Parliamentary Hearings on Crime Should be Broadcast on TV

by Craig Butler

Bahamians have many expectations that have been formulated due to our proximity to the United States as well as our British heritage.

The present government came to power a little over a year ago and promised to deliver many reforms. To be fair, during the campaign trail we told that their agenda was one that would take more than a five-year term would allow. That being said what has been achieved to date is appalling.

The major issue in the run up to the election was the national crime epidemic. The present government on a daily basis complained about the lack of focus and vision displayed by the then PLP government as it related to this vexing issue.

However, since assuming power I can’t recall the government propagating any plans of its own to bring some relief to the people. There was the amendment to the Juries Act, but that was politics because it failed to adequately address the needs of the judicial system.

On previous occasions I have outline what some of the defects are, but it bears repeating. The changing of the jury dynamic will not cure what are systemic problems namely inadequate facilities, personnel and funding.

We have seen the appointment of a few justices lately and I applaud that step forward. However, that in and of itself is not enough. To place these individuals in the same sorry place that the others occupy will have the effect of dampening their spirit. The failure to provide them with qualified law clerks will hamper the decision making process.

In addition, the failure to immediately assist the magistrate courts, where most of the volume occurs is also doing a grave disservice to the justice system. There probably needs to be a least another five positions created to have a real effect on expediting justice. Additionally, the role of night court needs to be expanded to include criminal matters.

But the thrust of this article was to be about the failure of the Speaker of the House and the government to allow for the broadcasting of hearings to be conducted by the parliamentary committee on crime, which is chaired by Dr. Bernard J. Nottage of the PLP.

I note that there was a civic committee set up by the Minister of National Security ‘Tommy’ Turnquest which is chaired by Rev Simeon Hall. This committee was to supply the government with suggestions on how to deal with crime.

However, it seems as though the committee and the Minister have had a disagreement of sorts, or maybe it’s just the vocal chair of that committee who is at odds with the Minister - I can’t be sure.

Whatever the reason, Rev. Hall has recently expressed his dismay publicly concerning the lack of progress made in the high profile murders of Harl Taylor and Dr. Thaddeus McDonald. This highlighted the lack of solutions being proffered by the government and caused additional scrutiny to be cast their way.

Recent history has shown us that crime is not an issue that is caused by, or can be attributed to, a single government, it is a national problem and needs to be addressed on that level.

That is why if there is a parliamentary committee with the power to look into the issue, their deliberations should be broadcast nationally. I understand that the Minister of National Security when objecting to the same in the House noted that the equipment was not in place and the costs were not accounted for.

Excuse me, but I thought that as part of the license to provide cable television in the Bahamas the cable company was mandated to provide free of charge a television channel that broadcast parliamentary proceedings.

And there are already persons employed by the government whose duty it is to conduct these affairs in parliament. It would seem that they only work when and if the House is in session, so unless their salaries are based on the number of hours worked then this part of the argument also fails to hold water.

As I stated from the beginning, we in this country have formulated our opinions based on what we see in big brother to the North. Many of us were glued to their television sets in the 1970s during the Watergate hearings, and the Iran-Contra Affair in the 1980s.

I personally always watch the confirmation hearings for US Supreme Court justices. I can remember Anita Hill coming to national prominence during the Clarence Thomas hearings and prior to that how Robert Bork was completely destroyed during his bid to be a justice due to his conservative views.

This was riveting, and allowed the common person to feel as though they were a part of the process.

Our system of government has not moved with the times as quickly as our American friends. The United Kingdom parliament was first broadcast on radio in 1978, the House of Lords went on television in 1985 and the House of Commons went in 1989.

To watch prime minister's question time when one lives in the United Kingdom is a must. So I can’t understand the position being adopted by the Speaker or the Minister in our case.

I would have hoped for open hearings on the issue that can be participated in by all. I would expect that there would be a list of experts called, but I would also expect that there would be a segment where the man on the street could come in and express himself.

So what about any of that causes an offence to the system? What about any of that is not of national importance? What could possibly be so confidential that the public does not have the right to see it?

The answer to these questions is, of course, nothing. The only possible answer is that a committee hearing broadcast on television would make the government look inadequate which is something that they are not prepared to allow.

So I say shame on the government and at the same time ask them please, in the interests of national security, rethink your position. If people feel a part of the process they may be more inclined not only to offer opinions but to become more involved in the active fight against crime.

This can only be a positive step as our intolerance to what has almost become the norm will get us involved in the fight rather than our continuing of our present state of detachment, which results in our cowering in our houses.

Comments

[C.Lowe]

You are right about cable Bahamas mandate, they have not been held to it.
If you notice, the British house proceedings show a well attended forum, with the cameras panning and scanning the various speakers.
Ours would not look this way, due to poor attendance, and in those who are present, a lack of basic manners and decorum.
I understand the smoking room, not used these days for obvious reasons, has been turned into a buffet room. Is this true?
Who foots the bill for the daily menu? who gets to eat it? Do they nibble in the house?
WE elect incompetent, misfeasant, and sometimes malfeasant representatives, and until we fix that, things will only get worse.

[Bill]

Hi Craig,

I have no problem with putting all of it on television. That would be a good thing- court TV as well as the parliamentary channel.

What would be nice however, is if we televise those luncheon's and conferences...that would fill in allot of the airtime.

Best,

Bill