The Jeff Cumberbatch Column – Criminalizing Attire and the Rule of Law (iv)

..that the people (including, one should add, the government) should be ruled by the law and obey it and
(2) that the law should be such that people will be able (and, one should add, willing) to be guided by it.”
– Geoffrey de Q. Walker, The rule of law: foundation of constitutional democracy, (1st Ed., 1988).

The protection of the law implies that legal commands are uniform and general; that they cover all situations within the class they define and apply to all persons within those situations”- per Rajnauth-Lee JCCJ. [2018]

The remaining issues for the court in this case were first, the vagueness of section 153 (1)(xlvii) and its implications for the observance of the rule of law, and that of the legal consequence of the reproof given by the magistrate to the appellants on their initial conviction.

Vagueness

Vagueness encompasses twin considerations. A term or provision may be vague because it is not reasonably susceptible to meaning. This would include gibberish such as “fustum fumidos tantaraboo” that is incapable of any meaning at all. It would also include language expressed in such a way as to confound any ordinary reader as to its import. This would be instanced by the now notorious, but probably apocryphal, definition provision in the Nuts (Unground) (Amendment) Order of some anonymous jurisdiction-

In the Nuts (Unground)(Other than Groundnuts) Order the expression nuts shall have reference to such nuts other than groundnuts, as would, but for this Amending Order, not qualify as nuts (Unground)(Other than Groundnuts) by reason of their being nuts (Unground)”.

The second instance of vagueness would be found in a provision that is capable of so many meanings that the reader would be unable to assert with any certainty which meaning is intended.

Readers will readily accept that either of these forms of vagueness is decidedly inapt for proscribing human conduct on pain of criminal sanction. President Saunders made this point at the outset-

A penal statute must meet certain minimum objectives if it is to pass muster as a valid law. It must provide fair notice to citizens of the prohibited conduct. It must not be vaguely worded. It must define the criminal offence with sufficient clarity that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited. It should not be stated in ways that allow law enforcement officials to use subjective moral or value judgments as the basis for its enforcement. A law should not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement…”

In his view, the section failed those tests. There was no clarity as to what would constitute an improper purpose, it was open to discriminatory application and neither an anecdotal but unexpressed assumption of the possible meaning or the suggestion by the Solicitor General that any potential vagueness could be removed if, when a person is charged, details are given of the improper purpose that prompted the laying of the charge, sufficed to remove the vagueness of the section; the latter especially because the arrest would have preceded the explanation. It thereby contravened the principle that the citizen ought to be made reasonably aware of what conduct might entail criminal liability.

This defect was further compounded by what President Saunders termed “the premise, inherent in the law, that there is attire that is wholly and exclusively male or female.” And, given that one universal principle of the rule of law requires that the laws, especially those that attract a penal sanction, should be clear, publicized, stable, and just; are applied evenly; and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons and property and certain core human rights, the section here was undeniably in violation of this. This could entail one result only.

The rule of law requires that legislation which is hopelessly vague must be struck down as unconstitutional. For all these reasons. (the fact that no one can say with certainty what an ‘improper purpose’ is or what male or female attire looks like, leaves transgendered persons in particular in great uncertainty as to what is and is not allowed, and to aggravate that injustice, gives law enforcement officials almost unlimited discretion in their application of the law) we hold that section 153(1)(xlvii) is unconstitutionally vague and, as it stands, fulfils no legitimate purpose.

Justice Anderson also agreed with this view in his judgment-

In purporting to criminalize cross-dressing for an improper purpose, section 153(1)(xlvii) appears to come exceedingly close to attempting to criminalize intentions or states of mind. It is clearly the case that the act of ‘crossing dressing’ is not itself unlawful per se. It is not an offence for males to dress in female attire and vice versa in a public place. The offence is committed only where this is done for an “improper purpose” (whatever that may mean). This suggests that what is being punished is not primarily the conduct of cross-dressing but rather the mental state of harbouring an improper purpose whilst being cross-dressed.

