Maynard-Gibson confirms decision not to run again
By ALISON LOWE
Tribune Staff Reporter
alowe@tribunemedia.net:
IN the wake of Allyson Maynard-Gibson announcing that she will not run again in Pinewood in the next general election, PLP leader Perry Christie says his party is having difficulty "balancing the old with the new" as it moves to pin down its slate of candidates for the election battle.
Senator and former PLP cabinet minister Mrs Maynard-Gibson confirmed yesterday that she has declined a nomination from Mr Christie for the upcoming election, telling The Tribune she would like to give some younger candidates an opportunity to move up the political ladder.
Meanwhile, in a separate interview with this newspaper, Mr Christie said the party which he hopes to lead into the next election has been inundated with interest from potential candidates hoping to receive nominations to run under the party's banner.
With an anti-incumbent movement growing throughout the world, PLP leader Perry Christie said that his party is faced with the same challenge as scores of people have been lining up to represent the PLP in seats that already have sitting Members of Parliament.
However, while having six or seven candidates vying for any given constituency, Mr Christie said that the party is having difficulty balancing "the old with the new".
Mrs Maynard-Gibson is the second member of the "old guard" of PLPs who it is suggested will not offer again for the party in the next election. PLP MP for Fort Charlotte Alfred Sears is reportedly in consultation with his constituents as to whether or not to offer for re-election for the area.
Nonetheless, Mr Christie told The Tribune he is pleased to see the enthusiasm from younger members of the party.
"There has been a significant increase in young professionals wishing to enter public life on our side. It is really refreshing and bodes well for the future. Our only concern is there is not an equal amount of interest from women seeking to enter politics."
Mrs Gibson, as one of the most prominent female members of the party - and the second in a year to reveal her decision to step down from frontline politics, along with former deputy prime minister Cynthia "Mother" Pratt - says she will now focus on her role as a "mentor" to others outside of politics.
"Over the past five years, in other areas of my life, I have been an advocate for mentorship and I serve as a mentor. I tremendously enjoy this and find it very fulfilling," she said.
She said her determination to allow a younger generation to play a bigger role in the party is in keeping with her father's philosophy "that it is important to step aside to allow room for younger people and to help them prepare and excel at leadership."
"I would like to help the PLP find the right mix of experience and youthful, able enthusiasm that will propel it to victory in the next General Elections," said the former cabinet minister.
Mrs Maynard Gibson was appointed senator for the PLP after running unsuccessfully for the PLP in 2007. She was defeated by the FNM's Byron Woodside, in a result that was ultimately challenged but confirmed in favour of Mr Woodside in an election court challenge.
May 18, 2010
tribune242
A political blog about Bahamian politics in The Bahamas, Bahamian Politicans - and the entire Bahamas political lot. Bahamian Blogger Dennis Dames keeps you updated on the political news and views throughout the islands of The Bahamas without fear or favor. Bahamian Politicians and the Bahamian Political Arena: Updates one Post at a time on Bahamas Politics and Bahamas Politicans; and their local, regional and international policies and perspectives.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
St. Andrews Presbyterian Kirks in The Bahamas are leaving the Church of Scotland over the church's first gay ordination
Local church to split from Scottish head over gay issue
By KRYSTEL ROLLE ~ Guardian Staff Reporter ~ krystel@nasguard.com:
The controversial homosexuality issue is reportedly splitting yet another church.
According to an international media report, the entire congregation of St. Andrews Presbyterian Kirk in downtown Nassau left the church after its minister, Rev. John MacLeod, resigned over the ordination in Scottland of Rev. Scott Rennie, the church's first gay ordination.
A statement from Rev. Scott Kirkland, who is the church's moderator, confirmed that the Presbyterian Kirks in The Bahamas are leaving the Church of Scotland.
However, it made no mention of whether the gay ordinance contributed to the decision. When contacted yesterday, representatives from the church told The Nassau Guardian that only Rev. Kirkland could address the issue but he was said to be attending the General Assembly in Edinburg, Scotland.
"After 200 years in Nassau and 42 years in Freeport, the Presbyterian Kirks will leave the Church of Scotland at the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland this week," said the statement.
"Rev. Kirkland was delighted to report that though the planning has been ebbing and flowing for over 15 years, with happy agreement of the Church of Scotland, the timing is now ripe to leave the mother church."
The statement further notes that the American Presbyterian Church will help prepare the congregations for ultimately becoming the Presbyterian Church of The Bahamas.
"St. Andrews Nassau has the extra joy of inducting a fine, new young minister, Rev. Bryn MacPhail, on June 6, the same day that the congregation will formally mark their entry into the Evangelical Presbyterian Church.," the statement added.
According to the online news source, Herald Scotland, the congregation reportedly voted in favor of leaving the Kirk, almost immediately after approval of the assembly to join the fundamentalist Evangelical Presbyterian Church of America, which takes the position that homosexuality is against the scriptures.
The congregation reportedly voted overwhelming in favor of abandoning the Kirk.
MacLeod allegedly gave notice of his resignation after the General Assembly last year. This came after the Kirk's first openly gay minister, Rev. Scott Rennie, was appointed to head Queen's Cross Parish Church in Aberdeen, Scotland. The move caused dissension among many quarters of the Kirk community.
MacLeod, who has accepted a post elsewhere, reportedly said he resigned because of the controversy over the posting of Rennie in Aberdeen, the ban on public discussion of human sexuality and the Church's move "away from Biblical orthodoxy".
He was quoted in the Herald Scotland as saying: "It wasn't just the Scott Rennie thing, it was the general tenor of the General Assembly that I don't think is the way a church should do business. I think it is a shame that the Church of Scotland has tried to stifle the debate.
"I have had misgivings over the Church of Scotland for a number of years. I believe there is a general drift away from Biblical orthodoxy."
Over the last several years several churches have split over homosexual issues around the world.
According to the Associated Press, in 2007 an Episcopal diocese in central California voted to split with the national denomination over disagreements about the roles of homosexuals in the church.
In 2008, the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Australia, declared a formal split in the worldwide Anglican Communion over the consecration of openly gay clergy.
May 18, 2010
thenassauguardian
By KRYSTEL ROLLE ~ Guardian Staff Reporter ~ krystel@nasguard.com:
The controversial homosexuality issue is reportedly splitting yet another church.
According to an international media report, the entire congregation of St. Andrews Presbyterian Kirk in downtown Nassau left the church after its minister, Rev. John MacLeod, resigned over the ordination in Scottland of Rev. Scott Rennie, the church's first gay ordination.
A statement from Rev. Scott Kirkland, who is the church's moderator, confirmed that the Presbyterian Kirks in The Bahamas are leaving the Church of Scotland.
However, it made no mention of whether the gay ordinance contributed to the decision. When contacted yesterday, representatives from the church told The Nassau Guardian that only Rev. Kirkland could address the issue but he was said to be attending the General Assembly in Edinburg, Scotland.
"After 200 years in Nassau and 42 years in Freeport, the Presbyterian Kirks will leave the Church of Scotland at the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland this week," said the statement.
"Rev. Kirkland was delighted to report that though the planning has been ebbing and flowing for over 15 years, with happy agreement of the Church of Scotland, the timing is now ripe to leave the mother church."
The statement further notes that the American Presbyterian Church will help prepare the congregations for ultimately becoming the Presbyterian Church of The Bahamas.
"St. Andrews Nassau has the extra joy of inducting a fine, new young minister, Rev. Bryn MacPhail, on June 6, the same day that the congregation will formally mark their entry into the Evangelical Presbyterian Church.," the statement added.
According to the online news source, Herald Scotland, the congregation reportedly voted in favor of leaving the Kirk, almost immediately after approval of the assembly to join the fundamentalist Evangelical Presbyterian Church of America, which takes the position that homosexuality is against the scriptures.
The congregation reportedly voted overwhelming in favor of abandoning the Kirk.
MacLeod allegedly gave notice of his resignation after the General Assembly last year. This came after the Kirk's first openly gay minister, Rev. Scott Rennie, was appointed to head Queen's Cross Parish Church in Aberdeen, Scotland. The move caused dissension among many quarters of the Kirk community.
MacLeod, who has accepted a post elsewhere, reportedly said he resigned because of the controversy over the posting of Rennie in Aberdeen, the ban on public discussion of human sexuality and the Church's move "away from Biblical orthodoxy".
He was quoted in the Herald Scotland as saying: "It wasn't just the Scott Rennie thing, it was the general tenor of the General Assembly that I don't think is the way a church should do business. I think it is a shame that the Church of Scotland has tried to stifle the debate.
"I have had misgivings over the Church of Scotland for a number of years. I believe there is a general drift away from Biblical orthodoxy."
Over the last several years several churches have split over homosexual issues around the world.
According to the Associated Press, in 2007 an Episcopal diocese in central California voted to split with the national denomination over disagreements about the roles of homosexuals in the church.
In 2008, the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Australia, declared a formal split in the worldwide Anglican Communion over the consecration of openly gay clergy.
May 18, 2010
thenassauguardian
Monday, May 17, 2010
Bahamas Government to bring to Parliament a new Public Service Bill that would permit ex-convicts to be hired in the public sector
Move by government to hire ex-cons in the public service lauded
By KEVA LIGHTBOURNE ~ Guardian Senior Reporter ~ kdl@nasguard.com:
Government's intention to bring to Parliament a new Public Service Bill that would permit ex-convicts to be hired in the public sector has met with the approval of the head of the Bahamas Public Services Union John Pinder, who has thrown his support behind these individuals being given a second chance.
"I don't have much concerns about it. I support persons being given second chances. There are a number of persons who may have been in prison for minor offenses, some who through misfortune caused them to commit some crimes and they should be given another opportunity," Pinder told The Nassau Guardian.
