Author: My Morning Paper

I reserve all rights under the constitution of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas to comment on any subject as I see it..I do have a voice. These are my opinions.

 My Morning Paper – December 4, 2024 – The Fine Art of Playing Victim and Personal Responsibility

“Mitchell decries ‘false narrative’ on indictment” – The Nassau Guardian

Excerpt from this article;

“Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Chairman Fred Mitchell yesterday accused several former Cabinet ministers of creating a “false narrative” around the recent indictment in the United States of three Bahamian law enforcement officers and eight other Bahamians on drug trafficking and firearms related charges.

“Where the hell have Marvin Dames, Brent Symonette, Dionisio D’Aguilar come from?” Mitchell asked in a statement.

“They are joining the actors in the FNM drama written by [FNM Leader] Michael Pintard called the ‘Sky is Falling – Doom and Gloom’, also starring [former Democratic National Alliance Leader] Branville McCartney in a cameo role.

“If this weren’t so serious, you would have to laugh at these collective political clowns. They don’t want to do the work to convince the Bahamian people that they are the better alternative. They want to create a false narrative out of this indictment in the US to ride to victory.”

Mitchell insisted, “The Bahamian people are smarter than that.”

My first question is; what is the “false narrative” that Fred Mitchell is referring to? 

It is easy to slip into a mindset of being a victim, especially when life throws you curve balls or situations that are not planned for.

Let’s take a journey into this swirling vortex of political posturing, personal responsibility, and the ever-enticing allure of the victim narrative. Today, we tackle a question as relevant as it is vexing: Is the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) government, led by Fred Mitchell, setting up a narrative of victimhood to deflect from its own shortcomings?

And more importantly—what does this mean for governance in The Bahamas?

At this point in time it would appear that the Chairman of the New Day Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Fred Mitchell is setting up a narrative wherein the New Day Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) government is being victimized by The United States and by its very own citizens but there is a problem with constantly setting yourself as victim.

There seems to be a propensity for the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP), when facing hardship to give into the temptation.  There is a temptation to shift blame onto external circumstances or other people; it just seems overwhelming for them. This overwhelming temptation then forces them to avoid personal responsibility in confronting their role in whatever adverse situation that they may find themselves in, usually of their own making.

But here is the thing; constantly portraying yourself as the victim only makes people lose respect for you; the reason being that because when you adopt this mandate/mindset, you are telling the country and the world that you have no control over your responsibilities and if you do not believe that you have control then why should others believe in you?

Playing the victim usually begins small because it is easy to off load your personal responsibility onto someone else but over time this mentality becomes as a “trap” and the more you use it the more powerless you appear.  As you appear more powerless then others believe that you are at the mercy of external forces, so they lose faith in you and walk away from you and your leadership; because your ability to run the country, as you have been elected to do, is then called into question.

People respect those that take responsibility for their acts and that can rise above the challenges and not be consumed by them. But by constantly blaming others for your misfortunes, simply says that you lack courage to face your challenges face on – which makes it difficult for persons to trust you.

The Progressive Liberal Party fails for one reason, it is within their nature.

END

My Morning Paper – December 3 2024 – The Integrity of the RBPF: Time to Move Beyond Lip Service

There has been questions pertaining to the integrity the Royal Bahamas Police Force (RBPF) for decades.  There has been a call for action to restore and rebuild the relationship between the police and the average citizen for years, now we have hit a wall; but not the wall; where do we go from here?

“Rolle: RBPF will recover “– The Nassau Guardian

Excerpt from this article;

“Former Commissioner of Police Paul Rolle said last night that when he heard the allegations in a US indictment that members of the Royal Bahamas Police Force were involved in drug trafficking, his heart broke, but he expressed confidence that the RBPF will be able to rebuild its reputation and salvage its relationship with the Bahamian people.

Rolle, who is the Bahamas ambassador to the International Maritime Organization, said he was also “hurt and disappointed” with comments made by Commissioner of Police Clayton Fernander.

On Sunday, during a national address, Fernander said that in an effort to gain a comprehensive understanding of how these activities began and then remained undetected, “I have already initiated consultations with key individuals who held leadership roles during that period”.

