Ryan Pinder, MP on the Bahamas Government's Mid-Year Budget
By Rick Lowe:
If no one else in the PLP offers food for thought, Mr. Ryan Pinder does.
In fact it looks as if he's one of the few PLP's that offer reasoned comment in Parliament. At least he's the one that gets press coverage anyway.
In this article in the Nassau Guardian he suggests that the PM's growth projections in the Government's mid-year budget are unlikely.
I agree with him, but none of us have a crystal ball, so it's mere conjecture on the part of both politicos.
Where I part company with him is when speaking about the impact of rising oil prices he says; "it is the responsibility of the government to anticipate such realities and put in place policies to counter the adverse effects of rising prices."
I can't find that as one of the governments reasons for existing in the Constitution, but to simply put a statement like that out there without suggestions on what policies are necessary to control the price of oil we import and how the government would pay for whatever those policies might be is irresponsible.
Mind you both parties are derelict where fiscal responsibility is concerned, but where we might be able to excuse generations past with this behaviour, to continue to let these comments go unquestioned with the current state of public finances would be no less than irresponsible of us - the voting public.
It is time for us to ask our MP's to put a little more on the table than rhetoric, lest we should stop paying any attention to them at all.
On a lighter note, Mr. Pinder objects to being called the PLP's Poster Boy by Mr. Byron Woodside of the FNM in this story in The Tribune yesterday.
Well the dictionary says a Poster Boy "is a person that epitomizes or represents a specified cause..."
I wonder how we should interpret his objection to being called the PLP's Poster Boy? As I said earlier, he seems to be covered in the press for the PLP these days over and above everyone else.
To paraphrase what some wag once said:
"Why are we surprised when some politicians play politics? It's not like they are supposed to be real adults . . . they are, after all, politicians and aren't playing around with their money."
So I guess we shouldn't be surprised when no solutions, or at least potential solutions, are offered.
But come on cousin Ryan, you can raise the level can't you? Put some policies on the table rather than simply objecting. That's what is expected by Parliamentarians of us mere mortals when we raise issues with you guys.
March 04, 2011
weblogbahamas
A political blog about Bahamian politics in The Bahamas, Bahamian Politicans - and the entire Bahamas political lot. Bahamian Blogger Dennis Dames keeps you updated on the political news and views throughout the islands of The Bahamas without fear or favor. Bahamian Politicians and the Bahamian Political Arena: Updates one Post at a time on Bahamas Politics and Bahamas Politicans; and their local, regional and international policies and perspectives.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Bahamas' shantytown problem
Courting catastrophe with shantytown problem
thenassauguardian editorial
Haiti is in a state of crisis. It is an occupied country that was devastated by a massive earthquake last year. This calamity added to the misery of a people who are from the poorest country in the hemisphere.
This logical migratory flow has caused a problem in The Bahamas and our policymakers have no solution to it. We do not know what to do with the large number of undocumented Haitians who reside in shantytowns – especially in New Providence.
In December we wrote about the shantytown problem. This was after the Mackey Yard fire destroyed more than 100 homes. When these events occur many revert to simplistic emotionalism. The response and discourse surrounding the tragedy usually is limited to disaster relief.
The Bahamas, however, must seriously address the shantytown issue before a catastrophe occurs. Government officials speculate that 500 to 700 people lived at the Fire Trail Road site where yesterday’s fire occurred. A fast moving fire could easily consume all the residences of one of these shantytowns. Thousands live in some of these communities.
In 2009, then Minister of State for Immigration Branville McCartney said that 37 shantytowns had been identified in New Providence alone. Two of the biggest shantytowns in the country are in Abaco – Pigeon Pea and the Mud.
Our failure to make the tough decisions and remove these unauthorized communities could contribute to a mass tragedy.
All who reside in this country should abide by the local building code and follow town planning guidelines. These laws exist to maintain safety. Haitians, or any other group of migrants, should not be allowed to live in violation of laws all Bahamians and residents should follow.
Those who lost homes and possessions in the Mackey Yard fire and yesterday’s Fire Trail Road fire should be helped. They should not be discriminated against because of nationality. The government, churches, businesses and other civic organizations all helped after the December fire. Those groups should help again.
However, the goal of the government should be to eliminate shantytowns in The Bahamas. If we do not, one day soon we will be writing about a mass tragedy on one of our islands.
Such a day can be prevented if the state acts decisively.
3/3/2011
thenassauguardian editorial
thenassauguardian editorial
Haiti is in a state of crisis. It is an occupied country that was devastated by a massive earthquake last year. This calamity added to the misery of a people who are from the poorest country in the hemisphere.
