, is bigger than BTC's members and employees. We are fighting for the future of our children."
Mr Evans forgets that Bahamians have been patient will their performance for too long now. The patience of most of us has run out.
Either the Bahamas is going to forge ahead for the sake of our children, or it is going to be held back in the cesspool of inefficiency.
After Mr Evans has turned us into another Egypt and jeopardised the jobs of all Bahamians, there won't be much left for another generation.
Nor have we any patience with an unreasonable people who reject an invitation to at least sit down and have a discussion with the Prime Minister.
What should be remembered is that Prime Minister Ingraham is the elected representative of the Bahamian people, not Mr Evans or union leaders.
February 09, 2011
tribune242 editorial
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
The Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) is simply fed up with the double standard being exhibited by the Utilities Regulation & Competition Authority (URCA) in its dealing with BTC vis-à-vis Cable Bahamas
BTC blasts URCA 'double standards'
By NEIL HARTNELL
Tribune Business Editor
The Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) yesterday accused the industry regulator of employing "double standards" in its approach to product unbundling, telling Tribune Business it had been "perplexed" by the decision to give Cable Bahamas until 2013 to completely untie its cable TV and broadband Internet offerings.
Marlon Johnson, BTC's vice-president of sales and marketing, told Tribune Business that the state-owned incumbent wanted to ensure there was a regulatory "level playing field" between itself and BISX-listed Cable Bahamas as Significant Market Power (SMP) operators, contrasting the "sliding scale" imposed on the latter with the requirement that it instantly unbundle its own broadband Internet offering from its phone services.
As Tribune Business revealed last week, Cable Bahamas has been given until end-2013 to complete the 100 per cent separation of its cable TV and Internet products on New Providence and Grand Bahama, something Mr Johnson yesterday described as fundamentally unfair, arguing that the BISX-listed company had not complied with its SMP obligations and should not be allowed to enter other markets.
He added that the extended time period given to Cable Bahamas to 'unbundle' those services would "stifle" consumer choice and the arrival of new competition into those markets, since for two years new and existing Bahamian customers would be required to take both services - even though they may only want one.
Describing the decision by the Utilities Regulation & Competition Authority (URCA) as "outrageous", Mr Johnson told Tribune Business: "We have been complaining for some time. We can't understand why Cable Bahamas has been given this sliding scale going on for two years, which seems to us goes against consumer choice and competition, which is URCA's primary mandate.
"If it's good for us as an SMP player in this market, it should be applied to other SMP operators. I don't think that's unreasonable. That's why this particular decision has left us perplexed.
"If everybody plays by the same rules, BTC has no objection. We want to ensure a level playing field, and that carriers with the same SMP designation and obligations are held to the same standards."
BTC, he added, was now petitioning URCA to obtain a "better understanding" of the reasons for its decision on Cable Bahamas.
BTC's argument is that while it was immediately forced to untie its broadband DSL Internet service from its phone products, Cable Bahamas has been given much greater latitude in complying with its SMP obligations, thus leading to its charge that the latter is getting off 'lightly', while it is subject to a 'heavy-handed approach' by URCA.
Tribune Business reported on Friday that Cable Bahamas had to complete the 'unbundling' of its cable TV and Internet products at 20 per cent of its New Providence nodes, plus 10 per cent of its Grand Bahama nodes and 15 per cent of those in Abaco and Eleuthera, by end-2010. It successfully met this, enabling it to meet the SMP obligations.
Cable Bahamas has to complete unbundling at 45 per cent of New Providence nodes by end-December 2011, achieving 75 per cent by end-2012 and 100 per cent at end-December 2013.
On Grand Bahama, the 2011 target is 30 per cent, with the 2012 and 2013 thresholds 70 per cent and 100 per cent. For Eleuthera and Abaco, the job is supposed to be 50 per cent complete this year, and concluded in 2012.
Mr Johnson yesterday told Tribune Business that while Cable Bahamas was the "dominant player" in broadband Internet, for two years a significant number of Bahamians would also be forced to take its cable TV services to access this product, even though they may not want the latter. This, he added, "stifles" competition in both markets.
BTC, Mr Johnson said, had to spend significant "man hours and money" on unbundling its own products, something it accepted it had to do.
"We're perplexed and cannot understand the rationale," he told Tribune Business, adding that the situation gave BTC "pause" before it looked at expanding into other markets it was not already in.
"Our prominent concern is that there is equitable treatment based on the standards implemented by URCA itself, he told this newspaper.
In a statement, Mr Johnson said: "We find it impossible to find even a remotely digestible justification for this ruling on the part of URCA. It is wholly inconsistent with URCA's stated mandate in respect of customer choice and its precedents in respect of the treatment of companies with significant market power (SMP) within the Bahamas.