“I have already spoken with former Commissioner of Police Paul Rolle, who served from March 2020 to July 2022,” Fernander said.

The commissioner said he also intends to speak with former Commissioner of Police Anthony Ferguson, former Prime Minister Dr. Hubert Minnis and former Minister of National Security Marvin Dames.”

Indeed, the Royal Bahamas Police Force (RBPF) will recover but will it regain the trust of The Bahamian people that has been seeing a constant a steady erosion for decades?  Even after all of the “Neighborhood policing” initiatives, the trust in the police force continued to falter and it would seem that everyone saw it as being “okay”.

He people of The Bahamas need more than “lip service” from its elected officials.

END

My Morning Paper – November 26, 2024 – The Death Penalty: The Pros and Cons

In recent days, the tragic murders of a 12-year-old child and a 72-year-old elderly woman have left the nation shaken and on edge. These heinous crimes have reignited calls for the application of the death penalty as a means of justice and deterrence. This debate, deeply rooted in the fabric of many societies, raises critical questions about its effectiveness in curbing crime. 

While proponents argue that capital punishment serves as a strong deterrent and delivers justice, opponents question its moral standing and practical impact. The following is a balanced synopsis of the pros and cons of the death penalty, focusing on its potential effectiveness in deterring crime.

The Death Penalty as a Deterrent to Crime: A Critical Analysis

The death penalty has long been a subject of heated debate, not only for its ethical implications but also for its effectiveness as a deterrent to heinous crimes such as murder. Proponents argue that the ultimate punishment of death serves as a powerful warning to potential offenders, creating a fear that prevents them from committing capital crimes. Critics, however, contend that the evidence supporting this claim is inconclusive and that the death penalty may not be as effective as intended. This blog explores the arguments for and against the death penalty’s deterrent effect and evaluates its role in modern criminal justice systems.

Theoretical Foundations of Deterrence:

The theory of deterrence is based on the idea that potential criminals will refrain from committing crimes if the punishment is severe, certain, and swift. The death penalty, being the most severe form of punishment, is intended to instill fear in individuals who might otherwise engage in violent behavior. The logic is straightforward: if the consequences of a crime are dire enough, rational offenders will avoid committing the offense.

Empirical Evidence: What Do Studies Say?

The effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent has been the subject of extensive research, with mixed results:

1. Studies Supporting Deterrence 

   Some studies suggest that states or countries with the death penalty experience lower rates of violent crimes compared to those without it. Researchers argue that the presence of capital punishment adds a psychological barrier, discouraging would-be offenders from crossing the line.

For instance, a 2003 study by economists at Emory University found that each execution in the United States may deter between three and eighteen murders. These findings indicate a correlation between the use of the death penalty and reduced murder rates, providing ammunition for proponents of capital punishment.

2. Studies Challenging Deterrence 

   Other research disputes these claims, suggesting that the death penalty does not have a significant impact on crime rates. A 2012 report by the National Research Council concluded that existing studies on the deterrent effect of the death penalty are fundamentally flawed and fail to provide credible evidence that executions reduce homicide rates.

 Countries like Canada and several European nations, which have abolished the death penalty, do not report higher murder rates than countries that retain it. This raises questions about whether factors such as socioeconomic conditions, policing efficacy, and cultural attitudes play a more significant role in preventing crime than the threat of execution.

Psychological and Practical Challenges

1. Assumption of Rationality

   The deterrent effect assumes that criminals are rational actors who weigh the consequences of their actions before committing a crime. However, many murders are crimes of passion, committed in the heat of the moment, where the perpetrator does not consider the potential punishment.

2. Certainty and Swiftness

   For deterrence to be effective, punishment must not only be severe but also certain and swift. In reality, the death penalty is often neither. Lengthy appeals processes and the possibility of wrongful convictions undermine the certainty of execution, while delays in carrying out sentences diminish its swiftness.

3. The Issue of Wrongful Convictions

   The irreversible nature of the death penalty raises concerns about executing innocent individuals. High-profile cases of exoneration due to DNA evidence demonstrate that even advanced judicial systems are not immune to error. This undermines public confidence in the death penalty and reduces its deterrent value.

