...Bahamians should roundly defeat the upcoming referendum question on legalizing web shops

Vote no on referendum: PLP sells out the country

Front Porch

By Simon

On multiple grounds, Bahamians should roundly defeat the upcoming referendum question on legalizing web shops.  First, there is a stunning and insulting lack of transparency.

Moreover, the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) that cried foul over a lack of process during the last referendum has been breathtakingly hypocritical and cynical in terms of the lack of process in its rush to give certain numbers houses an early Christmas gift.  This referendum involves both a perceived conflict of interest and a betrayal of the common good.

A part of the back-story of the PLP’s decision to hold a referendum solely on the question of legalizing the current criminal enterprise of selected web shops involves a bizarre statement recently made by Prime Minister Perry Christie.

When asked if his party accepted campaign donations from various illegal numbers houses for the recent general election, former prime minister and Free National Movement (FNM) Leader Hubert Ingraham said that while individual candidates may have, he did not accept such donations on behalf of the party.

By stunning contrast Christie said he didn’t know whether the PLP received donations from such illegal enterprises.  Bahamians will have to judge whether they find credible Christie and his stated ignorance on this matter.

 

Ignorance

What is incredible is that on a matter of which there is widespread suspicion of a conflict of interest by Christie and his party is that he has claimed ignorance on whether donations were received.

Imagine the British or Canadian prime minister claiming ignorance about potential donations from illegal sources in the run-up to a major vote in Parliament or a referendum.  He would be hounded by the press and perhaps hounded out of office.  But here in The Bahamas Christie is hiding behind a claim of ignorance.

The potential conflict of interest on the referendum question is as transparent as it appears massive.  This referendum is a defining moment in Christie’s legacy.  It spells the death-knell of the progressive spirit in the PLP, a party now fully in thrall to special interests and a self-serving oligarchy whose mantra is: PLPs first.

This is a shameful and disgraceful moment for the country, for the PLP and for Perry Christie, who will go down in Bahamian history for selling out the Bahamian people.

Are we to be treated to the same contempt for our intelligence and contempt for the national interest by Christie on the matter of oil drilling?  He has also failed to be transparent about his relationship with and the consulting fees he received from a company conducting oil drilling tests.

Having failed to expand constitutional rights for women in its last term, the first referendum held by the PLP, the party of corporatist interests, is one that will narrowly and overwhelmingly benefit special interests at the expense of a broader common good.

Women of The Bahamas be damned.  The question of legalizing windfall profits for illegal enterprises is more a priority for a referendum under the PLP than your rights.

 

Dictator

In its election charter, the PLP promised a referendum on a national lottery and gambling in general.  It has broken its promise citing a report by consultants which the Christie government has refused to make public.  If we have paid for this report, why can’t we see it?  This is the behavior of a dictator, not a democrat.

The message to the Bahamian people: Go to hell and drop dead.  Not only won’t we tell you what’s in the report.  We also don’t see a need to justify the limited nature of the question or why we changed our position.

In one of the most pathetic, insulting and dismissive statements ever made by a prime minister, Christie offered a litany of nonsense in his communication to the House on web shop gaming: “Firstly, I reiterate that my government and party will maintain a position of complete neutrality on the referendum question.  We will not campaign for or against either side to the question, nor will we offer any encouragement for either a yes vote or a no vote.  We are going to stay out of the fray and let the Bahamian people decide what they want without any cajoling or coaxing one way or the other.”

What utter hogwash!  How stunningly disingenuous!  By so narrowly defining what will be voted on and who may benefit, Christie’s PLP has dispensed with any pretense of neutrality.  And, then, he seeks to insult the intelligence of the Bahamian people by claiming neutrality.

There is the old joke of a wife looking through the keyhole of a hotel room, watching her husband and best friend disrobing and cooing at each other.  At the last minute before certain matters transpired, one of their undergarments is flung over the keyhole, so the wife never actually sees the deed done.  It is -- pun intended – a revealing story.

