The Tribune

EDITOR, The Tribune.

There is nothing like the spectacle of a Dame twisting herself into a knot.

We witnessed the febrile tantrum thrown by the former head of the judiciary – the third branch of our government that is now in the crosshairs of the legislature in what could become a true-true constitutional crisis.

Was the Honourable Lady Justice Dame Joan Sawyer possibly upset because she was not asked to grant an in-camera audience to Sean McWeeney and Ruby Nottage so that she could lecture them on the constitution and why she thinks the document is fine as it is, thank you very much?

Her rant was bizarre. Judges do err, of course. That is why we have courts of appeal, the Privy Council and other forms of peer review to buck them up should they waffle on the finer points of applying and interpreting the law.

The constitution is the well whence all laws spring. It is purposely not easy to change it. Were it a living being our constitution would complain about some of the blaring inconsistencies we left in it, either deliberately or inadvertently. None of the constitutions in our sister Caricom countries contain such bold discrimination and draconian barriers to citizenship.

Constitutional change is a legal process and this referendum was led by legal scholars including the aforementioned McWeeney and Nottage. The people were consulted and are now vigorously giving their views.

The public collectively hit the snooze button after the consultation phase of the process ended. They didn’t wake up until this year when they zeroed in on the two topics that always make Bahamians run hot – foreigners and gays. Never mind that the proposed changes mention the former only in relation to granting equal rights to women and men, and didn’t mention the latter at all – not by inference nor conjecture.

The Dame’s vapid contribution to the debate was to declare the entire democratic exercise unnecessary. The whole thing, she let us know, was frivolous, vexatious and a waste of Her Ladyship’s time.

It would be must-see TV to watch the Dame defend her dubious position at a Eugene Dupuch Law School moot. The future LL.Bs would rip her argument to shreds. As a lifetime amicus curiae or “friend of the court”, she knows that words matter. She was either being deliberate, mischievous or non-compos factis.

In the scant time it would have taken to actually read through the four bills, Her Ladyship could perhaps finish a round of candy crush, or Sudoku or a robust game of scrabble, not to mention scour the TV Guide to see which Perry Mason rerun to watch (or whatever retired justices get up to in their spare time).

Equality, smality, what is wrong with these crazy people in this country? If you open the door to this equality foolishness the next thing you know these ingrates are going to be in the streets demanding to breathe clean air, or expecting to have a right to healthcare, or to be left alone in their own bedrooms. It will never end.

If we hadn’t given equal rights to uppity blacks and voting rights to those nagging women then this whole equality madness never would have started.

The Dame has given service to this country and to show our thanks we recommended her to the Sovereign for suitable awards and recognition culminating in her elevation to Dame Commander in an ancient order of chivalry. As one of Her Majesty’s Privy Councillors she is empowered to give advice, always in confidence, on high state matters. She earned her accolades.

But with privilege must come responsibility. Dame Joan has uselessly squandered so much of the high esteem in which we held her. Not by her opposition to any or all of the four referendum bills. It is her constitutionally protected right to vote as she pleases, or to not vote at all. And she has a right to freely speak her mind. Bear in mind though that free speech does not impose a demand to make sense.

School children of yesteryear would remind us that freedom gave all God’s creatures, even a cat, the unfettered right to gaze upon the Queen.

For being an intellectual, a card-carrying member of the elite in The Bahamas, in Caricom and throughout the Commonwealth, a revered member of the bar and of the Honourable Society of Gray’s Inn in the UK, Dame Joan has a duty to acquaint herself with the facts of any matter.

The constitution is like a giant umbrella that provides protection in times of need for all within our country and what we who proudly associate with the 4Yes camp are attempting to do is to remove a few of the qualifiers that patently discriminate against some of our fellow Bahamians. We cannot have the umbrella leak on even the tiniest minority group.

So let’s apply Dame Joan’s logic and reasoning to a time just 60 years ago. Selected blacks were extended privileges available to all whites. We, therefore, should have left the status quo alone. But it is thanks in no small measure to some of those same blacks of privilege in 1956 who campaigned to turn advantages for a few into rights for all.

That same struggle continues today My Lady, only this time we are fighting for our sisters and brothers wronged and discriminated against by the very document that is supposed to guarantee equal treatment.

If the Dame can’t spare five minutes to read about a proposal to grant equality to her friends, neighbours and total strangers, don’t fret, all is not lost for our Bahamas.

The call has gone out for women and men who love freedom and equality to stand up for our brothers and sisters who have had to endure a heavy thumb on the scales of justice.

I submit, therefore, that Dame Joan’s case should be dismissed with prejudice (legalese for “don’t come back with this nonsense”).

THE GRADUATE

Nassau,

May 3, 2016.