Anyone who believes in freedom and democracy ...should protest and oppose the horrible provision of Section 64 ...in the revised Value-Added Tax (VAT) Bill

Qc Pledges Constitutional Challenge To The Vat Bill

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

A well-known QC yesterday said he is mulling whether to challenge the Government’s plans to prevent delinquent Value-Added Tax (VAT) payers from leaving the Bahamas before the legislation even becomes law.

Fred Smith QC, the Callenders & Co attorney and partner, warned that if the Government succeeded in getting Section 64 in the revised VAT Bill on to the statute books and enforced it, it would soon seek to apply similar ‘travel bans’ to defaulters on other taxes.

Arguing that Section 64 was akin to something “totalitarian dictatorships” would seek to implement, Mr Smith backed private sector executives who had warned it violated freedom of movement provisions in the Bahamian Constitution.

“I will immediately bring an action for a declaration that it is an unconstitutional provision in the law,” Mr Smith told Tribune Business, when asked what he would do if Section 64 was ultimately included as is in any VAT Act.

“I might even sue beforehand,” he added. “I am considering suing before it comes into effect. I call on anyone who believes in freedom and democracy to protest and oppose this horrible provision.”

As revealed on Monday by Tribune Business, the new Section 64 in the revised VAT Bill would allow the VAT Comptroller to prevent delinquent taxpayers from travelling until they pay off their liabilities in full or agree a settlement/payment plan that is acceptable.

The legislation states that persons owing the Government VAT monies “may not leave, or attempt to leave, the Bahamas for an indefinite or prolonged period of time” - although it does not attempt to specify the duration that would meet this criteria.

“Where the Comptroller has reasonable grounds to believe that a person liable to pay tax outstanding under this Act may leave the Bahamas for an indefinite or prolonged period without paying such tax, [the Comptroller] may] issue a certificate in the prescribed form to the Commissioner of Police and the Immigration director, requesting the Commissioner and director respectively to take such steps as may be necessary to prevent the person from leaving the Bahamas” until due payment is made, the revised Bill states.

Those who attempt to flee the Bahamas without making due payment will face either a $100,000 fine or imprisonment for up to a year.

Section 64 appears designed to prevent foreign owners of Bahamas-based businesses, as well as Bahamians, from running away from their VAT liabilities, but it could well spark legal action of the kind promised by Mr Smith.

Analysing Section 64’s impact as is, Mr Smith said; “Every Bahamian, permanent resident, work permit holder, and their children and families, can be stopped at the border and prevented from travelling - to go on vacation or conduct business - simply because it is alleged that they owe VAT.”

This, he added, was exacerbated by the “vagueness” of the ‘indefinite or prolonged period of time’ wording, and the QC added: “There are no rules or boundaries, and excess and abuse will reign supreme.”

And Mr Smith quickly warned that, if it was successful under VAT, the Government would likely extend the ‘travel ban’ to cover defaulters on other taxes.

‘The idea of being able to stop people from travelling because of alleged arrears of taxation under VAT means the Government can extend this to arrears of real property tax, National Insurance Board contributions, Customs Duties and real property taxes,” Mr Smith told Tribune Business.

“If this legislation applies to one tax, it can apply to any tax, and this kind of dictatorial approach to government will make Bahamians prisoners in their own country. If this clause is permitted to stand, each successive government will extend it to every form of taxation.”

Mr Smith added that Section 64 would effectively make Bahamians and residents “slaves of the taxman, who will be judge, jury and executioner all in one.

“Once they stop us from travelling, does that mean they’ll take us into custody until we pay the taxes? Where will it end?”

Mr Smith added that the Bahamas appeared to be “going backwards as a democracy, instead of forwards”, and warned that freedoms were often eroded by stealth, one stage at a time, if governments were allowed to get away with the first move.

Gowon Bowe, the Tax Coalition’s co-chair, told Tribune Business earlier this week that the restriction contemplated by Section 64 would likely violate constitutional rights relating to a person’s ability to move and travel freely.

He added that it had been “a sticking point” in the initial November 2013 draft legislation, and had now been ‘broken out’ and stated more explicitly in the revised legislation tabled in the House of Assembly last week.

And Mr Bowe, a PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) accountant and partner, said imposing restrictions on a person’s ability to travel should be the sole preserve of the judiciary and Bahamian court system, not a tax authority such as the proposed VAT Department.