As did Justice Rajnauth-Lee:

While it would be unrealistic to expect the ordinary citizen to be informed of the detailed contents of criminal statutes, the proper application of fair notice simply requires that it be possible for citizens to determine their legal duties and regulate their conduct in accordance with the prescribed laws in advance of acting.”

So far as the magistrate’s reproof of the accused (as they then were) was concerned, it will be recalled that this officer had instructed them that “they must go to church and give their lives to Jesus Christ, and had also advised them that “they were confused about their sexuality; that they were men, not women”.

President Saunders thought these remarks “inappropriate”. He averred-

Judicial officers may not use the bench to proselytise, whether before, during or after the conclusion of court proceedings. Secularism is one of the cornerstones upon which the Republic of Guyana rests. But these remarks went beyond proselytising. They revealed stereotypical thinking about transgendered persons….

Section 144 of the Constitution promises all persons charged with a criminal offence a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal. By reason of the remarks made by the Magistrate, the named appellants would have been justified in believing that in their case this promise was not manifested.

Commentary

This decision of the Caribbean Court of Justice illustrates the perniciousness of an unlimited savings law clause and the unexplained contradiction of its location in our Constitution. It would be trite to assert that Independence entailed for us in the region the sovereign ability to transform our societies in our own image and thus to abandon those hoary laws that regulated our pre-independence polities. A provision that would preserve laws enacted to regulate societies in which the majority of the current citizenry were not regarded fully human appears woefully irrelevant to the present circumstance.

In a previous column I queried the kind of thinking and discussion that would have so deeply entrenched the colonial court, the JCPC, in the Constitutions of Grenada and Antigua as part of the Schedule to their respective Independence Orders at that auspicious time. The savings clause is of the same ilk, seemingly structured to maintain ties to the former dispensation, although here through the preservation of the extent of freedom then existing. Many have argued that the circle of Independence is to be completed by attaining republican status. Maybe we first need to fashion our laws and their administration in our own image.

As for the decision itself, few readers would have failed to recognize that the improper purpose sought to be impugned, though assumed only, in the section would have been that of prostitution. While this, without more, would have been adequate perhaps for the purpose at the time the statute was enacted, it could scarcely subsist in a progressive Caribbean society now more mindful of the rights of individuals and the preservation of their dignity and autonomy. A provision that would render this immune from question is arguably deserving of contempt.

54 comments

  • @Jeff

    What is a sensible reason for the vagueness in the crafting of the laws in this instant?

    Like

  • just in case RiRi wears it

    Like

  • Jeff

    I ways refer to the American Constitution which is the high law of the land to make the point that it made no provision for the rights of women and minors when it was first ratified…
    So as far as vagueness is concerned …. the framers of the American Constitution intentionally ignored the rights of the (white) woman because for many centures society accepted the proposition that the woman place was to be in the home and no such rights ( especially the right to vote) was to be giving to her. Also note that no way in the original Constitution did it clearly stated that the woman was not fit to vote on the national level … but this was obviously implied giving her position during that period …

    Like

  • @ David
    The main reason for vagueness (in Barbadian Law) is that the lawyers /politicians construct the legislation with the PREDETERMINED intent to create loopholes that allow them and their paying friends to ‘get away with murder’.

    When the ‘law’ is conceived and written by DISHONEST persons whose ONLY intent is to bull-shit the masses while protecting the rights of their special classes to continue to IGNORE those same ‘laws’. ….vagueness and loopholes are the order of the day.

    Apart from Caswell, few others even bother to read the ACTUAL text of the shiite laws that the crooks make up…. and we just rely on the PR spin that they lie to us with….

    This is a brass bowl trait….

    Liked by 1 person

  • @Bush Tea

    The vagueness is not only a Barbados challenge.

