“Nottage: Vote Hurt by Same-Sex Marriage talk” – The Tribune

Excerpt from this article; “With momentum ahead of the June constitutional referendum appearing to be with the ‘no’ campaign, National Security Minister Dr. Bernard Nottage said yesterday that talks of same sex marriage will negatively impact the vote on amendments to the Constitution.

‘It will impact the vote negatively because the question and amendments have nothing to do with that’ he told reporters during an interview following a House of Assembly session yesterday.’

‘The fact that these matters are being brought up now is a bit mischievous because it would appear as if there are very responsible people in our community who are prepared to suggest that (the bills have to do with same sex marriage) when they know full well they are not connected.”

Excerpt from [the] Prime Minister (Perry Christie) tabling of four Constitutional amendment bills.

Bill #4: The Bahamas Constitution (Amendment) (No. 4) Bill, 2004.

Finally, Bill #4 seeks to end discrimination based on sex.  This involves the insertion of the word ‘sex’ into Article 26 of the Constitution so as to make it unconstitutional to discriminate on whether someone is male or female.

It is for me to caution, however, that the bill makes it clear that the existing exception will continue to apply. In particular, this bill will not make same –sex marriages lawful.  Such unions are already treated as void under the Matrimonial Act and the genesis of this particular legal position pre-dates the Independence Constitution.  This will not change under the proposed amendments to Article 26.”

The Prime Minister’s clarification to this situation is about as clear as that of Dr. Bernard Nottage leading up to the ‘Gaming Referendum’/Opinion Poll, when asked to give clarification to the question, “Do you support the regulation and taxation of web shop gaming?”, the question was how do you regulate and tax something that is illegal but the answer from Minister Nottage at the time was that legalize was implicitly implied in the word regulate, this lead to unnecessary confusion, the failure of the ‘Gaming Referendum’ and of course the rest is history and the question now is, are we headed in the very same direction?

As the Prime Minister proclaims “Not on my watch”, implying that the success of Bill #4 will not lead to same-sex marriages on ‘his watch’ because as he put it, “Such unions are already treated as void under the Matrimonial Act”, I would like to ask if we change the Constitution to PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION based on ‘sex’ and two of the same ‘sex’ wish to wed, then will the Matrimonial Act trump the Constitution which will now say that you cannot discriminate based on sex?

Yes, Dr. Nottage is right that some mischief is being created by some people, but the minister must also admit to the fact that a lot of the negativity toward the upcoming referendum has come about due to the confusion created by an inept and incompetent government.

Then there is the issue of the distrust created by the overturning of the ‘Gaming Referendum.

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

END

As the present government of the country prepares to ‘jump da line’ destroying the present culture of the Bahamas by attempting to force another to fit, I would like to ask how exactly how does Junkanoo-Carnival advance Bahamian culture and achieve its goal?

What its basic goal?

“Christie : Carnival is here for good” – The Nassau Guardian

Excerpt from this article; “Expressing confidence of Bahamian buy-in to Junkanoo-Carnival, Prime Minister Perry Christie said while the event is a work in progress, it will get better every year and it is poised to be a ‘big event’ that will benefit the Bahamian people ‘mightily’.

Speaking to The Nassau Guardian at the Music Masters competition on Friday night, Christie said the song competition was evidence of carnival working.

‘I’m seeing thousands of Bahamians who are also enjoying themselves,’ he said.

‘I think this is work in progress.

‘It’s going to get better and better each year, like for example the song competition.”

There are a few questions to ask oneself as the Prime Minister makes these statements; one, did Junkanoo-Carnival get ‘better’ this year, is the song competition a sign of it getting ‘better’, is this the same song competition that is a part of our Independence celebrations and what is the primary objective of Junkanoo-Carnival?

Let me re-clarify my position on Junkanoo-Carnival, I feel that it is a foreign culture that the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) government is attempting to force onto the Bahamian culture and by adding ‘Junkanoo’ to the front of it, has attempted to convince visitors to our shores that it is indeed a part of our culture; it is not.

