Bahamian History: The Bahamas / Bahamian Independence History

Sir Arthur Addresses Rotaract on Independence History


By Eric Rose
BIS 



NASSAU, The Bahamas – While giving a brief and personal account of Bahamian history, as it relates to Bahamian Independence, Governor-General Sir Arthur Foulkes said that there is “hardly a single event in our history that has had such a profound influence on the future of The Bahamas as the establishment of the House of Assembly ”.

“This institution and its eventual assimilation by Bahamians have contributed mightily to our history of political stability,” Sir Arthur said, while speaking at the Rotaract Club of East Nassau meeting on the topic “On Independence and the Way Forward”, on July 1, 2013, at the British Colonial Hilton.

”The House gave to the residents of these islands a measure of control over their affairs even though the imperial power, Great Britain, retained ultimate responsibility right up to the 10th of July 1973,” Sir Arthur added. “So the Bahamas had what was described as representative but not responsible government.”

Sir Arthur noted that, to be sure, the House, established in 1729, did not confer the status of a modern democracy on The Bahamas.

“That was a long way off;” he said; “but the population, including the black descendants of slaves, recognised the possibilities that this institution offered, and that is why it became, and remains, the ultimate objective of political activity.”

That is why, too, Sir Arthur continued, a racial minority with “varying degrees of support by the British” made access to it difficult for the majority.

“Prior to the 1962 elections when Bahamians for the first time enjoyed universal adult suffrage, voting rights were limited over the years by an array of what were termed qualifications but which were, in fact, obstacles,” Sir Arthur said.

"One had to be male to register to vote. One had to own or rent property of a certain value. One male could vote in every constituency in which he owned or rented property. There was open voting, and open buying of votes. A lawyer could cast a vote for each of the companies registered at his office.”

Elections, Sir Arthur pointed out, were held on different days to accommodate what Sir Etienne Dupuch called “an armada of vessels”: well provisioned with rum and flour, descending on one island after another.

“And, of course, there was gross inequality in the population of constituencies,” Sir Arthur said.

"Out of the white minority had evolved a classical oligarchy (a government by a few, usually privileged) that came to be known as the Bay Street Boys,” he added.

They were the ones, Sir Arthur said, who commanded the armadas of which Sir Etienne (Dupuch) complained, and they dominated Bahamian politics and commerce.

Sir Arthur said that there was, of course, throughout the years, agitation against racism, and for fair treatment of workers, for education and for reform of the political system to make the House of Assembly more representative of the people.

He said that in the 1920s and 1930s there was a group called the Ballot Party, which included a Barbadian tailor named R. M. Bailey and Bahamian politicians C. C. Sweeting and S. C. McPherson. In the 1940s there were others, including Dr. C. R. Walker, Bert Cambridge and Milo Butler.

"Then there was Etienne Dupuch who took over a struggling newspaper, The Nassau Daily Tribune, after World War I and became for many decades a towering figure in Bahamian journalism as well as a politician,” Sir Arthur said.

"Sir Etienne wielded a prolific and acerbic pen,” Sir Arthur stated. “He railed against racism and corruption, against the intransigence (inflexibility) of the oligarchy and the complacency of the British Government. One British newspaper branded him ‘Rebel in the Caribbean’.

“Sir Etienne and his newspaper did more than anybody else during those critical years to foster political consciousness among the Bahamian masses.”

Sir Arthur said that progress was slow; but there was some reform, including the introduction of the secret ballot for New Providence in 1939. One early notable achievement, he added, was the establishment of the Government High School in 1925. Labour unrest continued and exploded in the 1942 riot, Sir Arthur noted.

Sir Arthur said that a “most significant” change took place in the political arena in 1953, when a group of mostly “near-white” Bahamians founded what was to become the first national political party in the country, the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP).

"It was the brainchild of William Cartwright but most of the hard work of organising the party throughout the islands was undertaken by its first Chairman Sir Henry Taylor,” Sir Arthur stated. “Both were members of the House of Assembly having been elected in 1949. Cyril Stevenson was Secretary General and also the flamboyant editor of ‘The Herald’.

"The Bay Street Boys responded by founding the United Bahamian Party (UBP), and the era of party politics came to The Bahamas. In 1956 the PLP gained a foothold in the House with the election of the Magnificent Six: Lynden Pindling, Randol Fawkes, Milo Butler, Cyril Stevenson, Clarence Bain and Sammy Isaacs.”

