, ,

Who will defend our ‘Zone of Peace’?

We’re living through a time of significant change in economies and global politics. While we’re heavily impacted by current events and trends at the global level, it’s imperative that we participate in regional mechanisms and establish shared positions on pressing and emerging issues. Diplomatic relations between the US and Caribbean countries, for example, have never been as simple as we might like to believe, and may quickly become more complex.

The Bahamas puts significant effort into maintaining an amicable relationship with the US for various reasons, including continued economic reliance on the tourism industry. Maintenance of the tourism industry is, of course, a primary area of concern for other Caribbean countries as well, which don’t have the same proximity or level of reliance as we do. It’s difficult to balance sovereignty and both national and regional priorities with the global and western systems that demand our participation. While it’s challenging for a country to stand on its own, it can be advantageous to form blocs and to leverage regional organizations such as CARICOM.

When our governments fail to represent us, our values, and our positions in these spaces, however, it becomes especially necessary for the people to stand together.

Trinidad chooses sides

In August 2025, Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, Kamla Persad-Bissessar, pledged full support to the US government in its deployment of military assets to the Caribbean, including the positioning of three warships off the coast of Venezuela in the supposed attempt to stop drug trafficking.

“I want to make it very clear that if the Maduro regime launches any attack against the Guyanese people or invades Guyanese territory and a request is made by the American Government for access to Trinidadian territory to defend the people of Guyana, my Government will unflinchingly provide them that access,” Persad-Bissessar said in reference to the possibility of aggression action by Venezuela to Guyana over Essequibo, a disputed territory.

Unflinching in her disinterest in aligning with a CARICOM position, she doubled down on her stated position. “The Government of Trinidad and Tobago has not engaged and has no intention of engaging CARICOM this matter. Each member state can speak for themselves on this issue.”

Following the US strike on a boat that killed 11 people early in September 2025, Persad-Bissessar said she was “happy that the US naval deployment is having success in their mission” and that “the US military should kill [traffickers] all violently.” The US Secretary of State claimed that the boat had departed Venezuela and was likely headed to Trinidad or another country in the Caribbean.

Many over the past few weeks have expressed concern about the callous statement, which ignores the absence of due process in the killing. When questioned about another military air strike on a boat that killed six people, including two citizens of Trinidad and Tobago, Persad-Bissessar reiterated her position. “I stand by my previous comments,” she said. “Nothing has occurred to cause any change in my opinion.”

Venezuela Ambassador to the United Nations, Samuel Moncada, called on the United Nations to investigate what he called the “assassinations,” with a total of 27 reported deaths from US strikes in the Caribbean so far. He noted that the killings are unjustified and that the US is trying to start a war. “There is a killer prowling the Caribbean,” he said. “People from different countries are suffering the effects of these massacres.”

In an open letter to Persad-Bissessar, Ambassador General of the Global African Congress, Cikiah Thomas, called the Prime Minister’s statements in defense of the current US administration reckless, disgraceful, and shameless. “[It echoes] the tone of colonial subservience that our ancestors fought to cast off in our long struggles to achieve independence over our national and regional affairs,” he said.

“By excusing the extrajudicial killings, and dismissing the US’ violation of international law, you have aligned yourself with Donald Trump and US imperialism and against your sovereign people. But you have also aligned yourself with the same imperial ideology that once enslaved our people and plundered our lands.”

Grenada to decide

Recently, Grenada’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Export Development confirmed that the US had also made a request to temporarily install radar equipment and technical personnel at their Maurice Bishop International Airport.

The Government of Grenada is reviewing and assessing the request. However, it made clear to the public what considerations will be examined. “[Our decision] will be guided by Grenada’s sovereignty, public safety, and national interest, including the protection of our tourism industry, the travelling public, and the country’s economic well-being.”

Concerned by this request, particularly given recent events, a network of Caribbean feminists responded in October with an open letter opposing incursions by the US military.

“We, Caribbean advocates for equality, security and development within and between states, note with grave concern the recent incursions by the US military in the Caribbean Sea. This signifies an egregious breach of international law and has resulted in the extrajudicial killing of at least 27 people to date – two of whom are nationals of Trinidad and Tobago.

“These incursions threaten the Caribbean tourism industry by jeopardising the safety of cruise ships and sailboats. They interfere with the livelihood of fishermen and all those who depend on the sea to feed their families. They also violate laws protecting our regional waters and the people who depend on them. They contravene the commitment of our region by our leaders, past and present, and our citizens to establish our region as a zone of peace,” the statement said.

“The US has long wielded disproportionate power over the small island states of the Caribbean and its peoples. We call on our governments to strengthen our sovereignty, defend our right to peace, the livelihoods of our peoples, and our right to be safe from the consequences of militarization. We urge the Grenadian government and people of Grenada to stand firm and refuse the US request to extend its military capacity by installing radar and technical personnel in Grenada. We call on CARICOM to support Grenada’s refusal of this request, and to stand up for our independence, knowing, as we do, that this may result in real costs at the hands of the US.”

The Caribbean Congress of Labor also issued a statement on the preservation of the Caribbean as a zone of peace. “The CCL expresses deep concern over any use or intended use of the Grenada Airport by the United States military or any foreign power for military operations or activities contrary  to the peaceful principles of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). Such activities not only violate the spirit of regional cooperation but also endanger the peace, sedulity, and sovereignty of the Caribbean people.”

And CARICOM?

In an incredibly lackluster, empty statement, CARICOM referenced a recent meeting that addressed a number of issues, including this increased militarization in the Caribbean. “Save in respect of Trinidad and Tobago, who reserved its position, Heads agreed on the following: They reaffirmed the principle of maintaining the Caribbean Region as a Zone of Peace and the importance of dialogue and engagement towards the peaceful resolution of disputes and conflict.”

It appears that CARICOM has taken no position on foreign military occupying Caribbean territory, using force, and operating without intelligence or assurance of due process. The phrase “Zone of Peace” is rendered meaningless when there is a discussion on security matters that does not directly respond to the events of the past few weeks and the current and potential impact on Caribbean people. There will certainly be more statements and further action from Caribbean citizens, residents, non-governmental organizations, civic groups, and individuals.

Unfortunately, the Government of The Bahamas is not one we can look to for leadership on this issue. Minister of National Security Wayne Monroe merely advised Bahamians to “stay out of [the US military’s] way.”

“If they were to choose to sail in your harbour, there’s nothing you could do,” he said. “It would be a breach of your sovereignty, and you could complain, but you couldn’t stop them.”

Isn’t that really all we need to know when it comes to our own security and the commitment of the Government of The Bahamas to upholding human rights and maintaining our precious sovereignty?