The Bahamas will always have difficulties managing the flow of people from Haiti. We are between Haiti (the poorest country in the hemisphere) and the United States (the richest country in the hemisphere). Haitians come here hoping to get to the U.S. Many stay permanently.
This logical migratory flow has caused a problem in The Bahamas and our policymakers have no solution to it. We do not know what to do with the large number of undocumented Haitians who reside in shantytowns – especially in New Providence.
In December we wrote about the shantytown problem. This was after the Mackey Yard fire destroyed more than 100 homes. When these events occur many revert to simplistic emotionalism. The response and discourse surrounding the tragedy usually is limited to disaster relief.
The Bahamas, however, must seriously address the shantytown issue before a catastrophe occurs. Government officials speculate that 500 to 700 people lived at the Fire Trail Road site where yesterday’s fire occurred. A fast moving fire could easily consume all the residences of one of these shantytowns. Thousands live in some of these communities.
In 2009, then Minister of State for Immigration Branville McCartney said that 37 shantytowns had been identified in New Providence alone. Two of the biggest shantytowns in the country are in Abaco – Pigeon Pea and the Mud.
Our failure to make the tough decisions and remove these unauthorized communities could contribute to a mass tragedy.
All who reside in this country should abide by the local building code and follow town planning guidelines. These laws exist to maintain safety. Haitians, or any other group of migrants, should not be allowed to live in violation of laws all Bahamians and residents should follow.
Those who lost homes and possessions in the Mackey Yard fire and yesterday’s Fire Trail Road fire should be helped. They should not be discriminated against because of nationality. The government, churches, businesses and other civic organizations all helped after the December fire. Those groups should help again.
However, the goal of the government should be to eliminate shantytowns in The Bahamas. If we do not, one day soon we will be writing about a mass tragedy on one of our islands.
Such a day can be prevented if the state acts decisively.
3/3/2011
thenassauguardian editorial
Saturday, March 5, 2011
It's high time we do away with the pompous, fatuous, and self-serving Bahamas Christian Council
Time to 'do away with' the Christian Council
By PACO NUNEZ
Tribune News Editor
The audacity of the Christian Council's demand that it be placed in charge of blessing the airport's new US departures terminal on Friday is a perfect example of why it's high time we do away with this pompous, fatuous, self-serving organisation.
I don't mean "do away with" in the sense of outlawing or forcibly disbanding it. The satisfaction of seeing the council subjected to its own tactics aside, no one can or should infringe upon it's members' right to associate.
What I do mean is that the silly masquerade in which the council poses as the nation's moral authority should be brought to an end once and for all. The Christian Council has no right - none whatsoever - to this self-imposed title.
Its officials are not elected by the public, nor appointed by the country's executive, and they do not represent the general public in any other capacity. Their authority does not extend beyond their own respective congregations - and even then is only on a voluntary basis.
And, despite their constant appeal to the "spiritual principles" mentioned in preamble of the Constitution, two of the architects of our independence, Governor General Sir Arthur Foulkes and George Smith, have already made it clear this was not meant to privilege any particular group, or even any particular religion.
In short, the council is nothing more than a private association of religious leaders and should be treated as such - no more, no less.
There is, therefore, no reason why this group should be allowed to tell our Immigration Department which foreign performing artists can entertain us, what films we are allowed to see, or whether it should be illegal for a man to rape his wife. And there is certainly no justification for its president Rev Patrick Paul feeling entitled to demand that he be the one to bless a public building like the new US departures terminal.
According to its mission statement, the Bahamas Christian Council was founded in 1948 to promote "understanding and trust" between churches, to "further Christ's mission of service by joint action" and to "witness for the Christian community in the Bahamas on matters of social or common concern."
The first two aims are more or less self-explanatory; the third less so, and is perhaps the source of the modern-day council's hugely inflated view of itself, which has been used by certain prominent members over the years to spread fear, reinforce personal prejudices and indulge petty jealousies.
If so, this relies on quite a twisted reading of the phrase. The intransitive verb "witness" means to give or serve as evidence of; to testify. In Christian terms, this refers to spreading the message of Christ's Eternal Kingdom.
The council seems to have dislodged this term from its original meaning, appointing itself the official advocate of a make-believe homogenous Christian community with regard to far more worldly "social or common" concerns.
But the council does a great deal more than just "witness" on behalf of its invented community of like-minded Christians.
Over the years, its officials have done all they can to burrow their way into the actual decision-making process, with an eye to accruing as much power as possible.
