Follow the Shanique Myrie decision to be handed down at 10AM October 4, 2013. Video streaming available from the CCJ Website
Caribbean Court of Justice Shanique Myrie Decision
Barbados Underground
Bringing News and Opinions to the People
Follow the Shanique Myrie decision to be handed down at 10AM October 4, 2013. Video streaming available from the CCJ Website
@ David and BU
An excerpt taken from page 156 of my thesis: The CCJ becomes engaged with governance of the state and non-state actors, institutions, and societies. The rules and legal frameworks governing intra-CARICOM migration, and especially the FMCN and ROE, are predominantly nestled between the RTC, the national laws of the nation-states (e.g. Barbados), and the interpretations advanced in international law given the mandate and legal force of the CCJ. In fact, the CCJ “is the only body competent to deliver advisory opinions on the interpretation and application” of the RTC (Pollard, 2004: 102). Against this mandate, the CCJ can bring awareness to laws in consideration of other factors such as individuals’ human rights; ratified conventions relating to migrant workers’ rights; and breaches to the constitutional provisions which are inscribed in national legislation of the particular member states.
@George
It seems we have a lot to thank Jamaica i.e. for testing this matter in the original jurisdiction. Perhaps the players will now sit up and allocate sweat equity to these matters.
Intra-regional and national identity politics have resulted in the heightened politicisation of issues on the FMCN, ROE, and intra-CARICOM migration amongst the participating member states and societies. The escalated politicisation resulting in the re-emergence of deep-seated suspicions within the CARICOM security complex have frustrated regulatory efforts and have created challenges for the entire institutional mechanisms inclusive of the CHOG and the CCJ. (George Brathwaite, 2012: 157).
@ David
Yes, I do agree with you. In fact, Barbadians need not think in terms of a lost, but in terms of a victory. The rights of CARICOM citizens, the expectation of reasonable treatment from border officials anywhere within the community, and importantly, Barbados now has an opportunity to re-enhance its institutional capacities and flailing reputation among CARICOM members.
It speaks well to the jurisprudence of the region.
welll! well! this indeed is a new day AC and GB agreeing on the same issue………
But the more i think of this issue and its imp[act……the more i tip my hat to MYRIE for Standing up against injustice,,,,,,this has nothing to do with party politics but should be seen in ones mind as a victory for human rights and a cleansing of a immoral and corrupt system…. SOCIETY needs more MYRIE who will fight against all odds to remove illegal barriers than stand in the way of the poor and voiceless,,,,,,Yes there have been others before here and because of them today WE ALL can say we are all been bettered ,,,,
Rosa PARKS stood up and said NO MORE……… Today i placed a poor jamaican woman in the same category for saying” NO MORE” LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL,,,,,,,
The women is to be congratualted and respected for having the courage to stand up to what are a unfair discriminating bunch of people at GIA. She was right and they were wrong. If you do not like and respect the ruling of the courts then you are no better than those who created the problem in the first place. The attitude shown by many here is one of the reasons tourism in Barbados is in a big decline. Barbados is a tiny third world little island that needs to grow up and respect human rights whether it is the Garcia matter or the Myrie matter.
Riots in de land!!! | October 5, 2013 at 11:54 AM |
My pre-conditiont;
IF.
If it is illegal then so be it if not leave the woman alone. If officers are neglecting their duties and living a life of vice and you and others know about it that’s what crime stoppers anonymous is for or report them yourselves.
If you can prove it.
_______________________________
Riots…………if you live on the island, i don’t by the way, then you will know how much Bajans talk behind their hands about all the corruption and the who and what involved, it is a completely different animal to get them to walk the talk, case in point, Mia suing a magazine in London because the people who knew and spoke about the incident were too scared to come forward to really expose her hijinks…If not for BU, most people would not know half of what is happening on the island, the criminals/culprits in government and their connected friends hide behind slander/defamation laws that will never be removed from the statute books as long as there are corrupt politicians/lawyers and their friends/family. It’s a tangled web, the reason why the Myrie case was able to set a precedent…not that one is not needed in the Caribbean, it has really come at the right time, it should definitely wake up the Caribbean leaders who only pay lip service to integration………having said all that, do you really believe the pimping services by the players involved will stop, it has been too profitable and the better connected the players are, the more protection guaranteed. Re your suggestion to call crime stoppers, i don’t know how true but i understand that they don’t even answer the phone in Barbados.
Sargeant & Jay…..the Myrie case cannot be appealed, i for one am real glad, they government has to pay.
Well there is no jubilation in the fact that the govt have to pay. this is aburden that govt cannot afford… however JUSTICE does come with a PRICE and the price which barbados is paying is a small one indeed
Which Gov’t pay which with what ac……like you making laughing stock of madam myrie…..so wait Barrack is just a ghost or a was-been bad debt installment work in progress?…..Come on be real wid the lass and let her know there is a long long line ova here…….