"I believe it is fair that those persons who have rehabilitated themselves be given another opportunity. If persons have the expertise or persons do possess skills, I believe that is one way of rehabilitating persons when they are released from prison. They are able to find gainful employment and certainly with government being one of the largest employers in the country it has to lead by example to give persons second opportunities," he said.
His comments came just days after Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham made the announcement in the House of Assembly, as part of a comprehensive plan his administration is putting in place to address the burgeoning crime problem.
At the time Ingraham, who was contributing to the debate on a resolution to reappoint a select committee to address crime, said this is something that could have been done by governments of The Bahamas if they chose to.
"There is no law that says you cannot do so, there is a general order that says you cannot do so. Criminals should know that we are determined to implement every measure possible to reduce the opportunities they have to wreak havoc on our community," Ingraham reported. "Young people, who want to turn around their lives, should know that the community will provide them with the opportunities to contribute in their own way to the common good of our country. But young people, and older people who need to turn their lives around should not be lulled into believing that the government is their parent; that the government, using the public purse, will bail them out of every bad decision regardless of how many poor decisions they make."
Pinder was quick to add that the first consideration should be given to all those persons who have worked in the public service for a number of years and have yet to be established.
"Certainly, I would like for them to be given first preference in being able to fill any vacancies that exist in the public service. I also hope that the prime minister with his new amendments would speak to those persons who have the ability to actually run for political office who work in the public service, to be given the opportunity to also do so, and upon not being successful being able to still come back to the public service," Pinder said.
"The reason I say this is a number of businesspersons or rich persons, wealthy persons, normally offer themselves for political office but they really do not have any experience managing government agencies or even having experience of knowing exactly how the government system functions. I believe that is another important aspect to amendment to the public service regulations," he said, adding that the regulations should also speak to a more modernized public service.
May 17. 2010
thenassauguardian
By KEVA LIGHTBOURNE ~ Guardian Senior Reporter ~ kdl@nasguard.com:
Government's intention to bring to Parliament a new Public Service Bill that would permit ex-convicts to be hired in the public sector has met with the approval of the head of the Bahamas Public Services Union John Pinder, who has thrown his support behind these individuals being given a second chance.
"I don't have much concerns about it. I support persons being given second chances. There are a number of persons who may have been in prison for minor offenses, some who through misfortune caused them to commit some crimes and they should be given another opportunity," Pinder told The Nassau Guardian.
"I believe it is fair that those persons who have rehabilitated themselves be given another opportunity. If persons have the expertise or persons do possess skills, I believe that is one way of rehabilitating persons when they are released from prison. They are able to find gainful employment and certainly with government being one of the largest employers in the country it has to lead by example to give persons second opportunities," he said.
His comments came just days after Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham made the announcement in the House of Assembly, as part of a comprehensive plan his administration is putting in place to address the burgeoning crime problem.
At the time Ingraham, who was contributing to the debate on a resolution to reappoint a select committee to address crime, said this is something that could have been done by governments of The Bahamas if they chose to.
"There is no law that says you cannot do so, there is a general order that says you cannot do so. Criminals should know that we are determined to implement every measure possible to reduce the opportunities they have to wreak havoc on our community," Ingraham reported. "Young people, who want to turn around their lives, should know that the community will provide them with the opportunities to contribute in their own way to the common good of our country. But young people, and older people who need to turn their lives around should not be lulled into believing that the government is their parent; that the government, using the public purse, will bail them out of every bad decision regardless of how many poor decisions they make."
Pinder was quick to add that the first consideration should be given to all those persons who have worked in the public service for a number of years and have yet to be established.
"Certainly, I would like for them to be given first preference in being able to fill any vacancies that exist in the public service. I also hope that the prime minister with his new amendments would speak to those persons who have the ability to actually run for political office who work in the public service, to be given the opportunity to also do so, and upon not being successful being able to still come back to the public service," Pinder said.
"The reason I say this is a number of businesspersons or rich persons, wealthy persons, normally offer themselves for political office but they really do not have any experience managing government agencies or even having experience of knowing exactly how the government system functions. I believe that is another important aspect to amendment to the public service regulations," he said, adding that the regulations should also speak to a more modernized public service.
May 17. 2010
thenassauguardian
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Attorney General John Delaney denies port conflict
AG denies port conflict
By KEVA LIGHTBOURNE ~ Guardian Senior Reporter ~ kdl@nasguard.com:
Attorney General John Delaney yesterday dismissed a suggestion that there is a possible conflict of interest with his office acting as the lawyer for the government in the Arawak Cay Port deal and the law firm where he used to be a partner representing the Arawak Cay Port Development Company.
Delaney, who was speaking in the Senate, made it clear that no such position arises as he has excluded himself from any involvement with regard to the matter.
The question of conflict of interest arose when Opposition Senate Leader Allyson Maynard-Gibson called on the government to make a very clear statement on the issue to the Bahamian people so they would be assured that no conflict of interest exists.
