No Referendum, no Republic!

Submitted by Grenville Phillips, Leader of Solutions Barbados

I listened to our Prime Minister give an interview on ABC Australia, part of which was carried on CBC-TV news on 17 Sep 2020.  In it, the Prime Minister explained that Barbadians will not be allowed a referendum, to decide on whether they support Barbados becoming a Republic.

Our Prime Minister must know that she cannot do that.  Our Attorney General, all the lawyers in the BLP and DLP, our Governor General, and all our judges should know that she cannot do that.  Yet, she noted that she will follow NIKE and “just do it”.

Our Prime Minister is not a dictator, so she must have a proverbial ‘Ace’ up her sleeve.  In the interview, she revealed it.  She justified her approach by explaining her belief that Barbadians elected her to do it.  Let me quote her.

“We certainly campaigned on it in the manifesto, that while we committed to referendum on other issues, we did not on this one, and we made it clear that this is where we believe the country must go.”

WAS IT CLEAR?

As the leader of the third largest political party in Barbados, and on behalf of the thousands of Barbadians who voted for Solutions Barbados in the last General Election, I had to investigate this claim.  Because either I was suffering from some sort of memory loss and had to resign, or our Prime Minister inadvertently misspoke.

I reread the BLP’s 2018 Manifesto.  There was no mention of any plan to make us a Republic.  On the matter of referenda, page 45 states:

“Introducing National Dialogues, National Referenda and consulting with Barbadians on major national issues, such as the decriminalisation of recreational marijuana.”

Is changing our system of government to a Republic, not more of a major national issue than decriminalising recreational marijuana?

I then read the BLP’s 2016 Covenant of Hope.  Again, there was no plan to make us a Republic.  On the mater of referenda, Page 22 states:

“We support the use of People’s Initiatives, as well as the mechanism of Referenda, to ensure that our citizens may influence the work of our Parliament and our Executive. This permits our people, and not only Parliamentarians, to have an appropriate role in decision-making on fundamental issues affecting the stability and cohesion of our nation. This must always follow an intensive public education programme.”

If fundamentally changing our system of government to a Republic, does not qualify as a fundamental issue affecting the stability and cohesion of our nation, then what does?

WHAT WENT WRONG?

So, where could our Prime Minister have gotten the idea, that a Republic plan was in their campaign manifesto?  I decided to investigate.  I read the BLP’s 2013 Manifesto, but there is no mention of a Republic plan.  So, I read the BLP’s 2008 Manifesto, and there it was, on page 77:

“Update the Constitution Review Commission recommendations on replacing the Crown with a Barbadian President and proceed to consult the public fully by way of a referendum”

Clearly the BLP’s stated intent was to measure the public’s support, of our politicians’ desire for a Barbadian Republic, by a national referendum.  So, what happened?’

One possible explanation is that a plan to make Barbados a republic without a national referendum, was in an early draft of the BLP’s 2018 Manifesto.  Since the BLP cannot force Barbados to become a republic, that plan was abandoned.  Whatever the explanation, the BLP does not have a mandate to make us a Republic.

Without a mandate from the people to make us a Republic, the BLP needs to go back to the drawing board.  To become a Republic, there must be support from both the Government and the Public.  The public’s support is normally measured by a national referendum.  No referendum, no republic.

Grenville Phillips II is a Chartered Structural Engineer and President of Solutions Barbados. He can be reached at NextParty246@gmail.com

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-17/barbados-prime-minister-phil-williams-republic-mia-mottley/12675372?nw=0

330 comments

  • PachamamaSeptember 18, 2020 9:23 PM

    The demise of Ruth Bader Ginsburg has deep meanings for our world, empire’s nadir, in this time of Aquarius.

    Tectonic changes will continue to engulf us all.

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

    For heaven’s sakes, she was 87 and ailing for ages.

    Like

  • Cuhdear BajanSeptember 18, 2020 8:48 PM

    @John September 18, 2020 3:28 PM “Everything Trump said he would do he has done or in the process of doing.”

    How is that big, beautiful wall coming along?

    And has he collected the money to build it from those pesky Mexicans yet?

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

    Do you mean the wall Mexico has constructed on its southern border, guards each day and pays for each day?

    Like

  • @ Tron September 18, 2020 9:04pm

    Pull back the reins a bit. St. Vincent elections set for December 2020. Let’s see if the blossoms bloom. De natives said 19 years in office is it…For de RG’S Family.

    Don’t ask what does BDS has to do with St. Vincent….

    Like

  • That’s why Trump is not a traditional politician, he delivers.

    Like

  • @John

    You have made a point give the Trump nothingness a rest.

    Like

  • I could not read past “third largest political party in Barbados”. The last time I read anything about the Solutions party, it stated “Grenville Phillips II has been unanimously re-elected as president, to lead Solutions Barbados for another one-year term.” Queries about the other elected members were never answered. I too, like Greene, am not a fan of governing by referenda–whether legalisation of cannabis, same-sex marriage or a republic. Imagine a referendum for independence?

    Like

  • stop jumping out to impress before you know where an article came from, in this case I only took a portion of the article because it was long, I don’t have shit to prove to you…..you are the attacker, it’s incumbent on you to prove where that article come from….i don’t post to impress and attack, I post to INFORM.

    Xxxxxxxx

    PRAY TELL ME “MISS CUT AND PASTE” WHO ON THIS BLOG I WOULD BE TRYING TO IMPRESS ON BU WHERE MY SOURCE OF INCOME OR REVENUE IS NOT DERIVED FROM.

    YOU POST 6 TIMES MORE THAN ANYONE ON THE BLOG ON ALMOST EVERY TOPIC AND HAVE BEEN CALLED OUT BY MANY OTHERS.

    LOOK IN THE MIRROR BEFORE YOU POINT FINGERS.

    BEING IGNORANT AND PIG HEADED WHEN ONE IS CORRECTED AND ACTING LIKE A SPOILT CHILD SAYS MORE ABOUT YOU THAN ME.

    ENJOY YOUR NIGHT.

    Like

  • MillerSeptember 18, 2020 5:25 PM

    Miller, Actually I totally agree with you. There is no need to take the matters of the legalisation of same sex unions and the legalisation of marijuana to referendum.

    This is pandering to the zealots in society who seek to control everything that any adult person with liberty is allowed to do, in a civilised society. Whether these zealots are individuals, or organisations, this is wrong in principle.

    I agree that sexual acts, of whatever kind or tendency, certain acts of consumption, such as smoking, whether tobacco or weed, in public can be criminalised, as these may be seen to ‘corrupt public morals’ i.e. children etc, in private and in the confines of ones property or personal space, there can be no such corruption.

    Further, what are these morals based on? On a Bible, written by men, amended by men, as taking greater precedence than the ancestral beliefs of the population majority?

    While the authorities ignored the same Bible for centuries, that ostensibly, by inference in use, allowed the enslavement of people, torture and mass torture of masses?

    Look, who wants to believe in the Bible, that is good for them, I may or may not be one. But to use it to support rules for a modern post slavery civilisation is absurd.

    People can use it to guide their own lives, but not as a bat to herd others into a mentality of subservience.

    Even moreso, because the archives of history are not even opened to the public. Ask the Vatican to allow journalists (understood that to have everyone running roughshod over the papers could destroy such old manuscripts) of all creeds and origins to have open access to all records.

    In short, I agree with you Miller, the referendum for these two matters is unnecessary and pandering to a lot of hocus pocus mentality.

    Time to move on and be courageous in spirit and bold in action. Unshackle the chains of mental slavery for all and remain resolute in aim.

    We would expect that this aim is for a just society, a progressive society, a society of compassion not bigotry, one of love, not hate, one of confidence, not fear of what retribution may spring, not from the heavens, but from the mental umbilical cords of the plantation era.

    Life truly unchained.

    Like

  • @Grenville Philips II and Every Last Commenter Thus Far
    I am extremely disappointed in all of you wasting time with the Republic and Referendum BS talk. Not one person ask about cost or you all to frighten to ask. How many millions of dollars will going Republic cost us, the Taxpayers?

    Somebody please tell me, How is going Republic is going to benefit Bajans outside of foolish Bragging Rights.:
    1) Is it going to help the government stop bonding my nursing family and friends into slavery, going work everyday and crying every month when they get promise every month and not one red cent them ain’t get paid for months on end?
    2) Is it going to help the patients waiting for tests and treatment at the QEH get it before their conditions worsen and they dead?
    3) Is it going to make government work better?
    4) Is it going to get us to all row the SS Barbados in same direction and stop the political divisive debates we seem so content with and can ill afford at this time?