In the last few years alone, they have: demanded the final say on musical artists being granted entry to the country, approached the Immigration Department seeking to "form a partnership" in an effort to curb "social ills" and insisted that the government work more closely with churches.
They also submitted their own amendments to the proposed Marital Rape Act in an effort to maintain control over what happens in the bedrooms of married couples, and did their best to deny adult Bahamians the right to gamble their hard-earned money if they so chose.
Yet for all its self-importance, the council is also very good at playing the victim. According to a report published in the Bahama Journal on Friday, the uproar over the new terminal began after Rev Paul was first asked to bless the building, then informed by the Nassau Airport Development Company (NAD) that it had been advised to invite Catholic and Anglican clergymen to conduct the blessing instead.
The report said NAD's decision was described as "nothing more than elitism at its worst" by the council, which accused some denominations of constantly disrespecting "certain groups." Never mind that the Anglican Church, trusted with official state funerals, has at least some claim to the unofficial status of state religion of the Bahamas, whereas the denominations represented by the Christian Council, including Rev Paul's Assemblies of God, have none at all.
The council's stance is laughable, not only because the term "elitism" would much better describe its own rank presumption in meddling in other people's affairs, but also because according to the report, after "pressure conditions" - apparently a series of phone calls - were brought to bear on the Anglicans and Catholics, the council got its wish.
The hastily re-invited Rev Paul blessed the terminal at Friday night's ceremony before 1,800 invited guests.
But why does the Christian Council enjoy this kind of power in the absence of any plausible claim to it? Simply put, because it is perceived as having the ability to command the behaviour of a vast number of congregants at the polls or in other crucial circumstances.
This is the "We've got the numbers" version of might-makes-right; the manipulation of the beliefs of a large number of people in order to aggregate power in the hands of a few men - in such a way that there are always only a few of them, and they are almost always men.
I believe this kind of power is inimical to the kind of society we have in name, and the one we are trying to build in reality. The Bahamas is a parliamentary democracy, a system created in specific opposition to the far older, far more autocratic forms of power with which the Christian Council deserves to be categorised.
Furthermore, if there ever was a time we needed an organisation to "witness" for us, it has obviously long passed. This is now a country with a far higher concentration of churches than schools, in which everywhere you turn there is someone imploring you to return to religion "before it's too late". We have become a society of prayer breakfasts, prayer lunches, prayer dinners, prayer meetings; of memorial services, long services, annual services, commemorative services.
Witnessing has gone viral in the Bahamas. And yet our problems persist.
What we actually lack is concrete structural and policy ideas for how to fix our broken education system, revitalise our woeful public services, reform our corrupt electoral process and give our young people a chance to succeed.
Perhaps this is because too many of use continue to listen to a group of fear peddlers, who tell us we cannot trust ourselves to make decisions, who believe freedom of expression is a dangerous thing, and that religion is not about one's personal relationship with God, but rather a question of one's willingness to submit to their will.
The irony is that in reality, the Christian Council has no concrete power at all. They depend on supporters whose allegiance they can't really guarantee, particularly if it comes into conflict with political tribalism or self-interest. They only meddle because we let them.
If everyone told them to get lost when they came demanding special privileges, as they did with NAD, we would soon see how silly the emperors looked with no clothes on.
* What do you think?
pnunez@tribunemedia.net
February 28, 2011
By PACO NUNEZ
Tribune News Editor
The audacity of the Christian Council's demand that it be placed in charge of blessing the airport's new US departures terminal on Friday is a perfect example of why it's high time we do away with this pompous, fatuous, self-serving organisation.
I don't mean "do away with" in the sense of outlawing or forcibly disbanding it. The satisfaction of seeing the council subjected to its own tactics aside, no one can or should infringe upon it's members' right to associate.
What I do mean is that the silly masquerade in which the council poses as the nation's moral authority should be brought to an end once and for all. The Christian Council has no right - none whatsoever - to this self-imposed title.
Its officials are not elected by the public, nor appointed by the country's executive, and they do not represent the general public in any other capacity. Their authority does not extend beyond their own respective congregations - and even then is only on a voluntary basis.
And, despite their constant appeal to the "spiritual principles" mentioned in preamble of the Constitution, two of the architects of our independence, Governor General Sir Arthur Foulkes and George Smith, have already made it clear this was not meant to privilege any particular group, or even any particular religion.
In short, the council is nothing more than a private association of religious leaders and should be treated as such - no more, no less.