Then that brings me to the question of what is the primary objective of Junkanoo-Carnival?  At its inception, many were convinced that it was to bring visitors to our shores; the ‘Heads-in-Beds’ concept; a touristic stimulus of sorts.  If you create an event interesting enough then people would come to ‘experience’ it, to date has this been the case?  The Prime Minister speaks of ‘seeing thousands of Bahamians enjoying themselves’ and I have nothing against this but was this the primary purpose of the event when it was first conceived? 

With the timing of it all, being around the very same time the Progressive Liberal Party won the government in 2012, then many believe that the event has been put together for Bahamians to enjoy themselves but what about all of the money being spent under the guise of bringing people to our shores, has the government deceived us yet again?

Last year’s Junkanoo-Carnival operated at a deficit and there was talk of compensating some of the vendors, I do not know if this was ever done but this year’s Junkanoo-Carnival, which the Prime Minister said would/should be better, created less of a buzz than it did in its first year which it ran at a deficit, so I guess we will have to ‘jump de line’ for the final figures on this JC as we did with the first one to get an idea if it idea did do better.

I doubt it.

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

END

Reading Alfred Sears in today’s dailies and one would get the impression that he were about to run for Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas and not only attempting to re-gain the Fort Charlotte seat for the Progressive Liberal Party.  If I were Prime Minister, Perry G Christie I just may suspect some ‘funny business’ at the next Progressive Liberal Party Convention this fall, that is if the present leader of the PLP sees the necessity of a General Convention.

“Sears; Abolish monarchy, limit PM’s powers” – The Nassau Guardian

Excerpt from this article, “Insisting that Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) is best suited for the Bahamas to address the myriad national challenges, former Attorney General and PLP candidate of Fort Charlotte yesterday presented a package of recommendations to foster a ‘safe, cohesive’ and economically robust Bahamas.

In an opinion piece Sears said has decided to re-enter front line politics at a time of ‘great challenges’.

He said the PLP is best suited by its experience in nation building, commitment to social justice, nationalist orientation, regional sensitivity and political courage to pursue a transformational agenda to place the Bahamas on a more sustainable economic path and foster a more socially cohesive society.” If I am not mistaken, these would be along the very same lines of promises the Rt. Hon. Perry G. Christie made as he made his first bid the office of Prime Minister when he first became leader of the PLP, surely Mr. Sears must be aware that for him to have a chance at all of this then he must first win at Convention……my dear God could this mean that…………

Alfred Sears name numerous things that must be done in order to have a path to a safe, cohesive and economically robust Bahamas and one question that I have is has he been keeping these things to himself until now and why hasn’t the Progressive Liberal Party already put them, at least at part, into place within the past four years?

Several of the things that Mr. Sears has put forth in his opinion piece are;

1. He suggests the power to appoint the Chief Justice and Justice of Appeal should not be responsibilities of the Prime Minister and provided to the governor general, who would act on the recommendation of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission”, good idea, as soon as we remove the naming of the Governor General from the Prime Minister.
2. He suggests the creation of an independent electoral boundaries commissions, this we have heard many time before from this very same government, they are presently in the position to do something about it.

 

Indeed, Mr. Sears goes on with many examples of what he feels needs to change or introduced and I am amazed at the manner at which he is just coming of age, so to speak.  One that I have found of some interest is “Sears also recommenced the establishment of a sovereign wealth fund, the re-establishment of the national youth service, tax free excerption for residents in ‘ova da hill’ communities and free tertiary education both technical, professional and academic for all Bahamian citizens.”

In his statement within this opinion piece, with which some we are already very familiar, Mr. Sears begins to finish with, “The forgoing recommendations are amongst some of the new and exciting opportunities that the Progressive Liberal Party should pursue, in my opinion, in order to unleash the creative imaginations and intellect of the Bahamian people, reduce crime, expand opportunities for the next generation of the Bahamas and also to realize their full potential.”  Is Alfred Sears, admitting that the Progressive Liberal Party never attempted these things or failed at them and suggesting that if he were Prime Minister he can bring them about?