@onions,, Do not confuse the FACTS………GOVT WILL PAY>
Roger Fporde QC. You need to return at least half of the $1.5 million dollars or more that you charged the state for legal fees. From the beginning, you and the team with Dr. Berry and Donna Brathwaite were not impressive at all.. As far as I am concern, Michelle Brown and Mark Ramsay and Nancy Anderson were suppose to be “lightweights” in the scheme of things. You fooled the bajan public that you could manage the case when obviously you could not. A young graduate fresh out of law school would have done better.. All that you collected in legal fees from the government could have been used to pay some temporary government workers who lost their jobs, or about to lose their jobs with the 10% cut from all departments to come.
Your folly caused the Jamaican media to be having a field day about Barbados and the Barbadian people. The flippant way in which you reacted to the news from the CCJ on Friday had the Jamaican media in a subtle way saying, “what an arrogant bitch”.
Bag of Juice …..u complaining about the money the Govt paid Roger Forde…….and the Jamaicians reigning hell on the CCJ for giving myrie “A pittance”” maybe you and the jamaician people can get together and form a deal as to who gets paid what………
Bag Juice | October 6, 2013 at 4:31 PM |
Roger Fporde QC. You need to return at least half of the $1.5 million dollars or more that you charged the state for legal fees. From the beginning, you and the team with Dr. Berry and Donna Brathwaite were not impressive at all..
____________________________________
As usual lawyers are a waste of space, instead of pushing for quick settlement to ward off embarrassment, they pushed for a fight just to pad their fees, they should not be paid a dime for their greed…..but looking at the bright side, they caused a precedent to be set around the Caribbean, they still should not get a dime.
Ezra Alleyne posted a good analysis of the CCJ’s decision in today’s Nation. Don’t see it online. A must read for those who want to avoid the emotional bullshit.
Congrats to Ms. Myrie.
Kudos to the CCJ on making the ruling on the correct interpretation on the decision taken at the Caricom Heads of Government meeting in 2007.
Now here is the big question….what brand of alcoholic beverage did Owen Arthur consume….and not realising the impact such a policy decision would likely to have on Barbados and other Caricom states.
What?
This 2007 Caricom Heads agreement referred to by the CCJ means that we need to be more informed as to what our leaders sign and commit this country to when they leave Barbados.
Here we have a 2007 decision being referred to in a judgement which directly impacts the power and authority of independent Barbados to set its immigration policy and many Barbadians I speak to seem surprised that we signed onto such.
……………..we just watched “The Peoples Business” on CBC as well…..Verla and Guyson ….well dun….definitely now.. its not yet OVER…
@ac. You are a real yardfowl in truth, cannot comprehend. In my earlier posting I never made any reference to the money to be paid by Barbados to Ms. Myrie. My concern was the fact that Forde QC got all this money for very little work done when maids , security guards and other temporary anciliary workers are being made redundant. His fees could have been better spent..
bag juiceu the yardfowl talking nuff sh,,,,about how much money Forde was paid BTW did u signed the check, and another crap talk about it his his fault that jamaican cussing barbados, so what new,
Bleaching face ,Junk food -fast food eating , Fat guts bitch whore slut bitch Myrie got people on this blog divided over she and her intended nonsense.
The good that will come from this is that this ignorant Government is force to pay attention to its responsibility and the worst Cabinet in the history of Barbados will have something to chew on,
What this cabinet made from though ? Macaroni ?
This is a straw Cabinet -no frigging backbone at all
The DLP is solely responsible for the Myrie fiasco
A lot of people in happy to give Myrie one cent.
Let she wait for the money . If she think this Government who refused to pay Barrack going to pay she–she lie !
“FIRST SCHEDULE Prohibited Persons
1. Persons who are-
(a) idiots, imbeciles, feeble-minded persons, epileptics, persons of unsound mind or mentally
deficient, dumb, blind, or physically handicapped to the extent of being unable to earn a living
(unless they conclusively establish that they will not have to earn a living) or persons likely to
become charges n public funds; or
(b) paupers, vagrants or professional beggars.
2. Persons suffering from communicable diseases within the meaning of any regulations
relating to such diseases made under the Health Services Act.
3. Persons who-
(a) are prostitutes or persons whose behaviour offends public morality; or
UNHCR | Refworld | Immigration Act, Cap. 190 (last amended 1979) http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,LEGAL,,LEGISLATION,BRB,,3a…
16 of 18 11/07/2011 10:56
(b) seek to enter Barbados to engage in immoral sexual acts.
4. Persons who-
(a) are addicted to the use of any drug;
(b) are or have been at any time engaged or reasonably suspected of being likely to engage in
the unlawful giving or using, the offering or exposing for sale, or buying of, or the trading or
trafficking in, any drug, or
(c) have been convicted of an offence under any enactment relating to dangerous or narcotic
drugs.
5. Persons who-
(a) have been convicted of, or admit to having committed, a criminal offence which, if
committed in Barbados, is punishable with imprisonment for a term of one year or longer;
(b) knowingly or for profit, aid, encourage or procure other persons who are not citizens of
Barbados to enter Barbados illegally.
(c) are stowaways or seek to enter Barbados illegally.
6. Persons who are or have been at nay time before or after the commencement of this
Act advocates of-
(a) the overthrow by force or violence of the Government of Barbados or any other country or
of all forms of law;
(b) the abolition of organised government;
(c) the assassination of any person or the unlawful destruction of property.
