Arguments advanced by the no vote

Mon, May 30th 2016, 11:30 AM

“But let justice roll on like a river,
righteousness like a never-failing stream!”
– Amos 5:24

As we approach the June 7 gender equality referendum, the talk of the town has taken on a new dimension. If we listen to the radio shows, we are amazed at the level of ignorance, misinformation and misdirection about the intent and objective of the impending referendum.

Last week, we considered what effect each of the constitutional amendments would have on our daily lives, if approved on June 7. For all the reasons advanced, we strongly encouraged Bahamians to support each of the amendments with a yes vote.

This week we would like to Consider this… what are some of the myths that have been advanced about the gender equality referendum and how are they impacting the no vote? We will address several of the numerous arguments advanced to support the no vote.

The government cannot be trusted
There are some who believe that the referendum is a waste of time, that the government cannot be trusted and will do what it wants to, regardless of how people vote. They point to the non-binding gaming referendum, which was held in January 2013, when the electorate did not support the regularization of web shops and the government ignored the outcome of that vote.

The 2016 gender equality referendum, unlike the 2013 non-binding gaming referendum, is a vote to amend our constitution, the highest law in our nation. There are established procedures within our constitution itself that specifically set out how it can be changed.

Because this referendum is intended to change our constitution, it must be approved by Bahamian voters. Whatever the people decide will be binding on the government, because the constitution said that it must be. The government will have no choice but to follow the will of the people as manifested in the outcome of the vote on June 7. This is truly democracy in action.

Payback for 2002
Some persons maintain that some of the amendments in the upcoming referendum were included in the 2002 referendum that the Free National Movement (FNM) government presented, which initially received overwhelming parliamentary support of the opposition Progressive Liberal Party (PLP). Then FNM Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham said that “whoever wins the referendum, will win the election”, which essentially politicized the referendum and resulted in the PLP withdrawing its support for the amendments. Because of this, and coupled with the fact that Ingraham’s government had become sufficiently unpopular after two consecutive five-year terms in office, the Bahamian people voted, not on the merits of the constitutional amendments, but on the FNM’s performance in office. What was supposed to be a constitutional referendum transformed into a referendum on the FNM’s performance and the constitutional amendments suffered collateral damage from that exercise. The 2002 plebiscite resulted in a resounding no vote, followed several months later by the election of the PLP.

Accordingly, some persons have indicated that this year they will oppose the impending referendum amendments as payback for the PLP’s vacillation and change of heart on the 2002 exercise which resulted in the defeat of the amendment bills 14 year ago.

Voting your conscience
While the official opposition supported the referendum amendments in Parliament this year, subsequently there have been mixed messages and confusing commentary emanating from the leader of the opposition in support for the amendments.

The leader of the opposition has publically stated that, while he and his party support the bills, people should vote their conscience. He has not proffered any reason for his support of the amendments: either that “it is the right thing to do”, or “it is time to correct these constitutional anomalies” or simply “if you believe that men and women are equal and should be afforded the same rights under our constitution, then you should support the bills. If you believe that they are not equal, then you should vote against them.” But what exactly does he mean when he says that “people should vote their conscience”?

Government’s “hypocrisy” in funding this exercise
The leader of the official opposition has also stated that the government should fund the no vote as it is doing for the yes vote. Because it has not done so, he said, the government does not really believe in equality and its actions are hypocritical.

The kindest response to this suggestion is that it is a non-sequitur, which is another way of saying that the conclusion does not follow from the premise. Governments bring bills to Parliament that they support. Especially in light of the nature of these important constitutional amendments bills, and given their overwhelming bipartisan parliamentary support, the government has an obligation to do everything to persuade the electorate that their passage is best for the country. And if that means spending public funds, then so be it.

There is absolutely no logical or sensible reason for government to fund those who oppose bills that have been duly approved by Parliament, especially in light of their importance to our constitutional health.

Again, if we refer to the gaming referendum of 2013, the government did not fund either the yes or no vote because that referendum was a very different creature, without any constitutionally amending provisions and was non-binding on the government.

It appears that by his utterances, which are incongruent with his vote in Parliament, the leader of the opposition is dangerously close to transforming the upcoming referendum into a political exercise instead of one that is based on the determination of justice and equality.

Protecting The Bahamas for future generations
There are some Bahamians, particularly men, who have the view that we should reject some of the amendments in order to protect future generations of Bahamians from the irrepressible, uncontrollable, and inevitable over-running of The Bahamas, especially by foreign men.

Such a view manifests a misunderstanding of the bills and an exaggerated level of unwarranted insecurity. There is a process for vetting such persons and provisions have been made to protect us against marriages of convenience and persons with criminal records and undesirables.

Xenophobia, misogyny, and homophobia
It is amazing that some in our society who are regularly recognized as being intelligent have demonstrated a surprising level of xenophobia, misogyny and homophobia relative to these amendments.

One prominent attorney has gone so far to suggest that not only should we reject bill two, which will allow the foreign spouse of a Bahamian woman to obtain Bahamian citizenship in the same manner as a foreign spouse of a Bahamian man, he also proposes we should take away the established constitutional right of a Bahamian man to pass this right to his non-Bahamian wife.

As dumbfounded, dismayed and disappointed as we are by such regressively Jurassic views, we fully agree with the erudite observation of attorney Michael Scott who, in a recent public discussion of the referendum bills, noted that it is regrettable that “a laudable effort to remedy a social injustice in the interests of moral fairness has become enmeshed in a maelstrom of revenge, misogyny, homophobia and xenophobia.”

Conclusion
As we approach the June 7 referendum, it is vitally important for persons who do not understand the constitutional amendments to learn and understand what each proposed amendment is intended to address and what deficiency is being sought to be rectified. Such voters should not be motivated by fear and confusion; they should become educated.

We said it last week, and it is worth repeating. If we genuinely believe in the equality of women, equal treatment of all citizens under law and the removal of repugnant discriminatory practices, the June 7 referendum will afford a historic opportunity for Bahamians to do the right thing.

And the right thing to do must be to amend our constitution by resoundingly voting yes to each of the four proposed amendments. It is only by such actions, will we fulfill the admonition of the prophet Amos to “let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!”

• Philip C. Galanis is the managing partner of HLB Galanis and Co., Chartered Accountants, Forensic & Litigation Support Services. He served 15 years in Parliament. Please send your comments to pgalanis@gmail.com.

Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian

 Sponsored Ads