Almost immediately upon its formation, Sir Arthur said, a group of young black men saw the PLP as a vehicle for the achievement of a full progressive agenda for The Bahamas including the defeat of the UBP, an end to racism, economic and social justice and, ultimately, independence for the country.

They joined the PLP, formed themselves into the National Committee for Positive Action (NCPA) and supported the leadership of Sir Lynden Pindling, he added.

"For the first time since the Eleutheran Adventurers, there was serious talk of independence for these islands, but it had not yet become a popular idea,” Sir Arthur said. “When the NCPA held a debate on independence at St. Agnes Auditorium in 1959, they were publicly rebuked by the chairman of the party.”

Sir Arthur said that the general strike in 1958 galvanised the progressive movement in the Bahamas; but the unfair delimitation of constituencies remained and accounted for the PLP’s defeat in 1962, when that party got a majority of the votes cast but still lost the election.

"The UBP still refused to budge on this issue,” he stated. “The report of their Boundaries Commission in April 1965 was the catalyst for the Black Tuesday demonstration, when Sir Lynden threw the Speaker’s mace out of the window of the House of Assembly, and Sir Milo did likewise with the hour glasses the Speaker used to time his speeches.

"Finally, the PLP and Randol Fawkes, representing his Labour Party, succeeded in overthrowing the UBP in January 1967 when Sir Alvin Braynen threw in his lot with them.”

“I regard January 10^th 1967, as the most significant date in Bahamian history since Emancipation.”

Sir Arthur said he and Sir Cecil Wallace Whitfield raised the issue of independence on the floor of the House in 1967, after the nerve gas incident.

“The Americans had secured the agreement of the British Government to drop canisters of nerve gas in Bahamian waters despite our objections,” Sir Arthur said.

"The Americans had refused to talk directly to us; but Sir Cecil was included in a British delegation that talked with them in Washington,” Sir Arthur pointed out. “When the Americans assured the delegation that it was safe to drop the nerve gas canisters in Bahamian waters, Sir Cecil responded: ‘If it’s so safe, why don’t you drop them in the Hudson River?’”

"Sir Cecil was so infuriated that he suggested in the House of Assembly that we should consider making a unilateral declaration of independence, so we could have immediate control of our own affairs and our territorial waters,” Sir Arthur said.

Sir Arthur noted that just weeks before the Government announced in 1972 that it would proceed to independence after the upcoming election, Sir Lynden was in London and told a British newspaper that his government was not thinking about independence at that time.

“I suspect the about-face was due to pressure from the Hon. A. D. Hanna who had been a consistent advocate of independence,” Sir Arthur said. “It is one of the ironies of history and politics that some of those who were the most ardent advocates of independence found themselves in opposition in 1972 and opposing independence under the leadership of Sir Lynden.”

"A veritable flood of water – and a little blood -- had gone under the political bridge between 1967 and 1972,” he said.

There was a split in the progressive movement, the formation of a new opposition – the Free National Movement – and some “very tense moments including physical attacks on Sir Cecil and others”, Sir Arthur said.

“But that is history for another day,” he added.

The PLP won the 1972 election and, in December of that year, a Bahamian delegation of Government and Opposition met with representatives of the British Government at Marlborough House in London to agree an independence constitution for The Bahamas, Sir Arthur said.

"There were divisions between the Bahamas Government and Opposition on several issues including rustication, the right to leave one’s country, and equality for women,” Sir Arthur said. “On the latter, the British sided with the Government and the issue of equality for women was lost. That, in my view, remains a flaw in our Constitution 40 years later.”

However, he noted that a “shining moment” was when the Bahamian delegation – Government and Opposition – opposed a British Government proposal to give Bahamian citizenship to a category of persons registered in The Bahamas as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

“It is worth noting that the dismantling of the old colonial system of government started in 1964, when the Bahamas got its first codified Constitution with ministerial government under the UBP,” Sir Arthur said. “Our second Constitution was in 1969, when further responsibilities were granted to the Bahamas Government under the PLP.”

Sir Arthur said that, of those Bahamians who participated in that historic meeting, the following are still alive: A. D. Hanna, George Smith, Loftus Roker, Philip Bethel, Sir Orville Turnquest and himself.

"The Bahamas has the Constitution of a modern parliamentary democracy, which has served us well for 40 years and will, I believe, serve us well for the next 40 and beyond,” Sir Arthur said.

