The agony of abused Bahamian women in The Bahamas and Leslie Miller's domestic violence revelations

My daughter’s lesson on domestic violence

Every morning, on the way to school, my eldest daughter’s job is to read the newspaper’s headlines or top stories to me as I drive.

She always waits for my reaction to the news before moving to the next story. So it was when Leslie Miller made headlines with his offensive, tasteless and very harmful story told as a joke on the floor of Parliament. The first day my reaction was a “suck teet”. She did not react and we moved on to other news stories.

As the matter captured headlines for many days, I noticed that she continued to watch for my reaction. Still, and notwithstanding the anger boiling up in me, I made no comment.

By the time we got to the newspaper headline about the $1,000 check donation Miller presented to and which was refused by the Crisis Centre, I had reached my limit and made my displeasure known with a few choice words. I told her that Leslie Miller was a poor example of a member of Parliament. I told her that his behavior in telling the story about abusing a woman was wrong, demeaning to women and inexcusable.

Then came the million-dollar question: “Mummy why are you so angry if he said sorry?”

I had to determine how I was going to explain to an eight-year-old that when someone does something so bad, such as bragging about committing acts of domestic violence, “sorry” simply doesn’t cut it.

I wondered how best to impart that fact to her. I told her that unfortunately some women somewhere in our country are abused every day by their boyfriends and or husbands. I told her that often their abusers say “sorry” but then abuse them again. Sometimes, I told her abusers come home with flowers and candy or with gifts of jewelry or cloths. Many mouth poetic apologies and give promises to never again commit those disgraceful acts of aggression and hurt. And I told her that sometimes, in those terrible circumstances, sorry is not enough; gifts don’t mean anything and women must learn to protect themselves. I explained to her that in life she would learn that not every apology was genuine and that every apology did not have to be accepted.

As most trusting children do, she accepted what her mother told her and moved on.

I, on the other hand, began to really think about the lesson I was teaching her. As a mother, was I teaching my daughter that domestic violence is a joking matter? Was my original silence on this important issue tacit consent? Was I silently condoning what was most likely one of the more despicable commentaries ever uttered in the House of Assembly, where supposed honorable men and women gather to represent the interests of all Bahamians at the highest level in our society?

At that moment I determined, rightly or wrongly, that I would wait until I spoke in the Senate to express my disappointment in the member of Parliament for Tall Pines and to express my support for the great work being done by the Crisis Centre, and organizations like “Holla Back”, which seek to raise our consciences about the problem of abused women in The Bahamas, helping to create safe spaces for those persons escaping abuse.

I did not want any statement made by me to be interpreted as scoring political points and so I intended to reserve comment for the upper chamber. Unfortunately, the opportunity to discuss this very important matter in the Senate has not presented itself and I feel compelled to make my views on this subject public.

The messages we send

I believe that we have to be very careful about the messages we send to our young people by what we say and what we do in our lives.

We cannot tell them that abuse is a joking matter whether it is abuse of a woman by a man, of a child whether male or female by a woman or a man; indeed, abuse of one man by another man is not acceptable.

We cannot, and must not, tell the next generation that it is acceptable to brag about or to joke about or make light about beating down another human being, much less accept our men telling tales and joking about abusing a woman.

Such acts of abuse cannot go without a strong, strict rebuke.

I did not speak up right away. For that I apologize to my children and to every woman, man or child who has suffered abuse in our Bahamas.

Shamefully, others seated in both chambers of our Parliament also failed to speak up including our prime minister, the leader of our country and the leader of Miller’s political party.

As a young Bahamian woman, I thought it was important that we hear from Prime Minister Perry Christie on this matter. I thought this was especially important since he, when given the opportunity in 2002 to stand up for equality for women, voted first in support of constitutional amendments meant to remove the last forms of official discrimination against women from our constitution, but then came out of the House of Assembly and spearheaded the Vote No campaign to kill the amendment.

After successfully derailing the first opportunity for women to attain equality under our independent constitution in 2002, Christie promised that if elected to office he would bring back the same constitutional referendum concerning equality for women. He won an election in 2002 but that constitutional referendum never came back and Bahamian women continue to be discriminated against in our constitution.

Since returning to office again in 2012, Christie’s government has not found it convenient to bring the constitutional referendum to remove gender discrimination from our constitution.

Recently, Christie’s government made much ado about the 50th anniversary of the Bahamas’ women’s suffrage movement. At that time, he again promised to bring forward a constitutional referendum on women's rights; the same promise he made over 12 years ago.

We continue to wait; while the government finds the time for a referendum on numbers and gambling; while legislation is drafted and redrafted to accommodate stem cell research, always taking care of “da boys” out in front while Bahamian women continue to wait.

While I cry shame on the prime minister on his deafening silence on this critically important issue for women in our country, I express even more surprise that the usually vociferous (I would even dare say pit bull like) women of the PLP appear to have allowed the bite of a self-styled “political potcake” to get the better of them.

Shamefully these PLP women called a press conference to condemn and ridicule the member of Parliament for Long Island, Loretta Butler-Turner, for her stand against the abuse of women and the actions of Miller in trivializing this terrible issue that traumatizes far too many women in our country.

In fact, at that press conference the PLP female spokespersons said that no woman in public life who is a mother should be making those political statements. Well I say that no woman in public life should remain silent while a male MP brags and jokes about domestic violence, others squawk and cackle and others just remain silent.

Standing up for women

I want to teach my daughters a few valuable lessons about respect for the dignity of all human beings.

I call upon the leaders of this nation to help me to teach this lesson, not only to my children but to all the children of our country. Sometimes “sorry” is just not enough. Sometimes a monetary gift cannot erase the damage.

I call on the PM, my own leader, Dr. Hubert Minnis, and all public figures on all sides of the political divide, please stand up for women. Let us demonstrate that we can still be a country with moral and ethical standards.

Prime minister, your government has not been a bastion of hope for women’s issues. So many promises that were especially targeted to win you support of Bahamian women at the polls in 2012 have thus far proven to be little more than electioneering.

I ask that you not fail Bahamian women on this issue of standing up against abuse. Say something. Let us hear from you – loudly and repeatedly. Do something that will encourage the thousands of women – wives, mothers, daughters, sisters and girlfriends – who have either been abused or who have a tender loved one who has or is presently suffering abuse. Assure Bahamian women that you really do care, that you do not condone or excuse abusive behavior – verbal or physical from any person on your team.

Let us all stand up and support human dignity and respect for one another.

The time for this is now.

• Heather Hunt is an attorney and senator.

