Lincoln, one other thing...you said:

"PS
By law bahamians are not allowed to own a casino property. However Sol did not meet his quota so he made up for it by getting the money from bahamians by offering them shares in the casino property- I thought that was illegal! Oh I forgot the Laws are only for us and are to be twisted when ever necessary to profit the others.
again I say WAKE UP!"

Lincoln, you are still misunderstanding our laws about gambling. The government's decision to approve the purchase of Kerzner shares by Bahamians is within their authority to do. Remember: Article 26-(4)(e) of the Bahamas constitution allows laws to be made that restrict Bahamians in "the carrying on of gambling in any of its forms" and discrimination CANNOT be cited. Obviously, by this Article the government also has the power if it so chooses to allow Bahamians to outrightly own casinos and to gamble in them so it can't be illegal when they approve the Kerzner share purchase.

You can call this unfair (an opinion you are entitled to) but you cannot correctly call it illegal because it simply is not. So Lincoln, to use your own words, I think you're the one who has to wake up on this.


Cedric, I always believed Jesus came to set us free from bondage and the law of man to a more devine law which is whole. You are a religious figure yet u support the un-right-eousness in the law which man made and fail to see the double standard that is going on. The point is that even if something is law does not make it right. This law is illegal because laws support equal rights and opportunity for all bahamains. A law with such essential flaws are illegal. a person who responds yes and no to the same question is in my opinoin confused and needs to make a decision. truly to say yes and no the same time to the same question re gambling is no answer at all. As a person of the cloth being right should be of more importance than being within the law. Clearly u feel gambling is not of God but you have not given scriptures to support your claim. right now the obvious truth is that the law itself is flawed and has to be changed.

Lincoln, you are still misunderstanding our laws about gambling. The government's decision to approve the purchase of Kerzner shares by Bahamians is within their authority to do. Remember: Article 26-(4)(e) of the Bahamas constitution allows laws to be made that restrict Bahamians in "the carrying on of gambling in any of its forms" and discrimination CANNOT be cited. Obviously, by this Article the government also has the power if it so chooses to allow Bahamians to outrightly own casinos and to gamble in them so it can't be illegal when they approve the Kerzner share purchase.

You are speaking with a double tongue. First you said that for bahamians to gamble they need to convince the PLP to change the Law. Now you are saying that the PLP has the authority to allow It at will. Which is it. Why Didn't you just say earlier that we should just paint our skins white and go ask for permission to gamble as the government already has the power to do so.
Hey, I understand you have a problem with gambling but you should be using the law to see how you can help free black people not enslave them. The LAW MONGERS in the government who are on the pay roll of the rich love people like you. you are like the preachers who argued the legality of slavery, segregation and eugenics (the most horrific thing to befall the black race that is still happening today.)
Although it may sound that way to a novice, this is not about black and white to me. there is so much more happening than that. Though I am a proud nigger, I take more pride in the fact that the true me is colorless.
thanks for the conversation friend

it has nothing to do with color, im a white bahamian, and i am subject to the same laws as every bahamian, no matter what 'mark madson' said previously. If i thought for an instance that color played a part in it Id be the first there gambling in the casino with a hidden camera for all to see and then we could decide what to do, but it is not like that. Yes I 'may' be able to 'blend in' as a tourist, or use to be able to (no more), but that doesnt mean I can simply walk in the casino and gamble as I am still a Bahamian and if it is found out, I would be arrested just as quick as any other Bahamian.

That white night thing of the past does not exist anymore, we are all equal, and there are poor white Bahamians also, i am proof of that!! Sure there are still plenty of rich white Bahamians, but there are more rich black bahamians now. Who really cares who has what, we arent the ones with the money anyway, at least not me, all i see is green (well US$ anyway)!

I personally dont care about the casino itself, though would be nice once in a while to be able to go in there and throw a quarter in the machines. Id rather see a lottery, for not just personal pleasure, but it will also help the local economy financially.

Lincoln:

I never cease to be amazed with how impressed you seem to be with yourself and the knowledge you think you have about the law. Bahamas Issues is an interesting place to discuss issues because people tend to say ridiculous things they would not dream of saying in public. Why don’t you make your case in public (newspapers, talk shows…I can get you on a talk show)? Lincoln, you and I know that you are just venting and while you will boldly say that gambling laws are not fair on this site (something no sane person denies) you have more sense that to come in public citing Article 15 of the constitution as the basis of your right to gamble or saying that Article 26-(4)(e) does not authorize the government to pass laws restricting Bahamians in "the carrying on of gambling in any of its forms" while permitting non-Bahamians.

Lincoln my friend, you are so wrong that it would be funny if you were not serious. But you are serious so I have to wonder how your brain works. Please know that there is no intent to be insulting here…I just want to underscore that you are very, very wrong on this issue. You are still confusing unfair with illegal.

Here is my challenge to you: If you know your rights and you have a right to gamble, go into a casino, announce to one of the Gaming Board officers that you are a Bahamian, show him your passport (you might also want to quote and explain the parts of the constitution you are relying on) and start putting coins in the slot machine just to prove your point and lets see what will happen.

Lincoln, I'm not a trained lawyer but I have the capacity to read and understand law. That's why I have a copy of the constitution and other laws that are relevant to me and I read them. That’s why I was able to point you to Article 26-(4)(e). Law was my initial career choice and although I did not pursue it (since I did not believe it was not God’s will for me), I have taken numerous law courses. If I wanted to, I can study law and be called to the bar to be able to practice law (it’s not rocket science). In the "old" days, ordinary people with far less formal education simply articled in a firm and "read" law. The only additional thing that a person who has "read" law needs that he can't pick up on his own is to learn court procedure.

Even though I'm not called to any Bar, I read and understand law and have been trained to think by my formal education.

Lincoln, I don't have the slightest doubt about what I have said about gambling as it relates to the constitution. Said plainly, I'm right and you are wrong, but I think it would be better for a third party to decide that. Here is what I suggest: Do you (or any other BI members following this thread) know any lawyers who are members of BI who can be the third party (or parties) to say who is wrong? The only one I know is my brother, Paul Moss. He and attorney Fayne Thompson are co-founders of BARF (Bahamians Agitating for a Referendum on FTAA). You will find a thread of theirs on BI. I am sending him an E-mail asking him to read through the hay of this thread and then comment. I promise you: If he says I'm wrong, I will humbly apologize. I wonder if you will do the same if he says you are wrong? Please don't tell me that he will agree with me just because he is my brother.

Lincoln, you are not being logical or concessionary when it is clear that you are wrong and it results in excess words. Here is an example of what I mean. In your last response to me, when referring to my point about you bringing the Bible into this discussion, you said:

"You seem to have a gift for misjudging. You will note that I never argued or implied that point. There are people who take that argument but I am deeper than that. Look at my words again and you will see that as with the law you missed."

Well, even though I was convinced that I accurately read and responded to what you said, I felt certain that you would have gone back and re-read what you said before asking me to do so, therefore, I thought that somehow I misread your statement. Well I went back and re-read it and here is what you said in your initial post:

“The problem with the church
The hypo-christians say that they are against gambling. Most of them say that it is a sin and contrary to scripture. However I have noticed something peculiar during their speeches on the topic: they never include scripture, not even a measly line of quotation.”

Come on Lincoln, you never argued or implied…! In the words of Bill O’Reilly, “that’s the most ridiculous item of the day!” Rory, Delroy, CG and others, I know you are reading and you are clear, logical thinkers! Please offer an objective comment on this. Did I misjudge Lincoln as he accuses me of doing? Do any of you agree that Article 26-(4)(e) of our constitution allows for laws to be passed that restrict Bahamians in "the carrying on of gambling in any of its forms" while allow non-Bahamians?

Lincoln, I don’t have the time to respond further on the other sandy points you made so please don’t assume they are right. I just don’t find your arguments to be logical or supported by the clear language of the constitution.

But again, if you are right, use the time and energy expended on this private discussion to take your “cause” into the light of public debate if you believe that our gambling laws are illegal or if you feel you can attack Article 26-(4)(e). I won’t hold my breath because although you clearly don’t understand the legalities of our gambling laws, you have enough sense to not say those things in public.

undefined QUOTE CEDRIC MOSS] LINCOLN:

Bringing the Bible into the discussion, you seem to rely on the fact that the Word of God does not specifically say: "Thou shalt not gamble" or any other direct words for that matter. You seem to take the view that as long as the Bible does not specifically say "don't" about a particular thing then you can do it. That is flawed reasoning because the Bible was never intended to be a rule book that addresses every single human activity over the spectrum of all civilizations
COLOR=Blue]quote=CEDRIC MOSS] LINCOLN[/COLOR]

COLOR=Blue]please compare this quote to the one below.

[QUOTE=Cedric Moss]Lincoln:

even though I was convinced that I accurately read and responded to what you said, I felt certain that you would have gone back and re-read what you said before asking me to do so, therefore, I thought that somehow I misread your statement. Well I went back and re-read it and here is what you said in your initial post:

“The problem with the church
The hypo-christians say that they are against gambling. Most of them say that it is a sin and contrary to scripture. However I have noticed something peculiar during their speeches on the topic: they never include scripture, not even a measly line of quotation.”
[QUOTE CEDRIC MOSS]LINCOLN

comparing this with the above article. i think Lincoln is not looking for a thou shalt not scripture but any sound scriptural base to support the thou shalt not gamble mode of the church. I am looking for that too. I wonder though if it is the line about the hypochristians that offended u. The church, maybe not u, but the church in many ways support gambling. for instance raffles. They too have a double standard towards it. Lincoln pointed out something earlier. why is it illegal for us to gamble then yet we furnish the casinos with employees. thats like saying it is illegal to take coke but not illegal to sell it. there is much things going on here and we need to take action

Preacher preacher you are so wrong!
First of all I feel that you are misunerstanding Lincoln comments on about scripture. I think he is saying that preachers teach all the time that gambling is a sin as if it is written in stone. Some of the even state that the bible clearly states that gambling is a sin: I have heard this uttered. I have heard this with my own ears. I was also wondering why they would never refer to a scripture, parable, or any kind of story. I assume that Lincoln is trying to say that in the same way that you assume base on the vague general things you read in scripture, there are other scripture that imply that it is not sinful.
I agree with him on that.
And on the illegality issue I think you are really missing the point on this one. Come on preacher we all agree that whether it is illegal or not it is wrong. SO WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING WRONG. Wrong is wrong, legal or not. A law while legal may note be ligitamate. there were man laws that were found to be in violation of peoples rights and as a result illegal. they were as a result changed. Segregation was legal according to the books but Martin King jr call it illegal, immoral, and unjust. He was right.
It does not matter what your borther the lawyer says. Lawyers argue on points of law al the time, the even do it in court and in parlament- the same way preachers argue on theology. they have different points of view. even judges rulings are over turned by other judges. you are very small minded-like most church people- if you would say that you are wrong or lincoln is wrong based on the point of view of one lawyer. I had a big civil case I wanted to put in court. the first lawyer i went to said i was wrong and had no case I went to another lawyer who took the case and won it.
you are wrong on this one! Lincoln is right whether legally or morally he is right on the issue.
I think you are right about one thing he needs to make this argument public. I think he has it together.
ps sorry delroy, sorry brittany. I am not racist. that is not what my comment was about.

It seems to me that article 26 does state that it is legal to discriminate!

(e) for authorizing the granting of licenses or certificates permitting the conduct of a lottery, the keeping of a gaming house or the carrying on of gambling in any of its forms subject to conditions which impose upon persons who are citizens of The Bahamas disabilities or restriction to which other persons are not made subject.

On the other hand, Article 26 starts out by saying 26- (1) Subject to the provision of paragraph (4), (5) and (9) of this Article no law shall make any provision which is discriminatory either of itself or in its effect.

So, if nothing else, this is a very inconsistent document. Its effect is to keep local people from gambling.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-acb/acb-g001.html Here is a site that might help with the Christian view of gambling. It does not differ, substantially, from the Buddhist view.

Hi CG:

Thanks for chiming in and bringing a breath of fresh air and objectivity. However, lets consider this part of your comment:

"On the other hand, Article 26 starts out by saying 26- (1) Subject to the provision of paragraph (4), (5) and (9) of this Article no law shall make any provision which is discriminatory either of itself or in its effect.

So, if nothing else, this is a very inconsistent document. Its effect is to keep local people from gambling."

Here is what the beginning of Article 26 is saying in a nutshell: No law shall make any provision that discriminates EXCEPT in accordance with the provision of paragraphs (4), (5) and (9). The words "subject to" simply make exception and allowance for discrimination under certain conditions. A standard reason through out the constitution that modifies rights given is "the public interest".

So CG, the constitution is not inconsistent, but you are correct in your assessment of the effect of Article 26-(4)(e).

Mark Madson and Upset:

My response is the same as my last one to Lincoln. If you read it, you evidently did not understand it.

Anyway, here is my bottom line response: If your views are correct, take them in the light of public discussion because no change will come from emoting on this site. But as I said to Lincoln, most people have more sense than to publicly espouse the views you and Lincoln hold about the legality of constitutional provisions and the resulting gambling laws of our nation. You guys have chosen to say these things privately so I know that you are smart but just want to get a discussion going to try to create popular support for your cause.

However, the discussion goes nowhere if you refuse to read and accept the plain language of Article 26-(4)(e) of our Constitution that allows our current gambling discrimination. Discrimination? Yes! Illegal? No! But remember: Discrimination is not always bad!

Take care!

AmericanPhemmefatale:

Sorry, but K.o.o.l.b.o.o.n.z.e responded before I did and I fully endorse his lucid answer so I won't add to it.

Take care.

Sorry this late response, Rory.

I was actively involved in the offshore financial services sector from 1984-1997, primarily on the trust and corporate side. From 1984-1993, I worked for two different trust companies (RoyWest and Fidinam Trust). In 1994, through God's favour and grace, after a downsizing of operations exercise by Fidinam, I was able to purchase the residual operations and started Dominion Management Services. I continue to be a minority shareholder in Dominion Management (the majority of shares now owned by my brother, Paul Moss) and I've also served as member of the board of directors of the Bahamas subsidiary of a private Swiss bank for the past 10 years (still serving).

My work background (both formal studies and day to day work) required me to do layman's legal work and to read law relevant to my work. It is for this reason that I might come across as a lawyer but I have enough sense to know my legal depth and will never try to do official legal work for myself or anyone else.

I hope this helps.

Lincoln:

Sorry, but your posts are becoming more and more emotional and less and less logical!

Have you or anyone else identified a lawyer who can evaluate your interpretations? I have spoken with my brother Paul so look for a post from him on Monday.

Rather than just add words, lets allow some official legal minds to render a verdict on the meaning of Article 26(4)(e) and whether our gambling laws are unconstitutional or illegal.

Until then, lets rest our fingers!

Lincoln:

I never cease to be amazed with how impressed you seem to be with yourself and the knowledge you think you have about the law. Bahamas Issues is an interesting place to discuss issues because people tend to say ridiculous things they would not dream of saying in public. Why don’t you make your case in public (newspapers, talk shows…I can get you on a talk show)? Lincoln, you and I know that you are just venting and while you will publicly say that gambling laws are not fair (something no sane person denies) you have more sense that to come in public citing Article 15 of the constitution as the basis of your right to gamble or saying that Article 26-(4)(e) does not authorize the government to pass laws restricting Bahamians in "the carrying on of gambling in any of its forms" while permitting non-Bahamians..
Mark responded to you quite well. Infact he robbed me of the opportunity of firing these words at you.
I am more than ready and willing to take this argument public. I would meet you on any talk show and present my iron clad case. If you win then you would probably crush the hope of bahamian gambling forever. But realize that if you loose, this fire inside me will spred across our land an wipe out this injustice forever. If the constitution when tried in the fire is found wanting it to will be consumed a reborn like and pheonix. The constitution itself will be born again. However I know you see the strength in my argument and would probably not facilitate this. but just know that I am ready. Your words sounded like a challenge. I challenge you back. You can even bring your brother for help.

Here is my challenge to you: If you know your rights and you have a right to gamble, go into a casino, announce to one of the Gaming Board officers that you are a Bahamian, show him your passport (you might also want to quote and explain the parts of the constitution you are relying on) and start putting coins in the slot machine just to prove your point and lets see what will happen.
I already Stated what would happen in my initial article- I would get locked up! just like MLK, Mahatma Gandhi, the three hebrew boys and Jesus. But does getting locked up make the law legal just, right etc. No! Segregation was legal by the books. Yet MLK called it Unjust, Immoral, Unfair, and Illegal. He was right. You point here is very childish.


Even though I'm not called to any Bar, I read and understand law and have been trained to think by my formal education.
That is the problem 'They' trained you how to think. I don't beleive that you need to be called to the bar to understand law. A simple man can pick up the constitution and see something we so called educated people didn't.

But again, if you are right, use the time and energy expended on this private discussion to take your “cause” into the light of public debate if you believe that our gambling laws are illegal or if you feel you can attack Article 26-(4)(e). I won’t hold my breath because although you clearly don’t understand the legalities of our gambling laws, you have enough sense to not say those things in public.
I think mark and upset have rightly judged that you missed the whole point. you are trying to dwell on 'a' definition of a word. That fact is Wrong is Wrong, Injustice is Injust and INEQUALITY IS A CRIME- LEGAL OR NOT. .
If you are not going to support us then pray for us. Nonetheless it doesn't matter because Christ supports us. He told me himself. :angel:
you need to come on the Lords side. :)