PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
That’s what Minister of Economic Affairs Dr David Estwick is demanding of Opposition parliamentarian and former Attorney-General Dale Marshall, if he is to prove his allegation that the Cabinet minister pulled a gun on him during a verbal altercation in the precincts of Parliament.
In New York where he participated in an investment seminar on insurance sponsored by Invest Barbados, Estwick told WEEKEND NATION:
“The fact of the matter is that it has gone too far. He [Marshall] is going to do two things and my good friend Owen Arthur [former Prime Minister]. You either bring the evidence, shut up or you are going to be deal with it in the large courts.
“It is as simple as that. Because my good friend, the former Prime Minister was in St Lucia [when the incident allegedly occurred].
“He doesn’t know what’s going on. But I heard him [Arthur] on the platform [saying] my behaviour was an abomination to the parliament and a lot of things. I am stopping all of that.
“You either bring the evidence or shut up and as a result of that, the matter will be dealt with in the appropriate legal way and you can rest assured that process might already have been started while I am here in New York and that’s all I will have to say on that matter.”
Estwick said he would ask Barbadians to remember one thing: “If your Parliament is the highest court in the land, then by extension the Speaker of the House acts as a High Court judge.
“There is a procedure that is akin to what happens in a normal court; you have an allegation so you come and you lay a case. You lay the case before the judge. The judge, in this case, the Speaker, will determine after investigations carried out, whether what you are saying is true or not and therefore no further action is required.”
Estwick said he was sick and tired of the untrue allegations being made against him and insisted that Marshall, the representative for St Joseph in the House of Assembly, present his case in the appropriate parliamentary forum.
Failing that, he said, he might be forced to do it in the law courts.

ONE OF THIS COUNTRY’S most outspoken former politicians believes Speaker of the House Michael Carrington’s expelling of two Opposition members from the Lower Chamber on Tuesday should have been a last resort.
But what former Member of Parliament Lionel Craig wants to really know is why Carrington did not suspend the morning’s sitting and invoke a “cooling-off period” before expelling Opposition Leader Mia Mottley and her Barbados Labour Party colleague George Payne.
Mottley and Payne were asked to leave the Lower Chamber on Tuesday, after a heated exchange with Speaker Carrington.
Mottley was attempting to raise a matter of urgent public importance regarding the decision by local insurance company CLICO to write more than 800 policies in contravention of the Supervisor of Insurance’s August 2009 decision prohibiting the ompany from writing new business.
“An expulsion from the House is a serious thing, and should only be a last resort,” Craig, the former Member of Parliament for St James North told the WEEKEND NATION.
“I believe the Speaker should have made the decision, under the circumstances, to request from the Leader of Government Business [Chris Sinckler] that the House be suspended for about 20 minutes as a cooling period.
He could have simply then requested the Opposition Leader to come to his office, and handle the matter, before returning to the chamber to deal with the people’s business.”
Craig, who served 20 years in the House of Assembly, ten as a Government MP, and ten on the Opposition benches, believes Carrington could easily have cooled tempers by suspending the House for 15 to 20 minutes, and then having a private word with Mottley in his office before resuming his position as chair of the House of Assembly.
However, Craig doesn’t believe democracy is under threat, despite the unruly behaviour shown in the House from both sides.
In fact, he feels Barbadians should not take anything serious from Tuesday’s proceedings.
“The Parliament of Barbados is not ‘holier than thou’. There have been instances where much worse has happened in Parliament before, not just in Barbados, but in other countries around the world,” Craig told the WEEKEND NATION.
The former MP noted that Barbadians should not be too concerned about the general behaviour in Parliament, since it was much more robust and controversial in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.
He did note, however, that he was concerned about the general overuse of desk-thumping and applause in the House for simple matters, noting that in his heyday, applause and desk-thumping were reserved for the Estimates or special sittings of the House of Assembly.

