I can't open the Constiution on the Bahamas gov website but I think... that chapter 3, section 19 of the constitution guarantees every individual the means to acquire legal representation
Well, I don't think its professional to refuse to stand up for a policy you have spearheaded when it is questioned if you are a member of government. You work for the people, it's your duty to answer to them. To say the claims are unfounded is incorrect, as who have the claims been investigated or addressed by?
Well yes I think it is quite, shall we say 'odd'? for a Minister, instead of standing up to support his policy and refuting these claims with facts, to instead send an email telling him to just take back what he said... All I'm really saying here, is the fact that Smith is willing, nay keen to stand up and debate Mitchell on this topic, and Mitchell is not willing to do the same - suggests that one party is more confident in their stance in the debate than the other. This is merely my reading of the events.
Oh good it's you again... the one good thing about you is that you completely besmirch the reputation of anyone standing against Fred Smith with all your loony talk, so please sir by all means, carry on...
Please see my suggestion on what should be done...
And no... the presence of "nothing" does not support Emacs statement at all. It is on Emac to support what he is saying with facts rather than the presence of nothing, which could be for a number of reasons.
No actually he asked him to "Withdraw (unspecified) untrue statements concerning the activities of the Department of Immigration" and it was Mr Smith who refused to do so, saying he stood by everything he had said.
If these statements are untrue, as he claims they are he shouldn't have anything to worry about, why can't he just defend the government against these claims instead of stamping his feet? - that's the part I find really disconcerting.
I'm not sure exactly what you're saying is untrue in what Smith said so I can't comment on that.
So you're suggesting that because there is no archival evidence of Fred Smiths opinions during Gibsons actions that means he is a hypocrite? Is there evidence that he was in support of Gibsons actions? That would make him a hypocrite. What your saying does not.
I think what YOU'RE forgetting with your 'AND' is that the government has shown that they are unable to enforce the 'AND' in a way which does not tread on human rights or even work effectively... correct me if I'm wrong but if I remember correctly... during the raids which took place around November more than half of those detained were released as they were legal residents or citizens... that doesn't sound very effective to me.
Space says...
how are they supposed to acquire a lawyer if theyre locked in the detention centre?
On Mitchell: Activists defamed country
Posted 23 March 2015, 6:02 p.m. Suggest removal
Space says...
Arg, again with this. For one... everyone is entitled to a trial before being accused of an offence. Those being deported are not going to trial.
On Mitchell: Activists defamed country
Posted 23 March 2015, 6:01 p.m. Suggest removal
Space says...
I can't open the Constiution on the Bahamas gov website but I think... that chapter 3, section 19 of the constitution guarantees every individual the means to acquire legal representation
On Mitchell: Activists defamed country
Posted 23 March 2015, 5:49 p.m. Suggest removal
Space says...
Well, I don't think its professional to refuse to stand up for a policy you have spearheaded when it is questioned if you are a member of government. You work for the people, it's your duty to answer to them. To say the claims are unfounded is incorrect, as who have the claims been investigated or addressed by?
On Mitchell: Activists defamed country
Posted 23 March 2015, 5:40 p.m. Suggest removal
Space says...
Well yes I think it is quite, shall we say 'odd'? for a Minister, instead of standing up to support his policy and refuting these claims with facts, to instead send an email telling him to just take back what he said...
All I'm really saying here, is the fact that Smith is willing, nay keen to stand up and debate Mitchell on this topic, and Mitchell is not willing to do the same - suggests that one party is more confident in their stance in the debate than the other. This is merely my reading of the events.
On Mitchell: Activists defamed country
Posted 23 March 2015, 5:35 p.m. Suggest removal
Space says...
Isn't fighting for the government to adhere to the Constitution for the good of Bahamians?
On Mitchell: Activists defamed country
Posted 23 March 2015, 5:22 p.m. Suggest removal
Space says...
Oh good it's you again... the one good thing about you is that you completely besmirch the reputation of anyone standing against Fred Smith with all your loony talk, so please sir by all means, carry on...
On Mitchell: Activists defamed country
Posted 23 March 2015, 4:51 p.m. Suggest removal
Space says...
Please see my suggestion on what should be done...
And no... the presence of "nothing" does not support Emacs statement at all. It is on Emac to support what he is saying with facts rather than the presence of nothing, which could be for a number of reasons.
On Mitchell: Activists defamed country
Posted 23 March 2015, 4:42 p.m. Suggest removal
Space says...
No actually he asked him to "Withdraw (unspecified) untrue statements concerning the activities of the Department of Immigration" and it was Mr Smith who refused to do so, saying he stood by everything he had said.
If these statements are untrue, as he claims they are he shouldn't have anything to worry about, why can't he just defend the government against these claims instead of stamping his feet? - that's the part I find really disconcerting.
I'm not sure exactly what you're saying is untrue in what Smith said so I can't comment on that.
On Mitchell: Activists defamed country
Posted 23 March 2015, 4:38 p.m. Suggest removal
Space says...
So you're suggesting that because there is no archival evidence of Fred Smiths opinions during Gibsons actions that means he is a hypocrite? Is there evidence that he was in support of Gibsons actions? That would make him a hypocrite. What your saying does not.
As for practical suggestions, thank you for asking... here's one right here:
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set…
I think what YOU'RE forgetting with your 'AND' is that the government has shown that they are unable to enforce the 'AND' in a way which does not tread on human rights or even work effectively... correct me if I'm wrong but if I remember correctly... during the raids which took place around November more than half of those detained were released as they were legal residents or citizens... that doesn't sound very effective to me.
On Mitchell: Activists defamed country
Posted 23 March 2015, 4:25 p.m. Suggest removal