In a matter, which at this time, has nothing to do with him or his political organization, the chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) seems to make what can only be seen as a per-emptive strike, in order to save the reputation of his party, at least that is left of it.

“Izmirlian sues CCA – Former developer’s company accuses firm of fraud” – The Nassau Guardian 27 Dec. 2017

Excerpt from this article; BML Properties Limited which was once the company responsible for the development of the Baha-Mar mega-resort, has used China Construction America (CCA), the contractor of record for almost $3.5 billion, claiming CCA defrauded BML ‘in an attempt to gain leverage over BML properties and Baha Mar Limited’, which amounted to ‘one of the largest construction-based frauds in this hemisphere.”

This ‘rock was thrown’ yesterday, in a battle between BML Properties LTD, owned by Sarkis Izmirlian; and China Construction American, the general contractors, in the state of New York but back home the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) releases this statement in response.

“PLP urges Izmirlian to ‘give it a rest” – The Nassau Guardian 28 Dec. 2017

Excerpt from this article; “Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Chairman Fred Mitchell yesterday labeled former Baha Mar developer Sarkis Izmirlian lawsuit against China Construction America (CCA) as ‘an act of revenge calculated to injure The Bahamas and its reputation and to cast aspersions on the PLP.”

First off let me remind Senator Mitchell that The Bahamas and the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) are not one in the same, so if Mr. Izmirlian seeks to suggest in his 268-paged summon, that “…..the bankruptcy of his operation was somehow influenced by dealings by the government, then a PLP administration which was secretive and suspect because the documents were sealed by the Supreme Court of The Bahamas”, this would only be detrimental to the ‘reputation’ of the PLP and not The Bahamas, let us get this straight as this in your party’s burden to bear.

There seems to be a sudden case of guilty conscience here, as the chairman seeks to ‘nip this in the bud’ before it mushrooms out of control, but the damage has already been done and the only thing that the chairman and his party can do now is wait until they are formally called upon and asked to answer the burning questions of whether they were complicit in the alleged fraud or just ignorant/unaware to it and all else that was going on around them the time.

As he [Senator Mitchell] seeks to label others as being vindictive and suggesting that they are ruining the reputation of The Bahamas; I would like to recall one of his most infamous rants shortly after the last general election; “IF the Free National Movement loses the next general election, National Security Minister Marvin Dames ‘will understand what it-for-tat means”, this from a seasoned and mature political figure.

END

 

“Activists call for Rolle to step down” – The Tribune

Excerpt from this article; “RIGHTS Bahamas (RB) has condemned the ‘shockingly insensitive comments’ of Minister of Social Services Lanisha Rolle on marital rape and called for her immediate resignation.

RB said as the only woman in Cabinet and particularly in light of her official role in providing for the welfare of the vulnerable, Mrs. Rolle ‘should be ashamed of promoting a perspective that encourages assault against women.”

First question who is “Rights Bahamas”? And secondly, how is Minister Rolle “promoting a perspective that encourages assault against women”?

It seems painfully obvious that Rights Bahamas’s perspective is much different from that which many of us share and is not based in reality.  It is my opinion  that the activist group is either confused in its message or attempting to confuse the public; and most defiantly confused in its interpretation of the minister’s comment as it draws this erroneous conclusion.

The group says that “all forms of non-consensual sexual activity should be outlawed in any society that seeks to call itself a democracy” but the last time I checked these acts were, at no time have I seen marriage being successfully used as a justification for the rape of a spouse; I could be wrong and I always stand to be corrected.

The group continues on to build its case to have the Minister of Social Services and Urban Renewal fired on, what I see, as the misinterpretation of her statement on marital rape being a private matter; how they have reached the conclusion which they have reached is amazing for a group of “intelligent” persons; making an assumption.   Nevertheless, it would seem that they have reached the conclusion that the minister is advocating that a married woman that has experienced the trauma of marital rape not report it and not speak about it, all this from the statement “Marital rape is a private issue””.  This conclusion is not only erroneous; as it is a lie within itself, but is also an asinine intimation.

What I am finding truly amazing is that this “intelligent” group (still working on assumption here), would/could come together over this issue, misconstrue the comments of the minister to fit their agenda; whatever that may be, while claiming to seek to protect one segment of society while putting another segment of the very society at risk; disenfranchising them and further minimalizing their rights; this makes no sense and is plain stupid, there is no other word to describe this reckless and irresponsible action, and does not move the issue which they seek to address forward at all .