April 02, 2014

thenassauguardian.com

Bahamian women have not sat by silently in the wake of the suffrage movement by any means ...but today’s calling is for more organisation, more mobilisation, and more united action... ...And importantly, there is a need to bridge the generational gap, to harness the wisdom of elders and the energy of youth... ...Today’s calling is for a movement that will inspire new generations of women to continue the good fight

Voices Of Women Must Be Heard

By NOELLE NICOLLS

Tribune Features Editor

nnicolls@tribunemedia.net

DURING the most recent general election in the United States of America, I came across an interesting online flyer captioned “The Republican Party Rape Advisory Chart”. It listed a set of talking points on the seven types of rape in the minds of a “Republican rape apologists.”

The “Gift-From-God Rape” was aptly described by Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock: “When life begins with that horrible situation of rape that is something that God intended to happen.” “Legitimate Rape” was described by Republican Congressman and Senate candidate Todd Akin: “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

Republican Congressman Ron Paul expounded on the category of “Honest Rape”: “If it’s an honest rape that individual should go immediately to the emergency room; I would give them a shot of estrogen.” Republican Senate candidate Linda McMahon was the spokesperson on “Emergency Rape”: “It was really an issue about a Catholic church being forced to offer those pills if the person came in an emergency rape.”

The “Easy Rape” was described by Republican State Representative Roger Rivard, who said: “If you go down that road, some girls, they rape so easy.” Republican legislators sought to have “Forcible Rape” clearly defined in law under the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act”, which would prohibit federal funding of abortions except in instances of “an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest’.”

Republican Gubernatorial candidate Clayton Williams is cited as the “father of Republican rape apologists” for his championing of the concept “Enjoyable Rape”. During his Gubernatorial campaign he publicly made a joke likening rape to bad weather, claiming that: “If it’s inevitable, just relax and enjoy it.”

The results of the US election were widely panned as a rejection by women of the Republican platform on women. Calls have been loud and furious for Republican men to shut up about rape “forever”.

Liberal comedian and political satirist Bill Maher called Republicans “vaginaphobes” on his late night HBO series, asking the question: “For Republicans to do well in the future, they need the woman vote: Women out vote men by 10 million. Okay. Don’t the Republican men, even if they have these views, in the future, have to shut up?”

The answer from Democratic commentator James Carville invoked Southern culture: “You know, in order to get that boy’s attention, you got to hit him upside the head with a two by four. Well the sound you heard on election night was pine on skull.”

What has become increasingly clear in US politics is that women have power at the polls: not because of the demographic distribution that sees more women voting than men; because of their capacity to organise and vote for their own self interests, exerting their influence at the polls.

In the Bahamas, we are not so fortunate. For all of our efforts over the years, which have led to much advancement for women, today there is no women’s movement to speak of; we have many women voters, but no collective women’s agenda.

Speaking at a panel discussion held last week by the Bureau of Women’s Affairs in celebration of National Women’s Month, “Women in Leadership: the Untold Story”, women’s rights activist and gender specialist Audrey Roberts described a movement as a sustained effort of mobilising and organising around a set of issues that represent the collective voices of women, opposed to a series of disjointed single actions that respond to issues that arise.

The best model we have in the Bahamas of a women’s movement was the women’s suffrage movement. While much has been achieved since the 1960s – thanks in large part to the contributions of Bahamian women who became political leaders – it is questionable whether or not the movement has been sustained.

“We are at that time again when there is a need for a women’s movement,” said Mrs Roberts, speaking to the burgeoning call from the spirits of Bahamian women for power and agency in the exercise of their collective will. I agree wholeheartedly.

The recent discussion of marital rape revealed so much about where we are as women, and the patriarchal strong hold that still grips our society. It is very much relevant to the patriarchal psychology that runs so deep in the Republican Party, as described above.

In the Bahamas, the Republican Party is represented by fundamentalist factions of the Christian church, the most aggressive force working against the advancement of women in Bahamian society. Along with partisan politics, but even more harmfully so, is what Professor Olivia Saunders described at the panel discussion as the “religiousising” of women’s issues in the Bahamas.

Referencing the way in which partisan politics results in the politicisation of issues, Mrs Saunders invented the term religiousising to speak to the way in which religious dogma and religious doctrine is continuously used to undermine arguments for the advancement of women.

Mrs Saunders posed the point as a question to Rev Carla Culmer, Rector at Wesley Methodist Church, who was a speaker on the panel. I was very interested to hear a female church leader speak to the point; however, Rev Culmer opted for a conservative answer, encouraging women to ask their 
predominantly male pastors to speak from the pulpit about issues that are important to them. She also called for more education and mentoring, which would result in the empowerment of women.

Perhaps in more private forums, at first, it is important for women of the cloth to start speaking directly to the point. The rise of the feminine in church leadership must be accompanied by the rise of the female point of view. Women in ministry must play an important role in the women’s movement, and they must become vocal advocates of women and women’s rights in public spaces. They must contest the dogmatic views spouted by their fellow clergymen or church followers when those views are spoken in the interests of patriarchy and not righteousness.

Rev Culmer has had an interesting journey in the Methodist Church. In all of her leadership capacities, her appointment was a first for women in the church. And even as Rev Culmer continues to rise through the ranks of church ministry, the battle continues, as there are traditions in which people “expect the pastor to be a man.”

The view that men are ministers and women are wives is so entrenched in the church, for one of her parishioners it took him 11 years to come to church to listen to her preach, she said. The position of wife is a standard fixture in many churches with duly assigned responsibilities.

In Rev Culmer, the church was confronted with the image of a single woman, who in the context of religious patriarchy could never been seen as a minister of religion with the moral authority to be a spiritual advisor. The church is slowly moving along a progressive learning curve, but the journey remains long. After all the Anglican church recently voted against appointing female bishops.

“As a woman, you have to prove that you have a right to be there,” said Rev Culmer, speaking of the struggle.

She has had instances of officiating events in which the letter “a” from her first name Carla was dropped off her name by someone assuming they had received mistaken information. The senior pastor after all would surely be named Carl and not Carla.

Rev Culmer’s story is an important one to share and so are the stories of countless women who continue to battle against patriarchy and sexism in their respective spheres of influence, two central pillars standing in the way of gender equality and equity.

The sad reality is that women are not sufficiently creating their own platforms and using existing platforms to tell their stories; to let their voices be heard and to stand and be counted in a united front. Our stories are hidden under bushels and our voices are muted by our own private retreat.

To excuse themselves from having participated in the public debate about marital rape, politicians often say, the government never brought a bill to Parliament. Seeing Parliament as their primary platform, politicians use the opportunity to debate bills to speak to national issues, and when no bill is brought to the floor they hide behind that cover. And even when they do speak on the floor, much of what they say gets lost in the partisan hackery. Outside of Parliament, politicians can take advantage of existing platforms and create their own platforms, as can all Bahamians.

Women’s activist Michelle Miller spoke at the forum and lamented the fact that every time she turns on the radio she hears men talking; every time she turns on the television she sees male talking heads. “Women are not speaking and presenting our agenda to the public on a regular basis,” said Ms Miller.

“Where is the platform? We need to create a platform, a consistent platform that allows us to use the power of influence,” she said.