"Our history and our culture contains positive as well as negative influences and characteristics and today we are facing some severe challenges as a result of our own mistakes and the impact of negative influences from outside.”

"The Constitution provides us rights as citizens, and with the framework and rules for the conduct of our affairs,” he added. “The challenges we face can be successfully met with the sustained involvement of all of us as patriotic contributing citizens.”

July 03, 2013

Bahamas.gov.bs

Black Bahamians, cultural stupidity, and 40 years of political independence and beyond

By Dennis Dames

I have had an awkward experience on a bus stop recently.  I met a black American couple who was visiting all the way from Seattle; the husband related to me their experience in a hotel restaurant.  He told me that the servers must have taken them for natives, because they were seated for a long while before they were approach for service.  They saw the waiter or waitress passing them often, serving the lighter colored guests and other people of whom they apparently perceived as tourists - at other tables. 

The man asked me: if I have ever had such an experience?  My answer was yes, and I added that this is a common practice in The Bahamas where black Bahamian waiters, waitresses, and others, prefer to serve white customers and other assumed visitors over black Bahamians; even if the black Bahamians were seated first.

I told him further, that I do not put up with it anymore; I simply walk out and go where I am more appreciated.  This is indeed sad for a so called black nation.  I have stated before, that we black Bahamians have a really serious problem with black Bahamians.

We really need to do some serious reflections as a people moving beyond 40 years of political independence and cultural stupidity.  We need to do better.


Caribbean Blog International

More details on the legislation and regulations to support the government's proposed value added tax (VAT) system is forthcoming

Govt to reveal more on VAT

By Taneka Thompson
Guardian Senior Reporter
taneka@nasguard.com

Minister of State for Finance Michael Halkitis said the government intends to reveal more details on the legislation and regulations to support its proposed value added tax (VAT) system as early as the next three to four weeks.

The system is scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2014.

Halkitis told The Nassau Guardian that the government wants to be able to provide members of the public with the proposed legislation as well as the relevant regulations on the new tax system so they can be discussed at the same time, well in advance of the enforcement date.

“We will give the public a good idea of the items that will be exempt and the registration threshold so the public can have a better understanding of its potential impact on them,” Halkitis said.

“When we present the actual legislation for public discussion then we will accelerate our public education, which involves moving throughout the country and informing the people of its potential impact on them, etc.

“You can expect to see towards the end of the summer and into the fall an intensive public education program because we realize that is very important.”

While there have been some fears that VAT may add to the financial burden of the lower class, Halkitis said he expects the new system to bring in more money from wealthier individuals.

“Right now we virtually do not tax the services portion of our economy and we know that individuals with higher incomes spend a greater portion of their income on services,” he said.

“We are fully aware that particularly those at the bottom end of the economic bracket can ill afford any increase in the cost of living and we’ll do all we can to mitigate against that.

“We are also aware that nobody likes to pay taxes and we can’t afford to overtax the economy and drive us back into a recession, so we are trying to balance the need for revenue against making sure we don’t overtax the economy, and of course we have to look at the hole in the budget that we have to fill so we get lower deficits, lower amounts to alter the public debt.”

Halkitis said the VAT system will have built-in protections to offset overtaxing.

He said basic food items, medicine, education, health care and financial services are categories that will likely be exempt from the tax.

He also said that once VAT is implemented the government will reduce certain customs duty rates.

“So we will take all measures to ensure that it does not fall disproportionately on those who can least afford it,” Halkitis said.

The government intends to impose a 15 percent VAT on most goods and services, except for those that fall under the exempt category.

July 01, 2013

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

The National Child Protection Council and the Committee on Families and Children have warned the media to protect the identity of children who are involved in incest

Nat’l Child Protection Council Warns Media

By Kendea Smith
Jones Bahamas



Members of the media got a stern warning yesterday after officials from the National Child Protection Council in conjunction with Committee on Families and Children sought to warn the media to protect the identity of children who are involved in incest.

Just recently, the media reported on the identity of a man who has been charged with incest.

Some media houses showed the man’s face and others decided not to report on his identity.

During a special forum meeting with the media, Chairman of Committee on Families and Children Cleopatra Christie said the identity of the child victim should always be protected.

And this means not identifying the perpetrator or victim, their addresses or anything that could remotely identify the victim.

