Lincoln:

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.
Yes We have been legally advised. Your brothers opinion is little more than that- an opinion. You are still missing the point. This is not simply about definitions. As CG put it
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.
I welcome you brothers opinion but again there were lawyers who legally argued for every legal injustice.

Lincoln, Lincoln, Lincoln!

Your fervour in this "cause" seems to be causing you to lose sound judgement.

First of all, law is all about the definitions about words so don't tell me not to pay atttention to the definition of words.

Second, I have to say that it seems like you are being less than honourable in this discussion. I think it is clear to all who wish to see that you have now recognized that Article 26-(4)(e) makes our gambling laws constitutional and legal but you are not big enough to admit that. Look at the title you BOLDLY gave this thread when you thought these laws were illegal: "The Lottery and Gamming Act is Illegal!" Now you are saying its unjust and unfair but you don't use the word illegal anymore! Why do you seem to lack the honor to concede that our gambling laws are legal BUT unfair? And since they are unfair, you are going to test them, get arrested and be a part of the catalyst for change.

Since you seem to lack the honor to concede that point, I suggest that you edit the title of this thread and replace the word "illegal" with unjust and then edit your other threads and do the same.

Lincoln, based on your apparent inability to acknowlege that you were wrong initially about the legality of our gambling laws, I doubt you have the courage to change anything. It takes less courage and humility to say, "I was wrong" than to pay a public price to bring change to our gambling laws.

I don't think the private discussion would be a wise use of our time, especially if you don't understand (or won't admit that you understand) the plain meaning of Article 26-(4)(e).

Last point: What is taking you so long to test the laws. Nassau is 21 x 7 and we have two casinos. Or are you like the guy who says he is serious about committing suicide and announces to everyone that he is "soon" going to commit suicide? Or are you trying to muster up the courage? If you find the courage, when you get arrested, I pity the lawyer who would try to represent you using your "its illegal' argument.

Mark Madson and Upset:

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.

Discrimination? Yes! Illegal? No! But remember: Discrimination is not always bad!

I hope you are not implying that I know these people supporting me on this site. The only person I know here is delroy. The views of the poeple on this site represents the views of the general public- including the government. At least you aree that it is discrimination! In this case it is bad.
You must be living in a bubble to say that the government would site 'public intrest' as a reason to keep bahamians from gambling or owning casinos. The goverment is already arguing that it is in the public interest to allow Lotteries etc. Kenyatta Gibson is writing on this in the papers already- he is the minister responsible for gaming and lottery. Wake up! our view is the popular view. people are discussing this everywhere. Like I said before
Get on the Lord's side- he hates discrimination. "you are all brethren...do not be a respector of persons...Don't treat the rich man better than the poor man...Good hates an unequal scale(proverbs)

Mark Madson and Upset:


[QUOTE]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. [QUOTE= CEDRIC MOSS] MARK MADSON AND UPSET

[COLOR=Purple]I am glad Martin Luther King was not afraid and not sensible enough to challenge and espouse his views about inequality. Is it wrong for me to have an opinion? so what if I agree with Lincoln or Mark or CG or you. Does that spell conspiracy. Oh please. I am almost certain if i was in ur corner in this matter, this would not be an issue. I agree with one point this needs to be made public.

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).

Thanks Rev. Moss for making that clear.

Unfortunately I do not know what paragraphs (4), (5) and (9) say. Did you post them? I am ashamed to say that I do not have a copy of the constitution! But I am sure I am in the majority in that. Is there an online copy?

I am in the unusual position of seeing both Lincoln's and your points. As a result, if it were put to a vote, I would be very hard pressed to mark my ballot. I see Lincoln's point that "what is sauce for the Goose should be sauce for the Gander." In other words, equal all around. But on the other hand I have worked at a place where Bahamians gambled (Hobby Horse Hall) and I saw, first hand, the misery gambling, and losing, caused - and I am very much sure that is your point, at least in part. (And, as I am sure you know, losing and gambling go hand in hand. The odds are always with the "house.")

I would pause over my ballot and look for a box that said, "Undecided." Should I not find such a box, I think my "X" would be placed, reluctantly, in the "For locals gambling" column. Why? Because I believe that people must have the right to chose - even if they chose ill.