As far as engendering a movement is concerned, Ms Miller suggested that a critical need exists for women to create and utilise public platforms. She said young people model the behaviour of their elders, and young women need to see female leaders making representation on their behalf in public; they need to see the fire in the bellies of their female leaders to spark their own spirits.

I completely understand the sentiment. Such was my only real disappointment about the ceremony held last week in the House of Assembly to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the women’s suffrage movement; our political leaders said the expected things, praising the legacy of the suffragettes and calling women to work together, but I did not see the fire in the bellies of our female parliamentarians.

I was hoping for a presentation from at least one of our political leaders to match the stature of the presentation delivered by Dame Dr Doris Johnson in 1959 on behalf of the women’s suffrage movement. In her delivery, PLP Senator Cheryl Bazard reminded me the most of what I imagine Dr Johnson to have been like, but all of the speeches lacked a certain audacity.

The event was truly commendable and inspiring nonetheless, based on the strength of the 1959 speech, which still holds such relevance today. It was a moving display of bipartisanship in ancestral remembrance. My critique is not to take away from that fact. The entire presentation was laudable.

But if there was one thing missing, it was the bold articulation of a 21st century agenda that could really light a fire in the consciousness of Bahamian women. The love fest we witnessed amongst the various government and the opposition members around the constitutional issue, which was the subject of the 2002 referendum, was welcomed. Bipartisanship on this issue is long overdue, but the current efforts are redeeming efforts on the part of the government and opposition.

The emphatic statements made by Dr Johnson in 1959, asserting the invincibility of womanhood, seem farfetched in the climate of conservatism that exists today, but that kind of leadership is exactly what is needed today, not only by our political leaders, but all of our women in leadership positions.

The achievements of the women’s movement over the past fifty years seem to have put women in the Bahamas into a comfortable stupor, which is so unfortunate because our work is not done.

“Today, invincible womanhood, mother of men and ruler of the world raises her noble head and approaches the courts of justice with the clarion call of equal rights for all Bahamian women… We women press this demand and ask such enactment on the basis of not who is right, but what is right for our country. We judge expediency only on this basis. We seek no compromise. There is no alternative. We abhor any delaying action. We women ask only that you gentlemen move now to secure the rights of 54,000 women, including your wives and daughters.”

The audacity of these words spoken from the mouth of Dr Johnson on behalf of the women’s suffrage movement in 1959 is truly moving. I admire the fact that Janet Bostwick, the first woman to be elected to the House of Assembly, had the privilege of sitting in the magistrate’s court when they were actually delivered. I am grateful that I was present last week when they were read again by the women of the House and Senate in a joint sitting of Parliament.

While the suffragettes were galvanised around the issue of enfranchisement at the ballot box, they were also clear on the wider women’s agenda. In fact, they asserted there are issues which specifically require the “insight and interest of women to investigate, report on and seek improvement”; they suggested men were not naturally interested in these issues. I wonder to what extent women still hold this view.

“We women wish to serve our country and assist your efforts in attending to such projects as housing schemes, slum clearance, establishment of libraries and museums, local welfare services, supervision of food and drug supplies and the establishment of reasonable and respectable lodgings for temporary visitors from our Out Islands,” said Dr Johnson in the landmark speech.

“Education in the processing and operation of school medical services and milk distribution, care of our many weed-covered cemeteries, registration of births, deaths and marriages, proper filing system of registration of voters, suppression of nuisances, maternity and child welfare, birth control information centres, jury service, notification and disinfection of infectious diseases, care of the aged, etc, are only a few of the areas to which women can make their contributions. This is a task so large that it takes the energies of everybody, men and women, to better conditions in our islands,” she said.

The suffragettes were clear about their agenda and specific in their demands. They were persistent in their pursuit, organised in their action and united in their efforts. They affirmed the value in their very womanhood and demonstrated their worth through action.

Bahamian women have not sat by silently in the wake of the suffrage movement by any means, but today’s calling is for more organisation, more mobilisation, and more united action. And importantly, there is a need to bridge the generational gap, to harness the wisdom of elders and the energy of youth. Today’s calling is for a movement that will inspire new generations of women to continue the good fight.

December 03, 2012

Tribune242 

Caribbean Blog International

...the theme of this year’s Independence Celebrations is - “The Bahamas: United in Love and Service” ...with emphasis to be placed on the struggles and achievements of the Bahamian woman on the 50th anniversary of the women’s suffrage movement

Celebrating independence and the Bahamian woman

By Arinthia S. Komolafe

This year The Bahamas will mark its 39th anniversary of independence.  There is no doubt that we as a people have made notable progress socially, economically, politically and culturally since July 10, 1973.

The annual Independence Celebrations Committee recently announced the theme of this year’s celebration as “The Bahamas: United in Love and Service” with emphasis to be placed on the struggles and achievements of the Bahamian woman on the 50th anniversary of the women’s suffrage movement.

The accomplishments of the Bahamian woman over the years are undeniable and significant to say the least.  Bahamian women have made and continue to make their mark in every sphere of society with recorded success in education, politics, religion, the corporate world, law enforcement, media and civic society.  However, the Bahamian woman remains a recipient of discrimination and inequality — some of which are enshrined in the supreme law of our land.

The women’s suffrage movement

Women’s suffrage refers simply to the right of women to vote and run for office.  It was a movement that embodied the struggle by women to gain the same rights as their male counterparts, particularly in politics.  It is fair to say that with a few exceptions, women around the world today have the same voting rights as men.  This no doubt constitutes considerable progress from the colonial days when voting was limited to adult males who owned property.  The flawed rationale at that time seemed to be that property owners had the strongest interest in good government and therefore were best qualified to make decisions.

A brief review of history will show that changing social conditions and the idea of equality in the early nineteenth century led to the beginning of the suffrage movement.  This period was characterized by more educated women and increased participation of women in reform movements and politics.  It was therefore only a matter of time before individuals (referred to as suffragists) began to question why women were not allowed to vote and led the drive to advance the cause for a woman’s right to vote.

The Bahamian struggle

The first petition for women’s suffrage in The Bahamas was presented in 1952 by the Great Improved, Benevolent, and Protective Order of Elks of the World under the leadership Mary Ingraham, who also served as the leader of the Bahamian women’s suffrage movement.  The Elks was an organization that possessed a membership of thousands of women throughout The Bahamas at that time and enjoyed considerable support for its cause.  The records show that during this period, even though women represented more than one half of the total Bahamian population, they were disenfranchised.

After multiple failed petitions in 1958 and 1959, victory finally came on January 10, 1960.  The governor at the time assented to an act to enable women to register and vote on July 31, 1961.  However, the act never came into force until 1962 and during the general election held in November, 1962, women voted for the first time in Bahamian history.