“I am not sure that will stand constitutionally. It would run against movement and free movement,” Mr Bowe told Tribune Business.

“The focus should be on prosecuting those individuals, with their ability to travel restricted only by the courts. That should be purely a court function; that shouldn’t be the ability of the tax authority to restrict a person’s movement.”

Suggesting that the focus should be on prosecuting VAT delinquents, not taking away their travel and movement freedoms, Mr Bowe said the world was “too much of global society to impose something as outdated as that”.

August 01, 2014

Tribune 242

Bahamians are now engaged in a journey towards economic empowerment and freedom ...the final struggle in the centuries-long voyage from enslavement ...to full freedom for generations to come

The march to Majority Rule, pt. 4

Consider This...

By PHILIP C. GALANIS

“For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream shall never die.” - Senator Edward M. Kennedy

As we noted in the first three parts of this series, the march to Majority Rule in The Bahamas can be characterized by two words: Sustained struggle.

Earlier this month, we celebrated the first public holiday to commemorate the day that Majority Rule came to The Bahamas on January 10, 1967.  It was a life-changing event that catapulted the lives of many thousands to unimaginable heights.  We began the march to Majority Rule with the discovery of these islands by the Europeans in 1492 and the subsequent accelerated population growth, aided as much by the American Loyalists who sought sanctuary here following the American Revolution, as by the trans-Atlantic slave trade which engendered numerous attempts by those slaves for freedom from their masters.

We also reviewed how the Burma Road Riot, Bahamians who were “on the Contract” and participants in the General Strike helped to create the framework for the attainment of Majority Rule.

In the final installment of this series, we will continue to Consider This… what were some of the major final milestones that contributed to the centuries-long march to Majority Rule?

The Women’s Suffrage Movement

The 1950s was a decade of tremendous activism by Bahamian women who were deprived of many of the benefits of citizenship.  Women could not vote, could not be elected to Parliament, and could not serve on juries, on public boards, as justices of the peace or in many of the established institutions in the colony.  Much has been documented about the women who led the Women’s Suffrage Movement, and the leading “Suffragettes” included Mary Ingraham, Eugenia Lockhart, Georgiana Symonette, Mabel Walker and Althea Mortimer. The Suffragettes petitioned Parliament for the right to vote and were largely supported in their efforts by the Progressive Liberal Party.

Through Doris Johnson, the Suffragettes asked permission to address members of the House of Assembly in 1959, which was refused. However, Magistrate Maxwell Thompson allowed them to use the Magistrate’s Court for their presentation. The Suffragettes’ activism also included a petition to the governor of the colony to change the law for universal suffrage, which, having failed, resulted in them (along with Henry Taylor, then chairman of the PLP) travelling to London to seek assistance from the British government.

The movement sent another petition to the government of the Bahama Islands in 1960 which was also rejected. The PLP took up the cause and held rallies in Nassau and the Out Islands.  Following a relentless, focused and sustained struggle, on February 23, 1961 Parliament passed a bill, which came into effect on June 30, 1962, to allow women to vote and to serve in Parliament.  Registration of women immediately followed and on Monday, November 27, 1962, women voted in The Bahamas for the first time. That election marked a tectonic shift in the body politic.

The general election of 1962

The general elections of 1962 were historic because it was the first general election in which women voted, the first time that the property and company votes were not allowed to vote and an election in which the PLP actually polled a majority of votes cast although it won significantly fewer seats than the incumbent United Bahamian Party (UBP).  In that election, the PLP polled 32,261 votes or approximately 44 percent, winning only eight seats, compared to the UBP which polled 26,500 votes or 36 percent, but winning 18 seats. The Labour Party polled 3,049 votes which represented four percent, winning only one seat.

Several reasons were given for the PLP’s defeat, notwithstanding its decisive plurality.  Clearly there was considerable gerrymandering of seats, allocating a larger number to the Out Islands where it was much easier for the governing party to influence voting behavior by economic threats and political intimidation. In addition, many voters were still out of the colony “on the contract” and, finally, there was a level of trepidation and concern about the ability of black government to govern and maintain the level of political and economic stability to which the colony had become accustomed.  The victory by the UBP resulted in deep-seated racial polarization for the next five years.

