Showing posts with label Fred Mitchell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fred Mitchell. Show all posts

Friday, January 2, 2015

Fred “Botha” Mitchell and the Birth of “Apartheid in The Bahamas”

An open letter from Fred Smith, QC to Nicki Kelly in response to her column appearing in The Punch on December 22, 2014



Dear Ms. Kelly,

At the outset, let me state, that I agree with Ms. Nicki Kelly. Both Fred Mitchell and Fred Smith QC plead guilty as charged; we are damaging the reputation of The Bahamas internationally. I love my country of citizenship, and I too regard this as regrettable, but sadly it is inevitable. There are always casualties in war and I lament that the reputation of The Bahamas is crumbling in this war of words.

But the reputation of The Bahamas is not what is at stake here; the Rule of Law and Human Rights are. I'm sure Ms. Kelly agrees that Human Rights matter more than reputation.

It is Fred Mitchell who has declared an all-out illegal war on the Constitution of The Bahamas by his November 1, 2014, Ministerial Edict against “foreigners”, in particular targeting Haitians and Bahamians of Haitian heritage.

Ms. Kelly’s summary of the “newly-devised policy” is simply inaccurate. Firstly, no new policy is necessary to stem “the flow of illegal immigrants into” The Bahamas. All that needs to happen is for the Immigration and Defence Force to do their jobs and to seal our porous borders. Secondly, Minister Mitchell does not have the lawful power to simply create new laws by policy edict. Only Parliament can pass new laws. Thirdly, the execution of this new policy has been outrageously illegal and unconstitutional measured by any democratic yardstick. Fourthly, there was, in any event, no need for it; it is a transparent political red herring.

Minister Mitchell has, without any shadow of doubt, cried “havoc, and let slip the dogs of war” on the The Bahamas and in so doing opened a Pandora's Box overflowing with xenophobic lynch mob mentalities. Minister Mitchell has ironically given birth to “Apartheid in The Bahamas” by singling out Haitians/Bahamians as objects of abject and acceptable state promoted institutionalized discrimination. Hats off to Fred “Botha” Mitchell!

It seems to be simply accepted in The Bahamas that “might makes right” and that ministers of government can just issue new laws by policy dictate. Perhaps, because many are presently clothed in the protective mantle of citizenship, they welcome and support the government’s propagandist use of the Immigration Department in making the “Haitian problem” the scapegoat for the ills which otherwise challenge our nation and contribute to the collapse of good governance.

I urge Ms. Kelly to recall however, that successive governments have used the touchstone of anti-foreign sentiment to keep the embers of xenophobia burning and to institutionalize discrimination (“Bahamianization”), abuse,oppression and complete disregard for most of the Fundamental Rights and Freedoms guaranteed to all “persons” regardless of their place of origin,under our Constitution. The very Constitution that protects her Citizenship and her rights; in fact all of our rights!

You see, Ms. Kelly, thankfully, we do not have the tyrannical luxury to pick and choose those who do and those who do not have rights. That would be to accept the tyranny of the majority! Our Constitution protects the rights of all “persons” in The Bahamas; not just born in these islands of Bahamian citizen parents. In the process of British decolonization, the drafters of all the Constitutions in The British Commonwealth sought to protect the rights of minorities in the aftermath of independence by securing the protection of the Rule of Law to all persons; so that minorities or individuals would be protected against for instance, racial or ethnic purges. Despite these penned protections, in many former colonies, there were holocausts with savage genocidal results.

In the Bahamas, the word “Bahamianization” has been our sanitized epithet for state generated and sustained racial and ethnic discrimination. Our schizophrenic attitude towards, but ultimate hatred of foreigners, our racism, our xenophobia, our increasingly strident nationalism, our acceptance of discrimination, our blaming of Haitians or Bahamians of Haitian heritage for all our social ills, have increasingly lead to more inflexible divisions and appear to have fomented and justified state violence against the current Haitian scapegoat! Violence, takes many forms.

So before there is blind acceptance of Minister Mitchell’s illegal policy; the unlawful,vicious and inexcusable actions of some Immigration, Defence Force and Police officers in the execution of this Imperial Mitchell Ministerial Edict, I urge a study of Chapter 3 of our Constitution, as one would, being no doubt a Christian nation, study The Bible. So, please be assured, that my hearkening to that Constitutional script has nothing to do with my alleged “Haitian Heritage”(which I will address later). It is simply about being a Bahamian who has studied his Constitution, like our Christian nation studies The Bible. The Constitution is my Political Bible, as it should be for all persons in The Bahamas.

Yes,The war of words is regrettable. But in a civil society, if citizens are not to take arms up against a coercive or abusive government, they are left with only the pen; and thankfully, as history has often shown in the long run, the pen and word are mightier than the sword, as Jesus Christ, above all others has shown us. You, Ms. Kelly, are a consummate wordsmith and know well, the Power of your Plume!

I find it therefor regrettable that Ms. Kelly would seek to trivialize and devalue my freedom to express my views by attributing to them ill informed and false personal motives and thereby holding them to public scorn and ridicule.

Like Ms. Kelly, I too believe in the power of the pen. Yes, I am a Queen’s Counsel; and yes,my status may accord my words great currency. I chose my descriptions very carefully and very deliberately. I do not resile from any of my words. My descriptions of the government’s (for this is not about any personality fight between Fred Mitchell and Fred Smith; he is simply the envoy) actions are correct and accurate. Only, by minuscule degrees, are they qualitatively different from the worst aspects and perceptions of “terrorism, Auschwitz, similar interment camps, and Ethnic Cleansing”. But I believe in calling a spade a spade, and I will not be an international apologist for any government, FNM or PLP. Forty years of my professional life attest to that!

To me, the Constitution comes first, before nationalism or international reputation.

And, if my own Bahamian government is assailing rights internally, then as Minister Fred Mitchell glowingly did in leading the charge internationally against South African Apartheid and protecting Nelson Mandela, who together with Fred Mitchell and Sir Lynden Pindling, cried out to the international community from his South African jail to Boycott South Africa, then I too will use my pen and any pulpit which presents itself to call on the international human rights community to help prevent abuse within The Bahamas. I find it ironic that Fred Mitchell, the “Minister of Immigration”, would condemn and heap abuse on Florida Sate Representative Daphne Campbell when Fred Mitchell, the “Human Rights Activist” of a bygone era, also called for a Boycott of South Africa to stop Apartheid.

Joseph Darville and I are doing no more and no less that many freedom fighters have done over the centuries in condemning national abuse and seeking international help. If our reputation suffers during challenging times, so be it. Such internecine wars can be easily avoided by our governments if they respect fundamental rights. Good international reputation comes with good governance; and bad international reputation comes with bad governance. It’s as simple as that. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil in this world is for good men to say and do nothing. You, Ms.Kelly, as a “Lady of Letters” knows that!

Thank goodness we are a global economy and words now have greater international repercussions.

Minister Mitchell’s minions would better serve the reputation of The Bahamas, save tax dollars, earn tax dollars and respect the rights of thousands of people in The Bahamas by trolling through the tens of thousands of files at the Immigration Department on Hawkins Hill instead of creating high political drama with this manufactured immigration crisis. Document first; hunt the rest later!That approach would send a very clear, positive and good message to the world that The Bahamas is serious about human rights and the Rule of Law!

I note that Ms. Kelly assumed that there was no “scintilla of evidence” to support my criticisms. I am sure she simply did not have the facts at her disposal which I had. I am a citizen of integrity. I have been at the forefront of fighting for human rights for decades. I have never uttered a word without evidence in support. I am not a fool. I am not an alarmist. I am a lawyer. I am, as she says, a Queens Counsel. I am responsible.

Minister Mitchell did not have “the entire country behind him”; and even if he did, I have the Constitutional right to be the one dissident voice if I so choose. It’s called freedom of expression, guaranteed by Article 23 of our Constitution.

My expressions, as distasteful as the truth may be, do not make me a “traitor”. And neither do the weekly, strident and often singularly individual views expressed by Ms. Kelly in her columns. I read her column weekly; precisely because her views are different. Indeed, that is the only reason I buy The Punch! I respectfully embrace and celebrate her right!

Yes I do, thankfully, have flashbacks of my childhood in Haiti. And she is correct: The Bahamas is not Haiti. But thankfully, my early experiences have given me subjective, and my 40 years of training as a lawyer, objective perspectives. Hence the 40 years I have fought, to prevent The Bahamas from becoming a Little Haiti. I have no “vested interest” in maintaining any status quo. Despite the radio rantings of Ortland Bodie and Wendell Jones and their call-in guests, I am not Haitian and never was! I will come to that later.
I do not subscribe firstly to the idea that there is a "Haitian problem"; and even if there was one, I do not subscribe to the theory of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Ms.Kelly, in her nationalistic fervor and zeal, appears to be blind to the evidence which over the last few weeks and continuing has embarrassingly unfolded and been publicly and internationally paraded.