PARLIAMENTARIANS are being asked to apologise to the nation’s youth for their actions in the House of Assembly on Tuesday.
In a Press release, youth activist and chairman of the Drug Education and Counselling Services, Roger Husbands, is asking those “[palimentarians] who displayed acts of disrespect to the highest Chamber in this island” to apologise for their actions.
Husbands said it was unfortunate young people had to view “this lack of self-control by “big adults” whom he said should know better.
“As a youth advocate, I was very disappointed in the politicians who showed the same type of behaviour our young people display currently within schools, homes and on the street.
“This whole aspect that authority can be disrespected in order to get ‘my point’ across is something our young people are currently facing on a day to day basis,” he said.
Husbands said the attitude of ‘don’t do as I do, but do as I say’ could no longer work anymore in Barbados and called politicians to set proper examples.
“I believe that if we are teaching our young people to be self-controlled, adhere to the code of conflict resolution as a peaceful solution, being assertive but not disrespectful then it means that our leadership has to follow the same protocol,” he said.
Husbands said it was “interesting” to see the Opposition Leader Mia Mottley call a Press conference after they had been asked to leave the House, asking if such a forum would not have been the right way to go in the first place.
“If you couldn’t say it in Parliament, then don’t you think that this would have been the right forum and save our young people this sad and distasteful example of how to deal with situations?
“I am asking those members to publicly apologise and also teach our young people that the behaviour exhibited Tuesday was a mistake and that the correct procedure is to follow rules and regulations.
“No wonder we have gangs in this nation, who callously do as they will, because no longer do we have even leaders following rules and regulations,” he said.
Principal of the Sunbeam Montessori Pre-school, Sandie Field-Kellman, voiced similar concerns.
In a telephone interview, she said children mimicked adults and the behaviour displayed in the House was not something she wished them to emulate.
“They took an oath of office which came with a code of ethics but they have broken the rules of the House.
“It is not even about who is right or wrong. They did not have to behave like that,” she said.
Field-Kellman said teachers were trying to instil decorum in children and teach them to settle conflicts in a reasonable manner and with everything that was happening in Barbados today, this was not the time for the nation’s youth to witness such behaviour from the leaders of the country.
“What messages or morals are they getting? It starts with us adults to set the examples, no matter what sphere of life we are involved in,” she said.

A FAILING GRADE!
That is what Barbadians near and far have given to parliamentarians for their behaviour in the House of Assembly in recent times.
On NATIONNEWS.com and our Facebook page (facebook.com/NationBarbados), readers were scathing in their denunciation of MPs, particularly in light of Tuesday’s row which ended with Opposition Leader Mia Mottley and MP George Payne being ejected by Speaker Michael Carrington.
Readers termed the behaviour of Mottley and Payne “shameful” and “total disrespect” to the Speaker. Of the 165 readers who responded to an online poll at time of writing, 84 agreed with Carrington’s actions to eject them from the House, while 69 disagreed.
Mottley in particular, as Opposition Leader, was harshly criticised.
“The Speaker explained his ruling with relevant Parliament rules . . . Mia had 14 years of the Speaker on her side now she [has] got to learn to operate as the Opposition and learn some manners,” commented Ryan Kellman via Facebook.
On NATIONNEWS.com, one reader using the handle my 2 cents also knocked Mottley, saying:
“The Leader of the Opposition has proven time and time again that she does not have the temperament necessary to lead anyone, anywhere. . . . I believe that she might wish to take heed of the question posed by the late Rt. Hon. Errol Barrow: “What kind of mirror image do you have of yourself?”
Some readers were also critical of Carrington’s handling of the event and asserted that the Opposition Leader should have been allowed to make her point.
“This is what the Parliament of Barbados come to? Why were the Opposition members not given an opportunity to speak? Is this democracy?” questioned John B on the NATIONNEWS.com report on the incident, while Concerned Youth queried: “How can he reject a point of privilege if he does not allow the member to speak? It makes no sense.”
However, with Tuesday’s events coming weeks after an incident between MPs Dr David Estwick and Dale Marshall during the Estimates Debate on March 19, the mood was one of general disgust with MPs, with readers saying the standard of behaviour was not befitting of the House.
“My opinion was that the behaviour of those parliamentarians was shameful. For a moment there I thought that I was viewing a rum shop brawl. I think those people better get their act cleaned up,” commented Charol Forde via Facebook.
Another Facebook fan, Deborah Thompson, expressed dismay at the behaviour on both sides of the aisle, writing:
“What is happening to [our] society and our leaders? Then to read the reaction of the Government side saying “put them out”.
“They should have kept quiet. How do we turn back from here?”
On NATIONNEWS.com, one reader wrote:
“I expect this type of behavior from schoolchildren, not from the people we have elected to lead this nation into the future. Grow up and look beyond your own personal agenda and false [bravado] . . . . Go to the headmaster’s office.”
Perhaps the most damning criticism came from the many readers who charged that MPs were not setting the right example for young Barbadians.
“We are wondering why our youth are behaving the way they are . . . What message are we sending to the young people of this country? The message is clear- it is okay to disregard and disrespect rules and order” declared NATIONNEWS.com reader Nita.
“They [should] be good influences and [are] failing miserably in doing that, and then they don’t want dancehall artistes in Barbados,” stated Stefan Browne.

