The Tribune

By AVA TURNQUEST

Tribune Chief Reporter

aturnquest@tribunemedia.net

JUST as forecast, support for the upcoming constitutional referendum has crumbled under the weight of political opportunism. What was initially pitched as a benign and straightforward bid to remove discrimination against women, has lit the stage for exploitation and fear mongering. Now contentious, the bills have been fated to a caustic half-life that has once again exposed the political cannibalism and unbridled personal ambition that have long characterised the country’s democratic system.

Activists and consenting parliamentarians have expressed shock at the scale of dissent by their colleagues; however, the handling of this seemingly basic advance for equality could be indicative of public reception for a similar initiative - balancing the scales of women in Parliament.

The government has silently committed to target women for political leadership for one year in a bid to increase the number of potential women candidates in the next general election - or at least this is what it told the United Nations.

Last month, the Bureau of Women’s Affairs confirmed that the agency will partner with stakeholders to implement “temporary special measures” to accelerate the achievement of de facto equality of women.

Initiatives for training, mentoring, advocacy and lobbying, and fund-raising were outlined in an interim report to the United Nations’ Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the very same convention that mandated we remove discrimination from our laws.

According to the report, the special measures begin this month and will end August 2015, but is this really an effective approach given that celebrated patriarchal system has reared such an ugly defense of its entrenched dominance?

With just five women in the House of Assembly, which of the 33 men currently warming seats will trade parliamentary privilege to promote gender equity?

The constitutional amendment bills have been delayed several times this term, but when first tabled on July 23 it soon became evident why the government had dragged its feet.

Talk shows across the country exploded as drowsy pundits succumbed to the siren song of legislative ambiguity. The bills presented linkages to two topics that have consistently fired up an otherwise apathetic community: nationality and homosexuality. I take issue that the latter is so much of a widespread taboo as opposed to a sectional agenda, but there is no denying the fervour incited by dialogue on same-sex relations. With no further movement on emotive issues like value added tax or gaming, and the government’s tight clamp on Renward Well’s multi-million dollar letter of intent faux pas, the bills instantaneously morphed into a fatted calf for sacrifice at the altar of the three-hour time block. Given the onslaught of callers hopped up on salacious predictions, mainstream politicians were no doubt seduced by the opportunity to coax ignorance over modern governance under the cloak of channelling the voice of the people.

Activist Terneille Burrows, part of a coalition of women’s rights and equality advocates, said: “The idea that members of Parliament did not have the opportunity over the past three weeks to get familiar with these bills, to dialogue with their constituents, to have meetings with members opposite is ludicrous and we will not stand by and accept that these protocols have not been followed.

“So right now it’s on the hands of the members of parliament - members opposite and the governing party - to pass these bills not just in the House of Assembly but in the Senate so that we can take it to the people and educate them.

Ms Burrows said: “If they (parliamentarians) are not willing to do it, we will do it. We will be consistent in our efforts to engage public dialogue on this issue to ensure that people vote based on their own conscious and outside of political motivations.”

Today, debate on the bills resumes with revised and admittedly simpler referendum questions. While the simplified questions will go far to clear up uncertainty over confusing legal jargon, it will not address the widespread undertones of distrust in the government - sentiments that were last week validated by its own members.

What’s more, now that parliamentarians have wholeheartedly supported fears that one of the bills will lead to same-sex marriage, can it be genuinely expected that these fears will magically subside? How will communities be placated after their concerns have been championed by the likes of Fort Charlotte MP Dr Andre Rollins, who claims that he cannot allow himself to be used as a pawn by his own administration? Dr Rollins’ contribution was predictably erratic, and followed the plot course as expected. He had already put forth a primer statement over the weekend, so he spent most of his time in the House of Assembly building a case to cry wolf as best as any young paper candidate could.