"Simply put: It is outrageous! What is happening is that Cable Bahamas has been granted an additional two years to ensure that any one of its customers can buy Internet services from that company [has] to buy cable television services .
"At the same time, the regulator some two years ago insisted that BTC separate its Internet service from basic phone service - a requirement that BTC complied with. Why the double treatment? Why must those consumers who only want Internet service be forced to buy cable television service from Cable Bahamas, while at the same time BTC is forced to provide its Internet and telephone services separate and apart. It is an egregious decision.
"While URCA accepts that Cable Bahamas maintains SMP in the provision of basic Internet service, the regulator has willingly been complicit in permitting Cable Bahamas to use this position to force its customers to buy a television service that the customer may not want.
"This is not fair to those consumers who only want to buy a single service, nor does it help develop the market place for broadcast television. Hard as we try, we cannot find a single solitary angle that would give justification to this action."
Mr Johnson added: "It is our view that the provisions in the regulatory regime suggest that BTC and the other licensed operators should have been given the opportunity to assess the impact of the generous concession granted to Cable Bahamas with respect to the untying of its broadband service from pay television while it was still in the draft stage.
"Why is it that BTC and other operators in the market did not have an opportunity to respond to these incredibly generous allowances to the dominant player in the broadband and broadcast television market?"
And Mr Johnson said: "BTC is simply fed up with this double standard being exhibited by URCA in its dealing with BTC vis-à-vis Cable Bahamas. We both have reasonably been deemed dominant players in the various segments of our market, and with that has come the Significant Market Player [SMP] designations and obligations. "And while BTC has expended significant resources to date in its efforts to comply with its SMP obligations, it seem pretty clear to us that Cable Bahamas has been given a free ride, despite the fact that they had and have fewer obligations to satisfy the regulatory when compared to BTC."
February 08, 2011
tribune242
By NEIL HARTNELL
Tribune Business Editor
The Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) yesterday accused the industry regulator of employing "double standards" in its approach to product unbundling, telling Tribune Business it had been "perplexed" by the decision to give Cable Bahamas until 2013 to completely untie its cable TV and broadband Internet offerings.
Marlon Johnson, BTC's vice-president of sales and marketing, told Tribune Business that the state-owned incumbent wanted to ensure there was a regulatory "level playing field" between itself and BISX-listed Cable Bahamas as Significant Market Power (SMP) operators, contrasting the "sliding scale" imposed on the latter with the requirement that it instantly unbundle its own broadband Internet offering from its phone services.
As Tribune Business revealed last week, Cable Bahamas has been given until end-2013 to complete the 100 per cent separation of its cable TV and Internet products on New Providence and Grand Bahama, something Mr Johnson yesterday described as fundamentally unfair, arguing that the BISX-listed company had not complied with its SMP obligations and should not be allowed to enter other markets.
He added that the extended time period given to Cable Bahamas to 'unbundle' those services would "stifle" consumer choice and the arrival of new competition into those markets, since for two years new and existing Bahamian customers would be required to take both services - even though they may only want one.
Describing the decision by the Utilities Regulation & Competition Authority (URCA) as "outrageous", Mr Johnson told Tribune Business: "We have been complaining for some time. We can't understand why Cable Bahamas has been given this sliding scale going on for two years, which seems to us goes against consumer choice and competition, which is URCA's primary mandate.
"If it's good for us as an SMP player in this market, it should be applied to other SMP operators. I don't think that's unreasonable. That's why this particular decision has left us perplexed.
"If everybody plays by the same rules, BTC has no objection. We want to ensure a level playing field, and that carriers with the same SMP designation and obligations are held to the same standards."
BTC, he added, was now petitioning URCA to obtain a "better understanding" of the reasons for its decision on Cable Bahamas.
BTC's argument is that while it was immediately forced to untie its broadband DSL Internet service from its phone products, Cable Bahamas has been given much greater latitude in complying with its SMP obligations, thus leading to its charge that the latter is getting off 'lightly', while it is subject to a 'heavy-handed approach' by URCA.
Tribune Business reported on Friday that Cable Bahamas had to complete the 'unbundling' of its cable TV and Internet products at 20 per cent of its New Providence nodes, plus 10 per cent of its Grand Bahama nodes and 15 per cent of those in Abaco and Eleuthera, by end-2010. It successfully met this, enabling it to meet the SMP obligations.
Cable Bahamas has to complete unbundling at 45 per cent of New Providence nodes by end-December 2011, achieving 75 per cent by end-2012 and 100 per cent at end-December 2013.
On Grand Bahama, the 2011 target is 30 per cent, with the 2012 and 2013 thresholds 70 per cent and 100 per cent. For Eleuthera and Abaco, the job is supposed to be 50 per cent complete this year, and concluded in 2012.