“How do children cope? Do they ever cope from this when they’re exposed? Victims-children need to trust who they turn to for help – teachers, churches, the police, the courts and the social workers. Children rely on them to protect their identity.

Otherwise we run the danger of these same or other victims not coming forward with creditable complaints. A child’s fear is always who will find out. They fear the thought of their teachers, friends, neighbours and classmates. Do they want the details to be known? Can you imagine those details about their bodies being exposed? Therefore the disclosure of the victims, names, addresses, schools, the daycare centre the name of the parents or the offending family member for example a mother or father should never be disclosed,” Ms. Christie said.

To support her claim, Ms. Christie referred to the Child Protection Act 2009.

She also spoke about the punishments for media houses if too much information about the perpetrator or victim is released.

“It shall be offense for anyone to publish any material that is intended or is likely to identify any child that has been involved in any proceedings before the court. Anyone who commits the offense is liable to a summary conviction not exceeding $5,000 or an imprisonment of 12 months or both. So that’s how serious the law takes it,” Ms. Christie said.

Deputy Chairman National Child Protection Council Dr. Novia Carter asked reporters to put themselves in the shoes of the victim and the perpetrator.

“We need to find a way to get the story out without raping the child all over again,” she said.

“In our country, everyone knows everyone. So as soon as you put a name out there and even though some media houses may not say the name and you may say dependents in our small country it is only a matter of time before everyone knows. Always consider that if it were my child – how does my child go to church? How does my child go to the mall knowing people are looking and pointing and saying – what did you do to cause this abuse to happen? Be mindful of one guiding factor- Suppose it was my child?”

June 28, 2013

The Bahama Journal

Caribbean Blog International

No single Bahamian or political party has the answer to reduce or eradicate crime in The Bahamas

Community Co-Operation Is The Only Answer To Crime

 

Tribune242 Editorial:

 

ALTHOUGH our crime problem has taken years in the making, Prime Minister Christie campaigned in the 2012 general elections on the promise that if given the government his party would produce a crime free country.

Obviously, the majority of Bahamians did not understand the problem. If they had, they would have known that crime was so entrenched in our islands that no single man or party had the answer that could either reduce or eradicate it. Nor could a government do it alone unless it had the full support of every segment of society. In this fight there is no room for party politics.

Before being voted out of office, the FNM introduced a bundle of crime bills to stiffen the law, and increase penalties in an effort to reduce the number of criminals on the streets. An amended Bail Act, for example, took the discretion from magistrates to grant bail in serious cases, particularly where guns were involved. Rape offences, for example, carried a sentence from 15 years to life — and this time life meant the whole of a man’s natural life, not just 25 years.

The then Opposition — now the Christie government— did not agree with the bills. Too harsh, it was said.

Even before the first parliament had convened, only a few short days after the 2012 general election, the newly appointed Minister of National Security — Dr Bernard Nottage – announced that his government would review the stiff crime bills passed by the FNM the previous year.

“Everything is under review,” Dr Nottage announced. “A lot of the persons who have been – I can’t call them victims – who have been convicted have made certain approaches to us about the severity of some of the sentences.”

Obviously, the new laws had the intended bite that was worrying the criminal. The desired results were being achieved, but here we had a new security minister, whose party had campaigned on stiffer sentences for criminals, now consulting with criminals who were complaining about the severity of their sentences. It was obvious that the new government was out of its depth, had no plan and was flying pilotless on a “wing and a prayer”.

On May 16, the FNM said: ”The PLP campaigned asking for stiffer sentences for criminals. After a week which recorded a record nine murders, the Government having consulted with convicts has now determined sentences enacted by the FNM are too tough.”

The PLP was sticking with its belief that Urban Renewal 2.0 was the magic wand that would save this country from itself. As crime grew to frightening proportions, Prime Minister Christie recently had to admit that solutions to the problem had to be found. This inferred that the PLP never had the answer.

In the past 13 months, 49 persons charged with murder have been out on bail. Dr Nottage told members of the House this week that, in the past five years, 305 murder accused were released on bail by the courts. The courts – unable to handle more cases efficiently for various reasons — have been a big part of the problem.

