Adopting laws against organized crime
thenassauguardian editorial
The annual drug report prepared by the United States government usually provides interesting commentary on the state of drug trafficking to and through The Bahamas.
In the 2011 report, which was released last week, the U.S. government again made suggestions to the Bahamian government to reform the criminal justice system in this country.
“However, a need still exists to reduce the long delays in resolving extradition requests and other criminal cases as an existing trend of law enforcement successes have been undermined by an overburdened Bahamian legal system,” said the U.S. State Department in the report.
“As mentioned in previous annual reports, we continue to encourage The Bahamas to increase the resources and manpower available to prosecutors, judges, and magistrates.”
The Bahamas has acknowledged that its criminal justice system needs help. The government has set in motion a series of reforms aimed at reducing the backlog of cases before the court and speeding up the rate of prosecution in the country.
The U.S. made another suggestion in the report that should be considered.
The State Department noted that the country lacks legislation criminalizing participation in an organized criminal group.
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO Act) is a U.S. federal law that provides for long criminal sentences and civil penalties for actions performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization.
Simply put, those proven to be involved with an organized crime group are jailed for long terms.
The U.S. government has used these laws effectively against the mafia. In The Bahamas, no such law exists.
According to the drug report, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and Operation Bahamas Turks and Caicos estimate that there are 12 to 15 major drug trafficking organizations operating in The Bahamas.
A RICO law in The Bahamas would provide another tool to local law enforcement to take down some of these drug gangs.
However, local police and prosecutors would need to learn to conduct more comprehensive investigations for such a law to work. Rather than arresting one criminal for one offense, investigators and prosecutors would need to build a case against entire organizations. Evidence would need to be marshaled chronicling the various crimes it commits. The actors in the criminal activity would then need to be defined and linked to the criminal organization.
Comprehensive indictments would follow and large numbers of criminals would be brought to court at the same time.
These investigations could take years. But when done well, they cripple or dismantle entire criminal organizations.
For such a thing to work, The Bahamas would also need to change its overall prosecutorial response to drug trafficking. Traffickers are currently prosecuted in Magistrates Court where the maximum sentence is five years in jail. Some smugglers have been found in possession of millions of dollars work of cocaine and they have only faced that five-year sentence, or less if they pleaded guilty.
The law needs to prosecute based on weight. Those found in possession of large quantities of drugs should face trial in the Supreme Court where serious penalties can be issued. RICO prosecutions, if adopted, would also take place in the Supreme Court.
Organized crime is a threat to democracy. Those who do not believe this need only look at Mexico. The cartels there are at war with the state. And in some jurisdictions in that country, the cartels are winning the war.
Since Mexican President Felipe Calderon launched his war on the cartels in 2006, more than 30,000 people have been killed in drug-related violence.
The Bahamas must consider legislative tools such as the RICO law in the U.S. to assist in the local fight against narco-trafficking. We cannot just continue to hope that the U.S. requests the extradition of our major drug dealers. We must develop the capacity to lock them up for long periods of time in this country.
3/9/2011
thenassauguardian editorial
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.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Capital punishment serves no useful purpose
Ending the death penalty
thenassauguardian editorial
Execution remains the most severe punishment prescribed by the state for the crimes of murder and treason. The punishment of death is regularly issued in The Bahamas against those who commit murder. Treason prosecutions are virtually non-existent.
Despite the regularity of the issuance of the death sentence, executions are uncommon. There has not been a hanging in The Bahamas since David Mitchell was executed on January 6, 2000.
In the 1993 Pratt and Morgan ruling, Her Majesty’s Privy Council ruled that it would be cruel and inhuman to execute a murder convict more than five years after the death sentence was issued.
This ruling slowed the execution process. Murder trials take a long time to come up in this country and the appeals process after the death sentence is issued also takes years.