Christie’s non-transparent and pathetic statement continued: “I hasten to add, however, that not all existing web shops would be legalized.  Instead, it would only be those that are duly licensed in due course.”  Really?  Like whom, prime minister?  Anybody in particular, or might we take bets on who may be licensed?  Might you give us some examples?

Then there was this from the prime minister who is morphing from late-again to last minute: “The precise phraseology of the question that will be put to the electorate in the referendum will be announced well ahead of the referendum itself.”

Is this a joke?  Clearly, timeliness has never been one of Christie’s strengths.  Mere weeks before the referendum on a single question, and his administration can’t tell us the question.  And this from the party that criticized the FNM on process?

On the basis of process, and according to what the PLP self-servingly claimed at the last referendum, this question should be defeated.  The referendum has been rushed, the question is still not known mere weeks before the referendum, promised questions are left out, and there is insufficient time for well-organized and thorough forums for debate.

 

Obligation

More so, there is so much we don’t know in terms of the details of possible legislation, which the government has an obligation to address in greater detail before a referendum.  Christie and the PLP cannot be trusted on this front.

Christie also offered this false equivalence between how casinos and web shops should be taxed: “This would be in addition to the annual taxes that would be payable, based on the revenues of the licensed web shops, similar to the taxation structure that applies to casinos.”

He noted that the government expects between $15 million and $20 million in revenue from legalized numbers.  Yet, estimates from study of the industry by the Ministry of Finance prior to May 1, 2012, suggested in excess of $40 million annually.  Why have estimates seemingly been halved?

There are many other questions of public policy and social justice left unanswered by Christie, a number of which require urgent discussion prior to the referendum.  The debate has been joined by the general public, some churches and others, including the Democratic National Alliance, which released a clear position on the referendum.

Meanwhile and unfortunately, the opposition FNM has appeared bungling and inept.  Rashly and idiotically, Opposition Leader Dr. Hubert Minnis pledged to vote yes on a gambling referendum months ago, before a question to be put to the electorate has been framed and finalized.

One Lorraine Gibson defended Minnis’ statement as his personal view.  This is the kind of silly defense that might be made by a green pre-law student or a naïve political activist.  On questions of such moment and import it is best for any leader to make a statement on behalf of his party.

The FNM needs to get its act together and issue an intelligent, vigorous and consistent position on one of the most important issues before the Bahamian people during the current administration’s tenure.  The country cannot afford a feckless government and prime minister as well as a feckless opposition and leader of the opposition.

November 06, 2012

thenassauguardian

bahamapundit.com

frontporchguardian@gmail.com

The Democratic National Alliance (DNA) says:... ...Despite all the talk to the contrary by Prime Minister Perry Christie and his administration in the past few months... the recent announcement in the House of Assembly on the proposed “numbers” referendum is the clearest indication ...and saddest reminder to the Bahamian public yet ...that this administration is in the hands and pockets of the illegal numbers’ men... December 3, 2012 will be nothing more than payback day for services rendered

DNA Chairman Calls December 3^rd Referendum Christie Administration’s Attempt to “Payback” for Numbers’ Support

Despite all the talk to the contrary by Prime Minister Christie and his administration in the past few months, the recent announcement in the House of Assembly on the proposed “numbers” referendum is the clearest indication and saddest reminder to the Bahamian public yet that this administration is in the hands and pockets of the illegal numbers’ men. December 3^rd will be nothing more than payback day for services rendered.

To reasonably thinking Bahamians who are taking note of the vamped up public relations campaign now underway by Mr. Christie and the numbers’ businesses whose cause he seems to be championing, it is obvious that they are betting on the ignorance and desperation of poor, downtrodden black Bahamians to get their “snake oil” remedy for our pressing social ills made legal. It is the DNA’s hope that Bahamians will not buy what they are selling.

This administration gave the Bahamian people a “snake oil” sales job during the election campaign, and for what they have gotten thus far, Bahamians are now having buyer’s remorse. It would be a shame if they fall for the same old fool talk coming from this administration on this issue as well.