Damien Gomez, State Minister of Legal Affairs, has acknowledged that judges have to work more efficiently. He said that with five criminal courts operating in the past 12 months, it was alarming that only 89 cases have been completed. He would have expected around 200 to 250 cases to be removed from the court calendar in a year. The courts have major problems. They need a lot of attention. From reports that we have heard, jury tampering has reached such epidemic proportions that juries should be eliminated in murder cases. These cases should be heard by a panel of three judges.

To alleviate the problem, Mr Christie has announced that government will appoint 20 more judges, who are obviously expected to quickly reduce the judicial case load. Of course, defence lawyers who are out to play the system are another unhealthy virus in the halls of justice.

It has been discovered in most of today’s murder cases that the dead body when found is wearing an ankle bracelet and the murderer, if not also with an ankle bracelet, is “well known to the police”. In police jargon, that means that he too has a criminal record — and usually a violent one. These are the persons who are giving this country a reputation of a crime polluted archipelago.

At present, the only persons efficiently reducing the court calendar are the criminals who are eliminating each other in the cross-fire of the streets.

It is obvious that when a man on bail is sent back to the streets he cannot get a job to support himself. So, in fact, on his release he has been condemned to continue his life of crime just to survive. The only way that crime can be reduced is to keep such criminals off the streets. However, the prison is already too full to accommodate them. This is another major problem with which the legislators have to wrestle.

Suddenly, more than a year later, Dr Nottage has awakened to reality. He is now talking tough. If he had done this in the beginning this country would not be in such a confused state. He now wants to close the Cash for Gold shops — the outlet for most of the stolen jewellery— and have an amnesty to get the guns off the streets.

At long last, Prime Minister Christie has accepted that the PLP alone do not have the answers. He told the House this week that Opposition leader Dr Hubert Minnis has written him a letter promising his party’s support in the fight to remove criminal elements from our communities.

“The safety of our homes and streets,” said Mr Christie, “is everybody’s business. We call upon all Bahamians, all persons within our borders and Her Majesty’s loyal opposition to join us in these efforts to restore safety and rebuild respect for our laws and legal system.”

It is hoped that, if only for its own sake, this island will come together and seriously fight crime. That means full cooperation with the police.

June 20, 2013

Tribune 242 

Caribbean Blog International

The marital rape question in The Bahamas

AG remained ‘consistent’ on marital rape issue

By TANEKA THOMPSON
Guardian Senior Reporter
taneka@nasguard.com

Attorney General Allyson Maynard-Gibson said she has always been consistent on the issue of marital rape.

Maynard-Gibson added that the Christie administration is committed to consultation with the community before making any decisions on whether to make it a crime.

Her comments came when asked to respond to criticism from former Minister of State for Social Development Loretta Butler-Turner.

Last week, Butler-Turner suggested that the government is being hypocritical on the issue because it failed to support the Ingraham administration’s effort to make marital rape a crime four years ago.

In 2009, Butler-Turner tabled a bill that would have criminalized marital rape with a possible life sentence.

“It never moved beyond the position of tabling because we went into the summer recess at that time where we had many town meetings and discourse,” Butler-Turner said.

“At that time, we did not get the support of the current government, the PLP, the sitting minister or the minister that is now reporting to the Human Rights commission in Geneva.”

But Maynard-Gibson said on Thursday, “I have been consistent on this matter from day one.

“If you look at what I said then and what I am saying now there is no difference.

“Laws are effective when people buy into them and see them as just. The family is a very important unit in our society and when we are doing things that affect the family it just makes sense that we consult and then we bring our people along with us.”

Two weeks ago, she told the Human Rights Council in Geneva that the government is considering criminalizing marital rape.

“People have to be sensitized to the issues and if laws are to be effective, if they are brought forward, then they have to be laws that people buy into,” she told The Nassau Guardian. “What I said was we are prepared to continue the consultative process with all of our people.”

Whether the government brings a marital rape bill to Parliament in this term depends on the government’s consultative process, Maynard-Gibson said.

She said government officials are meeting with religious leaders and other stakeholders to give information and statistics on domestic violence while gleaning if there is widespread support for the issue.

Last week, Bahamas Christian Council President Dr. Ranford Patterson said his organization would support criminalizing marital rape.

Patterson said while there needs to be an exact legal definition, the council would support any legislation that protects the “stability of the family unit”.

That position on marital rape is in contrast to the council’s previous position after the contentious Marital Rape Bill was tabled in the House of Assembly four years ago.

