RT. HON. PERRY G. CHRISTIE MP
MARCH 11th, 2009

On behalf of the Progressive Liberal Party, on behalf of all decent and fair-minded Bahamians, and on my own behalf, both as Leader of the PLP and as a Bahamian who cherishes the legacy of our national heroes and those who fought to make Bahamians free,…

… I condemn in the strongest possible terms the nasty, disgusting and revolting attack that was perpetrated against the memory of the late Father of the Nation, the Rt. Honourable Sir Lynden Pindling, by John Marquis and the Tribune in Monday’s edition of the Tribune, and in today’s edition as well.

Mr. Marquis’s INSIGHT article represents a new low in Bahamian muckraking.  I hesitate to call it journalism because to do so would accord it a dignity that Mr. Marquis does not deserve.

Instead, it is the vilest, the most vicious, the most scurrilous, and, frankly, the sickest piece of garbage I have ever read.

It is a tissue of lies, fantasies and tall tales unworthy of inclusion in any serious, self-respecting newspaper such as the Tribune represents itself to be.

The fact of the matter is that, like it or not, and no matter what else one may think of him, Lynden Pindling is the Father of this nation.  That is not an opinion, it is fact.

It is also a fact that Lynden Pindling led the struggle – a peaceful, non-violent struggle, I should add - for Majority Rule.  That is not an opinion; it is a fact.

It is also a fact that Sir Lynden led the first Majority Government in the history of our nation.

It is also a fact that the educational and Bahamianization policies of Sir Lynden’s government facilitated the creation of a whole, new middle class…

… A whole new middle class of highly educated doctors and lawyers and engineers and civil service leaders and college professors and hoteliers and entrepreneurs and information technology specialists and a host of other professionals who together constitute the brain trust that drives our nation forward.

It was Pindling and his government that enabled and empowered Bahamians to assume that role and in numbers, moreover, that our fathers and mothers could only have dreamt of.

It is also a fact that the nation-building institutions that we take for granted today, like the College of The Bahamas,…

… like National Insurance, the Royal Bahamas Defence Force, ZNS Television, the Central Bank, the Bahamas Development Bank, the Bahamas Mortgage Corporation, Bahamasair and a host of others were created by Lynden Pindling and his government.

That is not an opinion, it is a fact.

These are all facts of which I speak.  And no John Marquis or anyone else can change them from being facts.

Now, does this mean that Sir Lynden’s achievements are so grand and great that he should somehow get a free pass and be rendered immune from criticism for his failures and shortcomings?  Of course not!

But what it does mean is that as Father of the Nation, as the leader of the struggle for freedom in The Bahamas,…

… As the man who presided over the creation of the most prosperous middle class in this region of the world, as the man who led the way in creating educational opportunities for black Bahamians,…

… it means that Sir Lynden is revered and deeply respected and remembered with fondness and yes, even gratitude by many, many thousands of Bahamians.

And because Sir Lynden, even in death – indeed especially now in death - is so regarded, it is important that the sensibilities of those who remember him in the way that I have just described be respected.

Criticizing a dead person is one thing but desecrating his memory is quite another.  Making a case against him is one thing but using lies and falsehoods and fables and doing it in a nasty, low-down way is quite another thing.

John Marquis can write what he likes - and I will defend his right to write what he likes because that is all a part of the freedoms we fought for - but as a writer, and even more so as a guest in this country, someone who is here not by entitlement but by a privilege accorded him, he really should know better than to come into someone else’s home and viciously assault the dignity and sensibilities of those who live here.

As to the article itself, I am convinced, by the way, that Mr. Marquis does not personally believe a single word he wrote.

It is shameful that he would exploit an ageing man who understandably still grieves over the loss of his son and who has clearly tried to resolve the mystery’s of his son’s disappearance by filling in the holes with all manner of speculation that has absolutely no foundation in fact.

Let me say, however, that I have nothing but sympathy for Mr. Tynes’ loss and the restlessness for answers that continues to exercise his imagination after all these years.

In reading Mr. Marquis’s article, however, it should be clear to anyone of even the slightest intellect that Mr. Tynes is dealing not in the currency of facts but in fantasy.

Certainly, the suggestion that Sir Lynden was somehow involved in his son’s disappearance is not supported by even so much as a shred of evidence.

There is nothing whatsoever to support it, as Mr. Marquis himself well knows.