There is, therefore, no reason why this group should be allowed to tell our Immigration Department which foreign performing artists can entertain us, what films we are allowed to see, or whether it should be illegal for a man to rape his wife. And there is certainly no justification for its president Rev Patrick Paul feeling entitled to demand that he be the one to bless a public building like the new US departures terminal.
According to its mission statement, the Bahamas Christian Council was founded in 1948 to promote "understanding and trust" between churches, to "further Christ's mission of service by joint action" and to "witness for the Christian community in the Bahamas on matters of social or common concern."
The first two aims are more or less self-explanatory; the third less so, and is perhaps the source of the modern-day council's hugely inflated view of itself, which has been used by certain prominent members over the years to spread fear, reinforce personal prejudices and indulge petty jealousies.
If so, this relies on quite a twisted reading of the phrase. The intransitive verb "witness" means to give or serve as evidence of; to testify. In Christian terms, this refers to spreading the message of Christ's Eternal Kingdom.
The council seems to have dislodged this term from its original meaning, appointing itself the official advocate of a make-believe homogenous Christian community with regard to far more worldly "social or common" concerns.
But the council does a great deal more than just "witness" on behalf of its invented community of like-minded Christians.
Over the years, its officials have done all they can to burrow their way into the actual decision-making process, with an eye to accruing as much power as possible.
In the last few years alone, they have: demanded the final say on musical artists being granted entry to the country, approached the Immigration Department seeking to "form a partnership" in an effort to curb "social ills" and insisted that the government work more closely with churches.
They also submitted their own amendments to the proposed Marital Rape Act in an effort to maintain control over what happens in the bedrooms of married couples, and did their best to deny adult Bahamians the right to gamble their hard-earned money if they so chose.
Yet for all its self-importance, the council is also very good at playing the victim. According to a report published in the Bahama Journal on Friday, the uproar over the new terminal began after Rev Paul was first asked to bless the building, then informed by the Nassau Airport Development Company (NAD) that it had been advised to invite Catholic and Anglican clergymen to conduct the blessing instead.
The report said NAD's decision was described as "nothing more than elitism at its worst" by the council, which accused some denominations of constantly disrespecting "certain groups." Never mind that the Anglican Church, trusted with official state funerals, has at least some claim to the unofficial status of state religion of the Bahamas, whereas the denominations represented by the Christian Council, including Rev Paul's Assemblies of God, have none at all.
The council's stance is laughable, not only because the term "elitism" would much better describe its own rank presumption in meddling in other people's affairs, but also because according to the report, after "pressure conditions" - apparently a series of phone calls - were brought to bear on the Anglicans and Catholics, the council got its wish.
The hastily re-invited Rev Paul blessed the terminal at Friday night's ceremony before 1,800 invited guests.
But why does the Christian Council enjoy this kind of power in the absence of any plausible claim to it? Simply put, because it is perceived as having the ability to command the behaviour of a vast number of congregants at the polls or in other crucial circumstances.
This is the "We've got the numbers" version of might-makes-right; the manipulation of the beliefs of a large number of people in order to aggregate power in the hands of a few men - in such a way that there are always only a few of them, and they are almost always men.
I believe this kind of power is inimical to the kind of society we have in name, and the one we are trying to build in reality. The Bahamas is a parliamentary democracy, a system created in specific opposition to the far older, far more autocratic forms of power with which the Christian Council deserves to be categorised.
Furthermore, if there ever was a time we needed an organisation to "witness" for us, it has obviously long passed. This is now a country with a far higher concentration of churches than schools, in which everywhere you turn there is someone imploring you to return to religion "before it's too late". We have become a society of prayer breakfasts, prayer lunches, prayer dinners, prayer meetings; of memorial services, long services, annual services, commemorative services.
Witnessing has gone viral in the Bahamas. And yet our problems persist.
What we actually lack is concrete structural and policy ideas for how to fix our broken education system, revitalise our woeful public services, reform our corrupt electoral process and give our young people a chance to succeed.
Perhaps this is because too many of use continue to listen to a group of fear peddlers, who tell us we cannot trust ourselves to make decisions, who believe freedom of expression is a dangerous thing, and that religion is not about one's personal relationship with God, but rather a question of one's willingness to submit to their will.
The irony is that in reality, the Christian Council has no concrete power at all. They depend on supporters whose allegiance they can't really guarantee, particularly if it comes into conflict with political tribalism or self-interest. They only meddle because we let them.
If everyone told them to get lost when they came demanding special privileges, as they did with NAD, we would soon see how silly the emperors looked with no clothes on.