    >

    Liked by 1 person

  • The vagueness is not only a Barbados challenge.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Nor is brass bowlery…
    However Bushie is not here to whack other people’s lawns while the bush is overgrown outside his front door.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Jeff

    “You also stated that the law shouldn’t be constructed in such away that it would allow law enforcement to employ subjective moral or value judgments as a basis for its enforcement”

    But isn’t Probable Cause one of the vaguest tactics law enforcement employ to stop people in order to search their person, car etc … without a warrant to arrest them for illegal contraband etc…?

    Like

  • @blogmaster
    Did you mean “TE JEFF” or “THE JEFF”
    Because it is a heading of a regular post, we should correct.

    Like

  • Thanks, you appear to have an eye for detail.

    Liked by 1 person

  • de pedantic Dribbler

    Surely correct @9:24 David Mr Blogmaster…the Bushman knows that well but he does have to whack tho !😂

    @Dean Jeff, a query re your closing para….not so much vagueness but moreso a clafity of interpretation.

    You ended with “A provision that would render this immune from question is arguably deserving of contempt.”

    You refer directly to the “the rights of individuals and the preservation of their dignity and autonomy” no doubt … BUT if one goes to the crux of the case which you noted earlier in the paragraph as “the improper purpose sought to be impugned, though assumed only, in the section would have been that of prostitution” then one wonders about the last sentence.

    Why can’t the society properly impugn prostitution if a majority see it (still) as improper?

    Do you believe the law was just badly written (interpreted/used in this case) as the court held or do you believe that prostitution should not be impugned as the govt intended?

    Liked by 1 person

  • de pedantic Dribbler

    Lexicon, what noisy nonsense are you offering at 9:35?

    Why attempt to equate probable cause which has ALWAYS had its own issues and challenges by those arrested with the utterly DIFFERENT matter of vagueness!

    As another was quoted as asking recently: are you trying to make this a simplistic law class moot palaver that essentially rehashs stated laws and old debates…what for really. Get real do!

    Liked by 1 person

  • @Dee Word

    Allow the Lexicon to share his view. We all process differently, when there is the opportunity to enlighten do so without the rebuke.

    Liked by 1 person

  • The CCJ got this one right. This was sound reasoning and judgment.

    Like

  • @Donna

    Has Jeff stepped down will the language or did you stepped up this morning.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Strangely enough although I am suffering from lack of sleep this morning my brain is crystal clear. Any problems I have are usually due to lack of focus at the time. I have no problem with Jeff’s language. it goes with the territory.

    Liked by 1 person

  • de pedantic Dribbler

    Actually Mr Blogmaster, the “rebuke” as you called it is warranted I believe…Lexicon by the nature of his statement is making an assertion not really posing a query.

    Thus less enlightenment being sought and rather more moot debate chatter…

    Even for us majority laymen and women who congregate here for Jeff’s legal wisdom the distinction between the legal standard of ‘probable cause’ and that of ‘vagueness’ of an ineptly written statue is CRYSTAL CLEAR …there can be no serious relationship between the two!

    Like

  • Vincent Codrington

    @ DpD at 9 :46 AM

    I share the same lack of clarity with the last paragraph of Jeff’s commentary. I believe that the law should reflect the mores and morals of the society however solicited.
    When I was a young man, many moons ago, I would have felt disadvantaged by not being reasonably certain that the well dressed young lady that caught my eye was not biologically a woman, but a trans-dresser. My right to assume that a person in a dress was a woman would have been denied.

    For the majority of us citizens what is proper is culturally defined.

    Like

  • Depandic

    Man what’s wrong with yah?
    Didn’t Jeff talked about the vagueness of the law? Well, I spoke about Probable Cause to indicated how vague it is, and how law enforcement employs it based on they individual interpretation … And didn’t Jeff pointed out that a law must be lucid, unambiguous and conspicuous…?

    Like

  • de pedantic Dribbler

    LOL…@Vincent, you are threading on dangerously impungable ground above….becareful!🤣🤣…We should never get too discombobulated (good Bajanism) by a “well dressed young lady that caught [the] eye” even if said lass is “not biologically a woman” unless one has interest in getting better acquainted with the young lady!