Perhaps a recap may persuade her that my utterances have not been “hysterical hyperbole”. Indeed, the fact that Minister Mitchell was driven to fly to appear before the Human Rights Commission of the OAS in Washington to defend his government in the face of the GBHRA’s expressed outrage over the abuses also attests to this.

I have been dealing with the Haitian Diaspora in The Bahamas since 1977. And I have not been alone. I am a part of The Grand Bahama Human Rights Association. Joseph Darville and I speak as one. Our Tactically Launched Hyperbolic Scuds (TLH Scuds) are informed by evidence derived from personal testimonies, observations, reports and testimonials from a host of victims and others who believe in protecting rights and who are out in the field fighting this abuse.

Let us examine what has been happening here.

In summary; spontaneously by ministerial combustion and without cause or necessity, the government publicizes an illegal Ministerial Policy that causes panic, with no basis in law for its creation (it was not enacted by Parliament) or the manner in which it is to be executed. A crisis is created! Apartheid is proclaimed; foreigners, especially Haitians, have less or no rights; people, including Bahamians, must carry original identity and immigration status papers around with them!

Instead of focusing its energies constructively on the thousands of applications for status and documenting thousands entitled to be registered as citizens, the taxpayers money is to be squandered and a reign of terror imposed. Confusion is to abound! The government threatens to repeat the many earlier painful pogroms. The collective memory of the persecuted is once again awakened. People are unnerved. Fright sets in. As has so often happened before,the message of terror has been proclaimed by Ministerial Edict. Yet again; a new policy! This time it’s Mitchell making his mark instead of Roker the Wrecker!

The Institution of the Government of The Bahamas has again declared war on an ethnic minority segment of the population: those of Haitian origin.

This is illegal. It is in breach of Articles 15 and 26 of the Constitution.

But that does not phase the government! After all, they are only “Haitians” and as Ms. Kelly says, Minister Mitchell “had the entire country behind him”; so who would care?

It was the politically appropriate time (two years before the next election) to declare “open season” on Haitians. Indeed, even Her Majesty’s Official Opposition, the FNM, and the DNA were marching in vigorous and strident goose-step declaring that they stood “shoulder to shoulder” with the government! Thus emboldened, Immigration and Defence Force officers simply wore green shirts instead of brown shirts!

People are indeed terrified. They know what is coming. It is not the first time. This is simply Roker Revisited! They fear for their families. They fear for their personal well-being. They fear for their freedom. They fear for their property.They are told that shantytowns are to be demolished. The Ministry of Works begins “marking” homes for demolition, just like the Nazis did to the Jewish homes, except the MOW painted red numbers and not red Stars of David on the doors to signal the imminent invasion. Homes, some of which have been there for decades, are illegally bulldozed to let them know that the government means business.

The initial Blitzkrieg is swift; highly effective, well publicized! Minister Mitchell, the consummate public relations man, knows how to play the media to his audience! People, even those with “papers” hide in the forests and bushes; families are torn asunder; they leave their children. They flee in overladen boats from Abaco; they are shot at by the Defence Force, and made to return. Raids (sorry “exercises” as Minister Mitchell calls them; certainly not “roundups” either) in the dead of the night, by dozens of Immigration and Defence Force Officers clad menacingly in battle fatigues as if going off to war or hunting terrorist guerillas. Daily raids (“exercises”) continue; well publicized. People who look too black (or too white for that matter) are seized; detained; illegal roadblocks are set up (sorry, I believe Minister Mitchell calls them “checkpoints”; that’s what they were called in Haiti as well under the dictator, Papa Doc).

With no scintilla of reasonable suspicion, as required by law, people are randomly questioned in public, hauled off public buses, homes invaded and searched, and if they have a foreign sounding name are seized and detained. Even white Bahamians in vehicles stopped at red lights are interrogated. The government proclaims (illegally) that people must be documented; people are required (illegally) to have “papers” on them; if they don’t they are hauled away like cattle cuffed in buses, cages and pens.When they do present them Immigration take all; refuse to give copies. Poor, underprivileged, often uneducated and politically powerless people are traumatized. Overnight, Apartheid in The Bahamas is born!

All of this is of course illegal. I urge Ms. Kelly to read the cases Smith vs. Commissioner of Police; Iffil; Merson;Tynes; Jean; Taylor; Mercidieux Exavier; Barlatier, Takitota and many others; some of which wended their way for affirmation of rights all the way to the Privy Council.

I am not making up the law when I speak or write. I am merely repeating what the law has been since Magna Carta and before! It is Minister Fred “Botha” Mitchell and his Shock Troops who are acting illegally, and shredding the reputation of The Bahamas as a country governed by the Rule of Law.

Imagine what foreign investors think? Recall that last year, the CEO of UBS Bank was a target of Bahamian Apartheid, seized at a “checkpoint”, “undocumented”, hauled off to our Concentration Camp, detained and eventually released.

The result? UBS Bank shut down! A small but affluent circle of employment and opportunity for dozens of Bahamians within the financial services industry evaporated!

This treatment has also been meted out to many other “foreigners” and indeed many Bahamians. I continue to emphasize that this is, of course, illegal. But I suppose, Ms.Kelly, that as long as it continues to happen to “others”, it is justified?

With the initial strike, 400 persons of suspected Haitian heritage, documented or not, legal or illegal, are hauled off. Over 300 are subsequently “processed” (a word which does not appear in our laws) and released; only 70 are “detained” at the Carmichael Road Detention Center, itself an illegal facility operating for years, since its FNM inception, without basis in law. It is not a “prison” under the Prison Act (governed by law), and is not a “Correctional Facility” (under the Correctional Facilities Act). It exists against every penal norm or international precept, managed and maintained by the accusers, i.e. the Immigration Department and the Defence Force, neither of whose Parliamentary Acts of creation give lawful warrant to run a prison or a Concentration Camp (the accepted definition of which, this facility fits).

There are no prison officers; there are no rules, no regulations; in fact no laws at all to govern activities there. This is so even according to Minister Mitchell himself. In fairness to the PLP, it was the FNM who created this monster. But they are both to blame for perpetuating its illegal and inhumane existence.

Conditions are harsh, inhuman and degrading; people are beaten in its barbed wire confines; property is stolen; rules are made up as they go along; the public are not allowed to approach to take pictures; there is a thriving black market in existence for bare necessities; people are kept in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions; it is winter and cool; there are no blankets; women and children crowd on top of each other on disgusting smelly urine stained mattresses on the dirty floors; for the men, there are often not even floor coverings to lay on; the toilets, such as there are for, at times, over 500 people are clogged, disgusting, overflowing and unusable; there is no toilet paper; human waste and filth slops around; the stench is appalling; a pregnant woman hemorrhages and gives birth in the camp, she hides; people have been held there for years without being taken before a court; they effectively disappear because there is no due process provided by law; a woman (married to a Bahamian citizen, with a spousal permit) is extracted by a senior immigration officer and repeatedly raped and forced to perform fellatio to be graced with freedom; people are fed scant and inedible food; the water is undrinkable; bottled water becomes expensive currency; friends and family must bring food and supplies for bare necessities and sustenance. Children are kept in the “Carmichael Concentration Camp” (CCC); a young lady, born in The Bahamas, who has her application in for her Certificate of Citizenship under the Constitution, is unlawfully arrested, shackled, manhandled, beaten, humiliated, detained, ridiculed and eventually released. But unlike the many victims, she speaks out! And for this she is, two weeks later again assaulted on the street, beaten, phone seized, and hauled away to the Concentration Camp, where I am now trying to obtain her freedom.

These are tips of the many icebergs! Minister Mitchell and his cohorts, of course, hold and maintain the official line and simply Deny! Deny! Deny!

None of the detainees are taken before a court of law as required by The Criminal Procedure Code or the Constitution. In breach of every known law they are illegally held over 48 hours, some for years! None are charged with any offence in a court of law; none are tried; none are sentenced. They are simply “detained”; as if that word invested the exercise with some lawful warrant! And then deported en mass in breach of the provisions of the Immigration Act; often without regard to the individual merits of any case.

Those who are released are made to feel it was by a miraculous act of God; and in the true spirit of the bullying,victimization and abuse, told not to make trouble or complain or speak out, lest their next permit is denied; or their permanent residence or citizenship application be rejected; or a family member or friend suffer the same fate. And when one does complain or cry out because of a rape, or a beating, one is publicly scorned and ridiculed in social media or by the Immigration Department PR machine – impliedly accused of prostitution, as if even that would justify the inhumane and criminal treatment. The public applauds! Thus are the victims and their families silenced; thus are the disappearances maintained; thus is the Fred “Botha” Mitchell Reign of Terror sustained for "the entire country behind him” to applaud it in all its manifest glory!

But make no mistake; whether I call it “Auschwitz in The Bahamas”, thus evoking the Nazi Camps, or The South African Concentration Camps for Blacks under Apartheid, or the USA Internment Camps holding American Citizens of Japanese heritage during the Second World War; the fact is, the Carmichael Detention Facility is a “Concentration Camp” with all the associated trappings of ethnic discrimination and cleansing, evoking terror in the persecuted by inhuman and degrading treatment and fracturing their community ties through intimidation, abuse and or mass deportations.

