On the Upholding of the Law

by Nicolette Bethel

This week, I want to write about the upholding of the law.

Now, given the fact that we recently suffered a breakout and riot at Fox Hill Prison, you will be forgiven for thinking that this article is about that affair. And I hope you'll forgive me when I tell you it isn't. In fact, what I focus on in this article may strike you as a little trivial, given the magnitude of the recent lawlessness we've witnessed.

But I don't think it is.

What seeded this topic in my mind, you see, wasn't the riot, or the general indifference to petty crime all around us, or even the fact that even before January's over we've had several murders to keep our police from growing too bored.

What seeded it was the fact that one day recently my father-in-law came to me and said, "I see they took the right house down."

He was talking, of course, about the house that was supposed to have been demolished that day last February that my grandmother's house was bulldozed. I found that very interesting, because to take that house down -- even though it was the so-called "right" house -- was in complete contravention of the law.

Of several laws, in fact.

The first one is a law relating to antiquities. A number of houses in Nassau have been listed as being of specific historic importance to the national and cultural patrimony of The Bahamas. Most of them are in the downtown area, and most of them were owned by the great and the good of bygone days, but not all of them fall into that category. In fact, several of the houses along East Bay Street and Dowdeswell Street are the houses of simpler people, made out of wood, a good example of how more ordinary people lived. Many of them were built by their owners, not by forced or hired labour, and they provide us with all we have to tell us about the people who were here before us. Houses that are listed are prohibited by law from being demolished.

The second is a law relating to demolition in general. In order for a building to be demolished, application has to have been made to the Ministry of Works for a demolition order, and the order must be publicly displayed before the demolition takes place. This allows people to know that at some point this building will be coming down, and limits the chance that any human being who has taken to using the building as a shelter is accidentally injured or killed in the process. It also allows for people's homes not to be removed while they are at work, and it theoretically prohibits horrible mistakes -- like the one that happened to my grandmother's house -- being made.

I can hear you now: “So what? People do that all the time.”

And people do it all the time. In fact, there’s a culture of taking down buildings secretly. I know as well as you do that Sundays are the preferred days for taking down buildings secretly, because most of the world is in church, and the chances of getting caught are slim.

You know what we say. A crime is only a crime if you get caught. If you don’t, it’s smart action.

The problem is, in this case, it wouldn’t really matter if you did get caught. This crime is the kind of crime that a wealthy person can afford to commit. There are laws on the books against taking down historic buildings, but there aren’t any real penalties for contravening the laws. If you’re caught (and no one seems to be caught) you can be fined. You can also be fined for doing what most people do, and what some are forced to do by the high cost of building in this town – leaving the building there to rot on its own. But there’s no other penalty but that.

Sometimes it’s a better business proposition to take the risk and pay the price.

So Cascadilla on East Street, a building that once defined much of what is excellent about indigenous Bahamian architecture, is rotting where it stands. It can’t be torn down (except by decree of the government, which as we all well know is above the law), and it’s expensive to fix up. And so it’s dropping down.

And so the house on East Bay Street in which Miss Ivy Stuart-Kamler taught piano lessons to many of the people who later became piano teachers themselves was pulled down on a Sunday while nobody was looking.

And so my grandmother’s house, which was one of the last standing examples of middle class black families’ homes, was bulldozed last February.

And so on and on, despite the fact that there are laws against it. And nobody says a word.

And that brings me to the recent prison break and riot, at the risk of indulging in emotional fallacies. Because there are parallels that exist. I’m told (and this tale could be wrong) that the break-out could have been avoided, because at least one civilian knew about it before it happened. But because our culture has made it our business to turn a blind eye to activities that break the law until they affect us personally, those civilians kept their information to themselves.

The thing is, there’s a connection between white-collar crime and crime of collars of many colours. The connection isn’t in the magnitude of the action. There isn’t any real correlation, after all, between the murder of a prison officer and the demolition of a house. The connection lies within us. Each time we turn a blind eye to white-collar crimes which are committed in full knowledge of the law, it makes it much easier for us to ignore all the rest.

Comments

[larry Smith]

What house was it? And which gramma? And who did it? And what happened?

[kyle]

I think there is an underlying question you haven't asked. Why are these laws being flaunted so shamelessly? I would cringe in horror if told I had to wade through the bureaucracy required to demolish a building. Depending on the fine, it is probably more economical (and certainly faster) to pay it than to get the appropriate permits. Assuming you are caught, of course.

[larry Smith]

I agree. But I am curious about the other matters.