* What do you think?
pnunez@tribunemedia.net
February 28, 2011
Friday, March 4, 2011
The Bluewater story will be told, and it’s a wonderful story for the people of The Bahamas to know and to have
PM responds to Bluewater threat
By CANDIA DAMES
Guardian News Editor
candia@nasguard.com
Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham last night responded to a threat recently issued by Bluewater Ventures Limited, saying he will not be intimidated by the “shell company” and promising to tell the whole story of the Christie administration's plan to sell 49 percent of the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC).
Bluewater recently alleged that the Government of The Bahamas has been making defamatory comments against it and the company threatened to take legal action against the Ingraham administration.
Bluewater has asked the government’s attorney to advise no later than today whether the government intends to issue a public statement repudiating the alleged defamatory statements.
But the prime minister made it clear last night that no such step will be taken.
“They seek to intimidate,” said Ingraham, while wrapping up debate on the government’s mid-year budget statement. “Well, you know you can’t intimidate me in my private life. I wouldn’t talk about the Government of The Bahamas. And so, the Bluewater story will be told, notwithstanding any threats by them.
“The Bluewater story will be told and it’s a wonderful story for the people of The Bahamas to know and to have.”
Ingraham noted that the letter Bluewater’s attorney sent to the government’s lawyer last week never indicated what were the alleged defamatory statements.
Ingraham is expected to address the Bluewater issue during the upcoming debate in the House of Assembly on the BTC privatization.
The prime minister also touched on Baha Mar, a project introduced under the Christie administration that changed substantially under the Ingraham administration. Ground was broken last week on the Cable Beach development and Opposition Leader Perry Christie hit out at the government for not acknowledging at the event the PLP’s role in bringing the project about.
But Ingraham said last night, “Baha Mar is going ahead because the Chinese government is providing the money. They (the PLP) never wanted any business dealing with the Chinese government.
“They recognized Taiwan. In fact, that’s how the leader of the opposition got back in the PLP. The PLP made a deal with the Taiwanese government to recognize them and not the People’s Republic of China.
“Ervin Knowles, who was the minister, got fired, and Christie got hired. Ervin Knowles was appointed ambassador to Taiwan.
“The only reason why we have [ties] with the People’s Republic of China today is because the FNM did that and the Chinese regard us as an old friend and they are supporting us in the Baha Mar project.
“And there was no possibility of Baha Mar being able to get a loan with the Chinese unless The Bahamas government said ‘yes’, please do it.’”
Ingraham said the Free National Movement is delighted at the opportunity to be in government.
But he said, “We are concerned about the extent to which outright lies are told to the public, shamelessly so.”
Ingraham said what the FNM government has done is “unmatchable by them”.
“The reality is, Mr. Speaker, that we on this side of the House are pleased that the people of The Bahamas have reposed their trust in us and that we are spending their money wisely.
“We are preparing their economy for the future.”
3/4/2011
thenassauguardian
By CANDIA DAMES
Guardian News Editor
candia@nasguard.com
Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham last night responded to a threat recently issued by Bluewater Ventures Limited, saying he will not be intimidated by the “shell company” and promising to tell the whole story of the Christie administration's plan to sell 49 percent of the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC).
Bluewater recently alleged that the Government of The Bahamas has been making defamatory comments against it and the company threatened to take legal action against the Ingraham administration.
Bluewater has asked the government’s attorney to advise no later than today whether the government intends to issue a public statement repudiating the alleged defamatory statements.
But the prime minister made it clear last night that no such step will be taken.
“They seek to intimidate,” said Ingraham, while wrapping up debate on the government’s mid-year budget statement. “Well, you know you can’t intimidate me in my private life. I wouldn’t talk about the Government of The Bahamas. And so, the Bluewater story will be told, notwithstanding any threats by them.
“The Bluewater story will be told and it’s a wonderful story for the people of The Bahamas to know and to have.”
Ingraham noted that the letter Bluewater’s attorney sent to the government’s lawyer last week never indicated what were the alleged defamatory statements.
Ingraham is expected to address the Bluewater issue during the upcoming debate in the House of Assembly on the BTC privatization.
The prime minister also touched on Baha Mar, a project introduced under the Christie administration that changed substantially under the Ingraham administration. Ground was broken last week on the Cable Beach development and Opposition Leader Perry Christie hit out at the government for not acknowledging at the event the PLP’s role in bringing the project about.
But Ingraham said last night, “Baha Mar is going ahead because the Chinese government is providing the money. They (the PLP) never wanted any business dealing with the Chinese government.
“They recognized Taiwan. In fact, that’s how the leader of the opposition got back in the PLP. The PLP made a deal with the Taiwanese government to recognize them and not the People’s Republic of China.