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

END

“Judge unlikely to face House……Gomez would be ‘surprised’ if Justice was called upon.”

Excerpt from this article; “Central and South Eleuthera MP Damian Gomez is called before the Committee on Privilege after being named last week in a resolution to determine whether she or others should be held on contempt of the House of Assembly.

While confirming that he still has plans to rescue himself as Chairman of the committee, Mr. Gomez Q.C. explained that parliamentarians were asserting their privilege when they sit in the lower Chamber, Justice Charles is also ‘immune from process’ when she sits on her bench of her court room.

The former state minister for legal affairs affirmed that the Save the Bays Director Fred Smith Q.C. and attorney Ferron Bethel – who were also named in the resolution – will be brought before the committee to determine whether they committed an offense.”

So now it would seem that since the ‘principle’ cannot beat up a ‘teacher’ it will continue to take it out on a ‘student’, because the student made the first complaint to show the ‘principle’ in clear violation of his duties as they are laid out by the law?  And when and where did Damien Gomez QC loose himself enough to rescue himself’ and exactly from what?

These ‘dealings’ that he Mr. Gomez has before him are indeed interesting; whereas elected officials seek to use ‘parliamentary privilege’ to evade a person’s private life to expose not only what is unproven but also the whereabouts of where they came from are quite questionable, and then use the law, any way that they can bend it to make that person or anyone else that stands in the way the ‘bad guy’

Also as an injunction has been put in place by the Supreme Court to stop further illegal invasion of privacy by this government as they continue on this quest, how will only bringing Director Fred Smith Q.C. and attorney Ferron Bethel before the Committee on Privilege now serve you?  Are agents of this government seeking to make the court order null and void, in which case the Justice would have been in earlier and……..let me stop before I get put before a ‘select committee’.

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

END

Last week the Attorney General’s office sought to set aside an injunction put in place by the Supreme Court to stop certain persons within the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) government, the attorney general being one of these persons, from revealing the personal and private emails of members of the environmental group Save The Bays to the general public.  Since this time some persons have come out chastising the Supreme Court Justice for what they saw as her attempts to silence the ‘voice’ of the Executive, while it is my opinion that the Justice has only made the attempt to protect the constitutional rights of private citizens against a lawless Executive that seeks to invade the privacy of individuals to prove that the Save The Bays environmental organization is really a political organization with the intent of destabilizing the Progressive Liberal Party government.

Today Justice has stood her grounds, even in light of clear attempts of intimidation by members of the Executive, “A resolution was moved in Parliament last Monday by Mr. Fitzgerald to determine whether Justice Charles…….should be held in contempt of the House.

“Injunction over emails remains despite challenge” – The Tribune

Excerpt from this article; “The answer whether parliamentarians can use privilege to disclose confidential information of private citizens has far- reaching implications beyond the Bahamas, a Supreme Court said on Friday.

Justice Indra Charles made the statement at a hearing in which representatives from the Office of the Attorney General sought to have the judge set aside an injunction that seeks to prohibit respondents including Marathon MP, Jerome Fitzgerald, Fox Hill MP Fred Mitchell and Attorney General Allyson Maynard-Gibson, from appropriating, publishing or disclosing emails, even in Parliament, belonging to Save The Bays (STB) members.

The Justice, in this case, as set herself up as the last line of defense between the average citizen and the Executive branch of the government that has lost sense of right and wrong and is willing to do whatever it takes to ‘make their case’ even if it means breaking the law.  The steps that the Executive has taken in this matter can only be described as democracy in decay, a sign that Karl Marx saw of a move toward fascism, as they seek to use parliamentary privilege to openly invade the person lives of Bahamian citizens without just cause.