As Ms. Kelly well knows, the term “concentration camp” refers to a camp in which people are detained or confined, usually under harsh conditions and without regard to legal norms of arrest and imprisonment that are acceptable in a constitutional democracy. I am glad that my reference to “Auschwitz in The Bahamas” has had the desired effect of evoking emotion and thereby attention to this abomination and blight on the democracy of The Bahamas. Even Minister Mitchell recently acknowledged it was a concentration camp in a press release published in the Tribune on December 18, 2014. That was decent of him.

“Institutional Terrorism”, “Ethnic Cleansing”, “Auschwitz in The Bahamas” – hysterical hyperbole? I think not!

The Bahamas just hasn’t started killing Haitians yet; as happened to minorities in former European colonies like Sri Lanka, Rwanda, Uganda and South Africa.

But wait – perhaps Ms. Kelly may subscribe to the divine urgings of a Christian man of the cloth; Bishop Simeon Hall; who encourages the government to arm the Immigration officers; then we will see if I am an alarmist.

These recent Immigration and Defence Force raids have been nothing less than a “shock and awe” invasion of our body politic by Fred “Botha” Mitchell and his Storm Troopers!

I will continue to use every weapon in the craft of my penmanship to launch TLH Scuds in an effort to resist this unconstitutional, illegal and inhuman and degrading policy. The GBHRA does not have a force of hundreds of Immigration, Defense and Police officers at our arbitrary whim and disposal to dream up arbitrary new policies, conduct illegal raids and roundups; to beat people; to rape them; to separate families and children, to detain in the Carmichael Concentration Camp.

I am a proud Bahamian Citizen. I do not carry the passport of any other country. I have nowhere else to go. I intend on using my pen to the best and most effective means to protect my Bahamas and to prevent it going slowly but inexorably into a dictatorial slide.

As Ms. Kelly and so many others seem to take a delight in doing, I turn to my heritage; as if all of my efforts in promoting human rights in The Bahamas for 40 years can be thereby relegated to biased in consequence and thereby devalued of their merit.

Ms.Kelly is incorrect; my mother was not a Haitian Citizen. My mother was British having been born in Trans-Jordan in the Middle East. Her father’s family are descended from the proud Bedouin Hashemites; her mother from Armenia, the land of Noah! Her father and family emigrated to Haiti at the end of the Second World War. My mother never sought nor was given Haitian citizenship.

Like Ms. Kelly when she was born, both my parents were British Subjects. Ethnically she is an Arab. During my childhood years in Haiti I was raised in an Arabic social milieu of Syrians, Palestinians, Jordanians and Lebanese. I am proud of my Arabic heritage.

My Father met my mother in Haiti. She was at that time engaged to a Syrian. Singing the beautiful Bahamian lullaby, Big Big Bamboo Bamboo; he wooed her into his arms. He made sure my sisters and I also kept in touch with our British and Bahamian Colonial roots.I was not raised in a Haitian social environment. Not that there is anything wrong with that even if it had been so. Haiti has a proud heritage of culture and freedom. I consider myself privileged to have spent my childhood in Haiti.

I say the foregoing to dispel Ms. Kelly's suggestion that my “loyalty” should be suspect and that I am a “traitor” to The Bahamas. I grew up as an Arab and “blanc” foreigner, not a Haitian. As such we suffered discrimination at the hands of the Haitian social elite, military and Ton Ton Macoutes. My first cousin, who was the head of a human rights NGO, was assassinated for promoting human rights in Haiti.

So Ms. Kelly, you know not of what you speak. I hold no brief for the “status quo” or for “Haitians” in The Bahamas. As my 40 year track record shows, I hold a brief for human rights for all persons in The Bahamas – not just some! The Haitians just happen to be a repeat target and, having grown up in Haiti, I speak Creole and French fluently. This gives me a facility and ease in garnering hundreds of scintillas of evidence to permit me to know that of which I speak!

Like Ms. Nicki Kelly, when the Bahamas became independent, my father and I became citizens of The Bahamas, and not withstanding early application for immigration status by my mother, it took decades before she was granted permanent residency, despite the fact that her husband, daughters and son were citizens of The Bahamas.

That in and of itself is a scandal which successive Bahamian governments continue to perpetuate against people who have applied for immigration status. Ms.Kelly knows full well the interminable abuse visited upon thousands and thousands of people in The Bahamas over the last 40 years by the PLP and to a lesser extent the FNM, simply by having their files lost etc. Indeed Freeport, where I live, is dramatic testimony to that catastrophic folly of policy!

But let me put a marker here. I hold no personal grudge against the PLP on any immigration issues or otherwise. My criticisms have been as strident against the FNM as the PLP. Truth be told, over the decades the PLP governments have accorded me, my families and businesses respect and sensible accommodations on most immigration applications I may have made. And on the contrary, the FNM much less so. And I must also say that that such treatment of me by the PLP bears testimony to the fact that they respect freedom of expression, and despite all of my public criticisms of their activities they have not, to my knowledge, sought to silence me by victimization.

That being said, I urge Ms. Kelly to likewise respect my right to freedom of expression and reconsider her characterizations of my utterances as “traitorous attacks”. I am as Bahamian as they come!

I also urge Ms. Kelly to please re-read the Constitution, the Criminal Procedure Code, The Penal Code, and the Immigration Act – she will see who is acting illegally and who is indeed creating the real international damage to the reputation of our beloved Bahamas.

As I said, I have nowhere else to go and I will use every legal power within my means to support our Immigration officers and protect OUR Bahamas from illegal invasion by Haitians, but also, most importantly, from people in government who are willing to take people’s liberties, rights and freedoms away.

I am most grateful to Ms. Kelly for expressing her views, a right which I respect and which she continues to have but one which she may not have for long if those who have the power of the pen do not use it to check dictatorial tendencies, abuses of the rule of law, illegal actions by a government, and unconstitutional encroachments on our liberties at every turn

Thank God for people like Ms. Nicki Kelly, Mrs. Eileen Carron, Joe Darville, and in a past incarnation Fred Mitchell (the human rights activist with whom I had the privilege of working in years past) myself and others who continue to use the pen to show that it is mightier than the sword.

I urge Ms. Kelly to help to guard our rights jealously. For too long it has been the “foreigner”; today it is the Haitian foreigner and Haitian/Bahamian; tomorrow it may be you! I remind her of the words of Pastor Niemoller in Nazi Germany;

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

I hate saying negative things about my country. I love OUR Bahamas. I firmly believe it is Better in The Bahamas than almost anywhere else in the world. But reputation abroad, does not trump Human Rights at home! Hence I will continue to fight for OUR Bahamas, to use my pen and to use hyperbole as and when I can to try and stop government illegality, abuse, and dictatorship.

Make no mistake: “policy” actions are dictatorial executive edicts with no warrant in statutory law passed by our legally elected Parliamentarians. Remember, Parliament passes laws and the Executive executes them. I repeat, there is no lawful authority for this "policy".

Here is a positive suggestion. Why not focus enforcing the Immigration Act with effective border enforcement? Immigration Officers are well within their rights to turn vessels away or escort them back to Haiti. What they do not have a right to do is violate the Constitutional rights of people who are already here, in a strategy that cannot solve the problem so long as the border remains porous.

Accordingly, why not start with improved border enforcement,whilst dealing with the thousands of outstanding applications for citizenship etc.in a deliberate, rational and humane fashion, while identifying alleged illegals on a case by case basis, as the Police do with any other alleged lawbreaker, and as the Constitution demands? Immigration officers have no greater powers than the Police. Immigration law, is like any other law on our books. It is not the Supreme law! The Constitution is.

The Immigration Department would face no criticism if they simply performed their duties according to law. There would be not a “peep” from the GBHRA!

Sincerely,

Fred Smith, QC
President, GBHRA
Human Rights Bahamas on Facebook

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

Fred Mitchell totally discredits misinformation about The Bahamas’ new immigration policy at the Organization of American States (OAS)

From Oswald Brown:







Bahamas Foreign Affairs and Immigration Minister the Hon. Fred Mitchell (left) addressing a Special Permanent Council Meeting of the Organization of American States (OAS) in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, December 16, 2014. At centre is OAS Assistant Secretary General Albert Ramdin and at right is Ambassador of Guyana Bayney Karran.



WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Foreign Affairs and Immigration Minister the Hon. Fred Mitchell totally discredited the malicious misinformation circulated nationally and internationally about The Bahamas’ new immigration policy during a major address at a Special Permanent Council Meeting of the Organization of American States (OAS) on Tuesday, December 16, 2016.


Addressing ambassadors from OAS-member countries and a number of guests assembled in the ornate Hall of the Americas in the OAS main building on 17th Street, N.W., Mr. Mitchell made direct reference to the misinformation being circulated about the new policy by Attorney Fred Smith, President of the Grand Bahama Human Rights Association.

“There are three allegations that have been made that bear addressing in this forum which go to the heart of the matter: our country’s reputation,” Mr. Mitchell said. “There is a Queen’s Counsel in The Bahamas who heads a human rights organization which is connected around the world and whose allegations have made headlines in the hemisphere and around the world. The specific charges must be refuted.”