The country hanged 50 men since 1929, according to records kept at Her Majesty's Prison. Thirteen were hanged under the 25-year rule of the Pindling government (1967-1992); five of them were hanged under the first two Ingraham administrations (1992-2002); and the remainder were executed between 1929 and 1967.
In 2006, the Privy Council also issued a ruling stating that the section of the Penal Code requiring a sentence of death be passed on any defendant convicted of murder "should be construed as imposing a discretionary and not a mandatory sentence of death."
Five years after the first murder convict was sentenced to hang by a judge, using her discretion (then Supreme Court Justice Anita Allen), it appears that Maxo Tido will never be executed for the gruesome murder of a teenage girl.
His appeal against his conviction and sentence was scheduled to be heard by the Privy Council yesterday.
He was convicted on March 20, 2006 of the 2002 murder of 16-year-old Donnell Conover. In 12 days, it will be five years since Tido was sentenced to death and his matter was yesterday still in court.
The government has acknowledged that hangings are unlikely considering the five-year rule and the amount of time it takes for the appeals process to take place. However, despite this acknowledgment, capital punishment remains the legal punishment.
This commentary is not intended to offer an opinion on whether or not capital punishment is a fair or reasonable punishment. We have expressed our views on capital punishment in another editorial in this paper and remain steadfast that capital punishment is not an appropriate remedy. It serves no useful purpose.
What is clear is that even though it is the law of the land, it is virtually impossible for the death sentence to be carried out. Appeals against the sentence add to the backlog of cases before various courts. If the five-year rule remains, we need to end the death penalty for practical reasons.
The appeals waste time and money.
Anecdotally, the majority of Bahamians appear in favor of executions. This includes many of the powerful and vocal Christian clerics. Successive governments, it seems, fear even raising the issue of ending the death penalty.
As we all consider ways to reduce the number of matters before the court in order to make the criminal justice system more efficient, we must put this issue up for debate. Emotionalism is useless. The facts are the facts. Hangings, though desired by many, are unlikely to occur.
We must now at least start the discussion of the post-hanging period in The Bahamas. New laws are needed creating categories of murder. A proper definition of life in prison must also be brought forward along with a proper system of parole.
These are the issues that need to be debated when it comes to dealing with those who murder.
As long as the Privy Council rule remains in effect, murderers will appeal and appeal until the time for execution has past.
We must be realistic and accept that the days of execution in The Bahamas are over. Our laws ought to reflect this reality.
3/8/2011
thenassauguardian editorial
thenassauguardian editorial
Execution remains the most severe punishment prescribed by the state for the crimes of murder and treason. The punishment of death is regularly issued in The Bahamas against those who commit murder. Treason prosecutions are virtually non-existent.
Despite the regularity of the issuance of the death sentence, executions are uncommon. There has not been a hanging in The Bahamas since David Mitchell was executed on January 6, 2000.
In the 1993 Pratt and Morgan ruling, Her Majesty’s Privy Council ruled that it would be cruel and inhuman to execute a murder convict more than five years after the death sentence was issued.
This ruling slowed the execution process. Murder trials take a long time to come up in this country and the appeals process after the death sentence is issued also takes years.
The country hanged 50 men since 1929, according to records kept at Her Majesty's Prison. Thirteen were hanged under the 25-year rule of the Pindling government (1967-1992); five of them were hanged under the first two Ingraham administrations (1992-2002); and the remainder were executed between 1929 and 1967.
In 2006, the Privy Council also issued a ruling stating that the section of the Penal Code requiring a sentence of death be passed on any defendant convicted of murder "should be construed as imposing a discretionary and not a mandatory sentence of death."
Five years after the first murder convict was sentenced to hang by a judge, using her discretion (then Supreme Court Justice Anita Allen), it appears that Maxo Tido will never be executed for the gruesome murder of a teenage girl.
His appeal against his conviction and sentence was scheduled to be heard by the Privy Council yesterday.