The definition of rape in The Bahamas now is; Rape is the act of nay person under fourteen years of age having sexual intercourse with another person who is not his spouse;

1. Without the consent of that person
2. Without consent which has been extorted by threats or fear of bodily harm;
3. With consent obtained by personating the spouse of that other person.

My first suggestion would be to remove the words “…who is not his spouse” from the definition and work from there, because then it should then automatically makes the act of rape a crime.

Finally Rights Bahamas, no one is going to fire anyone under the direction of a face-less, fringe group; which seemed to have formed over night, in a social vacuum, which seem to have no solutions to the serious issue to which they wish to address.

END

I said two days ago that our vision is limited only by our ability to reason and to reason; the reactions to the headline in Wednesday’s Guardian by Minister of Social Services and Urban Development Lanisha Rolle, I feel proves this point.

The media printed the headline “Rolle: Marital rape is a private issue” and they did so to sell papers, as is their right, but it would seem that most of us never got past the headline itself, even as the minister went on to explain her comment and the result of this is the current uproar that we have, which in my opinion, has been brought about due to the minister’s poor choice of words and by a set of people that seem determined, due to their desire to be politically correct, to now condemn the minister or anyone else that they see as being as indifferent to the matter of marital rape.

“Rolle: Marital rape is a private issue – Minister says law must have wide support of public” – The Nassau Guardian 20^th December 2017

Excerpt from this article; “Minister of Social Services and Urban Development Lanisha Rolle said yesterday that marital rape is a private issue and before the government considers legislation in relation to it, a public discussion must take place.

UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women Dubravka Simonovic suggested last week that The Bahamas is out of step with the United Nations’ Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) as it has failed to criminalize the act.

“Well certainly we do not support any form of violence against women,” Rolle told reporters outside Cabinet.

“That is the stance the country has taken. Certainly I am one that supports that.

“In relation to marital rape, I’ve always said it is an issue that is private.

“It can become public, but we want to start where marriage is sacred and marriage is private, and so if we are going to legislate any type of law to affect marital couples and relationships between those parties, it is proper to have a conversation with the wider community to get their perspective on how they feel about it.

“Certainly there are existing laws that deal with domestic violence, that deal with sexual offenses; there are laws that are on the books at this time.

“The Penal Code covers several offenses in relation to acts and rape is one of them; assault is another.
“But when we get into the sanctuary of marriage, it’s very, very important, I feel, because this relates to both parties, and nobody else would be there other than those two parties.

“So if we are going to legislate something like that, it must be something where we have the wide support of the community, because we want to protect the privacy of individuals and of marriages and that’s very, very important.”

First, I would like to address the subject of the minister’s use of language; in the very paragraph if she had said “…….that rape was a PERSONAL issue and before the government considers legislation in relation to it, a public discussion must take place”, would we have had this uproar?

Indeed, the issue of marital rape and the act itself is a very personal one and I feel this is why most cases may go unreported, so now to bring about legislation to cover matters that may be private/personal, like the minister says “….and if we are going to  legislate any type of law to affect martial couples and relationships between these parties, it is proper to have a conversation with the wider community to get their perspective on how they feel about it.”

It would appear to me that the Minister of Social Services and Urban Renewal is suggesting that we need to strike a balance between a very sensitive subject, matrimonial affairs, the crime of rape and the legislation of person’s personal lives.  But it would seem that total lack of vision, as to what she is attempting to suggest is being misinterpreted, intentional or unintentionally by those that lack the ability/capacity to comprehend or reason out exactly what would be the ramifications of blind legislation i.e. simply criminalizing marital rape without the necessary safeguards.

It is my personal belief that marital rape as with any other type of rape is wrong but indeed in this instance, which crosses over into the private and personal lives of many persons in a way that many may not understand; bear in mind you now have someone you have trusted enough to exchange marital vows with inflicting violence upon you and violating you in a way that you would have never imagined, there is so much more to now take into consideration which cannot be solved by a ‘catch all’ law that criminalization of marital rape would bring about; there is no vision in that type of legislation and a need, as recommended by the Minister of Social Affairs and Urban Renewal, to have a conversation with the community at large as to a way forward.