Delaney said, "I wish to make it clear that I am a former partner of Higgs and Johnson. I am no longer a partner. There was an inference made by Senator Gibson, who referred to Higgs and Johnson being the attorneys for the Arawak Cay Port Company and me being the attorney general, by inference suggesting that there may be a conflict. In fact, she said she hopes there were none.
"Well I can confirm that in fact there is none. I want to make it clear that I am a former partner of Higgs and Johnson. I am no longer a partner at Higgs and Johnson and moreover I have had absolutely no contact whatsoever in the Office of the Attorney General with respect to this particular matter."
He added, "I insisted that I had absolutely no contact with that matter or indeed any other matter that my firm might have been involved with when I was a partner."
But Maynard-Gibson insisted: "I never said anything about him at all. The attorney general's office is the government's lawyer. That is a fact."
The government has been negotiating with local shipping interests for 18 months to establish the new port at Arawak Cay. A deal with 19 private shareholders was signed on Monday to create the new $65 million port.
The goal is that all commercial shipping will move from Bay Street by Christmas, opening up the city's center for redevelopment. The joint enterprise will be known as the APD Limited.
Delaney was a member of the law firm Higgs and Johnson and managing partner since 2007. He was appointed attorney general last November.
May 14, 2010
thenassauguardian
By KEVA LIGHTBOURNE ~ Guardian Senior Reporter ~ kdl@nasguard.com:
Attorney General John Delaney yesterday dismissed a suggestion that there is a possible conflict of interest with his office acting as the lawyer for the government in the Arawak Cay Port deal and the law firm where he used to be a partner representing the Arawak Cay Port Development Company.
Delaney, who was speaking in the Senate, made it clear that no such position arises as he has excluded himself from any involvement with regard to the matter.
The question of conflict of interest arose when Opposition Senate Leader Allyson Maynard-Gibson called on the government to make a very clear statement on the issue to the Bahamian people so they would be assured that no conflict of interest exists.
Delaney said, "I wish to make it clear that I am a former partner of Higgs and Johnson. I am no longer a partner. There was an inference made by Senator Gibson, who referred to Higgs and Johnson being the attorneys for the Arawak Cay Port Company and me being the attorney general, by inference suggesting that there may be a conflict. In fact, she said she hopes there were none.
"Well I can confirm that in fact there is none. I want to make it clear that I am a former partner of Higgs and Johnson. I am no longer a partner at Higgs and Johnson and moreover I have had absolutely no contact whatsoever in the Office of the Attorney General with respect to this particular matter."
He added, "I insisted that I had absolutely no contact with that matter or indeed any other matter that my firm might have been involved with when I was a partner."
But Maynard-Gibson insisted: "I never said anything about him at all. The attorney general's office is the government's lawyer. That is a fact."
The government has been negotiating with local shipping interests for 18 months to establish the new port at Arawak Cay. A deal with 19 private shareholders was signed on Monday to create the new $65 million port.
The goal is that all commercial shipping will move from Bay Street by Christmas, opening up the city's center for redevelopment. The joint enterprise will be known as the APD Limited.
Delaney was a member of the law firm Higgs and Johnson and managing partner since 2007. He was appointed attorney general last November.
May 14, 2010
thenassauguardian
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Arawak Cay port development: A port Perry Christie cannot change
A port Christie cannot change
tribune242 editorial:
OPPOSITION Leader Perry Christie must have been in jesting mood when he threatened would-be investors that he would reverse any agreement signed with the Ingraham government that would locate the $65 million container port at Arawak Cay.
And to put the final seal on the threat, he declared that he was the person who would win the next general election. We pause here to suggest that were the PLP to win the 2012 election, Mr Christie, as leader, would be taking the Gordon Brown exit through the back door. We certainly never expect to see him prime minister again.
However, we all know that were he to try to change this agreement, before he could complete the first pirouette of the Christie shuffle he would be so buried in law suits that he would not be able to dig his way out -- nor would his followers be able to dig their way in to find him.
And now that Prime Minister Ingraham has secured the agreement with so many iron hoops, any hope of Mr Christie changing one tittle is no longer in the realm of possibility. It is as foolish of him to have made those threats as it was of Paul Adderley, many years ago on behalf of the PLP, to threaten Sol Kerzner that should Mr Ingraham lose the 2002 election he would have to renegotiate the Paradise Island agreement with the PLP government. The PLP lost the election. The Paradise Island resort was built in record time and became the catalyst that revitalised this country's tourist industry. Seeing Mr Kerzner take the plunge in a country written off as bad news, many substantial investors -- not drug kingpins as happened under the PLP-- followed. It was the turning point that led to this country's comeback.
"No successor government likes to contemplate having to renegotiate its predecessors' agreements, even bad agreements particularly with foreign investors," Mr Adderley told Mr Kerzner. "But this agreement is so bad, so exploitive -- that every Bahamian, including those who still support the Prime Minister together with the international finance community, would applaud a renegotiation."
