This evening it is my honour and privilege to welcome to our branch meeting my Rt. Honourable friend and the leader of the PLP Perry Christie.

This is really an evening that you requested to hear from him directly about the future plans for the party but I thought I would also take this opportunity before he comes to speak to say a few words about the current debate on the legacy of Sir Lynden O. Pindling in light of what would have been defamatory and libellous remarks made about him in The Tribune over the last week.

I start from that point because many people have asked why legal action has not been taken against The Tribune for the comments about Sir Lynden that are not only inaccurate but also libellous of Sir Lynden and of his parents.  The answer is a simple one and that is The Tribune knows that you cannot in law libel a dead man so there is no effective remedy in the courts against what they have done.  What has been done is they have been denounced by the party and its leadership, the inaccuracies pointed out and we move on.

But you should not be surprised at Eileen Carron and the hired gun at The Tribune.  Mrs. Carron is a very bitter woman.  She is almost 80 years old and as she approaches the end of her life, the bitterness increases over a number of matters.  One of them is the fact that during his lifetime, Sir Lynden Pindling defeated her and her father before her.  The difficulty she now faces is that she is trying before she leaves the earth to settle old scores.  She is trying to defeat him in death, to accomplish in his death what she could not do while he was alive.  It is sick, but that is the way it is.  Let us move on.  Let’s not get so carried away with it, and help her to propagate it by continuing to peddle it and to buy it.

It is also important to remember that all of this is a deliberate sideshow and distraction from the larger issues on the economy.  Let’s not spend too much time on this.  I am not even sure how many people read it.  I do not want to be a part of spreading it.  I want people to concentrate on removing the FNM and trying to fix this economy for our people.  That is the issue, not foolishness written by Eileen Carron.

The Leader of our party often says until lions have their authors, the tale of the hunt is always the story of the hunter.  This is simply another way of saying that if you want the story told as you remember it, then you had better write it down yourself and tell it the right way.  I have.  I have also told Hubert Ingraham, our Prime Minister that he had better hope that he outlives me because if I get to write the history on him, it will not be kind.

That is also another way of telling you, that the story of what happened in the past can be objectively told but it can also be told from a point of view.  That is what you would  expect from people who are FNM and are simply so outraged at their defeat by Sir Lynden that they simply can’t get a life and move on.  I say again, imagine how sick it is for a nearly 80 year old woman to still trying to fight a battle that was won by Sir Lynden forty two years ago.  No matter what they do, Sir Lynden led the country to majority rule in 1967.  He led the country to independence on 10th  July 1973.  Nothing they can say or do can change that fact.  Those two facts are immutable.  But you can expect them to try because, defeat is simply hard to accept.

The  same way she can try to rewrite history is the same way that we have a point of view about her.  I keep referring to Eileen Carron because I do not for a moment pay any attention to the hired gun they brought in from England.  He is simply a paid journalistic assassin and so you can expect nothing more from him.  There is another example of his taking the words of an old man in dementia and using that to spin fantastic and untrue stories for profit.  We made a mistake when we were in office by allowing him to remain in the country.  Pindling kicked him out.  We ought to have.  We did not.
 

You can imagine the extreme hate they both bear for me because what they say matters not one wit to me.  I am confident in who I am and nothing either one of them can say about me makes any difference to me.  I have my story to tell and I am not afraid to tell it.  I have at my disposal all the records and slowly but surely I will be sure that the other side is told.

There are many examples.

First,  you know that Mrs. Carron continues to claim that her father Etienne Dupuch was responsible for breaking down the barriers of official racial discrimination in The Bahamas.  This is a popular myth that  we have allowed to continue.  But other historians and politicians of the day have said otherwise.

The  record shows in Sir H. M. Taylor’s Memoirs, in Sir Clement T. Maynard’s Memoirs that Etienne Dupuch’s skill was to take advantage of an opportunity that had been presented and raised by the PLP.  H.M. Taylor, the party’s chairman had questions on the order paper on racial discrimination prior to the 1956 general election and intended to move a resolution, but Etienne Dupuch beat him to the deal and milked it for all the publicity he could get.