Black Tuesday

The next five years would witness considerably greater political activism in anticipation of the general elections in 1967.  The PLP organized and orchestrated its activities with pin-point precision to maximize its political agenda.  On February 4, 1965, during the debate on the report of the Constituencies Commission to which the PLP objected, Milo Butler and Arthur D. Hanna, both PLP members of the House of Assembly, were named and ejected from the House when they refused to take their seats after having exhausted their 15 minute time limit.

Several months later, on April 27, 1965, Lynden Pindling, then leader of the opposition, stated that Premier Symonette and his government appeared to be intransigent on the issue of boundary changes and, given the gerrymandering experience of the 1962 general elections, determined that more radical recourse was required.   Regarding the government’s intransigence, Pindling stated that he could have “no part in it” and picking up the mace (the symbol of the authority of the House), said that “the mace is supposed to belong to the people of the country and the people are outside”. He then threw the mace through the second-floor window to the people below. Milo Butler followed Pindling’s lead by tossing the hour glass, which was used to time speeches, out of the window.

That event, which came to be known as Black Tuesday, stirred the emotions of the people, so much so that the police had to be called to quell the fervor that had been excited by Pindling who left the House to join the people outside.

Over the next two years, the PLP accelerated its political activity including the appeal to the United Nations Committee on colonialism, a boycott of the House of Assembly and the enlistment of support from noted American freedom fighters and celebrities, including Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Sidney Poitier and Harry Belafonte. The PLP also galvanized the support of the unions, churches, and lodges.  The stage was set for the general elections of 1967.

General election of 1967

In addition to the domestic political activism that preceded the elections of 1967, the PLP was successful in exploiting the specter of corruption and conflicts of interest by the UBP government which arose out of several Wall St. Journal articles late in 1966 which alleged the involvement of underworld figures in the casinos in Freeport. Lynden Pindling and Paul Adderley called for a Royal Commission to investigate these allegations and Sir Roland Symonette, the premier, responded by calling a snap general election for January 10, 1967, over 10 months before an election was due.

When the votes were counted, there was a tie: 18 seats for the incumbent UBP and 18 for the PLP with two additional seats: one for an independent, Alvin Braynen, and one for the Labour Party’s Randol Fawkes.  The stage was set for both parties to invite the two individuals to break the tie.  Randol Fawkes, who was more closely aligned with the PLP, threw his support behind the PLP. The story is told that Mr. Braynen had wanted to be the speaker of the House of Assembly but was snubbed by the UBP in 1962, just five years earlier. So when Pindling called Braynen to offer him the speakership, Pindling began the conversation with “Hello, Mr. Speaker,” to which Braynen responded: “Hello, Mr. Premier”.  And the rest is history.  The PLP, now with 20 seats in its voting block, formed the first majority rule government, with Pindling as the nation’s premier, going on to be prime minister for the next 25 years. Fawkes became the minister of labour and Braynen served his remaining years in Parliament as speaker of the House of Assembly.

Conclusion

The long march to Majority Rule in The Bahamas was a sustained struggle that started with Pompey and culminated with Pindling.  Six years later, the Colony of the Bahama Islands joined the community of nations and became the independent Commonwealth of The Bahamas.  The sustained struggle that marked the way to a majority-ruled, independent nation still continues as Bahamians now engage in a journey towards the economic empowerment and freedom that Pindling identified as the final struggle in the centuries-long voyage from enslavement to full freedom for generations to come.

 

• Philip C. Galanis is the managing partner of HLB Galanis & Co., Chartered Accountants, Forensic & Litigation Support Services. He served 15 years in Parliament. Please send your comments to pgalanis@gmail.com.

January 27, 2014

thenassauguardian

- The march to Majority Rule, Part 3

- The march to Majority Rule, Part 2

- The march to Majority Rule, Part 1

...fundamental human rights and freedoms in The Bahamas

Arriving at a culture of human rights: The case of The Bahamas

By Gaynel Curry

A culture of human rights speaks to how we engage as a people, respecting self, others and property; how we solve our problems, using non-violent responses; how easily and speedily we access justice and services, whether functioning as individuals or on behalf of the state; how we ensure that socio-economic development is inclusive of all members of society; how we strengthen the capacity of government institutions to respond to contemporary social ills, including rising crime and increasing socio-economic challenges; and the freedom with which we assemble and speak our cultural truth.

What are human rights?

“Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or any other status,” as defined by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.  In essence, they are rights that one has simply by virtue of being human and cannot be taken away.  The exception is where rights are taken away according to due process such as in the case of a prisoner whose right to liberty is taken away when found guilty of a crime by a court of law.