If the choice is ours and Bahamians are supposed to be considering the legalization of “gambling” in the country, a national lottery should also be put on the table next to these illegal numbers operations for consideration as well. It is ridiculous to think that the numbers racket can rake up money enough to be a financially successful operation here in the Bahamas but a national lottery cannot. If Bahamians were to fall for this, the DNA wonders what other kinds of crazy Houdini act and ponzi schemes they would be willing to have this Prime Minister and his administration run on them again.

If the government says it stands to make upwards of $20 million in taxes annually, then that would mean that the take home profits for these numbers businesses can potentially run somewhere in the vicinity of $200 to $350 million a year. How is $20 million more beneficial to social development than $200 million? And if these numbers’ businesses can generate those kinds of revenue, then why can’t the government with its own National Lottery for education, sports, and social programs? Why should the government have it hands out waiting for proceeds when it can make its own proceeds?

It does not make sense that the government should only be concerned with getting proceeds from taxes to take care of social programming when it could control all the proceeds by simply enacting a national lottery – if it is going to make chance gaming legal. Again, for the most part, it does not make sense, and the Bahamian people should demand their government take its time and make sense out of this seeming idiocy. 

This administration used taxpayers’ dollars to have their British consultants come here to tell us a national lottery will not work “at this time;” now Bahamian people should demand that the Prime Minister’s office release the whole report so that we can all see how this hired group arrived at their conclusion - because the math just does not add up. It is time that we not allow our choices to be limited based on someone else’s reporting, unless we are privy to the report and can verify it as such. So we are calling on the Prime Minister to make the report public.

In their times of hardship and woe, the Bahamian people are looking to their government to come up with real and lasting solutions to their social pains. They no longer want governments who use their bully pulpit to continually shove choices on them that have no meaningful impact on their lives and their upward mobility.

More importantly, they are growing wearisome of this administration as it continues attempting to make a mockery of the system, them, and their constitutional rights as citizens of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas. The DNA suggests that if this administration seriously cares about Bahamians it should demonstrate it by protecting their constitution right to free choice in their own country by offering them “free” choice.

If this Christie administration seeks to put to the Bahamian people any referendum on gambling that does not include a Bahamian’s right to gamble in the local casinos, any question that does not include a Bahamian National Lottery, as well as a question of whether they can own interest in chance gaming, then it continues to show its cowardice to do what is truly in the best interest of Bahamians. The DNA hopes that this second-chance Christie administration owns up and does bolster its reputation as a “sell-out/bought out” administration.

British physicist Stephen Hawking says that, as a people, “We are in danger of destroying ourselves by our greed and stupidity.” With each passing day leading to what has now gone from a proposed referendum on gambling to a referendum on legalizing the numbers business, we in the DNA hope that the Bahamian people will not become consumed – nor allow their government to have them become sufficiently consumed - by either greed or stupidity to prove Hawking’s theory correct. The future of a whole society is dependent on it.

We challenge Prime Minister Christie to reconsider his recent unashamed tactic to lead this cause for the legalization of the numbers business by playing on the nation’s emotional ignorance and fears of Bahamians. It not only comes across as unbecoming of a Prime Minister, but it also illuminates what most have come to fear - that this administration is indeed in bed with the persons who now run these illegal operations.
This administration can expect that, until such time as it puts to the Bahamian people a referendum that is reflective of real choice, it will continue to hear the DNA speak out and challenge them on this matter - right up to December 3^rd. 

Mark Humes
DNA Chairman

Tuesday November 06, 2012 - via e-mail

Caribbean Blog International

  

The Free National Movement (FNM) believes that Prime Minister Perry Christie is moving with uncharacteristic speed to push through a referendum ...followed by legislation to legalize the numbers business

PM Christie’s Rush on to Legalize the Numbers Business

What is the RUSH? Will haste make for more wasted lives?

Prime Minister Christie is moving with uncharacteristic speed to push through a referendum followed by legislation to legalize the numbers business.  The Free National Movement believes this is the wrong thing to do. We agree with others in the religious and civic communities that he needs to slow down and be a lot more thoughtful and deliberate.