He was convicted on March 20, 2006 of the 2002 murder of 16-year-old Donnell Conover. In 12 days, it will be five years since Tido was sentenced to death and his matter was yesterday still in court.
The government has acknowledged that hangings are unlikely considering the five-year rule and the amount of time it takes for the appeals process to take place. However, despite this acknowledgment, capital punishment remains the legal punishment.
This commentary is not intended to offer an opinion on whether or not capital punishment is a fair or reasonable punishment. We have expressed our views on capital punishment in another editorial in this paper and remain steadfast that capital punishment is not an appropriate remedy. It serves no useful purpose.
What is clear is that even though it is the law of the land, it is virtually impossible for the death sentence to be carried out. Appeals against the sentence add to the backlog of cases before various courts. If the five-year rule remains, we need to end the death penalty for practical reasons.
The appeals waste time and money.
Anecdotally, the majority of Bahamians appear in favor of executions. This includes many of the powerful and vocal Christian clerics. Successive governments, it seems, fear even raising the issue of ending the death penalty.
As we all consider ways to reduce the number of matters before the court in order to make the criminal justice system more efficient, we must put this issue up for debate. Emotionalism is useless. The facts are the facts. Hangings, though desired by many, are unlikely to occur.
We must now at least start the discussion of the post-hanging period in The Bahamas. New laws are needed creating categories of murder. A proper definition of life in prison must also be brought forward along with a proper system of parole.
These are the issues that need to be debated when it comes to dealing with those who murder.
As long as the Privy Council rule remains in effect, murderers will appeal and appeal until the time for execution has past.
We must be realistic and accept that the days of execution in The Bahamas are over. Our laws ought to reflect this reality.
3/8/2011
thenassauguardian editorial
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
This is no time for the unions to create further instability...
Not the time for union unrest
tribune242 editorial
ONE WOULD have thought that unions -- especially the hotel union in Freeport -- would have learned its lesson by now with the closure in 2004 of the Royal Oasis Golf Resort and Casino, putting more that 1,200 Bahamians out of work.
This hotel struggled under union pressure from the day the new owners bought it in 1999 to the day in 2004 when Hurricane Frances so badly damaged it that the owners decided not to reopen. It was clear that the disruptive behaviour of the unions played a major role in that decision.
A year before Hurricane Frances made the decision for everyone, Donald Archer, the hotel's senior vice president, broke his silence to complain about the poor level of service from certain staff about which guests were also complaining. He warned them that not only would a strike be illegal, but that "any responsible union would examine the current and future needs of its members, the fragile economic environment, the financial status of the company and global conditions." At the time the Iraq war was threatening.
Mr Archer warned at the time that more than 1,200 families would be affected by a strike "to say nothing of the impact on these families and the businesses that they patronise."
But what union leaders did not appreciate was how much they had hurt their membership who had a stake in the International Bazaar, which also faced closure. With the hotel closed, the Bazaar's patrons had disappeared.
Commenting on this in November 2005, we wrote: "This should teach the union a lesson that when it pushes its claims too far everything can collapse under the strain, taking even the union with it."
Seven years later the Royal Oasis Golf Resort remains closed.
And so we were surprised at the beginning of this year to hear of labour unrest at Our Lucaya resort, which everyone knew was struggling to keep its doors open in a world recession that was leaving millions jobless.
But apparently, Obie Ferguson, president of the Bahamas Hotel Managerial Association, saw a chink of light somewhere that no one else saw. In January he said that "now the economy is showing signs of recovery," he thought it "time to do what should be done."
"Workers rights," he said, "are as important as profits. We will take the necessary poll and then do what we have to do." Of course, the poll he was hinting at was a strike vote.
Hotel staff knew that the hotel was not doing well. As a matter fact there was no place on the globe that was not suffering from the world crash. However, in the Bahamas there are those among us -- including, if not especially, some politicians -- who think that the Bahamas is somehow not a part of the economically broken world, and that our people, despite our exorbitant public debt, should not have to lower their financial expectations.