As Justice Charles has made her ruling she also states, “I do not make orders lightly,’ the judge added.  ‘If there’s going to be an application to discharge, it has to be heard in full she said.”

So now the government and its agents will have to prepare an argument as to why they feel that should be able to violate the constitutional rights of other citizens of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas but as they prepare said arguments they will have to meet the standard that Justice Charles has already set because if you were to leave it to this government they will probably just say “because we said so”.

Justice Charles said the issues at hand are obvious and will be expanded upon by both parties.

‘Is parliamentary privilege absolute if someone complains that their constitutional rights have been infringed upon, bearing in mind the walls of Parliament is sacred?  Is the Constitution the Supreme Law of the land?  The judge asked.”

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

It is my most humble opinion that the Attorney General has used just enough self interpreted law to challenge the injunction produced by Justice Indra Charles, that seeks to prohibit respondents, including Marathon MP Jerome Fitzgerald, Fox Hill MP Fred Mitchell and the attorney general, herself, from appropriating, publishing or disclosing emails, even in Parliament belonging to Save The Bays members ; the rest of her challenge has been totally reliant on the ignorance of the people and intimidation by her office toward those that have spoken up and shown that they are more intelligent then she realizes that they actually were, as her interpretation of the laws leaves many to wonder what she is actually referring to and what laws she is using?!

“AG challenges injunction – Hearing set for tomorrow” – The Nassau Guardian

Excerpt from this article; “Attorney General Allyson Maynard-Gibson confirmed yesterday that her office has filed to set aside a Supreme Court injunction, which seeks to prohibit respondents, including Marathon MP Jerome Fitzgerald and Fox Hill MP Fred Mitchell and the attorney general from appropriating, publishing or disclosing, even in Parliament, emails belonging to Save The Bays (STB) members.”

In my opinion the Attorney General, along with her parliamentary colleagues Mitchell and Fitzgerald has taken the concept of ‘parliamentary privilege’ and twisted it just enough making it lose its true intention and meaning in order to have it support their ‘right’ to violate the rights and privilege of right to privacy  of others.  The Attorney General has, in all of her wisdom has chosen to challenge the ruling of the Supreme Court in the name of democracy but does it in order to violate a persons democratic rights; is this woman serious?

“As you know, the attorney general’s office has applied to set the injunction aside, and that hearing should take place [tomorrow], but what I would like to say that in a thriving democracy and a growing democracy, these are the kinds of issues that will be dealt with in our courts and in our Parliament,

“And I believe that we, in our country, have leaders of our institutions who have tremendous intellect and integrity – the same things that apply equally to the House of Assembly and the Senate, and the courts.” The Attorney General, with all due respect, has either gone mad or has simply lost her moral compass, if she ever had one.

How democratic is it to attempt to silence the courts through latent threats and intimidation in order to thrust your opinion upon them as you now seek to move a resolution to have Supreme Court Justice Charles, Fred Smith QC, and lawyer Ferron Bethell brought before the House of Assembly’s Committee of Privilege, then say that ‘these are the kinds of issues that will be dealt with in our courts..”, how hypocritical is this?  The mere thought of this action reeks of dictatorship and this is where the Progressive Liberal Party has the country headed but yet seek to attempt to convince me and other right thinking Bahamians that the injunction issued by Justice Charles is “an assault on democracy”

The Progressive Liberal Party has erred in this matter, as they have yet to prove that parliamentary privilege, as outlined by the Constitution affords then the absolute privilege that they would have us believe that is does and as usual the Attorney General, the top lawyer in the country, leads the charge is eroding the integrity of this branch of government.

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

END

The case of the mysterious emails has taken on a life of its won and has gone from the utter and blatant disrespect by the governing Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) for the citizens of the country, to a total disrespect of the Judiciary and rule of law, which was all in an attempt to protect same said citizens

The Judiciary, in an attempt to protect the citizenry from clear violations of constitutionally protected rights, one being the against the invasion of privacy, has been totally disrespected by the Executive; a government that now seeks to hide like cowards behind parliamentary privilege, which in my opinion they have applied incorrectly.