    Like

  • John

    You have been consistently the little baccra boy you have always been.

    Is the numerical basis the only meaning of a life. How ignorant!

    In any case, we would prefer a dead Ginsburg to a living Trump on horse back.

    Like

  • Baje…still waiting for you to prove the article did not come from the African Heritage Foundation…..
    🤣😂😂😂

    Oh, I enjoyed my night, it was super, did not attach anyone nor made an ass of myself on a blog seen by hundreds of thousands of people worldwide..

    ignorant is jumping out to attack and ya have no proof, and ya so brilliant, all ya had to do was ask me where I got the article, BEFORE making a fool of yaself, I rarely keep information from people unless I know that info could cause them problems……….the negro condition…trying to pull down another Black person and ending up looking stupid and too embarrassed to find and post the article…

    “How many millions of dollars will going Republic cost us, the Taxpayers?”

    no one asked because it’s in keeping with the knowledge that everything DBLP does and have done for 60 years is to ROB the taxpayers, pensioners and steal everything from the Black population keeping them in generational BONDAGE……so there is no need to ask..

    “2) Is it going to help the patients waiting for tests and treatment at the QEH get it before their conditions worsen and they dead?”

    They are trying their utmost best to KILL ALL OF YOU…they are well aware the medical marijuana can help alleviate a lot of the suffering of most chronic conditions, but she already gave the permission to her minority friends, NO BLACK ALLOWED, unless it’s family, friends and hangerson….yardfowls will have to beg…remember Patrick King..

    Like

  • “Miller, Actually I totally agree with you. There is no need to take the matters of the legalisation of same sex unions and the legalisation of marijuana to referendum”

    we also see the slimy Mia strategy, take to referenda what would cause the people to gossip all year round, gays and marijuana, salacious rumor-mongering and malicious accusing……and argue amongst themselves…for years about those two topics….while they are distracted with that utter shit, they are being robbed of their most basic freedoms along with ALL THEIR MONEY…

    ….but NEVER GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY to participate in making decisions surrounding anything to do with their OWN FREEDOM………they are COLONIAL JAILERS…as they were trained by colonizers ……this government is ANTI-BLACK and very DANGEROUS and destructive to the people…but everyone already knows that…..the people have always known, but are socialized by both dirty sell-out governments over decades to be hypocrites and pretenders, not even caring about their future or that of their children and grandchildren….but me thinks with all the self-attention seeking exposure…they have finally bitten off a whole lot more than they can chew, eyes bigger than their stomachs….the months going forward will tell the tale…

    Like

  • Another ego trip for Miss Mottley.
    This one is going to cost millions and be of no use whatsoever to the average Bajan.
    This decision like so many others she has made is going to reduce our tourist arrivals especially from the United Kingdom.
    Ask her newly appointed port chairman crooked Peter Odle how many cancellations he has had at ‘his’ hotels since this announcement..

    Like

  • Trump and Johnson are representatives of a dysfunctional troll culture and the inherent racism of the white majority where the new and next manifestation of racism is abuse of power in politics, which is not a comeback it is reverting back to old ways of 30 years ago and past 400 years of global institutional racism.
    Idiots like John and Grenville embrace propagate and serve the psyops tropes and memes of white racists.
    Whenever Grenville speaks on BU, it becomes obvious why DLP got no seats, as he is mentally retarded and his thoughts are twisted by his manipulative mind. (And the same goes for John Knox daily and repeatedly)
    In UK 24,500 complained to OFCOM TV regulators about a #BLACKLIVESMATER artistic dance act enacting murder of George Floyd on “Britain’s Got Talent” semi-final’s episode, claiming it was racist against whites. When you check out the video on youtube it has 78K likes and 23K dislikes.

    Like

  • When all is said and done the following will be the result
    Barbados would have a President
    More crime and murder
    Sex unions and more people crawling out the closet
    Politicians included
    Lawlessness amongst the youth because of lack of jobs
    Weed smokers polluting the air
    And a truck load of more debt
    Cheers to the new and improved Republic called Barbados

    Like

  • “Sex unions and more people crawling out the closet :: :: Weed smokers polluting the air”

    (a) You cannot knock something unless you have tried it and (b) You cannot tell others what they can or cannot do

    ▶ Nobody’s Business

    ▶ Nobody’s Business

    Like

  • EnuffSeptember 18, 2020 11:33 PM

    Imagine a referendum for independence?

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

    What exactly triggers a referendum?

    Back in 1966, the Colonial Office decided to be rid of Barbados and it was so!!

    We can’t imagine a referendum for Independence because the Colonial Office would have had to call it and it might have gone against their wishes.

    Like

  • PachamamaSeptember 19, 2020 3:54 AM

    John

    You have been consistently the little baccra boy you have always been.

    Is the numerical basis the only meaning of a life. How ignorant!

    In any case, we would prefer a dead Ginsburg to a living Trump on horse back.

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

    Never seen or heard of Trump riding a horse.

    You got your wish!!

    Like

  • ignorant is jumping out to attack and ya have no proof, and ya so brilliant, all ya had to do was ask me where I got the article, BEFORE making a fool of yaself, I rarely keep information from people unless I know that info could cause them problems……….the negro condition…trying to pull down another Black person and ending up looking stupid and too embarrassed to find and post the article…

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    SEEMS LIKE YOU ARE STILL SEEING YOUR PERIOD WHICH HAVE YOU BLINDED BY ALL THE RED.

    YOU POSTED BULLSHIT AND NOT TRUE FACTS IRREGARDLESS WHERE YOUR PEA BRAIN CUT AND PASTE IT FROM.

    IF CORRECTING YOU ON THE FACTS IS PULLING DOWN A BLACK PERSON YOU ARE MORE SILLIER THAN I THOUGHT.

    Like

  • Quaker John

    Is there any reference to referenda in our constitution? Is the outcome of a referendum binding on the government?

    Like

  • Far be it for me to tell anyone how to live their lives
    However one should give thought to how ones way of living can impact a whole society in a negative or positive manner
    There is where the rubber meets the road and common sense must have the last and final word

    Like

  • Maybe you’ve heard of a mixed metaphor and have an inkling into the American political saying concerning fools with power and the juxtaposition of actors.

    You Bajan baccra have always known toooo little about toooo much.

    Like

  • Hal AustinSeptember 19, 2020 7:17 AM

    Quaker John

    Is there any reference to referenda in our constitution? Is the outcome of a referendum binding on the government?

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

    Probably not. Probably not!!

    Will the change to a republic result in a new constitution?

    The closest thing I can think of to a country with a Westminster style of Government breaking ties with its former superiors is BREXIT.

    A referendum was called and it does seem to be binding on government.

    Maybe the precedent has been set at source and a referendum is required.

    Like

  • … and it will be binding on government.

    Like

  • Has Britain set the precedents?

    Like

  • Baje…in all ya faux enlightenment…ya missing the point…I DID NOT WRITE THE ARTICLE…and I ALWAYS POST ARTICLES from the African Heritage Foundation…because it’s a CAUSE that Is worth taking up…..don’t blame me if you don’t know how to defend a cause….you were warned by me already that you can post without being contradictive or trying to one-up or impress and razzle-dazzle with bullshit, if you were on the blog solely to be an activist, you would not have exposed yaself to my ridicule..

    suck it up and grow up..

    Like

  • JohnSeptember 19, 2020 7:59 AM Untrue on multiple counts. Are you being deliberately obtuse or merely misunderstand the facts?

    Many of the former colonies have gone Republic. Trinidad is one prime example. Those would be the precedents, if one were required.

    However, the Constitution of Barbados does not require such precedents to be considered.

    On Brexit, the referendum was not actually binding in law, however, the Tory government took it upon themselves to hold to the referendum, probably due to special interests, despite the referendum result barely scraping a simple majority, far from the international norm of a two thirds majority required for constitutional changes.

