First published in The Tribune on Friday, July 27, 2007 under the byline, Young Man's View.
More on Urban Renewal
The introduction of the Urban Renewal (UR) programme by the former administration (PLP) has not caused any awe-inspiring turn-around, in terms of crime, in the urban/ghetto areas of New Providence.
However, I do admit that the UR programme was a commendable attempt by the former administration to assist in the socialization of children in urban neighborhoods by providing them with constructive outlets to utilize their energy. It is probable that the programme did have a positive effect on the psyche of many residents in these crime riddled neighborhoods, who may have felt a tinge bit more comfortable knowing that the police was only a stones throw away.
But, did UR curb or have some dramatic effect on inner city crime? I really don't think so.
Should UR be abandoned? Well, I believe that the idea of Urban Renewal can be modified and changed in some ways, more specifically to suit the needs of individual neighborhoods and also to add a strong crime prevention/detection component to it.
A priest, who also teaches and interacts with youngsters, recently told me: “Murder in our country has to do with life-style choices, that's why the decision to shut down Urban Renewal without a 'review' is so short sighted. Crime will cease or be reduced when we transform people and their environments.” I couldn’t agree with him more!
Urban Renewal, in my opinion, should not be a subject for political football. I am certain that residents of underprivileged and perilous neighborhoods, where there seems to be an infestation of ruthless criminals, could care less about who had the idea first or which government is better at this or that!
Undoubtedly, both the FNM and PLP are cognizant of the plight that many residents of these poor districts are facing, as many are daily crying out for help—help in the fight against lawlessness, social services assistance, help in their search for jobs, genuine help! Or, is it that politicians are thinking of these people like potcakes, being only concerned about their interests every five years when they (politicians) need their votes?
The police must to return to the days when the force carried out operations that, my father (a former police man), told me that they did in times past, i.e. loading buses with troupes of armed officers who traverse these neighborhoods, randomly searching and arresting any suspicious characters and executing the law in a direct, no-tolerance manner. Since the retirement of former Police Commissioner BK Bonamy, the police force seems to gone soft. It is high time that bus loads of police officers return to patrolling and walking about these neighborhoods, unquestionably leaving an imprint of their presence in the minds of would-be criminals and certainly compelling them to think twice or thrice about any intended act.
Politicians should immediately cease with politicizing the blight (crime) that is now staining our social fabric, get off of their high horses, and propose actual ideas that would truly address the social predicament that we must meet head-on!
Let’s separate church and state!
I am not one to often agree with my good ole second cousin Raynard Rigby, but last week he had a valid point when he seemed to have suggested that the church should foster healing, particularly after an intense election campaign.
Bahamas Christian Council president John Humes, in my opinion, was out of line with his recent comments about politics, the PLP’s election court fight and so on. While I believe that in some PLP quarters there is a hope that the legal action being taken would inflame supporters and undermine a new government, admittedly, they legitimately have a right to question any disputable result before the election courts, where final resolution will be brought.
It is not my opinion that the church should be voiceless, however, considering the Bishop’s position, although some of his comments about the status of our society were appropriate and timely, someone serving in his role should be the portrait of impartiality and abstain from statements that could be interpreted as seeming partisan. I am a staunch proponent of the notion that the church and state should remain two separate entities. However, in the Bahamas, that wall separating church and state seems to be non existent.
I question whether Bishop Humes spoke to the church community before making his comments. Frankly, it seems that the Bishop was using the platform (talk show) to also make a name for himself. Bishop Humes, as the man who stands as the figure head of the Christian church in the Bahamas, has lost some credibility and, in my opinion, the criticism of him is more than justified.
In January 1802, former American president Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptists, who complained in a letter that in their state (Connecticut) religious liberties were considered to be “favors granted”, rather than unchangeable, democratic rights. In his famous response, Jefferson addressed religion on a national level and implied that there should be a "wall of separation between church and state."
While our religious history is closely linked to the Anglican Church (Church of England), we should seek to adopt a similar position as Thomas Jefferson so clearly enunciated in his letter. The church should never become directly involved in political partisanship, however, as fellow writer Rick Lowe said, it is acceptable for leaders to discuss “matters of ethics where Parliamentarians and politicians are concerned etc”.
In many instances, the church fails to address the ethical lapses and scandalous escapades of high-ranking public officials. Frankly, this may be because many church leaders are themselves in a search of their own moral compasses! I applaud Bahamas Faith Ministries pastor Dr Myles Munroe for stepping up, in a recent Independence address, and chiding politicians for their licentious lifestyle choices. Dr Munroe was the first church leader, in some time, that had the gravitas and the moral fortitude to publicly undress politicians—and he did so to their face!
Where are the other churchmen, who are hardly ever heard on such issues, as in some instances they are themselves too busy with their own promiscuity?
One strong point for Bishop Humes is that he is more vocal than the previous Council president (William Thompson), who said little to nothing when, among other indiscretions, two PLP MPs were involved in a fight, when a former Cabinet minister was accused of rape and when photos of another married, disgraced former Cabinet minister embracing and being too friendly with a soft core porn star was internationally published.
To be completely fair, it is conspicuous that while Mr Rigby has come out reeling against Humes, he failed to say the same when so-called ministers with a PLP bent spoke out on political matters, typically being blatantly partisan, for e.g. Neil Ellis and Ross Davis. Mr Rigby was tight-lipped when it was reported that one of these "ministers" told members of his congregation, that held had dissimilar political views to him to "haul hip".
In a piece published in yesterday’s Tribune, Rick Lowe said: “The church and all citizens should be able to speak their minds with regard to keeping our political directorate in check as guaranteed by our Constitution.”
While Mr Lowe’s comments are true, church leaders in this politically tense atmosphere must also be sure to present a balanced perspective of current affairs, so as not to jeopardize the church’s credibility and standing as the nation’s moral compass. Yes, it is true that much of what Bishop Humes had to say dealt with serious matters of the state, however, it can also be inferred that some of his comments appeared to be partisan. The church must be seen as the realm of tolerance and forgiveness!