I can only repeat how very sad it is too see a good gentleman’s grief exploited in the shameful way that Mr. Marquis has done.

The rest of the INSIGHT article is as full of falsehood and fantasy as the main line of the narrative that I have just dealt with.  Indeed some of it, frankly, is demonstrably false.

For example, there is a part of the article about the original plan for the Black Tuesday protest in 1965.

It says that the plan called for the Speaker of the House, the late Bobby Symonette, to be bodily thrown out of the House of Assembly instead of the mace and hourglass!

Mr. Marquis, quoting Mr. Tynes, says that this plan was even debated at the Council level of the PLP.

Well, did Mr. Marquis try to corroborate that story by speaking to any other members of the Council at the time?  Isn’t that what journalists are supposed to do?

He could, for example, have called the present Governor-General, the Hon. Arthur D. Hanna, or Sir Arthur Foulkes, or Sir Orville Turnquest, or Sir Clifford Darling, or the Hon. Paul Adderley, or any one of the scores of others who are still around and who were high-ranking council members of the PLP at the time and who could quite easily confirm that the story is complete nonsense; that there was never any plan to inflict violence upon anyone, least of all Bobby Symonette.

Indeed the historical record of exactly what took place on Black Tuesday demonstrates the great care that was taken in the planning of the whole protest to avoid violence of any kind.

I suspect, however, that Mr. Marquis did not bother to check that particular story because if it was revealed to be false - as indeed it is from start to finish - it would call into question Mr. Tynes’ credibility on everything else he had to say.  For Mr. Marquis and the Tribune, that simply would not do!  Far better then to just go with the falsehood and leave it at that.

Similarly, the story about Pindling holding secret meetings with Robert Mugabe "in the late 60’s" to learn "how to keep power in an outwardly democratic framework" is absolute nonsense.

To begin with, "in the late 60’s", Mr. Mugabe knew absolutely nothing about "how to keep power in an outwardly democratic society" because he had no power at all and Rhodesia (as Zimbabwe was then known) was anything but democratic.  It was instead a white minority ruled, apartheid-ridden country led by Ian Smith.

Robert Mugabe therefore could not have helped Pindling on that score.  Indeed he would not even have been accessible to Pindling because "in the late 60’s", Mugabe was either in jail as a political prisoner or in the bush fighting a guerrilla war.

Mr. Mugabe did not, in fact, come to power until the 1980’s by which time Pindling would have been in power for many years already. These are simple, well-known historical facts, so what in the world is John Marquis talking about?

Similarly, the story concerning Donald "Nine" Rolle - who again for Mr. Marquis is now conveniently dead – to the effect that he was dispatched by Pindling to assassinate Mr. Tynes is too foolish to be taken seriously, and yet Mr. Marquis retails this story as if it is supported by facts.  It is supported by nothing whatsoever.

The only thing Mr. Tynes says is that Nine tried to hire him as a taxi – from the airport no less in broad daylight and in plain sight – but that it was Nine’s intention to do him in on Pindling’s orders.  Based on what?  Neither Mr. Tynes nor Mr. Marquis offers any evidence.

The allegations of bribes or involvement with drugs was also not supported by any evidence in the article.

The most despicable part of the entire article, however, centres on the old, tired, worn-out and thoroughly false and offensive story about Pindling not being a Bahamian; that he was either a Haitian or a Jamaican; that he didn’t show up in The Bahamas until he was a youngster.

This is a fable that has been debunked so many times before - including in Professor Michael Craton’s definitive biography of Sir Lynden – that it is surprising that Mr. Marquis would try to bring it up again, courtesy of Mr. Tynes.

Anyone who reads what Mr. Marquis attributes to Mr. Tynes is left to wonder why in the world such rantings would be thought worthy of dissemination.  This is all nonsense, as Mr. Marquis well knows.

I will end as I began, by roundly condemning Mr. Marquis and the Tribune for publishing an article that most Bahamians would find, and have found, to be offensive in the extreme.

Mr. Marquis should be ashamed of himself for retailing the falsehoods and tall tales that litter his article from beginning to end.

If his object was to sell newspapers at the expense of the truth, he has grandly succeeded but if he thought that he could really turn the Bahamian people away from the respect they have for the memory of the greatest Bahamian of all times and the Father of the Bahamian Nation, he has miserably failed.  That memory will endure.