    Like

  • The Throne Speech

    There is much in the recently delivered Throne Speech for Barbadians to think about. The Statement represents a fairly bold and thoughtful attempt to come to grips with the array of issues that confront us, even if some concerns raised in the narrative might justifiably be described as ‘misplaced priorities,’ though not altogether irrelevant.
    Historically speaking, perhaps the most significant change is the decision that by November 30, 2021, Barbados will become a Republic. This represents a major constitutional repositioning. It is an issue on which I have, to use President Obama’s term ‘evolved’. I don’t think there is likely to be much resistance on that particular matter.
    Although the personage of ‘The Queen’ still carries some respect, the sentimental appeal of the House of Windsor has dissipated particularly among a younger generation of Barbadians who never sang ‘God Save the Queen’ and were not educated or misseducated in ‘The Great School House of Empire.’ Today the young Royals of the Windsor Dynasty are seen more as celebrities than as representatives of revered ‘Majesty.’ A statement reportedly emanating from Buckingham Palace has already suggested that the Government and people of Barbados are free to do as they see fit. Ultimately what matters is what kind of Republic we fashion.
    Another issue is the sanctioning of same-sex civil unions with a proposed referendum on the legalisation of same-sex marriage. This has apparently become a priority because it is claimed that on this score, Barbados has a human rights problem.
    One is not sure that Barbados has or has ever had, a human right issue with regard to homosexuality. In fact unlike Jamaica, Barbadians as anyone growing up in the Eagle Hall area could testify had an amazing tolerance with gay and lesbian people. The most they were subjected to, was a ‘snigger’ to their faces and a ‘laugh’ behind their backs. One wonders how the proposed referendum on gay marriage will be worded.
    Bajans may agree to civil unions in a secular court, but they will not sanction same sex marriage with the benefits of clergy. That day may come, but it is not today or the day after.
    The march of the LGBTQ community is part of the globalisation of culture. Barbadians will be called upon to decide on their own collective moral identity. Some people are born gay, some adopt gaiety. Who did sin? This man or his fore-parents that he was born blind? Gay people should be protected by law and straight people must be protected from the aggressive unnatural affections of sexually inverted persons. Beyond that: ‘Live and let live.’ The Mottley administration was expected to be liberal on social policy issues. It now proposes to amend the Drug Abuse (Prevention and Control) Act whereby the possession of 14 grammes or half once or less of cannabis will no longer be a chargeable office tried in court. The changes allows for a ticket system by which an individual having half-ounce or less would have 30 days to pay a $200 fine. One wonders how workable the ticket system is likely to be and would it not require as much or more legal and police work than before the amendment. The real question is: Would not any level of decriminalisation not lead to greater drug, escapism and delusion among an already endangered youth? In the economic sphere the Throne Speech makes provision for two major strategies.
    One is for a one year $40 million COVID- 19 Relief program. The other is for a $300 million stimulus package under a Barbados Employment and Sustainable Transformation (BEST) program.
    The Tourism sector and other affiliated services are arguably the hardest hit by the pandemic. The August 22 edition of ‘The Economist’ notes that while the Caribbean has fared well in terms of limiting confirmed infections, the economic consequences of the pandemic have been more disastrous.
    Recently Neil Walters of the Caribbean Tourism Authority stated that there was a 50 percent decline in tourist arrivals up to June. Up to June the U.S market declined by 60.1 percent, the Canadian by 43.8 and Europe by 54.8 percent. The Barbados Central Bank regarded by The Economist as ‘an especially good reporter of data’ notes that Barbados economy contracted by 27 percent in the second quarter compared with the same period in 2019. More than a fifth of workers filed for unemployment benefit. The Caribbean tourism sector is too big to fail and the hundreds of laid-off employers in the sector cannot be allowed to fall into penury.
    The objective of recapitalising the operations of the hospitality sector is vital. Stimulus cannot continue indefinitely and ultimately the outcome will depend on the return of the visitors to our shores.
    The Speech contains the usual plans for reskilling and training of displaced workers. Then there are proposals for a digital bank, broader local ownership in the renewable energy sector and a junior stock exchange to enhance micro and small business. One is often sceptical of these promises, particularly when no timelines are given and the details are still to be fleshed out. Too often we never hear about the implementation and subsequent effectiveness of many of these schemes. They invariably remain ‘happy talk’, part of the rhetoric of a so-called ‘transformational culture’ aimed at producing what Owen Arthur called a new entrepreneurial culture and a new entrepreneurial class. Hopefully somewhere within the pages of the Throne speech there is something that will turn out to be truly ‘transformational.’

    Ralph Jemmott is a respected retired educator.

     

    Source: Barbados Today

    Like

  • JohnSeptember 19, 2020 8:00 AM Has Britain set the precedents?

    The only precedent that the current Trump satellite government is setting, is the attempt to break international law, in the breaking of the Withdrawal Agreement.

    That, if it goes through, is going to cause significant international diplomatic issues for Britain going forward. Because any trade agreement that they agree thenceforth, will be subject to this precedent and therefore, virtually worthless.

    The UK Government’s Chief Legal Advisor has resigned over this, as he is obviously a man of principle and cannot abide nonsense.

    Like

  • Boy oh boy!

    Wuhnuh frighten to stand on your own two feet like humans??????

    Wuhnuh crying because tourists who want to visit the country of black people on their knees serving the white queen do not want to see us standing upright?

    Any tourist who cancels for this reason why do you think that is?

    Wuhnuh like crawling on hands and knees like a prostitute in a sado-masochistic sex game?

    Like

  • CrusoeSeptember 19, 2020 8:15 AM

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

    If a Government holds a referendum and then claims not be bound by the result there will be trouble.

    Britain is the source of the Westminster style of Government and the precedent it has set is there to be followed or not.

    Like

  • Cuhdear Bajan,

    “Hater” is what Grenville the Clown used to call me for pointing out his deficiencies just as you have so “sweetly” done here.

    It wasn’t any truer in my case than in yours.

    Hence the quotation marks.

    Like

  • David September 19, 2020 8:20 AM

    Mr.Jemmott made an important distinction in the same sex issue. The Government can and will implement changes to enable same sex civil unions.

    However, quite insightfully, he has noted that the task of having the churches agree to marriages being conducted within their jurisdiction may be an uphill battle, therefore, the Mottley administration has set that aside and focused on what is actually important. Mr.Jemmott has therefore clarified what some people have been asking.

    Like

  • i am not a fan of MAM for all the reasons I have outlined in my many postings about her. She is intelligent and able but has no follow through, nevertheless she is not always wrong. Her Throne Speech and the objectives therein may have not been well thought out and may have been put together for deflection.

    That notwithstanding I have no real objection to them, on the face of it. Yeah the Throne Speech was long and laced with Bajanisms and there will be a lot of problems procedure wise. For instance, if the police stop a someone with some cannabis in St Joseph not near a police station, how would the police know it violates the legal amount or is indeed cannabis? how long is it going to take to get all the systems in place for ticketing? as an aside i have always believed that the use of abuse of drugs or what we refer to as illegal drus was never a legal problem but a medical one and we should have looked for a medical solution and not a legal one, although this does not strictly apply to cannabis. With regard to cannabis, it should be treated like cigarettes with all the attendant restrictions, warning and age limitations.

    Getting back to the Throne speech- single sex civil unions is a cop out by MAM. It is the same thing as common law marriage for heterosexual couples. Why not go all the way and legislate single sex marriage? That there should be a referendum for singe sex marriage with the civil union stop gap shows a lack of confidence in ability to get the measure agreed by the public. The stop gap is just there for cover. The public gets its say- a defeat for the measure and the satisfaction that there will be no single sex marriage, and the LGBTQRXP community gets their single sex unions. That way no one is totally satisfied but no one is totally disappointed either and MAM wins. Another thing- sodomy is still on the law books in Bim. MAM never spoke to this and given this administration not so recent legal faux pas it is likely that they overlooked this. An easy fix- repeal the Sodomy Act.

    Going republic is neither here nor there to me. Bim is independent with the Queen the nominal head of state via our own GG. Neither has any power to direct the affairs of Bim. So whether we go republic or not is no big deal legally, socially or economically. That depends though on how the republic is constructed. If we go the American style with an elected President well that changes things. If we go the TT route it is just a matter of a president or whatever name we choose replacing the GG and some other names changes here and there. In typical MAM style there was no details as to which one MAM will pick.

    This leads into cost and consequences- I cant begin to discuss those issues regarding the American style of republic. It is too involved with a lot of known unknowns and unknown unknowns. The TT style costs us very little except for some letter head, and legal changes via the law which is easy enough to do. Just copy and paste from the TT constitution.