Mr Johnson yesterday told Tribune Business that while Cable Bahamas was the "dominant player" in broadband Internet, for two years a significant number of Bahamians would also be forced to take its cable TV services to access this product, even though they may not want the latter. This, he added, "stifles" competition in both markets.
BTC, Mr Johnson said, had to spend significant "man hours and money" on unbundling its own products, something it accepted it had to do.
"We're perplexed and cannot understand the rationale," he told Tribune Business, adding that the situation gave BTC "pause" before it looked at expanding into other markets it was not already in.
"Our prominent concern is that there is equitable treatment based on the standards implemented by URCA itself, he told this newspaper.
In a statement, Mr Johnson said: "We find it impossible to find even a remotely digestible justification for this ruling on the part of URCA. It is wholly inconsistent with URCA's stated mandate in respect of customer choice and its precedents in respect of the treatment of companies with significant market power (SMP) within the Bahamas.
"Simply put: It is outrageous! What is happening is that Cable Bahamas has been granted an additional two years to ensure that any one of its customers can buy Internet services from that company [has] to buy cable television services .
"At the same time, the regulator some two years ago insisted that BTC separate its Internet service from basic phone service - a requirement that BTC complied with. Why the double treatment? Why must those consumers who only want Internet service be forced to buy cable television service from Cable Bahamas, while at the same time BTC is forced to provide its Internet and telephone services separate and apart. It is an egregious decision.
"While URCA accepts that Cable Bahamas maintains SMP in the provision of basic Internet service, the regulator has willingly been complicit in permitting Cable Bahamas to use this position to force its customers to buy a television service that the customer may not want.
"This is not fair to those consumers who only want to buy a single service, nor does it help develop the market place for broadcast television. Hard as we try, we cannot find a single solitary angle that would give justification to this action."
Mr Johnson added: "It is our view that the provisions in the regulatory regime suggest that BTC and the other licensed operators should have been given the opportunity to assess the impact of the generous concession granted to Cable Bahamas with respect to the untying of its broadband service from pay television while it was still in the draft stage.
"Why is it that BTC and other operators in the market did not have an opportunity to respond to these incredibly generous allowances to the dominant player in the broadband and broadcast television market?"
And Mr Johnson said: "BTC is simply fed up with this double standard being exhibited by URCA in its dealing with BTC vis-à-vis Cable Bahamas. We both have reasonably been deemed dominant players in the various segments of our market, and with that has come the Significant Market Player [SMP] designations and obligations. "And while BTC has expended significant resources to date in its efforts to comply with its SMP obligations, it seem pretty clear to us that Cable Bahamas has been given a free ride, despite the fact that they had and have fewer obligations to satisfy the regulatory when compared to BTC."
February 08, 2011
tribune242
Monday, February 7, 2011
We need a new paradigm in The Bahamas to govern our relationship with Haiti and Haitians
What we resist will persist: The quiet Haitian revolution
By NOELLE NICOLLS
Tribune Staff Reporter
nnicolls@tribunemedia.net
PEOPLE say I am Haitian. They call me a Haitian sympathiser. They even question my patriotism. Their biggest mistake is they think I care either way. I have no insecurities about my identity or my affinity to Haiti.
I recall once upon a time people used to say black is beastly. Thankfully today is another day. In my time, black is beautiful and being Haitian is no shame. So call me what you may, call me what you might, my conviction will not change. Somehow through the thicket of our discontent as a nation, we need a new paradigm to govern our relationship with Haiti and Haitians.
I know most Bahamians can relate to a time as a child when all reason was replaced with rage, and the end result was a temper tantrum. Imagine that one occasion when a moment of stillness emerged after the tears subsided. In that moment, your mother, who did not budge through it all, may have spoken these words: "Finished? Can we go now?" And as if enlightened by divine favour, you began to see with new eyes. Often I wish a moment of calm like that would sweep the collective consciousness of Bahamians, so we would stop the childish hysterics and really start to solve our problems.
Let us imagine for a second that this is that moment and I am the mother. And let us assume for argument's sake that we have new eyes. This is what I would have you contemplate next.
With all the money, time and passion thrown at dealing with the "Haitian problem", have we got anywhere? Last week I contemplated that there is a better way: It requires less money, less resources and fewer headaches, but it is infinitely more difficult, but only because it requires a mental shift.
Last week I examined the Bahamas' unexplored and underdeveloped economic interest in Haiti. I reasoned that the Bahamians had concerns about a scarcity of resources, the security of our people and the sovereignty of our nation. To advance the conversation let us explore the concern about our national sovereignty.
A Tribune242 reader in response to "Time to stop prostituting Haitians", wanted to know if I was advocating the government "halt deportation, because the only thing that would do is send a green light to Haitians that the Bahamas wants them to come". The reader said Miami is a case study of what would be the result.