June 22, 2013

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

Loretta Butler-Turner Slaps Andre Rollins in the House of Assembly

Young Man's View: The 'Pimp' Slap Heard Around The Archipelago

By ADRIAN GIBSON

ajbahama@hotmail.com

...the people’s House of Assembly is becoming a national disgrace. For some reason or the other, a line in Michael Jackson’s song “They don’t care about us” keeps coming to mind, it says “all I wanna say is that they don’t really care about us.” The Bahamian public is losing faith in our so-called leaders and we are tired of the personal politics, tired of the idle vapourings and woeful outpourings of mind-numbing drivel, tired of speeches that lack content and quality, tired of some elected representatives seeking points of order and points of privilege on bizarre grounds and tired of debates degenerating into allegations and aimless blathering. I am tired of certain ineffectual timeservers wasting our time whilst our ship of state flounders!

 

Are we electing village idiots to Parliament these days?

 

Indeed, I was appalled to hear about the fracas in the House of Assembly on Wednesday. Whilst in the precincts of the Parliament—on the House’s adjournment for lunch—Long Island MP Loretta Butler-Turner slapped Fort Charlotte MP Andre Rollins after he made “nasty”, disparaging remarks towards her and she had requested him to remove his arms from around her. She admitted to it. On Wednesday, the House of Assembly must have been like a R-rated version of Girls Gone Wild—Rawson Square style!

 

To be quite honest, the comical side of my mind ran away with me after I initially heard about “slapgate”, as I started to wonder how far she “hauled” back before delivering the slap; was it an open palm slip or backhanded; was the shock overwhelming and was the “taste” also lost in the receiver’s mouth? My mind then recalled a mass Blackberry message that I had received on the way to Long Island’s regatta last week, which spoke about a gang initiation. And, slipping into another spell of rib-tickling thoughts, I wondered whether the slap was a sort of political initiation! Butler-Turner certainly appears to have a lot of cojones.

 

Whilst not funny when put in its true perspective, the “pimp” slap—heard around the archipelago – made me think about the behaviour shown on reality TV series on the Oxygen Network, except that it occurred in our Parliament. Perhaps, Oxygen could still send their cameras and do follow-up interviews with eyewitnesses!

 

Seriously though, Andre Rollins is an agent provocateur (I know first-hand) and there are many who would posit that the brother has a chip on his shoulder, that he got his “t’ings” and that his comeuppance was long overdue. However, the violent display between two of our country’s supposed leaders is unacceptable. Indeed, Mr Rollins had no right to put his hand on Edward Turner’s wife and, even worse, proceed to whisper in her ear. His actions were totally disrespectful, inappropriate and at least we know that if she had hit him harder— and he had lost a tooth—as an orthodontist, he has the ability to rectify the situation!

 

Mrs Butler-Turner’s apology in the House of Assembly on Thursday appears to have been genuine when contrasted to Rollins who told Parliament that he felt “compelled” to apologise to his constituents for any “perceived embarrassment” for his part in the matter. I am your constituent, sir, and nothing is perceived about how disgraceful and embarrassing I found your behaviour—my perception is quite real.

 

As usual, Rollins appears to be disingenuous, searching his mind for the most fitting word/s that only obfuscates and insults the intellectual capacity of the Bahamian people. I accept Mrs Butler-Turner’s explanation when she stated that she is human and fallible, and that the position she was placed in on Wednesday was not a “good one”. The fact that she said that she does not want that to be the kind of representation she wants to present to the people makes her apology unpretentious and acceptable. I hope that she learns from her mistake and that future slaps would be off the table!

 

In total fairness, Loretta Butler-Turner is a Member whose behaviour has frequently come under the microscope, particularly as Speaker Kendal Major has rightly warned her—on repeated occasions—about her conduct in Parliament. I have been told—by fellow parliamentarians—that Mrs Butler-Turner makes some of the most ridiculous utterances that they have ever heard, mostly while seated.

 

However, had this incident occurred in the United States it is likely that Dr. Rollins could’ve been accused and charged with sexual harassment and/or forced to resign. And, relative to Mrs Butler Turner, she perhaps would have had to prove that she acted in self-defence in order to avoid being charged with assault. Having had my own experience with being provoked by Dr Rollins, I truly believe that Mrs Butler-Turner was defending her honour.

