WHEN the Supreme Court ruled in May last year that children born out of wedlock to Bahamian men and foreign women are citizens at birth and do not have to wait until 18 to apply for citizenship, Attorney General Carl Bethel vowed to appeal.
Yesterday, he lost that appeal.
After the earlier defeat, he said he would appeal “in the public interest”. Yesterday, he said that despite the new ruling, the ability of Bahamian men to pass on their citizenship “remains an open question”. He plans to take a full appeal to the Privy Council, it would seem.
Attorney Wayne Munroe, meanwhile, says the ruling will affect “tens of thousands” of people, because it goes all the way back to 1973.
“The law of the land is what the ruling says,” said Mr Munroe, adding: “Anybody whose father is Bahamian should go apply for their passport and their voter’s card. Because that’s from the Court of Appeal, every Supreme Court judge will be bound to rule in accordance with it.”
At the heart of the case is the meaning of the word father. Article 6 says simply: “Every person born in The Bahamas after 9th July 1973 shall become a citizen of The Bahamas at the date of his birth if at that date either of his parents is a citizen of The Bahamas.”
However, Article 14 says “Any reference in this chapter to the father of a person shall, in relation to any person born out of wedlock other than a person legitimated before 10th July 1973, be construed as a reference to the mother of that person.”
The word father doesn’t even appear in Article 6, but Article 14 is being used to affect the application of the earlier article.
Ahead of this ruling, we wrote in this column that we hoped the outcome would help those left on the sidelines, uncertain of their citizenship.
Whether or not this does go to the Privy Council remains to be seen. But if it does, what happens to those people if the ruling goes against them? We know the problems referendums have faced in the past, and the difficulty any future ones might face – but what would each party do to try to eliminate these inequalities? As we draw ever closer to election season, what will those seeking your votes do for those who are excluded in this way?
Is it truly in the public interest to keep such inequalities in our society?
Opening up
If you need any further incentive to get your vaccination, Prime Minister Dr Hubert Minnis was eager to offer it yesterday.
In relaxing restrictions for a number of islands, including new curfew hours, he showed a path ahead – but taking that path is up to us.
There were also other perks for those who are fully vaccinated – such as being able to have private gatherings with others who are vaccinated. Wedding receptions can take place with fully vaccinated guests. Junkanooers with the jab can perform, and so can other performers and artists.
It’s a cue that we’re taking from elsewhere in the world – big name musicians are back to touring in the US for crowds with their vaccinations, for example.
He also dangled the carrot for further easing of restrictions. The curfew may have moved back to 11, but he said it could move back to midnight if we keep making progress.
As Dr Minnis says, the more people get vaccinated, the more “we can open up”.
The vaccine is free, and it’s the key to getting past the pandemic. The cost of not opening up will be far greater.
It’s up to us.
Comments
birdiestrachan 2 years, 10 months ago
there will have to be a DNA test in order to avoid a buy a dad like buy a wife.
Sad but true some women do not know who their children's fathers are.
tribanon 2 years, 10 months ago
Repost from earlier this morning:
We have an awful lot of illegal immigrant and other foreign women who have over the years made themselves 'easy prey' for the wrong kind of Bahamian men, including many married Bahamian men. Since July 1973 these foreign women have given birth in The Bahamas out of wedlock to thousands of offspring fathered by Bahamian men, with many of them shunning birth control thinking it might hinder their chance of acquiring status to remain in our country. Many of these foreign women even attempted to wrongfully pursue a 'purchased' marriage of convenience to a Bahamian man. No doubt some succeed in that illegal pursuit.
And with the stroke of a pen a few appeals court justices have decided all of these children with a Bahamian father born out of wedlock to a non-Bahamian woman are to be regarded as Bahamian citizens from the time of their birth in The Bahamas. Several years ago, Bahamians resoundingly voted against this happening in a duly held national referendum calling for certain amendments to be made to the citizenship entitlement provisions of the Constitution of The Bahamas.