The rousing response he got the night the resolution was passed was because of the crowd of PLPs in the gallery of the House.  He had no crowd himself.  Further, even that act was dismissed by the late Sir Gerald Cash, a member of the committee on racial discrimination of the House who wrote that he could not support the report of the Dupuch Committee because it did not go far enough to ban racial discrimination in public places.

So if you are an historian you could argue a couple of things, that Etienne Dupuch stole the idea of  the resolution from the PLP, that he used the PLP to get a successful outcome, but that even the act that he did  was not the end of racial discrimination in The Bahamas.  Some would argue that it was a failure. I pronounce no opinion on it.  Imagine then how outraged Eileen Carron would be to hear that about her father’s reputation.

But like Sir Lynden, Etienne Dupuch is dead and so you can say anything about him because you cannot defame or libel him in law.  It does not even have to be true.  You can say anything without any legal consequence of any kind.

Then there is the story of the involvement of Etienne Dupuch, her father, in the consultancy agreement scandals that erupted just before the 1967 election that brought the PLP to power.  Please let there be no doubt because another man is around here peddling a book that seeks to say that the United Bahamian Party (UBP), the  Bay Street oligarchy that ran this country before 1967 was simply a benign set of businessmen looking out for the best interests of the country.  There was racial oppression and discrimination at the core of the UBP.  They were condemned for corruption and lost office because they were corrupt.  Nothing more, nothing less.  No amount of rewriting history can change that.

No further proof is needed than the Commission of Inquiry report into casino gambling in The Bahamas.  The report records what some have called the bribes paid to various government ministers by the Grand Bahama Port Authority to get a casino licence.  I use the word bribe deliberately but I pronounce no opinion on it.  They were called consultancy fees in the words of the report.

Etienne Dupuch, the then Editor of The Tribune accepted payments of $10,000 per year prior  to a consultancy agreement with the Grand Bahama Port Authority which paid at the rate of 500 pounds per month.  He wrote a letter to Stafford Sands, the then Minister of Finance and the lawyer for the Port to say that he was surprised to receive the cheques and did not want to take the money but because Stafford Sands insisted he would take it and apply it to charitable works.  The report points out the disingenuousness of that because, no matter on what terms you accept it, if you accept the $10,000, that is ten thousand that you did not have to go into your pocket to give to charity.  You received the benefit of it.

Interestingly enough, even Etienne Dupuch could not say that he was consulted on anything.  The Commission is clear that the aim of the payment was to keep The Tribune quiet on the issue of opposing casino gambling in the country.  The Commission said the payments accomplished their aim.  History gives you a good indication of what might be happening today.

So to put it in the other words, some would argue that this was a bribe to keep The Tribune’s editor quiet on casino gambling.  I pronounce no opinion on it.

Imagine then how incensed Eileen Carron would be to hear that about her father.  I pronounce no opinion on it.  But you can say anything you like about a dead man because, you cannot libel a dead man.  It can be untrue.  It can be the most vicious lies but you can say it anyway.  I also add that it is not possible for the dead man to fight back because he is dead.

There are other examples of how history can be seen from another perspective.  Ask them to explain the  issues relating to the adoption of her son by his grandfather Etienne Dupuch.  Some of the politicians of the day thought that this was a fraudulent attempt by Etienne  Dupuch to evade the provisions of  Bahamian law and the constitution on citizenship.

Ask Eileen Carron about the denial of their African heritage and the fact that her father supported the apartheid regime in South Africa, again accepting money by the South Africa foundation to use  his newspaper to promote the cause of apartheid in The Bahamas.  Some would argue money was his Achilles heel.

Ask Eileen Carron about the fact that her father was angry that the PLP under Sir Lynden refused to allow The Tribune to be sold to foreign buyers.  Today, they are still angry.  Even though they are angry, it was probably the best decision that the PLP made for them because today they are richer than they could ever imagine.  All of this wealth came because of the policies of Sir Lynden O. Pindling.  Nothing they can do or say can change that.

They should not be surprised then that Sir Lynden’s family and friends are outraged by this.  As indeed, she and the Tribune would be over any attacks against their daddy.