Discrimination against the Bahamian woman

Arguably women’s suffrage and consequently universal suffrage acted as springboards among other events to the attainment of majority rule in 1967 and independence from Great Britain in 1973.  The Bahamas Independence Order was made on June 20, 1973, laid before Parliament on June 26, 1973 and came into force on July 10, 1973.  While the document is hailed as being one of the best written constitutions, there are a few articles within the constitution that clearly discriminate against Bahamian women.

On September 18, 1979, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which is sometimes referred to as the International Bill of Rights for women.  The convention, which came into force in 1981, describes the discrimination against women as, “Any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field”.

The Bahamas ratified this convention on October 6, 1993, joining 186 other countries that have done so.  In ratifying the CEDAW, The Bahamas made an expressed undertaking to end discrimination against women in all forms.  However, The Bahamas has maintained reservations to three of the 30 articles of the CEDAW, and specifically Article 2(a) which embodies the principle of equality of men and women in their national constitutions or other appropriate legislation and Article 9(2) which states that women shall be granted equal rights with men with respect to the nationality of their children.

Addressing the discrepancies

The referendum held by the Free National Movement government on February 27, 2002 sought among other things to rectify the discrepancies regarding gender discrimination within the constitution.  However, more than two-thirds, or 66 percent, of some 87,961 persons voted against the proposed constitutional amendments.

On December 23, 2002, the less than one-year-old Progressive Liberal Party government led by Perry G. Christie appointed a constitutional review commission headed by Paul Adderley to propose recommendations for the amendment of the constitution.

In its preliminary report and provisional recommendations, the commission accepted the proposal to eliminate discrimination against women regarding the passage of citizenship to their children. The committee, however, expressed reservations regarding the granting of citizenship instantaneously upon marriage to non-Bahamian nationals who married Bahamians and recommended a period of five years before such grant regardless of gender.

The Christie administration from 2002 to 2007 further committed to holding a referendum on the aforesaid matters; however, 20 years later, the findings and recommendations of the committee have not been discussed or brought to a referendum.  Hence, the status quo which perpetuates discrimination against the Bahamian woman remains to date.

Celebrating the Bahamian woman

The current administration has not articulated its plans in relation to the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women in The Bahamas.  Addressing this half a century status quo will pave the way for the withdrawal of reservations to Articles 2(a) and 9(2) of CEDAW.

True celebration and appreciation of the Bahamian woman is ensuring gender equality in The Bahamas and removing any elements that make her feel like a second-class citizen and/or inferior to her male counterpart.

The women’s suffrage movement in The Bahamas formed a part of the progressive era.  Our ancestors saw the need to be progressive minded to their benefit, but more importantly for the benefit of generations to come.

While we note the progress made in our country regarding women, there is much ground to be covered.  Meanwhile the African proverb states that “if we stand tall it is because we stand on the shoulders of many ancestors”.  Today we praise the efforts of those who have gone before us; women who fought for what they believed in.

• Arinthia S. Komolafe is an attorney-at-law.  Comments can be directed at: commentary@komolafelaw.com

Jul 05, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

Those who refuse to exercise their right to vote for cavalier and unreflective reasons, do a disservice to the witness of Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi, Bahamian men and women freedom fighters, and protestors around the world today for whom the right to vote is a democratic gift not to be taken lightly nor for granted

The right and duty to vote

Front Porch

By Simon

Those Bahamians who take for granted our democracy and their right to vote with smug or shallow excuses for not registering or voting, might wish to read the cover story of the December 26 edition of Time Magazine announcing its 2011 “Person of the Year”.

Instead of a single person, Time selected “The Protestor” in tribute to protestors around the world, and especially across North Africa and the Middle East who are forcing democratic change, including the right to vote.

What has been termed the Arab Spring is unfolding in different ways from the Maghreb to the Levant, perhaps even stirring protests for fairer elections in Russia.  Still, no matter the country, protestors are bound by the shared goals of political enfranchisement and greater economic empowerment.

The choice of The Protestor has a double-significance: It links collective action with individual choice, which is the ideal of free and fair elections.  Just as it may require a mass of protestors to gain the right of an individual to vote, it takes a mass of voters to continually secure those rights by exercising their franchise.

It was just over a year ago in Tunisia that the democratic flowering of the Arab Spring bloomed.  What forced the Spring and galvanized the forces of change was an act of the ultimate sacrifice by 26-year-old fruit vendor Mohammed Bouazizi.

Bouazizi was the primary breadwinner for his mother and siblings.  Deeply distraught at having his produce confiscated yet again, and at being harassed by various authorities over many years, he lit himself afire to protest his treatment and that of scores of Tunisians.

Catalyst

His death some days later from severe burns and injuries was the catalyst for events still unfolding.  Within a year, longstanding and entrenched dictators fell in Tunisia, Algeria, Libya and Egypt.  Other regimes such as the Assad dynasty in Syria appear imperilled.

The giddy illusion by some that with the despots gone, well-functioning democracies would quickly emerge was punctured by chaotic legislative elections in Egypt, and the fear that the generals who secured Hosni Mubarak’s rule might not be intent on giving up power so quickly.

Fearing that their democratic revolution might be at risk, the protestors who voted Mubarak out of office with their bodies returned to the now famous Tahrir Square as a warning to the generals.

The unfolding of democratic revolutions occurring in the Middle East and North Africa, highlight a charter of rights fundamental to a functioning democracy, among them the rights of free assembly and speech to support or protest an idea or government.

A companion right which bolsters and protects these and other democratic rights is the right to vote in free and fair elections for the representatives and government of one’s choosing.

There are a number of glib excuses some give for not voting: “All politicians are the same. … These politicians don’t do anything for me. … My vote doesn’t count. … The system is flawed.”  There are other variations on these themes.

While there may be rare cases of conscientious objection for not voting, most of the excuses tend to be juvenile and glib evincing an almost pristine and wilful ignorance of history and the struggle for freedom and democracy.

The right to vote is a symbol and guarantor of democratic rights and freedoms.  Martin Luther King Jr. and those who marched and died for a Voting Rights Act enfranchising black Americans would not understand those today who take such a right for granted.

Nor would Nelson Mandela who spent over a quarter a century in prison or the millions of South Africans who often walk hours to a voting station, then spend additional hours on line waiting to vote.

In Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi was recently released from house arrest after many years.  She has agreed to and is encouraging the Burmese people to participate in upcoming elections.  It is unclear if those elections will be free and fair.  Having won a previous election which was annulled by the then military junta, she has not given up on democratic politics.

Arrogance

To refuse to vote is a decision.  It shows a level of disdain and contempt for our democratic system.  There is a certain arrogance to those who feel that voting is beneath them and that they won’t participate in electing “those politicians” (who, incidentally, are our fellow citizens).

Voting is not fundamentally about politicians.  It is about the citizenry choosing their elected representatives and holding them accountable.  Democracy, like the human condition is imperfect, requiring constant improvement and renewal.  The alternative is a system of anarchy.