As a matter of fact Prime Minister Ingraham thanked the Hutchison-Whampoa group for keeping Our Lucaya open, when others would have closed it. It was known that the hotel was subsiding the staff's payroll and could not afford more. Yet Mr Ferguson, the union man, continued his background rumblings. Last week it was announced that Our Lucaya had closed two of its three hotels. Instead of closing completely, it consolidated its operation on one property -- Breakers Cay --to save 800 jobs. However, to save the 800, 200 staff had to go.
Government is now working with the hotel to try to find employment for these 200, and to retrain some of them in other skills to qualify for other jobs.
When will Bahamians understand what is going on in the world, and appreciate the jobs they now have? This is not the time for government corporations -- some of whose staff are the best paid in the Bahamas -- to be talking of salary increases. Look at other countries and see how heavily they have reduced their public service to streamline their economies. It is acknowledged that our civil service is over stacked and could do with a heavy trim. But, government has as yet shown no inclination to do so.
Even the Cuban Workers Federation announced that half of its work force will lose their jobs by next year. The Cuban government currently employs 85 per cent of that island's workers.
These workers will have to either go back to the farms, find construction work, become self employed or join a cooperative.
Today's economic downturn is forcing Cuba closer to the free enterprise system.
"Our state can't keep maintaining... bloated payrolls," the Cuban Workers Federation told The Wall Street Journal.
This is something that local unions and many Bahamians have yet to grasp. Although we might not know it we are a part of the world and if any part of that world is injured, the whole unit will feel it. Already petroleum retailers want to raise their prices to offset the troubles driving prices up in the oil rich Middle East. The increase in oil will push up costs across the board. Businessmen have no control over these costs. Therefore, when they are forced to cut costs to keep their businesses operational -- the decision forced on the Our Lucaya owners will be forced on them. Staff become redundant.
It is no time in such a climate for the unions to create further instability -- in the end only its members will suffer.
March 08, 2011
tribune242 editorial
tribune242 editorial
ONE WOULD have thought that unions -- especially the hotel union in Freeport -- would have learned its lesson by now with the closure in 2004 of the Royal Oasis Golf Resort and Casino, putting more that 1,200 Bahamians out of work.
This hotel struggled under union pressure from the day the new owners bought it in 1999 to the day in 2004 when Hurricane Frances so badly damaged it that the owners decided not to reopen. It was clear that the disruptive behaviour of the unions played a major role in that decision.
A year before Hurricane Frances made the decision for everyone, Donald Archer, the hotel's senior vice president, broke his silence to complain about the poor level of service from certain staff about which guests were also complaining. He warned them that not only would a strike be illegal, but that "any responsible union would examine the current and future needs of its members, the fragile economic environment, the financial status of the company and global conditions." At the time the Iraq war was threatening.
Mr Archer warned at the time that more than 1,200 families would be affected by a strike "to say nothing of the impact on these families and the businesses that they patronise."
But what union leaders did not appreciate was how much they had hurt their membership who had a stake in the International Bazaar, which also faced closure. With the hotel closed, the Bazaar's patrons had disappeared.
Commenting on this in November 2005, we wrote: "This should teach the union a lesson that when it pushes its claims too far everything can collapse under the strain, taking even the union with it."
Seven years later the Royal Oasis Golf Resort remains closed.
And so we were surprised at the beginning of this year to hear of labour unrest at Our Lucaya resort, which everyone knew was struggling to keep its doors open in a world recession that was leaving millions jobless.
But apparently, Obie Ferguson, president of the Bahamas Hotel Managerial Association, saw a chink of light somewhere that no one else saw. In January he said that "now the economy is showing signs of recovery," he thought it "time to do what should be done."
"Workers rights," he said, "are as important as profits. We will take the necessary poll and then do what we have to do." Of course, the poll he was hinting at was a strike vote.