Alternative Approaches to Crime Prevention

Rather than relying solely on the death penalty, many experts advocate for a multifaceted approach to crime prevention that addresses the root causes of violence. Strategies such as community policing, improved education and employment opportunities, mental health support, and restorative justice programs have shown promise in reducing crime rates without resorting to capital punishment.

Conclusion

The question of whether the death penalty serves as an effective deterrent to murder and other violent crimes remains unresolved. While some evidence suggests a potential deterrent effect, the overall findings are inconclusive and often counterbalanced by ethical, practical, and systemic concerns. In light of these complexities, it may be more productive to focus on addressing the underlying causes of crime and improving the fairness and efficiency of the criminal justice system. The ultimate goal should not merely be punishment but the creation of a safer and more just society for all.

END

My Morning Paper – November 22, 2024 – The Bahamas’ Minority Report?

“Senate president calls for resumption of hanging; PM says it’s not a solution” – The Nassau Guardian

Except from this article;

“Senate President Lashell Adderley yesterday called for the resumption of hanging in The Bahamas.

Her comments came after police reported that a 12-year-old girl was found dead with only a top on and a piece of cloth tied around her neck.

“We need to bring back hanging,” Adderley said.

“Unfortunately, the criminals do not fear the law. They are determined to take the risk to hurt people, hurt young children, and then they in turn laugh at the justice system.

“So we have to let them know that the justice system in the Commonwealth of The Bahamas is not a joke, and we are serious about justice and if that means bringing back hanging then that we must.”

Adderley said she believes that if you take a life your life deserves to be taken.

She asked, “Why should you be sitting up there, being fed by the state, relaxing for the rest of your life whereas the rest of us are out here working hard to support you?”

Prime Minister Philip Brave Davis said yesterday he’s looking for solutions to crime.

“When you start talking about hanging, that’s not a solution,” he said on the sidelines of a groundbreaking ceremony for the Centreville Hilltop Agri-Village.

“That’s after the fact. That’s after somebody would have died or been killed. I’m trying to prevent killing.

“Talking about what one has to exact after an offense has been committed, that’s not my focus right now.

“My focus is stopping offenses from being. It’s on prevention, not on punishment, at this time. Punishment has its place and yes, people should be punished and would be punished, according to law.”

But one second Mr. Prime Minister Davis capital punishment is law; I just thought that I would point this out, however, this then leads us to a complex dialogue concerning the application of capital punishment, which, as noted, is legally recognized yet bound by the Privy Council’s stipulations.  These stipulations being that this form of punishment can only be used in instances of “the worst of the worst” and the “rarest of the rarest”; who actually defines these instances.

Many may seem very emotive concerning the recent killing of the twelve year old female and some are asking that these emotions be out aside as we seek to address capital punishment and murder; so let us do just that.

In my opinion the prime minister seems to be addressing this issue more like a defense attorney than a chief legislator, as he “talks down” Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Senate President Lashell Adderley; with this remarks reminding me of the script from the movie “Minority Report”, as he seeks to want to stop murders before they are committed.

It would appear that the prime minister is not concerned with the mitigation of crime through means of deterrence through enforcement but rather through means of “other means”; as to what these “other means” are, the rest of the country is very interested in finding out.

Earlier this week there was an instant where in it was made clear that the prime minister has no solution to our economic situation; and now he shows us that he nor any of this Cabinet or government has any solution to our crime problems – what does the prime minister and his government have a solution for?

The prime minister, while in opposition, heavily criticized the Free National Movement (FNM) government under the Hon. Hubert Ingraham for not having a solution to the crime situation, he went as far as to erect the infamous “Murder Boards”.  This would have suggested that at the time that the indeed had a solution to our crime problem, it is clear today that he did and does not.

As we navigate these troubling discussions on crime and punishment, the key will be finding a balanced approach that ensures justice while also addressing the root causes of violence. It is imperative that our leaders listen, unify, and act thoughtfully, paving the way for a safer future that reflects the values and needs of all citizens.

The Progressive Liberal Party fails for one reason, it is their nature.

END

My Morning Paper – November 14 2024 – The Issue of Transparency At Home

The Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) once said; “We oppose this Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).  The FNM has this view; they’ve passed something called the Fiscal Responsibly Act, The Procurement Act, The Freedom of Information Act.  All of these things have nothing to do with people’s ordinary lives. 

