Showing posts with label Bahamas House of Assembly. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bahamas House of Assembly. Show all posts

Friday, June 21, 2013

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




...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
 
 
 

Monday, March 21, 2005

Sidney Stubbs, Holy Cross Member of Parliament Has Four Days To Resolve Bankruptcy Matter

Friday is a holiday, leaving Sidney Stubbs just four working days to settle his bankruptcy matter



Stubbs Has Five Days To Resolve Bankruptcy Matter

 

 

By Candia Dames

Nassau, The Bahamas

March 21, 2005

 

 

Holy Cross Member of Parliament Sidney Stubbs has reportedly started paying costs associated with his defeat in the Court of Appeal against his bankruptcy order issued by Supreme Court Justice Jeanne Thompson last year.


Mr. Stubbs is approaching the first anniversary since he was declared a bankrupt.  Meanwhile it will be one year since he took up his seat in the House of Assembly.


Wayne Munroe, who represents Mr. Stubbs’s former creditor, Gina Gonzalez, has confirmed that his team will be seeking payment from Mr. Stubbs as a result of the case arising out of the Supreme Court.


Meanwhile, the Holy Cross Member of Parliament also faces an end to the deadline of March 25 granted to him after the House of Assembly approved a resolution for him to appeal the bankruptcy matter.


Mr. Munroe said on Sunday that he was not aware whether a court date had been set for the matter to return to court.


Back in January, Chief Justice Sir Burton Hall determined that under the Bankruptcy Act, Mr. Stubbs first had to settle debts with existing creditors before the order can be annulled, and that a settlement of debt with the creditor who brought the original action was not enough for an annulment.


Mr. Stubbs has argued that he has paid his debt to Ms. Gonzalez, which ought to have been enough to clear him.


If the matter is not settled before this Friday, the government would have to make a determination as to whether it would bring another resolution seeking more time for the Holy Cross MP.


It is something government officials have been trying to avoid, given the controversy the first resolution caused in the House of Assembly in September.


While some of Mr. Stubbs’s parliamentary colleagues appear confident that he would soon be able to put the matter behind him, they had been hoping that it would have been settled before the end of the six-month extension.


But that is appearing more unlikely as Friday is a holiday, leaving Mr. Stubbs just four working days to bring the matter to a close.


Government Leader in the House of Assembly Vincent Peet told The Bahama Journal last week that officials remained hopeful that there would be no need for another resolution, and indicated that that decision could not be made as long as there was still time remaining on the extension.


Some observers have pointed out that the resolution past last year is in fact ineffective given that Mr. Stubbs is not presently engaged in the process of pursuing an appeal.


A source close to Mr. Stubbs’s case claimed that ever since leaving court in January, he has been working hard to address the matter of outstanding creditors and attempting to pay off his debts.

Wednesday, September 22, 2004

Sidney Stubbs, Embattled Holy Cross MP - Bankruptcy Trial Adjourned

Sidney Stubbs was forced to go back to the Supreme Court after the Court of Appeal rejected his appeal in July on the grounds that it had no jurisdiction to hear his bankruptcy appeal


PLP Member of Parliament - Sidney Stubbs’ Bankruptcy Matter Adjourned Again

 

 

By Candia Dames

Nassau, The Bahamas

September 22, 2004

 

 

  

Supreme Court Judge Jeannie Thompson on Wednesday adjourned the Sidney Stubbs bankruptcy matter to November 9, after the Holy Cross MP’s attorneys indicated that they had aborted the line of argument originally planned.


The amendment to their summons resulted in the judge putting off the matter once again.


Mr. Stubbs was forced to go back to the Supreme Court after the Court of Appeal rejected his appeal in July on the grounds that it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.


Attorney Wayne Munroe, who represents Mr. Stubbs’ creditor, Gina Gonzalez, explained that the matter of whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear the case still has to be clarified.


Members of Mr. Stubbs’ legal team had originally given notice that they intended to argue for the reversal of the bankruptcy order under Section 18 of the Bankruptcy Act, which outlines the circumstances under which a reversal of a bankruptcy order may be made.


But on Tuesday, they changed the summons, giving notice that they intend to argue that the court has an inherent jurisdiction to hear the case.  They plan to assert essentially that there is no Act or rule under which this jurisdiction is specified.


As mentioned, because of the change, the parties have been given more time to prepare their arguments.


Mr. Stubbs has actually hired new attorneys, led by Thomas Evans.  The MP still has as part of his legal team - his parliamentary colleague, attorney Keod Smith, but Charles Mackay is no longer representing him.