    My view
    It is my view that instead of jumping into to this matter and going full bore for the stated date of Nov 2021, we take a time out and look at reforming the governance system. Is there a need for the senate? Should it be elected? Let me say that i am not a fan of a unicameral legislature neither i am a fan of an non-elected secondary legislature. I believe there should be a check and balance body made up of 12 persons from each parish and independent of politics or rather political parties. The details would occupy too much time and space to discuss in full here but i got the idea from listening to George Lamming’s views of the workings of Govt and reform thereof. Check YouTube for details

    Referenda
    i am no fan of leadership by referenda. It is a cop out- that word again. Does Govt consult the public for the majority of the things it does? When it raises taxes does it ask the public vote or opinion? So why when certain matters come up either the Govt wants to pass the decision to the public or the public agitate for a say? Nonsense i say. When Govt wants something it just does it. The public be damned. It is when it does not care about the outcome or wants to absolve itself of blame that it does the referendum thing. MAM does not care about the single sex marriage outcome- the stop gap single sex civil union is in place. She cares about going republic though as it will cement her and the BLP’s place in the history books on par with Independence, a long source of jealousy and envy for the BLP. That is why it will be done around Independence and if there isn’t given a special Republic Day it will be celebrated the same day as independence therefore fusing the two and forever linking MAM and the BLP with Barrow and the DLP. For that reason there was and will be no referendum for becoming republic.

    Elections have consequences
    For those wringing their hands and gnashing their teeth about republicanism and single sex marriage / civil unions not being included in the BLP manifesto and if they were, there were promises of referenda to decide, boohoo. Elections have consequences. You elected MAM. These are the consequences. “Gimme de vote and watch muh.” You did. Now watch

    Like

  • @Crusoe

    Donna also clarified it in this forum.

    Like

  • The UK government’s chief legal officer is the attorney general. She has not resigned. The permanent secretary in the ministry of justice has resigned, and so has the advocate general in Scotland.

    Like

  • JohnSeptember 19, 2020 8:24 AM CrusoeSeptember 19, 2020 8:15 AM If a Government holds a referendum and then claims not be bound by the result there will be trouble. Britain is the source of the Westminster style of Government and the precedent it has set is there to be followed or not.

    +++++++++
    Irrelevant. The point is that legally the referendum was not binding, it was made clear that it was guidance and was a choice by the government of the day. Another government could choose not to at a later date.

    Like

  • @Greene

    The distinction between same sex marriage and same sex unions was explained by Jemmott and others in this forum. One is a hurdle that can be leaped more easily than the other.

    Is it possible moving to a republic can be a forerunner to the deep reform you wish for?

    Political parties tend to shout referendum when confronted with wedge issues. It is a PR tactic.

    Like

  • CrusoeSeptember 19, 2020 8:28 AM

    David September 19, 2020 8:20 AM

    Mr.Jemmott made an important distinction in the same sex issue. The Government can and will implement changes to enable same sex civil unions.

    However, quite insightfully, he has noted that the task of having the churches agree to marriages being conducted within their jurisdiction may be an uphill battle, therefore, the Mottley administration has set that aside and focused on what is actually important. Mr.Jemmott has therefore clarified what some people have been asking.

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

    Amazed Ms. Mockley would be constrained by the church!!

    Like

  • She is contrainted by optics and shoring up popularity with 2023 approaching.

    Like

  • Getting back to the Throne speech- single sex civil unions is a cop out by MAM. It is the same thing as common law marriage for heterosexual couples. Why not go all the way and legislate single sex marriage? That there should be a referendum for singe sex marriage with the civil union stop gap shows a lack of confidence in ability to get the measure agreed by the public…(Quote)

    Wrong. You do not need legal permission to set up as a so-called common law couple. However, a civil union must have rights; what are they? Will the union be registered? Will the civil partner have inheritance rights? Be next of kin? If they are separating would they need legal permission, ie divorce? What about the age of consent? A right of adoption? Pension and property rights?

    Like

  • CrusoeSeptember 19, 2020 8:31 AM

    JohnSeptember 19, 2020 8:24 AM CrusoeSeptember 19, 2020 8:15 AM If a Government holds a referendum and then claims not be bound by the result there will be trouble. Britain is the source of the Westminster style of Government and the precedent it has set is there to be followed or not.

    +++++++++
    Irrelevant. The point is that legally the referendum was not binding, it was made clear that it was guidance and was a choice by the government of the day. Another government could choose not to at a later date.

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

    In politics, everything is relevant.

    There is the possibility that Ms. Mockley has cooked her goose!!

    The law is irrelevant.

    Like

  • The distinction between same sex marriage and same sex unions was explained by Jemmott and others in this forum. One is a hurdle that can be leaped more easily than the other….(Quote)

    Is Jemmott parliament?

    Liked by 1 person

  • @Hal,

    not in its legal intent but the optics thereof

    Like

  • A happy and beautiful day to all of Barbados…
    —++++++xx——–

    You must forgive me as my 3-day attention/memory span kicked in.

    Wha we talking bout now? I forgot.

    For 10 points..
    What will improve when we become a Republic? What will suffer?

    🙂 Don’t mention the queen… With civil union/same sex marriages we will have a surplus of queens. 🤣

    Liked by 1 person

  • @ Greene

    A civil union will have legal obligations and commitments; a common law marriage does not exist, apart from the perverse judgement of the CCJ.
    What are the civil union obligation and advantages? How would they differ from a same sex marriage?

    Like

  • I am certain if one start at 2008 and work backwards toward 1966 one would find numerous discussions on the following topics:
    Same sex marriages/civil unions
    Becoming a Republic
    Nelson statue

    Why do we discuss the same shit over and over and act as if we are covering new ground.

    Groundhog day! Sisyphus! Amnesiacs

    Like

  • And Cuhdear,

    If His Orange Majesty says it is “herd mentality” then “herd mentality” it shall be to his herd.

    Never mind Sleepy Senile Joe with his “herd immunity”.

    American dictionaries quake and change on the orders of the Orange King.
    😬

    Like

  • Gazzerts
    Meking sure the rabbit hole stays clear of all other issues

    Liked by 1 person

  • That was the equivalence of pissing in the pot of coffee.

    Tired of drinking from the same old pot. Start a fresh brew.

    Have a great day.

    Like

  • Hal,

    i did not get into the legality of it because i dont know what it will look like. your guess is as good as mine until we get more details. as usual MAM was scant on details

    Like

  • From BT
    A year after it successfully received an exemption from the Fair Trading Commission (FTC), the BWA said it was again applying for a “suspension of the standards of service decision 2018 – 2020”.

    Under the guaranteed and overall service metrics implemented in January 2018, the utility company is expected to give customers financial compensation if it breaches any of the guaranteed standards.

    Lessons: Boys and girls don’t sign stuff just to look good and then have to ask for waivers later. Be honest with yourselves

    Like

  • The blog master has a set agenda to keep the spotlight on Mia in a positive manner
    All other issues which brings different perspectives in reference to barbados economy would be dismissed as yardfowl banter
    Check and see how many issues on govt need to be transparent has been hoisted on the BU platform in the past two years
    Yet one would find all any other soft ball issues giving immediate preference over the day to day issues that affect barbadian households
    Buses and garbage trucks a big applause on BU
    But dare speak about transparency which dictates good goverance a missing link and a source of concern amongst the people and the topic is shutdown with haste

    Like

  • GreeneSeptember 19, 2020 8:29 AM

    Agree with much of what you said. On the point of Republic Day, maybe July 31 or August 31 would be a better time. That way, it is far from and not marred by the Xmas festive season and can also take advantage of holidaying overseas nationals and visitors alike, in the summer holidays and close to Crop Over?

    Like

  • TheOGazertsSeptember 19, 2020 8:54 AM

    Your concern is valid. It refers to the IDD that Barbados suffers, Implementation Deficit Disorder.

    However, the pandemic has shown that the Mottley administration is very capable of swift and effective implementation. That now has to be applied to other areas of attention.

    That was also my concern with the marijuana issue. Just make personal use legal, within a specific amount of weight being carried and be done with it. Much easier to implement.

    Then too, there are worse areas (ensuring all can eat and have shelter) to be addressed and people worried about a little spliff? Nonsense.

    We know that the rich people pun the gold coast enjoy their imbibations of all sorts. Yet, a lil man with a spliff will get fined $200?

    Total, unadulterated, unabridged nonsense.

    Like

  • “Why do we discuss the same shit over and over and act as if we are covering new ground.”

    the socially engineered and very disturbed and disturbing colonized mind …i have warned them for days about Mia’s nasty intent and dirty moves, but they have selective memories and only want to talk about who f**ping who….and who smoking marijuana…while ignoring the whole point about medical marijuana because they don’t care about the plague of chronic illnesses on the island because they know Mia don’t care either…it’s an ugly and vicious cycle of self-destruction.