The Zone of Peace is severely lacking in defenders.

Published in The Tribune on October 22, 2025.

/0 Comments/by
, , ,

Misogyny in politics holds women back

While Leslie Miller’s misogynistic, infantilising reference to Senator Michela Barnett-Ellis is not at all surprising, given his many public episodes, it has drawn attention to the longstanding issue of discrimination against women in political and public life.

The idea that women are inferior and must be relegated to the private sphere and men are superior and entitled to the public sphere persists well beyond the time that one income was sufficient and (some) women’s only work was in the home and in service to the family (which was never the case for black women).

That patriarchal arrangement was in service to capitalism, even more than it was for men, as women made (and still make) it possible for men to work through the provision of various unpaid services including the maintenance of the home and the people living in it and the reproduction of labourers.

Patriarchy created a hierarchy and it has required us to live according to this division, even after the point that women entered the public sphere and, as a matter of necessity, started to work for wages. Patriarchy assigned values and expectations based on gender and while the economic realities have changed and society along with it, patriarchy has its devotees.

Just as patriarchy separated women and men into the private and public spheres, it instilled the belief that men are to be leaders and decision-makers while women are to follow and submit.

Misogyny extends beyond the hatred of women to the hatred of all that is feminine. As emotions are viewed in a binary way, considered feminine or masculine, certain emotions are reserved for women and restricted for men.

On the basis of these socially constructed rules, it was determined that women are too “soft” and “emotional” for leadership, even as men regularly perform anger to the detriment of the people expected to follow them.

Women have worked, for generations, to gain access to opportunities to work and to lead through consistent efforts including, but not limited to, higher education. Today, men regularly attempt to use the level of education many women have attained, and subsequent professional success, as evidence that gender inequality does not exist.

They refuse to see the persisting issues including sexual harassment in the workplace, the gender wage gap, and the impediments to participating in frontline politics and public life.

Miller’s misogynistic comment is evidence of the discrimination that still exists and is not only an annoyance, but a barrier to equal participation and, ultimately, the representation of women in leadership at the level that is proportionate to the population. It also highlights the issue of intersecting forms of discrimination that women face.

A women vying for candidacy or for a seat in Parliament are not only unfairly judged rather than appropriately assessed because of their gender, but because of their (perceived) age, class, and other identities. Women are expected to be deferential and young people are expected to be deferential. Young women are expected to be doubly deferential should they even dare to be in the same space as men.

It is an embarrassment that only 18 percent of parliamentarians are women. No government administration has ever addressed this issue by instituting a political quota. Perhaps even worse, no political party has chosen to take the lead in addressing this issue, demonstrating commitment to achieving gender equality by instituting a quota at the party level.

This is clear evidence of the priorities and the cowardice of political parties. Temporary special measures such as political quotas have been recommended to The Bahamas on numerous occasions through international human rights mechanisms in which The Bahamas voluntarily participates.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in Article 3, obligates States to “ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant.”.

Importantly, Article 25 states, “Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity[…] to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives [and] to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors.”

Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women (Convention of Belem Do Para) states in Article 4 that “Every woman has the right to the recognition, enjoyment, exercise and protection of all human rights and freedoms embodied in regional and international human rights instruments. These rights include, among others[…] The right to have equal access to the public service of her country and to take part in the conduct of public affairs, including decision-making”.

It continues, in Article 5, “Every woman is entitled to the free and full exercise of her civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, and may rely on the full protection of those rights as embodied in regional and international instruments on human rights. The States Parties recognise that violence against women prevents and nullifies the exercise of these rights.”

The Sustainable Development Goals were adopted in 2015, and goal five on gender equality includes “ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic and public life” as a target. The indicators are the proportion of seats held by women in national parliaments and local government and the proportion of women in managerial positions.

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), also known as the bill of women’s rights, was ratified by The Bahamas in 1993—acknowledgement discrimination against women as a violation of women’s human rights and a commitment to take the necessary steps to come into compliance with the Convention in order to end discrimination against women.

Article 7 of the Convention calls on States to “take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the political and public life of the country and, in particular, shall ensure to women, on equal terms with men, the right[…] to be eligible for election to all publicly elected bodies [and] to participate in the formulation of government policy and the implementation thereof and to hold public office and perform all public functions at all levels of government.”

As CEDAW was adopted in 1979 and entered into force in 1981, there issues that have emerged and knowledge that has since been created that are not explicitly stated in the Convention. To ensure that it can carry out its mandate and respond to the realities on the ground with its collective human rights expertise, the CEDAW Committee produces General Recommendations which expand upon Articles of the Convention, address areas of concern, and guide States in their reporting.

There are General Recommendations, for example, on violence against women, older women and protection of their human rights, rights of rural women, and gender-related dimensions of disaster risk reduction in the context of climate change. In 2024, the CEDAW Committee produced General Recommendation 40 on equal and inclusive representation of women in decision-making systems. It begins, “Women have the right to equal and inclusive representation in all decision-making systems on equal terms with men[…] This right is still not respected. This also seriously hampers implementation of all other rights under the CEDAW Convention.”

General Recommendation 40 was produced as a comprehensive guide for States “on achieving equal and inclusive representation of women in all decision-making systems across all sectors, aiming for a systemic change”.

It recognises seven pillars of equal and inclusive representation of women in decision-making systems, recognising “patriarchal structures impede women’s equal and inclusive representation in decision-making systems” and the need for a transformational approach that dismantles those structures. The pillars are:

1. 50:50 parity between women and men as a starting point and universal norm;

2. Effective youth leadership conditioned by parity;

3. Intersectionality and inclusion of women in all their diversity in decision-making systems;

4. A comprehensive approach to decision-making systems across spheres;

5. Women’s equal power and influence in decision-making systems;

6. Structural transformation for equal and inclusive decision-making;

7. Civil society representation in decision-making systems.

General Recommendation 40 is available online. It described all seven pillars and not only sets on the obligations of States, but provides guidance for meeting the obligations. Its recommendations include legal amendments to institutionalize 50:50 parity between women and men in all spheres of decision-making, adoption of a parity strategy, provision of education on temporary and permanent special measures, implementation of awareness-raising campaigns toward positive discourse on parity, cooperation with media to condemn, monitor and ensure accountability for sexism and misogyny, and prevention and prosecution of hate speech in decision-making and against women candidates.

All candidates, representatives, leaders, and members of political parties should read the document and contribute to moving The Bahamas toward compliance through all means available to them.