Now we see our courts usurping the rights of the Bahamian people to determine for themselves who exactly is entitled to Bahamian citizenship. Under our Constitution this instant Appeals Court ruling is a fundamental illegal act on the part of our courts which cannot and should not even be justified on any kind of humanitarian grounds.
Our courts are wrongfully indulging the political motivations and agenda of a minority of Bahamians, as clearly demonstrated by the resounding "No" vote less than a decade ago to the proposed changes to certain of the citizenship provisions of our Constitution that were properly put to the Bahamian people for their determination in a duly held national referendum.
And you can bet Minnis's flea-ridden attorney-general, Carl Bethel, will now take his sweet time in appealing this latest wrongful and illegal court ruling to The Privy Council in the UK notwithstanding the national general election looming large.
rodentos 2 years, 10 months ago
it is that way in ANY civilised country
tribanon 2 years, 10 months ago
It's that way in any small nation whose citizenry doesn't wish to become extinct by virtue of an invading force of foreign nationals that threaten their national security from both an economic and social standpoint. It's also why larger nations spend billions of dollars annually to protect themselves from the possiblility of invading forces from other nations that threaten their national security interests.
trueBahamian 2 years, 10 months ago
This citizenship situation is a tough one. For all of us not finding ourselves in this situation, as laid out above in that court case, we can not understand the frustration that those who are go through. For me, if a person is born to a Bahamian parent, be it a mother or father in this country, should not have to fight for citizenship. Alienating persons in a society in which they have to live is not something we should push to sustain. There isn't any humanity in this process. Let's try to see life from the perspective of the child born here without certain basic rights.
tribanon 2 years, 10 months ago
We are a land of laws and not emotions. Our Constitution is the supreme law of the law as it was fully intended to be a social contract by and among the Bahamian people that could only be changed by the Bahamian people, and not by a politically mischievous court system or a tyrannical government.
The citizenship provisions of our Constitution were very deliberately worded to protect not only our sovereignty as a nation and fundamental rights and liberties as a people, but also our very existence and way of life as Bahamian citizens. But starting from July 10, 1973 our small nation has been under seige by what quickly became an overwhelming number of illegal immigrants who have proceeded to produce an alarmingly high number of offspring in our country who, by virtue of their illegal root, are themselves illegal immigrants.
Most Bahamians today don't know that The Bahama Islands were originally inhabited by the Lucayan people, a branch of the Tainos who inhabited most of the Caribbean prior to the arrival of the Spaniards in the late 1400's. The invasion of our islands by the Spaniards resulted in the Lucayan people being completely eradicated by about 1520. If we allow our judiciary to dismantle our Constitution and succumb to the emotional cryings of those who have been invading our country since July 10, 1973, we, as Bahamians, all but assure we will go the way of the Lucayans.
trueBahamian 2 years, 10 months ago
The Constitution is a document written at a specific instant in time. We have to be aware that over time things change. A law that make sense in the 1800s may not make sense in 2021. Yes, we have to be careful that we are not allowing our laws and our Constitution to be trampled on. But, we should ensure that we are not denying someone a right simply because someone put something on a document decades before without taking into consideration certain realities. The situation as I understood was an unwed couple, not a mother who was here illegally. If someone is here illegally we should address that as a matter of immigration policy. But, if both parents have legal standing here (father Bahamian and mother not Bahamian), why should we deny the child a right to be Bahamian? If both were married the citizen would be bestowed on the child. so, essentially we are arguing a legal contract (marriage). There are countries around the world that have a much more open understanding of citizenship. I'm not a proponent of opening the floodgates on citizenship. I just believe that if a person has one Bahamian parent and they live in this country their entire life, they should not be denied the rights that a child born to a married couple has.
