And now Minnis suddenly doesn't know he is the Leader of the Opposition? Since he suddenly wants to act like the average Joe, I hope the voters return him to that status on election day. He wont speak up for them to have what they should have, so they should not support him to give him what he wants but by no means deserves.
This country's politicians are among the bottom of the barrel.
And now Minnis suddenly doesn't know he is the Leader of the Opposition? Since he suddenly wants to act like the average Joe, I hope the voters return him to that status on election day. He wont speak up for them to have what they should have, so they should not support him to give him what he wants but by no means deserves.
That is why the proposed amendment exists, to take it out of the hand of the whim of a politician and enable Bahamian women and Bahamian men to have the entrenched right that no politician can take from them or deny them.
I don't agree with personally attacking anyone for their points of view, but the point the letter writer is making is that if a government can give you something, it can take it away from you. That is the difference between having an entrenched constitutional right and having something given to you by simple legislation. Simple legislation gives a politician the final call. The Constitution is the Supreme Law, above all.
> Legally there is a difference between sex, sexual orientation and gender. The House of Lords in 1970 in the case of Corbett v Corbett [1971] 2 All ER 33 made the distinction between sex, sexual orientation and gender. The layman’s confusion about these matters and terms is understandable; a past Chief Justice’s ignorance is inexcusable.
Amen!
> Yes, Parliament may pass legislation that grants citizenship, but Parliament cannot grant by way of legislation, a constitutional right to citizenship. Only an amendment to the Constitution can do that and the process for amending is clearly set out in Article 54 (3)(b)(i) and (ii). This, Dame Joan, is why we need a referendum. This, Dame Joan, is why we need to, as you say, “trouble the constitution”. Anything less leaves the granting of the right to citizenship to the whim of a government.
Exactly! And a longstanding Judge should know this. Is there any wonder why this country is where it is today?
If I want to write a story about what is in your heart and mind, that can really only come from you. Anything else is hearsay and conjecture. And that's if you are just an average Joe. We are talking about a former prime minister here and what he may or may not do that would have far reaching ramifications for a major political party and a country. The Tribune repeatedly quotes Watson speaking about what a former prime minister may or may not do as if that former prime minister is somehow incapacitated. It is ridiculous and embarrassing journalistically. If the former prime minister's answer to the question is truly no, then the Tribune should have no difficulty getting him on record as saying "no". Ingraham is a man who has said on record "I need no spokesman and no interpreter." Well when did Watson suddenly assume those two roles in the Tribune's mind?
Publius says...
> Former Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham is pictured after voting today. He reportedly said he had voted “Yes” to all four bills.
That's what a national leader is supposed to do on a matter of national import, **say** what he or she has done.
On Constitutional Referendum updates: Results coming through
Posted 7 June 2016, 4:50 p.m. Suggest removal
Publius says...
And now Minnis suddenly doesn't know he is the Leader of the Opposition? Since he suddenly wants to act like the average Joe, I hope the voters return him to that status on election day. He wont speak up for them to have what they should have, so they should not support him to give him what he wants but by no means deserves.
On Constitutional Referendum updates: Results coming through
Posted 7 June 2016, 2:44 p.m. Suggest removal
Publius says...
This country's politicians are among the bottom of the barrel.
And now Minnis suddenly doesn't know he is the Leader of the Opposition? Since he suddenly wants to act like the average Joe, I hope the voters return him to that status on election day. He wont speak up for them to have what they should have, so they should not support him to give him what he wants but by no means deserves.
On PM disappointed Opposition has 'backed away' from vote support
Posted 7 June 2016, 2:20 p.m. Suggest removal
Publius says...
Not surprising since Bran aint a lawyer worth a damn.
On DNA leader swayed by Dame Joan’s view
Posted 7 June 2016, 12:21 p.m. Suggest removal
Publius says...
POS!!!
On Minnis won’t say how he will vote
Posted 7 June 2016, 12:18 p.m. Suggest removal
Publius says...
> FNM Leader Dr Hubert Minnis has refused to say how he will vote
Hubert Minnis is a total POS.
On Constitutional Referendum updates: Results coming through
Posted 7 June 2016, 12:16 p.m. Suggest removal
Publius says...
That is why the proposed amendment exists, to take it out of the hand of the whim of a politician and enable Bahamian women and Bahamian men to have the entrenched right that no politician can take from them or deny them.
On Dame Joan is wrong
Posted 6 June 2016, 5:38 p.m. Suggest removal
Publius says...
I don't agree with personally attacking anyone for their points of view, but the point the letter writer is making is that if a government can give you something, it can take it away from you. That is the difference between having an entrenched constitutional right and having something given to you by simple legislation. Simple legislation gives a politician the final call. The Constitution is the Supreme Law, above all.
On Dame Joan is wrong
Posted 6 June 2016, 5:13 p.m. Suggest removal
Publius says...
> Legally there is a difference between sex, sexual orientation and gender. The House of Lords in 1970 in the case of Corbett v Corbett [1971] 2 All ER 33 made the distinction between sex, sexual orientation and gender. The layman’s confusion about these matters and terms is understandable; a past Chief Justice’s ignorance is inexcusable.
Amen!
> Yes, Parliament may pass legislation that grants citizenship, but Parliament cannot grant by way of legislation, a constitutional right to citizenship. Only an amendment to the Constitution can do that and the process for amending is clearly set out in Article 54 (3)(b)(i) and (ii). This, Dame Joan, is why we need a referendum. This, Dame Joan, is why we need to, as you say, “trouble the constitution”. Anything less leaves the granting of the right to citizenship to the whim of a government.
Exactly! And a longstanding Judge should know this. Is there any wonder why this country is where it is today?
On Dame Joan is wrong
Posted 6 June 2016, 2:36 p.m. Suggest removal
Publius says...
If I want to write a story about what is in your heart and mind, that can really only come from you. Anything else is hearsay and conjecture. And that's if you are just an average Joe. We are talking about a former prime minister here and what he may or may not do that would have far reaching ramifications for a major political party and a country. The Tribune repeatedly quotes Watson speaking about what a former prime minister may or may not do as if that former prime minister is somehow incapacitated. It is ridiculous and embarrassing journalistically. If the former prime minister's answer to the question is truly no, then the Tribune should have no difficulty getting him on record as saying "no". Ingraham is a man who has said on record "I need no spokesman and no interpreter." Well when did Watson suddenly assume those two roles in the Tribune's mind?
On Ingraham return ‘not in the realm of possibility’
Posted 6 June 2016, 2:29 p.m. Suggest removal