Published in The Tribune on September 10, 2025

/0 Comments/by
, ,

It is Up to Citizens to Hold the Government Responsible on Human Rights Issues

Human rights are being discussed with more frequency in The Bahamas in recent years, due in no small part to the human rights violations taking place and the responses of non-governmental organisations and the general public. From reports of sexual violence and children becoming victims of gun violence to “police-involved incidents” and the destabilising effects of crisis after crisis, connections are being made between the atrocities we experience and the right to freedom and dignity without distinction on the basis of identity.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was published in 1948, has been translated into over 500 languages, and is the foundation of dozens of human rights treaties. In Article 2, it is clearly stated that everyone is entitled to the rights and freedoms set out in the Declaration. These include life, liberty, and security of person, recognition as a person before the law, equal protection of the law, freedom of movement, nationality, to work, and to education.

Human rights treaties build and expand on the human rights articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, making them specific to particular groups of people who are frequently excluded and/or marginalised and who have/had experiences that make their ability access to human rights more difficult. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) — perhaps the most widely referenced human rights treaty referenced in The Bahamas — is an example of this as it built and continues to build on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to specifically articulate the rights of women and the obligation of States to promote, uphold, and expand them.

Take, for example, Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is on marriage. It has three parts. The first part says, “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.” The second part says it is only entered into with full consent of both parties. The third part says “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society[…]” Article 16 of CEDAW is on marriage, and it has two parts with the first part having eight subsections. The Article focuses on eliminating discrimination against women in marriage and family relations. As such, one of the subsections affirms that women and men have “the same rights and responsibilities as parents[…]. Another states that women and men have “the same personal rights as husband and wife, including the right to choose a family name, a profession and an occupation”. While these rights could be assumed upon reading and understanding of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the human rights treaty specific to (eliminating discrimination against) women states them clearly. Other human rights treaties serve a similar function, putting human rights into the context of particular people and situations.

The Bahamas has ratified nine United Nations human rights treaties. These include the Convention of the Rights of the Child, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The most recent is the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment, ratified in May 2018, closely following the third cycle of the Universal Periodic Review during which several UN member states — including Italy, France, Sierra Leone, and Indonesia —recommended The Bahamas ratify it.

Ratification of human rights treaties is agreement with the content, acknowledgement of the State obligation to take specific actions to promote, protect, and provide access to human rights, and a commitment to take those actions. This is not limited to United Nations mechanisms, but includes regional agreements and those by other multilateral organizations such as the International Labour Organization (ILO). For example, The Bahamas ratified Convention 190 (C190) on the Elimination of Violence and Harassment in the World of Work on November 25, 2022, International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women — the first day of the Global 16 Days Campaign, also known as 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence.

Many human rights treaties have committees of independent experts which are responsible for reviewing State reports and submissions from other stakeholders, posing questions, and facilitating constructive dialogues with States about their progress toward full compliance with the related treaties. One process that works differently is the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). It does not have a committee of experts. Instead, it is a peer review in which United Nations Member States review one another. Another unique element is that the UPR is attentive to other human rights treaties and State ratification of and compliance with them.

On Wednesday, May 3, The Bahamas was under review at the 43rd Session of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) at the United Nations in Geneva. This was part of the fourth cycle of reviews. The Bahamas submitted a written report and the Attorney General made a statement before the United Nations Member States. This was followed by 90-second contributions by Member States which includes commendations on the progress made up to that point and recommendations for The Bahamas to act on before its review in the fifth cycle, approximately five years later.

The Bahamas failed to take action on most of the recommendations made at its third cycle review. The Bahamas has not ratified the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all migrant workers and members of their families. The Bahamas has not ratified the Optional Protocol to the same Convention. It has failed to establish the Office of the Ombudsman in accordance with the Paris Principles, and it has failed to establish a national human rights institution (NHRI) in accordance with the Paris Principles. Several Member States called for the criminalisation of marital rape, implementation of the Strategic Plan to Address Gender-Based Violence, comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation to protect the human rights of all, including LGBTQI+ people, amendments to the Bahamas Nationality Act for gender-equal nationality rights, and abolition of the death penalty.

Several countries expressed concern regarding human trafficking and recommended that The Bahamas provide training to law enforcement and judges to improve identification of trafficking victims, provide support to trafficking victims, provide financing for prevention of trafficking, and improve its coordination with non-governmental organisations and government departments to prevent trafficking. Recommendations related to trafficking were repeated in the fourth cycle review.

The Bahamas did, as previously mentioned, act on the recommendation to ratify the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), a recommendation repeated from the second cycle review.

In his address, the Attorney General, of course, highlighted even the smallest steps taken toward recommendations. He noted that the death penalty had not been carried out for many years and that there is no plan for a formal moratorium on the death penalty. He claimed there is a systemic approach to protecting the rights of children, that corporal punishment is not recommended in schools and that the last school administrators who used it was put on administrative leave, and that the Department of Social Services has a parent training program that includes information on different forms of discipline. Rather than admitting that The Bahamas has failed to establish a National Human Rights Institution, he talked about the Ombudsman Bill—tabled one week before the review, obviously for this purpose—and the laughable Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights, also introduced the week before, which is far from a National Human Rights Institution and does not come close to meeting the Paris Principles.

At the 43rd Session of the Universal Periodic Review last week, United Nations Member States repeated many of the same recommendations from 2018. There were also new recommendations, and recommendations that were repeated with more specificity. The recommendations included amendments to nationality law for women to pass on citizenship to their children and spouses, implementation of the Strategic Plan to Address Gender-Based Violence, criminalisation of marital rape, amendment of the definition of “discrimination” in Article 16 of the constitution, establishment of a National Human Rights Institution, ratification of various human rights treaties including the Convention on the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, discriminatory law review and reform with support from UN Women (which is in progress and we await the final report from UN Women Caribbean Multi-Country Office which is significantly delayed), improvement of prison and detention center conditions, inclusion of climate justice in civics curriculum, and elimination of discriminatory stereotypes against women and girls.

The report on the Universal Periodic Review of The Bahamas in the fourth cycle will be made available on the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights website this month. It will not only have the recommendations made to The Bahamas, organized by thematic area, but will have the response of the government. States can support (interpreted as accept) or note (interpreted as reject) recommendations. It is important to know the international human rights standards, how The Bahamas does or does not meet them, and how the government responds to the recommendations aimed at compliance with the international mechanisms with which it has chosen to participate. Recent news stories on the UPR process have chosen specific points to highlight for various reasons, obviously linked to the market for news, so it is especially important for those with interest in human rights to seek out, read, understand, and share complete information. Knowing our rights is critical, as is knowing the government’s perception of and response to its obligations. With this information, we are better equipped to make our demands and realise all of our human rights.