    Like

  • Those who religiously think homosexuality is the work of the Devil, should maybe get a homo checked by a priest or holy man to see if they have the Devil in them, if they conclude they are not possessed by the Devil then there is no issue.
    The grey area is for the young and impressionable who have not had sexual experience and can have their minds imprinted from their first sexual encounter, which means people who were abused when young can often become abusers themselves.
    Young experiment in sex, fashion, lifestyles, relationships and often make mistakes which are a part of growing up and life lessons and learning who they are and what they will be. They can also be easily exploited and groomed and take risks without thinking of consequences.
    As mentioned laws are useless in stopping people doing things which they don’t believe is harming anyone or criminal or against their values and belief. When new laws are passed many people suddenly become criminals overnight.

    Like

  • People have always complained dancing was sexualised and 30 years ago Jamaican dancehall was criticised for being too overt with young girls copying the moves like butterfly etc. Nowadays it has gone mainstream and the whole world is twerking and pole dancing and watching and copying music videos on TV and the net. The new film Cuties shows innocent 11 year old girls wanting to be dance champions and copying the fashions without even realising the full context of what they are representing.
    Like in Courts Expert Witnesses and Psychologists are chosen to present evidence that supports narratives of what Government wants.
    I remember reading a clinical psychology study that (wrongly) concluded a rasta had become mentally insane and should be into care because of his belief that Haile Selassie was an incarnation of Christ had been formed from smoking weed.

    Like

  • @ Crusoe

    You may know that I Piece the Prophet have no buried for Grenville Phillips aka bedroom police

    In fact, judging from this article one can see that IT WAS NIT WRITTEN BY HIM but he made insertions.

    Those are the silly digressions in what is a major topic.

    A topic which you, on September 18 at 3.37 pm dissected so expertly.

    As you do all topics that you are exposed to WHEREVER YOU ARE ENGAGED TO SPEAK!

    It is your clinical style that makes one admire you wherever you speak/write

    But in this text Crusoe few people would have zoomed in on the thorough investigation you made of the Constitution.

    Nor the iterative reasoning you provided thereafter.

    Nor what it means to Bajans

    When de ole man grandson made this Stoopid Cartoon below in 2017 few people would have seen the direction that Mia Mugabe Mottley was going in

    And this posting, AS MANY OTHERS, would have been met by many comments by detractors

    But maybe now Crusoe, as you focus on every single line of the already disbanded Constitution, maybe people and sheeple across Barbados can see what you mean when you said

    “…This is the section that deals with amendment to the Constitution. No one has mentioned this yet, but this is the only thing that restricts the Government from amending the Constitution to form a Republic.

    Obviously, as above, we all know that a two thirds majority is required in each House…”

    You, in your usual style, have zoomed into the real issue here Crusoe

    An issue which, if left unattended WILL BRING A DICTATOR AND A DESPOT TO THE COUNTRY FOREVER!

    Like

  • And the govt supporters would lap up and revel in the dictator change
    Chanting Stuart ruined the country but Mia made the correct change

    Like

  • @ AC

    You are prohibited 🚫 as in totally debarred from speaking here on thus topic.

    It is you and your lot who brought our nation here to this disaster.

    All of you should be incarcerated!

    Like

  • For Barbados to become Independent, or to become a Republic, two main criteria need to be satisfied.

    The government agrees.
    The public agrees.

    When we became Independent, the DLP argued that since Independence was a main campaign issue, the general election was a de facto referendum. That argument was accepted.

    As shown in the article, our PM tried to argue along a similar line – noting that it was clear in their 2018 campaign manifesto. However, as also shown in the article, it was not included in the manifesto. Therefore, the public support is unknown. That is where the referendum becomes relevant.

    Like

  • Me nah got big name like Mr. Jemmott but me got logic.
    As me seh de same moment it was announced, the civil union rather than marriage takes the teeth out of the Church’s argument that it will encroach on its rights. BOOM! It now becomes a matter of the Church trying to force its religious beliefs on the individual rather than than the individual trying to force his or her religious beliefs on the Church. The argument is turned on its head.

    Obviously the civil union is going to bestow rights on the partners or it has no meaning. Pension rights, survivor’s benefits, next of kin rights, inheritance rights etc. So… the only thing they cannot do is force an unwilling pastor to marry them. Of course, there are those officials who will perform the ceremony even if it is not officially termed a marriage.

    This is the least contentious way forward and achieves the same result in all the ways that matter. Nobody’s right to decide is taken away but citizens who were denied their rights FINALLY get their due.

    Common law unions also confer certain rights after five years of co-habitation. I cannot remember them all.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Peter Wickham was heard expressing disappointment that the government has not gone the full distance. This is not surprising. His point is that marriage should be universal.

    Like

  • de pedantic Dribbler

    Well @David, that’s the point of universally accepted societal laws and protocols.

    Currently I imagine that Mr Wickham with his legally accepted marriage in Europe (or wherever) does NOT have those marriage rights here in Bdos … he cant (is this so?) … let’s say: let his husband go to his hospital room here in Bim and consult with the doctor as a normal Bajan spouse could!

    So he surely would be very disappointed about that no doubt … he cant get seriously ill in his homeland and have his spouse guide his medical care!

    Like

  • CrusoeSeptember 19, 2020 8:15 AM

    JohnSeptember 19, 2020 7:59 AM Untrue on multiple counts. Are you being deliberately obtuse or merely misunderstand the facts?

    Many of the former colonies have gone Republic. Trinidad is one prime example. Those would be the precedents, if one were required.

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

    Why Trinidad, why not St. Vincent or Jamaica?

    “A constitutional referendum was held in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines on 25 November 2009.[1] Voters were asked whether they approved of a new constitution which would have replaced the constitution in force since independence in 1979.[2][3] The proposal was supported by only 43.13% of voters in the referendum, well short of the required two-thirds threshold. If approved, the proposed constitution would have abolished the monarchy of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, headed by Queen Elizabeth II,[3] and would have given more power to the opposition.[2] The referendum was the first of its kind to be held by a member of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States.[1]”

    “During the 2020 Jamaican general election the People’s National Party promised to hold a referendum on becoming a republic within 18 months if it won the election.[8] and polls suggested that 55% of Jamaicans desired the country become a republic.[9] However, the ruling Jamaican Labour Party, which had in 2016 promised a referendum but not carried one out, was re-elected and states that holding a referendum remains a goal but has not proposed a timeline for one.[10]”

    Like

  • @Hal Austin September 19, 2020 8:49 AM “a common law marriage does not exist.”

    Because the Great Hal says so?

    Like

  • A civil union will have legal obligations and commitments; a common law marriage does not exist, apart from the perverse judgement of the CCJ…(Quote)

    Like

  • @Donna September 19, 2020 12:25 PM “Me nah got big name like Mr. Jemmott but me got logic. As me seh de same moment it was announced, the civil union rather than marriage takes the teeth out of the Church’s argument that it will encroach on its rights. ”

    As it is at present the church has no “rights” to marry anyone.

    The church is permitted by the state to conduct marriage ceremonies.

    Without permission granted by the state to the pastor and to the couple no marriage exists.

    Like

  • In any event a couple marries each other. Then they go to the state to register the marriage which has already verbally and IN FACT been contracted between the 2 consenting adults. Then some choose to go to a church/temple/mosque/synagogue/beach/garden/living room/ hotel conference room and in the presence family, and friends and the pastor ask God to bless their already existing marriage/union.

    Like

  • @555dubstreet September 19, 2020 9:56 AM “Those who religiously think homosexuality is the work of the Devil, should maybe get a homo checked by a priest or holy man to see if they have the Devil in them, if they conclude they are not possessed by the Devil then there is no issue.”

    If I was a young fella or a young gal, I would NOT go to any priest, pastor, or holy man to have my sexuality checked out. for the very reason that some of those priests, pastors and assorted holy men are very, very, very naughty boys.

    I would keep ALL such people far, far, far, away from my sexuality.

    If you doubt me Google Jerry Falwell, Jr.