 

If the lady repeatedly asked Dr Rollins to remove his hand from her person, there is absolutely no reason why he should not have done so. Immediately! Multiple sources have stated that Mrs Butler-Turner was heard asking Mr Rollins to take his hands off her. By any stretch of the imagination, one would posit that he cannot possibly believe that unwanted physical contact is acceptable—and that fact that she is a woman makes it worse. The fact that Rollins chose not to press charges lends credence to the notion that he boorishly crossed the line. I’ve been reliably informed, by sources close to Butler-Turner, that the inane statements uttered was hardly “sanitised.”

 

If Parliamentarians cannot resolve their issues in an amicable manner, is there any wonder why our society is degenerating and becoming so violent? If these “educated” elected leaders and supposed pacesetters cannot resolve conflicts without behaving boorishly, what is the point of the Urban Renewal project and other so-called “anti-violence” initiatives?

 

Maybe urban renewal should begin in Parliament!

 

When will an Integrity in Public Life Act ever be enacted in the Bahamas? Will the Bahamas ever follow Trinidad and Tobago’s lead and pass such legislation in my lifetime, or will our leaders continue to operate in an environment that is quickly becoming disreputable? In Trinidad and Tobago, such an Act identifies regulations and guidelines for the conduct of persons exercising public functions. The Trinidadian Act further establishes an Integrity Commission, which has an oversight role relative to the ethics and integrity of two classes of public officials—i.e. persons in public life and persons exercising public functions. The Act attempts to promote openness, transparency (anti-corruption) and accountability with the commission serving as its enforcer and watchdog.

 

Politically, Andre Rollins must be wearing ankle weights. He is merely a once overhyped, underachieving politician who has gone bust. At this rate, Andre Rollins is on the treadmill to political oblivion.

 

Frankly, Andre Rollins had a lot of potential but in recent times he has demonstrated that he has no convictions and vacillates in the wind according to expediency. Seemingly, he switches his fundamental beliefs if it suits him. Dr Rollins emerged as an anti-establishment figure—the then chair of the National Development Party—and got people to buy into his so-called “passionate” belief in the Bahamian people and his “hunger” to serve his country. Not long after, he quickly became a nondescript political journeyman who jumped ship, abandoned his political shipmates in his overeager pursuit of power and self-aggrandisement and is today defined by seemingly myopic thinking and belligerent behaviour in the House of Assembly. Frankly, the first-time MP has a political record that seems steeped in self-interested pursuits. It seems that the NDP was used as a vehicle to propel the now-MP to greener political pastures and then the fledgling political outfit was dropped like a hot potato!

 

Honestly, I am disappointed in Dr Rollins and have noticed that he doesn’t seem to have any principles that he’s prepared to defend. How can one respect any politician who doesn’t seem to be prepared to stand—even if it means falling on their swords—but standing because they truly believe in something (and I don’t mean believe until the next best thing comes along)? He is recklessly hotheaded, insufferably pompous and impetuous. Andre Rollins has fallen so far from grace, it’s pathetic! Wasn’t he supposed to be one of the new generation of leaders?

 

Indeed, the once hallowed halls of the House of Assembly—our elected body—is being used by a handful of petulant and thin-skinned politicians to engage in “girlie” fights and dishonourable petty skirmishes rather than a thorough examination of the issues and truly representing their constituents. The Parliament—that is, both the House of Assembly and the Senate—is supposed to be at the vanguard in its display of best practices (debating, civility, etc) and the standards of behaviour expected of these public office holders should be one above and beyond reproach.

 

Why didn’t the FNM’s Parliamentary caucus rally around Butler-Turner in a show of solidarity, decrying what happened—not necessarily in an accusatory manner—but in attempting to demonstrate that such a fiasco is unbecoming of Parliamentarians whilst taking an opportunity to address the concerns of the majority of the electorate—women?

 

The unparliamentary behaviour seen on Wednesday has long been in the making. A few years ago, then St Thomas More MP Frank Smith (now senator)—on the floor of the House—brushed past and seemingly grabbed at former Pineridge MP Kwasi Thompson. That was totally out of order.

 

In 2009, Mangrove Cay and South Andros MP Picewell Forbes’ exclamation at the PLP convention led to the mistrial in the high-profile Travolta case. Mr Forbes’ premature assertion that former MP Pleasant Bridgewater had been acquitted in the John Travolta attempted extortion trial led to joyous singing and gyrating by PLPs and ignited a spark that has set the justice system, or at least the five-week long Travolta attempted extortion trial, ablaze.