Published in The Tribune on May 10, 2023

/0 Comments/by
, , ,

Acknowledgement of Wrongdoing Needed in Commonwealth Charter

Monday was Commonwealth Day, observed by countries in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and Americas, the Pacific, and Europe, and it was the start of a week-long schedule of events. The theme for Commonwealth Day 2023 was “Forging a sustainable and peaceful common future”.

This year, it marked the tenth anniversary of the signing of the Commonwealth Charter. The Commonwealth Charter is meant to be a document that unites Member States through a set of shared values. It “expresses the commitment of member states to the development of free and democratic societies and the promotion of peace and prosperity to improve the lives of all the people of the Commonwealth” and “acknowledges the role of civil society in supporting the goals and values of the Commonwealth”.

The sixteen values and principles of the Charter are democracy, human rights, international peace and security, tolerance, respect and understanding, freedom of expression, separation of powers, rule of law, good governance, sustainable development, protecting the environment, access to health, education, food and shelter, gender equality, importance of young people in the Commonwealth, recognition of the needs of small States, recognition of the needs of vulnerable states, and the role of civil society.

The Commonwealth Charter does not address the history of the Commonwealth or what most of the Member States actually have in common and made them a part of this group. It does not address slavery and colonisation, nor does it acknowledge the continued impact of both slavery and colonization on Member States and, more specifically, the people in situations of vulnerability within those Member States. This cannot be separated from the stated values.

photo

We can take rule of law as an example. The Charter says: “We believe in the rule of law as an essential protection for the people of the Commonwealth and as an assurance of limited and accountable government. In particular we support an independent, impartial, honest and competent judiciary and recognise that an independent, effective and competent legal system is integral to upholding the rule of law, engendering public confidence and dispensing justice.”

Member States that were colonised by the British were left with laws that discriminate against women, girls, and LGBTQI+ people.

Even with independence, the laws remained the same, and many Member States have the same, or strikingly similar, constitutions. Since colonization, Britain has amended many of its laws toward equality and non-discrimination in various areas, including gender.

Meanwhile, Member States like The Bahamas are still stuck with discriminatory laws. This impacts gender equality which is another value in the Commonwealth Charter.

It is easy to say that Member States should accept responsibility for their state of affairs and amend their laws. It is not, however, realistic. It must be acknowledged that discriminatory laws were imposed by colonising countries.

They are responsible for the harm caused and the violence that continues to be inflicted upon the people living in Member States, namely women, girls, LGBTQI+ people, black people, indigenous people, and people with disabilities.

Constitutional reform, as we have seen through our own experience since 2002, is not as simple a process as it ought to be because it is not a matter of drafting and passing a bill, or even getting the public to vote in it. It requires education that includes unlearning.

Older generations grew up with a set of ideologies that many of us have learned are untrue, unfair, unjust, and unacceptable. They are convinced that there is no way for the world, or for this country, to be without distinctions that rank us and set some of us up to be considered and treated as subhuman.

Undoing the violence and subjugation that led to the firm belief in discriminatory laws and practices is not possible, but reparatory justice is possible.

The process of unlearning is not easy, it is not short-term work, and it is not receiving the investment that is required. There is, first of all, no political will, and that is partly because of the religion that was forced upon our countries through slavery and colonization, becoming the dominant religion with ease.

People now believe they have a moral authority to discriminate and be violent toward certain groups of people because of the fundamentalist teaching of religious leaders who do not hide that they pull the string of Members of Parliament and political parties that are obviously more committed to the longevity of their political careers than they are to sustainability, peace, or the equality and wellbeing of people — the same people they depend on to vote for them every ten years (since we know our dissatisfaction leads us to change parties every five years).

We have an ineffective system of governance. We have two almost indistinguishable political parties that takes turns being the majority in the House of Assembly. We have Members of Parliament who are expected to both make laws and attend to issues within their constituencies, so they are set up to fail, especially when combined with the expectation that they maintain party loyalty, regardless of what it means for the people they represent.

We have a largely disengaged electorate that is kept busy with multiple jobs, limited by non-living wages, and exhausted by the losses and demands -from hours of wasted time in traffic to unpaid and completely unsupported labour of caring for people with specific needs – that come with living and working in a place that is designed for the wealthy and the foreign to thrive at the expense of everyone else.

Rule of a law, as a value, cannot take us very far. The law is severely lacking in many areas. There is no protection from discrimination for women and girls. There is no protection from discrimination for LGBTQI+ people.

Women do not have the right to automatically pass on citizenship to their children, regardless of who they marry or where they give birth. Legal reform requires an engaged civil society and rights-minded lawmakers. We lack both.

The Commonwealth Charter, then, is missing one major component that could actually give it momentum and increase buy-in. That component is the acknowledgement of wrongdoing, specifically naming the violence against Member States, along with reparations.

CARICOM has developed a 10-point plan for reparatory justice that is a good place to start, and The Bahamas National Reparations Committee is prepared to lead the conversation in The Bahamas.

With 2023 being the Year of Youth, Commonwealth Foundation hosted “A Decade of the Commonwealth Charter: Young Leaders’ Dialogue” which was a virtual event live-streamed to Facebook. At the beginning of the event, Commonwealth Foundation posed questions to the audience. Where do we want the Commonwealth to be in ten years’ time? How can the Charter inform and help get us there? How do we promote greater awareness of the Commonwealth Charter amongst the people of the Commonwealth?

The young people speaking at the event including Larissa Crawford (she/ her) from Future Ancestors Services and based in Canada, Christine Samwaroo (she/her) from The Breadfruit Collective in Guyana, Riddhi Dastidar (they/them) based in Delhi, Deanna Lyncook from The History Hotline podcast, based in the UK.

The discussion was especially interesting because the participants were not there to be polite or deferential to anyone or any ideals. They pushed back against a number of ideas including that young people are responsible for fixing the problems they did not create, that the values in the Commonwealth Charter are inherently good or easily translated and applicable to every Member State, and that there is nothing to be done about the past.

They named communities that have been violated and that need to be specifically supported. They called for action to make use of their recommendations and those that have been shared in other spaces. It was clear that they did not want to be a part of a conversation that ended when the virtual meeting link expired, but one that contributed to better outcomes.

You can find the recording on the Commonwealth Foundation’s Facebook page, and connect with the speakers through the links provided in the comments.

These are all topics that ought to be at the front of our minds as we approach fiftieth anniversary of independence of The Bahamas.

We should be thinking about what was taken from this country, what is owed to it, and what we owe to ourselves. We should be seeking clarity on our values. We should be making assessments on how far — or not so far — we have come since 1973, and what needs to happen in the next five, 10, 25, and 50 years for the people in this country to thrive.