The most recent community leader to echo this sentiment is Rev. Dr; Myles Munroe who has highlighted points that others have raised: the process is being rushed; there has been insufficient time for contemplation; it is unfair to ask people to make such a big decision with “very little information”; there is no reported (local) research on the impact gambling has had in Bahamian communities or on the likely long-term impact if the web-shop and similar gambling are legalized. These are all legitimate points that remand careful consideration.

The Prime Minister needs to slow down. There needs to be an opportunity for the Bahamian people to understand and appreciate all of the issues.  If the government truly has no “horse in the race”, then certainly there is no logical need to rush.

With back to school only just behind us, the Christmas holiday on the horizon and the repairs and replacements needed because of the devastation of ”Sandy”, it would be ill advised to ask people who may be at their most vulnerable to seriously consider any decision on gambling at this time.

It is obvious that a thorough and extensive report is needed as to the economic, psychological, cultural and moral impact that this activity has on our country today and potentially the future.

During its tour of Family Island communities impacted by Hurricane Sandy, the FNM was once again reminded of another storm that has been striking Family Island communities for several years; that of the proliferation of gambling houses.

In point of fact, community leaders have expressed alarm. Gambling has become so pervasive and socially damaging that these leaders report that more and more residents seem to lose the passion for work, in favour of staking theirs and their families’ futures on “winning big” in the gambling houses. The impact has been very real and very damaging to the social fabric in Family island communities.

This pattern has become so pervasive that one school principal advised the FNM that primary school children spend significant amounts of their time plotting out which numbers to buy and how to win. The principal describes the impact on young people as an epidemic.

It is imperative that a responsible government take the time to determine the extent to which these anecdotal stories are localized to only one or a few communities or whether this decay is the reality across the entire Bahamas.

Cart before the horse

The growing number of concerns from responsible leaders of the civic and religious communities and average Bahamians again raise the question of whether the Prime Minister’s approach is backwards. It seems clearer than ever, that the right approach is for the government to exhaustively study this matter then, following widespread consultation with all stakeholders, bring and act to parliament accompanied by the proposed referendum question or questions.  The legislative and consultation process will afford everyone an opportunity to study the reports of the Prime Minister’s so-called experts…before a decision is made. No other approach seems fair or reasonable…or responsible for that matter.

Financial priorities

The cost to provide financial aid to communities hit hard by Hurricane Sandy should also cause the government to eliminate the financial costs of a rushed and ill-conceived referendum.

November 1, 2012

fnm2012.org

Caribbean Blog International

Prime Minister Perry Christie says:... ...The government would ensure that gaming laws are enforced ...and that persons who break them are dealt with to the full extent of the law ...should Bahamians vote NO to the legalisation of web shop gaming in The Bahamas ...in the upcoming referendum - December 03, 2012

PM Says Money Could Be Funnelled Into Public Purse

By KHRISNA VIRGIL

Tribune Staff Reporter

kvirgil@tribunemedia.net

IF BAHAMIANS say “yes” to the legalisation of web shop gaming in the country, tax revenues ranging from $15 to $20 million a year could be funnelled into the public purse, Prime Minister Perry Christie announced yesterday.

In addition, web shop chiefs, Mr Christie said, could face up to $1 million in licensing fees coupled with a performance bond in a bid to award certification to a small number of licensees.

 

The Prime Minister made the statement in the House of Assembly shortly after announcing that Bahamians would turn out to the polls in one month to cast votes during the highly anticipated referendum.

 

Mr Christie said: “If licensed web shop gaming becomes a reality, it is anticipated that tax revenues would initially be at $15 to $20 million range per annum.

 

“I wish to make it clear that in the event that the referendum question passes, it would be the policy of my government to limit web shop licenses to a small number. This would also help ensure that the regulatory infrastructure of the Gaming Board, which I confirm would be the regulator of the licensed web shops is up to the task of adequately monitoring and regulating web shop operations.”

 

Mr Christie said the revenue would be earmarked for use in helping to fund educational scholarships, athletic, sporting, music and art developments.

 

A range of private and public community, health, infrastructure, recreational, and social outreach facilities and programmes are to be funded as well.

 

To qualify for a web shop gaming license, applicants would have to meet specific criteria which include experience, integrity and expertise along with a suitable financial footing. Organisational and internal controls to operate in a responsible and transparent manner are also required, the Prime Minister said.