If we want to talk history, as you mentioned the Indians had this land. But, there are no Indians anymore. Now, descendants of West Africans (particularly Ghana) and the UK (especially England) decide what the rules are in these Indian lands. So, foreigners to this place are defining what the rules are.
Once again, if someone is here illegally I can understand having a challenge. But, if we are essentially using a marriage certificate between Bahamian man A and foreign woman B as a determinant of the child's status, I think we need to address that situation.
trueBahamian 2 years, 10 months ago
Further to the above, keep in mind even the courts recognize common law marriage. So, we allow for a long term relationship to be recognized without a formal contact (marriage certificate).
tribanon 2 years, 10 months ago
Our Constitution is less than 50 years old and is therefore a baby compared to the much older constitutions of many other democratic countries like the UK, Canada and the US. It is not a document to be changed lightly, especially where the change would impact an intent at the time of its signing that is even more relevant today for the very reason of the original intent itself.
You really sound like someone who would sign a 30-year fixed rate mortgage loan agreement and then cry foul 20+ years later when prevailing interest rates happen to be much lower than the rate you're paying. Some contractrual provisions are fully intended and expected to be for the much longer term and therefore should not be subject to frequent changes depending on which way the emotional winds of the day are blowing.
See my post below on the more substantive point.
trueBahamian 2 years, 10 months ago
Tribanon, thanks for the feedback. I don't sign a contract and complain later about the content of the contract. Lol. I agree that changing the Constitution is not something that should be done lightly. I'm not a lawyer, so I would concede that there may be elements that I'm missing here. But, whether a document is written 50 years or 400 years before, it doesn't mean that in the current days context it is still accurate. When Americans speak of the Constitution they try to gauge the intent of the framers at the time, which we do here as well and which I see you are going as well. I respect that. However, the world evolves. Laws are always playing catch up. Although we should not change laws or the Constitution on a whim, we should not take an old document and run with it forever as if it speaks to the world as it exists now. Think of trying to package the information age in the context of the US Constitution.
tribanon 2 years, 10 months ago
Noted. Thanks.
ScubaSteve 2 years, 10 months ago
Are you telling me, that if a Bahamian man is married to a Canadian woman and they live on Cat Island and have a baby... that baby isn't automatically a Bahamian citizen? Is that what you are telling me? Is that how the law is written?
tribanon 2 years, 10 months ago
LET'S BE ENTIRELY CLEAR HERE:
Chapter II, Article 6 of our Constitution states:
"Every person born in The Bahamas after 9th July 1973 shall be come a citizen of The Bahamas at the date of his birth if at that date either of his parents is a citizen of The Bahamas."
And the relevant interpretation in Chapter II, Article 14(1) states:
"Any reference in this Chapter to the father of a person shall, in relation to any person born out of wedlock other than a person legitimated before 10th July 1973, be construed as a reference to the mother of that person."
Article 6 refers to "parents" which can only be a reference to the father and the mother of the person. Accordingly, in the case of the person born out of wedlock in The Bahamas, Article 14(1) requires that the reference to the father in Article 6 be construed (interpreted) as a reference to the mother of the person. Therefore, if the mother of the person was a non-Bahamian at the time of the person's birth, then the person is not entitled to Bahamian citizenship notwithstanding the fact that the person's father was a Bahamian at the time of the person's birth.
Bobsyeruncle 2 years, 10 months ago
"Every person born in The Bahamas after 9th July 1973 shall be come a citizen of The Bahamas at the date of his birth if at that date either of his parents is a citizen of The Bahamas."
That section in itself is contradictory or misleading. It starts by referencing to " every person" and then changes to "his", Doesn't this imply that females are not persons, or am I missing something here ?
tribanon 2 years, 10 months ago
The use of "his" in a gender neutral sense was not at all uncommon in the drafting of legal documents before the identity politics of more recent times.