There is also an immaturity to those who refuse to help choose the nation’s elected representatives and refuse also to participate in governance.  Still, they expect someone else to make the tough decisions on everything from crime to the economy to education.

Often, these same individuals have much to say on issues of public policy though they refuse to vote or become involved in governance.  There is a level of hypocrisy by those who sit on their high horses complaining about the politicians while refusing to participate.

A refusal to exercise one’s right to vote is a dereliction of a basic right for which many have fought and died, and for which many are still struggling.  For the progeny of slaves, it is a sort of disregard and dishonoring of the struggles of those ancestors who for generations fought for basic freedoms, including in The Bahamas for majority rule.

Those who refuse to exercise their right to vote for cavalier and unreflective reasons, do a disservice to the witness of Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi, Bahamian men and women freedom fighters, and protestors around the world today for whom the right to vote is a democratic gift not to be taken lightly nor for granted.

frontporchguardian@gmail.com

www.bahamapundit.com

Dec 27, 2011

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham seems more concerned about women's rights in The Bahamas than many Bahamian women, who appear quite content to continue to walk a few paces behind their men

tribune242 editorial



PRIME Minister Ingraham resurrected the issue of women's rights at a luncheon given last week to celebrate the thirtieth anniversary of the opening of the Bureau of Women's Affairs.

Mr Ingraham seems more concerned about women's rights than many Bahamian women, who appear quite content to continue to walk a few paces behind their men. Although women are no longer -- as they once were -- classified on our statute books with "children and lunatics" -- their children still cannot claim Bahamian nationality if their husband is not a Bahamian. However, the irony of the matter is that illegitimate children of a Bahamian woman are Bahamian citizens even though the children's natural father might be a foreigner -- and even though they might be born outside the Bahamas. So any child who wants Bahamian citizenship is better off if his mother is unmarried. Also, as in Common Law a child's nationality follows that of the father, children of Bahamian men married to foreign women, are also Bahamian -- regardless of where they are born.
The only children left out in the cold -- and at the discretion of the whim of a politician -- are the legitimate children of a Bahamian mother and a non-Bahamian father.

Make sense? Not to us, but if the rejection of the referendum to right an obvious wrong is to be the yardstick, its seems that illegitimacy has more status in this country than legitimacy. And given a chance by the Ingraham government in a free vote on February 27, 2002 it was the women themselves who rejected the referendum, and decided to remain unequal.

Of course, it was the PLP Opposition that muddied the waters and confused the electorate. The PLP apparently thought that the defeat of the referendum would be a defeat of the Ingraham government at the polls -- which it eventually was.

On the floor of the House -- and led by then Opposition leader Perry Christie -- the PLP did a most interesting two-foot shuffle. Having had an inordinate amount of time to consult with the government on the proposed referendum, which Prime Minister Ingraham assured them would not include any issue with which they disagreed, and after a five-day debate in the House on the proposed referendum, 39 of the 40 MPs voted "yes" to the referendum. All questions that were to go to the public for its vote, the Opposition on the floor of the House had agreed.
However, when it came time for the public to vote, the PLP -- again led by Mr Christie -- ordered their supporters to vote "no."

Surprisingly Mrs Alyson Maynard Gibson, at that time PLP MP for Pinewood, threw out the red herring that a "yes" vote for the referendum, which would make Bahamian women equal to their menfolk, would create a "marriage of convenience" market in the Bahamas. Why should it be more of a marriage of convenience for Bahamian women than for Bahamian men? Apparently she had no answer.

If Mrs Gibson had looked carefully at the 1973 Constitution and the proposed change, she would have known that this was not true. The nationality amendments to the Constitution were to make Bahamian women equal, not give them more rights than Bahamian men.

But all that did not matter. We have never seen or heard such jiggery-pokery as the PLP pulled during that referendum. It had become so political - PLP vs FNM -- that in the end the real issue was lost. As a result Bahamian women remain second class citizens -- and they have only themselves to blame.

"We put in our Constitution," Mr Ingraham said at the time, "a provision that gave to Bahamian women who had children outside of a marriage more rights than a Bahamian woman who was in fact married."

And so it remains today. It's now up to Bahamian women to do something about it.

About a year later -- by now Mr Ingraham had lost the 2002 election and Mr Christie was Prime Minister -- we attended a wedding at which Mr Christie was also present. The date was May 30, 2003. The place-- St Anselm's Church, Fox Hill.

Outside of the church we introduced Mr Christie to a Bahamian woman from an old and respected Bahamian family who had married a foreigner and whose children were left out in the cold by the defeated referendum. We brought the matter to his attention. He gave her his most affable smile, and, never at a loss for words, assured her that on his watch all wrongs would be made right. He said he knew that Mr Ingraham could not get the referendum through, but he, Perry Christie, certainly could. As Prime Minister he intended to do so.

That conversation took place eight years ago. Since then the young Bahamian man and his foreign wife, whose wedding we attended, have had four handsome Bahamian boys -- one of them born in England. Mr Christie was prime minister for five years and today the children of Bahamian women, whose husbands are foreign, are still out in the cold.

From the day of that conversation no more was heard from Mr Christie's quarter about women's rights, nor about doing something about the referendum that he helped scuttle.

June 27, 2011

tribune242 editorial

Caribbean Blog International

Bahamian Women and their Independence in an Independent Bahamas

Bahamian women and their independence
By RUPERT MISSICK JR
rmissick@tribunemedia.net
and NOELLE NICOLLS
nnicolls@tribunemedia.net
Tribune Staff Reporters:


IN AN Independent Bahamas, women, in terms of numbers, represent the most powerful voting block in the country.

Today, there are on average 17,000 more women registered to vote than men.

But in the years since July 10, 1972, and in the nearly 50 years since November 1962 when Ivy Mackey became the first woman to vote in polling station number one in the district of the City of Nassau, have Bahamian women really become empowered?

The country has had female Presidents of the Court of Appeal and Senate, Members of Parliament, Governor Generals, heads of companies, schools and even a Deputy Prime Minister.

Regardless of these material advancements, however, women still do not have the same power to confer citizenship on their offspring as do Bahamian men and in the Bahamas it is still legal to rape your wife.

The truth is the Bahamian woman’s vote is directed in large part by agendas established by men.

Male heads of churches direct their majority female congregations how to vote, male party chairmen, leaders and deputy leaders still direct the programmes of political parties and the legislative agenda of the country when in government.

Perhaps two out of three of the most significant legislative advancements regarding women’s rights, post Independence, the Marital Rape Bill and the 2002 referendum, which would have continued women on the path toward further equality with their male counterparts were shot down because of a lack of support from women themselves.

The third, the 2002 amendments to the Inheritance Bill, which among other things, granted the right to all children born in or out of wedlock to a parent’s assets was passed after much fuss in January of that year.