Freedom of Information, I don’t think so.

It’s bureaucratic, expensive to execute.

We are talking about a philosophical difference between us and them.”

Now Prime Minister; the Hon. Philip E. Davis K.C. takes the world stage and demands accountability and transparency form the world as it related to Climate Change.

“PM calls for $1trn fund to fight climate change” – The Tribune

Excerpt from this article; “THE Prime Minister yesterday called for greater global transparency as he added his voice to calls for the creation of a $1trn fund to combat climate change.

Philip Davis KC, speaking at COP 29 conference, said The Bahamas is ‘advancing’ it’s first Biennial Transparency Report on progress towards meeting its climate change goals with funding from the Capacity-Building Initiative for Transparency (CBIT).

The Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF) framework allows countries to track and report on national climate change mitigation policies and adaptation actions, and gain support towards achieving the global temperature and adaptation goals, including their progress on achieving individual national; determined contributions (NDCs).

‘Transparency is not merely a reporting requirement. It’s the backbone of real, lasting climate action.  For countries, transparency means acknowledging where we stand and what we need,’ said Mr. Davis.”

 I wonder if I were to rewrite that last line if all would be well with in our country; “‘Transparency is not merely a reporting requirement. It’s the backbone of real, lasting democracy”.

The New Day Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) government is at odds with “democracy.”  They are willing to go on the world stage and expect and demand transparency, accountability and democracy but apply it at their convenience at home; but real life does not work that way.

Does Prime Minister Davis not realize how contradictory this statement really is; does he even care?

Let us take a look at what he is really saying and how he is contradicting himself and his government.

Contradictions in Transparency: A Closer Look at the Davis-led PLP Government

In the same breath that Prime Minister Davis is calling for global transparency, his administration faces serious transparency issues at home. A few notable examples highlight this ongoing struggle:

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Delays

Despite FOIA being passed by the previous administration, the current PLP government under Prime Minister Davis has been slow to implement it fully. The delay in rolling out FOIA keeps critical information inaccessible, making it harder for Bahamian citizens to hold their government accountable.

Electricity Rate Increase

The public faced an increase in electricity rates with little explanation, drawing frustration and distrust. Many citizens questioned the financial management practices of Bahamas Power and Light (BPL), yet clear, detailed information on how rates were determined or the factors driving these costs were not provided. For a government that calls for international transparency, this lack of openness at home on issues affecting daily life reveals a troubling contradiction.

Lack of Transparency on Government Contracts

Under the current administration, there have been limited disclosures on government contracts, despite the Procurement Act being in place. While the government has a system for public procurement, the lack of timely updates and detailed contract information has raised questions. For instance, significant contracts awarded without competitive bidding remain undisclosed to the public, leaving citizens in the dark about how and where their tax dollars are being spent.

Handling of National Debt and Public FinancesThe PLP government has also been hesitant to embrace the Fiscal Responsibility Act’s mandates, which aim to increase fiscal transparency. For example, while they release budget information, certain critical reports on the country’s debt levels, particularly regarding the terms of recent borrowing, have lacked detail. This makes it challenging for citizens to understand the true state of the national debt and the strategies employed to manage it.

Conclusion

In my opinion, it’s almost surreal to see Prime Minister Davis step onto the world stage, all fired up, calling for transparency, accountability, and democracy—as if he’s auditioning for the role of “Champion of Openness” at the Global Oscars. And yet, back home, where he actually has the power to practice what he preaches, it’s like he’s developed a sudden case of selective amnesia.

The Progressive Liberal Party fails for reason, it is their nature.

END
    

My Morning Paper – November 9, 2024 – Ignorance in Action: The Cost of Political Games in The Bahamas

“Nothing is more terrible than to see ignorance in action.” – Goethe

The Progressive Liberal Party (PLP), under the guise of “good governance,” seems to have embraced what could only be described as “silly season” – a term frequently used by PLP Chairman Fred Mitchell to dismiss criticisms from the opposition Free National Movement (FNM). Ironically, Mitchell’s attempt to call out the opposition on various issues ignores the glaring contradictions in his own party’s approach to governance.