Mr. Munroe had indicated during a recent appearance before Justice Thompson that an issue had arisen over whether Mr. Smith, who is also the MP for Mount Moriah, is in contempt of court for comments he made to the press in relation to this matter.


But that issue reportedly did not come up when the parties met in chambers Wednesday.


After coming out of the court, Mr. Smith told reporters, “The issue of jurisdiction will be discussed.  It will be argued before the judge on the 9th and at that point, the judge will determine whether in fact she has jurisdiction to hear an application from Mr. Stubbs who was adjudicated a bankrupt.”


Mr. Stubbs’ attorneys assert that he can under law bring the case back to court.  But Mr. Munroe argues that only the Registrar of the Supreme Court, who has been appointed trustee in bankruptcy, can move the court to reverse the decision against Mr. Stubbs.


As already reported by the Journal, Mr. Stubbs’ legal woes began on November 28, 1996 when a Supreme Court action was filed requiring him to pay a $55,000 debt with interest to Ms. Gonzalez.


As Mr. Stubbs was preparing to head back to court, notice was being given in the House of Assembly Wednesday that the government intends to bring a resolution seeking to extend the time for him to clear up the bankruptcy matter.


But FNM officials have indicated that they would stage a demonstration in front of the House of Assembly against such a plan.


They pointed out that the Constitution only provides an extension if an MP has avenues for an appeal.  They claim Mr. Stubbs has none.


One PLP official told the Bahama Journal that Mr. Stubbs also plans to appeal before the Privy Council if he is unsuccessful in local courts.


At stake is his seat in the House of Assembly.  He has been absent from the House for the past six months, after Justice Thompson declared him a bankrupt on March 30.


Another six-month extension from the House of Assembly, as is being pushed by the government, could mean his seat on the backbench could be vacant for up to a year.

Tuesday, June 22, 2004

Weary Perry Christie, Prime Minister of The Bahamas - Resolves to Change The Rules of The House of Assembly to do away with Unconscionably Long Debating

Weary Bahamian Members of Parliament (MPs) vowed that such grueling and tedious debates would never happen again... De ja vu


Weary Prime Minister Vows To Change House Rules


candiadames@hotmail.com

Nassau, The Bahamas

22/06/2004


On a Saturday morning in June last year, Members of Parliament dragged themselves out of the House of Assembly as the sun rose over the city of Nassau.


They were noticeably weary, many of them red-eyed.  Minutes earlier, others could not even manage to keep their heads from hitting their tables after meeting almost non-stop since the Friday morning before.


It was then that they vowed that such grueling, tedious debates would never happen again.


It did.


The promised new House rules were reportedly drafted in some form, but were never tabled.


As a result, this year was another year of unconscionably long debating.


It was clear that while House members for instance sat through part of the debate that stretched into the wee hours of Friday morning, few of them were alert enough to follow intently what was being said.


As Mount Moriah MP Keod Smith spoke up until the two o’clock hour last Friday morning, some colleagues downstairs prayed aloud that his contribution would come to a quick end.


Many of them, including the prime minister, were noticeably drained after listening to the former prime minister for more than five hours.  Even backbenchers had spoken for two to three hours.


Outside the chamber, many members grumbled, “We cannot allow this to happen again.”


De ja vu?


It was pretty much what they had said last year after another marathon debate.


When Prime Minister Perry Christie presented his budget communication to parliament on May 26, he saw it as a departure from tradition.


“My objective, in seeking greater brevity and conciseness, is to facilitate the widest possible understanding and reception for the main issues in the budget,” Mr. Christie said at the time.


His communication lasted 90 minutes – a real record breaker.  It was termed the shortest communication in a post-Independence Bahamas.


But few members of the House followed his lead.


“It doesn’t happen anywhere else like this,” an exhausted prime minister told the Journal last Friday night.


He admitted that he was wiped out and needed to get some rest.


“We have been promising to put rules in the House where the speeches will be severely curtailed,” Mr. Christie added.  “I tried to set the pace by having a departure from the normal budget communication, by dropping it down to a 90-minute communication and really with the intension to making it shorter, succinct, to the point.


“But members decided that they would want to present every detail of the function and operation of their ministry.  It is not followed sufficiently by the Bahamian public because the attention spans are really not that long.  We don’t get the kind of publicity and public relations from it as members of parliament that we ought to if we had a more contained debate.”


Mr. Christie predicted that long debates are a tradition, which has finally come to an end.


“You would find that we will move with the new rules and speakers will have to conform to a different process of dealing with debates generally and most certainly the budget debate,” he said.


Only time will tell if another year passes without new rules becoming a reality.