Last point: What is taking you so long to test the laws. Nassau is 21 x 7 and we have two casinos. Or are you like the guy who says he is serious about committing suicide and announces to everyone that he is "soon" going to commit suicide? Or are you trying to muster up the courage? If you find the courage, when you get arrested, I pity the lawyer who would try to represent you using your "its illegal' argument.
Again I say open you Eyes. It has already begun. You want to see a conventional battle. You want me to do it your way- the way you wish you had the courage to do it. Your way is for none creative thinkers. This is not about me this is about us. I'm sorry the Rebellion began without you. No one informed little cedric. I like you so I'll tell you.
Didn't you notice that the number houses are operating every day'testing the law' . Do you see the government Closing them down citing 'public interest' or 26(e)?!
Don't you see the people rebelling by freely going to these number houses to show support? 'testing the law'
Don't you see that the church -including you- is not complaining(I don't see you out there infront of the web shops protesting- Mister couragious!)
Don't you see the police officers in the web shops in uniform 'using the internet'.
Don't you see the minister responsible for Gambling Writting to show his support/involvement in this rebellion.
Wow Nassau is only 21x7 yet you are sitting waitting for a rebbellion that is happening all around you. You are like Saddam's Former press Secretary Standing on the street coner ducking bombs and flinching at every loud bang but still saying that the americans are not in bagdad.
I'm sorry you got left out of the loop but I am a small fry in this movement I wasn't authorized to inform you. But I am honoured to inform you that the yard niggers have organized and are on the move. We don't 'need' to stand on Bay Street with signs- We are mobile. So house niggers stay inside with your masters who taught you to look, speak and think like them(rather how they tell you to think).
But that's all I am allowed to say at this point.
Like I said get on the Lord's side :angel:

(And, as I am sure you know, losing and gambling go hand in hand. The odds are always with the "house.").
That is why i reiterate that we need to own the house. Let us take the money from the tourist and leave it in our country. That foreigner is making the money and giving us dog scraps. That is why they now have the power to buy the whole island. They are buying us out with our own money and it's the 'law'

I would pause over my ballot and look for a box that said, "Undecided." Should I not find such a box, I think my "X" would be placed, reluctantly, in the "For locals gambling" column. Why? Because I believe that people must have the right to chose - even if they chose ill
another vote for Freedom
Cedric and the law mongers- no votes, no votes.

AmericanPhemmefatale there is a big difference between being involved politics and knowing the laws that governs ones country. But you are an american right? What about Jesse jackson or Al Sharpton? They are supposed to be religous leaders but are extremely political (or at least were). Just adding to the conversation :)

p.s. i'm not saying that Cedric isn't involved in politics because that isn't known to me but it always good to know your rights and what not. :) (yes, i like to smile)

Funny you mention Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. they ran for president and what have you but their political stance is black people, specifically. when a running a country all races will and have to be represented, but people need to understand that we cannot continues to blame groups for oppression when we oppress each other. Sharpton and Jackson have good points to put out towards their cmpaigns when they run but people are not really listening to what they have to say they just see money and that all. Yes I am American but I agree people should know their rights. :usa:

Lincoln:

You are simply amazing! You've lost the real debate so you are engaging in name calling, gutter debate and pedantic ridicule. Sorry, I don't have the time for that.

Take care.

CG:

I think you are meshing two issues. The first issue is whether our gambling laws are legal. Lincoln started this discussion with the following emphatic position by which he titled this thread: "The Lottery and Gamming Act is Illegal!". After I have proved the act is not illegal since Article 26-(4)(e) of our Constitution permits such discrimination, he went silent on that point and just went on to say that Article 26-(4)(e) of the constitution and the resulting gambling laws are UNJUST. By what you have written, you agree that the constitution authorizes discrimination in the practise of gambling so you agree that the gambling laws can't be illegal.

The second issue is whether our gambling laws are fair. It is this point that you agree with Lincoln on and you are both entitled your opinions. But you can't take this argument to court. They will laugh you out of the door since it has no legal basis!

Lincoln is confusing the government legislating a state lottery will legalizing gambling in general for Bahamians. But, as has been shown, he knows it all so I can't tell him that's not what Kenyatta Gibson has been advocating.

Now CG, about the Constitution, it is on the Internet. Just search for “Bahamas Constitution”...its on multiple sites. Let me know if you don't find it and I can zip it up and e-mail it to you. You asked about the contents of paragraphs (4), (5) and (9). I posted paragraph 4 in my initial post but here it is again, together with 5 and 9:

(4) Paragraph (1) of this Article shall not apply to any law so far as that law makes provision-
(a) for the appropriation of revenues or other funds of The Bahamas or for the imposition of taxation (including the levying of feed for the grant of licenses); or
(b) with respect to the entry into or exclusion from, or the employment, engaging in any business or profession, movement of residence within, The Bahamas of persons who are not citizens of The Bahamas; or
(c) with respect to adoption, marriage, divorce, burial, devolution f property on or other matters of personal law; or
(d) whereby persons of any such description as is mentioned in paragraph (3) for this Article may be subjected to any disability or restriction or may be accorded any privilege or advantage which having regard to its nature and to special circumstances pertaining to those persons or to persons of any other such description, is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society; or
(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.

(5) Nothing contained in any law shall be held to be inconsistent whit or in contravention of paragraph (1) of this Article to the extent that it makes provision with respect to standards or qualifications (not being a standard or qualification specifically relating to race, place of origin, political opinions, colour or creed) in order to be eligible for service as a public officer or as a member of a disciplined force of for the service of a local government authority or a body corporate established by law for public purposes.

