I was under the impression that Privy Council decisions are **not** normally binding on any judge? They do not set laws, yes?

**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.

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 reasoning behind the original intent.** And it is certainly not a document to be changed by the courts rather than the people because of the very misguided political motivations or humanitarian considerations of a few justices (judges).

You are just straight up a bigot, there is really no other way to put it.

I believe it was Samuel Clemens (pen name "Mark Twain") who once said "No amount of evidence will ever persuade an idiot."

So despite the evidence you still do not realize you are a bigot😀

Wishful thinking and actual evidence have always been two very different things. But you're certainly entitled to wishfully conjure up in that head of yours whatever evidence you may need to support your wishful opinion of me. lol

What I have found interesting about this debate is the fact that nothing, absolutely nothing, in the constitutional provision, nor the proviso for its interpretation, utters or ushers in any reference to a 'non-Bahamian' or parent that is a 'foreign national'; however, due to the loud and persistent drumming by those who wish to include **'foreign nationality'** as an element in the provision, (if you are not articulate in reading the provision) you too would begin to think the provision somehow make reference to the nationality of the parents. **IT DOES NOT!!!**

It is a constitutional provision that singles out and addresses only the **MARITAL STATUS** of the parents. The provision is written as though it is a given that both parents, under consideration, are citizens of The Bahamas. Only the marital status of the parents is under the microscope of the provision to be examined, **NOT THEIR NATIONALITY.**

**NOTHING IN THE PROVISION INVITES FURTHER AND MORE CONSIDERATION OF THE PARENT'S NATIONALITIES** as it relates to the right to Bahamian citizenship; **ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!**

It is the debaters that have insinuated that the provisions speak to the nationality of the parents. WRONG!

The citizenship provisions in Chapter II of our Constitution are riddled with references to *"persons born outside of The Bahamas"* or *"a citizen of some other country"* or *"citizenship or nationality of some other country"* or *"a citizen or national of any other country"*. And these provisions were never intended to be interpreted on a stand-alone basis without regard to the context they were clearly crafted to give each other.

This may be rightly so, that is, the mentioning of nationalities other than Bahamian in other sections of Chapter II, however, what you summate is merely a constructive tool that the court may apply and use in a case where the provision is clearly ambiguous. This is not the case here. The consideration in the provision in question is restricted to the MARITAL STATUS of the parents of a child born in the Bahamas. It is a given that both parents are Bahamian.

You are rightly describing one of several approaches that the court may utilize in arriving at a fair interpretation of a provision that is, on the face of it, ambiguous. It is my view that there is no ambiguity in that provision. I guess it is a matter of interpretive skills???

And there's absolutely no ambiguity about the intent of Chapter II, Article 14(1) when it comes to the required interpretation of Chapter II, Article 6.

The Privy Council will likely not even accept the case.

I certainly wouldn't bank on that. The Privy Council is usually eager to hear cases in which a higher court has egregiously erred in affirming a seriously flawed ruling of a lower court, especially involving matters that are ***in the interest of national security or public policy.***

If this goes to the privy council, they will absolutely uphold the ruling. The UK is not interested in affirming discriminatory policies in their former colonies.

One would like to think and hope that The Privy Council would not be inclined to let our courts thwart the will of the vast majority of the Bahamian people as resoundingly expressed in the national referendum on proposed changes to the citizenship provisions of the Constitution that was duly held less than a decade ago.

The only time an aged docent is considered as gospel is if it's a constitutional document.

In all other cases, society happily endorses recent facts, modern society and modern point of view.

If there is one document that should be seen to seen to require frequent update it is the constitution of a democracy.

There is no other example of historical beliefs trumping the evolution of thought or addition of information.

This is an example of pure dogma

Why would anyone want any society want to follow a document written people who lived in another era, under different circumstances?

The idiology of considering a constitution, as the best source of guiding principles, purporting the principals should persist indefinitely, serves only to anchor any dogmas of the past to the future of a nation. Quite possibly the worst means of hampering development and prosperity of a nation!

While our constitution is fairly young, it's still a far cry from the from a document presenting the best ideas of our time. Unlike others, I'm thankfulll we don't have a near ancient constitutional document like some of the older democracies, which have essentially enshrined the mindset from an irrelevant past into modern society.

The dinosaurs are dead and gone, so are the cowboys; yet Americans , some of them still walk around with a gun on there hip. And it's legal because of an antiquated constitution!

Tell me folks, do you feel more comfortable being in America with the fun toting idiots, or in Canada ?

It's worth questioning the motives of anyone who supports the practice of following outdated principles.

> Tell me folks, do you feel more comfortable being in America with the fun toting idiots, or in Canada ?

Take a walk in Brampton or the "diverse" parts of the GTA and tell me how bloody safe you feel. Crime ridden shitholes on par with most of the Caribbean. Amazing how places like Switzerland or Vermont don't seem to have any issues with crime and gun ownership, but don't let that stop you from pushing the disarmament agenda.

The 2A existed for the protection of America as a newly founded nation. Thanks to the Monroe Doctrine, America hasn't had to face any direct threats on their borders since the days of Santa Anna, so the immediate importance of that amendment has been lost in the eyes of the average person, but it isn't any less valid. As the Japanese realized during the 40s, there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass if America were ever invaded....or at least there would be at one point in time.

Your talking about the worst area of Canada. ( Where diversity is there strength). But you know the most of the country is safe

Many dynamics emerges over the lives of tens of thousands people involved and further 400,000 lives of existing Bahamian citizens involved.

Over the decades of frequent apprehensions of persons without Bahamian papers etc and automatically returned to mostly Haiti and Jamaica would seem they were illegally done and many were the children of the Bahamian father and entitled to return ticket, be returned back to Nassau Airport.

Now if they have been certified wid Bahamian papers, seems there will have host of more challenges arising especially from "new' brothers and sisters coming forth an wid new nieces, nephews abroad and returning back ....whichinin.. existing Bahamians did not know about. And now well known national sweethearting local or foreign women and babies comes with responsibilities, is ensured.

In light of the recent monumental challenges, matter of tens of thousands persons which affects 400,000 present Bahamians ways of life, there obviously national concern to all, there should be immediately created a national committee to come up with best avenues of solution , answers, orderly way forward...rather than a jolt possible chaos... to society to this critical matter for 400,000 plus tens of thousands more.

One has to wonder what it is that the average bahamian fears regarding the citizenship of these children of the "unwed"?

Pride of the land/country is unlikely as judged by the garbage thrown about by our citizenry.

Pride and concern for the environment, even less likely , as a bove we dump garbage everywhere, oil too, dig away our hills , bleach our coral reefs, etc

Is it for selfish reasons? More land for me?

We have next to no pride when it comes to our work ethic and production.

No concern for our fellow citizens, we seem more likely to be shot than helped by a neighbor.

We don't care about the education of our citizenry now , so it would seem we needent worry about diluting the education effectiveness. Same for healthcare.

I think one could make an argument that for the most pArt , people from almost anywhere else would likely be better citizens than the majority we have.

We certainly could welcome any dilution of our gene pool.

It's amazing that someone can lay fault on an innocent child who had no part in the (perceived) discretion of their parents. Talk about sins of the father...

I sincerely hope you're not referring to the Almighty Father.

> FORMER Attorney General Sean McWeeney says despite the Court of Appeal’s affirmation of a landmark Supreme Court ruling on citizenship, the status quo will prevail until the Privy Council has ruled on the matter.

As if it was for Sean to determine. Talk about an over-inflated opinion of one's self !

The very devious Sean should be asked what happens if flea-ridden Carl Bethel does not file an appeal with The Privy Council within the required period of time.