    Keep close encounters in the open and chaste to alllow gracefull retraction when recognition is made that all is not as it seems…

    … consider meeting a well dressed lady and discovering for example a horrendous case of bad-breath … a graceful exit is made…or even consider an absolutely attractive lass and as you move closer for a hello, you hear either a few choice RHs or lots of green pronouns, verbs etc. …just turn and walk away gracefully because as they say: all that glitters is not always clean, decent nor fully female 🤣

    Liked by 1 person

  • Vincent Codrington

    I believe the law should reflect the mores and morals of the society however solicited … which society are you talking about?
    Not the societies of Hitler, Stalin and Moa ….? The socities in which these men governed were governed contrary to what we would consider proper moral standards … (the moral imperative … the Golden Rule etc) ….

    Like

  • @ Vincent
    I believe that the law should reflect the mores and morals of the society however solicited.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Trust Bushie on this one….

    The law DOES reflect the mores and morals of a society – however solicited.

    THAT is a fact….. whether we like it or not.
    What the ‘law’ does is reflect EXACTLY what an organised society establishes for its moral and spiritual foundation.
    When that ‘law’ strays from the REAL REAL Law that exists, the consequences are predictable. EVERYONE therefore has a personal responsibility to impact the quality of those laws.

    Right now, we have a set of shiite ‘laws’ that make NO strategic or logical sense and which are CLEARLY at odds with common sense – and with the ABSOLUTE laws of nature…. So naturally we have CHAOS.

    But rather than try to understand the problem (the difference between the shiite that we call ‘law’ and the REAL irreversible LAWS of God), we continue to play up in the jobby – driven by our albino-centric predispositions…… getting deeper and deeper into the stuff daily….

    Can someone not set this as homework for Jeff….?
    because…
    WE ALL are condemned as a society, by the kind of laws that we allow our leaders to make up…..

    Like

  • This law thing is a bit too high for me, so I will do a “Lawson” and exit..

    🙂
    If you had to punish Jeff what would it be:
    I would sit him in a chair and he has to discuss the fine point of law with Lexicon (for a week) 🙂

    Like

  • A WEEK TheoG?
    Shiite man…. are we not finished with Capital punishment?

    Liked by 1 person

  • “I would sit him in a chair and he has to discuss the fine point of law with Lexicon (for a week)….”

    “A WEEK TheoG? Shiite man…. are we not finished with Capital punishment?”

    TheOG & Bushie

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    Wunnuh duz give poor Lexicon nuff, nuff heat, yuh.

    He means well.

    Liked by 1 person

  • isn’t Probable Cause one of the vaguest tactics law enforcement employ to stop people in order to search their person, car etc … without a warrant to arrest them for illegal contraband etc…?

    @Lexicon, probable cause is not as vague as you may think, the ultimate arbiter of what is probable cause is the court, not the arresting officer! The infringement of the law that he/she arrests for must not be too vague, however.

    Liked by 1 person

  • What is a sensible reason for the vagueness in the crafting of the laws in this instant?
    @ David, this law is essentially a product of its time and place. 19th century British Guyana slave society with no thought od thee rights of the majority of the populace oI a citizen were charged, what do you think a magistrate at that time in Guyana would do? Propose that the law is too vague? Or convict the accused leaving him or her to appeal? It was probably a replica of similar earlier English legislation.

    Liked by 1 person

  • There we have it!

    Like

  • Do you believe the law was just badly written (interpreted/used in this case) as the court held or do you believe that prostitution should not be impugned as the govt intended?

    @DPD, First, to clarify. I and saying that leaving the assumption of criminal conduct to be made without expressing it is scarcely appreciative of the rights of individuals to dignity and autonomy. Essentially, people should be free to act unless such action is proscribed by law and when the law is to based on the subjective assumption of an individual, this is not compatible with a modern Caribbean society,The draftsman could easily have added “for the purposes of prostitution” and there would have been no problem.

