The Tribune

THERE was much to talk about The Bahamas’ future this weekend as friends got together to bring in the New Year. As they anticipated an uncertain forecast they were obviously concerned for this little country, caught in the crossfire of the world’s conflicts, with not much hope of settling their own.

Of course, crime was of grim concern – just three days into the New Year and already there have been two murders with several persons in hospital from gunshot wounds, all in various stages of recovery. The Prime Minister’s determination to push ahead with the National Health Insurance plan, regardless – with a crucial election on the horizon – they saw as his last “all-or-nothing” gamble to win the 2017 election.

Mr Christie has announced that officials have already drafted application forms to launch the health scheme and are preparing to distribute them nationwide. We hope he is not expecting businesses —especially those with good insurance coverage for their staff — to sign on blindly for something that will strip them of their present benefits, anticipating that they will settle for less.

Bahamians, he said, have to buy into the plan and believe that it can, over time, address their health needs “comprehensively and efficiently”.

That is asking much, especially after inviting Bahamians in the 2012 election to buy into their promise of reducing crime, only to find that after three terms in office, murder has broken all records, closing the year with 149 dead.

“Healthcare, what we are doing here will only succeed once people are participating and people will only take part if they know and understand how important this is to them and so no matter the cost, it is important that our people are informed about this process and see the positives it can present in time,” said Mr Christie.

“No matter the cost!” What prudent person would launch such a scheme with so many unknown factors without concern for the cost? With all the other negatives going on to depress the economy, this particular cost could sink us, leaving Bahamians with not even a limb to hang on to from the NHI tree.

On our web site – tribune242 – The Tribune was even criticised for illustrating our Boxing Day Junkanoo parade article with a photo from our Carnival file.

“Is that a Junkanoo pic or a carnival pic on this article? If it’s from carnival it really should be changed. We have a rich history of beautiful Junkanoo costumes that could be showcased,” said one disgruntled reader. Others made similar comments.

We assure our readers that that photo was taken of the Junkanoo parade on Boxing Day and put up on our web site a few hours later.

And so if anyone thinks that Junkanoo is moving too far into Carnival, don’t blame The Tribune — let your voice be heard elsewhere.

But causing the most concern was the unease of both Bahamians and foreign residents who have made these islands home. They are upset by Immigration Minister Fred Mitchell’s comment on the ruling of a Supreme Court judge.

“We no longer feel safe here,” said one resident. “Just look at what happened in Africa — look how it started and where it has ended.”

With a country now in economic depression, rising unemployment, a desperate need for investment, the last thing anyone would want are non-Bahamians believing they are neither welcome nor safe. But, according to that conversation that is where we are headed.

According to Mr Mitchell, he found the Supreme Court judge’s ruling that a Canadian was unlawfully deported from the Bahamas a “challenge to the authority of immigration”.

Has anyone heard of such hair-raising blasphemy? Are we under the rule of law, or Fred Mitchell’s Immigration rules? If in the whole scheme of government any department needs the hot air of the law breathing down its bureaucratic neck, it is Immigration — especially in the hands of Mr Mitchell.

“Dictatorship here we come,” was the comment of one reader to tribune242. “No foreign investors will touch us,” he commented. “Thousands more Bahamians will be out of work.”

According to Mr Mitchell, the Immigration Department has an “unfettered right to determine who is landed and is excluded from The Bahamas, subject to law”.

Subject to what law? Is Mr Mitchell to have the final say on what the law is when a dispute arises without any reference to the courts?

Mr Mitchell said that in the face of the judge’s ruling, and if the reasons behind her ruling apply “beyond the instant case,” his ministry is now “forced to consider our options”.

The Immigration Department over the years has been used by politicians — especially during the Pindling era — to quietly and behind the scenes out of public view destroy people’s private lives and their businesses. If there is one department that needs the courts to force fairness and the respect for human rights it is the Immigration Department. Over the years that single department has done too much harm to too many people, and created too many divisions in our country.

At one time, Mr Mitchell was an enthusiastic follower of Sir Lynden Pindling, whose position as prime minister he saw as a future position for himself.

But eventually there was a parting of the ways and Mr Mitchell moved on to form his own party.

On December 20, 1989, a copy of the Bahamas Constitution was set on fire under the tree in front of the Supreme Court building. It was set alight by Mr Mitchell and the small membership of his People’s Democratic Force. It was in protest of the disciplinary action proposed by the Bahamas Bar Council against its leader, lawyer Fred Mitchell.

The following year, Sir Lynden deeply involved in the Marco City by election was told by Mr Mitchell to come back to Nassau to do the job for which he was being handsomely paid. Mr Mitchell also gave him a lecture on tradition and law.

Sir Lynden Pindling replied by pointing out that those who burn the constitution one day, would bury the people another day.

“They respect neither tradition nor the law and should be exposed for the dictatorial tendencies they secretly harbour,” he said.

It has been seldom over the years that we have agreed with Sir Lynden, but this time we must admit that we are in full agreement.