Fifty plus years of survival mode is not good enough. We need justice. We need peace. We need equality. We deserve to be on another level.

Published in The Tribune on March 15, 2023

/0 Comments/by
, , , ,

People and Human Rights Need To Be Honoured Over Votes and Power

International Women’s Day is two weeks away, and the celebration of The Bahamas’ 50th year of independence is 20 weeks away. Whenever there is talk about independence, I think about women’s rights.

I look for the progress that has been made and all that we still need to do, for the people of The Bahamas and, in particular, women.

It is sobering to think about the meaning of independence, the effects of colonisation, and the continued refusal to free ourselves of the discriminatory and violent laws – largely inflicted upon us by Britain – that continue to limit us in many ways.

Colonisation has long-lasting effects. In The Bahamas, we can see the influence it has had on every facet of life.

We drive on the left side of the road. Ideas about professional attire are inappropriate for our climate. There is still considerable distance between the government and the people, and little opportunity for people to actively engage in governance. Christianity is the dominant religion, whether or not the people who claim it actually practice it. The economy is prioritized over people. Racism and colorism are rampant, and people are still afraid to name them. Laws discriminate against women. Human rights are not valued. Positive changes, to increase access to human rights, are debated and few people are interested in, much less equipped to, advocate in the face of an opposition that has gained power through colonial means.

The criminalisation of marital rape has been discussed for years. In 2018, the then government drafted a bill to amend the Sexual Offences Act to criminalise marital rape without acknowledging it as rape. There were many unacceptable flaws in that bill, and it was rejected.

It was not until 2022 that we saw another amendment bill – the one that is currently being discussed to what seems to be no end. The government refuses to do what it knows must be done, pandering to the loud and wrong voices of church leaders who are, frankly, misogynists.

The church leaders who support the criminalisation of marital rape are not nearly as vocal or consistent as those who oppose the rights of women.

The Minister of Social Services and Urban Development, who has responsibility for the Department of Gender and Family Affairs, has said, without shame, that the government is waiting to hear for a meeting date from a particular church.

What? The bill is being held up because one church wants to have its say and has yet to even propose a meeting date? And this is after the government held a “symposium” that was specifically for church leaders?

Would the government wait to get a meeting date from a non-governmental organisation that promotes women’s rights? Would it stall on legislation regarding finance when the International Monetary Fund or Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development are making their demands? Who could delay its decision-making on such issues, and by calling for a meeting and offering no date?

The truth is that the position of the church should not matter when it comes to human rights and governance.

The church may be important to its members. It may be a useful network through which to reach people. It may be a guide for the people in it. It is not, however, the government and should not control the government. We, of course, know that the church wields its power regularly and is able to do this because political parties depend on them for votes. It is no secret that religious leaders use their pulpits politically, and in partisan ways.

This is the only reason the government panders to it while undervaluing and, in many cases, ignoring the positions of and evidence provided by people who represent – not control – people, especially those in situations of vulnerability.

The government has allowed the church to cement the narrative, easily disproven by reading the constitution, that The Bahamas is a “Christian nation”, that this was the intent of the framers of the constitution, and that this is the way it must be.

Among our tasks, 50 years into independence, is to gain a clear understanding of the constitution.

It has been, for far too long, a mysterious document whose actual contents are deemed irrelevant or unimportant. It has been treated as though it can only be read and understood by a particular class of people.

One of the only things most people ever hear about the constitution is a lie — that it states that The Bahamas is a “Christian nation”.

Let’s be clear. The Bahamas is not a Christian nation. Not constitutionally, and certainly not in practice. The violence and corruption that people actively participate in every day is evidence of that this is not a Christian nation, unless Christianity is violent and supports corruption.

First, we need to know that the part of the constitution that people reference when they declare that The Bahamas is a “Christian nation” is the preamble.

The prefix “pre” means before, or prior to. The root word “amble” means to walk at a slow pace. A preamble “walks before”. It leads to something else. It is an introductory statement that precedes, or comes before, a law. The preamble, then, is not the constitution.

The preamble, which is not an Article of the constitution, says, “founded on Spiritual Values”. It does not say “Christian nation.” It states “the preservation of [our] Freedom will be guaranteed by a national commitment to Self-discipline, Industry, Loyalty, Unity and an abiding respect for Christian values and the Rule of Law.”

Interestingly, when the preamble is brought up, reference is not often made to the rule of law, despite its proximity to the misquoted term “Christian values.” The rule of law means that everyone is accountable under the law, that the law which ensures human rights, is applied evenly, that laws are adopted and administered in a fair process, and that adequate resources allow for timely access to justice.

This, obviously needs more attention. We know that the rule of law is severely lacking in The Bahamas. Say “human rights” and see what happens. Look at the way laws are written and who is protected by them. Pay attention to the ways laws are passed, and which laws are put to the public for “discussion” which may as well call what it really is – delay. Read and watch the news to find out how the court system (dys) functions.

The preamble states that the nation is “founded on Spiritual Values” and “spiritual” is not specific to any religion. The constitution itself, in fact, entitles every person to freedom of religion and to “propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.” It even states no person attending any place of education shall be required to receive religious instruction or to take part in or attend any religious ceremony or observance[…].” Why, then, would our laws be based upon any religion?

Individuals have freedom of religion in The Bahamas. Declaring it to be a Christian nation would be incongruent with that right, so this did not happen in the constitution. The Bahamas is not bound to any religious text or interpretations thereof. It is a secular nation.

Chapter three of the constitution is titled “Protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual. Importantly, Article 15 entitles everyone, regardless of race, place of origin, political opinions, colour, creed, or sex, to a set of freedoms including life, liberty, security of person, protection of the law, and freedom of expression.

How has the right to security of person been made accessible to women? How has the right to protection of the law been made accessible to women? In what ways have these rights been denied?

We can start, of course, with gender-based violence against women which includes marital rape. If the definition of rape in the Sexual Offences Act excludes spouses, what does that mean for women who are raped by their husbands? They are denied, by Section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act, the right to security of person which includes the right to be free from all forms of violence.

They are also denied the right to protection of the law. The Sexual Offences Act does not protect married women from sexual violence inflicted by their spouses. It must be amended. Marital rape must be criminalised.

We need to understand our laws and how they impact people. We need to know what the constitution actually says, and not rely on what people say about the constitution. We need civic education, and not limited to school-age children.

Far too many of us left school with little or no knowledge about the role of the government, the constitution and legislation, and citizens of the country. A public civic education campaign is desperately needed in this country. Without it, independence means very little.