The Inheritance Bill, unlike the referendum, was not offered for public vote, but it did have the full political will of the government of the day behind it, unlike the case of the Marital Rape Bill.

Mrs Janet Bostwick, the first woman elected to the House of Assembly, said she was shocked when women voted against the referendum.

“I could not believe it when women voted against the referendum. I was absolutely amazed. I think our women were betrayed by those who politicised this most important issue,” she said.

The PLP opposition said if they were elected to office they would bring the issue of constitutional reform back to the people in 90 days, according to Mrs Bostwick. She said that promise was never fulfilled.

“That was the most serious backward step to the advancement of women in my own memory,” said Mrs Bostwick.

“The issue of women's rights was made a totally partisan political issue, and unfortunately that has worked to the disadvantage of women. To put it very bluntly, the PLP were able to persuade their women not to support the referendum; it would have given the FNM too much power. One of the most painful things for me was listening to arch fundamentalist religious people who preached about the supremacy of men at the town hall meetings, and other events to discuss the referendum,” said Mrs Bostwick.

The referendum if passed would have made it possible for a Bahamian woman married to a foreigner to pass on her Bahamian nationality to her children just as a Bahamian man married to a foreigner gives his nationality to his children.

The failure of the implementation of the citizenship and marital rape laws has led many to wonder how far ahead the women’s movement – started by Mrs Mary Ingraham whose group launched the decade long struggle for women to get the vote— has moved.

One cannot blame those who conclude that the suffragette movement in the Bahamas was highjacked by those who saw women gaining the vote as a path to majority rule and political power rather than having anything to do with the advancement of women.

In essence, there exists no movement to advance women’s rights in the Bahamas today because there was never one to begin with.

“The women’s vote was important to get numbers, to get equality for black people. (Equality for women) was not so much a topic. The women had to vote to get a majority rule government that would do more for blacks. It was about the vote numbers, so the struggle for women did not continue. It was gone and it is still gone,” said Wallis Carey, daughter of Eugenia Lockhart, former secretary of the PLP Women’s Branch.

Mrs Lockhart was one of the architects of the 1950s women’s suffrage movement in the Bahamas.

As a college student Mrs Carey assisted her mother by typing the final 1960 petition that was presented to the Secretary for the Colonies in England.

“Women are figureheads now. We are tokens. We don’t have any power base anywhere. The women in the PLP were not thinking that way so they didn’t take it any further. They were thinking about majority rule with the best party that they saw, which was the PLP. There wasn’t much (desire) to take the movement further,” she said.

Mrs Carey said the platform of the PLP leading into the 1962 election, when women were first allowed to vote was “more jobs, more education for everybody.”

She said women’s rights were not advanced as a separate cause, and the necessity for women to vote was based on the racism that existed and not a view that women were discriminated against based on gender.

The year 1960 proved to be a turning point for the movement. The PLP members in the House rallied behind the movement pledging their support in public and in the House of Assembly.

“Sexual harassment was not a topic. Do we want to have more women leadership? That was not a topic for discussion. And it was a while before (the PLP) looked at including women in the Senate and in the power structure,” said Mrs Carey.

The PLP lost the 1962 election, even with the women’s vote. Parliamentary records showed there were 73,907 registered voters at the time. No records exist as to the gender distribution.

They went on to win in 1967.

Mrs Carey said after the defeat, the feeling was that “there was still a lot of work to do; they have to organize more” and then women were only involved “because of the numbers.”

“There is no source of power for women. The women in the suffrage movement were instrumental, they worked very hard, but they didn’t change the country in terms of the power structure,” said Mrs Carey.

Mrs Bostwick, said that the suffrage movement was for the purpose of securing the right to vote and no other issue with regard to women’s rights were raised primarily because many of the suffragists took pains to disassociate themselves from feminists. Conservatism was the ruling mentality at the time.

“Those women who stood out and tried to move aggressively for equal rights were sometimes called derogatory names. They were associated with the feminist movement and that was not something which was looked at in the main with kindness. Even today, and I say this with great pain, there is still some opposition, from some women, to the idea of true equality,” she said.

On some level, even in the late 1950s, the fight for women’s voting rights found itself divided along political lines.

In the history of the Women’s Suffrage Movement in the Bahamas, two women lead the pack, Mrs Mary Ingraham and Dr Doris Johnson.

While Mrs Ingraham, who was a member of the UBP, and her small group of women, were the first to launch the suffragette movement, Dr Doris Johnson on returning from her studies abroad moved in and took over the group after all the spade work had been done. At the time there were those who would say that Mrs Ingraham’s movement, which had succeeded in getting the women’s vote, was highjacked by Dr Johnson of the PLP. Twenty-five years of the PLP government’s retelling of the story of the movement has overshadow — and almost obliterated — Mrs Ingraham’s efforts and achievements in the minds of subsequent generations.

A good example of this was a 1992 advertisement published by the PLP when reference was again made to Dr Johnson and the women’s vote. Ms Ena Hepburn was quoted in the ad as saying: “I remember when women would not vote. That is why I sat down in Bay Street with the late Dame Dr Doris Johnson on Black Tuesday.”

Black Tuesday was on April 27, 1965 by that time Mrs Ingraham had won her fight for women and Bahamian women went to the polls for the first time in 1962.

Post Independence, Mary Ingraham was put in a position where she had to, or certainly felt she had to, fight to have her contribution to women’s suffrage remembered.

The women’s rights movement in the Bahamas spanned little over a decade, from 1950 to 1962.

According to Mrs Ingraham in a 1975 letter to The Tribune— which was a strong supporter of her movement — the first tangible effort made to get women the right to vote was in 1950 when she and a small group circulated a petition typed by Althea Mortimer.

Only 550 signatures were obtained by the late Dr HW Brown, Wilfred Toote, Gladys Bailey, Mary Ingraham and her five children.

The petition was turned over to and presented by AF Adderley and Dr CR Walker to the House of Assembly and Legislative Council.

According to Mrs Ingraham this petition was left on the shelf to die.

A new petition was circulated and in 1958 it was presented to Parliament by Independent MP Gerald Cash in support of the enfranchisement of women in the Bahamas.

The petition contained more than 2,500 signatures.

According to Mrs Ingraham, although she was a UBP, she thought it best that Mr Cash, the independent House member, was the best choice to advance the petition because she did not wish to impose her political beliefs, “not even on my children.”

The vote, which permitted women the vote was taken in February of 1961. While the House passed the bill, the majority UBP beat down the opposition PLP’s attempts to have the bill become effective immediately.

The bill was originally designed to become effective on January 1, 1963, two months after the election which would be held on November of 1962.

Instead the parties compromised to have the bill go into effect on June 30, 1962.

Surprise:

In a move that apparently caught the PLP by surprise the UBP agreed on an amendment that would make it possible for women to sit in the House of Assembly.

