Please find the article and post it if you can find it. If what you say is true then Fred smith was wrong and should apologize. Now again, will you condemn the alleged interference on the part of Minister Gray?

Birdie you might be confused, Fred Smith said he was meeting in a senate building where the hearing was, not with the senate. If you have a quote or evidence otherwise please provide it and I will agree with you. Back to the matter at hand will you condemn judicial inter fence on the part of Minister Gray?

Yes we know that Birdie, what about the allege crime that may have taken place, will you condemn Mr. Gray if he engaged as it appears in judicial interference?

Yes, Minister Gray will reap what he has apperantly being sowing for awhile, but if our Long Island friend had spoken up as well perhaps he would have kept his post in crooked island.

It appears likely that a criminal act was committed on the part of Minister Gray by interfering with a judicial matter. Please refer to the excellent article on the Nassau Guardian website today. The Mayaguana administrator Mr. Newbold has told the guardian that minister gray contacted him twice on this matter in fact the quote from the guardian is:

Yesterday, Newbold said, “The ball is not in my court right now. I didn’t order him on bail. As far as I am concerned, he was ordered free. He was set free.
“As far as I understand, he is not on bail. I ordered him to be set free. Whatever order came forth, I set him free.”

This directly contradicts Minister Gray and if true he should be prosecuted.

Forgive me, I got my Freds mixed up, but they are both thin skinned, so the comment applies, at least Fred Smith is now being conciliatory.

Fred Smith is the most "thin skinned " politician I have ever seen, really because of this trait he is in the wrong line of work. And if you can not see that he has personalized this debate, specifically between himself and Fred Smith then you are either blind or simply dishonest. Instead of him adopting a conciliatory tone after the hearing, as Fred Smith did, or by attempting for the first time to materially address the specific abuse allegations made, he launches in a personal diatribe against the GBHRA. that says volumes!

Birdie, Mr. Mitchell is a very intelligent man who knows exactly the ramifications of his comments. It is a deliberate and calculated move to create hostility against these human rights activists and to intimidate them for what seems purely political gain and that is shameful. I do not fear the retribution from the govt against these persons, I do believe we are beyond that but I do fear for the safety of these persons while in their own country. If anything happens to these persons it will be in no small part because of this antagonistic, flamboyant rhetoric and those persons making such comments and attempting to demonize those who oppose them will bear a great deal of culpability for any violence that may happen.

Good point, Mr. miller is the most forceful advocate for why his job should be made redundant. If he is so powerless why are we paying him $100,000? Please fire him and reduce my bill if only by $1 per year.

Does Mr. Mitchell ever learn?, when wil he stop playing politics with this sensitive national issue? perhaps he should review the last five minutes of the hearing when the govt was warned by the commission to refrain from in any way from intimidating or seeking retribution against these human rights activists. He is shamefully creating an atmosphere of needless hostility against these people. If only we could have Mr. Gomez as our point person on immigration, his tone was measured, reasonable and fair, I for one was proud of his discourse and his pledge not to harass or intimidate these human rights activist, in short he was and is everything Mr. Mitchell is not. It is past time for Mr. Mitchell to stop personalizing this issue, stick to the facts, let us debate them and compromise in a genuine way and we will all be the better off for it.