We can have a flag and other symbols, sing a national anthem, and put the faces of Bahamians on the national currency, but none of that makes us free. None of that secures our rights. None of that makes this country a better place.

Independence ought to be about the people – our rights and freedoms, our ability to set and progress toward national goals, and our realisation of this place as a home that we would and could actively choose for ourselves.

Independence has little meaning for most of us, not because we do not understand it, but because we do not feel it or access the freedom and pride it promises. We will not get there without gender equality.

Ending gender-based violence against women and girls must be a national priority, and one that is aggressively actioned, even in the face of opposition.

People and their human rights have to be more important than votes, concentrated power, and the lure of money from corruption and collusion.

The colonisers did not see it that way before 1973. Does the government of today?

Published in The Tribune on February 22, 2023

/0 Comments/by
,

Commonwealth People’s Forum 2022 Closing Panel: A Commonwealth for All

In June, I attended #CHOGM2022 in Kigali, Rwanda. I attended in the Commonwealth Women’s Forum, moderating a panel organizations by The Commonwealth Equality Network (TCEN) on LGBTQI+ rights, and was on the closing panel at the Commonwealth People’s Forum which was focused on building upon the ideas shared during the two-day forum and looking toward the future.

Later in the week, I participated in the Commonwealth Foreign Ministers Roundtable where I spoke about the relationship between governments and civil society and why it needs to change. We, members of civil society, know our communities. We work with and within them every day, we can reach them with ease, we know the pressing issues, and our access cannot be matched by the government. Non-governmental organizations cannot be skipped over and ignored when services and programs are being developed to benefit the people in the communities we serve.

If I come across a recording of the Roundtable, I’ll be sure to share it. I’m happy to see the Commonwealth Foundation has shared the recordings from the Commonwealth People’s Forum, and it was great to revisit the closing panel. Check it out.

/0 Comments/by
, ,

Commonwealth Equality Network at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting

I was invited as a part of the delegation of The Commonwealth Equality Network (TCEN) to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Kigali Rwanda from from 19 to 25 June 2022.

I shared my experience with TCEN, which you can take a look at from 10:45 in the video below.

/0 Comments/by
, , ,

Culture Clash: Want More Women in Politics? Create a Better Environment

International Women’s Day was on Monday and, of course, it came with radio talk show slots, panel discussions, presentations and purple attire. It is an annual day to celebrate the progress women have made and to take action toward the changes that still need to happen.

The global campaign’s theme was “Choose To Challenge” and the UN Women theme was focused on women’s leadership (in alignment with the upcoming 65th session of the Commission on the Status of Women). Both themes were taken up and used to frame events and initiatives. It was great to see Corporate Bahamas make space for discussions about women in leadership and the issues we all need to choose to challenge. It is even more important that they contribute to the efforts through resources, including funding, and structural changes that ensure women are in the leadership pipeline, compensated fairly and working in enabling environments.

The Prime Minister recently stated that “the representation of women in Cabinet is at an historic low”. He said he challenges himself, political parties and the nation to ensure more women are in the House and the Cabinet.

These words, of course, are nothing without action. It is not enough to wish for better representation of women. The Prime Minister claimed “a number of women” declined the offer to run on the Free National Movement’s ticket and that he is pleased that more women are running this time around. It will be interesting to see how many women the Free National Movement puts forward. The current proportion is abysmal with only five of the 30 ratified candidates being women.

Unless eight of the nine candidates to be announced are women, there is very little to show for the Prime Minister’s statement about including more women as the party would not even have 30 percent representation. How can we expect more women in Cabinet if they are not going to be on the ballots?

The Prime Minister said he was frustrated by women declining opportunities to run. He did not give the reasons. Maybe they did not see the Free National Movement—or any other party, for that matter—taking firm positions on issues of importance to them. Maybe they do not want to be collapsed into a system that was not built for them. Maybe they do not see the political environment as one they can survive in, much less thrive.

Aside from all of the issues with party politics and the failure of every political party in the country to make clear their positions on important issues, there are specific actions that need to be taken in order to create an environment within which women can safely and successfully participate.

If party leaders care about women’s engagement in political leadership, they need to take decisive, targeted action.

Here are five actions the Prime Minister and all political parties need to take in order to successfully recruit, retain and run women as candidates in general elections:

  • Institute a quota. Go beyond 30 percent which is a low bar and does not result in gender parity in a world, and a country, in which more than half the population are women and girls. Low bars do nothing for us. Let’s start with acknowledging that we have a long way to go, then figure out how to get there. Make the quota 50 percent, and do it now. The current administration can still do this on a national level. All political parties can do it for themselves. Let’s call on all political parties to make their positions on women’s leadership clear by instituting party quotas of 50 percent now. This commits them to do the work of recruiting and training women, creating enabling environments within the parties, and improving the conditions of all women so that they are able to pursue opportunities in frontline politics and other forms of political leadership.
  • Provide training and mentorship for women. Boys and men are raised and trained to believe that they are destined for leadership while girls and women are often taught that they are to play supportive roles. What we see in the leadership of men and boys and in women and girls is not a result of natural abilities or inclinations on the basis of gender, but gender ideologies that have been used to put people on particular paths. Men and boys have long been considered more suitable for leadership and certain kinds of work, so women and girls have been dealing with implicit and explicit discouragements from leadership and the areas of work that have been reserved for men. This needs to be intentionally interrupted and corrected. We need specific programmes and initiatives targeting women and girls, preparing them for leadership.
  • Reject gender stereotypes. Publicly challenge and rebuke all suggestions that gender is a determinant of ability or suitability. Create opportunities for women and girls to pursue education and careers in areas that continue to be dominated by men. Run campaigns that highlight women already working in these areas, their contributions to the industries and to the country, and the support that has made it possible. Encourage the private sector to do the same. One example is providing scholarships and other opportunities such as fellowships to girls and women pursuing education in STEM and trades.
  • Reduce the burden of care work. One of the factors that impacts people’s performance in the workplace and both ability and willingness to pursue ambitions is the work they have to do outside of their formal employment. Women are often tasks with the upkeep of the home. Even if a household can afford to employ domestic workers, the supervision and management of household tasks still tends to be the responsibility of the women. Childcare and eldercare are often the responsibility of women as well.

There is so much to be done at home that it is known as “the second shift” and can prevent women—and the girls often enlisted to help and learn from them—from studying and participating in other activities that could help to advance their careers. Recognize that women’s time is not elastic, acknowledge that women have taken on much of the work that the state is obligated to do, and make structural changes to allow and encourage men to share the domestic labour and support women in reclaiming their time. For example, change the expectation that women are solely responsibly for childcare by amending legislation to give parental leave so that fathers have more than five days to help with newborn care, leaving postpartum women to heal and care for babies alone.