Women would not have a seat in the House until 20 years later when Mrs Bostwick was elected as the first female member of the Assembly.

In a November 1975 broadcast during Women’s Week, radio ZNS credited Dr Doris Johnson with getting the vote for Bahamian women.

In November of 1975 Mrs Ingraham wrote a letter published in The Tribune where in essence she pointed out that Dr Johnson only joined the movement in 1958 when she returned from university and the dynamic speech about women’s rights delivered to House members in 1959 was Dr Johnson’s most significant contribution to the effort.

“This is the only part Dr Johnson played in the vote for women,” Mrs Ingraham said.

Perhaps it could be said that Mrs Ingraham’s statement came more out of hurt and anger than fact, but she did feel that her contribution was being diminished because of her political ideology.

In the end Mrs Carey said that the illusion that women are equal to men in Bahamian society is propped up because of “materialism.”

“That is a poor replacement for real autonomy and power. We don’t own anything. We don’t even talk of owning anything. There is a lot to be done and it is not enough to just observe an international day for women,” she said.

Mrs Carey said she thinks the architects of women’s suffrage would have supported the marital rape bill and the right for women to pass on their citizenship.

“The women’s movement has died. I never even hear about it anymore. People talk like all of our issues are the same. There is no movement. We don’t even identify the issues any more that women have.

“We have given up everything to materialism, and we have accepted the worst part of materialism. That was the big thing for the PLP; they said they would make people have more. Have more what? We see materialism through the party we choose. We look at which government is going to give us more material things,” said Mrs Carey.

However, Mrs Bostwick said that there have been many advancements since the 1950s that have helped level the playing field for women, which people take for granted.

“You are talking about a society where women in the public service had to resign if they became pregnant, married or not married. You are talking about a society where even if you were allowed to stay on the job, it did not pay you when you were pregnant. You are talking about a society that did not permit you to divorce for anything but adultery, a society where if a wife committed adultery she was excluded from any share in the matrimonial property. There were so many things which happened to change the status of women in society that I feel there has been great, great advancement,” said Mrs Bostwick.

However, Mrs Bostwick admitted that there is a need to go further.

“Look at the thing with just the inheritance laws. They were so discriminatory against women. You started with a woman if she died without a will her husband to the exclusion of her children and everybody else took all of her personalities (money in the bank, shares, jewellery, furniture, car, clothes). He had a life interest in all of her real property, so that even if she had acquired the house herself and it was in her sole name, he had the right on her death, even if he was estranged, to move in, with his possible mistress, and even put out her children. You had a situation where women could not inherit from their father, mother or parents if there was one lawful son. They could not get anything. All of these things were hurtful laws,” she said.

These laws Mrs Bostwick mentions changed because of the agitation of women, in general and a lot of help from Mrs Bostwick specifically.

Mrs Bostwick was in the attorney general’s office from 1957 to 1974; it was a part of her work, so she was very aware of the laws and painfully aware of the plight of mothers.

“On Friday’s you had a court that dealt with maintenance matters. There was a tamarind tree in the square by the library and there were lines of women waiting under the tree to get the pittance of the maximum of $8.40 per child per week. That was the maximum by law. That remained until I was in Parliament,” she said.


Politics:

If women were to remove politics out of, well their own politics, they might be able to achieve more for themselves. Mrs Bostwick said that if women banded together, they would be able to get everything they needed for themselves.

“The thing is women must themselves want equality. They must truly want it. They will not truly want it unless they are personally feeling the pinch. You will find that you have the most talk about inequality when you are talking about not receiving equal pay for equal work. And it hurts me when I hear some leading professional women, who went against the referendum, now getting on the bandwagon and saying that we must move in the direction of equal pay.

“Philosophical equality is not something the grassroots will be concerned about. It is difficult for people to relate to that and rally around a cause to create change. There needs to be a process of education. You have to start teaching from the school level that we are equal and that discrimination is wrong,” she said.

Mrs Bostwick said that there are not many laws that need to be changed.

“The constitution must outlaw discrimination and it has to be so framed that women and men have equal rights with respect to discrimination on the grounds of sex. The Penal Code needs to be changed. Beyond that most of the changes are social and cultural,” she said.

July 11, 2010

tribune242

Bahamas Blog International

FNM's Women's Association distances itself from senior FNM women's letter to Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham

FNM's Women's Association distances itself from letter to PM
By CANDIA DAMES ~ Guardian News Editor ~ candia@nasguard.com:


The Free National Movement's Women's Association made it clear yesterday that it had no part in a letter written to Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham late last month by a group of senior women in the FNM.

As reported by The Nassau Guardian yesterday, the women who wrote the letter had been trying to cause the appointment of former FNM minister Janet Bostwick as governor general.

The group of senior women also raised concerns about the "disappearance" of FNM women from prominent positions in national life.

The Women's Association said it respects the sole right and privilege of the prime minister to appoint the governor general and congratulated Sir Arthur Foulkes on his appointment to the highest office in the land.

"During his many years of distinguished public service, Sir Arthur helped to pave the way for the greater equality of all Bahamians, including that of women," the association said.

The FNM Women's Association acknowledged "the tremendous" record of Prime Minister Ingraham on behalf of all Bahamian women, including when his efforts were at times unpopular.

"This includes his appointment of women to many significant posts, as well as landmark legislation on a variety of issues related to the ending of discrimination against women," the statement said.

"The FNM Women's Association is proud of our own record and that of the broader FNM with regards to the empowerment of our Bahamian sisters. We will continue to advance the cause of women and families. In this regard, we will also continue to promote excellent female candidates for national office. We will do so as a united group, committed to the great ideals of our party and the values of our founders."

Former FNM Minister Theresa Moxey-Ingraham, who spoke in an interview with The Guardian yesterday, also recognized Sir Arthur's contributions to the party and the nation and stressed that the women who wrote the letter respect him highly and were not attacking him.

The letter was written more than two weeks before his appointment was announced and never mentioned his name. Moxey-Ingraham along with former MPs Italia Johnson (also the first female speaker), and Jaunianne Dorsett and other women in the party signed the letter.

"Sir Arthur has his place in Bahamian history," Moxey-Ingraham said yesterday. "He has his place in the building and forward development of our party and has his place in the hearts of all Bahamians. This was never meant to be an attack on him or his achievements in any way - not at all."

Explaining why the group of women wrote the letter to Ingraham, she said, "As a part of an organization we feel very strongly the need to express our opinion on any matter that is of relevance to our party. We've earned our place and earned the right to speak and we thought it important to do so. We didn't necessarily think we would change his (the prime minister's) opinion. In fact, as we all know, the appointment in many, many instances is the prime minister's appointment and we knew that an appointment had already been made. We felt the need to express how we felt about it."

Moxey-Ingraham said it is unacceptable that there is only one woman in Ingraham's Cabinet — Loretta Butler-Turner, minister of state for social development.

