After 10 years delay a referendum is promised

ISN’T it a shame that Prime Minister Perry Christie, who would have us believe that he and his party are primarily interested in people – particularly Bahamian people – has decided to hold a referendum on women’s rights mainly because of growing international concern about this country’s policies on women’s rights.

Apparently, the long suffering of so many Bahamian women has not moved him to take action because these policies are intrinsically wrong. Rather it has now become a matter of some urgency because foreigners are raising their eyebrows over the backseat that many women have been forced to take in their own country.

Mr Christie was referring to the constitutional provisions that discriminate against women who have married foreign men and the children of that marriage. Such a union denies the foreign spouse of a Bahamian woman the right to be registered as a Bahamian — a right granted under the Constitution to a Bahamian man whose wife is foreign. The children of a legitimate marriage between a Bahamian woman and a foreign man are not recognised as Bahamians. However — and this was and is the greatest insult of all — if the Bahamian woman had conceived her child out of wedlock with a foreigner, it would be fully Bahamian because it was illegitimate and would take its mother’s nationality.

It didn’t matter that the homes of Bahamian women were broken up when politicians — PLP we might emphasise — either denied or revoked the work permits of the foreign spouse, thus denying him the means to support his family. When the matter was debated in parliament in 2002 several politicians, including those who had served as ministers of Immigration, admitted knowing of citizenship applications being denied by no action being taken to process them or were “lost”, due to discriminatory practices. It was tragic the number of marriages that broke down under the strain; professional men who could not remain in the Bahamian matrimonial home because their wives were FNM — and so the family had to separate, or because of the years of strain, the marriage collapsed. The cruelty of the PLP administration was shocking. During the debate in parliament, then Prime Minister Ingraham pointed out that the supreme irony in the Bahamas’ constitutional and legal discrimination against women was that many of the men deciding the entitlement to Bahamian nationality, and many more of their friends and supporters, had foreign-born wives for whom Bahamian citizenship was secured quickly.

“It cannot escape mention,” he said during the debate, “that of the three persons first to be granted Bahamian citizenship in an independent Bahamas were the wives of two then cabinet ministers.”

Yes, the PLP were quite comfortable with the situation, because all was cosy in their unfair world, as long as they held the whip to keep many unfortunate citizens, who did not belong to their party, in line.

As an election was nearing, Mr Ingraham was anxious to correct this constitutional matter that weighed so heavily against Bahamian women.

The issue was taken to the House and the PLP joined the government in voting for all the amendments necessary to make a referendum on the matter possible. When the time came to campaign for the passage of the referendum, the PLP changed its mind. Yesterday, Mr Christie told reporters that his party opposed the “process” taken, not the content of the referendum. After 10 years he was still using “process” as justification for urging the electorate to vote against the referendum. It is true that this was what they were saying at the time of the referendum campaign — according to them Bahamians needed another year to decide whether Bahamian women should be treated as equal citizens. The question on which they were being asked to vote was simple. To suggest that another year was needed was an insult to the average intelligence. What exposed their dumbness, however, was that although they had debated the matter in the House, Mr Christie had voted on an issue that he later claimed he found misleading. The so-called misleading question was removed. The argument then turned to the unconstitutionality of the referendum because the question that had confused them had disappeared. The PLP had succeeded in making the electorate so suspicious of the referendum that it was lost.

A year later —on May 31, 2003—Mr Christie, by then Prime Minister, attended a wedding. After the wedding we had a casual conversation. He innocently asked a question that opened a hornet’s nest — to answer his question a reference had to be made to the defeated referendum.

Of course, he smilingly brushed it off in the usual suave Christie manner, with the promise that he would see the referendum through now that he was prime minister — adding a comment to the effect that the referendum was something that only he — not Mr Ingraham – could get through. That was nine years ago. For five of those nine years he was prime minister. However, not once during all of those five years did he think that the status of women sufficiently important to bring the matter up again.

But now that foreigners are on to it, he pretends concern. Foreign Minister Fred Mitchell announced in the House on Wednesday plans for a referendum to grant Bahamian women the same rights as Bahamian men to pass citizenship on to their children— this will bring the country “in line” with other western societies and see the end of formal gender discrimination, he said.

Asked when the referendum would be held, he refused to be pinned to a date, but said it would be before the end of the PLP’s term in office in 2017. Another five years of forgetfulness.

In our opinion the first delay and eventual defeat of the referendum had nothing to do with “process.” It was all political, a desire to defeat Mr Ingraham, and, as for Mr Christie, a large measure was hubris.

Comments

242 says...

Good letter....that is true the only thing that appears to be important Prime Minister Christie is to beat Ingraham....in an interview after election the first thing PM PC said was he is glad that he was able to show that he could beat Ingraham...forget all the things you say you were going to do the thing you wanted the reporter to know was that you were happy that you can show that you can beat Ingraham and that you feel vindicated..... It is a Game to PM PC and unfortunately he uses "the people" as his strategy....and 48% of the people will never EVER see this.

Posted 28 July 2012, noon Suggest removal

bigdee says...

please 242 the prime minster is doing the best he can my god its NT even a year yet gave him a chance

Posted 28 July 2012, 9:42 p.m. Suggest removal

242 says...

well his best ain SImply the Best....and you right it has only been a few months let's see how everything goes

Posted 29 July 2012, 8:04 p.m. Suggest removal

TalRussell says...

Likewise, why didn't the red shirts bring up the citizenship matter to the House again during the 2007 - 2012 term in power? A House they controlled the majority of seats to pass any damn thing they wantd, including the questionable sale of BTC?

Hubert sure had more than enough time to bring forth and "rush" through amended Bill that now allows man on man buggery in Bahamaland's waters

http://tribune242.com/users/photos/2012…

Posted 29 July 2012, 11:34 a.m. Suggest removal

242 says...

and why didnt the yellow shirts do it from 2002-2007...I guess they was still in vote no mode.... ....u ain serious

Posted 29 July 2012, 8 p.m. Suggest removal

concernedcitizen says...

the bill didn,t support buggery ,but as a plp supporter are you sure you want to talk about homosexuals and lesbians ,or are you like most of the hypocrites ,foriegn sissys are bad but ours are somehow annointed ..

Posted 30 July 2012, 8:40 a.m. Suggest removal

guyfawkes says...

Tal, haven't had an opportunity to speak with you yet. So let me get this straight, you vote for constitutional changes in the house, get outside the house can't understand what you voted for, go to church and someone says to you that they weren't consulted, so you go and tell John Q. Public to vote "No", because the government didn't consult you. WOW.

Posted 4 August 2012, 12:26 p.m. Suggest removal

bigdee says...

we do not need gambleing i pray and hope the the bahmain pepole vote no the christain concel need start its work gor by these gambleing house anbd pray hand out pamlets and teeel the pepole why its wrong leave the bible out they just need to do thir home work i assure you if they go every number houses and tell the persons who gambleing the dos and the donot i assure it make a big differance pastors bishops come out churches and do whats right

Posted 19 August 2012, 5:51 p.m. Suggest removal

bigdee says...

spelling terrible sry

Posted 19 August 2012, 5:52 p.m. Suggest removal

Dorian says...

Oh...this is not good. The Bahamian women has to suffer in order to make the Prime Minister to take action? Nowadays we live in a world where the women and the men are equal, so they have the same rights. I really hope that they will resolve this big problem! <a href="http://romanandradamaria.wix.com/suplim…">Thanks!</a> Dorian.

Posted 18 November 2014, 5:39 a.m. Suggest removal

Log in to comment