Attorney Smith has recklessly accused the government of “institutional terrorism,” “ethnic cleansing,” and “running Auschwitz in The Bahamas,” referring to the Carmichael Road Detention Centre.

“The latter statement alleged in particular that this minister was responsible for Auschwitz in The Bahamas,” Mr. Mitchell said. “Madame Chair, words have meanings and when a Queen’s Counsel makes such a statement he must be put to proof. Certainly the government of The Bahamas is bound to respond. Let me be clear: there is no institutional terrorism, no ethnic cleansings, no Auschwitz in The Bahamas. No group is being targeted for elimination in The Bahamas, no mass murder is occurring in The Bahamas and certainly none which is sponsored or sanctioned by the state. There is no evidence anywhere that this is the case and we refute it absolutely. We once again repeat the invitation to the human rights bodies to inspect at any time and without notice.”

Mr. Mitchell emphasized that the United Nations Human Rights Commission has a representative in The Bahamas and “they have been to the detention centre and can say whether or not we are operating gas chambers and engaging in mass murder in the Carmichael Road Detention Centre.”

“The remarks are so outrageous and absolutely irresponsible and I condemn without reservation,” the Foreign Affairs and Immigration Minister emphatically stated.

Earlier in his address Mr. Mitchell said that on “behalf of Prime Minister Perry Christie, the government and Peoples of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas, I appear here today to deal with a serious matter: the reputation of The Bahamas.”

“Nothing is more important to us than that in the international arena, whether in the hemisphere or in the sub region or around the world,” Mr. Mitchell said. “Reputation is everything. The respect which we have around the world, depends upon our reputation. My nation of less than 400,000 souls thrives off its reputation. Tourism is our main business. People come to The Bahamas as tourists because they believe and perceive that it is better in The Bahamas, and it is.”

Bahamas Foreign Affairs and Immigration Minister Fred Mitchell (right) is pictured with Ambassador Bocchit Edmond, Permanent Representative of Haiti to the Organization of American States (OAS) following his address at a Special Permanent Council Meeting of the Organization of American States (OAS) in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, December 16, 2014.Noting that The Bahamas is paradise and “we work very hard to maintain that reputation,” Mr. Mitchell said thousands of business people and “non-Bahamian residents live in our country because it has a stellar reputation as a safe place for investment and wealth management: a well regulated, transparent jurisdiction.”

“What we know however is that we must be eternally vigilant in protecting our reputation: correcting untruths and misperceptions where they exist and of course ensuring that within our borders and in our external relations we so conduct ourselves that we to the extent that our resources permit adhere to the highest standards and best practices as set by the international community,” the Foreign Affairs Minister said. “I am here today to reaffirm our commitment to the principles of the rule of law, due process, the international treaties on migration and all the instruments to which we adhere in the Inter-American system. Please be assured of that.”

He added, “This assurance goes out to friend and foe alike and has become necessary because of the misinformation that has been circulated by two innocuous administrative measures that were announced by The Bahamas, which took effect on 1st November 2014. The policies were contained in a one page document which advised the public that work permit applications would not be accepted for those people who did not have legal status in The Bahamas without them first being certified as being seen by one of our consular officers in their home country or in the nearest office to their home country.

“The second was that all non-nationals who live in The Bahamas would have to get and hold the passport of their nationality and obtain a residency permit, which would be evidence that they have the right to live and work in The Bahamas.”

Mr. Mitchell said these policies should not have been a surprise to anyone, adding that the political party “to which I belong announced that we would be perusing immigration reforms prior to our election to office in 2012.”

Mr. Mitchell pointed out that on an official visit of the President of Haiti to The Bahamas on July 28, “we advised the Haitian government that we proposed to do so and sought their advice on whether they could meet the expected demand for passports at their embassy.”

“The President indicated that they could,” Mr. Mitchell said. “This was followed up with a similar exchange at the margins of the United Nations in September with the Foreign Minister of Haiti, my distinguished colleague. We have since spoken with the Minister in the margins of the summit in Havana Cuba last week and the Haitian government has indicated that they will take measures to meet the demand. I thank them.”

The Foreign Affairs and Immigration Minister stressed that the Department of Immigration, which is charged with the responsibility for executing the new policies, has an enforcement unit and each day, they go out and do immigration checks.

“The press both at home and abroad keep referring to these as round ups or raids,” Mitchell emphasized. “There are no round ups in The Bahamas. Round ups are for cattle not people. Words make a difference.”

On November 1, Mr. Mitchell added, they did what they usually do “and in the course of one of these checks, parents abandoned their children and left the children unaccompanied in their homes. This was later borne out by the parent in the press who indicated that he ran and told the children do not to open the door.”

“The constitution of our country empowers officers to arrest people who are committing offences on the following standard: a reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed, is being committed or is about to be committed,” Mr. Mitchell said. “Officers are briefed on that standard and reminded of their responsibility in law to treat everyone with respect and with dignity and to afford everyone due process. So far as I am aware they have stuck to that standard. The government does not sanction any deviation from that standard.”

He said the International Human Rights Commission is invited along with the Organization for American States “to come at any time and inspect our procedures and facilities and see whether what we are saying is correct.”

“We are open and transparent and have absolutely nothing to hide,” he insisted. “Where there are shortfalls, we are committed to ensuring that those are corrected.”

December 16, 2014

Oswald Brown - FaceBook

Sunday, November 23, 2014

Fred Mitchell responds to Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS) - Jose Miguel Insulza ...about his remarks on "round ups" in The Bahamas of Haitians ...and the immigration policies of The Bahamas

Immigration Minister Responds to Comments of OAS Secretary General



By Robyn Adderley - BIS:



Frederick Mitchell responds to Secretary General of the Organization of American States, Jose Miguel Insulza


FREEPORT, Grand Bahama – Minister of Foreign Affairs and Immigration the Hon. Fred Mitchell during a press conference at the Ministry for Grand Bahama on Friday responded to a report emanating from the press of Jamaica that during a visit to Jamaica, the Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS) Jose Miguel Insulza made comments about the immigration policies of The Bahamas Government. The report in indirect speech said that the Secretary General had referred to "round ups" in The Bahamas of Haitians.

Minister Mitchell said no reports of “round ups” of Haitians should have been made by the office of the Organization of American States as the organization had been briefed on the Immigration policies of the Bahamas Government.

Minister Mitchell continued, “last evening, I instructed the Ambassador to the OAS Dr. Elliston Rahming to make an immediate call to the Secretary General for an urgent clarification of this report.” The Minister said he will meet with the Secretary General in Washington shortly.

Also present during the press conference were Minister for Grand Bahama, the Hon. Dr. Michael Darville and Mr. Hubert Ferguson of the Department of Immigration.

Minister Mitchell said he had not intended to comment publically about the content of the proposed meeting as the concerns raised by the Secretary General had been raised earlier with Bahamian officials. Minister Mitchell further stated that he has been advised that the Assistant Secretary General has been fully briefed on the policies and by extension, the organization. “Therefore any suggestion of the round up of people should not have been expressed from that office.

“The record will also show that I have repeatedly said: we do not round up people, you round up cattle.”

Minister Mitchell continued, “On 1st November, The Bahamas government put in place a simple administrative measure to stop fraudulent practices in applying for work permits and to ensure that all people who have the right to live and work in The Bahamas are fully documented.

“Immigration checks have been ongoing since we took office in 2012. Nothing new in that direction has occurred.  We have repatriated over 3000 people since the start of the year to their home countries. Another two repatriation flights will follow next week.  The Detention Centre is now at capacity.

 “This report is yet another example of the unfortunate and ill informed commentary about these simple measures,” said Minister Mitchell.

Having spoken with Human Rights Activist and attorney Fred Smith yesterday in public, said the Minister, he said he told Mr. Smith “his comments where the policies were described as ‘ethnic cleansing’ were entirely unhelpful and extreme, particularly since there is nothing on which to base any such an assertion. The words are inflammatory and can lead to incitement. He needs to withdraw those comments and the defamatory statements made about immigration officers that are Gestapo like and involved in institutional terrorism.

“The intentionally inaccurate commentary often arises because of people in this country making wild and unfounded claims. There has not been a single report of abuse of any kind by any immigration officer reported to us since 1st November.”

Minister Mitchell said the other major political parties, the Free National Movement and the Democratic National Alliance, have indicated they have not heard of any either.

“I will be speaking to all countries in our immediate neighborhood in a few days to ensure that these false assertions do not make their way uncritically into some human rights report and then becomes a way of describing what goes on in The Bahamas.”

He further stated, “This is a completely open and transparent exercise. There has to be oversight by NGOs and there is oversight by them and by the Department of Social Services. The Department has a formal role. The NGOs have access to information and review upon request. Nothing is hidden. No particular group is the target of this exercise and people should stop spreading that falsehood. They should also stop using the term round up because no such exercises have taken place.”