We don't know who he thought he was fooling with such bombastic words and bullying tactics, but it was all a bunch of nonsense. All those who supported Mr Adderley in such puny thoughts, should turn their heads in shame today as they pass the Atlantis resort, a resort that saved this country's bacon during its rejected years. Mr Christie could not have been one of their number at that time because for the five years that he headed the Bahamas government it was openly talked that his one ambition was to leave the BahaMar resort on Cable Beach as his legacy to match Mr Ingraham's legacy -- Atlantis, Paradise Island. However, he missed the mark because of his indecisiveness -- as usual he had not signed the final agreement when time came for the changing of the guard.
And now to talk of relocating the container port when, according to him, he becomes prime minister is really a pathetic joke.
He says that given a second chance, he would move the port to his and his party's preferred location on the island's southwestern shores.
At the time that the 2005 Environmental Impact Assessment study was completed for the proposed commercial shipping facilities, the PLP government made the public believe that the southwest Bahamas was the location recommended by the independent advisers. It was only after the PLP was removed from the government that it was discovered that the public had been told a half truth.
As Tribune Business pointed out in an article last year, "based on the criteria employed by Coastal Systems International's assessment team, Arawak Cay scored 12 points, compared to the southwestern port site's 10 points on environmental impact. Where Arawak Cay rated especially high was on the minimal impact to the terrestrial environment and water quality."
However, Arawak Cay lost out because it did not fit in with the Christie administration's preferred site for its long-term master planning. That master plan took in a wide sweep of the southwest, where all kinds of developments, including private, had been planned. This excluded Arawak Cay.
Anyway, the guarantee of a 20-year exclusivity period for the Arawak Cay port development makes it impossible for Mr Christie or any other government to contemplate a change of venue.
The agreement is made exclusive for a 20-year period for not only all of New Providence and Paradise Island, but also within 20 miles of the shoreline and any other port for the landing of containerized, bulk or break bulk cargo or vehicles.
Anyway, Mr Christie's little joke was a good laugh while it lasted.
May 14, 2010
tribune242
tribune242 editorial:
OPPOSITION Leader Perry Christie must have been in jesting mood when he threatened would-be investors that he would reverse any agreement signed with the Ingraham government that would locate the $65 million container port at Arawak Cay.
And to put the final seal on the threat, he declared that he was the person who would win the next general election. We pause here to suggest that were the PLP to win the 2012 election, Mr Christie, as leader, would be taking the Gordon Brown exit through the back door. We certainly never expect to see him prime minister again.
However, we all know that were he to try to change this agreement, before he could complete the first pirouette of the Christie shuffle he would be so buried in law suits that he would not be able to dig his way out -- nor would his followers be able to dig their way in to find him.
And now that Prime Minister Ingraham has secured the agreement with so many iron hoops, any hope of Mr Christie changing one tittle is no longer in the realm of possibility. It is as foolish of him to have made those threats as it was of Paul Adderley, many years ago on behalf of the PLP, to threaten Sol Kerzner that should Mr Ingraham lose the 2002 election he would have to renegotiate the Paradise Island agreement with the PLP government. The PLP lost the election. The Paradise Island resort was built in record time and became the catalyst that revitalised this country's tourist industry. Seeing Mr Kerzner take the plunge in a country written off as bad news, many substantial investors -- not drug kingpins as happened under the PLP-- followed. It was the turning point that led to this country's comeback.
"No successor government likes to contemplate having to renegotiate its predecessors' agreements, even bad agreements particularly with foreign investors," Mr Adderley told Mr Kerzner. "But this agreement is so bad, so exploitive -- that every Bahamian, including those who still support the Prime Minister together with the international finance community, would applaud a renegotiation."
We don't know who he thought he was fooling with such bombastic words and bullying tactics, but it was all a bunch of nonsense. All those who supported Mr Adderley in such puny thoughts, should turn their heads in shame today as they pass the Atlantis resort, a resort that saved this country's bacon during its rejected years. Mr Christie could not have been one of their number at that time because for the five years that he headed the Bahamas government it was openly talked that his one ambition was to leave the BahaMar resort on Cable Beach as his legacy to match Mr Ingraham's legacy -- Atlantis, Paradise Island. However, he missed the mark because of his indecisiveness -- as usual he had not signed the final agreement when time came for the changing of the guard.
And now to talk of relocating the container port when, according to him, he becomes prime minister is really a pathetic joke.
He says that given a second chance, he would move the port to his and his party's preferred location on the island's southwestern shores.
At the time that the 2005 Environmental Impact Assessment study was completed for the proposed commercial shipping facilities, the PLP government made the public believe that the southwest Bahamas was the location recommended by the independent advisers. It was only after the PLP was removed from the government that it was discovered that the public had been told a half truth.