The shift in thinking about human rights

Human rights are not a new concept.  Countries were allowed individually to define what human rights meant to them and as a result, some countries interpreted individual’s rights either narrowly (as in Switzerland which only allowed women to vote in 1971) or broadly (as in New Zealand where women were given the right to vote as far back as 1893).  It was the atrocities committed during the Second World War – primarily the holocaust of the Jews – that led the victors of the war to determine limits for countries on how they could treat people within their borders.  Essentially, they established common standards for countries to respect the human rights and dignity of persons.

The Charter of the United Nations can be considered the beginning of these efforts.  In 1945, at the  end of the war, the 51 founding members of the United Nations (UN) agreed that human rights would be a central feature of the organization – “promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion”.  Today, 193 member countries, including The Bahamas, have signed the United Nations Charter, each one reiterating this commitment to “universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction”.

What was the result of the shift in thinking about human rights?

While the charter established guiding principles to give meaning, purpose and language to the interactions between countries and individuals in terms of rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) became the framework to put meat on the bones by naming specific rights.  It identified two groups of rights: civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights.  The declaration was intended to lead one treaty of both groups of rights, but there was no consensus on this approach.  Ultimately, two treaties were agreed to, each one covering one of the two groups of rights – the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).  Both were adopted in 1966 and entered into force 10 years later.  Many of the rights spelled out in these two covenants have been included in the constitutions of countries as constitutional rights, or in national laws such as labor laws, protecting the rights of workers.

ICCPR guarantees, for example, the rights of legal redress; equality; life; liberty; freedom of movement; a fair, public and speedy trial for criminal charges; privacy; freedom of expression, thought, conscience and religion; peaceful assembly; and freedom of association.  The covenant also forbids arbitrary arrests; torture; cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; and slavery.

Having ratified ICESCR, states agree to apply these rights over a period of time (progressive realization): the right to earn a living by work; to safe and healthy working conditions; to join a trade union; to receive social security; to adequate housing; to be free from hunger; to receive health care; to obtain free public education; and to participate in cultural life.  Rights are interrelated and sometimes impossible to detach one from the other, as was highlighted at the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights.  For example, the deprivation of the civil right of association impedes a worker’s social and economic right to join a trade union.

Other international human rights treaties

The two covenants were just the beginning of what has evolved into an elaborate UN international human rights system.  This system includes a number of other treaties such as the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which entered into force prior to the covenants in 1969 as consensus was more easily reached among countries on anti-discrimination issues; Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) (1981); Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) (1987); Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (1990); Convention on the Protection of Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (2003); Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) (2006); and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (2006).

Many of these conventions have what may be called spinoff conventions (optional protocols) that allow individuals to submit complaints of violations of their rights or that address specific thematic human rights issues.  For example, CRC has two optional protocols: one on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography and the other on the involvement of children in armed conflict.

All countries have ratified at least one of the 19 UN human rights treaties and optional protocols and according to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 80 percent of countries in the world have ratified four or more of these core treaties.  Commonwealth Caribbean countries have, on average, ratified five of these core treaties; St. Vincent and the Grenadines have ratified the most among Caribbean states (eight) and St. Kitts and Nevis and St. Lucia the least (three).  All Caribbean countries have ratified CRC and CEDAW.  CRC is the most ratified international human rights treaty – the Unites States of America, Somalia and South Sudan are the only three countries in the world that have not yet ratified.

Where does The Bahamas stand with the international human rights treaties?

Soon after independence in 1973, The Bahamas joined the UN and began engaging with the international human rights system.  To date the country has ratified five UN human rights treaties which is about average for Caribbean countries.  Mindful of the country’s history of slavery and the fight for enfranchisement of persons of African descent, the CERD (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination) was the first International Human Rights Treaty that the country ratified in 1975.  Subsequently, The Bahamas ratified CRC in 1991; CEDAW in 1993; and ICCPR and ICESCR in 2008.  The country has signed and indicated a willingness to ratify CAT.  The government also indicated that it was “acutely aware of the need to protect the rights of persons with physical or mental disabilities”, and reported to the Human Rights Council in January 2013 that it expects to soon sign and ratify CRPD.  To date, The Bahamas has submitted at least one report to each of the committees mandated to monitor and assist countries to implement CERD, CEDAW and CRC.

Do treaties offer the full picture on international human rights?