 

END

 

“Cooper: Junk status nothing to celebrate” – The Nassau Guardian

Excerpt from this article; “Shadow Minister of Finance Chester Cooper charged yesterday that while there is some relief to The Bahamas avoiding a further downgrade from credit ratings agency Standard & Poor’s (S&P), the maintained junk status is not much to celebrate.

Copper once again urged the government to communicate a clear path for growth and economic recovery.

‘It is hoped that the government is receptive to S&P’s advice and analysis on the need to focus on economic growth’, he said in a statement.”

You know there is only so much that anyone in the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) should have to say about the present economic state of the country, unless you are willing to sit down and answer some serious questions; and this is if you were a part of the last administration or not, in active politics or not.

First, let me say that while Chester Cooper MP, now calls for the Free National Movement (FNM) government to ‘communicate a clear path for growth and economic recovery,’ I must suggest that he must have been quite pleased with those communicated by the former Progressive Liberal Party government which led to four economic downgrades, because I never heard his voice raise up in objection or criticism to them, even as the country meandered down the disastrous economic path blazed by the Hon. Perry Christie’s PLP government, and this was as Prime Minister Perry Christie continued to tell the country that the ratings agencies just did not understand what his government was doing; well apparently a lot of us did not know what was being done and we doubted that the Minister of Finance at the time knew, as we were even further downgraded.

So as shadow Minister of Finance, Chester Cooper says, “….while there is some relief to The Bahamas avoiding a further downgrade…., the maintained junk status is not much to celebrate.” And he is correct that junk status is nothing to celebrate, he should acknowledge two things; first, how did we [The Bahamas] get to ‘junk status’ and second, that the Free National Movement (FNM) government was able to arrest the downward spiral that the former Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) had the country in.

Of course, he will not acknowledge these two facts and probably label this as an attack on the former prime minister and his administration but Mr. Cooper you did put it out there and probably sho0uld be a bit more careful of what you say in this effort just to be heard or because someone puts a microphone in your face.

END

“Government perceived as soft on immigration because of Campbell” – The Nassau Guardian

Excerpt from this article; “Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Chairman Fred Mitchell said yesterday the Minnis administration has been perceived as being soft on illegal migration largely.  This is because one of its Cabinet ministers was not only a product of that source, but has acted as a liaison for the Haitian community and the Free National Movement (FNM).

‘So it sent out a signal that once the FNM got in power that this whole situation of enforcement was going to ease,’ said Mitchell, a former immigration minister.”

This is is typical example of what happens when you cannot put a decent, logical thought together and continue to produce to what amounts to nothing more than what a lot of persons call ‘brain farts’.

Exactly what is Senator Fred Mitchell suggesting here? 

Is he suggesting that the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) would never consider running a candidate with the background of Frankie Campbell?

Is Senator Mitchell suggesting that the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) would never consider running the product of two illegal migrants?

Is he further suggesting, by extension, that a product of two illegal migrants cannot be a productive citizen of The Bahamas and should never be considered for high office?

What I find fundamentally flawed about this commentary by Senator Mitchell is that he is seeming to suggest that the present administration is being perceived as being soft on immigration because it ran Frankie Campbell in the first place, this seems to come very close to the xenophobic language that they [the Progressive Liberal Party] used during the election campaign but it just turns out to be just plain stupid or maybe it is both.

Senator Mitchell goes on to make these claims and the point that he is trying to make is actually lost in the ignorance of the message; as the point is an ignorant one, produced by an ignorant mind.  It would seem that Senator Mitchell is attempting to make a correlation between the two recent landings of illegal migrants and Minister Frankie Campbell being a Member of Parliament but there is no logical connection to be made, so he stands on a point of ignorance.

While we are on the subject of immigration and the perception of the present government being viewed as being soft on immigration, maybe the former Minister of Immigration would like to answer the questions being raised in another story in The Nassau Guardian; “RBDF: Sloop waited for patrol window – Patrols of western end of island only started again recently”, except from this article; “A Haitian sloop that made landfall three nautical miles west of the Royal Bahamas Defense Force (RBDF) base likely waited for a window of opportunity before coming ashore as the force had been patrolling that area just hours earlier, RBDF Commodore Tellis Bethel said yesterday.

Bethel, who spoke with The Nassau Guardian, said the only recently resumed patrolling the western portion of New Providence after being told to by the former administration to ‘stand down’ from patrolling that area.”

It would be interesting to know, who gave the order and why.

END