    Second, not many jurisdictions including our own appear to have a problem with prostitution save where the transaction is rffrvtrf in public or when it becomes a matter of trade.

    Liked by 1 person

  • The Trumpesque error above should be “effected” and not “rffrvtrf”, whatever that means!

    Like

  • I share the same lack of clarity with the last paragraph of Jeff’s commentary. I believe that the law should reflect the mores and morals of the society however solicited.

    @ Vincent, few would disagree with this. The key word is “reflect”. This law reflected nothing, owing to its vagueness of the second kind!

    Like

  • When I was a young man, many moons ago, I would have felt disadvantaged by not being reasonably certain that the well dressed young lady that caught my eye was not biologically a woman, but a trans-dresser. My right to assume that a person in a dress was a woman would have been denied.

    @ Vincent, I trust that you would have discovered the reality in time. The location of the solicitation and folklore do have roles to play in these transactions, I have been informed.

    Liked by 1 person

  • A WEEK Theo?
    Shiite man…. are we not finished with Capital punishment?

    @ Bushie, The Senate did not change the law, remember? But what have I done to be punished thusly?

    Liked by 1 person

  • Apologies for the multi-posting, BU. I was away from my desk all this morning.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Ah think this is the perfect link for this piece of news…

    http://www.nationnews.com/nationnews/news/221277/drug-nod


    “In a historic move, the Ministry of Health and Wellness, Ministry of Agriculture, Barbados Drug Service and the local medical fraternity will soon implement a joint programme that will give doctors here the green light to prescribe the drug once they complete training sanctioned by the Ministry of Health.”

    Like

  • Barbados Underground Whistleblower

    Is Barbados really serious about it citizens especially the ones who have accomplished?

    I am told I only expose the negatives in Barbados. However one should note I didn’t create them and they are real.

    It’s no laughing matter for popular comedian Trevor “Dynamite” Eastmond who is recovering from what he said was a couple of failed suicide attempts.

    Speaking to THE NATION at the Psychiatric Hospital where he has been warded for almost two months, the funnyman was adamant that he wanted such information published because he was at his wit’s end.

    “Yes, so I won’t have to call nobody and tell them nothing. I don’t want to be nobody’ burden. I admit myself because I wanted to kill myself, I want to lef’ this place [world],” he said repeatedly.

    Eastmond, who said he was taken off suicide watch on November 30, was visibly frustrated as he charged that his mental state was as a result of the excruciating pain that he has had to endure since he broke both hips escaping a fire

    In the 2007 fire that destroyed his Christ Church home, he also sustained burns about his body. Back in 2015, the Christ Church resident attempted to fly overseas for hip replacement surgery but he complained this process was delayed because of a prolonged wait to acquire his medical records from the Queen Elizabeth Hospital (QEH).

    Ambling with the assistance of two crutches, Eastmond again moaned that his pain had intensified to the point that he is severely depressed. However, although he claimed he already paid for the records which are needed to get the process underway, all he said he has received thus far from the hospital was “a little doctor’s note”.

    While graphically recounting how he tried to overdose on medication and drown himself by jumping off the jetty at Oistins, the 59-year-old pleaded for Prime Minister Mia Mottley’s intervention to deal with his grievance.

    “After the last [failed attempt] the Sunday, end of September, I was talking to a friend of mine that used to work here. He tell me the best thing to do is to go and check out the issue and I come here and the man put me here. My blood pressure was 200 over 108. The doctor tell me, you is a dead man walking. I tell yuh, it ain’t easy . . . . [chief executive officer of the QEH] Dexter James ain’t got no power to help me. I want Mia to know that she is the Prime Minister and I still pun crutches, I still waiting for you to contact me. Mia promised me that she gine fix me but since May 24, I have not seen her, only in the papers or on TV,” he said.