The UN international human rights system is not just about the treaties, that’s only half of the story.  It is also about the Human Rights Council (formerly the commission) which has an equally important role in the promotion and protection of human rights.  The council includes 47 of the 193 countries of the UN and has developed processes (mechanisms) such as working groups and special rapporteurs to assist it in monitoring country specific situations and thematic human rights issues.  For example, the situation of political and socio-economic rights in Haiti is monitored by a special rapporteur on human rights in Haiti.  Human trafficking is a global thematic issue which is monitored by a special rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children.

What is unique about the Human Rights Council is that it is the only body that has responsibility for the review of human rights in all 193 UN member states under the Universal Periodic Review (UPR).  The UPR is a peer review (by countries of a country) which results in recommendations to countries on how to improve their human rights record.  The UPR was introduced in 2006 and to date all countries, with the exception of Israel, have accepted the review.  The Bahamas completed its second UPR cycle in January 2013; the first was in September 2008.

Where does The Bahamas stand with the UPR?

Forty-five member states participated in The Bahamas’ UPR process and recommended strengthening legislation to protect the rights of persons with disabilities; establishing a National Human Rights Institution or Ombudsman; criminalizing marital rape; amending the legislation to ensure that Bahamian women can pass their nationality to their children in the same way that men can; placing a moratorium on executions with the view to abolishing the death penalty; ending by law all forms of corporal punishment; introducing legal measures to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation; improving the conditions at the Carmichael Road Detention Centre; strengthening measures to protect women against violence, including domestic violence and rape; increasing the age of criminal responsibility; strengthening measures to combat trafficking; and establishing an independent oversight body to receive and investigate excessive use of force by security forces.

Most of the recommendations are not new or unique to The Bahamas.  Many have been raised by the committees in the human rights treaty reporting process and have also been addressed to other countries, including Commonwealth and Caribbean states with similar historic, legal, socio-economic and cultural realities. The Bahamas recognizes the need to address some of these recommendations immediately and has been proactive in responding.  The Constitutional Reform Commission is expected soon to release its report, which, according to its mandate, should include discrimination and gender equality issues; citizenship and nationality rights; capital punishment and the distribution of state power vis-à-vis individual rights – many of the same issues raised at the UPR.

Embracing human rights and the way forward

As a human rights advocate, I see the recommendations from the UN international human rights system as opportunities rather than challenges for states.  They present an opportunity for governments to set priorities in terms of specific human rights issues and, more broadly, implement a human rights agenda, including with the appropriate allocation of resources.  They also give civil society and donors an opportunity to reflect on priorities and outreach in terms of vulnerable groups and they open a space for discussion and awareness-raising within society on important human rights issues.  Finally, they are fodder for academia to target their research with the view to presenting viable options for the consideration of institutions of governance.

Implementing human rights is not exclusively a function of government.  It should involve several elements of society as we all have a role to play in building a culture of human rights and translating this vision into a shared reality.  The Bahamas is well on its way, 40 years after independence, to building a strong nation.  Each human right should be seen as a building block for developing that strong nation and cultivating an environment in which all people can enjoy their fundamental human rights and freedoms.

 

• Gaynel D. Curry is the gender and women’s rights advisor in the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in New York.  She has worked with the UN for 15 years in various other human rights advisory capacities in Geneva (Switzerland), East Timor, Afghanistan, and South Sudan. She holds a master’s degree in international human rights law from the University of Oxford; a master’s degree in international affairs (public international law) from the American University in Washington, DC; a degree in law (LLB) from the University of London; a bachelor of arts degree in history and social sciences from the University of the West Indies; and an advanced diploma in public policy and administration from The College of The Bahamas.

June 14, 2013

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

Local Journalists Welcome The Suggestion of The Constitutional Review Commission that Freedom of The Press and Access to Information in The Bahamas Receive Constitutional Protection

Advocates Want Freedom of The Press to be Included as part of the Principle of Free Expression in The Bahamas

Constitution May Protect “Freedom Of The Press”

By Candia Dames

Nassau, The Bahamas

27 March 2006

Local journalists, long frustrated by what they see as a general lack of access to public documents, are welcoming a suggestion by the Constitutional Review Commission that freedom of the press and access to information receive constitutional protection.

"I have to say that it is a pity that we need a constitutional amendment or an amendment to the law at all to ensure what should have been the prevailing situation all along," said Sir Arthur Foulkes, a veteran journalist, who is also a former Cabinet Minister and a former diplomat.