7. Persons who are or have been members of or affiliated to any organization which
entertains or teaches any doctrine or practice specified in sub-paragraphs (a) to (c) of
paragraph 6.
8. Persons in respect of whom there are reasonable grounds for believing that they are
likely to engage in espionage, sabotage or other subversive activity directed against or
detrimental to the security of Barbados.
9. Persons against whom deportation orders have been made.
10. Persons seeking to enter Barbados who are not in possession of a passport.
11. Any dependant accompanying a person who has been prohibited from entering, refused
entry into, or deported from, Barbados”
the above suggests that our Immigration Laws discriminate against disabled people. The fact that this discriminatory practice can remain on our law books for so long in a country purportedly vigorously pushing the rights of the disabled parking spaces and all seems downright callous in my view.
Pay her with some of those travel vouchers
I understand that the CCJ judgement affirms the right of entry of CARICOM nationals to any and all CARICOM states. However does this mean the right to stay and for how long? In other words, would Barbados be in breach of the revised treaty of Chaguramas if Ms Myrie had been allowed to enter Barbados for say one day?
Does the CCJ ruling imply that CARICOM nationals e.g. Jamaicans or Guyanese can enter Barbados and work without a work permit? What would be the significance of a right to entry if to just be a tourist? Ah mean a whole treaty to give people the right to visit Harrison’s cave or eat fish at Oistins?!! Or is there more?
Good questions Ping Pong and what is clear is that the other Caricom islands needed the clarification of the Myrie CCJ clarification. Across Facebook pictures of entry visas are appearing which show that the other islands have been permitting entry for 5 and 6 days. So what is it?
This whole CARICOM shiite was illconceived from the very beginning.
WE DO NOT MUCH LIKE ONE ANOTHER…and few like Bajans.
Our futures lie in being respectful neighbors who work together when it is mutually beneficial to do so.
CARICOM shiite!
If Stuart had balls he would just withdraw from the whole nonsense right now. Wunna think Barrow or Tom would EVER have got us into something like this?
This is all Henry Forde’s fault.
He should have become PM and maintained the tradition of intelligent people leading the damn country…..
Having said that, who in their right mind would create a situation where the inappropriate actions of a low level immigration / police official can be taken DIRECTLY to a FINAL court for adjudication?
If Bajans are brass bowls what are these CARICOM bowls? Topsies?
Next we will have a Caricom national taking the Barbados Government to the CCJ because our beach bums failed to harrass them like they do the white tourists….
I suspect that like much else to do with CARICOM after the initial excitement has died down, this judgement will be just another set of hot air and empty words. I remember the then PM Panday on kicking Julian Rogers out of Trinidad saying words to he effect : “Do you expect me to let a foreigner come and take a job away from Trinidadians”. Of course Panday was being disingeneous as his real concern was that Rogers was making his Government uncomfortable because of the questions he was asking as a journalist. However, Panday’s resort to “nationalism” did resonate with many in Trinidad.
Imagine I have a right to enter Trinidad to buy doubles in Curepe junction, a whole big able treaty say so!
Don,t u critics of the CCJ clarifcation of the laws have any shame .Don,t u crtics realise that CCJ have done u all backsides a favour in preventing similar MYRIE cases to happen in the future. wunna need to sit down and shut up. barbados signed on and agreed to the laws of Caricom and it is not the CCJ fault that barbados failed and allowed rogue immigration officials to intrepret law at their own freewill.this is a disgrace it goes back to leaders having no vision commonsense and direction for country.
This is a wake up call that Barbados has done something wrong not right. Detaining Raul Garcia three years beyond his sentencing was wrong not right and massive land theft from Violet Beckles was wrong not right. No building should have been allowed at Arch Cot Britton Hill, that was wrong not right. Those deaths, family of five could have been prevented.
Again to all of you who have not read the judgement, this ruling is not only about what Barbados has to do but what as a region we have to do. Nationalism bordering on being jingoistic is something practiced by many Caribbean islands. The T&T example by Ping Ping is one of many examples. it is therefore healthy for ALL affected to analyze the judgement to see where adjustments have to be made. Worst/best case scenario there is the option to leave Caricom.
The Jamaica Obsetver editorial makes integrating reading: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/editorial/Ms-Myrie-has-done-the-Caribbean-a-great-service_15210625
Something is not sitting down right with this case. I am hearing Police Drug Squad, Immigration , Customs. Who is who in this case. What is the real story ? I am confused. I now see that Barbados discriminating against disabled people by way of the Law. What does this mean ? Will Barbados get sue again. Can we hear from the Heads of Immigration, Government, Police ?
@ David
Yes, that is one of the better and more objective commentaries from the Jamaica Observer. It is a pity that more persons do not bring a reasonable measure of objectivity to the issue and judgement.
By the way David, I am sure that you realise now, and even within the contexts of the 2 things I sent, that I was never AGAINST Barbados, but I looked at a situation objectively and presented a careful and factual analysis.
@George
The point is you are distilling this issue as a regionalist, some of us are doing it within the bowels of pragmatism.