“Johnson suggests judiciary being undermined” – The Nassau Guardian

Excerpt from this article: “Bahamas Bar Association president Elsworth Johnson said last night the association stands ready to defend the judiciary and encouraged senior members of the Bar who sit in Parliament to ‘take serious our oath’ when it comes to the judiciary being undermined.

Johnson was responding to questions surrounding Marathon MP Jerome Fitzgerald’s motion in Parliament on Monday to have Supreme Court Justice Indra Charles, Save the Bays director of legal affairs Fred Smith and lawyer Ferron Bethell called before the House of Assembly’s Committee of Privilege to determine if they should held in contempt of Parliament over a court injunction Charles granted last Thursday.

Deputy Prime Minister Philip Brave Davis, a queens counsel, seconded the motion.

The move came after House Speaker Dr. Kendal Major strongly condemned the injunction, which seeks to prohibit respondents, including Fitzgerald, Fox Hill MP Fred Mitchell and the attorney general from appropriating, publishing or disclosing emails, even in Parliament, belonging to Save The Bays (STB) members.”

It would seem that this government has gone ‘mad’ with power, as they seek to intimidate anyone that stands up against them to the point where they now are threatening  Supreme Court Justice Indra Charles, Save the Bays director of legal affairs Fred Smith and lawyer Ferron Bethell with being called before the House of Assembly’s Committee of Privilege to determine if they should held in contempt of Parliament all due to the fact they sought to prevent members of the House of Assembly from tabling private correspondence; emails and financial documents of members of Save The Bays, which the government has yet to offer any reasonable and/or viable explanation as to how these private documents/ correspondence were obtained; this is pure and utter madness.

Elsworth Johnson has taken an optimistic approach to the situation as he ‘expressed confidence that the prime minister, attorney general and chief justice will resolve the matter’ and I applaud him for this in light of the dictatorial fashion that this government has carried out the people’s business, I will have to wait and see but I do not have the confidence that he has in his government that they will correct a wrong especially when it is clear that they are wrong, as the main point made by Elsworth clearly points out; “It is an unfortunate situation when the whole question of the independence of [an[ impartial…….judiciary is being, what may appear to be, undermined, and then the question of parliamentary privilege, which may or may not be absolute privilege.” Johnson told The Nassau Guardian.

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

END

“Griffin: Action being taken to clean up fraud in social services dept.” – The Nassau Guardian

Excerpt from this article: “Following the release of an auditor general’s report that revealed that some staff members at the Department of Social Services participated in a fraudulent food coupon scheme, Minister of Social Services said yesterday that disciplinary action has been taken in this matter.

‘Disciplinary actions have already been taken and I am certain there may be further actions,’ Griffin said.  Again I don’t want to pre-empt what is happening.  So I think that is all I should say at this time.”

While I find it commendable  that the Minister is informing the public that pursuant to the Auditor General’s report disciplinary actions are being taken against staff members that took part in this despicable action I have two points that I would like to raise.

It is interesting to see the way in which this government now takes the recommendations of the auditor general, Terrance Bastian and launches a full investigation into this matter with the promise of ‘heads will roll’; isn’t this the very same Auditor general that found ‘irregularities’ in the accounts of the Urban Renewal program but was considered so inept and incompetent that his report could not be trusted and a ‘private’ audit had to be carried out?

And, was there not a promise of ‘heads will roll’ after it was revealed that the dorm at BAMSI did not have the required Contractors All Risk Insurance at the time that it was set on fire, yet we still await accountability in that matter.

Indeed, it is refreshing to see ‘someone’ being held accountable for the misuse of public funds but it seems that it only happens when a government official is not to close to the fire.