Sir Arthur was a member of the opposition delegation at the Constitutional Conference in London in 1972.

The Constitutional Review Commission, which presented its report to Prime Minister Perry Christie last Wednesday, said it heard from a number of advocates who want freedom of the press to be included as part of the principle of free expression.

"It cannot be denied that a free and unbridled press is one of the most important institutions in a democratic society, and may be deserving of constitutional protection," the report says.

It would be in line with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees "the freedom of worship, of speech, of the press, of assembly, and of petition to the government for redress of grievances."

The Constitutional Review Commission’s report also pointed out that with freedom of speech must come access to public information.

"The right of free expression embraces the right to impart and receive information, and thus it is not surprising that some Constitutions link the right of freedom of information to that of free speech," the report says.

"Some provide for extensive rights of freedom of information, such as the South African model, which provides a right of access to information held by the state.  Others do not elevate it to a constitutional right, but have adopted freedom of information laws."

Wendall Jones, CEO of Jones Communications Network, believes that a Freedom of Information Act would be "a step in the right direction."

"It has taken the framers of the constitution or those who are interested in constitutional reform a long time to really put forward something that should have been enshrined in the constitution from Independence of 1973," Mr. Jones said.

"Of course we always assumed that we had freedom of the press in this country.  We know that we do not have a Freedom of Information Act, but once we have a Freedom of Information Act in The Bahamas it is hoped that people would understand what the Act is all about and it would not simply be something on paper, but that public servants in particular would understand that the press has a right to certain information."

Jerome Sawyer, a highly-regarded journalist who is the news director of Island FM and Cable 12, said access to information would give rise to much better reporting.

"We would be able to accurately give information that we normally now have to get from unnamed sources and people who are secretly giving [us] information," Mr. Sawyer said.

"I think it would also give some more credibility to our work because a lot of times we are operating just off of hearsay information we receive as opposed to being able to access actual data and actual information."

Mr. Sawyer said making freedom of the press a constitutional right would benefit, not just journalists, but all Bahamians.

"I think many people in the press are intimidated by the possibility of legal action and for that reason a lot of stories are not even touched," he said, but added that responsibility must always be a priority of every good journalist.

Carlton Smith, deputy general manager of news and special projects at the Broadcasting Corporation of The Bahamas, also spoke of the importance of journalists exercising a "serious level of responsibility".

"Freedom without responsibility is a dangerous weapon and it could destroy as opposed to build a nation," Mr. Smith said, "but freedom with responsibility is a catalyst in helping in the positive growth and development in a developing society."

He believes that enshrining freedom of the press in the constitution "would be a significant accomplishment in helping to promote true democracy and assist in the national development of our country".

With respect to freedom of the press, Mr. Jones opined that there are many press people who have abused their freedoms even though there is nothing enshrined in the constitution.

"It is hoped that when it is enshrined in the constitution and when we do have a Freedom of Information Act, that members of the press would be responsible and understand that even though this is enshrined in the constitution they have a duty to the public to be very responsible," he said.

Sir Arthur, meanwhile, said there is a culture of secrecy in government that goes back many decades.

"It’s a culture where civil servants seem afraid to give people information that rightly belongs to them and that they ought to have access to," he said.

"That should have been the ordinary state of affairs.  It’s about time that culture is broken and it’s about time that [members of] the public [are] allowed through the press to have all the information to which they are entitled."

Sir Arthur also expressed disappointment that there is no press association in The Bahamas although there has been a lot of talk about establishing one.

"[We need] to speak with one voice as it regards the rights of the press and the duty of journalists and the media to report to the Bahamian people," he said.

"Somebody put it like this: we’re like the amplifier, the loud speaker to broadcast to people what is happening with their affairs." 

Randol Fawkes' Appeal to The United Nations for Independence of The Bahama Islands

RANDOL FAWKES’ APPEAL TO THE UNITED NATIONS ON BAHAMAS NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE

MR CHAIRMAN,

 

DISTINGUISHED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE COMMITTEE ON COLONIALISM

I am here today to secure the encouragement and the concrete assistance of the United Nations in the efforts of the people of the Bahama Islands to prepare themselves for independence.

In this we seek your expert advice and technical assistance in the promotion of the political, economic, and social advancement of The Bahamas that would make a transition from colonialism to freedom less painful than it otherwise would be.