"We had a particular level of national profile and national prominence that has been diminished to a significant degree," she said. "Any empty FNM seats in the Senate have not been filled by women. The two ladies who departed from the Cabinet (Elma Campbell and Claire Hepburn) their positions were filled by men.

"Again, [this is] nothing to do with the achievements or the accomplishments of the men who filled those places. The whole idea though is that if we're talking about a nation where equality is of value then special effort needs to be made to bring women to levels of national prominence, and we are concerned about that in general."

Moxey-Ingraham recognized the role Ingraham played in the advancement of women in The Bahamas, but said the group who wrote to him wants affirmative action for women.

"We were very appreciative that he did respond and what he claimed in the letter is true; those are historical facts. He played a great role in promoting women to positions of prominence, positions of high responsibility and under his first administration women were highly prominent..." she said.

"We still want more. There is so much more to be achieved. Women have so much further to go and they will not be able to get there if they cannot at least get to the first step which is somebody acknowledging that you are worthy and worthwhile [to] move forward."

Asked to expand on the group's claim in its letter that Prime Minister Ingraham had callously dismissed a request for an audience with him, Moxey Ingraham said, "We consider ourselves serious enough. We consider our service serious enough and worthwhile enough to be granted an audience with the party leader... When you get the message back that indicates 'you're not important enough. I can't be bothered with you', that doesn't make you feel very good as a founding member, a prominent member, a serious, hard-working contributor over the years to a party.

"And from a party leader it left us very disappointed."

Moxey-Ingraham said she felt insulted and was not satisfied with the prime minister's response as he did not provide any assurances that this affirmative action will be adopted moving forward.

April 20, 2010

thenassauguardian

Bahamas Blog International

Constitutional Review Commission Officials At Odds about Some of The New Recommendations of The Commission - and with what the Ingraham Administration had Proposed in The 2002 Referendum

Michael Barnett, Co-deputy Chairman of the Constitutional Review Commission defends the position of the FNM government on the failed 2002 referendum

2002 Referendum Defended

 

By Candia Dames

Nassau, The Bahamas

11 April 2006

 

 

  

 

Two officials of the government-appointed Constitutional Review Commission are at odds over whether some of the new recommendations of the Commission are largely in line with what the Ingraham Administration had proposed in the 2002 referendum.

Co-deputy Chairman Michael Barnett even defended the position of the FNM government on the failed referendum, noting that the proposed changes had been supported by the then opposition in parliament and then later opposed.

"There is no radical difference in the nature of the recommendations with respect to constitutional change," said Mr. Barnett, who was one of the guests on the Love 97 programme ‘Jones and Company’ on Sunday.

He suggested that besides some "tinkering, glossing and tightening up" the recommendations of the new report "are very much the same" as what the FNM government had pushed in the referendum.

Shortly after members of the commission presented a copy of their preliminary report to Prime Minister Perry Christie last month, former Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham, who is now again the leader of the FNM, noted essentially the same.

He also said that the PLP government appeared to now be suggesting that while the proposed changes were wrong under the FNM’s watch, they are now right under the PLP’s watch.

But Commission Co-chairman Paul Adderley, who was also on the Sunday programme, agreed that while Mr. Barnett was suggesting that the groundwork for what the commission is now doing was laid by the Ingraham Administration, that is not true.

He indicated that there are fundamental differences contained in the report of his commission, although he recognized that there are some similarities.

"Firstly, with regard to citizenship, no one objects to the concept of equality of women and the FNM proposal was that Bahamian women married to a foreigner [that their] children became Bahamians just like the children of Bahamian men," Mr. Adderley noted.

"That provision is exactly the same and I think everybody agrees with that."

But he pointed out that while the FNM government proposed that a foreign man who married a Bahamian woman could obtain citizenship immediately, the commission recommends that he be made to wait years before qualifying.

"That particular provision, I think, caused them more difficulty in the referendum than any other, that instantaneous citizenship," Mr. Adderley said.  "This commission proposed between five to 10 years…That is the fundamental difference…That, I think, is very, very significant."

The commission co-chairman also pointed out that the FNM government proposed that the boundaries commission still be subjected to the prime minister’s power to amend.

But the Constitutional Commission is recommending that the constitution be amended to create a truly independent electoral and boundaries commission and remove the power of the prime minister to modify the report of the commission.

Mr. Barnett then insisted again that the concepts and the ideas of the 2002 proposal and the present one are the same.

"With respect to the marriage, what was proposed during the 2002 referendum exercise, I thought, is the concept that the right that was afforded to non-Bahamian women who were married to Bahamian men…that same right should be given to a non-Bahamian male who is married to a non-Bahamian female…That very same concept is repeated in the recommendations that have been made by this report," he said, repeating Mr. Adderley’s earlier point.

Mr. Adderley, meanwhile, said there are also significant differences as they relate to the 2002 proposal on the mandatory retirement age of judges.

"The point where we disagree is with regard to the term of judges," he said.

The Ingraham Administration recommended that the retirement age of a Supreme Court judge be extended from 67 to 72; and the retirement age of a justice of the Court of Appeal be extended to 75, with the right to extend being held by the prime minister.

"Mr. Adderley said, "We have number one suggested so far that the retirement age be 70 – fixed and no question of extending it by the prime minister because we thought that would give the prime minister a little too much leverage and power."

Mr. Barnett said he still thinks that the retirement age being recommended by the commission is "too low", but he said he agreed with the concept that the prime minister should not have the power to extend the retirement age.

On the point of the 2002 referendum defeat, Mr. Barnett pointed out that the PLP while in opposition had supported the Ingraham Administration’s proposal.

"You must not forget that the proposals that had been put forward had received the unanimous support of all the members of parliament and that the people could have been educated as to why those…proposals had been made and why it was that they supported them," he said.

"[The opposition] elected not to do so and as a result of that I think we got caught up in the politics of early 2002 - and what were really sensible proposals were simply rejected…not because of the defects of the proposals or the lack of merit of the proposals because you can see many of the proposals are repeated here."

Mr. Adderley quickly said, "But don’t underestimate the people’s capacity once they are told something to think for themselves."

The commission intends to carry out another round of consultations with the Bahamian people before submitting final recommendations.

Responding to a question that was asked by the show’s host, Wendall Jones, Mr. Adderley said, "[The government doesn’t] have to accept a single word which we put down here, but a government would be a very foolish government not to accept anything we put down."

The commission makes many key provisional recommendations in its report – copies of which are available at the commission’s office in the Royal Victoria Gardens.

A few of the recommendations include abolishing the office of governor general and creating a democratic parliamentary republic with the head of state being the president; increasing the size of the senate to 23 and giving the president the power to appoint five of those senators; and eliminating gender bias from the constitution.

Prime Minister Christie has foreshadowed that a referendum will be held so Bahamians can decide on what changes would actually be made to the constitution.