I am a pragmatist and while there may be some romanticism on my part about a regional identity, I feel certain that a great set of answers to the buoyancy of national economies can actually be achieved through integrated development. The fact that Barbados for example, when things seemed economically rough and given the recessionary times, abandoned regionalism for nationalism. Is that why the OECS countries in spite of their own problems may have generally done better given the relative starting points? I make no apology, given some serious analyses and putting certain measures in place, regionalism is best placed to assure national survival among CARICOM member states (and beyond).
@George
What are the indicators you are using to measure success in the. OECS at this time?
What has amazed me in the few days since the Myrie CCJ decision was handed down is how ignorant many persons still are as it relates to the details of the Revised Treaty and the CSME agreement despite the many awareness campaigns pushed by the CSME Unit (based in Barbados) and other NGO’s who have sought to educate the public on the provisions and implications of the policy over the years. This treaty was signed and agreed to since 1973 and it has taken 40 years to get to the stage where countries have began to contemplate making the necessary changes to their legal frameworks. I want to add the following to the above discussion:
1) It has always been an established fact that Barbados was not the only CARICOM country whose immigration laws did not reflect adherence to the Revised Treaty, but an opportunity was needed – for someone to challenge the denial of their rights as a CARICOM national for the legal authorities to begin the process of challenging non-adherence by all CARICOM countries.This is bigger than Barbados.
2) Freedom of travel among the CARICOM countries is only one aspect of the Treaty and I am certain the other elements of non-compliance will soon begin to emerge (free movement of capital for example). However, this aspect of the Treaty was simply intended to provide CARICOM nationals who did not fall within the category of ‘a non-desirable’ visitor the freedom of unhindered travel within ‘our single Carribbean/CARICOM space’. Most persons coming in usually have a period of stay in mind, however the treaty simply sets a limit of 6 months minimum for individuals desirous of it. Such individuals will remain visitors (as we would be upon meeting the criteria for entry to the USA for a 2 week visit even though we were given a six month stamp by immigration personnel). As visitors they will be unable to work. Having provided proof that they will not be a burden upon the CARICOM state in question, they will be allowed to visit for up that period of time. If they do however decide to stay longer it means that they will have to go through the required legal procedures to be permitted to do so.
3) No one said the Treaty was perfect (neither was the West Indies Federation). One of the reasons it is a ‘revised’ treaty is that changes were made to it before. These debates are useful in that they point out aspects needed for further clarifications to avoid subjective interpretations of the Treaty. Again, what amazes me is that it has taken this long to get to this stage, and also irresponsible the media is being in their use of this judgement to fuel Barbadians’ fears regarding border control issues. I found it especially interesting that a discussion of this nature could have been staged by CBC and not one of the panel members was a representative of the regional CSME Unit based here in Barbados. Individuals who I know from experience would be able to address many of the technical ramifications/fears that have already been hashed out over the years and certainly do not need to be rehashed at this late stage of the CSME integration movement.
Sincerely,
VEE
However barbados is the centre of all that has transpired,and to hear the critics including lawyers casting doubt on the CCJ intrepretations tells nme that is why this island is in the mess that it is in .lack of goverance and an overtake by mob mentality is the law. the hysteria comes across as if the CCJ has overstep its authority and have subjected barbados to rules and guidlines that govts did not agreed on. HOWEVER from as far back as 2007 These laws should have been brought currant failure is on Govt
@ac
You obviously don’t live in Barbados. There is overwhelming support for the decision of the CCJ that Not only Barbados but Caricom needs to overhaul its laws to align with Community laws.
@ac
You obviously don’t live in Barbados. There is overwhelming support for the CCJ decision and the need for Barbados and. Caricom to overhaul national laws where they conflict with community law.
Isn’t it a fact that many of the things in the various agreements and MOUs or whatever that the CARICOM “leaders” sign onto are never implemented? Have we not heard the constant complaint that countries rarely follow through on their promise to make good whatever action was agreed at the many CARICOM meetings? What makes anyone think that this right of entry was to be any different?
The CCJ did not give us this right. It affirmed that this right was granted by the CARICOM governments through the Revised Treaty of Chaguramas. Did the politicians really have the same interpretation as the CCJ? As Errol Barrow once said “the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh, blessed is the name of the Lord”. Who is going to enforce this right if all (or most) governments really believe that they must have the discretion to permit or prohibit entry by non citizens. (note who is enforcing the Supreme Court’s decision on Barrack?!!).
In the early days of the Myrie matter was there no legal opinion offered to the B’dos Government that the CCJ could possibly come to the decision that it has? If no such opinion was proffered, would this be indicative that the Government of Barbados does not share this “right of entry” view? If however such an opinion was given then why did the B’dos government not go the route of diplomatic negotiation and save the country the likely very large legal fees now incurred?
So it seems the Barbados authorities were EITHER not only ignorant of the details of the treaty it signed but when challenged on a matter arising were incapable of comprehending the treaty’s provisions OR the Barbados Government disagrees fundamentally with the CCJ’s view. Given that Barbados chose to fight the matter in court suggests to me the latter view. To believe otherwise would be to regard my Government as ignorant, incompetent and reckless.
