The Tribune

EDITOR, The Tribune.

In the aftermath of the Referendum, there is much speculation. It is disturbing to hear accusations that the Bahamian people are ignorant or misogynistic, xenophobic or homophobic.

To begin with, I believe that the majority of citizens in this country believe that women are entitled to equal rights. In fact, I daresay many women voted against the Referendum. I unqualifiedly support equal rights for women but I did not vote. Why? Because I saw it all as an exercise in hypocrisy.

The root cause for the failure of the Referendum was the manner in which the process was carried out. Many people were expected to understand the Constitution and provisions they may have never known existed. They were given the wording of the amendments and then told to read them.

They were then told that the issue here was that the Constitution did not grant equal rights to women and the only way this could be done was by making amendments to the Constitution.

“Experts” were then put before them to explain the provisions of the Constitution and the proposed amendments.  It soon became clear that even the Experts could not agree with one another.

In the course of these explanations several questions arose:

1. With all the problems we have right now related to the economy, joblessness and crime, why now?

2. If the issue is as important as they say it is, why did they put it on the back burner in favour of a referendum (opinion poll) on gambling, following which they disregarded the people’s wishes anyway?

3. Whether the Constitution, in fact, already granted those rights.

4. How many people were affected by this discrimination anyway?

5. Whether the amendments as proposed could have the unintended effect of legalising gay marriage.

6. Whether the new provisions could be abused.

7. Whether the Government had the power to legislate these changes without amending the Constitution and, if so, what was their motive in not so doing.

These issues were glossed over by the proponents of the Referendum and emphasised by the opponents.

The people were told: “Trust us, the only question here is whether you support equal rights”. This was only bought by some.

The people who bought this proposition then, unfortunately, assumed that those persons who did not support the Vote Yes campaign were simpletons, misogynistic and xenophobic. For those who are disappointed at the result, particularly the young people, the failure of the Referendum is the sole responsibility of the Government and the Opposition.

Those who could not accept the proposition invariably had trust issues with the Government. It was not that they were seeking revenge against the Government but that they did not feel they could trust it. At least two eminent former judges raised questions about the amendments, their purpose and their desirability. The reaction of the proponents to at least one of the judges was to question her sanity, a reaction which they all later came to regret. A number of eminent lawyers and Parliamentarians and activists also raised the questions. They were accused of being obstructionist.

The difficulty for the people was that if lawyers and judges can’t agree on the facts, how could they be expected to understand them?

This then opened the door to distrust and suspicion. 

1. Why was the Government advancing these issues now, when 14 years ago they said they were not necessary?  

2. Why have a Referendum when, with the last Referendum, we were told that the Government had no horse in the race but after it failed, they went ahead and enacted legislation legalising gambling anyway?

3. Why were they only concerned to encourage widespread approval of the Referendum without ensuring that both sides of the argument were ventilated? Rumours then abounded that the Government was funding the Vote Yes campaign and paying its proponents. These rumours were never explicitly denied.

4. Why did the Government not just act as an honest broker and encourage the dissemination of the No arguments as well?

The legal case for the proponents was put by a number of lawyers, eminent and otherwise, who attempted to speculate how a court would interpret the Constitution and the amendments ... all theoretical.

As Dame Joan and Maurice Glinton took great pains to point out, resort should only be had to amending the Constitution when it is absolutely necessary and that need is clear.

They referred to Article 26 of the Constitution and argued that it prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex. They referred to Article 13 which empowers the Parliament in matters of citizenship. This comes from a judge who, until very recently, would have been the principal adjudicator of any such questions before the Court.

Human nature is such that the majority can seldom be relied on to grant or uphold the rights of a minority. That is why we have the Courts.

That is why we expect our leaders to be statesmen.

We have a lack of leadership in this country. We certainly have no statesmen. A real Leader who felt that a fundamental human right was being denied would have sought to remedy that himself. Both the PLP and the FNM supported the amendments, why didn’t they just enact legislation to bring this about?

The answer is shameful. They each were afraid that there are citizens (voters) who would object to these provisions granting citizenship and who would show their disapproval at the polls. Because of this, our leaders were afraid to even try to pass any such legislation. A real leader, a statesman, does what is right, without regard to the consequences such actions will have for him personally.

His satisfaction is in knowing he did the right thing.

What did our Prime Minister do?  He sought to have the matter dealt with in a Referendum and told the Leader of the Opposition that he would only do it if the FNM was locked arm-in-arm with the Government. Why? Because in the event there was a backlash, everyone would have to take the blame.

A real leader would have said, let me cause legislation to be passed granting these rights. If anyone disagrees and believes this is against the Constitution, let them go to Court and get a declaration that the law is invalid. If the Court makes such a declaration, then I will seek to go to the people by way of Referendum.

The advantage of this would be that there would have been a sufficient airing of the issues in the press over a period of time when the legislation was being debated. There would be further airing when the issue came to Court. It would have gone first to the Supreme Court and then to the Court of Appeal (where undoubtedly Dame Joan would have supported the Government’s right to so legislate) and then to the Privy Council. By this time, because of the numerous commentaries and judicial pronouncements, the issues would have been much clearer.

The Government decides to bring a Referendum, lock the FNM in it and then expect praise for having had the courage to do so. What a joke!

The Government’s willing accomplice in this exercise was the FNM. They failed to hold the Government’s feet to the fire and force it to act fairly. They also joined in the chorus that anyone objecting was xenophobic and a misogynist and dumb to believe that questions of gay marriage could arise. Together, they then sought to stifle any opposing views and expect the people’s endorsement.

The Leader of the Opposition, some days before the Referendum, in what some interpreted as a turnabout from his initial support of the Referendum, advised people to “vote their conscience”. Yet, in a statement the day after the Referendum, he says he had an idea that the people did not understand the questions. If they did not understand, how then could they “vote their conscience”?

You know, the joke was “if you understand the Referendum, vote ‘Yes’ and if you don’t understand, vote ‘No’. Not understanding the Referendum did not necessarily mean that a person was dumb. 

I suspect that people may not appreciate the courage it took for those Pastors, those judges and lawyers, those media commentators and other activists and citizens to speak against the process. For some, their own financial and social survival were threatened. We owe them a debt of gratitude for their role in defending democracy in The Bahamas.

LUTHER H McDONALD

Nassau,

June 12, 2016.