“Ervin Knowles, who was the minister, got fired, and Christie got hired. Ervin Knowles was appointed ambassador to Taiwan.
“The only reason why we have [ties] with the People’s Republic of China today is because the FNM did that and the Chinese regard us as an old friend and they are supporting us in the Baha Mar project.
“And there was no possibility of Baha Mar being able to get a loan with the Chinese unless The Bahamas government said ‘yes’, please do it.’”
Ingraham said the Free National Movement is delighted at the opportunity to be in government.
But he said, “We are concerned about the extent to which outright lies are told to the public, shamelessly so.”
Ingraham said what the FNM government has done is “unmatchable by them”.
“The reality is, Mr. Speaker, that we on this side of the House are pleased that the people of The Bahamas have reposed their trust in us and that we are spending their money wisely.
“We are preparing their economy for the future.”
3/4/2011
thenassauguardian
Violent criminals involved with Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) protest... anti-BTC sale
'Violent criminals' in BTC protest crowd
By PACO NUNEZ
Tribune News Editor
MINISTER of National Security Tommy Turnquest revealed that according to police, several violent criminals were among the crowd that protested outside Parliament last week.
Speaking in the House of Assembly yesterday, Mr Turnquest said individuals known to police in connection with crimes as serious as murder, rape, armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon and shop-breaking were "clearly identifiable" in the anti-BTC sale demonstration in Rawson Square last Wednesday.
Speaking to The Tribune outside the House, Mr Turnquest said the majority of these persons are out on bail, but some of them are convicted criminals.
"We have the pictures, we know who they are," he said.
Mr Turnquest said he raised the issue after opposition PLP members suggested that Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham "ran out the back door," attempting to avoid the crowd after last week's session of parliament.
Speaking in the House, the National Security Minister said: "If someone asks me, what do I do in terms of ensuring the safety of the chief executive of the country, it is surely not to walk toward that crowd."
He added that Mr Ingraham is the sort of man who would never ask another person to do something the Prime Minister would not do himself.
Immediately after Mr Turnquest made his comments, PLP MP for West End and Bimini Obie Wilchcombe told the House his party was not responsible for "any unsavoury characters" turning up in Rawson Square.
Mr Wilchcombe said: "At no time was it our intention to put the PM's life in jeopardy. We believe in freedom of speech and the right to assembly, but at no time would we put life in jeopardy."
The protest, organised by a group known as Save BTC for Bahamians, was also joined by BTC union representatives and a large group of PLP supporters.
In the aftermath of the protest, which turned violent at certain points, PLP leader Perry Christie denied reports that he had paid protesters to turn up in Rawson Square.
Last week, Fox Hill MP Fred Mitchell also commented in the House of Assembly on claims that protesters were paid by the party to demonstrate.
"Aside from that being untrue, so what if they were paid?" he asked, referring to the practice during the PLP's early protests in the 1960s.
"To mobilise people takes resources: food, buses, and communication, emergency care to a name a few of the possible expenses.
"So let's not get distracted by that fact," Mr Mitchell said.
March 04, 2011
tribune242
By PACO NUNEZ
Tribune News Editor
MINISTER of National Security Tommy Turnquest revealed that according to police, several violent criminals were among the crowd that protested outside Parliament last week.
Speaking in the House of Assembly yesterday, Mr Turnquest said individuals known to police in connection with crimes as serious as murder, rape, armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon and shop-breaking were "clearly identifiable" in the anti-BTC sale demonstration in Rawson Square last Wednesday.
Speaking to The Tribune outside the House, Mr Turnquest said the majority of these persons are out on bail, but some of them are convicted criminals.
"We have the pictures, we know who they are," he said.
Mr Turnquest said he raised the issue after opposition PLP members suggested that Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham "ran out the back door," attempting to avoid the crowd after last week's session of parliament.
Speaking in the House, the National Security Minister said: "If someone asks me, what do I do in terms of ensuring the safety of the chief executive of the country, it is surely not to walk toward that crowd."
He added that Mr Ingraham is the sort of man who would never ask another person to do something the Prime Minister would not do himself.
Immediately after Mr Turnquest made his comments, PLP MP for West End and Bimini Obie Wilchcombe told the House his party was not responsible for "any unsavoury characters" turning up in Rawson Square.
Mr Wilchcombe said: "At no time was it our intention to put the PM's life in jeopardy. We believe in freedom of speech and the right to assembly, but at no time would we put life in jeopardy."
