The Tribune

EDITOR, The Tribune.

PERHAPS the best explanation of  the fourth  question in the upcoming Referendum can be found in an analysis done by a partner in one of the major law firms in The Bahamas.

It comes down to an understanding of the English language and the power of words. Most successful lawyers know more about English than they know about the Law, and they win many of their cases on technicalities and their adversaries ignorance to the many nuances and inferences embodied in the terms and expressions that are inherent in the English language; explicit or implied.

For us to have an understanding of what is amiss in Bill Four, we will have to consider what is an attribute. In most dictionaries, an attribute has a couple of associated meanings; an inherent characteristic, an accidental quality, an object closely associated or belonging to a specific person, to regard as a characteristic of a person or thing, in brief it has a definition that is fluid.

“Article 26 (3) prohibits discrimination based on five grounds: race, place of origin, political opinions, colour, and creed. Sex is not included in the list of attributes.”

If Bill Four is passed, Sex will be defined as an attribute in Article 26 (3) because it is included in a list of other attributes. If Bill Four passes we will also be creating a conflict within the Constitution itself, a conflict that will have to be settled in Court. Is that why there is a Gate symbol for a “No” vote?

With this in mind, it can be said that this Referendum exercise is more about opening a door or gate so that an “assertion” can be made. We must be reminded that with the insertion of “Sex” into Article 26(3), the definition of “Sex” becomes fluid.

If we sum it all up we can see that the Bill will do more than establish equality, it will establish “equivalence” and will end “distinctions” between men and women. “It will make men and women interchangeable”.

The Yes Campaign and its main spokesperson who is an esteemed Law professor may have to go back to her books or get her priorities right. Someone even more esteemed than herself, the Hon Paul Adderley, posed the same concerns in the 2002-2006 Referendum exercise; I do not know if he was paid the same amount of money that she is being paid but I know we got reasonable service from him. She and her Party of which Mr Adderley was a founding father are doing this nation harm through her obvious bias.

I also wanted to touch on Bill Three that may allow for citizenship to be granted, without the act of sex being involved, but that is another letter.

Note: Bill Three needs closer attention. Let me give you an hypothesis: A young Bahamian male is in a foreign land and he comes upon hard times. He is able to make some money by being a sperm donor, depending on how much he “donates”, there could be enough little soldiers to populate one of our Islands. Giving many women and even couples who are not Bahamian the right to produce Bahamian offspring. Editor, can you check on the retroactive nature of the first three bills, it seems like that is still undecided.

EDWARD HUTCHESON

Nassau,

May 20, 2016.