Hotel staff knew that the hotel was not doing well. As a matter fact there was no place on the globe that was not suffering from the world crash. However, in the Bahamas there are those among us -- including, if not especially, some politicians -- who think that the Bahamas is somehow not a part of the economically broken world, and that our people, despite our exorbitant public debt, should not have to lower their financial expectations.
As a matter of fact Prime Minister Ingraham thanked the Hutchison-Whampoa group for keeping Our Lucaya open, when others would have closed it. It was known that the hotel was subsiding the staff's payroll and could not afford more. Yet Mr Ferguson, the union man, continued his background rumblings. Last week it was announced that Our Lucaya had closed two of its three hotels. Instead of closing completely, it consolidated its operation on one property -- Breakers Cay --to save 800 jobs. However, to save the 800, 200 staff had to go.
Government is now working with the hotel to try to find employment for these 200, and to retrain some of them in other skills to qualify for other jobs.
When will Bahamians understand what is going on in the world, and appreciate the jobs they now have? This is not the time for government corporations -- some of whose staff are the best paid in the Bahamas -- to be talking of salary increases. Look at other countries and see how heavily they have reduced their public service to streamline their economies. It is acknowledged that our civil service is over stacked and could do with a heavy trim. But, government has as yet shown no inclination to do so.
Even the Cuban Workers Federation announced that half of its work force will lose their jobs by next year. The Cuban government currently employs 85 per cent of that island's workers.
These workers will have to either go back to the farms, find construction work, become self employed or join a cooperative.
Today's economic downturn is forcing Cuba closer to the free enterprise system.
"Our state can't keep maintaining... bloated payrolls," the Cuban Workers Federation told The Wall Street Journal.
This is something that local unions and many Bahamians have yet to grasp. Although we might not know it we are a part of the world and if any part of that world is injured, the whole unit will feel it. Already petroleum retailers want to raise their prices to offset the troubles driving prices up in the oil rich Middle East. The increase in oil will push up costs across the board. Businessmen have no control over these costs. Therefore, when they are forced to cut costs to keep their businesses operational -- the decision forced on the Our Lucaya owners will be forced on them. Staff become redundant.
It is no time in such a climate for the unions to create further instability -- in the end only its members will suffer.
March 08, 2011
tribune242 editorial
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Cassius Stuart - Bahamas Democratic Movement (BDM) leader: The Bahamas is in "desperate need" of new leadership in order for significant progress to be made
BDM Leader: Country Needs New Leadership
By Sasha L. Lightbourne
As far as the Bahamas Democratic Movement (BDM) leader sees things, the country is in "desperate need" of new leadership in order for significant progress to be made.
In an interview with the Bahama Journal, Cassius Stuart said he is preparing to head "full steam" into the 2012 general elections as BDM leader.
"We are getting our candidates in order and raising funds to make sure that we are able to compete and properly contest this general election," he said.
"We realise that the Bahamian people are crying and craving something new. I think the leadership of our country needs to be shaken up. Not taking anything away from [Hubert] Ingraham and [Perry] Christie, but you reach to a point where you need to move on because you need an infusion of energy, vision, excitement and that will not come from Ingraham and Christie anymore."
Mr. Stuart believes the problem with black leadership is that no one knows how to step down.
"We don’t know how to transfer authority and power," he said.
"We have to die in office or someone has to pry it from our dead hands and we have to now look at leadership sensibly. Both [Ingraham and Christie] are in their 60s and have done tremendous jobs, been in Parliament for more than 35 years but now we need to move to let the next generation emerge so that a new infusion of ideas can embrace The Bahamas and sadly I don’t see that for the next five years."
The BDM leader explained that people such as himself, need to continue to find ways to say to the Bahamian people that the country needs new leadership.
"Whether the Bahamian people will embrace that, we will find out in 2012 but we are in desperate need of something new," Mr. Stuart said.
