Dear Editor,
I wish to begin my commentary by apologizing profusely because too many people are bored out of their minds by the facts because facts have a bad habit and a notorious reputation for getting in the way of a good, juicy, salacious story.
It is important to note that the philosophy of The Bahamas government regarding the role of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is the facilitation of seamless travel experiences by Bahamians anywhere in the world. Since the foreign affairs ministry is the first line of formal contact between governments, overseas travel allows the minister to maximize personal contacts and forge relationships with numerous counterparts from foreign countries at a single meeting. That's my cursory understanding of the role of that ministry.
As for the philosophy of foreign affairs, the government's successful policy thrust in securing the Schengen visa waiver, the more recent reciprocal visa waiver for travel between the People's Republic of China and The Bahamas, and last but not least the electronic passport initiative together support this overarching philosophy. The current minister of foreign affairs and chief messenger, Fred Mitchell, aggressively and successfully pursued all of these policies on behalf of the government and by extension the Bahamian people.
Even now The Bahamas government is seeking to improve access to the United States for Bahamians; just another policy objective heaped on the plate of messenger Mitchell.
In its attempt to bring government services closer to Bahamians living abroad in addition to strengthening international trade relations, the government established embassies in China, Cuba and Geneva and consulate offices in Atlanta and Washington, D.C. These diplomatic presences were the deliberate and determined policies of the government led again by messenger Fred Mitchell.
Whether it is work permit reform, random immigration checks at bus stops and traffic lines or a speedier repatriation process of illegal immigrants, at all material times the minister is advancing the government's policies, so why shoot the messenger? Redirect the fiery darts at the policy already.
This brings me to the tribute Mitchell delivered at St. Gregory the Great Anglican Church on Sunday, December 22, 2013 in honor of the life and work of the late South African icon and President Nelson Mandela. Mitchell closed with these words: "With today's service, I think the anti-apartheid movement in The Bahamas comes formally to an end. This fight is over. That war is won. But the struggle continues on other fronts, to defeat injustice and prejudice of every kind wherever it is and even in the face of unpopularity like today's unpopular LGBT cause."
As inconvenient a fact as that statement was to some people, it encapsulated the spirit, tone, tenor and letter of Bahamian law and the government's social policy; and so with that closing remark the minister was reinforcing government social policy, not a personal view or advancing a personal agenda as some have accused him of doing.
With all of the vitriol, attacks and criticisms directed at this minister, not one critic was able to say that "to defeat injustice and prejudice of every kind wherever it is and even in the face of unpopularity like today's unpopular LGBT cause" was not the government's social policy. Editor, the critics could not because the statement is representative of the spirit of the government's social policy. If it is not, then these smart critics must educate us fools on just what the social policy is.
Certainly the policy cannot be to deny this grouping access to housing, health care, employment, promotions and salary increases and imprisonment based on their sexual orientation or who they choose to love. Not in a 21st century free, modern, democratic Bahamas. We are not the Russian Federation or the Republic of Uganda. The critics might want to consider taking aim at the policy - not shoot down the messenger.
At running the risk of confusing people whose minds are made up, I must reiterate that ministers of the government don't have the luxury of advancing their personal opinions in their official capacities of state representatives, as that is a constitutional impossibility. That said, pray tell, why shoot the messenger?
- Elcott Coleby

Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian