Old threads are killing this forum! LOL.........


Hmmm....must be a slow day

:friday:
Just be ready for all out war on the roads of Nassau, that how people drive here! Best time to drive is like 5am in the AM, noone on the streets :-)

This helpful driving hint brought to you today by the Department of Redundancy Department. :)

all the best,

drew

Hoping to get someone elses money/property is not necessarily greed. When you work for someone your aim is to get their property. I hope then to never hear of you playing the stock market cause it is the same.
Again- Freedom is a must!

Gambling is a zero sum game for the players.

Gambling with a house is a negative sum game for the players.

The stock market can be a positive sum game for the players.

I stand to be corrected on the above.

You might be able to make an argument that this makes a difference that counts.

all the best,

drew

Old threads are killing this forum! LOL.........
:hammer:

I wouldnt be so fast as to label the gambling legislation as unconstitutional. I would say it might be unconstitutional, but I'm not a court of law. It's for the Supreme Court (or Court of Appeal) to decide on its constitutionality (Art 28 Bah Const.). For example, in public law there is a presumption of constitutionality, so from jump the law presupposes the validity of properly passed Acts of Parliament. But assuming someone whose right against discrimination is or may be violated under Art 26 the applicant has to prove that the Act is discriminatory. It can be argued that the Act treats Bahamians differently from non-Bahamians. But even before we rush to the conclusion that it's then discriminatory we have to ask 'why does it do so?'
The major line of defence that can be used to save the Act is whether some public interest ground saves the Act such as public morality, or public order or public safety. Maybe public morality, but is gambling immoral? And is the passage of an Act of Parliament commensurate with the aim of curbing the tide of gambling in The Bahamas? Or could it be said that the Act is not reasonably justified in a democratic society? I would say that the Act is not reasonably justified in a democratic society.
Many if not most Bahamians play numbers therefore basing ourselves on principles of reasonableness, proportionality, rationality and democracy, the Act is on those grounds not in the public interest but defeats the public interest. All the money spent by Bahamian gamblers could stay in the country. Using this reasoning process the court will most likely be led to the conclusion that the Act is unconstitutional.
~The rastaman vibration is positive.~