As Tribune Business pointed out in an article last year, "based on the criteria employed by Coastal Systems International's assessment team, Arawak Cay scored 12 points, compared to the southwestern port site's 10 points on environmental impact. Where Arawak Cay rated especially high was on the minimal impact to the terrestrial environment and water quality."
However, Arawak Cay lost out because it did not fit in with the Christie administration's preferred site for its long-term master planning. That master plan took in a wide sweep of the southwest, where all kinds of developments, including private, had been planned. This excluded Arawak Cay.
Anyway, the guarantee of a 20-year exclusivity period for the Arawak Cay port development makes it impossible for Mr Christie or any other government to contemplate a change of venue.
The agreement is made exclusive for a 20-year period for not only all of New Providence and Paradise Island, but also within 20 miles of the shoreline and any other port for the landing of containerized, bulk or break bulk cargo or vehicles.
Anyway, Mr Christie's little joke was a good laugh while it lasted.
May 14, 2010
tribune242
Friday, May 14, 2010
Bahamians have to learn that they cannot change their history to accommodate their political agenda
History can't be changed to suit politics
tribune242.com editorial:
A CALLER to the Krissy Love radio talk show last week - in a discussion as to whether the image of Sir Stafford Sands should be on our $10 bill - said that to understand Sir Stafford one would have to understand the times in which he lived.
"Sir Stafford Sands was a creature of his times," said the caller. "It was the times in which he lived that made him think the way he did and do the things that he did." In his opinion Bahamians were not sufficiently mature to accept that position, but in fact that is the way all history should be understood -- in its own context, in its own time. To do otherwise would distort the facts.
The times in which Sir Stafford lived were times of racial prejudice.
A person of colour could not go to such public places as theatres, hotels, restaurants or even Bay Street barbers who cut only the white man's hair. Sir Stafford bought into the idea introduced to these islands in an earlier generation by American hotelier Henry Flagler, who in 1898 built the British Colonial Hotel (then a wooden building) and convinced the Bahamian power structure of those days that white Americans, particularly those from the south, would not frequent the islands if there was a mixing of the races.
And so to protect the tourist industry that he had taken from a short term winter resort to a year-round money spinner, Sir Stafford was intent on keeping the hotels, and any area that a visitor might frequent, exclusive.
This was a matter over which Sir Stafford and Sir Etienne Dupuch -- who in 1956 was threatened with arrest on the floor of the House when he introduced a Resolution to break down racial discrimination in public places -- battled for most of their political lives. Eventually Sir Stafford saw the light, but as Sir Etienne was to write of his friend on his death, it was too late when the scales fell from his eyes.
"If you want to see a monument to the business genius of a man...look around you in the colony today," Sir Etienne wrote in 1972. "Still... he was not a wise man in the all-important area of human relations. The time came when Stafford saw the light. But it was too late..." However, it was not too late for these two strong men in their personal relations. They each respected the other, and in the end the two arch enemies closed their lives, the closest of friends.
Sir Stafford was an enigma. There were those who called him a racist. There were others, mostly persons of colour, who would resent such a suggestion. There were two sides to the man.
One caller to the Krissy Love show was one of the many who could say with all sincerity: "I don't think he was that much of a racist. He was good for black people." She said her aunt was a nanny for Sir Stafford's daughter, and she as a child wore many of his daughter's hand-me-downs. "He was good to us, we were so poor."
There was another, a constituent in his City district, who told of his concern for his constituents who had outside toilets and how he gave them money to improve their situation.
In 1940, said another caller, "our economy was rock bottom -- there was nothing in this country, there was no way out for us." She said Sir Stafford took his own money and went around the world to build the country's tourist industry and because he was white he was able to bring people in. He took the police band on his trips with him. "They were all blacks," she said, "he ensured that they had good rooms in hotels, he ensured they were treated with respect and he joined them in their rooms. His own money paid for these trips."
She told how he took care of the entertainers and how he made certain that such Over the Hill nightclubs as the Cat and Fiddle and Silver Slipper prospered.
Troubadour Nat Saunders was on the show and admitted that as far as entertainers were concerned the UBP government was better for them than their own black government. On another occasion and in a different context, entertainer Leroy "Duke" Hanna said: "Sir Stafford Sands projected us, all of us, the great bands headed by people like Freddie Munnings Sr, the musicians, the dancers, the singers, the showmen...Sir Stafford made sure we were there on every tourist campaign trip. Culture was tops and well appreciated under Sir Stafford and his colleagues. But it just started dying after 1967..."
Yes, it started dying as the race card was being played loud and clear to create hatred and suspicion for the purpose of dividing Bahamians and winning elections.
Today, the PLP and those tainted with their racial hatreds have come, in the words of Mark Antony at the bier of Julius Caesar, not to praise him, but to inter the good that he has done in this country with his bones, so that whatever evil they might have perceived in him can grow, prosper and be enshrined for posterity. However, Sir Stafford touched and uplifted so many Bahamian lives that we do not think that Fred Mitchell and his ilk will be able to strike him from the $10 bill in the future.