@ Ping Pong
So it seems the Barbados authorities were EITHER not only ignorant of the details of the treaty it signed but when challenged on a matter arising were incapable of comprehending the treaty’s provisions OR the Barbados Government disagrees fundamentally with the CCJ’s view. Given that Barbados chose to fight the matter in court suggests to me the latter view. To believe otherwise would be to regard my Government as ignorant, incompetent and reckless…..
You speak of governments as if they are static bodies. That misconception is a critical part of the problem when it comes so honoring agreements, treaties and MOU’s among countries. Governments are comprised of individuals who change every few years and each new individual (leader, minister, administrator etc) comes on board with a certain level of understanding or lack of understanding regarding the treaties and agreements previously made. So that even though when the Treaty in question was signed the leaders had a very good understanding of what was to be done, these leaders are no longer in office but have been superceded by others who may not necessarily hold dear the same principles or even have a clear understanding of the treaties and agreements at stake. As a result decisions are made that often counteract what was earlier agreed to and crisis like this which we are discussing occurs. This relates to all aspects and departments of government. That is why it is so critical that wherever legal changes must be made that they are done immediately and public awareness of the treaties and agreements facilitated those who initially made them so that there is continuous progress being made….and not regression.
@VERNA
Interesting points. Note that the technocrats at the Caricom Secretariat and public service remain the constant.
@ Just Asking
Bleaching face etc.. Seems like you just profiled a Barbadian
@David
The usual parameters of economic growth, tourism, and social indicators. I am suggesting, that relative to Barbados they have feared much better on all of those indices given Barbados’ starting point. I will elaborate another time and provide the data to show.
@ BU
Dr. Berry was part of Barbados’ legal team. I invite you to read the following excerpt written and compiled by GCB.
The CCJ is essential for ensuring the uniform interpretation and application of the RTC throughout the CARICOM member states. Berry (2009: 1) contends that the CCJ “is the original, exclusive, compulsory, and final interpreter of CARICOM’s constituent treaty,” the RTC. According to McDonald (2003: 931), in its original jurisdiction, the CCJ is an “international judicial tribunal basing its judgments, advisory opinions, orders,” and other effective tools at its disposal on “rules of international law.” … The perspective brings a greater focus on the role of the CCJ and its workings. The CCJ becomes engaged with governance of the state and non-state actors, institutions, and societies. The rules and legal frameworks governing intra-CARICOM migration, and especially the FMCN and ROE, are predominantly nestled between the RTC, the national laws of the nation-states (e.g. Barbados), and the interpretations advanced in international law given the mandate and legal force of the CCJ. In fact, the CCJ “is the only body competent to deliver advisory opinions on the interpretation and application” of the RTC (Pollard, 2004: 102). Against this mandate, the CCJ can bring awareness to laws in consideration of other factors such as individuals’ human rights; ratified conventions relating to migrant workers’ rights; and breaches to the constitutional provisions which are inscribed in national legislation of the particular member states.
Note the Bahamas was aware of the provisions of the revised treaty and chose NOT to sign. See letter signed by Edwin Carrington former secretary general of CARICOM.
The last two paragraphs are interesting and state:
“The Government of The Bahamas has repeatedly expressed its reservations to the Community about monetary union and the free movement of persons under the CSME, as if affects The Bahamas; a position accepted by the Member States of the Community.
I wish to assure you that nothing has changed in relation to the Community’s acceptance at the level of Heads of Government of the rights of States under the Treaty. The Bahamas remains a valued member of the Community with the complete assurance of respect for its sovereignty.”
http://bahamasuncensored.com/carrington_CSMEreservations.html
Note Haiti signed the revised treaty. I hope the Jamaican authorities will be more favourably disposed to the Haitian migrants now.
It distresses me ( if Verna’s post at 10:03 a.m. is correct) that more tax payer funds will be given to lawyers to convince Governments of what the same Governments authored and agreed among themselves.
After just listening to an MP3 recording of the over 40 articles of the CCJs decision in the Myrie verdict, i had to say they have been fair in what they were confronted with and also with the evidence……in contrast, listening to the weak lies coming out of the mouth of Roger Forde (is he a QC), i would not hire him to represent my dog…..in saying that, who died and gave those two lying officers the right, Carrington and the other one, to state they did not suspect Myrie of drug dealing, etc, but found it prudent to violate her vagina, what were they doing up in there??……..something is seriously wrong on the island with those who have authority over others and believe they have total powers of violation.
Have not seen Miller here for a couple days, maybe he can give an opinion on genetic memory and the subject of this memory being so deeply embedded in the DNA of Caribbean people who are powerful foolish that they still think they can treat each other as runaway slaves.
There is right now a white american in Barbados, he was given 3 months stay in June, he is broke, homeless and still on the island, he did not even try to extend his stay with immigration, was immigration/customs not paying attention to or investigating his credit card to see if it contained money…….what is wrong with the idiots there??
Sometimes i use a Barbados passport to enter Trinidad, i always tell them i am there for a few days and always get 6 months, always…..you cannot sign treaties and then claim they are not binding.
I guess you david have not read the negative comments on BU to those of which i am referring. the world has become a Global village aren.t u aware .Please enuff B/S about where people live. Meanwhile the comments on BU has been livid and seeing the CCJ as interfering wth barbdos policies denying barbados rights to prtoect its borders which is not true…….. say what u like lilltle bardbados is also part of this GLOBAL VILLAGE.
@ac
Why don’t you focus on the comments which has welcomed the judgement. To repeat, do not rely only on BU and newspapers to form a view.
ac……believe it or not this verdict is really a victory for all Caribbean people, there are treaties in place for integration, it took the EU 15 years to transition to a union………….the Caribbean has been bulls*itting around with the word for longer than i have been alive, i believe it’s over 60 years, their petty mindedness now has all the islands at a cross road, it really is time to take the direction needed to bring the islands together, they cannot go it alone anymore, just look at the state of the US, if they cannot see what is ahead, they more than deserve to feel what is ahead.
@ David
Clearly you also realise that Dr. Berry was part of the Barbados legal team, and i would venture to argue few understand the community obligations and law as well as he does. Precisely why I used him to assert the preeminence of the CCJ in interpreting the RTC.
it would be foolish of me to argue or dispute those with whom i agrreon this issue and it is my belief that this forum is not only accepatable and tolerant of a one sided position with which BU agrees
@Ping Pong
In the early days of the Myrie matter was there no legal opinion offered to the B’dos Government that the CCJ could possibly come to the decision that it has? If no such opinion was proffered, would this be indicative that the Government of Barbados does not share this “right of entry” view? If however such an opinion was given then why did the B’dos government not go the route of diplomatic negotiation and save the country the likely very large legal fees now incurred?
“””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
I would hazzard a guess……………………….no!
This DLP government came to office with an anti immigrant attitude. Remember how they rounded up Guyanese nationals in the dead of the night and put them on planes back to Guyana? Remember the expensive press conference from Guyana? Remember the famous quote……………..Ever so welcome, wait for a call!
I am bearing in mind that the immigration officer(s)/customer officer(s) who we meet first upon arriving at Grantley Adams were/are more than likely totally unaware of any treaty and/or articles involved regarding free movement of Caribbean people, why? because maybe they were not briefed or retrained to understand the treaty signed in 2007, along with the ramifications of ignoring and/or pretending the treaty does not exist……….the leaders in Barbados should be reminded that the Treaty or Chagauramas is not just a photo op session to spew the word integration until next time for another Caribbean retreat………..and if the officers knew about the treaty and the international community laws (not Barbados’ domestic laws) governing such treaties we should now be told the real reason why Ms. Myrie was accosted/assaulted even if there was some confusion about who was picking her up, where she was staying etc…. for all those who will not agree with my line of thinking, please remember, i am not here to coddle you or make friends, so suck it up.
Prodigal said:
“Remember the famous quote……………..Ever so welcome, wait for a call!”
___________________________________
As if enough embarrassment has not been heaped on the island, this dumb quote came from David Thompson deceased, born in England, wife born in St. Lucia, grandparent(s) born in Guyana, did i miss anyone?? Stupidity should be made a crime.
Thanks to the ” foresight & brilliance” of former Prime Minister Owen Seymour Arthur, the sovereignty of Barbados has been demolished and as a consequence, Barbados has now become a borderless state.
It is amazing that events that will impact citizens of a country in any significant way are not discussed and the opinion of the people sought. Instead our enlightened leaders go full steam ahead and sign all types of treaties that are binding and usually leave the countries in a bind literally.
This revised treaty of Chaguaramas that our “esteemed” leader Owen Seymour Arthur signed in 2007 was one of them. Look what that treaty has done to Barbados.
It has made us a borderless country with no territory borders to protect.
It has allowed our Constitution to be superseded – that treaty overshadows our laws relating to immigration.
It has practically rendered our immigration officers helpless.
It has allowed the national security of Barbados to be compromised.- all types of characters including common criminals, child molesters, drug pushers and murderers to come into Barbados unhindered.
Again I must thank the “brilliant” Owen Seymour Arthur for allowing such a situation to develop for Barbados.
Friday 04,October will go down as one of the saddest days in history of Barbados.
A common Jamaican pros–tute brought a great & proud nation of Barbados to it’s knees.
SMH Negroman Barbados brought itself to its knees. Why they had to go and push dem fingers up the lady’s vagina I don’t know BUT they sexually violated the lady. If you are calling her a prostitute without any proof, then I can easily say that you are the product of a prostitute, you are married to one and have given birth to one.