With some speaking about the authority of Immigration officers on a constitutional basis, Minister Mitchell had this to say, “The power of arrest is contained in the Immigration Act. The constitution says that in the exercise of that discretion such an officer can do so only when there is a reasonable suspicion of an offence having been committed, in the process of being committed or about to be committed. The Immigration Department is aware of the constitutional standard and does not violate that standard.”

November 21, 2014

Bahamas.gov.bs

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

Fred Mitchell citizenship warning in order

By Dennis Dames



I have read the Nassau Guardian’s editorial of Monday, November 17, 2014, entitled: Mitchell’s citizenship warning was unhelpful. Firstly, the words of Ms Daphne Campbell, a Florida state representative were nationally offensive and troublesome to most Bahamians when she called for tourists and businesses to boycott The Bahamas over our country’s immigration policies. Secondly, to add insult to injury, Ms Jetta Baptiste, a naturalized Bahamian of Haitian descent, who presently lives in the USA, agreed publically with Ms Campbell. This further inflamed Bahamians; and it was a devastating mistake on Ms Batiste’s part -- in my opinion.

The citizenship warning was in order, in my view, as no one really knows how far persons are prepared to go in order to be heard on the issue of illegal immigration in The Bahamas. Ms Baptiste is in her rights to express her perspective; but she needs to understand that we Bahamians have feelings and she has hurt so many with her concurrence with Ms Campbell – a foreigner. Ms Baptiste has created many lifelong enemies in The Bahamas. So, it might be in her best interest to consider citizenship in another country.

The Guardian’s editorial focused on the rights of an individual to express oneself under the law. It did not talk about a loose and ungrateful tongue, and the damage which is instigated by it. Ms Baptiste has unwittingly revoked her own Bahamian citizenship by supporting evil and disgusting foreign elements against the Bahamian people and nation -- in a very damning fashion.

Let’s face it, we are not fighting a war against government immigration policy detractors as The Nassau Guardian might feel. Our fight has more to do with the internal chronic disunity among us Bahamians, and our political gangster mentality that affects our progress as one people.

Saturday, March 22, 2014

Fred Mitchell is on the right side of history with respect to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans-gender (LGBT) issue

The Bible And Lgbt Rights


By RUPERT MISSICK Jr:



THE discussion between popular preacher Dr Myles Munroe and Fox Hill MP Fred Mitchell has been an interesting one. Interesting only because it is fascinating watching someone with a bigoted position attempt to maintain their civility while still holding fast to their bigotry.

In a recent speech he gave in Trinidad and Tobago, Mr Mitchell said his political career suffers because of his position on LGBT matters.

Almost on cue, Dr Munroe told the press that he recommended that the prime minister consider removing Mr Mitchell from his post as foreign affairs minister because his personal opinions may interfere with his objectivity in carrying out his duties in representing the viewpoint of Bahamian people, meaning that support of LGBT issues did not represent the majority of the convictions of the Bahamian people.

Dr Munroe’s position was predictable. Nearly all preachers run to the “solace” of the Scripture to justify their bigoted positions. On one hand you can’t blame them because it is to be expected. I mean you do expect a lawyer to refer to his law books. But the Bible isn’t a law book.

The Bible, particularly the Old Testament, cannot be the basis of forming a just and equal society because it doesn’t treat everyone equally and it is not just.

The Bible is like your schizophrenic uncle, you love him, you respect him but you have to take what he says in context and usually with a grain of salt.

Is your schizophrenic uncle right about some things? Sure. Does that make him someone you should follow blindly and without question. Probably not.

Because one minute this uncle loves you more than anything in the universe and the next he’s willing to smite you for an offence as simple as doing the laundry on the Sabbath or ready to declare you unclean for something your body does naturally.

Let’s face it, no one lives by Biblical standards, not because the road to righteousness is tough but because it’s impossible. And let’s be honest, as far as a rule book goes it’s filled with contradictory nonsense.

If our lives depended on following the Bible to the letter, then we’d all be dead. Literally. In the words of Psalm 130:3 if the “...Lord marked our guilt, who would survive”.

The Bible is right about loving your neighbour as yourself, being non-judgmental and taking care of the widowed, the poor and the sick. It’s not right about gay people.

It is as wrong about gay people as it was wrong to support slavery and the subjugation of women.

Any book that can be used to support laws that bolstered segregation, the outlawing of interracial marriage, laws preventing women from voting and the right of one group to assert itself over the next, among a plethora of human-rights abuses, deserves our scepticism.

Last year, Mr Mitchell publicly declared his support for the gay rights cause, calling it part of the ongoing fight against all forms of injustice around the world.

Speaking at a church service for Nelson Mandela, Mr Mitchell said although it faces much local opposition, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans-gender (LGBT) movement is part of the universal struggle against discrimination symbolised by the beloved South African leader.

Mr Mitchell is on the right side of history with respect to this issue.

As with interracial marriage before it, many will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about. As more and more countries and states accept LGBT unions and after society and the “sanctity of marriage” doesn’t go to hell in a hand-basket, the religious anxieties over the issue will fade.

The Charter of the United Nations encourages “respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction”. Similarly, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1945) states in Article 2: “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind.”

Despite this, the rights of all citizens of this and other countries, even those who have signed these treaties are not being protected.

LGBT people are being separated by the fact that one set of privileges and rights are being afforded to one group, but not to them.

March 17, 2014

Monday, March 10, 2014

Fred Mitchell's Saving CARICOM

Saving CARICOM pt.4


• This commentary is taken from a lecture given by Minister of Foreign Affairs and Immigration Fred Mitchell on February 6 at the University of the West Indies, St. Augustine in Trinidad and Tobago. Mitchell’s address was on “Saving CARICOM”.

This is said against the backdrop of the much-publicized speech of the American Secretary of State John Kerry to the Organization of American States (OAS) on November 18, 2013: “... In the early days of our republic, the United States made a choice about its relationship with Latin America. President James Munroe, who was also a former secretary of state, declared that the United States would unilaterally, and as a matter of fact, act as the protector of the region. The doctrine that bears his name asserted our authority to step in and oppose the influence of European powers in Latin America. And throughout our nation’s history, successive presidents have reinforced that doctrine and made a similar choice.

“Today, however, we have made a different choice. The era of the Munroe Doctrine is over. The relationship – that’s worth applauding. That’s not a bad thing. The relationship we seek and that we have worked hard to foster is not about a United States declaration about how and when it will intervene in the affairs of other American states. It’s about all of our countries viewing one another as equals, sharing responsibilities, cooperating on security issues, and adhering not to doctrine, but to the decisions that we make as partners to advance the values and the interests we share.”

The proof of this declaration by Mr. Kerry will of course be in the pudding. The recent developments with CELAC where the sub-hemisphere has determined to meet without the United States and Canada is a most interesting development. It parallels the Organization of American States but is much more Latin focused. The United States remains in a state of antipathy with Cuba. Cuba, although now welcomed back to the OAS has said it will not take the seat at the OAS table. CELAC includes Cuba.

Mr. Kerry’s statements come against the bitter experience of CARICOM in its work with the democratic forces in Haiti during the presidency of Jean Bertrand Aristide. CARICOM was asked to help and then Prime Minister P.J. Patterson of Jamaica was in the chair. CARICOM was with U.S. and other developed country assistance helping with the dispute between Mr. Aristide and his opponents which was turning increasingly violent. Mr. Aristide had conceded all that the forces arrayed against him, including the developed countries, had asked. We went to the United Nations to ask for the protection of U.N. troops to save the elected government of Haiti. The U.N. equivocated and said no troops were available. Yet on February 29, 2006, Colin Powell called me at my home to say that Mr. Aristide had taken refuge behind a U.S. Security mission and had resigned and was on his way to a destination unknown. Following his departure from Haiti, troops were suddenly available to restore order. It has left a bitter pill in the mouths of many of our CARICOM leaders and the experience is less than 10 years old.

In The Bahamas we say: “You only know me when you need me.”

The other and more interesting public policy issue to watch in our relations with the United States is our policy both in the CELAC context and in the CARICOM context to marijuana. In the Mexican/CARICOM dialogue in Barbados last year, the then President of Mexico Filipe Calderon spoke to a new approach to anti-drug policy, one which takes a market approach rather than a law enforcement approach. It seeks the decriminalization or legalization of the use of marijuana with the appropriate regulation and taxes as opposed to the resources used to lock up young males and criminalizing them in the process without any hindrance to the use of drugs. The U.S. domestic market is also changing on this. CARICOM has the issue of medical marijuana on its next agenda for heads of government in St. Vincent. It remains to be seen whether the U.S. federal policy will change and what that will mean for the CARICOM region. I say this because the U.S. relationship and interest in this region seems almost entirely based on national security and in particular anti-drug interdiction.

The Latins are very much interested in the support of the Caribbean countries for their position on the islands they call the Malvinas, also known as the Falklands, against the backdrop of our being former British colonies in the main and the supposed automatic support for the British position. This new CELAC relationship will be very important going forward.