There are a few things that need to be said. Haitians have never needed a "green light" to come to the Bahamas. We market ourselves around the world with the message that "it's better in the Bahamas." Haitians have reasons to believe that is true. There is a greater probability of dying in Haiti before age 40 than there is in the Bahamas, according to the United Nations Human Development Report of 2005. In Haiti, 65 per cent of the population lives below the income poverty line, unlike the Bahamas with only 9 per cent.
No, I am not saying halt deportation. The Department of Immigration has a role to play, but based on the nature of the beast, it is a limited one. The past decades of raids, deportation and immigration policies have shown us how futile our single-minded strategy has been. Haitians risk the peril of death and the certainty of being marginalized for the chance of opportunity in the Bahamas. How do you really compete against that?
The Department of Immigration has a role to play, but it does not have the power to stop Haitian immigrants from leaving Haiti's shores; to prevent some of them from entering; or to stop Bahamians from exercising their will to hire Haitians, whether legally or illegally.
I am saying: Raids in the order of Thursday night's Fox Hill raid serve no useful purpose. One eyewitness told me of the raid and said they took people out of their homes and beat them for no reason. One person was left red from all the blood that covered his clothes and body. It was like they just took their pent up frustration out on a few random Haitians.
Let us be reminded, as another Tribune242 reader said: "They are not just 'Haitians' or 'foreigners', but each has a face, a name and an identity (like YOU and ME), a story to tell (like YOU and ME) and struggles, pain and heartaches to overcome (like YOU and ME). Where is our compassion for others?"
I am also saying: It is because we force Haitian immigrants into the margins of our society that we create a whole host of counter-productive and self-defeating problems: Squatter communities and marginalised youth, to name a few.
The reader feared a Miami-like situation emerging in the Bahamas, where "the language and culture of the city has been completely taken over by Cubans so much so that you are looked at funny if you can't speak Spanish." Theoretically I suppose this is a risk Bahamians may need to take, but aren't risks a part of life?
There is a universal lesson to learn from the South Florida immigrant population, comprised mainly of people of Latin American descent. South Florida is a handy card to draw to stoke fears, but its example cannot stand scrutiny. When we look at the pattern of integration in South Florida, or lack thereof, there is evidence that it does not fit the American norm or the Bahamian model.
What happened in South Florida was a convergence of several factors: extremely large immigration numbers, not even comparable to the cumulative numbers seen in the Bahamas; a highly concentrated area; the marginalization of a cultural group; and a great white flight, which is probably the most significant of all factors.
"The number of Cubans that came to South Florida, nearly a quarter million of them, were concentrated in the same area. The English speaking Americans rather than trying to assimilate them fled north and left the Cuban Americans to fill a void that was created by their moving," said Mr Leonard Archer, former Ambassador to CARICOM.
"You had really a transplanted society of people who spoke the same language, with the same culture, living in a concentrated area. As a consequence there was less impetus to change and become a part of the mainstream. They created a society in South Florida that is not the normal pattern," he said.
Clearly, Bahamians are not going anywhere, so Haitian nationals are faced with the choice of integration, marginalisation or deportation.
Over the years, South Florida immigrants coalesced around their Latin American cultural identity because of their experience of being marginalised. The act of uniting was a form of resistance and survival. To win social rights, and in some cases basic human rights, the immigrants of common culture formed an organic constituency.
Over time, they acquired political power. So now, there is a large community of Americans of Latin American descent with no insecurities about their origins or their rights. Emboldened by its ability to acquire power in defiance of the system, and left to thrive in a cultural vacuum, there was no longer any need for the community to suppress its cultural identity or assimilate.
And today, South Florida has been enriched by the presence of Latin American immigrants, despite the annoyances of language dynamics. Bahamians who deny this might just be telling a bold face lie: After all, Bahamians practically live in South Florida and other areas in the immigrant nation we call the United States.
There are over 70,000 undocumented Bahamians living in the US, according to the US Immigration and Naturalization Service. Between 1989 and 2004, more than 5,000 Bahamians gained citizenship and there were 12,000 legal residents.
The lesson in all of this is: When a group's identity is the source of its oppression that group will likely bind together on the basis of that identity. The risk of our current policies, beliefs and practices is that the more we marginalise Haitian nationals, the more they can draw strength from that identity.
Marginalisation has not worked for us. One of the results has been squatter communities, like the former Mackey Yard. Bahamians allow Haitian communities to exist, but only on the peripheries. We have no problem when Haitians keep to themselves and stay out of sight. We tolerate them in our communities and hire them at will when they play the role we have designated for them. But we scorn the idea of bringing legitimacy to our sordid affair.
Another result of marginalization is the resentment it breeds and the segregation it creates. Do not be fooled: there is an entire generation of Haitian adolescents with legitimate claims to their Bahamian identity, who are smart, unassuming and legal. It is only a matter of time before they exert their power as entitled Bahamians.