    Eastmond acknowledged that the PM may be busy with other issues but he asked: “Busy more important than a man’s health?

    “There ain’t one Bajan that get up yet and holler ‘cheese on bread wunna unfair Trevor Eastmond though’. Not one . . . . I just want to be able to walk, run and dance and play cricket and football like anybody else. Once I get that do, them could do what they like, but I got to get that do.

    http://www.nationnews.com/nationnews/news/221280/ailing-eastmond-wit

    Like

  • Whistleblower

    Eastmon’s case isn’t that usual because people are addicted to pain killer medication everyday …remember it killed Prince …but I hope the brother shake this demon so he can regain some sense of normalcy…

    Like

  • There are probably people who have been waiting for their medical reports for longer than Trevor Eastmond. Dr. James promised to fix this problem many years ago by arranging for medical transcribers but it seems as though nothing has been done. My advice would be to take the doctors to court. And before wuhnuh start steupsing, it works!

    Like

  • Dr. James promised to fix this problem many years ago by arranging for medical transcribers but it seems as though nothing has been done.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++
    QEH, BWA, SSA,BADMC, NHC…..
    Promises have a place.
    They DO provide some comfort……especially for fools.

    One thing that ALL leaders in Barbados seem to do well is make promises…..
    To solve specific problems in six months…
    To fix sewerage in three months…
    To fix the Court building in three months…

    …then the excuses come… while the situation worsens…and more promises…
    Until a NEW leader come on stream …with the SAME damn promises … in ANOTHER six months…
    then in three months
    – when equipment is ordered…
    or when the expert from overseas comes…

    WE are to be judged by our FRUIT.
    Leaders who produce shiite fruit (promises with no results) should be cut down and thrown into the fire…

    Trees that ACTUALLY produce fruit (results) should be nurtured, valued, fertilised and pampered until they are ACTUALLY producing in abundance….
    This is what a MERITOCRACY is…

    But brass bowls keep on wasting resources on sterile shiite trees…

    Liked by 1 person

  • DONNA
    Dr. James promised to fix this problem many years ago by arranging for medical transcribers

    WHY CANT THE DRS USE THEIR PC’S OR LAPTOPS AND TYPE THEIR REPORTS.
    A SIMPLE SOAP REPORT CAN SAY ALL YOU WANT TO SAY. IN HALF HOUR OR LESS

    I AM SURE THAT THEY DO THEM OR GET THEM DONE VERY QUICKLY FOR THEIR PRIVATE PATIENTS……..AND CHARGE A LOT OF MONEY THEREFOR

    CANT THEY FIND THE HOSPITAL NOTES?

    Liked by 1 person

  • “He tell me the best thing to do is to go and check out the issue and I come here and the man put me here. My blood pressure was 200 over 108.”

    Doctors normally tell you that PAIN causes blood pressure to rise to that level, he seems to be in chronic pain which needs to be managed…

    And to think medical marijuana had its own “legal regime” in Barbados since 1991…..27 YEARS.., and all the lowlifes in the parliament knew it…but they continued to help POISON bajans with OPIODS.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Geogie Porgie

    And you had the audacious to say that the American education system is below average when Americans doctors fixed the problem of patients records by hiring clerks to do the filing back in the 1980s. Now today they are training or have trained people in medical coding and billing to work in doctors offices … man check your facts before start to run off you choppers …

    Like

  • Georgie Porgie

    Today in America some doctors offices don’t even write their own reports anymore … they employ “stenographers” to do the job … so American doctors are far beyond those in the world today …

    Like

  • Georgie Porgie

    A stenographer goes in the examination room with the doctor and writes down everything the doctor instructs him or her to …

    Like

  •         @Lexicon 
    

    We get the point you have made three times!