Bobsyeruncle 2 years, 10 months ago
Sorry, I don't buy that. Still doesn't explain the inconsistency. Then why not be consistent with either term? Why not also use "person" in place of "his", as in "....at the date of said persons birth.." Or if "his" really is gender neutral, why not also use it in both places ? Sorry, but I smell D- educated lawyers and proof readers here
FrustratedBusinessman 2 years, 10 months ago
You don't buy that but tribanon is actually correct. The law was not gendered prior to the 20th century and references to "his" was readily understood as referring to both male and female.
Bobsyeruncle 2 years, 10 months ago
But didn't the current constitution (or at least the citizenship part) come into effect in 1973 ? I understand how "his" could refer to both male & female back in the 1800's or early 1900's, but surely not in the 1970's. Sounds like I'm wrong on this, and since constitutional law is not my strong suit, I'll have to believe you & tribanon are more knowledgeable on this topic. .
trueBahamian 2 years, 10 months ago
the second excerpt seems to me contradictory to the first. If I followed the logic employed prior to the recent ruling, it would suggests the language in the first excerpt should be strengthen to state the marriage of the parents. Otherwise, I interpret the second to be a contradiction to the first. How does anyone become a citizen if either parent is in the first but if you are born out of wedlock in the 2nd it's the citizenship of the mother?
I'm not a lawyer. From a layman's point of view it's contradictory unless the language is altered in the first excerpt to add the word "marriage" for the parents.
tribanon 2 years, 10 months ago
?
ScubaSteve 2 years, 10 months ago
Okay, stop with all the legal talk. Let's make this as simple as possible. Here are the scenarios. I'd like someone to answer each scenario and let explain if the child is automatically a Bahamian citizen or not. And all of these scenarios take place on Cat Island: 1) Bahamian man married to Canadian woman, they have a baby; 2) Canadian man married to Bahamian woman, they have a baby; 3) Bahamian man not married to Canadian woman, they have a baby; 4) Canadian man not married to Bahamian woman, they have a baby;
Okay, no legal talk. Just need an answer to all four scenarios. The answer is either yes, the baby is Bahamian or no, the baby is not Bahamian. Alright... go!
tribanon 2 years, 10 months ago
You should really do your own homework. The citizenship provisions of our Constitution were all thoroughly explored and discussed ad nauseam in the run up to the national referendum that was duly held less than a decade ago on certain proposed constitutional amendments regarding who is entitled to citizenship.
The proposed amendments were resoundingly defeated by a majority "No" vote of Bahamian citizens, and with good reason. The vast majority of our people simply do not want the door opened to all sorts of things they are firmly against, and that's their right and privilege under our Constitution.
The intent of the citizenship provisions when read together is quite clear and certainly not beyond reasonable understanding and interpretation by an appropriately informed Bahamian public. But there are mischievous misguided factions in our society hell-bent on driving their own pro-invasion agenda or identity politics agenda by seizing on certain provisions that could have been, but need not be, better worded in the interest of national security or public policy.
GodSpeed 2 years, 10 months ago
Nationalism in this world is on the verge of extinction. Going to become one giant prison planet under an all powerful, all corrupt world government.
tribanon 2 years, 10 months ago
Bingo!
The tyranny of big government is here and the very wealthy among us stand to lose the most as the tyranny gets ratcheted up.
Aperson 2 years, 10 months ago
Is that really the issue here and now? And even if it, was the adults now wont be around to here know about. Let's talk about NOW. There are people who have both parents that are born in the Bahamas, but still cant get citizenship, me being 1 of them. My mother and father were both born here. My dad has his passport but my mom doesnt. My mother's parents were not born here but they both have bahamian passports, they were here before 1973. But yet my mother is having issues getting her citizenship because she's in her 40s and wasnt born before 1973, which then leads to me not being able to get mine because she doesnt have hers. There are people out there with similar problems, yet people feel this is a bad thing. This is opening so much doors for people who are born here and still are having contradicting issues getting there documents even though there parents have documents.
Sign in to comment
Or login with:
OpenID