It is our conviction that eternal colonialism in the Bahamas prevents the development of international and economic cooperation, impedes the social, economic and cultural development, and violates the spirit and letter of the Charter of the United Nations.  We therefore hope that the United Nations will recognize the indisputable right of The Bahamas to complete freedom and will help us to achieve and exercise our sovereignty and the intergrity of our national territory.  In faith believing, I relate the following:

On September 1966, your petitioner requested a select committee to take into consideration the advisability of inviting the government of the United Kingdom to convene a constitutional conference with a view to establishing the independence of the Bahama Islands.

Before the speaker could reach the item on the agenda calling for the appointment of select committees, The Premier, Sir Roland Symonette read the following prepared communication:  “I wish to make the following communication to the House in view of the public interest that has been aroused on the question of a constitutional conference on independence.  This is a statement that I would have given to the House on Thursday the 25^th August if the motion on the agenda for the appointment of a select committee on the subject had been proceeded with on that day:

As a result of the 1963 Constitutional Conference, the Bahamian Islands now enjoy a constitution which gives the people, through their representatives, virtually full control of their internal governmental affairs.

It has been suggested that because some other countries - perhaps less able to accept full autonomy – have become or are becoming independent, The Bahamas should do the same.  The government regards this attitude as misconceived.  Independence could be requested, and would no doubt be granted, and this government would be glad to manage the external affairs of the country but the facts must be looked squarely in the face.

Complete independence would impose on our country the financial burden of responsibility for security, defence and external affairs.  This burden is at present largely borne by Her Majesty’s government, at small cost within the framework of Britain’s defense and diplomatic commitments, but it would be extremely expensive, both in money and in manpower for The Bahamas government to take on the task of establishing embassies and high commissions abroad, and of raising and the equipping its own armed forces.  Considerable government funds would have to be diverted for these purposes which, in the view of this government, would be much better spent on the progress and development of the Bahama Islands for the good of all the inhabitants.  For these reasons the government cannot support proposals for a constitutional conference at the present time.”

In due course, the motion was put but was lost by a vote of thirteen to seven.   Both Progressive Liberal Bahamian Party and the National Democratic Party supported the motion, but the United Bahamian Party not only denied the courtesy of a select committee, but no member of the party participated in the debate.

Now if we were to examine the statement of the Premier, we will find that his argument against independence is facetious.  The premier stated that The Bahamas could not take on the expense of establishing embassies and high commissions abroad, but Gentlemen The Bahamas government is now maintaining very highly paid administrative offices in major cities of the world.  Some of them in London, Miami, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Dallas, St. Louis, Washington, and even in Bonn, Germany.

In many of these offices, Bahamian personal is either nil or negligible.  So the excuse that we cannot maintain an embassy is tenuous indeed.

According to the United Kingdom, we are not Africans, yet “Bahamians” is not a legal term under the constitution, and no one can say with any degree of truth that we are British.  As a people we are without history, without culture, and without a national identity.  We study British history, British culture, and even British weather, but about ourselves, we have no past – and in colonialism, no future.

Because of the colonial status, the value of the Bahamian dollar is questionable.  Should the British pound be devalued, it would have serious consequences on the economy of The Bahamas.

Because of our colonial status, Bahamians pay a penalty in the form of high custom duty for trading with countries other than the British Commonwealth.  Our economy is tied to the Western Hemisphere.  Indeed everything we eat and wear comes from the Caribbean, North or South America.

It has been suggested that The Bahamas has a democratic constitution based on municipal suffrage – one man, one vote.  Because members in the House of Assembly are not paid, only the rich are financially able to represent their districts – hence membership in the present assembly is composed mainly of the merchants and professional class, but the labouring class has only very limited representation.  In the past 200 years, only on two or three occasions have the Out Islands been able to have representation by a person who resides in the Out Islands.

This situation is aggravated by the fact that there is no local government of the Out Islands.  These areas are governed only by an appointed commissioner, but there are other elected bodies to assist in the administration.  Without more education and greater participation in government, the people will not be prepared to master the responsibilities of independence.

We therefore, request that the United Nations take swift action to influence Britain to set a time-table for the eventual independence of the Bahamas and; in the meantime a commission of United Nations experts should be appointed to make a survey of the political, economic and social conditions of The Bahamas with a view to introducing adequate measures that would prepare the Bahamian people to master their own responsibilities.

HOME to The Positive Achievements of Sir Randol Fawkes>>>