  • Protect women from gender-based violence. Gender-based violence is a pervasive issue that is affecting families, communities, islands, and the country. It can be physical or non-physical, and it takes place both in person and online. Social media has been weaponized by men, used to discourage women from engaging in public life and punishing them for it if they dare to enter public life anyway. This administration and all political parties need to rebuke all forms of violence against all women, regardless of political affiliation or position. Disparaging comments and ads that target women on the basis on their gender need to be banned.

There are many other ways to create an environment that is conducive to participation of women and other marginalized people.

This needs to be regarded as a matter of priority and a marker of the commitment of the Prime Minister and all political parties to ensuring, not only greater participation of women in politics, but gender parity.

It’s not just about recruiting women and hoping they accept under the current conditions.

There is a responsibility to create a better environment through systems and initiatives that not only demonstrate personal and political commitment, but contribute to a cultural shift that creates space for women to not only lead, but do so with support and the reasonable expectation that they and their families will be safe.

Published in my weekly column in The Tribune on March 10, 2021.

/0 Comments/by
, ,

Culture Clash: Why VAT rise hits hardest for the people who can least afford it

Bahamians tuned in to the Budget Communication in Parliament last week Wednesday with great interest. After laying out a number of supposed benefits to the Bahamian people, Minister of Finance Peter Turnquest showed the price tag. The FNM administration intends to increase Value Added Tax (VAT) by 60 percent, taking it up from 7.5 percent to 12 percent on July 1. It expects this tax hike to increase revenue by $400 million in the next fiscal year.

In a press conference, Turnquest suggested this is the best way to pay off arrears left by the former administration of approximately $360 million. He insisted that the government is doing the right thing by being honest with the Bahamian people as opposed to presenting a misleading budget and delaying pay day.

Under-budget or increase taxes. These are clearly not the only options. This administration is depending on us to play into the stereotype of “lazy” and “D-average” so it can do as it sees fit with little to no pushback.

Even if VAT is the best option for The Bahamas, it would have been more transparent — a term the FNM enjoyed using before May 2017 — and shown a commitment to more participatory governance to share the details of its financial concerns with the people before this point. It would have been easier to understand this decision if we had been provided with this information before the Budget Communication and had the opportunity to offer ideas. The people sitting in Parliament are, after all, our representatives and not a collective dictatorship.

Flip-flop

Over the past few days, many people have quoted the 2016 version of Dr. Hubert Minnis who said, “I don’t believe in increasing taxes, I believe in decreasing taxes and increasing opportunities. Increasing taxes is a lazy way out. When you don’t want to think, you just tax.”

In 2013, Dr. Minnis said the PLP should share its economic studies and analyses as well as alternatives it considered with the Bahamian people. Today, the Bahamian people are making the same request. We want to know how this administration came to the conclusion that a 60% increase in VAT is best for the country. We also want to see the other options that were under consideration, why they failed, and how the administration arrived at this conclusion. Hearing from the Prime Minister on his change in position would be welcome as well.

VAT and Customs Duty

In the Budget Communication, it was announced that Customs exemption would be increased from $300 to $500, twice per year. There is also a reduction in Customs duty on new small cars and excise duty on new electric and hybrid cars under $50,000 in value. Neither of these benefit the poor.

We learned that VAT will not be applied to bread basket items. These include rice, flour, grits, cheese, butter, cooking oil, milk, evaporated milk, soups, and mustard. Concerns have been raised about the lack of healthy options on the bread basket list, and Minister of Health Dr. Duane Sands suggested more items, including fresh produce, will be added. VAT is also being waived from electricity bills below $100 and water bills below $50 impacting 30,000 and 43,000 people respectively — close to the 40,000 reportedly living in poverty. This measure, clearly meant for the poor, still does not bringing balance when we are looking at 12% VAT on everything else. The 2013 Household and Expenditure Survey showed 12.8% of the population in The Bahamas is living in poverty — on less than $5,000 per year.

What is poverty?

We need to understand what it means to be poor. Poverty is not the inability to purchase a particular brand of cellphone. It is not making the decision to attend a community college instead of a well-known university. It is not driving a 2010 Honda Civic. It is not being a college student and living with your parents. It is not a situation you can see your way out of at any given time. It is not a decision or series of decisions you consider prudent or responsible. It is having $5000 per year, and being unable to make decisions that do not fit that budget. Poverty is not a choice, and it is not about choices. It is not the result of working less, or working less hard.

Poverty is a systemic issue, and a monster we continue to feed with unilateral decisions like VAT and VAT increases and discriminatory practices. It is an issue we trivialize and makes jokes about when we hear about VAT going up and declare ourselves “poor” because we may not be able to go to crossfit any more. Not being able to benefit from the elimination of duty on airplanes does not make you poor, and jokes about it are lazy and D-average. Dine on the Line — an awareness campaign in which participants spend $4 on food every day — was last week, and maybe we should we have an exercise of doing everything else on the line for a month. Can you live on $11.64 per day? And no, 12% VAT is not likely to force many of us below the poverty line, but think about what it means for those already living in poverty. The reality of the over-burdened Bahamians living in poverty is not a punchline, and we do not need that kind of comic relief.

Equal, but not fair

The general conversation about the increase in VAT has revealed what we do and do not understand. It has been made clear, repeatedly, that the privilege some of us enjoy helps us to ignore or be completely unaware of the challenges other people face.

VAT is paid by all, but our experiences are not the same. We are not all in the same situation. VAT is a regressive — as opposed to progressive — tax. It is not higher for people with higher income. VAT is flat, so everyone pays the same rate, but it is not equitable. Middle class and poor people pay a larger proportion of their income in taxes through VAT. Though everyone is paying the same tax on individual items, the effect is different.

There is a popular pair of images used to show the difference between equality and equity. There are three people of different heights trying to watch a game over a fence, and there are three boxes they can stand on. In the first image, they each get one box. The shortest person still cannot see the game at all while the other two can. That is equality. In the second image, the tallest person does not get a box, and the shortest person gets two. In this image, they are all able to see and enjoy the game. That is equity.

What if taxation was equitable? What if the government found a way to alleviate the burden that has always been on the poor? What if we, as citizens, cared enough to look for alternatives to the quick fixes our representatives find and implement?

What we need

Fiscal responsibility is critical. We know the government needs money to provide services, from education and health care to road repairs and waste disposal. None of this is free, and the government needs a source of revenue. It does not, however, need to disproportionately burden the poor to meet its needs. It does not need to keep financial records and decisions out of our reach.