 

“This would be in addition to the annual taxes that would be payable, based on the revenues of the licensed web shops, similar to the taxation structure that applies to casinos.

 

“Web shops would also be required to contribute to the cost of implementing the new laws and regulations for web shops.”

 

The legalising of this type of gaming would then force owners to fund, at their own expense, programmes to help protect gamers from addiction and to help in the treatment and rehabilitation of such persons.

 

Instituting measures approved by the Gaming Board, to ensure that only persons of the legal age are allowed to use web shop facilities is also required.

 

Anti-money laundering standards also would be altered to ensure that the Bahamas remains effective in its monitoring regulations, Mr Christie said.

 

The government would ensure that gaming laws are enforced and that persons who break them are dealt with to the full extent of the law should Bahamians vote no, The Prime Minister said.

November 02, 2012

Tribune242

Caribbean Blog International

Cholera in The Bahamas: ... ...it reminds us again that the shantytown problem in The Islands is a ticking time bomb

Shantytowns and cholera

thenassauguardian editorial

It was inevitable that there would be cases of cholera in The Bahamas.  There was an outbreak of the disease in Haiti in late 2010 that continues.  Thus far, there have been around 600,000 reported cases and 7,500 deaths in that country from the disease.

The Ministry of Health yesterday confirmed a case of cholera in The Bahamas.  A patient was evaluated at Princess Margaret Hospital on October 18 due to symptoms of vomiting and diarrhea.  Laboratory tests confirmed the disease on Monday and the person has since recovered, according to the ministry in a statement on the incident.

The Ministry of Health also said there are no other reported cases of cholera in The Bahamas.

“The Ministry of Health continues its heightened surveillance activities and other necessary precautions to identify cases and prevent the transmission of cholera in The Bahamas,” it said.

“The public is reminded to use clean water, wash hands regularly and otherwise maintain good hygienic practices to prevent cholera from developing and spreading.”

Cholera is a bacterial disease that causes dehydration and diarrhea.  It is mostly spread through the ingestion of contaminated food or water.  Water can be contaminated by the feces of an infected person or by untreated sewage.  Water containing cholera bacteria can contaminate food.  Food can also be contaminated if handled by a person sick with cholera.  Cholera can be deadly.

This confirmed case comes one year after a case of cholera was confirmed when a Haitian immigrant, who contracted the infection, entered the country on a sloop.  He was quickly treated and repatriated.

The Bahamas has a large Haitian population and many undocumented people who travel from Haiti to our country.  Because of the regular flow of people to The Bahamas from that country, there is a strong likelihood that troubles there would spill over to here.

What could make the situation dangerous for The Bahamas is that we have so many shantytowns across the country.  Dozens exist in New Providence.  Large ones exist in islands such as Abaco.  In these communities the conditions are often unsanitary with no indoor plumbing and the indiscriminate dumping of human waste in nearby bushes.

Many Bahamians and Haitians still use untreated groundwater – if this water supply is contaminated by cholera bacteria that would be disastrous in this small country.  We have been too permissive over the years with these illegal communities.  They have grown so large and are so many now that it is a political issue to remove them.

If our politicians want to keep them as they are, it is necessary for the government to ensure that sanitary conditions exists in these places so that a major public health crisis does not emerge.  These people cannot be allowed to live in any manner they choose because the issue of their presence is “too difficult” for our elected officials to handle.

A major cholera outbreak could lead to significant loss of life in The Bahamas and significant damage to our economy.  Who wants to visit a country where cholera is a major problem?

Of course, we are not there yet.  And we hope that this is just an isolated case.  But it reminds us again that the shantytown problem in The Bahamas is a ticking time bomb.  They should not be ignored.

Oct 31, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

Constitutional reform - pt. 10... ...The government should commission The College of the Bahamas and the Eugene Dupuch Law School to conduct a scientific study to determine the comparative deterrence between the death penalty and life imprisonment ...to inform public education and policy on the issue of the death penalty... ...