    Like

  • ACTUALLY HE HAS NOT MADE ANY POINT AT ALL AS WHAT HE SAYS BELOW DOES NOT OCCUR
    A stenographer goes in the examination room with the doctor and writes down everything the doctor instructs him or her to …
    AS EARLY AS THE 70’S even LOCAL DRS HAVE USED DICTAPHONES TO HELP RECORD THEIR NOTES
    REPORT WRITING IS QUITE EASY USING S O A P
    THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR POOR NOTE TAKING AND FAILURE TO PROVIDE REPORTS THAT HAVE BEEN PAID FOR

    this is the opnion of a child and the blog jester
    LOL
    ha ha ha ha

    Liked by 1 person

  • Geogie Porgie

    I worked in the medical industry here from as far back as 1986 and have never seen one in the 1980s…. so stop preading lies … how long have been in the US …? you lier…

    Like

  • Georgie Porgie

    And I’ve lived in up-state New York , Virginia, South Carolina, Massachusetts, and Connecticut … plus I’ve travelled the country during my military career … and I have never seen one in those states … nor have I seen a stenographer in the medical complex in the military … so tell where have seen a stenographer in the 1970s?

    Like

  • And just for those with short memories…

    Like

  • I hear Barbados police are STILL locking up black people fo marijuana…they need to stop that SHITE.

    The legislation needs an upgrade.

    Like

  • GP,

    i expressed myself poorly here, I’m afraid. There is indeed no excuse for doctors not writing reports. You will be surprised to know that some of these same QEH doctors refuse to accept patients in their private practices if they will be required to write a report. They just do not like to write them.

    What I meant was that since Dr. James seemed unable to get the co-operation of the doctors he made a decision to fix the problem with transcribers.

    Eastmond said he got a “doctor’s note.” Maybe he meant an inadequate medical report. Maybe it is actually his medical records that are missing. I do know, however, that there are many people who have been waiting for actual reports for several years and that is what I was speaking about.

    P.S. I am not surprised that he tried to take his life. I had a chance encounter with him some months ago and he told me how hard life has been for him. He was on his way to ask a doctor from the other party for assistance in the matter. He seems to have tried everything he knows. This is a disgrace..

    Like

  • pieceuhderockyeahright

    @ Donna

    On Dcember the 11th you remarked that the matter of Trevor Eastman was a disgrace

    I got up with the intention of responding to you at that time and got sidetracked

    Let me tell you what is Trevor Eastman s issue

    What you are seeing is a medical condition which afflicts the bajan psyche called “collective moutism fear”

    Dr GP is one of the few people here who can comment on its symptoms and variants because he has it, BAD.

    I will outline for you what CMF does.

    A patient with the disease has the ability go make men and women run for holes when they start to speak and write.

    The targets of their verbal and written onslaught are fearful of their speech/writings and seek to be obsequious in their dealings with the party suffering with the disease

    Trevor Eastman is such a man.

    In place like America and other 1st world countries he would be a well paid respected comedian but in Barbados he is automatically hated.

    And now he is unwell, the general attitude is one of glee and delight in his suffering.

    It is a thing most strange among small minded island people, a palpable hatred that is not mentioned openly

    It is like having Aids and Ebola at the same time BUT 10 TIMES WORSE.

    No one wants to touch you but you are in the news and no one mentions your name and they hope that your Stage Four like cancer kills you soon.

    So that they can be rid of you soon.

    In the meantime they will pretend to help you with overtures of pretense which you BEING ARMED WITH THE SIGHT AND VISION AND DISCERNMENT see through.

    I am sorry for Trevor Eastmond

    None of them are going to assist him and will wait until he dies to speak loudly about what a good man he is.

    But God does not sleep remember that next year ok?

    Like

  • pieceuhderockyeahright

    @ the Honourable Blogmaster your assistance please with an item here thank you

    Like

  • Yes I know, Trevor has a big mouth and brain enough to use it well. He also has big ears and he keeps them to the ground. Great talent. I have not given up hope that he can shame them into helping him. The spotlight has been shone on them. Let us see.

    Like

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