It is not a violent revolution Bahamians should be looking for. The face of the revolution will be in Bahamian children with Haitian ancestry, who excel in education, who settle into the business class, the political class and acquire quiet power in an indistinguishable way.
There is already an entrenched class of fully integrated Haitian-Bahamians, who do not have to prove their Bahamian credentials. These are established and respected Bahamians who keep their Haitian heritage under wraps. But there will come a time when they will no longer have to do such a thing. Our governor general, Sir Arthur Foulkes is proof of that. What will Bahamians do when all of their neighbours take off their masks and say: "Surprise! There is Haitian blood in me too!" Bahamians might refuse to talk about integrating Haitian immigrants, but in doing so we might just be cutting off our nose to spite our face.
So what of integration? It is already happening under our very noses and there is nothing we can do to turn the clock back. Bahamians would curse the day we start having members of parliament self identify as Haitian-Bahamian, or a Haitian caucus in the House of Assembly. For now, Bahamians can breathe a sigh of relief, because we are far from that, but we need not go there if we make the right choice. After all, Ron Pinder and Keod Smith, who some say have claim to Haitian ancestry, would be more inclined to sue for libel than acknowledge any possible association. The model of American society, with all of its segregated cultural and racial groups is not necessarily something we want to emulate anyway.
But if we maintain the strategy of refusing to integrate Haitian immigrants and Bahamians with Haitian ancestry into the Bahamian society and drop the general stigma attached to being Haitian, sorry to say, we will more than likely arrive at that cursed day. The odds are not in our favour; we have the law of nature working against us: what you resist will persist.
The survival of the Bahamas and the inheritance of our children does not depend, as some believe, on us "getting them out of here." Our national sovereignty is not at risk, but you can hardly reason away the belief in some that Haitians if we let them, will take over the country. Our survival depends on us growing up; on us allowing compassion, wisdom and reason to be our compass.
Let us refresh our memory with a look at some of the "evidence-based information" in the 2005 International Organisation for Migration (IOM) study, prepared by the College of the Bahamas. The in-depth study in 2005 found what some of us already knew: "Perceptions have replaced evidence-based rational debate" due to a lack of information on the Haitian community.
Estimates on the size of the Haitian population reported in the media over the years range anywhere between 15,000 and 80,000. The IOM study notes that counting illegal immigrants is notoriously difficult, so it uses corroborating data and statistical models to arrive at a population range for the Haitian community of 30-60,000.
In 2003 the US Homeland Security Department estimated there were 60,000 illegal immigrants in Bahamas. The 2000 census recorded 21,000 Haitian residents of which 28.3 per cent came from the 5-19 age group. Between 1974 and 2004, over 23,000 Haitians registered with the National Insurance Board, and in 2005 the Haitian Embassy reported 25,000 documented migrants with about three children per family.
The IOM study provides a useful analysis of population figures.
"During the period 1963 to 2000, the size of the resident Haitian community has increased from 4,170 to 21,426, which represents approximately a decennial increase of approximately 39 per cent from one census to the next," states the IMO report. There were five census counts in that time period.
If we apply a 39 per cent increase to the IOM's top estimate from its 2005 analysis, we can project a Haitian population of about 83,000 in 2010 and 116,000 in 2020. Population estimates for the Bahamas in those years are: 350,000 in 2010 and 414,000 in 2010. Based on liberal estimates then, the Haitian population in 20 years would represent 28 per cent of the total Bahamian population.
All of the figures are cumulative, so they represent the size of the Haitian community based on migration trends over the decades, not net inflows and outflows on an annual basis. In none of the available statistics is there a clear distinction made between illegal Haitian immigrants, Haitians with work permits, Haitians with permanent residence or citizenship or flow-through migrants.
There are so many gaps in available data that few reliable conclusions can be drawn. One conclusion I think it is fair to make is that hundreds of thousands of Haitians are not arriving at one time. According to Mr Archer, the Bahamas would need to be overwhelmed by those types of numbers at one time for a "takeover" to be possible, if that was the desired objective.
"The business of them coming in at a couple hundred a year, there is no possibility of a takeover. I challenge anyone to tell me any society where a take over has occurred in this fashion," said Mr Archer.
Theoretically, similar fears could be stoked over the West Indian population in England, but for the most part, "no one complains of the West Indians in England trying to take over the English society," said Mr Archer.
"The fears are unfounded. The Haitian people who are coming here are not coming to attempt to take over. They are coming to survive because they want something better for themselves. They want to become a part of the society, and their children tend to be as Bahamian as any other Bahamian child," he said.
Culturally speaking, Mr Archer asked: "Where is the influence?"
