New Category : Letters

Cultural consultant Ian Poitier

Cultural consultant Ian Poitier

Thu, Aug 3rd 2017, 10:32 AM

Dear Editor,

I was interested to read, in the letters section of the July 25, 2017 edition of your newspaper, continued comment on the compensation received by Ian Poitier as cultural consultant to the government of The Bahamas during the previous administration. May I add my voice to the conversation?
Mr. Poitier served as chair on the board of directors of Clifton Heritage Authority from 2014 through 2017. During that time I served as his deputy. Prior to that time, I had already served on the board in various capacities for some five years. Speaking from this vantage point of familiarity with the responsibilities and challenges associated with the governance of Clifton, let me say that Mr. Poitier's performance as chairman was simply stellar. He was hard-working, informed, patient, resourceful, wise, collaborative and committed, all in exceptional measure. The momentum that Clifton was developing - interrupted only by the impact of Hurricane Matthew upon Clifton Heritage National Park - was a reflection of the work of the whole Clifton team but also of Mr. Poitier's board leadership. If what I observed of his performance is any indication of how he performed in his other public roles during the last administration, he fully earned his compensation package.
And if I should have the opportunity to work with Mr. Poitier in any capacity in the future I would be honored to do so, because of what I witnessed of his integrity, decency, kindness, discipline, work ethic and passion for building not himself but, instead, all of us.

- Tracey Thompson

We must reject the civil union position
We must reject the civil union position

Wed, Aug 2nd 2017, 11:32 AM

The house of cards
The house of cards

Wed, Aug 2nd 2017, 11:31 AM

Bahamas Christian Council is misguided
Bahamas Christian Council is misguided

Tue, Aug 1st 2017, 10:40 AM

An open letter to PM Minnis on gambling

An open letter to PM Minnis on gambling

Mon, Jul 31st 2017, 10:18 AM

Dear Dr. Minnis,

I applaud your efforts at cracking down on corruption. I applaud your moves to cut costs and begin some fiscal responsibility in this country. Many of us hope you can continue down this long-awaited path. However, we must acknowledge that there is an elephant in the room. This elephant is the existence of the web shops. Without addressing this issue, everything else you will do will be in vain, everything.I want mostly for you to acknowledge publicly that this epidemic exists, that it is real.
Firstly, let us discuss this in medical terms. Do we have a national epidemic? Yes! It is as deadly as AIDS, alcoholism or drug addition. It must be called an epidemic due to the very large number of Bahamians who are affected by this disease. Can you argue this point, Dr. Minnis? It has seriously affected the body politic. It has greatly impacted our economic circulatory system. Respiration is becoming increasingly difficult. The bleeding should rightly be called a hemorrhage. It has a direct impact on the increase of crime. It has a direct impact on our social services. This inarguable epidemic of gambling and the existence of the web shops must be attended to quickly.
Dr. Minnis, do you see what the Bahamian people see? Honestly, do you?
I live on a small Family Island, which you visited during your campaign. We now have four web shops for a population of under 1,000 people. Perhaps in Nassau you can ignore who actually goes to these web shops. Here, you cannot. We know everyone by name. We know what cars they drive, how many kids they have; we know much about their lives. In Nassau, you may treat people as anonymous. We cannot. We see who is being impacted, their families, their unfinished homes, their kids' lunch money spent on spinning. I have heard the number of dollars that leave this small island each week. It is staggering. Even if it were half, or one-tenth of what was quoted to me, it is too much, much too much.
Dr. Minnis, I am tired of the lame excuses that this is just entertainment, that we should have the freedom of choice. You are too smart to buy these lame excuses, aren't you? What is keeping you from addressing one of the most important issues in this country? Anyone with an ounce of sense can understand the negative political, economic and social effects these web shops are having on The Bahamas.
You, Dr. Minnis, as prime minister, must see this.
In my eyes, there is no other way you can claim that the web shops are not killing our country. Dr. Minnis, there is a solution, but you have to have the guts and fortitude to act prudently. Nationalize the web shops. Haven't the web shop owners been made rich enough on the backs of the poor people of The Bahamas?
For God's sake, Dr. Minnis, do we have no decency? I heard you mention the poor people. Do you truly care? We didn't elect you to be God, we elected you to be our representative, to do our bidding. If one referendum wasn't enough, what would satisfy you? Another? Then have one.
Dr. Minnis, every penny spent in the web shops should come back to Bahamians, either to contribute to the general fund, to reduce our deficit or to help educate and treat those addicted to gambling.
As I see it, The Bahamas is in a crisis situation. In a crisis, we ask our citizens to make sacrifices.
If you cannot ask the web shop owners if the tens, or hundreds of millions of dollars they now have as a result of formerly illegal and now legal operations in The Bahamas is not enough to satisfy them, then I do not consider you a leader. You will be considered a politician, a mere politician.

