The Tribune

The current Speaker of the House, Halson Moultrie, came to his post without the benefit of experience of Parliament.

By his own confession last year, he said he lacked experience and that there were parliamentary rules unknown to him. He has also attracted criticism for his lack of experience – such as when former Deputy Prime Minister warned that he “has to remain neutral while carrying out his duties” after Mr Moultrie somehow contrived to think it appropriate to take a swipe at the foreign-born status of the PLP leader’s wife.

Mr Moultrie has also found himself embroiled in controversies after ordering a reporter to hand over a phone, after criticising the media, for suggesting China should develop the south-east Bahamas, and with his comments on marital rape. To say he has had his share of unnecessary controversies would be an understatement.

But the first-time Speaker is at it again. Mr Moultrie told the House of Assembly that he had reviewed the penal code to see if something could be done regarding obscene language in social media videos, which he said was “eroding” the country’s moral fabric.

We’re not sure what part of being an impartial Speaker escapes Mr Moultrie, but this is fairly simple – if he proposes laws or uses of the penal code, then how can he be an arbiter of fair debate if the matter is further raised in the House?

If, for example, a member of the Opposition raises concerns about freedom of speech on the matter, can they rely on the Speaker to allow their contribution or will he push the agenda he raised instead?

There is of course a creeping feeling of Mr Moultrie wishing to curtail expression he disagrees with – while not feeling constrained by the need for appropriate language himself. This, after all, is the same speaker who said that PLP leader Philip ‘Brave’ Davis was relying on the advice of “reprobates” and “perverts”. And when he complained about “fake news”, the examples he quoted to Parliament were, surprise surprise, mostly about himself.

There can only be so much of this that is a lack of experience – a lay person knows the importance of an impartial Speaker, so a man in the role ought to.

There are only so many gaffes a man in his position can make before his role becomes untenable – his job is to enable debate on other subjects, not to be a subject of debate himself. He should listen to the criticism that has come his way – especially on this latest matter which strikes to the heart of the role he is supposed to be carrying out. Just because the criticism is coming from someone on the opposite side doesn’t mean they are wrong – and of course as a Speaker, you shouldn’t see opposite sides.

We suggest you focus on your job, Mr Speaker, and not on the swearing on Facebook and Whatsapp. And after this, we imagine social media users might have a few choice words for you themselves.

The sadness of the HeadKnowles split

It is profoundly sad to see the split that has taken place in the HeadKnowles group, with the division between co-founders Gina Knowles and Lia Head-Rigby now having reached the point of a lawsuit.

HeadKnowles became a byword for citizen activism in recent years, a reputation built firstly on the group’s assistance after Hurricane Joaquin and subsequently through other actions, including helping to search for the body of Byron Ferguson after the pilot’s plane crashed into the sea.

The relief effort for Hurricane Dorian, which raised nearly $1.5m in donations on GoFundMe, cracked the bond between the founders and now has led to the courts amid complaints of money not being where it should be.

GoFundMe themselves, the donations website, has stepped forward to offer more than $200,000 to the HeadKnowles Foundation, now shorn of Mrs Head-Rigby since her split from the charity in September. That’s a positive sign for the ongoing foundation.

But at heart, we are saddened to see a once thriving partnership end in such a way. It casts a shadow over the fundraising efforts that we hope can be lifted through continued good work – and it also causes concern for other citizen activist groups that might start up.

The many volunteers and donors who pitched in over the years for HeadKnowles have done remarkable work and we hope that is not forgotten in the fallout of this lawsuit. More, we hope that HeadKnowles can go on to achieve more, building on the strength of the partnerships they have forged. We suspect a name change might well be needed – but that should be more than just reinforcing a split, rather a chance for a clean slate to continue the good work.

It’s a shame it has come to this – but it would be a bigger shame if this was the end of it all.