When you look at Bahamian cultural expressions - dance, music, food, religion, and politics - there have been no drastic changes from the influence of Haitian nationals. The same cannot be said about the American cultural influences. And, of course, we still maintain many of our inherited British cultural traits and some from our African heritage.
It is undeniable how American pop culture has transformed Bahamian society over the past 60 years; much of the influence has produced unfortunate results. On the other hand, one could maybe only point to some Haitian influence in cuisine and music, and that influence is certainly something for Bahamians to appreciate.
Mr Archer suggests: If Haitians in their numbers, can come into the Bahamas of near 400,000 people and "radically change that culture from within that says something about the culture." Perhaps this is what Bahamians fear. We are notoriously insecure about our budding cultural identity.
In all of this I know it is an uphill battle to chisel away the stone from the hearts and minds of Bahamians. As misinformed as we sometimes are, our resistance is not born from a lack of information. Our resistance is born of emotive reasons, like fear, prejudice, politics and hype.
Because of this, I believe it will take the concerted effort of our leaders and the might of our education system to reach our people. We have a long road ahead of us, as there is preliminary work to do in both institutions to fertilise the soil.
Sadly, but not surprisingly, this discussion will not sway the majority.
But for now, those with eyes to see, the beauty and the potential, and those with courage to say, we are proud of our Haitian connection, we must press on. With each step we are creating the new paradigm.
February 07, 2011
tribune242 Insight
By NOELLE NICOLLS
Tribune Staff Reporter
nnicolls@tribunemedia.net
PEOPLE say I am Haitian. They call me a Haitian sympathiser. They even question my patriotism. Their biggest mistake is they think I care either way. I have no insecurities about my identity or my affinity to Haiti.
I recall once upon a time people used to say black is beastly. Thankfully today is another day. In my time, black is beautiful and being Haitian is no shame. So call me what you may, call me what you might, my conviction will not change. Somehow through the thicket of our discontent as a nation, we need a new paradigm to govern our relationship with Haiti and Haitians.
I know most Bahamians can relate to a time as a child when all reason was replaced with rage, and the end result was a temper tantrum. Imagine that one occasion when a moment of stillness emerged after the tears subsided. In that moment, your mother, who did not budge through it all, may have spoken these words: "Finished? Can we go now?" And as if enlightened by divine favour, you began to see with new eyes. Often I wish a moment of calm like that would sweep the collective consciousness of Bahamians, so we would stop the childish hysterics and really start to solve our problems.
Let us imagine for a second that this is that moment and I am the mother. And let us assume for argument's sake that we have new eyes. This is what I would have you contemplate next.
With all the money, time and passion thrown at dealing with the "Haitian problem", have we got anywhere? Last week I contemplated that there is a better way: It requires less money, less resources and fewer headaches, but it is infinitely more difficult, but only because it requires a mental shift.
Last week I examined the Bahamas' unexplored and underdeveloped economic interest in Haiti. I reasoned that the Bahamians had concerns about a scarcity of resources, the security of our people and the sovereignty of our nation. To advance the conversation let us explore the concern about our national sovereignty.
A Tribune242 reader in response to "Time to stop prostituting Haitians", wanted to know if I was advocating the government "halt deportation, because the only thing that would do is send a green light to Haitians that the Bahamas wants them to come". The reader said Miami is a case study of what would be the result.
There are a few things that need to be said. Haitians have never needed a "green light" to come to the Bahamas. We market ourselves around the world with the message that "it's better in the Bahamas." Haitians have reasons to believe that is true. There is a greater probability of dying in Haiti before age 40 than there is in the Bahamas, according to the United Nations Human Development Report of 2005. In Haiti, 65 per cent of the population lives below the income poverty line, unlike the Bahamas with only 9 per cent.
No, I am not saying halt deportation. The Department of Immigration has a role to play, but based on the nature of the beast, it is a limited one. The past decades of raids, deportation and immigration policies have shown us how futile our single-minded strategy has been. Haitians risk the peril of death and the certainty of being marginalized for the chance of opportunity in the Bahamas. How do you really compete against that?
The Department of Immigration has a role to play, but it does not have the power to stop Haitian immigrants from leaving Haiti's shores; to prevent some of them from entering; or to stop Bahamians from exercising their will to hire Haitians, whether legally or illegally.
I am saying: Raids in the order of Thursday night's Fox Hill raid serve no useful purpose. One eyewitness told me of the raid and said they took people out of their homes and beat them for no reason. One person was left red from all the blood that covered his clothes and body. It was like they just took their pent up frustration out on a few random Haitians.
Let us be reminded, as another Tribune242 reader said: "They are not just 'Haitians' or 'foreigners', but each has a face, a name and an identity (like YOU and ME), a story to tell (like YOU and ME) and struggles, pain and heartaches to overcome (like YOU and ME). Where is our compassion for others?"