- Norman Trabulsy Jr.

The great transformation
The great transformation

Mon, Jul 31st 2017, 10:16 AM

NPOs
NPOs

Fri, Jul 28th 2017, 08:37 PM

Paradise lost
Paradise lost

Fri, Jul 28th 2017, 11:44 AM

Texting costs lives
Texting costs lives

Fri, Jul 28th 2017, 11:43 AM

Must we handcuff all defendants

Must we handcuff all defendants

Thu, Jul 27th 2017, 10:51 AM

Dear Editor,

Since when did the pursuit of justice start with the public humiliation of an accused person? For too long we have sat on the sidelines and watched as defendants in criminal cases are brought before magistrates and judges handcuffed, shackled at the feet and escorted by the burliest officers on the police force.
This was not always the case. But as with everything else, its prevalence now has much to do with the presence of TV cameras outside the courthouse door and, more significantly, the over-use of the procedure by elected prosecutors in the United States intent on showing voters that they were being tough on crime.
This all came to a head in the 1980s, as then U.S. Attorney for New York, Rudy Giuliani, wanted to show that he was cracking down on white collar criminals by parading Wall Street bankers through a public place to name and shame them.
Nevermind the fact that some of these defendants later learned they had no case to answer, or were exonerated by the justice system. Giuliani got a reputation as a tough-on-crime politician and he rode that pony as far as he could, even trying to become president of the U.S.
The so-called "perp walk" for perpetrator walk (we refer to it here as the "Bank Lane shuffle") is, in my humble opinion, a violation of the defendant's fundamental right to dignity.
Luckily, in our system, all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty and when we look at renditions of Lady Justice she is always portrayed blind-folded, as justice must be.
We should be able to trust the commissioner of police --or the senior officer in charge -- to have some discretion when deciding who should or should not be escorted into the courthouse in handcuffs, leg shackles, or other forms of restraint.
Years ago, the judiciary in the United Kingdom issued guidelines for the custodial management of so-called undertrials -- an undertrial being any person who must appear in a court because they have been accused of a crime.
If the presumption of innocence for undertrials is to prevail, then he or she must be unfettered as they make their way to court, unless there are reasonable grounds to put them under restraint.
The old people used to say, you should never let a judge use your name to wash out his mouth. In local parlance, try your best to never have to be taken to court. But if circumstances demand your appearance in front of a judge, especially if you went to the police of your own volition, then at the very least the state ought to allow you the dignity of swinging your arms on your way to court.
In some circumstances, the police will have reasonable cause to suspect the risk of escape, the use of violence, unruly behavior, or even that the defendant may physically harm himself if left unrestrained. In such cases it should be in order for the police to use handcuffs.
In most cases, having two burly and buffed police officers at your side and other armed officers bringing up the rear is all you need to strike the fear of God in those minded to flee.
Courts in England have ruled that unjustifiably placing handcuffs on defendants can constitute a civil trespass, even though the arrest itself is lawful. Our constitution seems to warn against this in Article 17 (1): "No person shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
Recently, we had two high-profile matters brought before the courts involving former law-makers who are now being alleged to be law-breakers. The courts will try the facts and will rule on their guilt or innocence. But, going into that courthouse, they should be presumed to be innocent.
The accusations of a political witch-hunt are wide off the mark, but, if proven true, then the courts will no doubt come down hard on those responsible.
Kenred Dorsett and Frank Smith were humiliated, in my humble opinion, by being handcuffed when they walked to court. But it is well to remember that 80-year-old Fred Ramsay, who was of a different political persuasion than the current accused, was also handcuffed and shackled. No doubt, in these and other cases, the police were simply following the normal procedure.
Let's change the procedure.

