A Matter of Interpretation

Today’s Barbados Advocate editorial should be of interest to the BU family – David, blogmaster

For me, as a public legal scholar, one of the more gratifying aspects of the current politico-constitutional enigma owed to the unprecedented outcome of last month’s general election and its consequences, has been the eagerness of citizens generally to seek knowledge on and to discuss what is the appropriate constitutional resolution of these issues. Indeed, some have not been timid to offer their own views publicly on these matters.

In this connection, a number of individuals have recently drawn my attention to an article by my now retired academic colleague, the erstwhile Deputy Principal and Professor Emeritus of History, Pedro Welch, in another section of the press.

Under the caption, “Unconstitutional appointment”, Pedro argues that the appointment of His Grace, the Bishop Joseph Atherley MP, as Leader of the Opposition was not permitted by a close reading of the Constitution and may be unconstitutional. Pedro uses an argument based purely on English grammar to suggest that the relevant section in the Constitution, section 74, contemplates an Opposition with what he terms a “plurality of association”. He states,

The implication seems clear. The Constitution assumes that a plurality of association is required for an aspirant to the office of Leader of the Opposition to be recognized as having the support that qualifies him/her to be so appointed. Under this assumption, it seems clear that a single person cannot, by definition, be considered to have majority support or group support in the absence of a plurality of such support. In short, a single person cannot constitute a majority in the absence of like-minded others…We may also note that most dictionaries define a majority as the greatest number or part, thus requiring a plurality.”

I commend Pedro for adding the discipline of his scholarship to the public debate and accept the force of his reasoning so far as the English language is concerned. He broached the issue with me on Monday last week and I am pleased to see that he has written on it.

However, against his argument, there are certain conventions in drafting that are to be considered in the construction of a legal provision, One of these, well known to most laypersons, is that “the masculine reference includes the feminine”. As a consequence, it would scarcely be argued that the appointment of the current Governor General, or even that of the current Prime Minister would be unconstitutional simply because the constitutional text, in reference to these offices stipulates, “he”, “him” or “his”.

As it pertains to the Governor General, section 74 (2), for instance, provides-

Whenever the Governor-General has occasion to appoint a Leader of the Opposition he shall appoint the member of the House of Assembly who, in his judgment, is best able to command the support of a majority of those members who do not support the Government, or if there is no such person, the member of that House who, in his judgment, commands the support of the largest single group of such members who are prepared to support one leader.. {Emphasis added]

And for the Prime Minister, section 70 mandates-

The Prime Minister shall, so far as is practicable, attend and preside at all meetings of the Cabinet and in his absence such other Minister shall preside as the Prime Minister shall appoint.

Despite ordinary English usage, it would not be seriously contended by anyone that, by virtue of the words of these sections, the Constitution assumes that the holders of these offices would be men only.

Another convention of statutory interpretation, though one much less well known, is that words in plural form or number include those in the singular and vice versa. Indeed, section 4 of the Interpretation Act, Cap 1 of the Laws of Barbados, captures both of these conventions neatly-

In this Act and in all Acts, regulations and other instruments of a public character relating to the Island now in force or hereafter to be made, unless there is something in the subject or context inconsistent with such construction,

or unless it is therein otherwise expressly provided-

( a ) words importing the masculine gender include females; and

(b) words in the singular include the plural, and words in the plural include the singular. [My emphasis]

Thus, the relevant section, s. 74(2), already cited above, would cover the circumstance where there are more members than one who do not support the government (members) as well as that where there is a single member that does not support the government. In that latter case, the notion of a majority would be otiose and therefore meaningless.

This piece is being prepared on the day that Bishop Atherley is scheduled to present his parliamentary response to the Prime Minister’s mini-budget. The nature and content of his response today will serve to establish, in the public mind, the genuineness of his opposition to the governing administration, but once Her Excellency. the Governor General, was so persuaded in her judgment, she had little option in the circumstances other than to appoint him to the position.

95 comments

  • Parliamentary Democracy

    For me the overarching principle that governs the existence of an opposition in the House of Assembly is that it must provide a voice for the people who oppose the Government.

    Reverend Joe was opposed by many of the 41,000 who opposed the Government, simple fact.

    He can’t be their voice.

    That’s not to say he can’t oppose the Government, but do it from within the Government benches where he belongs.

    Plurality or, Duality

    The same way the members of the house divide in two to determine who supports a government and who does not, those who support the Government also divide in two to determine who their leader, the prime minister, will be.

    Reverend Joe supports the government, but just does not support Mia Mottley as leader, Prime Minister.

    Same process applies to the those members who oppose the Government.

    They also divide in two.

    It is impossible for 0 people to divide in two to determine who will be the leader of the opposition.

    That makes the 30-0 result a nonsense.

    Likewise, it is impossible for 1 person to divide in two to determine who will be the leader of the opposition.

    It is like having one boxer in a ring.

    There needs to be a minimum of two persons, a duality, before they can choose a leader who will then be known as the leader of the opposition.

    He/she will enjoy unanimous support if there are only 2.

    Duality is probably the better word and seems completely logical and avoids the confusion of having to split hairs on singular and plural!!.

    Replacing the “majority of those members” with the “majority of that member” makes no sense.

    The “majority of those members” emerges after a division in two.

    You need a “fight” to determine the winner and one combatant can’t work and is a nonsense.

    The leader is always the one left standing.

    A duality is needed.

    Masculine and feminine … that is like falling off a log!!

    Try as you might, you can’t logically make the singular work because it takes two to tango!!

    There is always a winner and a loser

    The House as it is currently constituted is un-constitutional l!!

    We cannot be said to have a Parliamentary Democracy!!

    Like

  • @John

    Have we not beat this matter death?

    Does the GG have unchallenged discretion in the appointment or not!

    Liked by 2 people

  • Henderson N Bovell

    There was a time when there were two in the dlp opposition, neither alleged to have been speaking to the other.

    On one occasion, one tabled a motion in parliament and the other refused to second it.

    It could be argued that Mr. Kellman had no confidence in Mr. Thompson and visa versa. How then did Mr. Thompson become leader of the opposition and not Mr. Kellman?

    Like

  • Hmmmmmmm………

    I was wondering when Henderson would have “crawled out the woodwork.”

    Lookout……..should we prepare for a visit from Beresford?

    Like

  • That is the thing……the GG can only challenged by the Sovereign in the UK, who does not involve itself with the day to day management of the island….

    .but that does not mean John cannot write a letter to buckingham palace highlighting his grievance, real or imagined..