I would suggest also that it will be helpful to this region and hemisphere if Mr. Kerry is able to translate his declaration into a more normal relationship with Cuba, particularly given the moves toward market reforms which are now evidenced in that latter country.

It would seem to make sense given that the United States has no such diplomatic issues with China. At a recent meeting in Trinidad 2013, the American vice president made it clear that the United States had no objection to our relationships with China, and I believe the U.S. view is very important. China has been clear about its objectives in the region. For the Caribbean, a region which is starved for capital, and with the traditional friends the U.S., Canada and Europe either unable or unwilling to provide the capital locked into a cycle of low growth and high debt, China has been a savior.

The Chinese position was given in a paper policy paper on Latin America and the Caribbean. They are interested in acquisition of raw materials and in political cooperation to support the one China policy. In exchange, they will support Latin America and the Caribbean in their national development goals and have set aside significant capital for access by the hemisphere to support that development.

Paragraph IV (5) of the paper reads as follows: “The Chinese government will continue to strengthen coordination and cooperation on international issues with Latin American and Caribbean countries, and maintain regular consultation with them on major international and regional issues. The two sides will continue to support each other on such important issues as sovereignty and territorial integrity. China stands ready to work with Latin American and Caribbean countries to strengthen the role of the United Nations, make the international political and economic order more fair and equitable, promote democracy in international relations and uphold the legitimate rights and interests of developing countries, China supports a greater role of Latin American Countries in international affairs.”

Throughout the conduct of international relations there is this constant refrain which looks to this region with what is often called a bloc of votes. One after the next country comes calling. They crowd our Council for Community and Foreign Relations Agenda (COFCOR) with requests for support for that candidacy or the next. The question is always as far as The Bahamas is concerned whether or not we use the numbers that we have to our sufficient advantage. It is not a rhetorical question.

I think the answer is obvious that we do not.

It makes the case for reform more urgent lest the parade passes us by.

The distinguished foreign minister of Trinidad and Tobago has made an urgent case for the expansion of CARICOM to include all the countries and territories in a paper in which he describes a Caribbean Sea Convergence. This convergence would encompass some 40 million people and ultimately will include in the short term the Dominican Republic, the French Territories including French Guyana and the Dutch ones, and in the longer term the American possessions and ultimately Cuba.

The idea is that unity is strength or as the Haitians would say: L’Union Fait La Force.

These matters are not simple or cheap. P.J. Patterson led the way in bringing Haiti into CARICOM. Suriname is also a member. These nations do not speak English as a first language and CARICOM has not been able thus far to ensure that documentation and conversations are available in the native languages of those countries. Imagine then including a Spanish-speaking country.

Further, there continue to be tensions in relationships because Haiti is a source country for illegal migration. The Bahamas does not confer citizenship on people born in The Bahamas whose parents are not Bahamian. One consequence is that there are thousands of Haitians in The Bahamas who are undocumented and who have to be regularized in some way or fashion. Immigration enforcement in The Bahamas is becoming stricter. Our country is committed to working on a solution to this.

All of this makes the enterprise of fixing our internal arrangements at CARICOM a priority.

Here is what Winston Dookeran, the foreign minister of Trinidad and Tobago, said in his paper “A New Frontier For Caribbean Convergence”: “As noted earlier, CARICOM integration was narrowly defined in terms of trade and markets, which is not a very accurate measure. The new perception of convergence needs to be understood as ‘a new economic space’ where there is partnership not just across the Caribbean Sea space, but also between the public and private sectors. It is forging of ‘a right partnership toward productive efficiency. Convergence therefore implies a partnership (inclusiveness and cooperation) among public and private actors in the economies of the Caribbean sea emphasizing equality and equity as integral components.”

Minister Dookeran went on to list a number of arrangements and decisions which have to be taken, ought to be taken. I have mentioned already the inclusion of the new members. However, I want to parse some of his ideas and lead us into what I think is the inevitable conclusion.

He says in the chapter Policy Execution and Outcomes Institutional Drivers Caribbean Sea Convergence: “CARICOM Secretariat – is the principle administrative organ of CARICOM... recommend a fast-track decision to facilitate the entry...”

Anyone who knows CARICOM and its decision making will know that the expression “fast track ” and CARICOM in no way comport. Yet mandates are piled upon the secretariat which is the closest thing we have to an executive arm but which is resource starved and under-manned.

Prime Minister Kenny Anthony speaking at the Chamber of Commerce in Barbados in October 2012 said this: “We know that we have too often asked our secretariat to perform miracles without even the requisite loaves and fishes. Unable to deliver miracles, decisive action has been replaced by documentation – mountains of it – which most of us have neither the time nor the appetite to digest.”

So whatever reforms are contemplated for CARICOM and I agree the need for reform, amongst the issues: human resources and money.

Given the economic issues that face us, all treasuries and ministers of finance will be reluctant to agree to increases in subventions to CARICOM. Indeed many nations struggle to pay the existing duties. However, one suggestion is that there ought to be in each country a specific set aside, a revenue stream which goes straight to CARICOM and its agencies as a means of ensuring the funding at the appropriate levels. Further that the human resources issues can be helped by the foreign ministries and foreign trade ministries indeed the public service generally seconding officers to CARICOM as part of the public service careers for officers, which service would be part of the permanent and pensionable establishment in their countries as a means to ensure that the best talent ends up working there. Indeed, The Bahamas has led the way by already offering that possibility to at least two public servants per year on secondment to the secretariat.

In terms of the decision making, clearly nations will have to bite the bullet to give stronger powers to the secretariat to ensure that decisions are executed. Those who argue on sovereignty will do well to remember the saying of Dame Biller Miller of Barbados, that you cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time.

With regard to the convergence paper by Mr. Dookeran, I am also proud to say that we in The Bahamas recognize this need for convergence. Within our own country, the prime minister has embraced the three PPPs. In Bimini, the island in The Bahamas closest to the U.S. mainland there is an investment which will require a significant upgrade to the international airport. The private investor is doing the upgrade to the government’s specifications but the cost will be recaptured by credits given for taxes collected on the investment. It is this kind of creative financing that will invigorate economies around the region and is to be recommended for its efficiency and simplicity and speed, with minimum impact on the public purse but exponential benefits to the public good.

• Fred Mitchell is the member of Parliament for Fox Hill and minister of foreign affairs and immigration.

March 08, 2014

- Saving CARICOM, pt. 1

- Saving CARICOM, pt. 2

- Saving CARICOM, pt. 3

- Saving CARICOM, pt. 5

thenassauguardian

Sunday, March 9, 2014

Fred Mitchell on Saving CARICOM

Saving CARICOM, pt. 3


• This commentary is taken from a lecture given by Minister of Foreign Affairs and Immigration Fred Mitchell on February 6 at the University of the West Indies, St. Augustine in Trinidad and Tobago. Mitchell’s address was on “Saving CARICOM”.

There were times when the project appeared to be imperiled. It seems to me that most people will say that this was the case during the seven years when the heads of government did not meet. It is interesting reading the 1982 speeches, the first of the conference meetings after a break of seven years. By that time, Eric Williams had passed away and while some of the founders of the project were there, there was a new world order.

By the time the conference took place in 1982 in Ocho Rios, Edward Seaga had become prime minister of Jamaica, with Ronald Reagan in the White House in Washington. Mr. Seaga was embraced by the new U.S. administration as a sign that a more conservative era had returned to the Caribbean after the work in democratic socialism under Michael Manley.

It is not clear why the conference had not met during those seven years. I sought to find the reasons. The best I could discover was that a row broke out amongst the leaders over some issue and they simply refused to attend.

It was left to the ministers in council to carry on the work and in 1982 the leaders met in Ocho Rios in Jamaica and conferences have met ever since then.

The Bahamas joined CARICOM on July 4, 1983. We had become independent on July 10, 1973. I am not certain why it took us 10 years to join, since we had been participating in the work of many of the institutions of the project from the 1950s. The main one being the University of the West Indies and then the Council of Legal Education and the Medical Council.

Several generations of Bahamians have been trained at the university, in the law school and in the medical school. Our first student was Dr. Cecil Bethel who enrolled in the medical school in 1952.

In 1983, I was then working as a special assistant out of the Bahamas Information Services in the prime minister’s office. I recall two things about CARICOM at that time. The death of Maurice Bishop, the prime minister of Grenada took place on October 20, 1983. The question was whether or not The Bahamas and other CARICOM leaders would support the decision of the United States to invade Grenada to restore constitutional order. According to a recollection by former Guyana Foreign Minister Rashleigh Jackson on guyanacaribbeanpolitics.com “... The Bahamas, Guyana, Belize and Trinidad and Tobago were against any military action, whereas Barbados and Jamaica were clearly in favor of the OECS countries issuing an invitation to the United States of America to join with them in an invasion of Grenada... ”

I am happy to have included that story because I have travelling with me two researchers and aides from the ministry in Nassau: Joy Newbold and Jamahl Strachan. Ms. Newbold was born in the year the coup took place in Grenada in 1979. Mr. Strachan was born in 1988 well after both the coup and the invasion had taken place. The idea that there had been a coup in a CARICOM country had been news to them and with this inclusion they were enlightened about the story. It led to a full discussion with the secretary general again on the need for a definitive narrative on how we have come to where we are.