Prime Minister Philip Davis, in an attempt to address rising public frustration, recently noted that individuals’ choices impact their cost of living. While there’s some truth to the notion that personal spending habits play a role, the statement came across as dismissive, particularly since it was paired with his admission that the cost of living in The Bahamas is indeed excessively high. The average Bahamian faces soaring prices on everything from basic necessities to utilities, and attributing this solely to personal choices appears somewhat out of touch with the economic realities. Many believe that the government’s decisions have done little to ease these burdens, and instead, this approach feels more like an effort to deflect responsibility.

The government’s minimal interventions and inadequate strategies to address inflation have left citizens struggling with high prices. By pointing fingers back at citizens, Davis’s statement comes off as an exercise in deflection rather than genuine problem-solving. For many Bahamians, this statement symbolized yet another instance of the PLP avoiding accountability for failing to alleviate the pressing financial struggles facing their people.

Deputy Prime Minister Chester Cooper recently chastised individuals for circulating a video that, according to him, “could hurt the image of The Bahamas.” While it’s understandable for a government official to be concerned about the nation’s global reputation, this stance would feel a lot more genuine if the PLP’s own history didn’t reveal a similar approach. In fact, when the PLP was in opposition, they famously placed billboards across Nassau that highlighted The Bahamas’ murder count, all in an effort to paint the FNM government as inept in handling crime. This move undoubtedly impacted the country’s image, yet the PLP seemed comfortable with these tactics when it benefited their political agenda.

It’s difficult for many Bahamians to reconcile Cooper’s criticism with the PLP’s past actions. It raises the question: does the PLP’s concern for the nation’s image only extend as far as its political expediency? This double standard demonstrates an unwillingness to own up to their own actions, especially when those very actions mirror the same behaviour’s they criticize.

The “silly season” label has become the PLP’s go-to defence whenever faced with valid criticism, conveniently ignoring the fact that their approach to governance has often been marked by a lack of introspection and accountability. Since May 2007, the PLP has seemingly been in a perpetual “silly season,” displaying a pattern of pointing fingers outward while avoiding difficult self-reflection.

The Bahamian people deserve a government that doesn’t just speak about “good governance” but embodies it through consistent actions, even when those actions require acknowledging past missteps.

The Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) fails for one reason; it is their nature.”

END

My Morning Paper – November 06, 2024 – The Hypocrisy of the Progressive Liberal Party’s Stance on the Baha Mar Scandal – Collusion or Coincidence?

In recent weeks, Fred Mitchell, Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP), has been vocal in his criticism of Sarkis Izmirlian, the developer behind the troubled Baha Mar project. By branding Izmirlian a “failed developer,” Mitchell and the PLP appear to be sidestepping a recent judgment against China Construction America (CCA), which implicates officials within the “New Day” government in alleged collusion. This attempt to deflect raises pressing questions about the PLP’s accountability, transparency, and the potential hypocrisy of their current stance.

The Attempt to Paint Izmirlian as Solely Responsible

In the narrative promoted by Mitchell and the PLP, the failure of Baha Mar is pinned solely on Sarkis Izmirlian, while the role of CCA, the project’s lead construction company, and potential issues of sabotage remain unmentioned. Mitchell’s argument suggests that the collapse of Baha Mar was due to Izmirlian’s negligence or incompetence, rather than any outside interference. However, this interpretation ignores a key aspect of the situation: the $1.6 billion judgment awarded to Izmirlian in damages, which implies something far more complex than simple developer failure.

The judgment against CCA indicates that Baha Mar’s struggles were not due to a “failed” developer alone but rather due to interference, delays, and possible collusion involving Chinese interests and Bahamian officials. The omission of these facts in Mitchell’s statements risks misleading the Bahamian public about the true circumstances surrounding Baha Mar’s failure.

The PLP’s Questionable Role in a “Private Matter”

Mitchell’s recent remarks instruct Bahamians to “sit down, be quiet, and stay out of this private dispute.” Ironically, it was the PLP, during the Christie administration—where Mitchell and current Prime Minister Philip Davis both served as cabinet ministers—that injected itself into what was initially a private matter. The administration justified its intervention as a measure to protect Bahamian subcontractors’ interests. Yet, it is now clear that the intervention may have been far from neutral, and it may even have contributed to the challenges faced by the developer.