 

Then Senior Justice (now Court of Appeal President) Anita Allen rightly decided to declare a mistrial, telling the jury:

 

“We are very concerned, in the interest of justice, that it does not appear that there has been a communication from the jury room. Justice must not only be done, but seen to be done.”

 

“I am very very reluctant to discharge you but in the interest of justice, having heard the views of counsel, we are concerned. It leaves the impression that there may have been a communication from the jury room,” she said.

 

On the convention floor, Mr Forbes exclaimed:

 

“Pleasant is a free woman PLPs! Pleasant is a free woman PLPs! God is good PLPs! Pleasant is a free woman! God still reigns PLPs!”

 

When the Mangrove Cay and South Andros MP made his proclamation, there was a wild outburst as the crowd chanted “PLP all the way.” This episode made international headlines. Mr Forbes’ remark was a terrible miscalculation and can only be summed up as the crudest form of political gamesmanship (something Dr Rollins should be very familiar with).

 

In 2006, (then PLP MP for Kennedy) Kenyatta Gibson and former Mount Moriah MP Keod Smith were combatants in the infamous Cabinet Room brawl. After the melee, it was claimed that two windows were smashed and the glass table top of the large mahogany table in the cabinet room was shattered. The difference between Andre Rollins and Kenyatta Gibson is that Kenyatta “unreservedly” apologised and sought forgiveness for conduct that even he referred to as regrettable and unacceptable. I have heard no such thing from Rollins.

 

Back then, PM Christie then told the Bahamian public that the fight was “more apparent than real”. We’re certain that Wednesday’s squabble was very real. At that time, Mr Christie claimed that he and the skirmishing MP’s had met and “laughed together” at the media’s coverage of the incident. Jokingly, PM Christie said he hadn’t seen “any bruises or bite marks” on either man. I hope that he didn’t meet and “laugh together” with Andre Rollins this time! Moreover, dissimilar to the 2006 incident when he didn’t see “any bruises or bite marks”, one would posit that if he inspects Rollins, he would perhaps find “five fingers”— likely imprinted upon his cheek—and not courtesy of Bahama Hand Prints either!

 

All jokes aside, I believe that the Speaker can and should ensure an even stricter enforcement of civil decorum in the House. Frankly, we should follow the example set by Australia and seek to impose fines on MPs who display disruptive and unparliamentary behaviour. Moreover, the Speaker should move to suspend those MPs who engage in threatening or reprehensible verbal diatribes, formally condemn and reprimand a Member by addressing that Member by name as opposed to constituency (naming), by ordering the withdrawal of a Member from the House of Assembly for that sitting day, by sanctioning an MP so that they are unable to speak for the duration of a period and/or by allowing the House itself to take disciplinary action against a Member.

 

Gone are the days of brilliant parliamentarians like Paul Adderley and Sir Orville Turnquest who understood how to use colourful language to make a point, who understood the brilliance in coolly and effectively using the English language!

 

Rather than wasting time, MPs need to do the work of the Bahamian people and, as the 18 month mark of the current Parliamentary session approaches, seek to disclose their finances and investments as is annually required by law. Parliament is not the setting for anyone to behave like a flu-ridden orangutan in a china shop. Mr Speaker—as long as you’re fair—continue to use your extensive parliamentary powers to enforce the rules of debate and best parliamentary practices, so that there can be an orderly conduct of the people’s business!

 

It is my belief that most intelligent Bahamians are supporters of democracy and open debate, but are anti-idiocy—particularly, the idiocy that masquerades as common sense.

 

Christie has to give Andre Rollins a swift kick in his political hide! Quite frankly, the PM should ask for Andre Rollins’ immediate resignation from the Gaming Board and the House of Assembly. Dr Rollins has behaved like a loose cannon since he entered the hallowed halls of Parliament, uttering his “100% heterosexual line”, overtly criticising his leader and party policy (gambling referendum) and now engaging in brouhaha with Loretta Butler-Turner!

 

I was glad to see that, at least this time Mr Christie didn’t say he was “unaware” or “didn’t know.”

 

PM Christie has in the past promised accountability, transparency and a strict adherence to his much-hyped Code of Ethics. I believe that he means well and, moreover, he now has an opportunity to “put his money where his mouth is” and fulfil all those proclamations made eons ago.

 

June 20, 2013

 

Tribune 242

 

Caribbean Blog International