Constitutional reform, pt. 10

BY ALFRED SEARS

The Bahamas has executed by hanging 50 condemned persons from December 1929 to January 6, 2000, pursuant to the sentence of death pronounced by the Supreme Court of The Bahamas.  There is presently one condemned prisoner awaiting execution.  The murder rate is currently at 94 and climbing.  Therefore, the fear of violent crime has elicited a public cry for a solution to crime.  For some the resumption of hanging is the answer, in spite of the compelling evidence that capital punishment is not a deterrent to the rising rate of violent crime and the risk of wrongful convictions.

Professor Ann Spackman, in her book “Constitutional Development of the West Indies 1922-1968” (1975) at page 21, argues that one of the legacies of plantation slavery, colonialism and racial oppression in the Caribbean is the continuing  “emphasis on coercion and control” and the existence of harsh laws enforced in a punitive spirit during most of the historical experience of the Caribbean since 1492.   Lloyd Barnett, Q.C., in an essay entitled “The Present Position Regarding the Enforcement of Human Rights in the Commonwealth” in the West Indian Law Journal (November 1980), counters that the Commonwealth Caribbean, in addition to having legacies of slavery and colonialism, has also been the beneficiary of the common law which flowered into passionate self-determination and aspiring constitutionalism.

However, the challenge facing constitutional jurisprudence in the Caribbean is to move away from the English techniques of statutory interpretation, applicable to ordinary legislation, when interpreting the Constitution that requires a more flexible and purposive interpretation, informed by international human rights instruments and the evolving global standard of human rights, human decency and norm of respect.  The Privy Council, in A.G. of Gambia v. Jobe (1985), held that there should be a liberal and contextual construction of the Constitution to give effect to the intent and purpose of the Constitution.

The tension between the punitive application of the law and restorative justice approach is most vividly illustrated around the issue of the death penalty in The Bahamas.  Articles 16, 17 and 30 of the Bahamian Constitution provide:

16. (1) No person shall be deprived intentionally of his life save in execution of the sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offense of which he has been convicted.

(2) A person shall not be regarded as having been deprived of his life in contravention of this Article if he dies as a result of the use, to such extent and in such circumstances as are permitted by law, of such force as is reasonably justified...

17. (1) No person shall be subjected to torture to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

(2) Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of this Article to the extent that the law in question authorizes the infliction of any description of punishment that was lawful in the Bahama Islands immediately before 10th July 1973.

30. (1)... Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any written law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of any provision of Articles 16 to 27 (inclusive) of this Constitution to the extent that the law in question –

(a) is a law (in this Articles referred to as ‘an existing law’) that was enacted or made before 10th July 1973 and has continued to be part of the law of The Bahamas at all times since that day.

Saving clauses, such as contained in Article 17 (2) and the general saving clause contained in Article 30 (a), which were intended to be transitional until law reform removed existing laws inconsistent with the Constitution, are sometimes used to limit the enforcement of personal liberties granted by the Constitution.

Chief Justice Telford Georges, in an essay entitled “The Scope and Limitations of the State Machinery” in Human Rights and Development (1978) at page 45, argued, with respect to a similar clause in the Constitution of Trinidad & Tobago, that such clauses “... considerably limits the scope of the machinery of judicial review as a method of enforcement of the rights apparently enshrined in the Constitution.  The judicial view... is that the constitutions create no new rights.  They merely preserve existing rights.”

Article 30 (a) is construed as saving Section 312 of the Penal Code that pronounces that the death penalty is the punishment for murder as being compatible with and not in contravention of any of the fundament rights and freedoms contained in Articles 15 to 27.  Until 2011 the mandatory sentence of death by hanging was applied upon the conviction of murder and treason.

However, the Privy Council, informed by the evolving jurisprudence in Europe, has forced the Commonwealth Caribbean to conform to the evolving standard of human decency and human rights in the application of the death penalty.  In 1993 the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, in the case Pratt and Another v. Attorney General of Jamaica (1993), held that the execution of the death penalty after five years was unconscionable delay and would constitute a contravention of Article 17 (1) of the Constitution, except where the delay had been the fault of the accused.

