The PLP calls itself the “New” PLP to distinguish it from the much tarnished Pindling government that ruled for 25 years.
However, behind the veneer of what is called “new” much of the old can still be seen – the same old beliefs and hard-fisted reaction to anyone who dares disagree with them. Quite frankly, if it weren’t for Prime Minister Perry Christie, who does bring some sanity to the table, the Bahamas would by now have had a reincarnation of the Pindling regime. With but few exceptions, all the ingredients are there to take us backwards.
It is only Mr Christie who understands the problems and knows where and when to draw the line. This is not to say that the press does not upset Mr Christie. He wouldn’t be human if its criticisms didn’t get under his skin. But he knows that in a democracy a public figure cannot be protected from criticism. When he entered politics, he knew that criticism came with the territory. He also knew that to try to crush his critics with threats and intimidation was tantamount to – political suicide. And so it is Mr Christie, and Mr Christie alone, who stands between the press and some of his ministers who appear to be intent on committing political hari-kari.
It is amusing to read in this week’s Comment of the Week – found on Fred Mitchel1’s former website – that The Tribune’s managing editor John Marquis should be fired because, among other things, he is alleged to have called “the founding father of the country Lynden Pindling” a “petty crook.” Mr Marquis might have called Sir Lynden many things that were not of an angelic nature – as have we all – but he has never called him a “petty crook.”
There was a time – even as recent as August,1992 – that Mr Mitchell didn’t think too highly of Sir Lynden, particularly of his election law to curb free speech.
Those were the days before Mr Mitchell rejoined Sir Lynden and the PLP.
In August,1992, Mr Mitchell flew to Miami to challenge the Pindling government’s new election law by broadcasting his party’s 30 second advertisement from overseas. The new law made this illegal. The message asked all Bahamians in South Florida to urge their families in the Bahamas to support the opposition in that week’s general election. Mr Mitchell hoped to provoke his arrest so that he could challenge the PLP’s law on the basis that it was unconstitutional.
“This law is a treacherous law by Pindling,” said Mr Mitchell. “And no political joker is going to take away our right to free speech.”
However, on his former website this week we find another “Joker” trying to deny the right of free speech to a journalist: “John Marquis should be fired from The Tribune,” said the website commentator. “If The Tribune refuses to do it then the Minister of Immigration ought to oblige them the next time it comes for renewal of work permits.”
“We are determined to challenge this law, which is a blatant infringement of the right of free speech for Bahamians,” said Mr Mitchell in 1992 – one week before the FNM won the government. In view of this limitation of free speech to Bahamians would Mr Mitchell condone his government – in this age of globilisation – infringing the free speech of a journalist, just because he is a foreigner here on a work permit?
“The law is unfair, unconstitutional and the penalties are draconian,” Mr Mitchell complained in 1992. “We consider this law an affront to our right to express ourselves freely. It is also an unfair attempt to throttle the opposition to Pindling within the country.”
Isn’t this what some members of this government are now trying to do with The Tribune through Mr Marquis and his work permit?
PLP chairman Raynard Rigby in his statement last week that his government forced The Tribune to drop an election opinion telephone poll in 2003 because his party did not like what the callers were saying; shows just how young and politically inexperienced he is. Obviously, what he didn’t know when he made his naive remark- but he should certainly know by now – is that no one forces The Tribune to do anything.
The PLP has a history of trying to silence its opposition. Even Mr Mitchell, when he viewed the world from the seats of the Opposition, admitted that ZNS shut out opposition voices. He should know because at one time, when he sat in the PLP pew, he was a member of ZNS’ broadcasting team.
In 1992 he told The Tribune that at ZNS there was “systematic censorship and biased reporting against opposition figures.”
“The Bahamas,” he said, “is the only nation besides Communist Cuba in the Caribbean which does not allow free enterprise in broadcasting.” (Mr Mitchell should remember these words when he casts his vote at the UN on May 9 to decide whether Cuba should be a member of the UN Human Rights Council).
It was the FNM government, under Hubert Ingraham, that opened the airwaves and gave free speech back to Bahamians. This government, no matter what some of its members might think, will not snatch that away from us.
Editorial from The Tribune