The protest, organised by a group known as Save BTC for Bahamians, was also joined by BTC union representatives and a large group of PLP supporters.
In the aftermath of the protest, which turned violent at certain points, PLP leader Perry Christie denied reports that he had paid protesters to turn up in Rawson Square.
Last week, Fox Hill MP Fred Mitchell also commented in the House of Assembly on claims that protesters were paid by the party to demonstrate.
"Aside from that being untrue, so what if they were paid?" he asked, referring to the practice during the PLP's early protests in the 1960s.
"To mobilise people takes resources: food, buses, and communication, emergency care to a name a few of the possible expenses.
"So let's not get distracted by that fact," Mr Mitchell said.
March 04, 2011
tribune242
Thursday, March 3, 2011
The Gun Court is still a pie in the sky
When will the gun court be ready?
thenassauguardian editorial
Late in January of this year, the government made a big announcement that in conjunction with the judiciary it had set up a gun court in a move to ensure that those found in possession of illegal firearms are quickly prosecuted.
Attorney General John Delaney, Minister of National Security Tommy Turnquest,Commissioner of Police Ellison Greenslade and senior officers from the Royal Bahamas Police Force all attended the news conference, which was held after a meeting with Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham on gun crime.
According to police data, guns were used in 69 out of the 94 homicides recorded in 2010. Out of 17 homicides recorded so far for the year, 14 involved guns. Also last year, 351 illegal firearms and 6,224 rounds of ammunition were seized – an increase over the year before.
That announcement was made on Friday, January 28. Turnquest said that they expected suspects to appear before the court on that following Monday.
Just over four weeks later, The Nassau Guardian reported that while a magistrate had been designated for the speciality court, it still did not have a prosecutor.
And the magistrate who had been hearing the new gun cases has yet to complete any of those new gun cases.
In this space, following the announcement of the gun court, we commended the government for the court’s establishment as part of an overall strategy of driving down the high crime rate in the country.
Today we must ask if the news conference was simply a public relations exercise designed to help quiet the public’s outcry against the country’s troubling crime trends.
We saw a record-breaking murder count last year, and so far we are on pace to repeat that trend.
More than one month after the announcement, the new court is still not functioning in the way that it should.
The government is obviously making an effort to attack the problem of crime and the fear that it has created in our society; however, big news conferences attended by big names in the judiciary and the government need to be followed through with action and results.
There are a lot of illegal guns in this country.
And we still think that a gun court, if run properly and given the necessary resources, could help ensure that suspects are quickly prosecuted. This is an important part of any crime fighting strategy.
Results are not expected overnight, especially in a system that is beset with a significant case backlog. However, announcing the establishment of a court and that suspects would start appearing in a matter of days gives the distinct impression that the facility is ready to function.
This was obviously not the case.
The people deserve more than just lip service.
3/2/2011
thenassauguardian editorial
thenassauguardian editorial
Late in January of this year, the government made a big announcement that in conjunction with the judiciary it had set up a gun court in a move to ensure that those found in possession of illegal firearms are quickly prosecuted.
Attorney General John Delaney, Minister of National Security Tommy Turnquest,Commissioner of Police Ellison Greenslade and senior officers from the Royal Bahamas Police Force all attended the news conference, which was held after a meeting with Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham on gun crime.
According to police data, guns were used in 69 out of the 94 homicides recorded in 2010. Out of 17 homicides recorded so far for the year, 14 involved guns. Also last year, 351 illegal firearms and 6,224 rounds of ammunition were seized – an increase over the year before.
That announcement was made on Friday, January 28. Turnquest said that they expected suspects to appear before the court on that following Monday.
Just over four weeks later, The Nassau Guardian reported that while a magistrate had been designated for the speciality court, it still did not have a prosecutor.
And the magistrate who had been hearing the new gun cases has yet to complete any of those new gun cases.
In this space, following the announcement of the gun court, we commended the government for the court’s establishment as part of an overall strategy of driving down the high crime rate in the country.
Today we must ask if the news conference was simply a public relations exercise designed to help quiet the public’s outcry against the country’s troubling crime trends.
We saw a record-breaking murder count last year, and so far we are on pace to repeat that trend.
More than one month after the announcement, the new court is still not functioning in the way that it should.
The government is obviously making an effort to attack the problem of crime and the fear that it has created in our society; however, big news conferences attended by big names in the judiciary and the government need to be followed through with action and results.
There are a lot of illegal guns in this country.
And we still think that a gun court, if run properly and given the necessary resources, could help ensure that suspects are quickly prosecuted. This is an important part of any crime fighting strategy.