Despite funds being provided by Izmirlian’s team to pay subcontractors, the contractor, CCA, used this payment to purchase and develop another Bahamian property. For this to happen, permits and approvals would likely have been required, suggesting that Bahamian officials had to be aware of and possibly even sanctioned these actions. This scenario is eerily reminiscent of other instances of poor communication and accountability, such as the controversial entry of Carnival into the country early in the PLP’s administration, where no official took responsibility for the permits issued.

Collusion or Coincidence?

The forensic reports due later this month are likely to shed more light on the potential collusion between Bahamian officials and CCA. Nonetheless, the timing and circumstances surrounding the PLP’s involvement in the project have raised serious concerns. The assertion that the government’s intervention was motivated purely by concern for Bahamian subcontractors is at odds with the details emerging from the investigation, which suggests that key decisions may have been influenced by interests beyond national pride or protectionism.

Mitchell’s current rhetoric ignores the complexity of these issues, preferring to keep public attention on Izmirlian as the “failed developer” rather than acknowledging the PLP’s role in the ongoing scandal. The Bahamian people deserve an honest answer: if the PLP’s only aim was to help subcontractors, how did a significant amount of the project’s funds end up being used by CCA for separate ventures? Why was no oversight applied to ensure that funds were used appropriately?

Deflection Tactics and the FNM Blame Game

Another deflection tactic used by the PLP is the suggestion that the Free National Movement (FNM) is spreading rumors about potential job losses due to the judgment against CCA. This narrative seems to serve as a smokescreen to distract from the PLP’s alleged role in the scandal. There is little concrete evidence that the FNM has launched such a campaign, and it’s worth asking why Mitchell would choose this moment to bring up such a claim.

If the PLP’s involvement was as innocent as they claim, why not fully cooperate with the investigation and present the forensic evidence to the public? The refusal to engage with the findings of the judgment—while deflecting blame onto a developer and political opposition—paints a picture of a government unwilling to be accountable for its past actions.

Accountability Is Key

For a government that prides itself on being a “New Day” administration, the PLP’s handling of the Baha Mar scandal demonstrates a continuation of old ways. Bahamians deserve answers, transparency, and an end to the rhetoric that paints one party as the scapegoat while officials avoid accountability for their own potential missteps.

In light of the judgment, it’s time for Mitchell and the PLP to follow their own advice and exercise caution in their statements. As more information emerges, it’s essential that the PLP is held accountable for its role in the Baha Mar fiasco and that the Bahamian people receive clear and transparent answers about how and why government officials were involved.

END

 My Morning Paper – October 31, 2024 – In Defense of Country or Party?

Just when you thought that the country’s top executive, Prime Minister, Philip Davis K.C., was displaying some semblance of commonsense, as he tasked  Attorney General Ryan Pinder with reviewing the  recent Baha Mar court ruling and its implications for The Bahamas. Just when the government seemed to had taken a wait-and-see approach, a decision which reflected a more cautious stance that some viewed as necessary given the diplomatic sensitivities surrounding the case, especially considering the Bahamas’ economic and political relationship with the United States. And while the government was also attempting to downplay any other teffects that it may have on The Bahamas, it would appear that Prime Minister Davis left his office door opened just a little bit too long.

 So in saunters the country’s top diplomat, the Hon. Fred Mitchell, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and all “hell and darkness” followed; was that too dark too quick?  Mitchell who seems more busied with ‘picking fights’ with the United States justice system; fights which in my opinion are quite unnecessary, as was the very first intervention by the Christie Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) government in the Baha Mar matter. Instantly, the country’s top executive then seemed convinced to throw caution into the wind as he now seeks to defend the unnecessary fight that the top diplomat has picked.

We have seen this show before.

“PM DEFENDS MITCHELL’S REMARKS ON BAHA MAR COURT RULING” – The Tribune

Excerpt from this article; “PRIME Minister Philip “ Brave” Davis defended Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Chairman Fred Mitchell’s critical response to a recent New York State Supreme Court ruling, which awarded Baha Mar’s original developer, Sarkis Izmirlian, over $1.6bn in damages in a fraud and breach of contract case against the main contractor, China Contraction America (CCA).