Make no mistake, I am not questioning whether or not Dr Rollins was genuine as he supported the concerns of his electorate. However, it would be a mistake to suggest that the Progressive Liberal Party has unfairly benefitted from his political traction when they plucked him from third party obscurity and presented him on the 2012 ballot. One wonders if there was not a more effective way to stage his muster, perhaps one that did not undercut such an important and fragile process.

Constitutional Commission Chairman Sean McWeeney “this is the problem you have when wires get crossed in legislation.”

He added: “I think people need to be reminded that this legislation had nothing, and has nothing to do with same sex marriage. This amendment to Article 26 as reflected in bill number four is singularly focused on the issue of instituting equality between men and women. It has absolutely nothing to do with same sex marriage and that’s where the wires are getting crossed.

“I think what needs to happen is we need to go back to the basis of this particular bill and remind people, remind legislators, remind members of the Bahamian community that this is only about bringing about equality to the sexes, and that’s why the amendment is as narrow as it is.

Mr McWeeney added: “It just involves the insertion of the word sex so that discrimination based on whether a person is a male or female will be rendered unlawful.

“It’s a very difficult question because if you look at the whole design of the constitution, it leaves most matters of personal law including the question of marriage to be dealt with by ordinary legislation. That’s the historical pattern both in the Bahamas and elsewhere, and the constitution reflects that.

“So it would be very unusual for the Constitution to get into these kinds of details about who can get married and who can’t, that is something that has been left until now up to ordinary legislation and indeed I think it bears reiterating that under the current law of the Bahamas, specifically the Matrimonial Clauses Act section 21, a marriage between two people of the same sex is null and void. It’s not a marriage.”

As the Constitutional Commission began its rounds, one thing has become glaringly obvious. Controversy over these bills were not just rooted in misinformation, overt homophobia or entrenched xenophobia but in the transfer of power. For a second time this term, and this time for real, Bahamians will exercise individual control over their collective fate. We will be in control of we, and that alone is a good enough reason to upend the entire process as we scrutinise the seams stitched up by the Constitutional Commission. CC presenters fielded questions on all forms of governance, from public policy to procedures in practice. While most questions were irrelevant to the proposed amendments it illuminated the dire need to educate citizens on how our laws work, and how they can demand change. If each person that stood up to knock flawed government processes, and give personal account to state-sanctioned unlawfulness had directed their complaint to the relevant agency - how much richer would our parliamentary debates be? When was the last time so many were taken seriously, to have the ear of top lawmakers as opposed to being passive bystanders to conch shell parliamentary arguments, to unsourced anecdotes draped around hollow premises?

Women’s rights activist, Marion Bethel said: “The two human rights principles of equality between women and men and non-discrimination on the basis of sex are basic principles of human rights dating back, at least, to 1948. Neither of these principles is a new or recent concept in human history. They were never nor are they now being imposed or forced on the Bahamas and Bahamian citizens in 2002 or 2014.”

Mrs Bethel, a recent recipient of the CARICOM Eleventh Triennial Award for Women, said: “Our successive governments freely committed our country and all of us as citizens to being an integral and significant part of the collective progress and advancement of human beings and nations throughout the world. These two principles of equality between women and men and non-discrimination on the basis of sex were, therefore, not forced on us by any external body. We affirmed the principles and are now being called on to redress through constitutional reform the historical inequalities that have disadvantaged Bahamian women. I take very seriously our national commitment with its attendant rights and responsibilities. As citizens of the Bahamas, it is really our privilege and duty to be participants on this journey towards the further development of our country domestically, regionally and internationally.”

She added: “It was a political error in 1972 not to entrench the principles of equality between women and men and non-discrimination on the basis of sex in our Constitution. The time is at hand for us to correct the mistake. On Thursday, November 6, we are being asked to affirm the two principles of equality between women and women in regard to the conferment of citizenship to spouses and children and that of non-discrimination on the basis of sex, ie, non-discrimination as a woman (female) or man (male), nothing more and nothing less. This historical moment is in our hands.”

• What do you think? Email concerns to aturnquest@tribunemedia.net