- The Graduate

PLPs continue to hurl threats at PM Minnis
PLPs continue to hurl threats at PM Minnis

Thu, Jul 27th 2017, 10:50 AM

Preserving a national treasure
Preserving a national treasure

Wed, Jul 26th 2017, 10:47 AM

NHI open to abuse
NHI open to abuse

Wed, Jul 26th 2017, 10:46 AM

An emphatic no to the delegalization of marijuana

An emphatic no to the delegalization of marijuana

Tue, Jul 25th 2017, 11:22 AM

Dear Editor,

I read a letter in The Tribune newspaper by Dehavilland Moss calling for the delegalization of the marijuana drug, popularly called weed, cannabis joint, hemp and ganja. Moss' a priori argument that decriminalising weed would "help to save many of our young men from murder" is non sequitur and irresponsible. It is tantamount to arguing for the delegalization of cocaine in order to reduce violent crime associated with the drug trafficking industry. Such an action would lead to unintended consequences that would be catastrophic to the very youths Moss is expressing concerns for. He talk as if decriminalizing weed would immediately solve our crime crisis. But with the plant containing the active ingredient THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) which is extremely addictive, any talk of the drug being stringently regulated by the government displays a breathtaking naivety that is laughable and dangerously foolish.
If the government were to delegalize weed, those currently involved in the illicit industry would only go further underground in order to accommodate their clientele whose insatiable appetite for the plant would not be satisfied by the state due to the regulations Moss is calling for. What are the harmful effects of marijuana? According to Foundation for a Drug Free World, the immediate effects of taking weed are rapid heartbeat, disorientation, lack of physical coordination, depression, sleepiness and anxiety. Marijuana smoke contains 50 percent to 70 percent more cancer causing substances than tobacco smoke. The Foundation also stated that one single cannabis joint can cause as much damage to the lungs as five cigarettes smoked successively. The drug has also been linked to bronchitis, inflammation of the respiratory tract, brain abnormalities, psychosis, temporary sterility in men, deformation of sperm cells, disruption of women's menstrual cycle, memory loss and birth and hereditary defects. Marijuana use has also been linked to a woman who gave birth prematurely to an undersized, underweight baby; and the drug may increase the risk of lukemia in the children of parents who smoke marijuana. Granted, marijuana has a few medicinal benefits. But so does cocaine.
All things considered, Moss argued for the recreational use of the drug in order to curtail violent crime -- an argument I believe was weak at best, seeing that he has no empirical data to back up his thesis. The matter of the medicinal benefits of weed did not arise in his letter. From my objective judgment, the cons far outweigh the pros in delegalizing weed. I find it troubling that the writer mentioned absolutely nothing about the state establishing marijuana detox centers for addicts in light of his irresponsible proposal. Such a proposal will undoubtedly increase the number of weed smokers. The government already has at its disposal an effective method to reduce murders: capital punishment. All it has to do is conjure up the will to utilize it and stop pandering to the high court in England. Delegalizing a drug that would expose Bahamians to a plethora of dangerous health effects should not been entertained by the government. Such an irresponsible proposal must be rejected.

- Kevin Evans

A PLP apologist who believes his own drivel
A PLP apologist who believes his own drivel

Tue, Jul 25th 2017, 11:21 AM

School maintenance
School maintenance

Tue, Jul 25th 2017, 11:19 AM

Will carnival survive
Will carnival survive

Fri, Jul 21st 2017, 10:10 PM