Mr. Mitchell, the Minister of Foreign Affairs dismissed fraud allegations involving the Christie administration officials during the Baha Mar saga as ‘salacious’, arguing that no evidence supported the accusation.

He accused Izmirlian of promoting a narrative misaligned with the facts. 

He urged the public to approach the commentary on the US ruling with caution and advised Bahamians to be ‘skeptical’ about information related to the judgment.

His comments sparked backlash.  The Nassau Guardian reported last week Tuesday that former Supreme Court Justice Jeanne Thompson said Mr. Mitchell showed a ‘total lack of diplomatic behavior’ with his ‘intemperate’ comments.

‘I have no problem with the chairman raising to defense of party officials, family and friends,’ Justice Thompson wrote. “However, I take strong exception to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of our nation lambasting the judge of a friendly country because he did not like is ruling, and vilifying a foreign resident and investor because he dared to bring an action to secure his right and succeeded.”

Mitchell’s comments, which dismissed allegations of corruption within the Christie administration as “salacious” and urged Bahamians to approach the ruling’s commentary with skepticism, were met with criticism from figures such as former Justice Jeanne Thompson. She argued that his tone lacked the diplomatic restraint expected of a Foreign Minister. Moreover, members of the opposition, such as Free National Movement (FNM) Leader Michael Pintard, suggested that Mitchell’s remarks may compromise the perception of Bahamian diplomacy and investor confidence in the nation.

Question: When Fred Mitchell urges “the public to approach commentary on the US ruling with caution and advised Bahamians to be ‘skeptical’ about information related to the judgment”; does this bit of advice also apply to his commentary and any and all information coming from the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) as a party and a government?

Another question:  With his constant unsolicited rhetoric from the New Day government, in my mind, raises the question of if Fred Mitchell is acting as the country’s best interest and the country’s top diplomat or in the best interest of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) as its chairman?

And yet another question; Can Mitchell actually wear both “hats” and render an objective point of view; a diplomatic point of view on this issue?

The chairman of the Progressive Liberal party (PLP) seems to want to be able to get in the front of this “train wreck” because there are very serious allegations brought up in the ruling by the US Supreme Court that tends to shed The Bahamas’ government in a very poor light.

The ruling pointed out, “Baha Mar financial crisis would have been averted if its main contractor had properly used $54 m to pay the project’s sub-contractor rather than fund the British Colonial purchase, a U.S. judge ruled”.

Apparently it was the court’s ruling that CCA purposely diverted much needed capital from the Baha Mar development only to go on to use it or misuse these fund to invest in another capital project; did the Christie administration have any knowledge of this at the time?

If so, who knew what and when did they know it?

Indeed, this situation underscores the challenges of balancing national interests with party loyalty, especially when navigating high-stakes international litigation involving significant investment and reputational issues but can one reasonably carry out this balancing act?

 The ongoing review by the Attorney General may clarify the government’s official stance, but the controversy highlights the tensions within Bahamian leadership as they balance diplomacy, political image, and public accountability in the face of complex international rulings.

The Progressive Liberal Party fails for one reason, it is within their nature.

END

Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Chairman Fred Mitchell criticized the Free National Movement’s (FNM) call for a parliamentary committee on crime, questioning its potential impact on the rising crime issue. Mitchell asserted that another committee would not directly address the complexities of crime, suggesting that actions are necessary rather than “political hay.” He urged that this approach avoid turning crime into a political debate and emphasized the need for tangible steps to address the problem.

The PLP government, led by Prime Minister Philip Davis, has introduced its “Five Pillars” strategy to combat crime, focusing on Prevention, Policing/Detection, Prosecution, Punishment, and Rehabilitation. This comprehensive approach aims for cross-government coordination in addressing the root causes and escalating trends of crime. The administration believes this plan supersedes the need for a committee, instead emphasizing real-time interventions and immediate support for law enforcement efforts.

Critics, however, argue that crime remains a serious concern despite the PLP’s plan, and some in the public sphere view the government’s response as insufficient, given recent crime trends. They express that a more united and potentially collaborative approach, as recommended by the FNM, might better address the issue. Mitchell’s dismissal of the committee suggestion has fueled criticism, suggesting that he may be overly focused on maintaining the PLP’s stance, even as the public increasingly demands further action on crime beyond existing government strategies.