Results are not expected overnight, especially in a system that is beset with a significant case backlog. However, announcing the establishment of a court and that suspects would start appearing in a matter of days gives the distinct impression that the facility is ready to function.
This was obviously not the case.
The people deserve more than just lip service.
3/2/2011
thenassauguardian editorial
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
The Odd Protest against the Sale of the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC)
Protest against the sale of the BTC is odd
By RICK LOWE
ACCORDING to news reports, 800 to 1,000 people blocked Bay Street last week to protest the sale of BTC to Cable and Wireless/LIME and it all seems odd.
Some people were saying that rights are being violated by selling BTC. But what rights are being violated?
Yes, sometimes Mr. Ingraham can be brash, but does that mean he is uncaring, a dictator, or corrupt, or violating rights as alleged? It's doubtful.
Using emotive language and trying to rile people up as some are doing could violate rights for sure.
What the protesters are missing is BTC is not owned by Bahamians. That's an illusion. A political construct. It is owned by the Bahamas Government.
Over the years successive governments have led us down the garden path by wasting and borrowing beyond the country's ability to sustain, and the sale of BTC might help keep the Bahamian dollar stable and reduce some of the debt that we all have to pay one way or the other.
The Opposition seems shameless on this one, after trying to sell BTC themselves under similar circumstances to a company called Bluewater, now it would seem that some are trying to incite people.
Another turnabout by the Opposition was the Constitutional Referendum of 2002. Both parties agreed in principle in the House of Assembly, then one campaigned against it, confusing the electorate.
The latest reason not to sell is there are complaints about LIME posted on the Internet.
If you research every company in the world online it seems you will find bad comments. We survey some of our clients, and last quarter we had an 84 per cent approval rating (our goal is 85 per cent), but the one client that complained, really complained, bringing the results of all the good comments lower. Is that what is happening with CWC? We also find that often it's people with complaints that fill the survey out. Those that had no issues, do not take the time to respond.
Are there similar complaints about BTC going around on the Internet?
Could the government have been more open? No doubt. Both the FNM or PLP governments over the years could have been more open. Promises of a Freedom of Information Act have been made by each of them. Let's see who passes it into law. That might help with government transparency in the future.
There were apparently no dissenenters before BTC was sold, at least publicly. So why the dissent now? The government corporations should be sold if for nothing more than to get politics and politicians out of it.
All this protesting is odd. When you dig a little deeper unseemly politics appear to be at work?
March 01, 2011
tribune242
By RICK LOWE
ACCORDING to news reports, 800 to 1,000 people blocked Bay Street last week to protest the sale of BTC to Cable and Wireless/LIME and it all seems odd.
Some people were saying that rights are being violated by selling BTC. But what rights are being violated?
Yes, sometimes Mr. Ingraham can be brash, but does that mean he is uncaring, a dictator, or corrupt, or violating rights as alleged? It's doubtful.
Using emotive language and trying to rile people up as some are doing could violate rights for sure.
What the protesters are missing is BTC is not owned by Bahamians. That's an illusion. A political construct. It is owned by the Bahamas Government.
Over the years successive governments have led us down the garden path by wasting and borrowing beyond the country's ability to sustain, and the sale of BTC might help keep the Bahamian dollar stable and reduce some of the debt that we all have to pay one way or the other.
The Opposition seems shameless on this one, after trying to sell BTC themselves under similar circumstances to a company called Bluewater, now it would seem that some are trying to incite people.
Another turnabout by the Opposition was the Constitutional Referendum of 2002. Both parties agreed in principle in the House of Assembly, then one campaigned against it, confusing the electorate.
The latest reason not to sell is there are complaints about LIME posted on the Internet.
If you research every company in the world online it seems you will find bad comments. We survey some of our clients, and last quarter we had an 84 per cent approval rating (our goal is 85 per cent), but the one client that complained, really complained, bringing the results of all the good comments lower. Is that what is happening with CWC? We also find that often it's people with complaints that fill the survey out. Those that had no issues, do not take the time to respond.
Are there similar complaints about BTC going around on the Internet?
Could the government have been more open? No doubt. Both the FNM or PLP governments over the years could have been more open. Promises of a Freedom of Information Act have been made by each of them. Let's see who passes it into law. That might help with government transparency in the future.
There were apparently no dissenenters before BTC was sold, at least publicly. So why the dissent now? The government corporations should be sold if for nothing more than to get politics and politicians out of it.
All this protesting is odd. When you dig a little deeper unseemly politics appear to be at work?
March 01, 2011
tribune242
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)