As one caller told Krissy Love, Bahamians have to learn they cannot change their history to accommodate their political agenda. And, what we must also remember: The history of the Bahamas did not start in 1967. Many sacrifices were made by many Bahamians before then to make the successes of 1967 possible.
May 13, 2010
tribune242
tribune242.com editorial:
A CALLER to the Krissy Love radio talk show last week - in a discussion as to whether the image of Sir Stafford Sands should be on our $10 bill - said that to understand Sir Stafford one would have to understand the times in which he lived.
"Sir Stafford Sands was a creature of his times," said the caller. "It was the times in which he lived that made him think the way he did and do the things that he did." In his opinion Bahamians were not sufficiently mature to accept that position, but in fact that is the way all history should be understood -- in its own context, in its own time. To do otherwise would distort the facts.
The times in which Sir Stafford lived were times of racial prejudice.
A person of colour could not go to such public places as theatres, hotels, restaurants or even Bay Street barbers who cut only the white man's hair. Sir Stafford bought into the idea introduced to these islands in an earlier generation by American hotelier Henry Flagler, who in 1898 built the British Colonial Hotel (then a wooden building) and convinced the Bahamian power structure of those days that white Americans, particularly those from the south, would not frequent the islands if there was a mixing of the races.
And so to protect the tourist industry that he had taken from a short term winter resort to a year-round money spinner, Sir Stafford was intent on keeping the hotels, and any area that a visitor might frequent, exclusive.
This was a matter over which Sir Stafford and Sir Etienne Dupuch -- who in 1956 was threatened with arrest on the floor of the House when he introduced a Resolution to break down racial discrimination in public places -- battled for most of their political lives. Eventually Sir Stafford saw the light, but as Sir Etienne was to write of his friend on his death, it was too late when the scales fell from his eyes.
"If you want to see a monument to the business genius of a man...look around you in the colony today," Sir Etienne wrote in 1972. "Still... he was not a wise man in the all-important area of human relations. The time came when Stafford saw the light. But it was too late..." However, it was not too late for these two strong men in their personal relations. They each respected the other, and in the end the two arch enemies closed their lives, the closest of friends.
Sir Stafford was an enigma. There were those who called him a racist. There were others, mostly persons of colour, who would resent such a suggestion. There were two sides to the man.
One caller to the Krissy Love show was one of the many who could say with all sincerity: "I don't think he was that much of a racist. He was good for black people." She said her aunt was a nanny for Sir Stafford's daughter, and she as a child wore many of his daughter's hand-me-downs. "He was good to us, we were so poor."
There was another, a constituent in his City district, who told of his concern for his constituents who had outside toilets and how he gave them money to improve their situation.
In 1940, said another caller, "our economy was rock bottom -- there was nothing in this country, there was no way out for us." She said Sir Stafford took his own money and went around the world to build the country's tourist industry and because he was white he was able to bring people in. He took the police band on his trips with him. "They were all blacks," she said, "he ensured that they had good rooms in hotels, he ensured they were treated with respect and he joined them in their rooms. His own money paid for these trips."
She told how he took care of the entertainers and how he made certain that such Over the Hill nightclubs as the Cat and Fiddle and Silver Slipper prospered.
Troubadour Nat Saunders was on the show and admitted that as far as entertainers were concerned the UBP government was better for them than their own black government. On another occasion and in a different context, entertainer Leroy "Duke" Hanna said: "Sir Stafford Sands projected us, all of us, the great bands headed by people like Freddie Munnings Sr, the musicians, the dancers, the singers, the showmen...Sir Stafford made sure we were there on every tourist campaign trip. Culture was tops and well appreciated under Sir Stafford and his colleagues. But it just started dying after 1967..."
Yes, it started dying as the race card was being played loud and clear to create hatred and suspicion for the purpose of dividing Bahamians and winning elections.
Today, the PLP and those tainted with their racial hatreds have come, in the words of Mark Antony at the bier of Julius Caesar, not to praise him, but to inter the good that he has done in this country with his bones, so that whatever evil they might have perceived in him can grow, prosper and be enshrined for posterity. However, Sir Stafford touched and uplifted so many Bahamian lives that we do not think that Fred Mitchell and his ilk will be able to strike him from the $10 bill in the future.
As one caller told Krissy Love, Bahamians have to learn they cannot change their history to accommodate their political agenda. And, what we must also remember: The history of the Bahamas did not start in 1967. Many sacrifices were made by many Bahamians before then to make the successes of 1967 possible.
May 13, 2010
tribune242
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Perry Christie would reverse the $65 million Arawak Cay container port deal when he is returned to the office of Prime Minister
Christie 'would reverse $65m container port deal'
By PAUL G TURNQUEST
Tribune Staff Reporter
pturnquest@tribunemedia.net:
PLP Leader Perry Christie has warned would-be investors in the government's $65 million Arawak Cay container port that when he is returned to the office of Prime Minister he will reverse the deal.