As for me, Eileen Carron’s editorial of 13th March ascribes certain motives and opinions to me that are all fiction.  She claims that I did not want to be at the Party’s news conference to condemn her and her paper; and that I looked “perplexed” and “troubled”.  I was at the press conference because I wanted to be there and fully supported the views espoused there.  I was there to support the Party and our leader as he spoke as a champion of all decent and fair-minded Bahamians; Bahamians as he said that “cherish the legacy of our national heroes and those who fought to make Bahamians free…”

What always interests me is their utter fascination with me and my public record as a means to spin their nefarious stories.  My record can provide no comfort for their ill-conceived designs.  They would do well to keep my name out of their mouths.

I was neither perplexed nor troubled about being there.  I was however amazed at The Tribune's treachery.  The Tribune was not even there so she is not in a position to say what happened.  To mischaracterize my views and opinions are again another example of shoddy and unethical journalism.

There is also an attempt to rewrite history by suggesting that the burning of the constitution by me, something that the FNM and Eileen Carron seem to have a fascination about, had something to do with Lynden Pindling.  It had nothing whatever to do with it.  My then political party decided to join me in a protest outside the Supreme Court because the then Justice of the Court Joaquim Gonsalves Sabola, a man about whom my views were very strong, reported me to the Bar Association because I criticized and denounced his views and actions as a Judge.  I told the then Chief Justice Telford Georges that if freedom of speech was to be sanctioned in the country then we may as well burn the document that provides the protection.  The act was entirely symbolic and called upon to do it again in the same circumstances, I would not change it.  Further, the story of sending the ashes to Lynden O. Pindling never arose and is a figment of Eileen Carron’s imagination.  Get the story right please.

I am always of two minds as to whether or not to waste time answering Eileen Carron because one suspects that she has such a limited audience for these illogical diatribes that she writes, infused as they are with the buzzwords of racial prejudice against people of African descent.  But I want my mind to record my reactions as soon as the issues appear.  You know the story. We must do the works of him that sent us while it is day because night comes when no man can work.  Before my night comes, I am going to say all I want to say.

The record will be there for the younger ones to read and to examine.

The final paragraph of her editorial of 13th March says the following: “What the party (PLP) has failed to take into account is that The Bahamas is no longer a nation of impressionable dumbheads who are willing to be bamboozled by politicians in sharp suits and fancy watches.”  This is objectionable racial stereotyping of the worst kind.  The message is clear that the people of The Bahamas were “dumbheads” because they voted for the PLP under Sir Lynden for 25 years.

Even though unprecedented prosperity was brought to The Tribune and the country generally as a result of it, none of that is redeeming because our leaders are only men in fancy suits and shiny watches.  Last week it was Sir Lynden O. Pindling.  Next week it could be Hubert Ingraham.  At one time, he was part of the men in shiny suits and fancy watches.  Presumably, he is now doing her bidding so all is well now.

Eileen Carron and The Tribune owe this country an apology for all that they wrote on the subject of Lynden O. Pindling and the PLP last week.  I won’t hold my breath.

One day though, I will be able to tell the story of what she in her private moment told me about Hubert Ingraham.  Now that will be a real story.

Finally, let me say that the real concern about this disgraceful attack on the memory of the founding father of our nation though, is not so much Eileen Carron and the Tribune’s unrepentant views.  She is, of course, entitled to her views.  No, the real concern is the institution of the Tribune, which fails to understand that in a small country like this it is often necessary to let bygones be just that; bygones.

Many of the leaders of this society have shown their willingness in this direction and I support that.  What Mrs. Carron and the Tribune may accomplish, however, with this bungled attempt to get at Sir Lynden and his memory in the grave, is to revive a whole set of social issues that most of us thought had been solved in the 1960s and the 1970s.   The society needs to move on.

For now, I simply urge all PLPs to remain strong.  We are on the good side of the Force, the right side of history.  Eileen Carron and The Tribune represent the Forces of darkness, the dark side of the Force.  The Force is strong with us. We shall overcome.   May the good Force continue to be with you all.

Thank you.