Dear Editor,

The Constitution of The Commonwealth of The Baha-mas declares that the people of this family of islands recognize that the preservation of their freedom will be guaranteed by, inter alia, an abiding respect for Christian values and the rule of law.

What are Christian values and what is the rule of law? There are innumerable churches, at least one on every street, enunciating Christian values according to the intellect and education of the pastor. There is also a class of persons defining themselves as the majority who claim to be rulers of the land; that is, that they are the law.

This conundrum leads to the conclusion that Christian values are unknown, uncertain and confused and that mob rule prevails or could prevail, denying the guarantee of any rights for the minority. Of course, there are those who will argue that since there are democratic elections, the State and the majority make the laws; therefore, there is the rule of law. There are also those who see the makers and the en-forcers of law as themselves being law, and for that reason they often call police officers and officers of the court "the law."

Bishop Simeon Hall and his crime committee believe that putting people to death, forced castration and cruel and unusual punishment are Christian values. Parliament in its wisdom, or lack thereof, believes that plunder is a Christian value, and as for democracy, the Court of Appeal has decided that the right to vote is not a fundamental right. But, if the right to vote is not fundamental, how is democracy guaranteed and how can the majority be sure that they make the laws?

Frederic Bastiat in his book 'The Law' says: "Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by the law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter by peaceful or revolutionary means into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power. Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.

Woe to the nation when this latter purpose prevails among the mass victims of lawful plunder when they, in turn, seize the power to make laws!"

The scripture says: "Woe unto the nation where the slave becomes king. Also, blessed are you, O land, when your king is the son of nobles."

The facts clearly demonstrate that the majority since January 10, 1967, did not abolish lawful plunder but instead have emulated their evil predecessors by participating in it even though it is against their own best interests.

Therefore, the claim that it was better under the UBP may have some merit, for the cost of plunder by the minority of the majority is likely to be less than when everyone is plundering every other.

The law has been perverted to protect plunder. Crime will be brought under control when the law is made to resume its moral purpose; that is, the ability of everyone to defend his life liberty and property with the assistance of the collective force — police and courts. The following are examples of lawful plunder:

1) Manufacturers Life As-surance Company (Man-ualife) was a mutual company insuring lives in The Bahamas. A mutual insurance company is one in which every policy holder is a shareholder. Manulife went through a demutualization process in Canada and the Canadian policy holders (shareholders) were paid the value of their shares. The Bahamian and Jamaican business (policies) were sold to Global life and subsequently to Colina, but the Bahamian policy holders (shareholders) were never paid a penny for the sale of their shares in the mutual company. Furthermore, both Global and Colina are limited liability companies. This process was legitimized by describing it as a merger.

2) The Government of the Bahamas sold the assets The Bahamas Telecommunication Department to a corporation (legal person) called the Bahamas Telecommunication Corporation and the Corporation paid the price and interest under a mortgage. The Vendor (Government), nevertheless, claimed that it was the owner as shareholders, of that which it had sold. The government decided that it wanted to sell the assets of Batelco and toward that goal incorporated another company by registration under the Companies Act and transferred the assets of Batelco to the new company, Bahamas Tele-communication Company Limited. Meanwhile, in the process the government forced Batelco to construct a building in Freeport from which Go-vernment has now evicted the rightful owners and converted the corporation's property to government's use.

Should the nation in this environment be surprised that crime is out of control?

Yours sincerely,

R. Rawle Maynard

Attorney-At-Law