Describing himself as the person who intends "to win the next general election," Mr Christie said his position on the matter has not changed.
He said: "My position on the $10 bill is known. My position on the port is known, and time doesn't change that.
"What political organisations do is review its own thinking on a matter with respect to the issue. And there is nothing to date that has convinced me that there should be a change in that thinking."
Describing the Hubert Ingraham-led government's decision to relocate the container port to Arawak Cay as an "abominable mistake", Mr Christie said the move would work against the beautification of the downtown area.
"I find it very difficult to understand how the government of the Bahamas can proceed with this matter. I do not believe, no matter how they try to hide the existence of that port, I do not feel it is right to put an industrial centre next to the Fish Fry and destroy what would otherwise be a scenic drive along West Bay Street."
Mr Christie added that the project seems to be littered with "major" flaws considering its enormity and the expense that would have to be undertaken to do it.
With the next General Election expected any time within the next 18 to 24 months, sources within the FNM have stated that Mr Christie's position on the matter would mean very little, even if he were to hold the seat of Prime Minister.
"I as a citizen of this country am not threatened by anything that Perry Christie says he will do because considering his history, he will do nothing," the source laughed.
Brandishing such remarks as being "typical of the PLP" he went on to add how the PLP had also threatened to reverse the deal on Atlantis which was first refused under the PLP but later signed after the FNM came to power in 1992.
"The PLP would be opening themselves to a litany of lawsuits. So that is a political argument at best. Once this agreement is signed that is it. These stakeholders can sue them for attempting to stop it.
"But Mr Christie should know better. He is trying to make this deal fail before it gets off the ground. He is trying to instil fear in the hearts of the stated investors and those yet in the pool. That is unfit for a former Prime Minister to be doing, particularly in this current climate," he said.
In thanking all those parties involved in making the signing a success, Prime Minister Ingraham told the press on Monday that it took "great effort" on the private sector's part because they were faced with reducing income which they are now making, and having threats by an Opposition Party that it would discontinue the operation at Arawak Cay.
"And so they had to be bold and take my word and my action for it that a deal done with the government of the Bahamas is a deal done, irrespective of any noise to the contrary in the marketplace.
"The government therefore, looks forward to a harmonious relationship between the private sector and ourselves. We expect that the port will be managed by the private sector and not by the government," he said.
May 12, 2010
tribune242
By PAUL G TURNQUEST
Tribune Staff Reporter
pturnquest@tribunemedia.net:
PLP Leader Perry Christie has warned would-be investors in the government's $65 million Arawak Cay container port that when he is returned to the office of Prime Minister he will reverse the deal.
Describing himself as the person who intends "to win the next general election," Mr Christie said his position on the matter has not changed.
He said: "My position on the $10 bill is known. My position on the port is known, and time doesn't change that.
"What political organisations do is review its own thinking on a matter with respect to the issue. And there is nothing to date that has convinced me that there should be a change in that thinking."
Describing the Hubert Ingraham-led government's decision to relocate the container port to Arawak Cay as an "abominable mistake", Mr Christie said the move would work against the beautification of the downtown area.
"I find it very difficult to understand how the government of the Bahamas can proceed with this matter. I do not believe, no matter how they try to hide the existence of that port, I do not feel it is right to put an industrial centre next to the Fish Fry and destroy what would otherwise be a scenic drive along West Bay Street."
Mr Christie added that the project seems to be littered with "major" flaws considering its enormity and the expense that would have to be undertaken to do it.
With the next General Election expected any time within the next 18 to 24 months, sources within the FNM have stated that Mr Christie's position on the matter would mean very little, even if he were to hold the seat of Prime Minister.
"I as a citizen of this country am not threatened by anything that Perry Christie says he will do because considering his history, he will do nothing," the source laughed.
Brandishing such remarks as being "typical of the PLP" he went on to add how the PLP had also threatened to reverse the deal on Atlantis which was first refused under the PLP but later signed after the FNM came to power in 1992.
"The PLP would be opening themselves to a litany of lawsuits. So that is a political argument at best. Once this agreement is signed that is it. These stakeholders can sue them for attempting to stop it.
"But Mr Christie should know better. He is trying to make this deal fail before it gets off the ground. He is trying to instil fear in the hearts of the stated investors and those yet in the pool. That is unfit for a former Prime Minister to be doing, particularly in this current climate," he said.
In thanking all those parties involved in making the signing a success, Prime Minister Ingraham told the press on Monday that it took "great effort" on the private sector's part because they were faced with reducing income which they are now making, and having threats by an Opposition Party that it would discontinue the operation at Arawak Cay.
"And so they had to be bold and take my word and my action for it that a deal done with the government of the Bahamas is a deal done, irrespective of any noise to the contrary in the marketplace.
"The government therefore, looks forward to a harmonious relationship between the private sector and ourselves. We expect that the port will be managed by the private sector and not by the government," he said.
May 12, 2010
tribune242
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)