BARBADOS’ DEMOCRACY is now at risk.
Opposition Leader Mia Mottley made this charge at a hastily called Press conference yesterday just after she and Member of Parliament (MP) for St Andrew, George Payne, were ejected from the Lower House during a tense and eventful morning session in which both members had heated exchanges with Speaker of the House Michael Carrington.
Mottley said the Speaker did not give her and other members of the Opposition a fair chance to articulate their views.
“Parliament in Barbados has been brought to a level that none of us has experienced before in relation to the failure to allow members the opportunity to speak. For centuries members have claimed that right to be able to speak.
“If the Speaker desires to rule a member out of order, he can do so if he wishes after they have spoken. But the right to be able to articulate your views is an ancient right, claimed on behalf of all members at the start of Parliament,” she said.
Mottley said that it was a deliberate attempt to shield the Parliament from any discussion on the need for a gun policy for Parliament and more importantly, the CLICO issue.
The Opposition Leader said the CLICO issue was of more significance to the public as over 800 people had policies which were now worthless.
She reiterated that those persons had purchased policies at a time when CLICO was not allowed to sell any new policies by the Supervisor of Insurance.
Mottley said the Speaker of the House did not allow her, George Payne or former Prime Minister Owen Arthur “to open our mouths”.
“The question that has to be asked is what is it that the Democratic Labour Party (DLP) and the Speaker is so frightened about. Is it now that they understand that the Prime Minister has done a disservice as Minister of Finance to over 1 000 households, to an entire financial sector that now stands exposed because they have policies that nobody can claim now to be sold by a legal entity with lawful authority.”
Mottley made it clear the Opposition would continue to raise the issues to the people.
“The immediate thing may appear to be the expelling of ourselves and the threat to expel the others, and we will deal with that as a threat to our democracy, but it will not stop us from recognising that our continued duty must be to the Barbadian public and therefore we will act in a manner that places that at the centre of all that we do.”
Mottley said freedom of speech was now threatened, saying that even a condemned man had the right to speak before a law court.
She said she wanted to send a message to the DLP government that “you can run, but you cannot hide”.
Mottley said since January 2008 there had also been a deliberate attempt to treat former Prime Minister Owen Arthur with a level of disrespect. (MK)

SPEAKER of the House of Assembly Michael Carrington was “terribly disrespected” by Opposition Leader Mia Mottley and St Andrew MP George Payne who were spurred on and commanded by former Prime Minister Owen Arthur.
Leader of Government Business and MP for St Michael North West, Chris Sinckler, said the Opposition had shown utter contempt for the House and the Speaker in Parliament yesterday.
“What we have had for all to see is a common display of arrogance and downright bad behaviour by at least two senior members of the House who should at least be setting an example for younger and more newer parliamentarians in the House of Assembly yesterday,” he said.
Sinckler reminded Mottley, in particular, that the rules of the House had to be respected.
“Who is Miss Mottley? Who is Miss Mottley that she believes she does not have to follow the rules in Parliament?
“You are free to speak in Parliament as an elected Member but you do not have the right to just get up and speak on whatever you want, however you want, and if ever you want.
“There are rules, and the same rules that govern us, are the same rules that govern the Opposition. And that is what Miss Mottley needs to understand. I have no doubt she does, but this political game of pretending you can ‘rabble-rouse’ anyone in Barbados because it suits your purpose is just not on.”
Sinckler said yesterday’s drama in the House was political gamesmanship gone awry and a sad reflection on politicians and certainly on the Opposition.
He noted that Parliament was no Sunday school but felt it was disrespectful not to step back when the Speaker rose to indicate he was asserting his authority.
“The Leader of the Opposition and the Member for St Andrew displayed blatant disregard for the rules of the House. They were on their feet when the Speaker himself was on his feet when the convention is that so long as the Speaker stands, all members are to be silent.
“It sends a terrible message to young people in this country; indeed, to all people in this country. Democracy in Barbados is not under threat. What is under threat is good manners, decent behaviour in the House of Assembly and the ability to understand that when rules are established, that those rules must be followed.”