(9) Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of this Article to the extent that the law in question makes provision whereby persons of any such description as is mentioned in paragraph (3) of this Article may be subjected to any restriction on the rights and freedoms guaranteed by Articles 21,22,23,24 and 25 of this Constitution, being such a restriction as is authorized by Article 21(2)(a), 22(5), 23(2), 24(2) or 25(2)(a) or (e), as the case may be.

Here is another point that is of interest in light of the homosexual marriage debate. Article 26-(4)(C) of our Constitution allows discrimination in laws related to marriage. So those who think they can run to the courts to test our laws that only allow for marriage to be between a man and a woman will get the same result as those who go to test the gambling laws…a laugh and a court bill!

Take care CG, I never intended to discuss this matter as much!

I dont need the casino myself, I only want to throw some quarters in some fruit machines every so often, and be able to spend $1 on a lottery every once in a while, because, you just never know who will win. Its only money and we cant take it with us, but right now im in dire need for alot of money for alot of reasons (bills and then some) so it would be a nice thing, wishful thinking but that can help with stress, unless its abused ofcourse. If the government wanted to save us from ourselves, they would also outlaw alchohol, cigarettes, and cigars, which is very dangerous. (Ooops, no dont outlaw beer! :-) but then maybe id loose the gut!)

Legal gambling isnt on my priority list though, right now its food on the table (or car seat as is my case half the time!)

Cedric It seems that you are the one doing the name calling and insulting Any one who checks back through the threads would see The your speech to those who disagree with you is very condisending and insulting. I gave my opinion in the initial post to which I still stand behind my statement that the discrimination in this matter is Illegal, unfair, unjust, and immoral. It is my opinion of the law. But instead offering your opinion you decided to tell me that I am wrong. So who is the know it all here. But from glancing through the thread I noticed that this is how you treat people who disagree with you; insulting there opinion and trying to paint them as the bad guy. I guess that makes you feel holy. Your behavior is not at all Christ like.
I don't remember calling anyone names but the persons I called Law mongers are just that the lawyers in parliment being used to twist the law to the advantage of the rich man.
I don't expect you to see mine or anyone elses point of view because preacher are trained to talk not listen. that's why they are never in touch wit the community. Again Laws are changable in many ways. and I repeat 26(e) does not give the right to discriminate against bahamians gambling.
You are like the preachers trying to convince columbus that the world is flat because that is what was taught in school and church. Or like the church folk determined to execute galileo for the same reason. Like columbus I still say It is illegal, etc. Like I said you admitted that even if it is legal it is wrong. stop defending wrong. stop letting satan use you to oppress the lesser ones.

Preacher you have clearly lost this argument by focusing on the wrong thing. Everyone else sees Lincoln's point in the same way CG put it, "what's is sauce for the Goose should be sauce for the Gander", that's it. Again you preachers are so busy pushing your agendas that you always miss the point. I agree with Lincoln that any point of law can and is argued, that is how our system is set up. You are wrong to come here taking down to people and call them wrong- who died and made you God? If someone decides that a particular part of the law is illegal than that is there right to feel that way.

Hello everyone:

I had mentioned in an earlier post that I would have my brother Paul Moss, who is a lawyer practising Bahamian law, to comment on Lincoln and my discussion regarding whether our gambling laws are illegal. I've now decided that it would not be a wise use of his time because, from my posts, it is clear to all who wish to see that, although our gambling laws restrict Bahamians from gambling and are therefore discriminatory, in language as clear as the noonday sun (except for those who refuse to see) Article 26-(4)(e) of The Bahamas Constitution legalizes such discrimination in "the carrying on of gambling in any of its forms" and therefore the resulting laws CANNOT be illegal.

I was asking Paul to comment from a legal point of view but this thread has now morphed into one that is just complaining about the discrimination that Article 26(4)(e) allows so his legal confirmation is not needed since such complaints are not legal in nature.

Hello everyone:

I had mentioned in an earlier post that I would have my brother Paul Moss, who is a lawyer practising Bahamian law, to comment on Lincoln and my discussion regarding whether our gambling laws are illegal. I've now decided that it would not be a wise use of his time because, from my posts, it is clear to all who wish to see that, although our gambling laws restrict Bahamians from gambling and are therefore discriminatory, in language as clear as the noonday sun (except for those who refuse to see) Article 26-(4)(e) of The Bahamas Constitution legalizes such discrimination in "the carrying on of gambling in any of its forms" and therefore the resulting laws CANNOT be illegal.

I was asking Paul to comment from a legal point of view but this thread has now morphed into one that is just complaining about the discrimination that Article 26(4)(e) allows so his legal confirmation is not needed since such complaints are not legal in nature.



Rev. Moss, what was your expectation on this subject matter when you started it? did you think all people who posted would not have a complaint about gambling and discrimination? so, after all you have witnessed on this thread, what is your take now with the gambling act? :titongue: