The Tribune

EDITOR, The Tribune.

During the course of the final reading of the gender bills, the Member for Marathon sought to discredit the opinion of the Member for Marco City by producing an opinion provided by a leading QC from the United Kingdom.

There was displayed a certain arrogance by seemingly suggesting that the QC’s opinion was the definitive view relating to the issue raised by the Member for Marco City and that any other view was of little worth. Perhaps the Member for Marathon was overly impressed by the number of letters which, no doubt, followed QC, but such a view fails to address the fact that in law there is little that can be accepted with mathematical certainty. If it were otherwise, then courts wouldn’t be overflowing with civil proceedings and indeed opposing counsel would see little value in opposing the infallible QC in court.

Whether we like it or not, a significant portion of the Bahamian public have voiced strong opposition to same-sex marriages, and Government must take this fact into account when determining the effect of Bill #4 and the possible adverse effect that its failure would have on the other bills. The Government must appreciate and understand that a significant portion of the Bahamian public do not accept the opinion of the learned QC and in the circumstances, it might well have been in the interest of the Government and any persons of whatever political persuasion who wish these Bills to be accepted by the public, to have addressed the suggestion by the Member for Marco City and faced that issue head on.

The refusal by the Government to make an amendment, as was suggested in many quarters from the outset, leads many to believe that the Government has a hidden agenda. Without an amendment, one is left with the opinion of the learned QC to rely on and Government’s appeal to “TRUST ME”. With the track record however of the Government, commencing with the numerous promises made prior to the last election and since their coming to office in 2012, it would be difficult for anyone, apart from the faithful few, to trust this Government.

Let us also not forget that the Constitutional Committee itself recommended an additional paragraph be added to clause 26(4) of the Constitution along the following lines:

“Paragraph 1 of this Article shall not apply to any law so far as that law makes provision –

(f) for prohibiting same-sex marriage or rendering the same void or unlawful.”

The inclusion of a provision along those lines would have placed the issue beyond reproach so that any concerns which citizens may have had regarding same sex marriages would be eliminated and those who were concerned that Government may have a hidden agenda would feel able to trust the Government in that regard.

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Committee and the support of many in the community, the Government chose to ignore the proposal. Many are questioning why. Many in the community, including the member for Marco City together with leading Members of the Bahamas Bench and Bar are also of the view that as presently proposed, the issue of same sex marriages would in all likelihood face a challenge in our courts in short order and the Bahamian public are, even in those circumstances, expected to rely on the opinion of a learned QC without question and Government’s plea to “TRUST ME”.

Many citizens continue to grapple with the court’s interpretation of the law with regard to hanging. At one time someone convicted of murder would face a real prospect of being hanged on being convicted of the offence, and then the courts determined that only in the instance of the most “serious cases” and ultimately only in the “worst of the worst” cases. We were then left to grapple with what the courts interpreted as the worst of the worst and when the Privy Council determined that it was not the worst of the worst when a young woman was dragged from her home, beaten to death, run over with a vehicle, and her body burnt and thrown into an open grave, many lost faith in the system.

In those circumstances, you can appreciate persons’ reluctance to accept the Government’s opinion as a matter of blind faith. Let us also not forget that when a lawyer is asked for an opinion on a matter the first question is always “which party are we representing”?

It is issues such as these that leave the public questioning the reasoning of the courts and there is no doubt a spill-over effect resulting from the public’s loss of faith in the judicial system as a result of its position on hanging and it could well have been in the interest of the Government and the proponents of the Bills to make an amendment along the lines of that proposed by the Constitutional Commission and their failure to do so could well result not only in the failure of Bill #4, but the effect of its failure could, in all likelihood, contaminate the entire process.

RICHARD LIGHTBOURN, MP,

Montagu Constituency,

March 11, 2016.