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

END

“Speaker shocked at injunction – Major vows to defend freedom of Parliament”- The Tribune

Excerpt from this article; “House Speaker Dr. Kendall Major said that he was both ‘astonished’ and ‘offended’ by the recent granting of an injunction which bars members of Parliament from disclosing Save The bay’s confidential information during proceedings, calling it a ‘pre-emptive’ onslaught against the independence of the lower chamber.

Mr. Major said the move attempts to usurp the Authority of the Speaker and is contemptuous to the House of Assembly, he stood ready to have persons brought before the bar of the House if necessary in defense of Parliament and its freedoms.”

It would seem that Dr. Major seeks to defend Article 53(1) of the Constitution which states, “Without prejudice to the generality of Article 52 (1) of the Constitution subject to provisions of paragraph (2) of this Article, Parliament may by law determine the privileges immunities ad power of the Senate and the House of Assembly and the members thereof.”

So Parliament, by law, will determine these privileges but by whose law if the matters cannot be reviewed by the Judiciary?  This leaves this to the discretion of the Speaker of the House as to just how far he would allow ‘parliamentary privilege’ to extend before it loses its true intention and meaning, at the very moment he has allowed for it to stretch outside the walls of the House of Assembly and slip into the private lives of ordinary citizens of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas, this surely could not have been the intent when this Article was drafted.

If the Speaker of the House takes this position, then who is left to protect the ordinary citizen, as the Speaker and the rest of his colleagues have seen a ruling by the Judiciary protecting the ordinary citizen as “offensive.” 

While persons such a Damien Gomez also voice their opinion against the Supreme Court Justice’s ruling saying “Don’t play politics with our constitution”, really?  Is this what was done? He then goes on to explain that “we have to take the separation of power doctrine seriously” and I ask him did he explain this to the hon. V Alfred Grey when he made the two phone calls to the Island Administrator. 

This back and forth would be comical if it did not impact on such serious matters, this one being the total lack of concern and/or respect for the basic right to privacy of others by a government that has interpreted the constitution to make it all seem right and then turned around and warned others to “not play politics” with it.

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

END

“Ministers: Will not be silenced” – The Nassau Guardian

Excerpt from this article; “Minister of Foreign Affairs Fred Mitchell and Minister of Education Jerome Fitzgerald said they will continue to speak freely and will not be deterred by a court injunction, which prohibits appropriating, publishing or disclosing emails, even in Parliament, belonging to Save The Bays (STB) members.

Justice Indra Charles granted the injunction on Thursday.

Though the court has no jurisdiction over speech in the houses of Parliament the injunction prohibits the respondents, who include two MP’s and the attorney general from ‘appropriation, and/or perusal and/or use and/or publication and/or communication and/or disclosure in Parliament or in any other place or though any medium or to any person or entity whatsoever of any correspondence (including emails and other attachments) belonging to the applicants.’

Mitchell and Fitzgerald said ‘We have read in the press a report of an injunction to restrain the freedom of speech of parliamentarians’

‘We want to ensure our constituents that we will not be deterred.”

Again, the honorable ministers have made it clear that they are quite willing to break the law to get their point across but what exactly is this point that they need to get across wherein they are willing to openly and freely violate the constitutional right to privacy of others and break the law?

The only point that these men are attempting to make is one to convince the people of the Bahamas that the Save The Bays organization, one which this government at point applauded for its works within the country as it pertains to its natural environment, is now nothing more than a political organization intent on destabilizing a Christie led government, this is indeed asinine but yet this is their case.  So in an attempt to prove the asinine they have told the people of the country that no law with stop them. 

They will not allow the Data Protections laws to stop them.

They will not allow a court issued injunction to stop them.

While the ministers go on this quest against justice, I find it amazing that Fitzgerald and Mitchell, to a lesser extent, did not seem to have the same zeal and sense of responsibility about them when it came to informing the people of the Marathon constituency of the findings of the Black and Veatch Rubis report in a timely manner.

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

END