    Like

  • Read and digest

    Why the rush to Republican Status in such a brief time? Why say so little about the intended Republic in the Throne speech but detai it through Australian media. How do you set up a Commission to examine the road to Republican Status but not allow that Commission to report to the people. I support Republican Status, as I believe Errol Barrow would have. I do not believe it should be used as a “back raise” to distract the populace of Barbados from horrendous economic crisis facing the middle and working classes in particular. Unfortunately we are seeing a kind of governance we have never seen before. THE TEN YEARS BETWEEN 2018 AND 2028 may well witness our losing(1) the moral position we have had in the past, based on a desire to get interest votes and satisfy false international standards we have defied(2) remaining in an IMF programme for an inordinate length of time(3) shying away from issues such as productivity, efficiency and competitiveness which is no longer in the national conversation(4) not taking on the disparities in our country which were focussed in the elections of 1961, 1966, 1986, 2003, 2008 and 2013 (5) The debasing of the levels of social protection formerly enjoyed by the working class.
    THE MOVE TO REPUBLICAN STATUS MUST BE BASED ON NATIONAL BUY IN. IT MUST NOT BE SEEN AS A DISTRACTION FROM OUR ECONOMIC WOES. WE MUST NOT CONTINUE TO FEEL WE ELECTED A GOVERNMENT BUT THAT WE ARE BEING CONTROLLED BY CONSULTANTS AND CLIQUES.

    From a fb page

    Like

  • @David September 19, 2020 12:29 PM “Peter Wickham was heard expressing disappointment that the government has not gone the full distance. This is not surprising. His point is that marriage should be universal.”

    I hope that marriage NEVER becomes universal.

    Some people NEVER wish to marry, and the rights of those people must also be respected.

    My mother who was married for 60 years always reminded those of her children contemplating marriage that “marriage is NOT compulsory”

    So too far east is west. We have to be careful that we do not socially or legally compel everybody to marry, as that would be a very, very bad thing.

    Like

  • Mariposa, we here on BU know you will post only the comments from Facebook that support your biased political agenda.

    One or two people writing their opinions on Facebook does not mean the entire population is against the republic.

    Why not post the comments from the same Facebook page that support the country going republic to bring balance to the issue?

    Like

  • Just watched 555’s Britain’s Got Talent video.

    It seems we are not even allowed to tell our stories. A black man telling the actual story of his life is racist. It is racist for a black man to tell the true story of how he is treated by the white man because of his race.

    23,000 people think that is racist. Do we want these people as our visitors? How do you think they will treat us when they get here? Earlier this year I overheard two hotel workers sharing their experiences with some of these visitors. Racist names and slave treatment. Last year a my young cousin got a job on a cruise ship. In just a few weeks he got his first taste of the n-word. He called his mother, bewildered.

    These are the people you guys want to come to Barbados? This is how you want your children to earn their money?

    I have no problem serving anybody. But they will treat me with respect or else.

    Like

  • @Hal Austin September 19, 2020 2:04 PM “A civil union will have legal obligations and commitments; a common law marriage does not exist, apart from the perverse judgement of the CCJ…(Quote)”

    That is what your Roman Catholic church teaches.

    But Bajans for the most part are NOT Roman Catholics, because we choose NOT to be. The Catholic Church has been proselytizing in Barbados for over 100 years, and we Bajans have chosen to reject the teachings of the Roman Catholic church.

    Just as we have chosen NOT to elect Grenville Phillips.

    We don’t want the Roman Catholic church.

    We don’t want Grenville Phillips.

    We don’t want Halston Austin.

    Is that clear?

    Like

  • @ Cuhdear Bajan
    I was trying to imply they do not have the Devil’s Spirit in their possession.
    The Church/ Religions have been a big part of the reason for discrimination against Homos, which influenced laws and people’s thinking. They were also responsible for the cover ups of abuse within their ranks. A lot of priests, monks etc in various religions joined the profession because they were gay.

    Like

  • Cuhdear Bajan,

    The right of the Church NOT to marry those their religion dictates should not be married. The right to REFUSE TO PERFORM THE CEREMONY.l
    Not the right to perform ceremonies. The right to refuse.

    I am well aware that it is the State that confers legal status to marriages performed by the Church and that it is not a right.

    Like

  • “It seems we are not even allowed to tell our stories. A black man telling the actual story of his life is racist. It is racist for a black man to tell the true story of how he is treated by the white man because of his race”

    Racism is about Power. Blacks and Palestinians do not have Power, so their story is not heard.
    Jews have Power especially in legal circles media and Government to make laws and publish reports about antisemitism.
    Whites have Power in West to suppress all criticism about their historical racism. Any criticism of themselves will have to come from White scholars, reporters or Governments to be heard. Trump has now picked up the rumblings for equality and calls for ‘patriotic education,’ saying anti-racism teachings are ‘child abuse’ and has also stopped all Government training for anti-bias racial sensitivity. Cases for Reparations will be dismissed with whataboutery about other crimes in infamy.

    Like

  • Genocide of blacks and original aboriginal people around the World throughout History was much greater in many multiples than the Holocaust against Jews, but was deemed acceptable. Europeans had colonised all of Africa apart from Ethiopia, which Mussolini tried to do. After WWI and sanctions Germany was starving and could not invade Africa has it had been already fully taken over, so he invaded Poland instead, this was deemed a crime as he was invading white people. He deemed Jews and Gypsies as impure due to their black blood of their descendants in the mix. He also persecuted Blacks and Gays. When Black people talk about Black rights and historical crimes against them, Whites start preaching to them about Gay rights instead as shown by White leaders speaking and instructing African and Commonwealth leaders. When they are accused of crimes of war, they talk about crimes of rape in wars and Woman’s Rights in the lands and cultures they invade. Their prejudice is so deeply inset in their subconscious minds they don’t even notice it anymore, it is just an integral part of their being and what they are.

    Like

  • The CCJ dealt with an interpretation of the Succession act.

    Don’t get the impression it was saying there is such a thing as a common law marriage.

    Could be wrong.

    If Mr. Selby was married to his wife for two years of the 5 year cohabitation then if there were such a thing as a common law marriage it might appear as though he was committing bigamy with two wives, one legal the other at common law.

    The aim of the proposed civil union may be to get rights for the same sex partner or his/her children under the Succession act.

    A relation between same sex partners can hardly be recognised by the Succession act as it now stands.

    It is quite allowable for one partner in a same sex relationship to deed his/her assets to his/her partner before death but in this day and age, who do you trust?

    Like

  • @Cuhdear
    If you doubt me Google Jerry Falwell, Jr
    +++++++++++++
    What are you insinuating? Jerry was not a detriment to anyone’s sexuality, he was enhancing Becki’s, the Pool boy’s and his sexuality, you’ve intimated that you went to primary school in so you are comfortable with simple maths, please confirm that 20 can go into 50 more times that 50 can go into 50

    BTW that piece of crumpet may have changed the course of history, after the relationship started to sour the pool boy threatened to release salacious photos to the Press because he thought the Falwells weren’t living up to their end of the bargain (money wise) and the couple got rattled. By that time Jerry had met Trump and used Trump’s muscle (Cohen) to ensure that the photos never surfaced. Cohen threatened the pool boy with the FBI and supposedly the photos were destroyed. Trump (it is alleged) then called in a favour and Jerry endorsed Trump leaving Ted Cruz at the altar as Ted was expecting the evangelical endorsement (his father was an evangelical Minister) and the rest is history.

    Who knows what would have happened in the Republican primary if Trump had not received Jerry’s endorsement?

    Like

  • @Sargeant September 19, 2020 5:31 PM “…you’ve intimated that you went to primary school in so you are comfortable with simple maths, please confirm that 20 can go into 50 more times that 50 can go into 50.”

    Let me see, I am trying to remember what my elementary school teacher taught me. She was gay, but I doubt that that makes any difference. Twenty into fifty=2, remainder 10. Is that right? 50 can go into 50 but once.

    @Sargeant September 19, 2020 5:31 PM “BTW that piece of crumpet may have changed the course of history…Who knows what would have happened in the Republican primary if Trump had not received Jerry’s endorsement?”

    Who knows how history would have turned out if the good Christian man had been able to do his own homework like a real-real man should.

    I’ve heard of paying someone to write your SAT. Fair enough, maybe? But paying somebody to do your bedroom homework?

    Killin’ me de’d.den.

    Lolll!!!

    Like

  • Cuhdear
    You are a country girl at heart and didn’t get the joke I was referring to the sexual dynamics of a 20 year old man and a 50 year old woman who has a 50 year old husband.

    Like

  • The new constitution should eliminate the independent position of the DPP. We need an AG, which is allowed to give instructions to the DPP. We should also abolish the requirement of a “complaint”.

    Both points are expressions of the racist colonial era and must be abolished urgently! Only a DPP that is dependent on the AG is a good public prosecutor.

    Like

  • @Sargeant September 19, 2020 6:15 PM “Cuhdear. You are a country girl at heart and didn’t get the joke I was referring”

    Ah, but I did get it. My response was tongue in cheek. When one grows up around domestic animals, there is very little that is hidden.

