The Tribune

EDITOR, The Tribune.

While the June 7, 2016 referendum has been framed as a “Gender Equality Referendum”, there is the real possibility that it will create further inequality by taking away from unwed mothers a citizenship passing right they have enjoyed for the past 42 years, while at the same time granting a new right to Bahamian men to pass citizenship to their children fathered out of wedlock with Bahamian and foreign women, at home and abroad.

The circumstances under which this tragic new inequality will occur is if Bill 1 fails and Bill 3 succeeds. Let me explain.

Article 14(1) of our Constitution states that in the case of children born out of wedlock, for citizenship purposes, any reference to father shall be construed as a reference to the mother of such children.

The result of Article 14(1) is that men who father children out of wedlock cannot pass citizenship to them under any circumstance, and rightly so.

Currently in our Constitution, there is only one Article that enables children born abroad to receive Bahamian citizenship at birth; that’s Article 8. In brief, Article 8 states that children born abroad are Bahamian at birth if their father is a Bahamian who himself was not born abroad.

And in Article 8, father means a married man. However, children born out of wedlock abroad obtain Bahamian citizenship through their unwed Bahamian mothers because, in accordance with Article 14(1), “father” in Article 8 is construed to mean mother in the case of children born out of wedlock.

Bill 1 seeks to amend Article 8 to allow for children born abroad to be Bahamian at birth if either parent is Bahamian by birth.

On the other hand, Bill 3 seeks to amend Article 14(1) so that, in the case of out of wedlock births, the meaning of “father” will be changed to mean a male who proves paternity as prescribed. Thus, if both Bills 1 and 3 succeed, the effect of the proposed amendments to Articles 8 and 14(1) will be that unwed mothers will no longer be able to pass citizenship to their children born abroad by standing in the place of “father”, but they will still be able to pass citizenship to them by virtue of the newly amended Article 8.

In addition, Bahamian men, single and married (i.e., those who father children by fornication or adultery), will be able to pass citizenship to their children fathered out of wedlock with Bahamian and foreign women, at home and abroad.

However, if Bill 1 fails and Bill 3 succeeds, unwed mothers will NOT be able to pass citizenship to their children born abroad because “father” in the un-amended Article 8 would no longer be construed as the unwed mother; instead, it would mean a male who satisfies paternity in accordance with the newly amended Article 14(1) that Bill 3 will bring into force.

Such a scenario (Bill 1 failing and Bill 3 succeeding) would turn the so-called “Gender Equality Referendum” on its head, because unwed mothers will lose the right to pass citizenship to their children born abroad, but single men (who father children with foreign women through fornication) and married men (who father children with foreign women through adultery) will gain a new constitutional right to pass citizenship to those children by proving paternity in accordance with the newly amended Article 14(1).

And more importantly, and in glaring contrast to the new citizenship passing rights that would be given to Bahamian men, if Bill 1 fails and Bill 3 succeeds, Bahamian women married to foreign men will still not be able to pass citizenship to their children who are born abroad. This is nothing short of a moral contradiction and a constitutional conundrum.

The fact that unwed mothers are facing the real risk of losing a citizenship passing right they have enjoyed for 42 years is a further and greater reason for all conscientious men and women to vote “no” to Bill 3.

PASTOR CEDRIC MOSS

Nassau,

May 21, 2016.