Statement of Dale D. Marshall, Q.C., M.P. given at Parliament this 27th day of April, 2010
 
MR SPEAKER, the circumstances in which I stand to address this Honourable Chamber are such that they can bring no pleasure. To use the words of Edmund Burke, these are matters on which it is difficult to speak, but on which it is impossible to remain silent.
I have been advised by the Clerk of Parliament that I must, in seeking to have a matter involving the conduct of a Member of Parliament referred to the Committee of Privileges, address your Honour The Speaker on the facts, and I therefore rise to do so.
On the evening of Friday, March 19th, I was in attendance at Parliament. This was the final day of the Estimates debate of the year 2010.
At about 7:30 in the night, the House was debating a matter relating to the Barbados Drug Service. The Member for St Philip West was speaking on the subject of the Barbados Drug Service, when I rose on a Point of Order. I was heard on the Point of Order by the Chairman of Committees and then took my seat.
After taking my seat, the Honourable Member for St Philip West again addressed the Chamber, and upon taking his seat, shouted across the Chamber that he was going to slap me across my head.
Mr Speaker, this threat by the Honourable Member was totally unprovoked and came as a complete surprise to me, as at no time did I address any comment or remarks to the Honourable Member while on my feet or while in my seat.
In fact, I do not recall any instance during the previous four days in Parliament or on the last day of the debates at any time addressing the Honourable Member, either directly or indirectly on any matter relating to the debate or otherwise.
The Honourable Member repeated the threat again, whereupon I got up and left the Chamber. After about ten minutes, I returned to the Chamber and took my seat.
Immediately upon me resuming my seat, The Honourable Member for St Philip West bellowed across the Chamber the following words: “You couldn’t wait outside for me? I ready for you now! Come back outside if you is a bad! I gine slap you cross you head! Come back outside if you is a bad!”
The Honourable Member then jumped up from his seat and proceeded in the direction of the door to exit the Chamber.
I left my seat and followed him to the door. We approached the curtain in the Chamber from opposite directions. He reached the area of the curtain first, and I was approximately one step behind him.
As I rounded the edge of the curtain, I saw the Honourable Member for St Philip West bend over and remove his firearm from his ankle holster. He returned to an erect position with his body turned towards me with the firearm in his hand. The firearm was still in his right hand and he was looking at me in a menacing way.
The Honourable Member then pushed the firearm into his pants waistband on his left side, directly in front of me. He then turned and opened the door and exited the Chamber.
At the time when I saw the Honourable Member remove the firearm and with the firearm in his hand, I was fearful for my life and safety.
I went out of the door to the Chamber behind the Honourable Member and emerged in the area outside of the Speaker’s office. On my emerging into that area outside of the Speaker’s office, the Honourable Member turned to me and walked up to me in a belligerent and threatening manner, saying “I ready for you now”.
The Honourable Member continued his threatening, aggressive and belligerent behaviour towards me with further threats of beating me. By that time, The Honourable Member for St Andrew, the Honourable Member for St Michael North, and the Leader of the Opposition, The Honourable Member for St Michael North East had come out of the Chamber.
The Leader of the Opposition positioned herself directly between The Member of St Philip West and myself. The Leader of the Opposition said to the Honourable Member for St Philip West, “You gine hit me?” And other words followed.
The Honourable Member for St Philip West continued his threatening, aggressive and belligerent behaviour towards me. By that time, the Honourable Member for St Philip North, the Minister of Housing, had come out of the Chamber and was trying to restrain the Member for St Philip West by seizing by his left shoulder and left arm and pulling him away in the area of the bust of Sir Conrad Reeves, which is situated at the top of the stairs.
Shortly thereafter, the Member for St Philip West pulled away from the Member for St Philip North and rushed towards the Member for St Andrew. The Member for St Philip West then backed the Member for St Andrew against the wall with his continued threats and his belligerent and aggressive behaviour.
The Leader of the Opposition and the Member for St Thomas, who had by then come out of the Chamber, went in between the Member for St Philip West and the Member for St Andrew to prevent the Member from St Philip West from assaulting the Member for St Andrew.
All the while, two other Honourable Members for the St Philip constituencies continued to try to restrain and subdue the Member for St Philip West.
I am aware that there is a security camera in the area of the bust of Sir Conrad Reeves and I believe that much of what I have stated would be verified by the security footage.
There was one police officer in the vicinity of the bust of Sir Conrad Reeves during the altercation. The situation was quelled shortly thereafter.
Mr Speaker, those are the facts.
I respectfully submit, Mr Speaker, that the conduct of the Honourable Member for St Philip West with the firearm constitutes the act of brandishing his gun and constitutes disorderly conduct. It was done within the precincts of Parliament and specifically, before the Honourable Member exited this Honourable Chamber.
His handling of the gun was executed in a threatening manner and his conduct falls far short of the standard of conduct that is required of Honourable Members within this Chamber.
Mr Speaker, the conduct of the Honourable Member for St Philip West affects this House and its Members in that it is likely to bring this House into disrepute. The conduct was disorderly, contumacious and disrespectful.
I therefore move that the conduct of the Honourable Member for St Philip West be referred to the Committee of Privileges for its consideration and recommendation.