That disagreement over Grenada did not break up CARICOM. In fact at the heads of government meeting in The Bahamas from July 4 to July 7, 1984, Nicholas Brathwaite, chairman of the Interim Advisory Council, Grenada was accepted into the conference as the legitimate representative of the Grenadian people and the representative of Jamaica Edward Seaga was also there at the CARICOM table.

The conference continues to meet, often in a most passionate form.

The second thing that I remember from that time with Sir Lynden was that a decision was made on the question of putting the Tourism School for the University of the West Indies in Nassau. He said that he had made it plain to his colleagues that since The Bahamas was then the leader of tourism in the region that was the best place to put the school and they agreed.

That was my introduction to CARICOM.

In 1979, as the director of news and public affairs for our Broadcasting Corporation, I got to meet for the first time one Percival James Patterson, otherwise known as P.J. He was then foreign minister for Jamaica in and around the time of the coup against Maurice Bishop in 1979. As fate would have it, I became minister of foreign affairs of The Bahamas in 2002 and ended up working closely with Mr. Patterson on perhaps the most contentious issue of our era: that of Haiti and the overthrow of Jean Bertrand Aristide as president of Haiti about which I shall have more to say later.

I turn now to a document that was adopted by the heads of government in 1997 which loomed very large when I became minister in 2002 but seems now to have lapsed into obscurity; but you will see why I am arguing now that it should become more central to what CARICOM is and should be revisited and updated. It is called the Charter Of Civil Society. It was adopted in 1997 and while it is not justiciable, or so it appears, in that it is not community law in so far as I am aware, the document says the following at XXVI: “The states declare their resolve to pay due regard to the provisions of this charter.”

As lawyers often say, at the very least then this charter is binding in honor. It forms the basis of a descriptive and normative set of values to which we all adhere and aspire and if any country does not agree with those values, then ipso facto they cannot be a member of CARICOM. Thus those who argue in favor of Cuba becoming a CARICOM member without changes in the conduct of the internal arrangements at governance in Cuba may have an uphill battle.

Certainly for The Bahamas, it was the pretext for us to implement consultations in our country through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs with civil society. That practice fell into disuse when the PLP lost office in 2007 and we have been seeking to revive it. Article XXV calls for reports to be sent to the secretary general periodically. There are supposed to be national committees reviewing the implementation of the charter.

I believe that it is time to put the words of this charter into action. I believe that while the CARICOM Single Market And Economy (CSME) is a valuable and valued project and aspiration, you will find that the emphasis on that aspect of our relations and the difficulties of harmonizing economies and market space have caused some of the negativity which we now see toward CARICOM. When you look at the successes of this region and the functional cooperation that has been engendered, the work of the specialized agencies, you will see that CARICOM has been a roaring success. It is time, therefore, to look to human rights issues.

Nothing is more contentious than this issue in our politics that I now raise, given the religious aversion and visceral reactions to discussion of LGBT issues in our region. Some people see it as striking at the very heart and fabric of our cultural identity. The Bahamas is not an exception to that aversion with many people seeing the discussion as a moral and religious one and not a human rights one. My own political career suffers because of my insistence that in this regard like all other aspects of human life, there must be tolerance at a minimum and we must uphold the principle that the general rights for which we fought as being rights for all people, particularly as a formerly enslaved and indentured people, cannot be derogated from because of someone’s sexual orientation. In other words, when the charter in article III says: “States shall, in the discharge of their legislative, executive administrative and judicial functions ensure respect for and protection of the human dignity of every person.” That in my view means literally every person and not just confined to what article V says: “No person shall be favored or discriminated against by reason of age, color, creed, disability, ethnicity, gender, language, place of birth or origin, political opinion, race, religion or social class.”

The charter is a 1997 document so orientation was not included and perhaps even in today’s atmosphere cannot be included, but the conversation has begun and the pressure from other societies with whom we deal is upon us to consider what our stand is on the rights of all people. Do we as a society for example condone violence against people simply because of their sexual orientation? The answer to that must be no. And if the answer is not no to that then the charter is not worth the paper it is written on.

The prime minister of Barbados, Freundel Stuart, and Dr. Denzil Douglas, [prime minister] of St. Christopher and Nevis, have begun public discussions of these issues in their societies. The prime minister of Barbados even challenged the Anglican Church on the subject at their provincial synod. That was right and just. The Bahamas has decriminalized behavior associated with sexual orientation.

We have available in aid and comfort to any change to amplify the discrimination provision in the charter the constitution of South Africa which admits to orientation as one of the named classes for which there can be no discrimination. There are profound changes throughout the United States and Europe, our main trading and cultural partners on this issue. It would be unwise to ignore it.

I often find that in drafting solutions to contentious problems that one solution is a generic one. One solution is that the charter can become justiciable with enforceable rights across the community. Less coercively, it can be open to the Caribbean Court of Justice as the final arbiter of community law to adjudicate upon the charter and declare the rights of individuals for any aggrieved individual seeking an opinion from the court declaring his rights and the wording of the provision at article V can be reworded to read: “No person shall be favored or discriminated against by reason of including but not limited to the following: age, color, creed, disability, ethnicity, gender, language, place of birth, origin, political opinion, race, religion, social class or some other characteristic which in the opinion of the court deserves special protection.”

Of course the short way to deal with this is simply to add orientation as one of the listed characteristics. I have no remit to pronounce on that, however, and I do not do so.

What is important is that our leaders have already begun the conversation and that conversation should continue. That conversation should be underpinned with the principles of tolerance and the protection of the law for another disadvantaged group.

Less contentiously I suspect will be the question of the extent to which the principle of non-interference in the affairs of another CARICOM state still applies given what happened in Grenada in 1979 and again in 1983. When a state disintegrates and is under threat because of natural disasters that is an easy question to answer, but not so easy when one faces the question of civil disorder over political and civic issues.

The experience of Grenada and the restoration of democracy there has perhaps set the precedent that a governor general or president, acting in his own deliberate judgment, can call for outside assistance, even military or policing assistance.

Perhaps the charter ought to be amended to make clear what the position of member states will be when the human rights of individuals in a member state are so violated that it begs the question of outside interference. This is dangerous ground I admit, one on which we tread carefully.

• Fred Mitchell is the member of Parliament for Fox Hill and minister of foreign affairs and immigration.

March 07, 2014

- Saving CARICOM, pt. 1

- Saving CARICOM, pt. 2

- Saving CARICOM pt.4

- Saving CARICOM, pt. 5

thenassauguardian

Saturday, March 8, 2014

Fred Mitchell discusses CARICOM’s survival

Saving CARICOM, pt. 2


• This commentary is taken from a lecture given by Minister of Foreign Affairs and Immigration Fred Mitchell on February 6 at the University of the West Indies, St. Augustine in Trinidad and Tobago. Mitchell’s address was on “Saving CARICOM”.

Stay with me for a minute here.

We in the Progressive Liberal Party returned to power in The Bahamas in 2002. We had lost to the Free National Movement 10 years earlier in 1992 which ushered in a more conservative and laissez faire attitude toward governance.

The leader of our party Lynden Pindling, who had founded the modern Bahamian state, was thrown out of office unceremoniously in 1992 after 25 years, and within eight years was dead of prostate cancer. When we came back in 2002, the CARICOM leadership of Manley, Burnham, Williams, Barrow had all passed on and we met a new order.

The new order was Kenny Anthony, P.J. Patterson, Jean Bertrand Aristide, Ralph Gonsalves, Patrick Manning, Owen Arthur, all a new generation of CARICOM leaders, all forged in the crucible of the region’s premier institution, the University of the West Indies, with the exception of Mr. Aristide.

Jamaica’s Prime Minister P.J. Patterson explained that Haiti had no other natural allies than we in CARICOM in the sub-region and he believed that it was necessary that they not stand alone and he persuaded them to join us.

Amongst these new leaders was a commitment to the CARICOM project. Even when there were strong disagreements around the table you got the feeling that no one would leave. There were some strong disagreements as in the meeting in St. Lucia in 2005 when P.J. Patterson sought to bring the leaders of the opposition together with the prime ministers in order to forge a consensus on the Caribbean Court of Justice. The meeting got off to a rocky start when one of the leaders of the opposition said he would not sit next to that prime minister because that prime minister was trying to put him in jail.

We stayed in office until 2007 when we lost to Hubert Ingraham, the leader of the opposition and once prime minister again. It surprised everyone in the region including us.

However, we might have seen it coming, for a trend against incumbents had started to develop: St. Lucia had elections in December 2006 and Kenny Anthony lost, then we lost in Nassau in May 2007. Then there was a loss by Portia Simpson Miller in Jamaica in September 2007, and then by Owen Arthur in Barbados in January 2008. Said Musa lost on February 7, 2008 in Belize and then a loss by Keith Mitchell in Grenada on July 8, 2008.