"When you look at Grand Bahama, there’s no vision there. The people are suffering because there is no economic activity going on. People are hurting and I am very sad that no government has come up with a solution for them because they deserve attention like we get in New Providence.
He said both governments, the Free National Movement (FNM) and the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP), have been producing "hopelessness and despair" in the nation’s second city.
"We need to encourage entrepreneurship and bring hope back to Grand Bahamians," he said.
As for his aspirations to become prime minister, Mr. Stuart said he never entered politics for that reason.
"My aspirations was to help the country," he said.
"I believe that I have something to lend to my country and that was one of the reasons why we formed the BDM, it was never for me to be prime minister - that was never my goal. My goal is how do we fix the crime problem and social issues?"
He further explained that he has invested "a countless amount of money" into his education so that he is able to lend some of what he has learnt to the country.
"I’ve invested so that I can add value to the country," the BDM leader said.
"My goal is not becoming prime minister, it’s how do we add value to the lives of Bahamians? My philosophy is this, if this ship sinks, it sinks for everybody but if it stays afloat then everybody is happy and if I can help it to stay afloat then that’s where I want to be."
March 7th, 2011
jonesbahamas
By Sasha L. Lightbourne
As far as the Bahamas Democratic Movement (BDM) leader sees things, the country is in "desperate need" of new leadership in order for significant progress to be made.
In an interview with the Bahama Journal, Cassius Stuart said he is preparing to head "full steam" into the 2012 general elections as BDM leader.
"We are getting our candidates in order and raising funds to make sure that we are able to compete and properly contest this general election," he said.
"We realise that the Bahamian people are crying and craving something new. I think the leadership of our country needs to be shaken up. Not taking anything away from [Hubert] Ingraham and [Perry] Christie, but you reach to a point where you need to move on because you need an infusion of energy, vision, excitement and that will not come from Ingraham and Christie anymore."
Mr. Stuart believes the problem with black leadership is that no one knows how to step down.
"We don’t know how to transfer authority and power," he said.
"We have to die in office or someone has to pry it from our dead hands and we have to now look at leadership sensibly. Both [Ingraham and Christie] are in their 60s and have done tremendous jobs, been in Parliament for more than 35 years but now we need to move to let the next generation emerge so that a new infusion of ideas can embrace The Bahamas and sadly I don’t see that for the next five years."
The BDM leader explained that people such as himself, need to continue to find ways to say to the Bahamian people that the country needs new leadership.
"Whether the Bahamian people will embrace that, we will find out in 2012 but we are in desperate need of something new," Mr. Stuart said.
"When you look at Grand Bahama, there’s no vision there. The people are suffering because there is no economic activity going on. People are hurting and I am very sad that no government has come up with a solution for them because they deserve attention like we get in New Providence.
He said both governments, the Free National Movement (FNM) and the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP), have been producing "hopelessness and despair" in the nation’s second city.
"We need to encourage entrepreneurship and bring hope back to Grand Bahamians," he said.
As for his aspirations to become prime minister, Mr. Stuart said he never entered politics for that reason.
"My aspirations was to help the country," he said.
"I believe that I have something to lend to my country and that was one of the reasons why we formed the BDM, it was never for me to be prime minister - that was never my goal. My goal is how do we fix the crime problem and social issues?"
He further explained that he has invested "a countless amount of money" into his education so that he is able to lend some of what he has learnt to the country.
"I’ve invested so that I can add value to the country," the BDM leader said.
"My goal is not becoming prime minister, it’s how do we add value to the lives of Bahamians? My philosophy is this, if this ship sinks, it sinks for everybody but if it stays afloat then everybody is happy and if I can help it to stay afloat then that’s where I want to be."
March 7th, 2011
jonesbahamas
Monday, March 7, 2011
To Ryan Pinder: Put some policies on the table rather than simply objecting in Parliament
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)