The Tribune

YESTERDAY afternoon, the PLP issued a statement condemning an attack earlier in the day on an elderly lady — a PLP supporter in the Farm Road constituency — “allegedly by male supporters of the Free National Movement.”

“The Progressive Liberal Party,” said the press statement, “strongly condemns this act and any other acts of violence.”

So do we all, but we could not help but wonder if this statement was to counteract a simulated act of violence earlier the same day, perpetrated by PLP supporters against the FNM. In this case there is photographic evidence to show that the incident – with all its depraved implications — in fact did take place.

Violence, no matter which side commits it, cannot be condoned under any circumstances.

But for a party that claims to have all the answers to solve crime — if only given a second chance — the manner in which this “violence” against an opponent was planned, photographed and shared on their website with the public is frightening. Frightening because it shows a depraved mindset of a group of people who seem to find such criminal behaviour amusing. The photograph shows PLP supporters, dressed in yellow tee-shirts, waving placards of Golden Gates MP Shane Gibson, while their mates position a red-shirted effigy of an FNM supporter in a spread-eagle position in the middle of the road, with a car, festooned with PLP flags, driving over it. Behind the lead car, several other cars — all with PLP flags — follow.

They were so pleased with themselves — and many other persons must also have been pleased with them — because it is unlikely that those shown in the photograph with the effigy under the car would have been capable of putting their photographs on the party’s website. So there are many PLP supporters involved in this macabre episode.

However, their exploit backfired. As soon as the photos were posted on the Facebook page of the PLP’s Golden Gates branch, many Bahamians expressed their disgust.

The photos were quickly pulled, but not before they were taken from the page and widely distributed to the general public. One of them appears on today’s front page of The Tribune.

“Clearly the entire event shows planning,” said a disgusted Bahamian, who sent us an e-mail of his views. “The perpetrators had to create an effigy inclusive of clothing. Then someone put it on the Golden Gates Facebook page, seemingly oblivious to how offensive it would be. This shows a certain mindset. Clearly somebody was alarmed enough to take it down, but not before it was captured and went viral.”

“The response by Christie will be revealing,” the e-mail continued. “He should disavow in the strongest possible language. Equivocation or failure to do so, and unambiguously, will send a signal.

“For such an incident to occur on a generally peaceful nomination day is a sad commentary of the mindset of some. In a climate of high crime, such acts are intolerable. They must be roundly condemned.”

If Mr Christie has the answers to rid this country of crime, we advise that he starts working on his own supporters to show that in fact he has the power and expertise to do what he says.

Undoubtedly, the FNM has some of the same types within its own ranks, but we hope that whoever they are they now understand that this display of ignorance only hurts their own party.

The only difference between the leaders of the two parties is that Mr Christie assures us that he has the formula to end crime — something that he did not seem to possess when he was in fact in a position to do so.

On the other hand, Mr Ingraham has made no such proud boast. However, he has done his best — even to changing the law to keep criminals behind bars. He has done far more in his five years to curb crime than Mr Christie could even dream of doing.

And so the difference between the two men – one a prime minister, the other a former prime minister – is that one leader talks, while the other acts and gets the job done.