    But the written word is not the same as the spoken word.

    Like

  • SargeantSeptember 19, 2020 5:31 PM ….if Trump had not received Jerry’s endorsement?
    ++++++++++

    Did he now? Wow.

    Like

  • Odle again?

    Like

  • BY-ELECTION?

    MP Gline Clarke to drop bombshell at meeting today

    By Carol Martindalecarolmartindale@nationnews.com

    The Bees are buzzing as something big is about to happen in the constituency of St George North.

    Reliable sources said a major announcement which could trigger some political activity and involve long-time Member of Parliament for that constituency Gline Clarke is expected to be made later today.

    This evening the top brass of the ruling party, led by Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley, will be heading to St George Secondary School for a meeting at which the news is expected to break. Also slated to speak are Attorney General Dale Marshall and Clarke. It is understood that this meeting was rescheduled from two weeks ago at the specific request of “the boss lady”.

    No ordinary meeting

    Speculation is rife that the “political bombshell” will be dropped by Clarke himself, who is among the longest serving Members of Parliament and who, it is understood, has confided to some branch members that for him this will be no ordinary annual general meeting.

    “We have been told Prime Minister Mottley and Mr Marshall are speaking. Mr Marshall is a St George man. We were also advised that several other ministers of Government and officers of the party will be in attendance. So, definitely, something is happening. We have our suspicions, but we will wait to hear from Gline tomorrow evening,” one senior branch official told the Sunday Sun.

    Contacted yesterday for comment, Mottley stopped short of confirming widespread speculation that today’s announcement revolved around the political future of the St George North MP.

    However, she said: “Gline has served the Barbados Labour Party and the people of St George North with distinction. He has run a very good race. I am looking forward to speaking immediately after him tomorrow evening.”

    Clarke could not be reached yesterday for comment, but an elder of the party, who asked not to be identified, said the timing of today’s meeting would not be lost on keen students of politics, especially as there was now a vacancy at the helm of the Barbados High Commission in Canada and Clarke is known to have very strong Canadian links and connections.

    “The narrative is evolving before our very eyes. I have not spoken to the comrade leader or anyone in a position of authority, but it makes good sense to me that the Prime Minister would want to exercise some of her options at this point,” he added.

    “When you consider that the party and Government just presented, in the form of the Throne Speech, a very comprehensive blueprint for carrying the country through COVID, and also when you reflect upon the fact that your major opposing party is gearing up for a very divisive leadership battle next weekend, it would not surprise me were Ms Mottley to trigger some activity in one of her stronger ridings at this midway point in the life of her Government.”

    Clarke, 69, is a teacher by profession, who served as Vice Counsel and Liaison Officer at the Barbados High Commission in Canada from 1983 to 1987.

    In 1984, he became a founding member and firstpresident of the Barbados

    Overseas Community – Canada Inc., the organisation dedicated to promoting the heritage of Barbadians living abroad while supporting their adoptive home Canada.

    When he returned to Barbados in 1990, he assumed the position of executive assistant to the then Leader of the Opposition, Henry (now Sir Henry) Forde. He worked with him from 1991 to 1993 and then Leader of the Opposition Owen Arthur from 1993 to 1994.

    At his first try at the polls in 1991, Clarke lost to Cyril Walker of the Democratic Labour Party. In 1994, when he was first elected to Parliament, Clarke served as Parliamentary Secretary in the Ministry of Housing and Public Works with specific responsibility for the Ministry of Housing. After being reelected in 1999, he served as Minister of Housing and Lands until 2003 and then as Minister of Public Works and Transport from 2003 to 2008.

    Clarke was re-elected to the House of Assembly in the February 21, 2013 General Election. He retained his seat in the May 24, 2018 poll and now serves as the Deputy Speaker.

    Source: Nation

     

    Liked by 1 person

  • Diaspora behind move to republic
    By Tony Best Plans for Barbados to switch from a constitutional monarchy to a republic, as well as the Government’s helping hand for those hard hit by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, are receiving the backing of several Bajans in North America.
    The Mia Amor Mottley administration’s plans, outlined in last week’s Throne Speech by Governor General Dame Sandra Mason, include replacing Queen Elizabeth as Head of State; recognising civil unions by same-sex couples; and introducing a package of economic and social initiatives designed to ease the pain inflicted by COVID-19.
    Peter Fenty, Canada’s first black Anglican Bishop, fully endorsed the constitutional switch to a republican form of government. In addition, he said the administration had acted wisely by deciding to recognise same-sex unions.
    “It is long overdue,” Fenty said about the republic plans. “I am pleased to hear that. We need to completely throw off the shackles of colonialism. I think it is the right move for Barbados to assert its sovereignty. Some other Caribbean countries have gone that route and have taken responsibility for themselves.”
    On the recognition of samesex unions, Fenty, who retires in November, said it was “the right decision to make”. He added Barbadians should understand that every individual was entitled to all of the rights and privileges of being a citizen of a country that recognised them, and should be free to love whom they chose to marry.
    “I know it is going to be a real controversial issue,” he told the Sunday Sun. “I agree with the plan to put same-sex marriage to the people in a referendum. You want to be respectful of the wishes of people to have a voice in saying whether they would support the marriage of same-gender folk. I feel it is right for the Government to have a referendum on the issue.”
    Endorsed initiatives
    Noel Lynch, Barbados’ top diplomat in Washington, who endorsed the planned initiatives in the Speech, said it was clear the Government had “paused, rebooted, reimagined and restructured” its approach “so as to be able to deal with the worst aspects of the global pandemic and what came therefrom”.
    He said the programme was underpinned by the basic principle that Government would take all steps necessary to ensure all Barbadians were protected from the impact of the crisis and no one was “left behind”. In Edmonton, Dr Andy Knight, a professor of international affairs and a United Nations recognised expert, described the Throne Speech as a “coherent” and “comprehensive” blueprint for Barbados moving forward. However, he conceded he was caught off-guard by a Barbados Labour Party (BLP) Government moving forward with a plan to end his birthplace’s centuriesold link with the English monarchy. “I never thought the BLP was committed to getting rid of the English royalty,” he said. “That jumped out to me because Barbados is a very conservative country when it comes to things like that.
    “The second thing is the samesex union. I know how conservative Barbadians are when it comes to this issue. As you know, Barbados is a highly religious society, even though less and less people are going to church. Still, Barbados has a very strong religious foundation which would make it very difficult for Barbadians to accept a same-sex marriage. I think the Prime Minister is hedging her bets a little bit on this one because she wants to put it to a referendum at some point, rather than saying we are going to legalise same-sex marriages.”
    With more and more countries embracing gay marriages or civil unions, Knight said it might be “prudent for us to catch up with the rest of the world” so that Barbados’ relations remained solid and it avoided being blacklisted as a country that “does not adhere to human rights standards”.
    New York State Appeals Court judge in Brooklyn, Sylvia Hinds Radix, termed plans for a republic “a progressive step” for a country with long ties to the monarchy in London. She said people should not forget that Barbados was among the first CARICOM countries that jettisoned the British Privy Council and embraced the Caribbean Court of Justice.
    Not partisan
    Winston Cox, a former Central Bank governor who lives in Quebec, said the transformation of Barbados from a monarchy to a republic wasn’t a “partisan issue” because the former Prime Ministers Owen Arthur of the BLP and Freundel Stuart of the Democratic Labour Party had both advocated the end of Queen Elizabeth’s reign over Barbados.
    When it came to civil unions of gay couples, Cox said: “I can think of only a few very advanced countries that do not recognise such unions.”
    In New Jersey, Adrian Mapp, mayor of Plainfield, a middle class City of 55 000 people, said Barbados
    should long have ended the constitutional monarchial system. “I am surprised that it took so long. It is heartwarming to see the Government moving ahead with plans to make Barbados a republic.”
    Mapp contended that “people who love each other should not be denied the right to come together in a legal and sacred union” of the same gender.