This ruling resulted in scores of condemned prisoners in The Bahamas having their death sentences commuted to life imprisonment due to delay.  In 2000 the Privy Council, in Neville Lewis, overturned Reckley v. Minister of Public Safety and Immigration (1996) and held that (a) a condemned prisoner has a right to the secure protection of the law and to due process which would be denied if he were to be executed before the completion of a hearing before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights; (b) that a condemned prisoner who applied for mercy had a due process right to know what material had been placed before the Prerogative Committee on Mercy and be afforded the right to make representations and know the reasons for the decision of which the process is subject to judicial review; and (c) that the passage of time and their treatment in prison may constitute inhuman or degrading treatment.

In Henfield and Ricardo Farrington v. A.G. of The Bahamas, the Privy Council reduced the period by which The Bahamas must execute a condemned prisoner from five years to three and a half years due to an oversight that The Bahamas is a party to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.  The five-year rule was subsequently reinstated.  The Privy Council, in Forrester Bowe, Jr. and Trono Davis v. The Queen (2006), held that section 312 of the Penal Code Act that declares the mandatory sentence of death for the conviction of murder “should be construed as imposing a discretionary and not a mandatory sentence to death”.  Consequently, the mandatory sentences of death imposed on Forrester Bowe, Jr. and Trono Davis were quashed and the cases were remitted to the Supreme Court for consideration of appropriate sentences.

In light of the Privy Council’s ruling in Forrester Bowe, Jr., the Parliament of The Bahamas amended the Penal Code Act in 2011, by removing the mandatory sentence of death for the conviction murder and setting out the circumstances that will attract the death penalty of a person convicted for murder, such as the murder of a member of the police force, a prison officer, a member of the defence force, a judicial officer, a witness, a juror, the murder of a person during the course of a felony or the murder of more than one person.

Trends in thinking

The trend in judicial reasoning by the Privy Council, informed by the evolving standard of human rights and human decency, will eventually lead, in my opinion, to a judicial finding that the death penalty is contrary to human rights and human decency.  The reaction in The Bahamas and the wider Commonwealth Caribbean to this trend has been a desperate effort to retain the death penalty.  In this context, some advocates have proposed delinking The Bahamas from the Privy Council as the final appellate court for The Bahamas in favor of either the establishment of final appellate court in The Bahamas or by accepting the compulsory original jurisdiction of the Caribbean Court of Justice. The Bahamian society, on reflection, must determine whether the death penalty is a deterrent to crime or cold-blooded killing by the state, which brutalizes the offender and the society.  When the state kills does it lessen its offensiveness and elevate killing into principle?  If the justification is the principle of “an eye for an eye”, should we not also advocate that rape be undertaken by the state as a punishment for rape?

Chief Justice Gubbay of the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe, in the case Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace in Zimbabwe v. Attorney General and Others (1993), argued that retribution is not a sound rationale for the death penalty as follows: “Because retribution has no place in the scheme of civilized jurisprudence, one cannot turn a deaf ear to the plea made for the enforcement of constitutional rights.  Humaneness and dignity of the individual are the hallmarks of civilized laws.  Justice must be done dispassionately and in accordance with constitutional mandates.  The question is not whether this court condones the evils committed by the four condemned prisoners, for certainly it does not.  It is whether the acute mental suffering and brooding horror of being hanged which has haunted them in their condemned cells over the long lapse of time since the passing of sentence of death, is consistent with the guarantee against inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment.”

The European Court of Human Rights in the case Soering v. the United Kingdom (1989) abolished the death penalty in the European Union.  Similarly, South Africa, Australia, India, New Zealand, Namibia, The Gambia, for example, have also abolished the death penalty.  In the United States, 18 states have abolished the death penalty.

In The Bahamas, without an adequate public defender’s system, there is a significant risk that innocent persons may be wrongly convicted for murder, since most defendants in capital cases tend to be poor African-Bahamian men, sometimes with mental problems and background of abuse.  There needs to be a more disciplined focus on the causes of crime in The Bahamas and the comparative deterrence of the death penalty in relation to life imprisonment.