Patrick Manning, the then prime minister of Trinidad and Tobago, speaking at a political rally in Port of Spain reminded his party how up to that time he had bucked the trend. Here is how the press reported the statement by the then prime minister on Sunday, July 13, 2008: “Prime Minister Patrick Manning said yesterday that his controversial actions in the selection of candidates in the last general election were vindicated by the results of the elections across the Caribbean.

“Addressing the PNM’s 42nd Annual Convention, Manning noted that many people questioned the strategy he employed in the selection of candidates, which saw many senior MPs and Cabinet members rejected.

“Let me ask you this question, where is the last government of Belize?” Manning enquired. ‘Gone!’ the crowd replied. ‘The last government of The Bahamas?’ he asked. ‘Gone!’ was the refrain. ‘The last government of Jamaica?’ he enquired. ‘Gone!’ shouted the crowd. ‘The last government of Barbados?’ he asked. The response was the same. ‘The last government of St. Lucia?’ ‘Gone!’ they shouted. ‘Where is the last government of Grenada, my dear friends?’ ‘Gone!’ the crowd chorused. ‘Where is the last government of Trinidad and Tobago?’ Thunderous applause drowned out the words, ‘Here, here.’”

Of course, history now shows that in 2010, a trend had indeed developed and that trend continued in Trinidad and Tobago. My larger point here is that we can detect the shifts in our societies by looking at one another.

Another example is how Jamaica started to develop a crime problem in the 1970s; and many of them as they fled Jamaica and came to Nassau would warn us that we too would face the problem of bars on our windows and crime out of control. We are seeing these same pathologies today in The Bahamas.

My point is that on this anecdotal level, trends seem to develop in our region and it tends to start south and move north.

The trend reversed itself somewhat within five years when beginning with Kenny Anthony some of the men who had lost power five years before were back in power again. Kenny Anthony described it on July 4, 2012 in St. Lucia as returning to power following a period of political metanoia. This inspired us in The Bahamas. In addition to Perry Christie, Portia Simpson Miller has returned and so has Keith Mitchell of Grenada. Of the original group that were Perry Christie’s peers in 2002, only Ralph Gonsalves and Denzil Douglas are still there uninterrupted by the vagaries of democracy. Everyone else had lost elections.

What we do then in The Bahamas is we look at the CARICOM region and what is happening here because it has been a fairly reliable predictor of what may transpire in our own society.

In fact, the talent to run our election campaigns has often come from Trinidad, Jamaica and Barbados.

You may also know that the Progressive Liberal Party was founded following a visit in 1953 to Jamaica by the founders of the party and talks with the then leadership of the People’s National Party.

My thesis then is that the development of the CARICOM project is a natural projection of what has been done on an informal basis by people over the years as they migrated from one territory to the next.

Who can forget how the lives of the region and of Trinidad and Tobago were influenced and transformed by the man now known as the Mighty Sparrow who hailed from Grenada.

I have styled this lecture rather grandly “ Saving CARICOM”. That has elicited many responses from many people but most people have said “how are you going to do that?” I argue that it does not need a savior, contrary to the harsh judgment issued by the Trinidadian writer V.S. Naipaul in his essay “The Killings In Trinidad”. CARICOM is a project that grows itself. The project is organic and when one looks at the history of the events, it shows that the Caribbean ethos causes it to survive, compels it to survive.

In this effort I adopt the history as outlined by the distinguished Secretary General of CARICOM Irwin La Rocque.

In an address delivered right here in Trinidad on October 3, 2013, the secretary general gave the summary narrative of the founding of the modern CARICOM project. I think that one decision that should be made is to adopt a common narrative about the founding of the organization and spread the story. It is important for the history to be reduced to a bite size. It makes for part of the wider understanding amongst the younger people of how we came to be where we are. The secretary general wrote: “Ladies and gentlemen, in real terms our integration process can be regarded as beginning 81 years ago, given that it was in 1932 that the first concrete proposals for Caribbean unity were put forward at a meeting of Caribbean labor issues leaders in Roseau, Dominica.

“It was the labor movement which championed and pioneered integration as a means of self-governance for the West Indian territories. At congress in the late 1920s and 1930s, Caribbean labor leaders went from discussion of the idea to actually drafting a constitution for the unified terror territories, aided in large measure by a young economist from Saint Lucia, Arthur Lewis, who later distinguished himself and the region as our first Nobel laureate.

“Progress stalled with the intervention of the Second World War but shortly after its end in 1945, momentum was regained towards independence as a unit. This was the main theme of a landmark meeting which took place in 1947 at Montego Bay, Jamaica. Out of that meeting, the process began towards the West Indies Federation. This federation would eventually involve the British colonies, with the exception of then British Guiana and British Honduras, and came into being in 1958. Its goal was independence and some services were established to support the West Indian nation, including a Supreme Court and a shipping line. In preparing for independence, a plan for a Customs Unit was drawn up but during the four years for the federations (sic) existence free trade was not introduced among the islands.

“The end of the federation in 1962 brought a close to this phase and to this approach to integration. In many ways, however, the end of the federation led to the beginning of another chapter in the integration process which would evolve into the Caribbean Community. The need to maintain and possibly expand the Common Services that existed during the federation was the catalyst for that (1963) Common Services Conference which I mentioned earlier. The UWI and the Regional Shipping Service along with the Caribbean Meteorological Service, which began one year later, kept the embers of integration glowing along with the so-called Little 8, comprising the Windward and Leeward Islands and Barbados which stayed together after the dissolution of the federation.

The Little 8 folded in 1965 and later that year, the premiers of Barbados and British Guiana and the chief minister of Antigua and Barbuda Messrs Barrow, Burnham and Bird respectively, agreed to establish the Caribbean Free Trade Association (CARIFTA). It was the first attempt to integrate through trade. The other territories joined the initiative and CARIFTA was launched in 1968 along with the Commonwealth Caribbean Regional Secretariat, which became the CARICOM Secretariat.

“During that period, ‘regional nationalism’ was alive and well. It was a nationalism born out of a common desire and recognition of the imperative to forge our individual nationalism within a regional context. There was a political chemistry among our leaders.

“Eight years later, recognizing that CARIFTA could only carry us thus far, our leader felt confident enough to move on to a Common Market and Community and deepened integration arrangements on the basis of three pillars: economic integration; foreign policy co-ordination and functional co-operation. The Treaty of Chaguaramas formalizing this new agreement was signed in 1973. That treaty which reflected the aspirations of the time could only carry us so far. It included a Common External Tariff (CET) which incidentally requires member states to give up some sovereignty. However, decisions were largely unenforceable and dispute settlement arrangements were weak. Trade barriers among members were also rampant and many of the provisions of the treaty were best endeavor clauses.

“Sixteen years later, the watershed meeting of Heads of Government at Grand Anse, Grenada in 1989 set the region on course towards the CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME). Grand Anse was a bold response to the circumstances of the day. The community was faced with a changing global economic environment while the performance of the regional economy was sluggish. The traditional market for our commodities was threatened with the advent of the European Single Market, and discussions continued on the global trading arrangements. Both of these developments would result in preference erosion for the commodities the region had come to rely on so heavily. Grant assistance was also declining. Our leaders recognized that we needed to become more self-reliant for our development. A deeper form of integration was the logical answer to those challenges.

“To accommodate this even deeper form of integration, the treaty was revised significantly and was signed in 2001. That revision of the treaty set out the objectives for the community, including the Single Market and Economy. These include improved standards of living and work; full employment of labor and other factors of production accelerated, coordinated and sustained economic development and convergence; enhanced co-ordination of member states’ foreign policies; and enhanced functional co-operation. That last objective recognized the need for more efficient operation of common services and intensified activities in areas such as health, education, transportation and telecommunications.

“In 2006, five years after the signing of the revised treaty, the single market was ushered in. Twelve of our 15 member states form the single market, while Haiti and Montserrat are working towards putting it into place.

“In the midst of these various transitions in the wider region, the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), whose members are either member states or associate members of CARICOM, have also been strengthening their integration arrangements which were first codified with the Treaty of Basseterre in 1981. In many ways the OECS has moved beyond CARICOM with the Revised Treaty of Basseterre Establishing the OECS Economic Union, signed in 2010, which among other things has granted free movement of persons within the member states. This is an integration group that has had its own single currency and institutions, such as its Central Bank, Supreme Court and Stock Exchange. There is much to be learnt from the progress being made at the level of the OECS which could assist the wider integration effort.”

I would only argue also that along with the common narrative on the founding of the CARICOM project, there was the parallel story of the emergence of the Pan African Movement across the Caribbean and the struggle for national independence, the negritude movement, the civil rights movement in the United States and the common cause found in the struggle of the Indians who had come to this part of the world as indentured workers. All of those blended together to produce what we now call today CARICOM.


• Fred Mitchell is the member of Parliament for Fox Hill and minister of foreign affairs and immigration.

March 06, 2014

- Saving CARICOM, pt. 1

- Saving CARICOM, pt. 3

-Saving CARICOM pt.4

- Saving CARICOM, pt. 5

thenassauguardian