I am also saying: It is because we force Haitian immigrants into the margins of our society that we create a whole host of counter-productive and self-defeating problems: Squatter communities and marginalised youth, to name a few.
The reader feared a Miami-like situation emerging in the Bahamas, where "the language and culture of the city has been completely taken over by Cubans so much so that you are looked at funny if you can't speak Spanish." Theoretically I suppose this is a risk Bahamians may need to take, but aren't risks a part of life?
There is a universal lesson to learn from the South Florida immigrant population, comprised mainly of people of Latin American descent. South Florida is a handy card to draw to stoke fears, but its example cannot stand scrutiny. When we look at the pattern of integration in South Florida, or lack thereof, there is evidence that it does not fit the American norm or the Bahamian model.
What happened in South Florida was a convergence of several factors: extremely large immigration numbers, not even comparable to the cumulative numbers seen in the Bahamas; a highly concentrated area; the marginalization of a cultural group; and a great white flight, which is probably the most significant of all factors.
"The number of Cubans that came to South Florida, nearly a quarter million of them, were concentrated in the same area. The English speaking Americans rather than trying to assimilate them fled north and left the Cuban Americans to fill a void that was created by their moving," said Mr Leonard Archer, former Ambassador to CARICOM.
"You had really a transplanted society of people who spoke the same language, with the same culture, living in a concentrated area. As a consequence there was less impetus to change and become a part of the mainstream. They created a society in South Florida that is not the normal pattern," he said.
Clearly, Bahamians are not going anywhere, so Haitian nationals are faced with the choice of integration, marginalisation or deportation.
Over the years, South Florida immigrants coalesced around their Latin American cultural identity because of their experience of being marginalised. The act of uniting was a form of resistance and survival. To win social rights, and in some cases basic human rights, the immigrants of common culture formed an organic constituency.
Over time, they acquired political power. So now, there is a large community of Americans of Latin American descent with no insecurities about their origins or their rights. Emboldened by its ability to acquire power in defiance of the system, and left to thrive in a cultural vacuum, there was no longer any need for the community to suppress its cultural identity or assimilate.
And today, South Florida has been enriched by the presence of Latin American immigrants, despite the annoyances of language dynamics. Bahamians who deny this might just be telling a bold face lie: After all, Bahamians practically live in South Florida and other areas in the immigrant nation we call the United States.
There are over 70,000 undocumented Bahamians living in the US, according to the US Immigration and Naturalization Service. Between 1989 and 2004, more than 5,000 Bahamians gained citizenship and there were 12,000 legal residents.
The lesson in all of this is: When a group's identity is the source of its oppression that group will likely bind together on the basis of that identity. The risk of our current policies, beliefs and practices is that the more we marginalise Haitian nationals, the more they can draw strength from that identity.
Marginalisation has not worked for us. One of the results has been squatter communities, like the former Mackey Yard. Bahamians allow Haitian communities to exist, but only on the peripheries. We have no problem when Haitians keep to themselves and stay out of sight. We tolerate them in our communities and hire them at will when they play the role we have designated for them. But we scorn the idea of bringing legitimacy to our sordid affair.
Another result of marginalization is the resentment it breeds and the segregation it creates. Do not be fooled: there is an entire generation of Haitian adolescents with legitimate claims to their Bahamian identity, who are smart, unassuming and legal. It is only a matter of time before they exert their power as entitled Bahamians.
It is not a violent revolution Bahamians should be looking for. The face of the revolution will be in Bahamian children with Haitian ancestry, who excel in education, who settle into the business class, the political class and acquire quiet power in an indistinguishable way.
There is already an entrenched class of fully integrated Haitian-Bahamians, who do not have to prove their Bahamian credentials. These are established and respected Bahamians who keep their Haitian heritage under wraps. But there will come a time when they will no longer have to do such a thing. Our governor general, Sir Arthur Foulkes is proof of that. What will Bahamians do when all of their neighbours take off their masks and say: "Surprise! There is Haitian blood in me too!" Bahamians might refuse to talk about integrating Haitian immigrants, but in doing so we might just be cutting off our nose to spite our face.
So what of integration? It is already happening under our very noses and there is nothing we can do to turn the clock back. Bahamians would curse the day we start having members of parliament self identify as Haitian-Bahamian, or a Haitian caucus in the House of Assembly. For now, Bahamians can breathe a sigh of relief, because we are far from that, but we need not go there if we make the right choice. After all, Ron Pinder and Keod Smith, who some say have claim to Haitian ancestry, would be more inclined to sue for libel than acknowledge any possible association. The model of American society, with all of its segregated cultural and racial groups is not necessarily something we want to emulate anyway.