    Source: Nation

    Like

  • We have our work cut out for us
    Barbados needs to change. Barbadians need to change, a lot.
    This was always the case, from the beginning, because Barbados started badly, in slavery and colonisation. These were not good things. You have to keep making this point, obvious as it may be, because many have not changed their colonial mindset and maintain a sentimental attachment to things colonial.
    They don’t want to venture to far from where this nation started. They believe that sugar should be our bread and butter forever, the educational system we inherited from the British is fine, the sun should not set on Nelson’s statue and that all this republic talk will insult the Queen of England and result in disaster.
    These conservative people are either dying out or coming to their senses. The rest of us understand that Barbados started badly and we have a lot of work to do to course correct. We’ve come a long way from where we started, but not nearly long enough to be complacent or conservative.
    Duck’s guts
    There is a saying which is common in Barbados: “If you start wrong, you will end wrong”. But as a nation and a people starting out in what could be called the ultimate disadvantage, we have to believe in the power of change. I think that saying is wrong. It better be. If not, we in duck’s guts.
    As I was writing this, I decided to google the phrase “in ducks guts”. Google doesn’t usually know much about Barbados and so, it directed me to an Australian slang, “the ducks guts” meaning “something great”. That’s definitely not what I mean.
    When I was small, a person who was constantly running to the bathroom with the runs would get asked if they were a duck. Apparently ducks drop a lot of droppings. Because I am not Australian but Bajan, it is therefore logical for me to assume that to be “in duck guts” means to be up to your neck and beyond in excrement. Because I am Bajan and not Australian, particularly a Bajan African, I consider extricating the nation from the excrement it was birthed in a priority.
    Lingering stench
    This extrication proceeds more slowly than I would like for a few reasons.
    Firstly, because so many are still so attached to the lingering stains and stench of colonialism. They’ve grown to like it. Others still haven’t grown to like it so much as to become numb to it. They don’t even smell it when it is right under their noses.
    Then there are those who use the cover of the stench of colonialism to pass their own gasses off as fresh air. They will hit you with a foul wind and call it freedom or change.
    One of United States President Barack Obama’s most popular slogans was “Change We Can Believe In”. As if to underscore that America had not significantly changed under President Obama, President Donald Trump was elected in his wake, with another promise of change, to “Make America Great Again”. Never has a politician used the slogan “More of the Same!” That would be too too honest.
    What will not change is that politicians will promise change. What needs to change is that the people must not be pacified by promises.
    For Barbadians, normally stereotyped as docile or passive, this will first mean a change in mindset. A Government that is willing to facilitate an upgrade in its people’s psychological software towards greater political, social and cultural consciousness is rare.
    But this is the only way we will know that a Government is serious about change, when it facilitates changes in the mentalities of the people that challenge the colonial mentalities and structures of power that many governments of former colonies count on for control.
    Adrian Green is a communications specialist. Email: Adriangreen14@gmail.com

    Like

  • Has time come for Caribbean republics?
    By Sir Ronald Sanders In 1994, shortly after Antigua and Barbuda and Cuba established diplomatic relations, Fidel Castro and Antigua and Barbuda’s Prime Minister, Lester Bird, had a memorable conversation in Havana.
    The conversation is worth recalling in the context of the third announcement by a Government of Barbados that by November 2021, it intends the nation should be a republic, shedding monarchical status and Queen Elizabeth II as Head of State.
    The conversation between Lester and Fidel, at which I was present as a member of the Antigua and Barbuda delegation, started with the revolutionary Cuban leader asking Lester (now Sir Lester) what big plans he had in mind for Antigua and Barbuda. Lester told Fidel he was contemplating moving to make Antigua and Barbuda a republic, relinquishing the monarch as the country’s head of state.
    Fidel’s response stopped Sir Lester and the entire Antigua and Barbuda delegation in our tracks. “Why?” asked the legendary revolutionary. “Does she interfere with your government?”
    Sir Lester explained she did not and that, in a real sense, while Antigua and Barbuda was one of the Queen’s realms, her role in the government was performed by a local representative and, apart from assenting to legislation which could not be withheld, was only ceremonial, having no executive authority.
    “In which case,” Fidel responded, “you might consider remaining as you are. The Queen doesn’t interfere with your government and she provides to foreign investors and others a level of confidence in the constitutional arrangements of your state.” The surprising conversation did not go much beyond that. It was staggering to the Antigua and Barbuda delegation, but it demonstrated the practical sense of Fidel Castro, which might account, in part, for the survival of Cuba despite the punishing embargo by the United States. That 1994 conversation between Fidel and Sir Lester took place at least nine years before Owen Arthur, as Prime Minister of Barbados, first proposed republican status in 2003; 18 years before Jamaican Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller suggested it in 2012; 21 years prior to Prime Minister Freundel Stuart echoing the proposition in 2015 for Barbados; 22 years before Andrew Holness as Prime Minister repeated it in 2016 for Jamaica; and 26 years before the latest announcement by Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley on September 15.
    So far, none of the countries in which this proposal has been made, has gone through with it.
    While the Throne Speech, in which the most recent Barbados announcement was made, referenced the island’s first Prime Minister, Errol Barrow, cautioning against “loitering on colonial premises”, there would be many who would draw a distinction between seeking Independence from the colonial authority of the British (which was the context of Barrow’s remarks), and retaining Queen Elizabeth II as Head of State.
    Both Owen Arthur and Freundel Stuart might have retreated from the idea not because they did not believe it to be right, but because within the Barbados society, including the business community, a great value is placed on the Queen as a symbol, if nothing else, of stability and maybe even of unity above the fray of politics.
    This is probably true, too, in the case of The Bahamas, Belize, Jamaica, Antigua and Barbuda, and the five other independent countries of the Eastern Caribbean where the Queen is still head of state.
    In the event, the present Government of Barbados has the greatest chance of success in achieving the objective of becoming a republic by next year. Unlike the remaining independent countries of the Caribbean of which the Queen is head of state, the Barbados Constitution allows for this significant change in constitutional status by “votes of not less than two-thirds of all the Members of the House”. No referendum of the electorate is required. Given that the present Mottley Government controls 29 of the 30 seats in the House of Assembly, achieving the vote should be easy.
    The one obstacle would be how intense, if at all, will be resistance by elements of the Barbados society and the business community against the idea, and how much it threatens to divide the country. This was a matter that clearly influenced both Arthur and Stuart, during their tenure, not to press ahead with the idea.
    Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Jamaica and the other six independent Caribbean countries require not only a two-thirds majority in the House of Representatives, but also a majority vote by
    the electorate in a referendum.
    Winning referenda in the Caribbean has proven to be as difficult as pushing a boulder up a mountain. In 2009, a referendum in St Vincent and the Grenadines rejected the proposal to oust the monarchy and substitute it with a republic. And, several referenda have failed in other Caribbean countries to alter the constitution to allow the Privy Council to be replaced by the Caribbean Court of Justice, signifying a reluctance by the majority of the electorate for radical change.
    While becoming a republic is regarded by Caribbean intellectuals as “rounding the circle of Independence”, the argument is not as much about the head of state not being a white woman living in a distant former colonial power; it is more about confidence in good governance when institutions perceived as beneficial are changed.
    That argument can only be won by political parties in every Caribbean country demonstrating that they will maintain the rule of law, civil and political rights, and democratic principles, including nondiscrimination particularly in race and religion.
    However much ruling political parties might wish to join the Barbados Government in pursuing republican status, “the matter is really in the hands of the Caribbean people”, as the Queen said in 2012 when Portia Simpson Miller declared: “I love the Queen, she is a beautiful lady, and apart from being a beautiful lady she is a wise lady and a wonderful lady.
    But I think time come.”

    Sir Ronald Sanders is Antigua and Barbuda’s Ambassador to the US and the OAS. He is also a senior fellow at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies at the University of London and at Massey College in the University of Toronto. The view expressed are entirely his own.
    Responses and previous commentaries: http://www.sirronaldsanders.com

    Liked by 1 person

  • Buk-In-Hamm Palace

    Like

  • So Sanders is stating the obvious … why waste time and money?

    Like

  • Only one point. The thirds majority applies to each House.

    Liked by 1 person

  • PS Aside from the legal aspect, which is clear, the crux of the moral question is:

    Does the psychological benefit derived from the change in hierarchal structure, as a nation, outweigh any perceived loss of economic or functional stability?

    That is the decision choice at its rawest.

    However, some would argue that the only important consideration is whether there is psychological benefit and if there is, that suffices as support.

    I am not suggesting which is right. Each of us must consider that.

    Liked by 1 person

  • @Crusoe

    It is a judgement call by government. There are pros and cons to every decision. Is this a seminal moment in time to take the decision? Note a seminal event cannot necessarily be based on preceding events. Only time will tell.

    Like

  • Lesson: Boys and girls… Never say with a two-dollar word what you can say with a one-dollar word.

    Whilst it may impress the BU intelligentsia it makes your submission more confusing.

    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