[nicob]

In answer to Larry:

The blue and white house on East Bay Street right across the road from Ministry of Agriculture/east of Alliance Francaise. 140 years old, and in the process of being restored. It was in bad shape cosmetically, but was structurally sound, having been made of ship's wood salvaged from the 1866 hurricane.

It was taken down by accident by a contractor who was carrying out a job assigned to him. The accident was a multiple accident. He was supposed to take the westernmost house down secretly, as later happened, on a Sunday. He took it down on a Friday morning, and I happened to see it happen.

In answer to kyle:

While I'm no fan of bureaucracy, in this particular case there is a reason for it. I don't really care how much cheaper it is to pay the fine; a piece of my personal history and of the country's patrimony was destroyed because somebody didn't follow procedure.

My problem isn't that people do it so much; my problem is that we keep silent about it and don't bother with catching offenders and making examples. Perhaps if we did, a) the process would become more streamlined and b) we would become a more responsible society.

I don't know yet who gave the order for the house to be taken down. I have dealt so far with a middle man, who is not an owner of anything. My family has never been contacted about the "accident" -- and it's been almost a year now. It may not have cost the people responsible anything, but my family out some serious money. The house can't be replaced; that wood is not gettable anymore. And we have received no compensation or apology whatsoever.

You'll forgive me if I can't agree with quibbles about permits.

[Christopher Lowe]

I agree with you 100%. Remember bicycle licences? When did you last see one? Erosion of the law starts with the little things and moves up the line, each level accepted giving free licence for the next. It is finished when people kill each other over petty wrongs. Are we there yet?

[larry smith]

well, can I do a piece on that? It sounds like a good trail. Who was responsible?

[drew Roberts]

I am of the opinion that we either need to enforce the laws or take them off of the books.

Leaving them on and not enforcing them CONSISTENTLY leads to a general disrespect of law. This is not good for society.

Enforcing them inconsistently is more akin to victimisation / persecution than law.

The list of laws that are broken openly on a daily basis is so long I think we wouldn't know where to begin.

all the best,

drew

(+1)/10 to email me

[Christopher Lowe]

Maybe we should compile a list of crimes observed being broken on a daily basis, from the smallest to the largest. Then publish. You better warn the paper cause you'll need a couple pages.

[nicob]

Drew, I agree with you. That's partly my point. At the very least we need to know what laws are on the books and discuss them, figure out if they are valid, if the penalties are fair, and so on. Or we can make adhering to them easier -- like the laws relating to demolition, etc.

Chris, it's always good to hear from you. Maybe we should start now.

Running red lights.

[Christopher Lowe]

Parking in handicapped space.
willfully bouncing checks.
motorbiking without helmet.
parking in no parking area
driving without seatbelt
unlicenced/uninsured/uninspected vehicles
noise ordinance violation
foul language in public
urinating in public
Liquor without licence
numbers
begging(without licence)

[drew Roberts]

Itend to be too radical in my thinking when it comes to things like this:

1. All laws should have an expiration date. (Say 10 years to begin the discussion.)

2. It is time for ignorance of the law to be an excuse.

3. The government must provide a department to answer a citizens questions as to whether something he wants to do is legal. If they tell him yes, they cannot fine him or jail hime, etc. for doing it and if they later find they were wrong and make him stop, they must refund him any monies spent as a result of their advice which will be wasted by having to stop.

4. We need to establish a "minor" prison system with a completely different set of "employees" and no one can ever work at the "minor" system who has ever worked at the big system. By "minor" I don't mean for non-adults, I mean for minor offences. (ask me why if you can't figure this one out.)

5. Penalties for breaking laws need to be at least doubled for government workers. (They need to set the example.)

6. If the government wants to get serious about enforcing any heretofore non-consistentlyt enforced law, they need to properly warn the public in advance before beginning and once they begin, they need to be consistent from then on.

I gotta stop. I have put down too much for one bite already.

all the best,

drew

(+1)/10 to email me

[nicob]

So I disagree with you on 1, 2 and 3, Drew, because the vast majority of the laws are pretty sensible and non-arguable, like those against violent crimes and so on, and because we already have a society that works in cycles that are too short for any real building up of anything positive to take place. On the other hand, if their expiration dates are set so they are reviewed say every two generations, then maybe there's some value in the idea. A fifty year expiry date doesn't sound so bad.

4, 5 and 6 have some merit, though I wonder why government workers only should be held to a higher standard, and not (say) lawyers, priests and politicians -- indeed, all upholders of moral fibre in the country (teachers, parents, and so on). Oh, wait, that seems only to leave businessmen.

I agree wholeheartedly that we need at least a two-tiered penal system, though I'd need to get clarification on what "minor" crimes consist of.

And I totally agree with (6).