This administration needs to recognize that while the people did not necessarily vote FNM as much as it voted anti-PLP, there were expectations. Expectations of accountability. Transparency. An understanding that the Bahamian people are not interested in being blissfully unaware of the government action and inaction. We expect to be involved, and to have the opportunity to contribute, critique, co-create the systems and programs we need and demand.

We need to have a conversation about wages. Over the past few days, many have talked about the need to increase minimum wage, but that comes with its own effects. Even so, it is time to talk about a living wage so every working person can afford adequate food, shelter, and other physiological needs.

VAT is in the spotlight. No one wants to hear about taxes, much less increased taxes. We can agree on taxes, bills, and poverty. We do not want them, but they exist. Let’s be honest with ourselves and each other and not only these issues for ourselves, but use our power as a people to call on our representatives to stand with us, regardless of class or color.

Published in The Tribune on June 6, 2018.

/0 Comments/by
, ,

Culture Clash: Resistance to Outside Influence

The U.S. has been a major influence on The Bahamas for a long time. Proximity and tourism are not the only reasons. “Foreign is better” has been a dominant idea for decades. Imported apples are redder, U.S.-based network television is more entertaining, and flown-in consultants are more knowledgable. We’ve grown accustomed to looking elsewhere for what we want, whether it’s because of cost, quality, or status, real or perceived. At the same time, we complain about the side effects of these decisions.

Small businesses are suffering, creatives struggle to get financial support, unemployment is high, university graduates accept offers elsewhere, and the country stagnates on various levels. We don’t listen to our own experts, and our governments engage people from all over the world, paying obscene amounts of money to tell us what we — at least some of us — already know. We are outraged when we hear about it, and not just because of the money. Even while we discredit and ignore our own, we are deeply insulted by even the suggestion that someone who does not live here could know or understand anything about our condition or potential better than us. We are compelled to resist “outsiders.”

Who’s Afraid of the UN?

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women’s visit to The Bahamas and declaration that marital rape is the most pressing gender-based issue in the country drew vitriolic response. Dubravka Šimonović was invited to The Bahamas to make an assessment, particularly in light of our bid for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council. It is her job to objectively look at the country and its laws, engage with civil society, and report on her findings.

Ms. Šimonović’s visit was not to force new legislation or amendments, and her position does not afford her that right. Her comments, however, helped to spark a necessary conversation spanning several topics including rape, rape culture, marriage, and religion. It was a springboard for organizations and individuals, and drew attention to an overlooked issue. No matter how we validate her position or explain her visit, Ms. Šimonović is continually regarded as a UN operative, seeking to control The Bahamas and Bahamians.

Religious beliefs and commitment to the protection of patriarchy certainly influenced the conversation, but so did fear. Are we so opposed to external influence that we willingly refuse to acknowledge — or outright reject — statements of obvious truth and recommendations of merit?  It seems as though nationalism as a principle and pride as a restrictive, selfish value prevent us from participating in the processes necessary for growth and advancement as a country. Fear of being dominated or losing ourselves convinces us to dig our heels deeper into the mire that is our current and persisting state. Are we so weak that we could be controlled by mere conversation and suggestions of non-Bahamians?

Bullied by Big Brother

The President of the United States reportedly referred to African nations, along with others such as Haiti and El Salvador, as “shithole countries.” A xenophobe and a racist, his sentiments were clear before this incident, but it demands a response. Governments, organizations, and individuals have rebuked his statement and made it clear that he is not welcome in their spaces. CARICOM condemned his statement, calling it “unenlightened” and “unacceptable.” Since then, the Caribbean People’s Declaration, with 200 signatories, deemed the U.S. president “persona non grata.” It declared that he is “not welcome in any territory of the Caribbean” and confirms that any visit will be protested by Caribbean people with “demonstrations designed to prevent President Donald Trump’s entry into any portion of the sovereign territory of our Caribbean region.”

The Bahamas has not made such a statement and, based on social media posts and comments, many believe our silence is necessary. What would it mean to be on the bad side of the U.S. and its president?

We need to spend more time thinking about ourselves in relation to our Caribbean counterparts. We have been comfortable with a self-aggrandizing narrative, seeing ourselves as superior to the people of other Caribbean nations. Our GDP inflates our egos. We are proud of our proximity to the U.S., pre-clearance, and ease of access to the tourist market. We argue about whether or not we are a part of the Caribbean, often failing to acknowledge the shared history that binds us. In our minds, there is more that separates us from the rest of the Caribbean than connecting us. Contrary to what many Caribbean people believe and often express, we know we are not American, but in many ways, we aspire to Americanness, and it is often our closeness to American values and ways of life that excites us. We do not want to jeopardize it. That said, when issues of rights and freedoms are raised, opponents are quick to accuse advocates of “bringing American issues here,” so we are only interested in certain parts of Americanness.

This commitment to being U.S.-adjacent — not just geographically — often keeps us silent. While Leader of the Opposition Philip “Brave” Davis criticized the lack of response from the current administration, Minister of Foreign Affairs Darren Henfield would only say The Bahamas is part of CARICOM and “we speak with one voice,” suggesting the CARICOM statement is sufficient. Whether or not we believe cowardice is necessary, this is certainly a shameful silence.

Neighborhood Watch

On Friday, January 5, the CARICOM Regional Commission on Marijuana held a town hall meeting to get a sense of the Bahamian public’s opinion on the decriminalization of marijuana. The announcement of this event was like a piercing, loud alarm for those against decriminalization. Without even fully understanding the purpose of the event, furious typing and fast-dialing into radio talk shows ensued. People warned against decriminalization and all manner of impending doom that would result. While there may be valid arguments against decriminalization or, more likely, issues to be considered, accusations against CARICOM were wholly unnecessary and completely inaccurate. Listening to the fearful and the conspiracy theorists among us without seeking accurate information, it would be easy to believe CARICOM is forcing legislative changes on The Bahamas.

That a conversation could scare us is more worrying than being shunned by the U.S., or the decriminalization of marijuana. That we are happy to accept frivolous, seemingly inconsequential imports like clothing and media, and determined to reject expertise or even the facilitation of information sessions is cause for concern. We do not have to accept everything — or anything — being offered. We can demand that Bahamians experts are called first. We can have differing points of view. What we cannot afford is to close ourselves off from the rest of the world, convinced that everyone wants to take something from us or force something upon us. There is nothing wrong with learning from other countries, receiving recommendations from international bodies, or standing in solidarity with sister countries in the face of fascism. These decisions are up to us. Our fight should not be for restricted access to knowledge, perspective, and dialogue, but for seats at the table and participatory governance. We need every engagement opportunity we can get.

/0 Comments/by