FORMER Prime Minister Owen Arthur said he was saddened to see the level to which Parliament had plummeted.
And according to him, Speaker Michael Carrington was a representation of the “poor rakey parliament this parliament has become”.
At a hastily called Press conference by the Opposition yesterday, Arthur acknowledged that the Opposition had lost confidence in Speaker Michael Carrington to preside fairly.
Arthur, the Member of Parliament (MP) for St Peter since 1984, said the basic rights of the Opposition were trampled for vexacious reasons.
“I was elected in this House to speak in the House. That is what being a Member of Parliament does.
“After 25 years in this Parliament, it saddens me the tragic state to which our Parliament has fallen. I have seen members on all sides, under all speakers, enabled to exercise the fundamental right of a Member of Parliament, the right to speak in the House of Assembly.”
Arthur said that when the Speaker of the House reportedly said in the past that Members of Parliament should be required to report to their constituency, he may have gone too far.
“As a Speaker of Parliament, he is totally out of order to be laying down rules that are supposed to be binding upon Members of Parliament, outside his House.”
Arthur said his colleagues had nothing to be ashamed of and must be commended for their fight for democracy.
He said the DLP Government after two years had not settled and this was why they would continue to lash out in and out of Parliament.
Arthur said there was a need for the quality of Parliament to be restored. (MK)

THE NINE SEATS which were conspicuously empty in the House of Assembly last Tuesday will be filled today.
And according to Opposition Leader Mia Mottley, the voices of the Barbados Labour Party (BLP) will be heard as they continue to seek the establishment of a gun policy for Parliament.
One of those voices will be that of Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Dale Marshall, who has promised to have his say on an alleged incident involving himself and Minister of Economic Affairs Dr David Estwick.
It will be the first time Marshall will speak to the public on intimate details of the matter, having previously written a letter to Speaker of the House Michael Carrington, asking that Estwick’s behaviour be referred to Parliament’s Committee of Privileges.
“The situation that we are faced with Tuesday [today] going back into Parliament is one where instead of Estwick being the individual on trial, the DLP wants to put me and my parliamentary colleagues on trial. It will not end so,” Marshall told a BLP nomination meeting at the Christ Church Foundation School last Sunday night.
The nine BLP members who boycotted last week’s resumption of the House after an Easter break are all expected in their seats today, Mottley informed the DAILY NATION yesterday.
She felt their protest had the desired affect.
“The impact we wanted was for the public to fully realise how important a gun policy in Parliament is,” Mottley said. “This is a very simple issue we want settled, and now that the Speaker of the House acknowledged this is a matter for him, we hope it will be dealt with quickly.”
She said, however, that she found some of Carrington’s comments in the House last week to be “curious”.
Mottley said Carrington’s comments that a gun policy would not be introduced at the whim and fancy of one or two MPs would have to be looked at more closely.
“This is not just at anyone’s whim and fancy. The Opposition firmly believes that wanting a gun policy is a serious but simple issue that can be dealt with.”
According to her, buildings such as the Lloyd Erskine Sandiford Centre, the National Insurance Building, and the new Halls of Justice – all Government buildings – had strict gun policies in place, and the requisite electronic scanning equipment to go with such policies.
“We feel Parliament should be the same. It’s that simple,” Mottley said.
She said the BLP MPs were to meet last night to determine if to raise the matter again when the House convened today at 10 a.m.
Last week, the Opposition boycotted proceedings, and Carrington made an official comment to the House, regarding not only a gun policy, but also an alleged incident.