Negroman | October 7, 2013 at 3:33 PM |
Thanks to the ” foresight & brilliance” of former Prime Minister Owen Seymour Arthur, the sovereignty
—————————————————
HOGWASH
@Well Well, A careful reading of the RTC shows that the unanimity clause was not considered by the CCJ. I have difficulty with this. It clearly states that there must be concurrence/unanimity for the revised treaty to be binding. Bahamas did not concur and registered its objection and Antigua and Barbuda expressed reservations about the particular section. It would seem that because of these it is possible that the Barbados government did not consider this section binding and thus did not change its domestic laws to conform and/ or did not inform immigration officials of the necessity. The CCJ ignored this hesitation by those caricom countries that demurred and expressed the opinion that as long as there was agreement then it becomes law that supersedes local law. That issue has to resolved and must be discussed by parliament.In all countries lying to an immigration officer is grounds for refusal of entry. In the U.S. lying to a federal official is a federal offense. It was obvious to the immigration official that she lied; even if the knowledge of how they knew was not brought out, but given the history and reputation of the person who was picking her up, as well as the denial by the person whose name she gave as the contact person, and given the way Barbados has been accused of human trafficking, the immigration authorities had ample reason the become suspicious of her rationale for being in the country. You must also remember and this is important…a fact that a lot of people are ignoring in the judgment, the CCJ Disallowed Miss Myrie’s other claims. They threw out her claim of being finger raped or assault by the police, they DISMISSED her claim of being discriminated against because she was a Jamaican, they Disallowed her claim of exemplary damages and they Disallowed her claim of violation of her human rights. Thus the only damages she got compensation for were for the refusal to allow her fre entry and movement into the country.
Islandgal246
Based on the evidence that suggests that the vast majority of young Jamaican women who visit Barbados usually partake in prostitution. It can be reasonably be concluded that Shanique Myrie was visiting Barbados to partake in that line of work.
THAT IS A KNOWN FACT THAT CANNOT BE DISPUTED.
Therefore,Shanique Myrie coming to Barbados lying to immigration and only had three (3) hundred US$ for a two week stay. Tell me how she will be able to sustain herself.
Shanigue Myrie the Jamaican pros– tute is about to received a cool Jamaica $3.6 million without receiving any penetration whatsoever.
Shanique Myrie is going to be the most famous pros-tute coming out of Jamaica.
@Negroman
Why don’t you go and read the judgement. Do you understand the basis upon which the CCJ arrived at its decision?
Negroman | October 7, 2013 at 3:33 PM |
.
Friday 04,October will go down as one of the saddest days in history of Barbados.
A common Jamaican pros–tute brought a great & proud nation of Barbados to it’s knees.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
ac agrees that Friday OCT4th is one of the saddest and darkest days in the history of barbados bar none…………….However to blame MYRIE for that darkness is assinine . What if it was one of our family members. Rember tthe events did not happen by themnselves barbadians were also involved and the blame should be fully placed at the feet who entertain and cover up those disturbing and disgusting events . Not only have they disgraced Barbados but they have tied a weight around every barbadian neck …..Being a prostitute does Not give any ONE a right to violate A persons CIVIL RIGHTS>>>>>I LOVE barbados just like YOU >>HOWEVER i would not be blind or pretentious in looking the other way when a WRONG has been DONE > Wether B or D …and if the DLP stalwarts insist and persist on dehumanising this youing lady.. ac will part company with the DLP as she wants and will not be a part or group of people or organisation who refused to recogonise the hUMAN and CIVIL RIGHTS of a person. Today MYRIE …tommorow AC> …… MY hands are FOLDED>
…. for all those who will not agree with my line of thinking, please remember, i am not here to coddle you or make friends, so suck it up.”
your points are food for thought well well I agree with you – i am sure that the immigration officers were not trained to see the bigger picture.
“Does the CCJ ruling imply that CARICOM nationals e.g. Jamaicans or Guyanese can enter Barbados and work without a work permit? ”
Definitely not, the CCJ ruled on a set of specific issues which were brought before the court for adjudication. In affirming Ms Myrie right to enter Barbados in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Treaty of Chaguaramus, the court opined that the purported lie told by Ms Myrie was not of such a kind as to pose a threat to the national security, health and safety of the people of Barbados and as such should not have been denied entry based on that allegation. It did not give her or anybody else the right to work.
David of BU
I listen to the verdict on Friday. I am not a lawyer but my intuition tells me that something in that judgement was not right. It seems to me that biases against Barbados were one the underlying’s factors in the determination of that verdict. I believe the CCJ had it in for Barbados.
AC
It is your right to support or not to support the DLP.
Shanique Myrie lied to our immigration officials. She was a suspicious character. Her reasons for entering Barbados were also suspicious. The immigration & Police officials at the airport had all right to question that common Jamaican pros–tute.
Economic & political refugees from Jamaica & Guyana are rushing to Barbados. These are a burden to Barbados.
AC Guyanese & Jamaicans along with other Caribbean nationals do not have any good intentions toward Barbados.
We do not need them.
Verna
while the politicians change, the civil servants remain the same. Libraries, archives, minutes of meetings and data bases all remain. Maybe the present politicians aren’t listening or are being told by the civil servants what the civil servants think the politicians want to hear.
Your post suggest a level of ignorance and incompetency on somebody’s part. The question then is who?
@Balance
what you have written is quite reasonable however when the Heads of Government signed the Treaty (all 269 pages of it) which gave CARICOM citizens this right of entry was it to look around and have a sea bath or….
@Bush Tea | October 7, 2013 at 7:41 AM |
“who in their right mind would create a situation where the inappropriate actions of a low level immigration / police official can be taken DIRECTLY to a FINAL court for adjudication?”
…. You, who is normally so quick to spot business opportunities, completely missed the ball on this one. And BTW, Mr Forde, ex-director-in-secret of Barbados Mutual, as Prime Minister of Barbados …? Time for a nap my friend …!