Recommendation

1. The government should commission The College of the Bahamas and the Eugene Dupuch Law School to conduct a scientific study to determine the comparative deterrence between the death penalty and life imprisonment to inform public education and policy on the issue of the death penalty.

2. The law reform commissioner should be directed to conduct a comprehensive review of all “existing laws” that may be saved under the “existing law provisions” of the Constitution and recommend amendments to ensure consistency of all laws with the Constitution.

• Alfred Sears is an attorney, a former member of Parliament and a former attorney general of The Bahamas.

Oct 25, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

Constitutional reform pt. 9: ... ...The current development strategy in The Bahamas, industrialization and modernization ...by inviting foreign direct investment by large multinational resorts and financial institutions, some of which employ thousands of Bahamian workers ...require a redefinition of trade unions in accordance with International Labor Organization (ILO) Conventions 87 and 98 ...in order to achieve a better balance of power between capital and labor in The Bahamas

Catholic Archbishop - His Grace The Most Rev Patrick Pinder on Web Shops, Illegal Gambling in The Bahamas, Decriminalising the Numbers Business for Bahamian Operators of Gaming Business and their Patrons ...and the Upcoming Referendum on Gambling

Catholic Church Wants Clear Web Shop Laws

By Tribune242



BAHAMIANS need to know exactly what happens in web shops if they are to make informed decisions in the upcoming referendum on gambling.

That’s the verdict of Catholic Archbishop Patrick Pinder, who says it is vital to know where the law now stands when it comes to web shops.

In his pastoral reflection ‘Illegal Gambling in The Bahamas’, he aims to further the national conversation on decriminalising the numbers business for Bahamian operators of gaming business and their patrons, and to present a reflection on the need to bring about a more beneficial relationship between the Church and the culture.

He says that to craft worthwhile responses to national challenges, the country must begin with an honest assessment of where it is.

To that end, the rules on web shops must be cleared up, he says.

He said: “How many Bahamians frequent these establishments to play games of chance? Who are they? How much do they spend per day, per week, per year? Is it disposable income, or does the spending contribute to domestic challenges in terms of stressing family relations or finances?

“Is it, or is it not, time to change the law in order to effectively regulate a behaviour which is illegal, lawless, long-standing and unregulated?

“This activity continues boldly and publicly without apparent regard and respect for or fear of the current law?

“What would be the nature of the proposed law intended to regulate the illegal lottery. Surely we deserve to be assured by public authority that the law will be enforced regardless of the outcome of the referendum,” he said.

Emphasising that games of chance, in themselves, do not constitute an evil, Archbishop Pinder said that the Catechism goes on to make it abundantly clear that games of chance however “can lead to evil.”

The Catechism, he said, also explains that such activities become morally unacceptable when they deprive someone of what is necessary to provide for his needs or for those of others.

A passion for gambling, therefore risks “becoming an enslavement.”

“The truth of the latter statement is clear when many Bahamians spend days sitting before computers in web shops, at work or at home for the slim chance of winning a fortune that will help them to rise above their troubles. That many of those who wager on games of chance are often single, unemployed mothers gives rise to further concern. Such activities are wrong for both women and men, if they play numbers to the neglect of their homes and families, their jobs, their personal and civic responsibilities. This is the real problem,” he said.

The Archbishop said that no matter how small someone’s income is, it is far better to “save regularly than to gamble regularly.”

“Gambling in excess has a great potential for generating intemperate behaviour and for many, addictions. It is from intemperance and addiction that many societal ills arise. Therein lies the real danger of permitting gaming that is an unregulated, free-for-all. It is our duty to take whatever measures lie in our power to help Bahamians avoid the potential and dangerous pitfalls of gaming or any activity that could lead to harm for the individual or society.”

Bahamians must be armed with the facts, said the Archbishop.

This, in his estimation, is the most productive course of action otherwise a referendum becomes an “empty exercise.”

“Armed with statistics, our decisions or commitments regarding gambling become more defensible. This is the kind of democratic action that accords well with a Christian perspective. After all, faith is the friend of reason,” he said.

October 23, 2012

Tribune 242 

Caribbean Blog International