    Like

  • This mockery of what should be our sacred constitution belittles the country and takes us for idiots. Bee or Dee , Solution or KGB this parody is not true parliamentary democracy. Already you have dictator conditions with zero opposition. Now this folly. We will not be paying attention to anything from this man who we are told is a pastor. He will placed on ignore. Thinking persons know Mottley has skin in Atherley’s game. An opposition leader without credibility whose philosophy mimics the ruling party cannot represent over fifty percent of the country that didn’t vote red. The only positive to this double dealing maybe Caswell Franklyn a maverick unionist who is a genuine loose cannon. The puppet Opposition Leader may not be able to muzzle him and may end up firing him.

    Like

  • It could be argued that Mr. Kellman had no confidence in Mr. Thompson and visa versa. How then did Mr. Thompson become leader of the opposition and not Mr. Kellman?

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++

    What you are actually doing is making a case for a minimum of 3, and not the duality I am proposing.

    I am sticking with my duality!!

    Let’s say Mr. T and Mr. K begun by agreeing on who was the leader of the opposition.

    Mr. K proposed Mr. T to be the Leader of the opposition.

    Mr. T seconded and the said Mr. T went to Government House to get annointed.

    It doesn’t have to be that formal, they just need to agree.

    Mr. K is stuck with Mr. T for the simple reason that all the motions of no confidence Mr. K might bring against Mr. T, will never get seconded.

    Mr. T will stick by Robert’s rules and require formality.

    Stalemate.

    So, you ask yourself the question … who is the leader of the opposition?

    The answer is simplicity itself.

    There is no leader of the opposition in such an instance.

    So the GG in his/her discretion, not being satisfied that there is one leader who represents the two members of the opposition revokes Mr. T’s appointment.

    Since there can be no leader of the opposition, Parliament needs to be dissolved and the people asked once again what do they want?

    The people will always solve the impasse.

    Just ask them!!

    Duality can by it’s very nature be unstable but it fits the constitutional requirements as it can produce a leader.

    It just shows that there are some instances where two people cannot agree.

    This is part of being human.

    Plurality in the opposition makes Parliament more stable but duality can work.

    Believe it or not, it is the opposition who really has the power in this situation!!

    HB, who was the GG at the time?

    Like

  • This is so so simple.

    The problem is the blasted politics!!

    No one is prepared to use their brain!!

    Like

  • Mr. T and Mr. K if they agreed on the need to have an election could have gone to the GG and said neither one wanted the other to be the Leader of the Opposition.

    Obviously they did not want an election to solve the stalemate!!

    Perhaps they feared being labelled little children and being viewed negatively by the electorate.

    So they held Barbados to ransom and we got more of O$A when the two of them could have got rid of him earlier than 2008!!

    Like

  • NorthernObserver

    I believe that allowance should be made, where all seats are won by one party, for the GG to appoint 2-3 opposition members. In a similar vein, the PM can appoint 3(?) senators to serve as Ministers, as the former administration did with Byer-Suckoo, Maxine McLean and Darcy Boyce. None of these 3 were elected but they served. The point being to have persons in Opposition who actually OPPOSE, and not somebody who crosses the floor to increase salary and status. Likely they would come from the Senate appointees by the GG.
    Unfamiliar with Republic constitutions, what happens if one party wins all the seats? What powers does the President have?

    Like

  • Let me be clear I am not seeking any fame or glory but let truth be told it was Charles Skeete who first raised the apparent in his view unconstitutional appointment of Reverend Atherly as Leader of the Opposition on Barbados underground and it is disingenuous in raising further discussion on the matter not to mention the contribution of person who initiated discussions on the subject to the dislike of some

    Like

  • Well Well & Cut N' Paste At Your Service

    Northern……check out Grenada’s constitution, they are a republic, or Dominica or Trinidad, they have presidents.

    Like

  • Robert’s Rules of ORDER!!

    “Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, commonly referred to as Robert’s Rules of Order (or simply Robert’s Rules), is the most widely used manual of parliamentary procedure in the United States.[1] It governs the meetings of a diverse range of organizations—including church groups, county commissions, homeowners associations, nonprofit associations, professional societies, school boards, and trade unions—that have adopted it as their parliamentary authority.[2]”

    A member of a deliberative assembly has the right to attend meetings, make motions, speak in debate, and vote.[34] The process of making a decision is done through a motion, which is a proposal to do something. The formal steps in handling a motion are the making of a motion, having a second, stating the motion, having debate on the motion, putting the motion to a vote, and announcing the results of the vote. Action could be taken informally without going through these steps by using unanimous consent.[35] When making a choice, the basic principle of decision is majority vote. In situations when more than majority vote is required, the requirement could include a two-thirds vote, previous notice, or a vote of a majority of the entire membership.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert%27s_Rules_of_Order

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    There has to be a minimum of two to propose and second a motion.

    If you want to look for parallels look into company articles and you will see an absolute minimum of 2 (usually 3) shareholders to elect a board at AGM.

    In Directors’ meetings, a guorum is also set usually 3.

    Pick any company and go look!!!

    This is basic stuff.

    30-0 can’t work and is a nonsense

    29-1 can’t work and the contrived manner in which it was achieved makes it into a bigger nonsense!!!

    28-2 can!!

    27-3 can

    etc.

    Like

  • In companies, there can be a sole shareholder and then he/she/it calls the shots.

    But so long as there are more than one, Robert’s Rules of Order are implicitly assumed to apply.

    It is impossible to have 2 shareholders in a company who disagree.

    If they do, then the company can work.

    I have been through all this before and watched seemingly intelligent lawyers and judges apparently unable to comprehend this extremely simple basic concept.

    For me this is old hat!!

    Like

  • It seems to be …Much ado over nothing! The fact is there is no real opposition because the people kicked the crooks out in the opposite way to how Sir Gary Sobers hit Malcom Nash for six sixes. A more positive commentary would be supporting the Government to get get the island out of the fiscal mess that we have been buried in by a bunch of morons who continue to blow cow s… as was reported in yesterday’s Nation.

    Liked by 1 person

  • de pedantic Dribbler

    “I have been through all this before and watched seemingly intelligent lawyers and judges apparently unable to comprehend this extremely simple basic concept.”

    And @John yet you continue to belabour the simplicity which most of us and they obviously understand and you refuse to acknowledge which Dean Jeff so smoothly described above re the “force of …reasoning so far as the English language is concerned” is NOT APPLICABLE and cannot always be interpreted to validate a legally binding context.

    It is amazing to read your continued straw arguments. The point is indeed simple.

    Liked by 1 person

  • For those of us who want to sweep under the carpet the contrary views querying the appointment of the goodly Bishop to the post of Leader of the Opposition; the question by Chairman of the Barbados Labour Party the Honourable George Payne to Bishop Atherley is instructive and I quote
    ” Have you resigned from the Barbados Labour Party?”
    The question is whether the Governor General sought to so determine before acceding to Bishop Atherly’s request/demand for appointment as the person so qualified.

    Like

  • The equally important question is what about BLP rules? Has he been expelled from the party?

    Like

  • We are back to questioning the prerogative and discretion of the GG?

    Liked by 1 person

  • Are-we-there-yet

    Charles Skeete;

    The scope for interpretaion imbued in a legal document is significantly greater than in an English grammar essay and those trained to draft and interpret such documents must have a better understanding of the conclusions that can be drawn from and what constitutes a proper legal interpretation of such arcane documents. Therefore you are likely correct as far as the grammar of the constitution is concerned but Jeff’s interpretation trumps yours, mine, John, Dr (I forget his name) and whoever else approches the matter from a purely grammatical basis.

    Therefore, I suspect that the question above that the Hon George Payne asked of Bishop Atherly is really of no consequence since Political Parties are not recognized in the constitution and the GG would have no statutory need to explore and determine that fact. The question is a political one and I therefore suspect that the Hon. George Payne was wearing one of his political hats when he asked it, not his legal one.

    Liked by 2 people

  • Are-we-there-yet

    David; Please release my post above.

    Like

  • 30-0 is a nonsense.

    The simple fact that Reverend Joe did what he did and “saved the day” makes that fact indisputable.

    So what abut 29-1?

    Lets try counting down to show how simple this is to be shown this too is a nonsense.

    Counting up from 0 seems to be a challenge when 1 is reached!!

    Lets suppose instead of 30-0 it was 20-10.

    AND no DLP member was present in the opposition 10 seats.

    How would a leader of the opposition have been selected since there is no party leader already chosen?

    The 10 would meet, and discussions would ensue.

    At some point when a decision was necessary they would divide if say two candidates were willing and suitable.

    Each would get a proposer and seconder, 4 out of the 10, and a vote would be taken.

    The remaining 6 would determine which of the two candidates would be leader.

    If there was a tie, there would be further discussions and the process would repeat unless one withdrew.

    So now countdown from 10 to 1 and then 0.

    21-9 works

    22-8 works

    23-7 works

    24-6 works

    25-5 works

    26-4 works

    27-3 works.

    28-2 works

    29-1 does not work

    30-0 does not work

    The 10 could even decide to rotate the post of leader of the opposition every 6 months so each would in theory get an equal experience … once the term is a full 5 years!!

    What has gone on in the past 18 days or so is complete utter nonsense.

    Big able people ought to know better!!

    The constitution foresaw all of the unprecedented occurrences above.

    It is just the lawyers who can’t foresee anything and who deal entirely in precedents past who have confused people’s heads.

    The Constitution is miles ahead of them!!

    Trust the people and go back to them!!

    Like

  • Poor John, I really pity you…….

    This is the third week since the famous REDWASH and you are still with the same BS………..my man, you really need to get a life and get a grip on reality.

    You are losing it!

    Like

  • Payne is being a clown………political parties play no role in the language of the constitution, anyone can leave from the government of the day and join the opposition benches…or become LOO..once appointed by the GG……..hopefully it does not take another 50 years for that reality to sink into hard ass heads..

    .the electorate should be voting candidates and not political parties, they are an illusion…

    Liked by 1 person

  • de pedantic Dribbler

    @Are-We re your 10:59 : Three cheers. Perfectly well noted.: the constitution does NOT recognize political parties.

    The remarkablebe thing about BU generally and this debate most alarmingly is blogger intellectual gymnastics.

    SMH.

    Liked by 1 person

  • CASE RED

    (2) Whenever the Governor-General has occasion to appoint a Leader of the Opposition he shall appoint the member of the House of Assembly who, in his judgment, is best able to command the support of a majority of those members who do not support the Government,

    DUALITY, ROBERT’S RULES, PROPOSER and SECONDER

    30-0 CANT WORK, ACCEPTED BY ALL HENCE REVERND JOE!!
    29-1 CANT WORK, REJECTED BY MANY, ACCEPTED BY FEW!!
    BUT EVERY COMBINATION FROM 29-2 to 16-14 CAN!!

    CASE BLUE

    if there is no such person, the member of that House who, in his judgment, commands the support of the largest single group of such members who are prepared to support one leader:

    NO GROUPS
    30-0 CANT WORK
    29-1 CANT WORK
    BUT EVERY COMBINATION FROM 29-2 to 16-14 CAN!!

    Like

  • Waaait John still on this? It seems he wants the GG to declare the election null and void.😂😂😂30-0

    Liked by 1 person

  • Many years ago Premier the Hon Grantley Herbert Adams said in the House…Mr Speaker,the only thing Parliament can’t do is make a man into a woman.All the hogwash John swilling on BU is just that hogwash.Ask Sir Philip who loves to use that term when he speaks appropriately.

    Liked by 1 person

  • TheoGazerts Jnr.

    @John
    I have this problem to solve.
    There is an island with a single inhabitant. Is he a majority of the population or being just one is he a minority?
    A friend wants to argue that’s he more than a majority, he’s all the inhabitants on the island.
    Perhaps the phrase should have include “or all”.
    Wuhloss
    I gine dead

    Like

  • Poor John, I really pity you…….
    This is the third week since the famous REDWASH and you are still with the same BS………..my man, you really need to get a life and get a grip on reality.
    You are losing it!
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Don’t worry about me, I got it.

    Three weeks on and few others have!!

    Even the Roti man on the street got it!!

    Like

  • Dis is how some of the on looking public interprets the outcome of Bishop Joe’s sacrifice

    He is doomed to get cursed 29 times every Tuesday in the HoA for 5 years.

    Notwithstanding the LoO salary he now pulling heheheheheh

    Like

  • millertheanunnaki

    @ John June 14, 2018 1:01 PM
    “The Constitution is miles ahead of them!!
    Trust the people and go back to them!!”

    There is a saying that ‘if you are not part of the solution you must be part of the problem’; or something along those lines.

    Senor Juan, this is over two weeks you have been flogging a Constitutional dead horse.

    Now what are you recommending in order to resuscitate (far more resurrect) your political dead horse which even the people of St. John have decided to abandon and to discard the livery of yellow-coated johnnies?

    Who in the commonsense world of Constitutional tarnation would be making that decision to go back to the same people who made their feelings known in no uncertain terms?

    What would happen if the people reconfirm their intentions and return a similar 30-0 result?

    Let us suppose you would want the electorate to return a sufficient number to form the combination which you think would result in the kind of Leader of the Opposition chosen by a ‘majority of the minority’ of elected members to the HoA.

    Now would you tell us which of the existing 29 members currently supporting the government should give up their ‘duly’ elected status in the HoA to make way in order to facilitate the election of other members who will be inclined to oppose the ‘reelected BLP’ government to satisfy your Constitutional ‘moot’ point?

    Why not start with the member for St Michael North East?

    Why can’t you get it through your hard sea-shell head that the electorate have spoken in the most indisputable way ever in Bajan electoral history and there is no way they will be prepared to reelect even a yard-fowl type roll of DLP sea-crab shit(e) from that unanimously rejected lot of pooch-lickers.

    Liked by 1 person

  • @PUDRYR

    You asked on another blog if the blogmaster agrees with the proposal by the AG to jettison hundreds (thousands?) of cases from the system. To use his words the system is about to crash under its own weight. Is this correct? Are we able to solicit independent verification? The impotent Bar is vested in the system, where do we turn- the Hill?

    How do we guarantee that a transparent and untainted approach will be taken? If John Citizen and blogmaster can b assured then we find ourselves in a better position to comment? Looks like a worthy topic for the law professor.

    Like

  • @ The Honourable Blogmaster

    Here is my take on the Idiocy that Dale Marshall has proposed.

    When you or I go into the Court at Whitepark Road, WHEN IT IS OPENED, and we are seated waiting on our matters IF THEY GET ROUND TO CALLING YOUR CASE you are able to see the full list of cased for that day IF THE BRAND NEW SCREENS ARE WORKING.

    That first of all suggest that so called “privacy” of legal matters and who are the litigants is not too critical.

    secondly It would mean that there is a list of all the cases somewhere in the system.

    Now, as it relates to “lists” a simple spreadsheet that gives the name of the defendant, the plaintiff, the category of litigation, the file number, the age of the matter would permit one to (i) categorize the matters in order of priority and (ii) type of matters criminal, civil, family etc

    That should be the methodology that Mr. Marshall should use but given his beligerent self NOTHING LIKE THAT WILL HAPPEN cause Dale is “large and in charge”

    YES, we are able technically to independently verify the matter but it will take some ground work.

    The late Trevor “Job” Clarke started an initiative called “Justice for All” which was essentially supposed to an NGO whose focus was on getting lists of legal matters from the average man and woman and then seek to prosecute those matters (the last part was quite ambitious considering the financial status of the people who were being courted.)

    But, technically speaking a simple GoDaddy or Weekly website can do the job (even an applicable wordpress theme to facilitate Intake and member “monitoring”.

    The first iteration of the site would be a portal that would (i) permit the party to enlist and (ii) record baseline information on the case

    As to the mutual assurances that the blogmaster and John Citizen would need, prior to Due Diligence on the submitted information, there would be none for the Blogmaster and conversely i would hope that the Blogmaster would be someone like yourself to address the integrity concerns of John Citizen.

    As Mr Codrington said in another blog, the blockchain technology would be relied on to lock in record integrity/auditing requirements.

    The thing is that the second tier of such a platform potentially could obviate specific functions that lawyers conduct and which some lawyers conduct dishonestly.

    E.g. land sales, covenanting and the archaic asset swaps where people like Michael Carrington and some of the characters above in the carousel titled lawyers in the news, can and have purportedly interject themselves into misappropriating client proceeds/funds

    This is a time for change where the wiser John Citizens among us MUST TAKE THE REIGNS OF CONTROL from these demigods.

    The issue that we do gooders must adhere to is that we put systems in place that MAKE SURE THAT WE AND OUR SUCCESSORS ARE FORCED TO BE HONEST cause we cant falsify the subcutaneous digital confirmations required by distributed ledgers.

    But that is a possible future

    Like

  • Well Well & Cut N' Paste At Your Service

    Marshall will have to be monitored closely regarding jettisoning cases, criminals cases I can see it happening because of the incompetence of the office of the various commissioners of police, of the DPPs office and prosecutors in their negligence to present files to the courts resulting in years of adjournments and no closure, for which they should have all been fired by the equally incompetent GGs of the day if any recommendations had been made by the equally incompetent and neglectful heads of the civil service commission, or judicial legal service commission to the incompetent ministers…but the yardfowl brigades of incompetence and party supporters ruled for the last 52 years….so this is the result….those criminal cases will have to be thrown out.

    The civil cases on the other hand are the ones that must be watched very carefully, their neglect and lingering without closure was willful and malicious so the heirs, beneficiaries and claimants etc who are still alive….. those who the lawyers and others used the waiting for them to die approach to deny closure to those cases….must be vigilant of Marshall and his real intent to cover his and his fellow lawyers asses for what they have done before….they must never be allowed to get away with any of it particularly in the land and property civil matters where theft from land owners is still the order of the day by bar association members……. and personal injury cases where they are bribed by insurance companies to deny compensation to injured people.

    As I have seen, there are civil personal injury cases that should have been settled years ago, they have no right lingering in adjournment after adjournments because lawyers are refusing closure, those are the cases Marshall should be forcing his fellow lawyers to conclude, settle, wrap them up and pay the people their money instead of trying to tief it….or waiting for the claimants to die to tief it…..get those cases out of the system…

    …..some personal injury cases are over 10 years …or 9, 8, 7, 6, 5 4 years dragging through the nonfunctional supreme court for no valid reason when it has already been confirmed and proven that the injuries took place, that the accused was negligent, that the accused and insurance companies are liable, so why are these cases still being adjourned for years on end through malicious lawyers and insurance companies and judges who obviously have no control over their own court rooms and are also being seen as corrupt….the court must collapse under all that weight.

    The land dispute cases are even worse and lawyers and others who use the court system and it’s uselessly destructive process as a weapon to steal land and property from the sick, elderly, disabled, dying and dead, should be imprisoned, they have all been committing these crimes against the defenseless and vulnerable land and property owners since the 1960s…ask Simmons.

    So yes….Marshall must be watched closely,

    Like

  • Now would you tell us which of the existing 29 members currently supporting the government should give up their ‘duly’ elected status in the HoA

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    An unconstitutional House of Assembly is by definition un-constitutional!!

    As the man in the street says …. it is mock!!

    I am not the problem, the man in the street is!!

    If we have a mock or unconstitutional House of Assembly, what would you suggest we do?

    Unconstitutional/mock trumps duly elected!!

    “Oh the crystal chandeliers light up the paintings on your wall
    The marble statuettes are standing stately in the hall
    But will the timely crowd that has you laughing loud help you dry your tears
    When the new wears off of your crystal chandeliers”

    Like

  • There are 30 marble statuettes standing stately in the hall.

    Like

  • Not at all, Are- you- there not at all
    Mr Payne never challenged Mr Atherlys appointment at least not yet but his question I repeat again is instructive
    “Have you resigned from the Barbados Labour Party?” and if he hasn’t; this is the strongest case so far devoid of complication which validates the view of those who believe that the Governor General erred in appointing Bishop Atherly to the post of Leader of the Opposition
    something which can be corrected with as simple and amendment to the constitution as was done to accommodate those nominated to the Senate without the requisite residency status
    and to those peddling this nonsense about the Constitution not reconizing parties
    I posit that this might be so not in name but it recognizes groups and I ask if the
    persons who sit in Parliament are not representative of groups
    and I am not aware of Mr Cumberbatch’s recent position on the issue but I do know that when I first broached the subject; Mr Cumberbatch did say that I have a point albeit inchoate.

    Like

  • @David
    You asked on another blog if the blogmaster agrees with the proposal by the AG to jettison hundreds (thousands?) of cases from the system.
    +++++++++++++
    So what changed? The last I heard was that the Gov’t was going to hire 3 “temporary” judges to clear the backlog of 10,000 cases and I thought that is a lot of overtime unless “temporary” has taken on a very different meaning.

    How will they assign a priority as to what cases to “jettison”? Here is one suggestion all those cases of people having “vegetable matter” of insignificant value should be dismissed forthwith. They just clog up the Courts, however those are the cases most likely to be tried and more often than not the people end up at Dodds on the Gov’t dime where they have to be fed three squares a day and that adds to the deficit.

    Like

  • @Sargeant

    Three judges will not address the backlog.

    The concern you have is what the AG must satisfy. How will the surgery be performed.

    Like

  • ” June 15, 2018
    Prime Minister Mia Mottley has announced that there will be changes coming to the five-decades-old Town and Country Planning Act that could impact on how land development is done in Barbados.”

    Like

  • Jeff Cumberbatch

    …and if he hasn’t; this is the strongest case so far devoid of complication which validates the view of those who believe that the Governor General erred in appointing Bishop Atherly to the post of Leader of the Opposition

    @ mr Skeete, The GG could have erred on;y if she acted contrary to her considered judgment

    Whenever the Governor-General has occasion to appoint a Leader of the Opposition he shall appoint the member of the House of Assembly who, in his judgment, is best able to com- mand the support of a majority of those members who do not support the Government, or if there is no such person, the member of that House who, in his judgment, commands the support of the largest single group of such members who are prepared to support one leader:

    Like

  • Inchoate, otiose …. only a lawyer could come up with these words!!!!

    Like

  • Did you know there is the Reasonable Man Doctrine?

    “The cornerstone of American Jurisprudence is the Reasonable Man Doctrine. Unless your case centers on some obscure legal technicality, the Reasonable Man Doctrine will be used extensively throughout your self-defense trial. What would a reasonable person have done under the same circumstances, knowing what you knew at the time? That phrase, my friends, will be your lifeblood during the episode of your life that will likely define you as a man or woman.”

    https://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/article/the-reasonable-man-doctrine/

    Like

  • Really???….weeks later Jeff still has to be explaining this all over again.

    Now yall see why I cut my reading of comments to only certain ones.

    Like

  • de pedantic Dribbler

    @Dean Jeff, one must thank you for your patience and continued even dispensation of legal clarity on this matter, HOWEVER you fight a losing battle, here!

    The ‘opposition’ debaters here offer what can be best described in Trumpian vernacular as ‘alternative facts’ and will hold to their view regardless of the solid basis of your legal opinion. Of course as you have said often here a legal opinion sans the finality of a final appellate judgement is still just a opinion, learned or not!

    They hold that there can be no group of one, thus Atherley’s appointment is ultra vires.. Alternative fact one…despite the clarity of the constitution dismissing that position.

    They further hold that the GG is somehow politically motivated or if not does not have the ability to appoint a member of the ruling party as the LoO…Alternative fact two… This despite the man’s crossing the floor thus being so valid for post according to Constitution and the right vested in the GG to so act also stated clearly in said Constitution doc.

    So I wish you luck as you continue to show-up their remarkable mental gymnastics….it’s decades now since we (of that age) were riveted to our TVs to see a young sprat called Nadia Comaneci score perfect 10s at the Olympics …you sir will likely have to do even better than that perfection to defeat this lot of gymnasts 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  • millertheanunnaki

    @ John June 15, 2018 7:58 AM
    “An unconstitutional House of Assembly is by definition un-constitutional!!
    As the man in the street says …. it is mock!!”

    The current HoA is as “Constitutional” as those which presided over the governmental affairs of Barbados from 1639 to 1951.

    What say did the vast ‘majority of Bajans (especially blacks) have in those old dark satanic days of dreaded cane fields and killing sugar mills?

    You still not yet addressed the most burning issue about which you are worrying.

    How should “the man in the street” replace the existing “mock” HOA with a ‘real-real’ elected 30 member Assembly with a minimum 26 to 4 ratio to ensure that there is a properly elected Leader of a duly elected Opposition in Parliament and reflective of the need to carry the fight against a formidable 26 member Cabinet?

    Like

  • “The current HoA is as “Constitutional” as those which presided over the governmental affairs of Barbados from 1639 to 1951.”

    Outside of the 15 amendments to the Constitution .from 1974 to 2007 and more recently last week….the constitution of 1651 when the British governors of the island were given their independence and responsibilities to manage the island day to day with very little interference from the UK…..and then the abolition of physical but NOT mental bondage of the majority black population…..thethen introduction of permission for the black majority to elect candidates, not political parties, to be their representatives and all that should entail for the island’s progress and the entire population’s economic futures and wellbeing…..very little has changed in the document from it’s 1600s template…..

    It is instructive that there were no political parties back when the british governors managed the island in the 1600s to 1900s ….there were none then and are now still no valid, intelligent or legal reasons to provide for political parties in this present or any future constitutional document…

    ..political parties have wreaked enough havoc and visited enough psychological damage on the minds of the majority population and total financial damage and destruction on the island and Caribbean at large..

    Like

  • MTA

    The current HoA is as “Constitutional” as those which presided over the governmental affairs of Barbados from 1639 to 1951.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Well, that would depend on what the constitution from 1639 to 1951 said!!!

    Like

  • Wonder if Jeff knows what the previous constitution said!!

    Like

  • ” mr Skeete, The GG could have erred on;y if she acted contrary to her considered judgment”

    Mr Cumberbatch a gentleman once told me that English is a funny language so given what can be concluded from Mr Payne’s query to Bishop Atherly; would you in your judgment say that Mr Atherly’s appointment conforms to the provisions of the Constitution. You have the last word and i will be guided by you.

    Like

  • Jeff Cumberbatch

    Mr Cumberbatch a gentleman once told me that English is a funny language so given what can be concluded from Mr Payne’s query to Bishop Atherly; would you in your judgment say that Mr Atherly’s appointment conforms to the provisions of the Constitution. You have the last word and i will be guided by you.

    @ Mr Skeete, Mr Payne;s question is identical to that that the GG should have asked pdf Bishop Atherley. If she was satisfied with his answer to her, then once she had no reason to disbelieve its truth, she would have been constitutionally entitled to go ahead and appoint him.

    Liked by 1 person

  • then once she had no reason to disbelieve its truth
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++

    What would a reasonable person think given Reverend Joe’s interview?

    “Absence of a physical presence”!!

    Like

  • But the killer reason the GG should have known Reverend Joe was not on the level was that his choice as the Leader of the opposition was not made using Robert’s Rules, standard Parliamentary procedure.

    No proposer or seconder no duality.

    Notice, Rules of Parliamentary Procedure are used as the basis for the formation of Parliament, when there is only a House of Assembly, before the Senate is born and a Parliament comes into existence.

    Clearly, those rules were broken by Reverend Joe himself.

    Like

  • @John

    How does what you have written address the fact once the GG is satisfied in her judgement that is all there is to it? Why not sue her- if you can that is.

    Like

  • Well Well & Cut N' Paste At Your Service

    Ah can’t wait to see the meat of that lawsuit.

    Like

  • Jeff Cumberbatch

    @David, John is well aware that a breach of common sense is a breach of the school rules.

    Liked by 2 people

  • David
    June 16, 2018 8:07 AM

    @John
    How does what you have written address the fact once the GG is satisfied in her judgement that is all there is to it? Why not sue her- if you can that is.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    No need to!!

    Bajans are growing up!!

    Like

  • Besides David,

    The Court in which she used to preside as a justice of appeal with the CJ, is a flop.

    Why waste time!!

    Like

  • @Jeff

    More apt is the saying- a lil learning is a dangerous ting.

    Like

  • millertheanunnaki

    @ John June 15, 2018 4:20 PM
    “MTA
    The current HoA is as “Constitutional” as those which presided over the governmental affairs of Barbados from 1639 to 1951.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Well, that would depend on what the constitution from 1639 to 1951 said!!!”

    So let us talk about the 300 year-old (1652 to 1951) Constitution for Barbadoes first ‘negotiated and agreed’ at the ‘Ye old Mermaid Tavern’ with subsequent amendments via “orders-in-council” issued from Whitehall to preserve the commercial and military interests of Great Britain and her ‘colonial’ empire.

    Clearly, the principle of “No taxation without representation” did not apply to the vast majority of Bajans especially those of West African ancestry who- for a significant period of time- made up the disenfranchised majority of the Bajan population.

    Now, whom were the then Governor-appointed ‘Leaders of the Opposition’ representing in Parliament?

    The mainly landless ecky-beckies redlegs backra (back-row) johnnies from St. John?

    Did your overbearingly obstreperous Henny Penny ilk behave like Chicken Little and shouted the ‘Democratic Sky is Falling’ because there was No ‘duly elected’ Opposition in Parliament to represent those who did not vote in support of the then ‘self-government’, just like how you are kicking up a fuss about the decision of the majority of the Bajan people to send to the same Parliament representatives of their own democratically-enfranchised choosing.

    Like

  • We will see how well this seminar works out in the judiciary going forward, if any of the practices and procedures are even used or adopted at all..

    http://www.nationnews.com/nationnews/news/167463/court-closure-evidence-law-training-workshop

    “Chief Justice, Sir Marston Gibson, and Australia’s Ambassador to the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), John Pilbeam, will address participants.

    The seminar is designed to provide guidance on recent developments in Australian law on which the Evidence Act of Barbados is based. It is anticipated that it would also assist in the streamlining of the island’s trial process, particularly in respect of the introduction of items into evidence.

    It is geared towards members of the Judiciary, Magistracy, Police Prosecutors and attorneys from the Department of Public Prosecutions, the Solicitor General’s Chambers and the Barbados Bar Association.”

    Like

  • lol, lol

    “Did your overbearingly obstreperous Henny Penny ilk behave like Chicken Little and shouted the ‘Democratic Sky is Falling’ because there was No ‘duly elected’ Opposition in Parliament to represent those who did not vote in support of the then ‘self-government’,”

    Like

  • So let us talk about the 300 year-old (1652 to 1951) Constitution for Barbadoes first ‘negotiated and agreed’ at the ‘Ye old Mermaid Tavern’

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    It was called the Charter of Barbados!!!

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-constitution-and-charter-act

    Like

  • Why do I have to go through this basic stuff ad nauseum!!!

    Aren’t modern day Bajans able to read and learn for themselves?

    Like

  • We claim to have one of the oldest Parliaments in the Commonwealth.

    We claim it started in 1639!!

    What does the Charter of Barbados of 1651 have to do with a 1639 event?

    Go back to school!!

    Like

  • millertheanunnaki

    @ John June 16, 2018 12:42 PM

    Should we guess that in your arrantly arrogant and supercilious admonition ‘to go back to schoo’l your advice is being disrespectfully directed to the person(s) you are blaming for the current state of unconstitutional affairs in respect of the choice of the Leader of the Opposition.

    What are you trying say here, John, other than bringing into ‘question’ the judgment of the GG and her suitability to exercise such an important decision-making function?

    Are you recommending that Her Majesty’s Loyal Representative in Barbados be sent ‘back to school’ too?

    PS:
    Why don’t you the redneck John teach the BU dunces a lesson and tell us what the Charter of Oistins (Barbadoes) meant for the local white population of 1652?

    Didn’t it have the same kind of political impact on the local white population that the grant of universal adult suffrage in 1951 had on the majority black population?

    Like

  • tell us what the Charter of Oistins (Barbadoes) meant for the local white population of 1652?

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Find it, read it and put it up for discussion!!

    I know you have not read it and are just spouting a load of rubbish!!

    Like

  • Are you recommending that Her Majesty’s Loyal Representative in Barbados be sent ‘back to school’ too?

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Would you say her tenure as a Justice of Appeal has been stellar?

    Like

  • There is very little difference between the charter/written grant of 1639 written in the british parliament for the governors of Barbados granting the permission to manage the island…..and the constitution/charter/written grant of 1966 written in the british parliament by the British sovereign and legislative power of England in creating privileges, rights and responsibilities for the majority black population to be governed by their black leaders….no difference at all outside of the 15 amendments made from 1974 – 2018

    CHARTER : It is a written grant by sovereign country or legislative power of country by which a body such as a company , university etc is created or its rights and privileges are being defined .

    CONSTITUTION : A body of fundamental principles or established precedents by which a state or other organisations are to be governed .

    Like

  • Up until 1966..Barbados was and still is in 2018……. a business interest of the UK sovereign.

    Like

  • There is very little difference between the charter/written grant of 1639 written in the british parliament for the governors of Barbados granting the permission to manage the island…..

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I thought you said it was 1652!!

    Like

  • Whatever…ya think I am stuck on dates…it all amounts to the same intent…1639-1651 or 2…slavery as a business enterprise…inclusive of all islands under british rule..

    1652 – 1951…..slavery and sugar as a business enterprise…..inclusive of all islands under british rule…

    1951 – 2018….newage business enterprise….under british sovereignty..

    same shit…just a different era…

    Like

  • Now, therefore, the people of Barbados (a) proclaim that they are a sovereign nation founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity of the human person, their unshakeable faith in fundamental human rights and freedoms and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions;

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    So, you all knew that?

    Like

  • (b) affirm their belief that men and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law;

    (c) declare their intention to establish and maintain a society in which all persons may, to the full extent of their capacity, play a due part in the institutions of the national life;

    (d) resolve that the operation of the economic system shall promote the general welfare by the equitable distribution of the material resources of the community, by the human conditions under which all men shall labour and by the undeviating recognition of ability, integrity and merit;

    (e) desire that the following provisions shall have effect as the Constitution of Barbados—
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    What about that, you all knew that too?

    Like

  • THE CONSTITUTION OF BARBADOS
    Whereas the love of free institutions and of independence has always strongly characterised the inhabitants of Barbados:
    And Whereas the Governor and the said inhabitants settled a Parliament in the year 1639:

    And Whereas as early as 18th February, 1651 those inhabitants, in their determination to safeguard the freedom, safety and well-being of the Island, declared, through their Governor, Lords of the Council and members of the Assembly, their independence of the Commonwealth of England:

    And Whereas the rights and privileges of the said inhabitants were confirmed by articles of agreement, commonly known as the Charter of Barbados, had, made and concluded on 11th January, 1652 by and between the Commissioners of the Right Honourable the Lord Willoughby of Parham, Governor, of the one part, and the Commissioners on behalf of the Commonwealth of England, of the other part, in order to the rendition to the Commonwealth of England of the said Island of Barbados:

    And Whereas with the broadening down of freedom the people of Barbados have ever since then not only successfully resisted any attempt to impugn or diminish those rights and privileges so confirmed, but have consistently enlarged and extended them:

    ++++++++++++++++++

    What about all them whereasis!!

    You all really read this constitution?

    http://www.oas.org/dil/the_constitution_of_barbados.pdf

    Like

  • If Froon and his lot is such demons, who put the new GG there?

    Froon mek a mistake here too?

    Like

  • @ john
    RE Why do I have to go through this basic stuff ad nauseum!!!
    Why? why do you have to go on with this stuff ad nauseum, ad infinitumque.

    You sound like the devil’s son who has come here for years asking stupid questions about the Doctrine of the Trinity, which has ben established since the 3rd century by the “Early Church Fathers.” it is true that you have only been this for weeks whereas he has done it for years.

    Like

  • Well Well & Cut N' Paste At Your Service

    Ah wonder how all the still mentally enslaved, fake high morals, fake christians in Barbados will handle all of this news….lol…

    …the centuries old gayness in the buckibgham palace bloodline is now public…no more pretense, what will the hypocrites on the island say and do now.

    “”The first ever gay Royal wedding has been announced
    JOSH JACKMAN
    16 JUN 2018

    The first member of the Royal Family to come out as gay is set to marry.

    Lord Ivar Mountbatten opened up about his sexuality in 2016 after a decades-long struggle.

    Later this summer, the Royal – who is cousin to the Queen and the great-nephew of Earl Mountbatten of Burma – will wed his long-term partner James Coyle, who was by his side when he revealed he was gay.

    The news comes just weeks after Prince Harry and Meghan Markle tied the knot at Windsor Castle, with the couple making their support for LGBT rights clear in the build-up to the wedding by meeting with young LGBT activists from across the Commonwealth.”

    Like

  • Now, therefore, the people of Barbados

    (a) proclaim that they are a sovereign nation founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity of the human person, their unshakeable faith in fundamental human rights and freedoms and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions;
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    So Jeff,

    Would the following be a fair legal assessment of the words above contained in the Constitution?

    If one were a Barbadian adult alive on November 30 1966 one acknowledged the supremacy of God as the overarching principle of the constitution of Barbados as of midnight 1st December, 1966 when Dipper raised the flag on one’s behalf!!.

    If one was too young to do so for oneself it was done for one on one’s behalf by those legally responsible for one.

    If one was as yet unborn or one became a citizen of Barbados by whatever means, one automatically legally acknowledged the supremacy of God as the overarching principle of one’s existence as a citizen of Barbados.

    As Bajans, one and all, we all legally acknowledge the supremacy of God and have legally proclaimed His name.

    If someone claiming to be a Bajan, wanted to legally renounce the supremacy of God, would that someone have to legally renounce our citizenship of Barbados?

    … or would that someone have to seek to get the constitution changed so that God’s name could be removed?

    Like

  • Well Well & Cut N' Paste At Your Service

    Piece……murder she wrote. ..lol

    Ah don’t think the permanently slave minded would ever give up a fantasy god handed to them…..neither did those born in the Caribbean before 1962 or 1966 independence” in the Caribbean….relinquish their born british citizenship….due to the fact that most never knew about it, or that they had it to begin with………………………………. their blighted, deceitful black governments never told them, obviously hid it thinking they were being cute, creating more yardfowls only good for voting them into parliament…, and in doing so, stupidly stagnated the island’s progress and development for 52 years….wasted decades..

    Glad the duopoly is dead and now we will make sure it stays buried.

    Like

  • If you count yourself a Barbadian Citizen, you are legally bound by the Constitution to acknowledge the Supremacy of God.

    Is this a fair statement?

    Like

  • “@ Mr Skeete, Mr Payne;s question is identical to that that the GG should have asked pdf Bishop Atherley. If she was satisfied with his answer to her, then once she had no reason to disbelieve its truth, she would have been constitutionally entitled to go ahead and appoint him.”

    Are we saying then that given Mr Payne’s direct question to Mr Atherly which remains unanswered that Bishop Atherly might have misled the Governor General into believing that he was no longer a member of the group referred to as the Barbados Labour Party the majority of whose members sit in Parliament and constitute the Government of Barbados.

    Like

  • We are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Bishop Atherley was elected as a member of the BLP; he has since become an opposition member. The answer is simple: do BLP rules allow him to remain a member of the party? Should he not have been expelled, if not should he not remain officially a member of the BLP?

    Like

  • Why does it matter if he resigns or not?

    Liked by 1 person

  • Jeff Cumberbatch

    If someone claiming to be a Bajan, wanted to legally renounce the supremacy of God, would that someone have to legally renounce our citizenship of Barbados?
    … or would that someone have to seek to get the constitution changed so that God’s name could be removed?

    @ John, the words of a Canadian judge on that matter…

    “The preamble to the Charter provides an important element in definingCanada, but recognition of the supremacy of God, emplaced in the supreme law of Canada, goes no further than this: it prevents theCanadian state from becoming officially atheistic. It does not makeCanada a theocracy…” per Muldoon J (Federal Court of Canada)

    Like

  • Jeff Cumberbatch

    *Are we saying then that given Mr Payne’s direct question to Mr Atherly which remains unanswered that Bishop Atherly might have misled the Governor General into believing that he was no longer a member of the group referred to as the Barbados Labour Party the majority of whose members sit in Parliament and constitute the Government of Barbados.”

    @Mr Skeete, He does not have to be not a member of the BLP to be in opposition to it as government: merely that he does not support the government in the House. In addition, how the GG arrives at her judgment cannot be inquired into in any court…

    Like

  • their unshakeable faith in fundamental human rights and freedoms

    +++++++++++++++++

    Jeff

    The answer is simpler.

    God give us free will to choose whether to acknowledge His supremacy … or not.

    In exercising that freedom of choice one is actually acknowledging His supremacy!!!

    https://allthingsliberty.com/2016/02/why-god-is-in-the-declaration-but-not-the-constitution/

    The Declaration states that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    Like

  • de pedantic Dribbler

    Dean Jeff, you give us the legal moorings to stabilize floundering debate. Again thanks.

    But I wonder as a layman is there some juncture where legal reason starts and commonsense ends?

    Is it not a mater of commonsense (almost like that comment re a breach of school rules you noted recently) that a person in opposition need NOT be a non-member of the group it opposes!

    Surely political firestorms all around the world give evidence of that.

    This is not an ideal example but didn’t Foreign Minister Eden oppose most vehemently his PM Chamberlain re war issues while still a party member although he resigned…that’s a bit specific I know but others have crossed the floor to show a policy and emotive break with their party while at heart they remain quite grounded in the true beliefs that led them to the party in the first place.

    Despite the warm weather and scant need for knitted long garbs, the debaters on the other side continue unsuccessfully to seek any type of strands to stitch together an argument against the incontrovertibly facts of which you have repeatedly reinforced:

    “Where the Governor-General is directed to exercise any function after consultation with any person or authority he
    shall not be obliged to exercise that function in accordance with the advice of that person or authority.”

    AND ” Where the Governor-General is directed to exercise any function in accordance with the recommendation or advice of, or with the concurrence of, or after consultation with, any person or authority, the question whether he has so exercised that function shall not be enquired into in any court.”

    Like

  • Jeff Cumberbatch

    This is not an ideal example but didn’t Foreign Minister Eden oppose most vehemently his PM Chamberlain re war issues while still a party member although he resigned…that’s a bit specific I know but others have crossed the floor to show a policy and emotive break with their party while at heart they remain quite grounded in the true beliefs that led them to the party in the first place.

    @DPD, There is a Westminster convention pertaining to this. If a cabinet member disagrees with official policy he or she must resign. Bishop Atherley was not so honoured.And therein might lie the rub!

    Like

  • millertheanunnaki

    @ John June 18, 2018 11:50 AM

    “Jeff
    The answer is simpler.
    God give us free will to choose whether to acknowledge His supremacy … or not.
    In exercising that freedom of choice one is actually acknowledging His supremacy!!!”

    Should we take also the ‘liberty’ of interpreting “His supremacy” as ‘Her’ Supremacy in the same way we are expected to substitute ‘Her’ for “Him” and vice versa in arriving at a ‘supreme’ understanding of the Bajan Constitution?

    Can your reference to your ‘God’ as in “His supremacy” be equally applied as ‘Her supremacy’ when you continue to question the judgment of Her Excellency the GG of Barbado(es) the Loyal representative of Her Majesty the Queen?

    So what should it be, Sir John? ‘His’ or ‘Her’ God-appointed representative in Barbados as clearly stated in your King James Version of the Word of your Anglican God patented under Queen Vic or Queen Lizzy or even the incoming King Charles?

    Like

  • MTA

    Free will!!

    You don’t have to ask me for permission, make the choice for yourself!!

    God gave that ability to you.

    That’s how it works, you get to choose what you want to believe.

    You don’t have to read the scriptures if you don’t want to do so.

    Incidentally, I know the Bible does not come with an “Interpretation Act” relating to the masculine and feminine genders … or the singular and plural!!

    And that’s a fact, I have no choice in that matter.

    I kid you not!!

    Like

  • millertheanunnaki

    @ John June 18, 2018 5:54 PM

    “MTA
    Free will!!
    You don’t have to ask me for permission, make the choice for yourself!!
    God gave that ability to you.”

    Pastor John, how can there be “free will” when “the wages of sin is death”?
    Who wants to die in order to go to heaven for milk and honey?

    How can imperfectly (and deliberately so) ‘created’ beings have “Free Will” when he and she were designed’ in the first place (according to the myth) to be fruitful and multiply?

    Have you ever considered what would have become of ‘mankind’ if Adam had resisted the temptation of eating that sweet juicy fruit placed in the middle of Eve’s hairy garden?
    But it makes for a rollicking good yarn to put a naughty child to bed, we must say!

    Would your Quaker family have ever existed to keep and train slaves to become good obedient Christians in Barbados?

    Did the black slaves kept by your Quaker ancestors have the Free Will to leave the plantation of Content Cot or Less Beholden?

    Look Sir John, why not revamp the Constitution to reflect the universal principles and true intent of Rousseau (Jean Jacques) and leave out the God(s) business?

    Barbados has a growing number of minorities who do not subscribe to your god called Yahweh. You are going to either remove the god clauses or state the supremacy of which god or deities you may wish to believe in.

    So that Mr. Lalu Vashwani can ‘genuinely’ take his oath of office swearing to either Brahma, Vishnu orShiva.

    Maybe your God (like Bushie’s BBE) was an alien and wanted to turn two sun worshipping monkey into a foolish man and a sexy woman.

    Is that why you Christians so much worship the dog (your god spelt backwards) star Sirius?

    “Let us make man in our image after our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all of earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”

    “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

    Like

  • how can there be “free will” when “the wages of sin is death”

    ++++++++++++++++++++++

    That’s the point, if you want to work for wages which lead to death rather than enjoy the free gift of God’s Grace which leads to eternal life, you are free to make that choice.

    But the free gift is there for everyone for the asking.

    Like

  • Well Mr Cumberbatch
    I am not trying to be mischievous but thanks for informing me that Mr Atherly’s appointment is in accordance with the Constitution and that in the context of the appointment, the Goverror General’s judgment is the Governor General’s judgment

    Liked by 1 person

Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s