@Ping Pong | October 7, 2013 at 10:45 AM |
“If however such an opinion was given then why did the B’dos government not go the route of diplomatic negotiation and save the country the likely very large legal fees now incurred?”
HA! … Again the business opportunity …!
@VERNA | October 7, 2013 at 12:23 PM |
@Prodigal Son | October 7, 2013 at 2:20 PM |
As per Davis … TECHNOCRATS ARE THERE FOR A REASON …! I hope I say dah loud enough …!
@Well Well. | October 7, 2013 at 2:31 PM |
Myrie did look sweet, and the Bajan women know the sisters from JA does be doing some rear-end things that they don’ be doing …!
@Negroman | October 7, 2013 at 3:33 PM |
HA ..! You see Barbados as a nation … huh … Makes a nice premise for the arguments that you are prepared to bring. But what if the reality is quite different? A nation is made up of “citizens”, a market on the other hand is made up of “consumers” … Which partition to you see Barbados fitting into (… and don’ say both ..!)
@alvin cummins
Wait the woman pass port din’ get stamp …? And the CCJ people did not exspress doubt at the testimonies from the police people, at the stark similarities of the presentations (rehearsed nature ..)…? Forde din’ have extreme problems defending those two Jackasses ..? This talk about throwing out is inaccurate. Frankly the CCJ is guilty of copping out, NOT throwning out
Despite my bias being for Barbados,I actually think the CCJ was correct.You just have to look at the past immigration debates to see that especially concerning the issue.There were warnings here concerning the Barbados government implementing into law parts of CSME into law whether under the Thompson or current government.It is fact that the automatic right to 6 month entry IS law in Barbados……..irregardless of if Shanique lied about where she was going.I’ll state it again,many Governments simply did not read the fine print on what they were implementing into law and this is simply the result!
No immigration officer,Politician or local judge can go against a solid “TREATY” which is opined in international law!
Painting everybody with the same brush is what you negroman is doing. i followed the case and listen carefully to the evidence somtimes replaying the videos several times and during the early part of the trial it was my opinion that she had liedm….however based on the information given and the witnesses provide to contradict her place of a bode and to whom she was seeing. the prosecution witness more or else verified that myrie was not a liar. The problem we have here is a clash of cultures which no court will be able to resolved,You can still go on the CCJ and revisit the trial verbertum .
I suffered through Fraud Ellis’ Brass Tacks show today to hear the opinions of the two lawyers. One thing became crystal clear:- the Treaty is not universally understood by the fraternity and the findings of the CCJ is not universally understood, and still has to be “thrashed out”.
Engineers solve extraordinary problems that allow people to travel into space, cross vast bodies of water and isolate entities that make up living tissue, but a group of Jackasses cannot get a universal procedure prepared for the treatment of Caribbean people, standardized …! WTF, and they are all paid so very very well … I sense business opportunities being exploited, which of course leads to many conflicts of interest …!
@Baf
Listened to the program as well. Wondered why Nicholls was invited on the show knowing his would have been pro-Caricom CCJ view given his political stripe :-).
Don’t be too hard on Ellis, his program today exposed the confusion.
At least he got the scoop from Roger who is his friend.
Wunna blaming OSA for signing the Treaty of Chaguaramas he was continuing the work of the Hon Errol Walton Barrow started he was the forerunner for CARIFTA which later became CARICOM
http://www.caricom.org/jsp/community/carifta.jsp?menu=community
If Shanique Myrie lied to immigration and was deported for that then what is the present government doing to Barbadians? Were they not lying about free University Education?About the restart of Four Seasons? About building a new hospital? That they can cover the cost of drugs for the hospital? That the budget cuts will in no way affect the hospital? What do you call these mouthings? Can we deport them for lying?
David
So Roger is Fraud Ellis’s friend … birds of a feather … (Oops, hope Amuse don’ read this ..)
@islandgal
There is a BIG difference between a social contract and an international treaty 🙂
On 7 October 2013 22:04, Barbados Underground
@Ping Pong
In the early days of the Myrie matter was there no legal opinion offered to the B’dos Government that the CCJ could possibly come to the decision that it has? If no such opinion was proffered, would this be indicative that the Government of Barbados does not share this “right of entry” view? If however such an opinion was given then why did the B’dos government not go the route of diplomatic negotiation and save the country the likely very large legal fees now incurred?
**************
A legal opinion is just an “opinion’ it is not a binding judgment, even some judgments are appealed successfully so opinions come and opinions go, the law is always subject to different interpretation by different people.
@ Alvin Cummins
You have sorely disappointed me in your capacity to read, understand, and summarise standard English. It is appalling that for whatever reason, you choose to abandon your years of learning and prefer to descend to the abyss of fools. I am sorry, if I did not know you I would have been more courteous. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree or like many think Barbados should abandon regionalism, there is no sense in totally distorting the judgement. I bet you would have preferred the wigs and long robes of white men telling you the same blasted thing; except that they would have been right!
Continue to post here – https://bajan.wordpress.com/2013/10/07/the-myrie-order/
“Shanique Myrie wanted money and a green card” – Husband Troy Pusey