But if we maintain the strategy of refusing to integrate Haitian immigrants and Bahamians with Haitian ancestry into the Bahamian society and drop the general stigma attached to being Haitian, sorry to say, we will more than likely arrive at that cursed day. The odds are not in our favour; we have the law of nature working against us: what you resist will persist.
The survival of the Bahamas and the inheritance of our children does not depend, as some believe, on us "getting them out of here." Our national sovereignty is not at risk, but you can hardly reason away the belief in some that Haitians if we let them, will take over the country. Our survival depends on us growing up; on us allowing compassion, wisdom and reason to be our compass.
Let us refresh our memory with a look at some of the "evidence-based information" in the 2005 International Organisation for Migration (IOM) study, prepared by the College of the Bahamas. The in-depth study in 2005 found what some of us already knew: "Perceptions have replaced evidence-based rational debate" due to a lack of information on the Haitian community.
Estimates on the size of the Haitian population reported in the media over the years range anywhere between 15,000 and 80,000. The IOM study notes that counting illegal immigrants is notoriously difficult, so it uses corroborating data and statistical models to arrive at a population range for the Haitian community of 30-60,000.
In 2003 the US Homeland Security Department estimated there were 60,000 illegal immigrants in Bahamas. The 2000 census recorded 21,000 Haitian residents of which 28.3 per cent came from the 5-19 age group. Between 1974 and 2004, over 23,000 Haitians registered with the National Insurance Board, and in 2005 the Haitian Embassy reported 25,000 documented migrants with about three children per family.
The IOM study provides a useful analysis of population figures.
"During the period 1963 to 2000, the size of the resident Haitian community has increased from 4,170 to 21,426, which represents approximately a decennial increase of approximately 39 per cent from one census to the next," states the IMO report. There were five census counts in that time period.
If we apply a 39 per cent increase to the IOM's top estimate from its 2005 analysis, we can project a Haitian population of about 83,000 in 2010 and 116,000 in 2020. Population estimates for the Bahamas in those years are: 350,000 in 2010 and 414,000 in 2010. Based on liberal estimates then, the Haitian population in 20 years would represent 28 per cent of the total Bahamian population.
All of the figures are cumulative, so they represent the size of the Haitian community based on migration trends over the decades, not net inflows and outflows on an annual basis. In none of the available statistics is there a clear distinction made between illegal Haitian immigrants, Haitians with work permits, Haitians with permanent residence or citizenship or flow-through migrants.
There are so many gaps in available data that few reliable conclusions can be drawn. One conclusion I think it is fair to make is that hundreds of thousands of Haitians are not arriving at one time. According to Mr Archer, the Bahamas would need to be overwhelmed by those types of numbers at one time for a "takeover" to be possible, if that was the desired objective.
"The business of them coming in at a couple hundred a year, there is no possibility of a takeover. I challenge anyone to tell me any society where a take over has occurred in this fashion," said Mr Archer.
Theoretically, similar fears could be stoked over the West Indian population in England, but for the most part, "no one complains of the West Indians in England trying to take over the English society," said Mr Archer.
"The fears are unfounded. The Haitian people who are coming here are not coming to attempt to take over. They are coming to survive because they want something better for themselves. They want to become a part of the society, and their children tend to be as Bahamian as any other Bahamian child," he said.
Culturally speaking, Mr Archer asked: "Where is the influence?"
When you look at Bahamian cultural expressions - dance, music, food, religion, and politics - there have been no drastic changes from the influence of Haitian nationals. The same cannot be said about the American cultural influences. And, of course, we still maintain many of our inherited British cultural traits and some from our African heritage.
It is undeniable how American pop culture has transformed Bahamian society over the past 60 years; much of the influence has produced unfortunate results. On the other hand, one could maybe only point to some Haitian influence in cuisine and music, and that influence is certainly something for Bahamians to appreciate.
Mr Archer suggests: If Haitians in their numbers, can come into the Bahamas of near 400,000 people and "radically change that culture from within that says something about the culture." Perhaps this is what Bahamians fear. We are notoriously insecure about our budding cultural identity.
In all of this I know it is an uphill battle to chisel away the stone from the hearts and minds of Bahamians. As misinformed as we sometimes are, our resistance is not born from a lack of information. Our resistance is born of emotive reasons, like fear, prejudice, politics and hype.
Because of this, I believe it will take the concerted effort of our leaders and the might of our education system to reach our people. We have a long road ahead of us, as there is preliminary work to do in both institutions to fertilise the soil.
Sadly, but not surprisingly, this discussion will not sway the majority.
But for now, those with eyes to see, the beauty and the potential, and those with courage to say, we are proud of our Haitian connection, we must press on. With each step we are creating the new paradigm.
February 07, 2011
tribune242 Insight
Branville McCartney support in the Free National Movement (FNM) has collapsed
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)