My Morning Paper – October 23, 2024 – Just the Facts Please…..

I have always said in The Bahamas that when it comes to politics, there are two sets of “facts”; the actual facts and there are Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) facts and what I have come to find out is that these two sets of facts do not assimilate.

In a statement in the Nassau Guardian this morning , in reference to the recent Baha Mar ruling, the PLP Chairman is quoted as saying;” Baha Mar developer Sarkis Izmirlian of “seeking to tell a narrative which does not line up with the facts”.

When the chairman talks about the facts not lining up, exactly whose facts is he referring to?

It would appear that they lined up for Justice Andrew Borrok of the Supreme Court of the state of New York but that is beside the point I guess.

 “Mitchell slams Izmirlian, Pintard and Baha Mar ruling.” – The Nassau Guardian

Excerpt form this article; “Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Chairman and Minister of Foreign Affairs Fred Mitchell yesterday accused former Baha Mar developer Sarkis Izmirlian of “seeking to tell a narrative which does not line up with the facts”.

Mitchell was responding to a significant New York court judgment finding that Izmirlian lost his Baha Mar project a decade ago as a result of fraud and breaches committed by China Construction America (CCA).

Mitchell’s claim was made notwithstanding the fact that Justice Andrew Borrok of the Supreme Court of the State of New York said in his ruling that credible evidence indicated that Izmirlian acted “honorably and commercially reasonably” in seeking to have the multi-billion-development completed.

The judge awarded Izmirlian’s BML Properties Limited $1.6 billion against China Construction America as a result of the fraud and breaches.

Mitchell also lashed out at Opposition Leader Michael Pintard who on Sunday called for an investigation into the inferences in the ruling that Bahamian government officials had colluded with CCA to push Izmirlian out.

“We’re concerned about the leader of the opposition, who jumps on a judgment, comments written by a judge in the United States,” said Mitchell in a video recording that was widely circulated yesterday.

“When is the leader of the opposition going to support Bahamians and support The Bahamas?”

“Support Bahamians and support The Bahamas” on what exactly, Mr. Mitchell?

Here, we have the chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party attempting to attack the Leader of the Opposition Free National Movement (FNM) with the old line of being “anti-Bahamian”.  He did this when the New Day, Old Way Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) went to “war” with the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA), at that time every one that disagreed with the PLP government was seen as being “anti-Bahamian”.

Another instance occurred when Bahamians protested over issues like inadequate electricity and poor infrastructure in islands such as Andros and Eleuthera. The government’s response was to dismiss some of these criticisms as lacking in national loyalty, framing critics as opposing progress and nation-building efforts.

This has been a recurring theme in the PLP’s narrative whenever they face public discontent or organized opposition to their policies, so this has been established let us move on.

It is simply amazing that the chairman of the New Day, Old Way PLP government seeks to attack the leader of the opposition and the BML Properties Limited over the recent Baha Mar ruling when it was the findings of the Supreme Court of the State of New York  that stated; “In addition to the court ruling in favor of the Izmirlian family for the sum of $1.6 billion, the judgment referenced evidence of troubling allegations about the direct involvement and active support of officials in the then-PLP administration when Prime Minister [Philip] Davis served as deputy leader,” so herein is where the issue comes in.

It would appear that the court ruling condemns the PLP administration for what amounts to collusion; in acting in concert with the contractor CCA to gain ownership of Baha Mar but I am sure that the New Day, Old way government does not see it that way but interestingly enough again Prime Minister Davis and Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) do not seem to be on the same page as it pertains to this issue.  We have the Prime Minister instructing the Attorney General to review the matter; while the Chairman Mitchell suggests that there really is nothing to review.

So what’s worse here? A government that can’t govern or one that hides its failures behind accusations of treason and lies? Calling criticism “unpatriotic” is the real betrayal. It’s the last refuge of a failed administration, desperate to distract from the truth that they’re not doing their jobs. And the truth is, Bahamians are suffering, the government is failing, and that is fact.

The Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) fails for one reason, it is their nature.

END