The Problem is us

Leadership
Submitted by Observing

In 2020 voters turned out in high numbers and groups merged to ensure that Trump would not be President again. They succeeded. Regardless of political view, there will still always be a 40% of America that will vote for Trump. Despite the 2022 unity, the cohesion on the Democratic side though is not so certain.

Back at home the electorate voted in 2018 to get rid of an incompetent bunch. 60% of Barbadians decided enough was enough and they spoke with their X.

In 2022 though only a few spoke, despite the fact that the issues of the day were just as weighty and critical as 2018. So what does this mean???

Simply put, many of us have become dull, turned off and apathetic. The systems built to give us voice are disappearing and so too are our voices. The Constitutions, norms and traditions that kept those who seek power in check no longer do so. Heck, we can’t even agree on whether a Senate with 18 people is legally constituted!

But worse….when we become numb to 400 – 600 Covid cases and 2 or so deaths a day, what next.
When the society that used to care simply doesn’t in the same regard, what next.
When drugs, murders, gun violence become normalised, what next.
When those who lead pay lip service to integrity and consultation but continue to act with impunity, what next.

I posit that Freundel fatigue, followed by economic fatigue, followed by Covid fatigue has lashed us as a public into sitting silently whether we want to admit it or not. That silence has led others to act and behave in ways that we do not agree with but we do or can do nothing about.

In another thread I spoke about the 5-year delay in being able to call our public leaders to account. The inability to seat opposing voices in Parliament along with the toothlessness of the Public Accounts Committee/Auditor General and the slothfulness of the Freedom of Information and Integrity Legislation essentially places us the same place we were 15-20-30-40 years ago. We have more technology, media, more blogs, more posts more threads but less meaningful discourse and action.

And so we remain at the mercy whims, fancy and hopeful integrity of those who lead or those who hold power and or money.

Donna asked sometime what type of leader I wanted.

First of all, we get the leaders we deserve. At all levels. Volunteer groups, fraternal organisations, trade unions, political parties and by extension government. Leaders can only lead those who allow them to lead.

Secondly, those leaders operate how they think is best with abandon UNLESS those who they lead speak up, which often times, they don’t.

Thirdly, those who CAN lead, often choose NOT to simply because they realise the futility at times of being sensible, pragmatic, honest, intelligent in a world or society where glitz, glamour, sweet talk, money and “cuh dear” brings popularity, votes and ascension up whichever ladder you happen to be on.

We are in a catch 22.

We want the real leaders to stand up, but, when they do, we place them on a pedestal and then try to knock them down.
We ask for transparency, integrity and honesty, but we revel in, celebrate and look the other way at leaders who are the opposite unless it directly impacts us.
We demand that our voices be heard yet we do not let our chords of concerns and criticism come forth.

We can only therefore look forward to the day when our desires match our words, our words match our actions and our collective actions match what society, this generation and future ones need.

Until this happens, we will be spinning tot in mud. Again and again and again.
We shouldn’t only come together to get rid of Freundel. We should come together to keep all decks on the ship of state sailing in the direction we want them to.

Only then will we see true development and true growth.

Our leaders aren’t the problem. The problem is us.

97 comments

  • The election was announced in the holiday period immediately after the Republic ceremony when people were suffering from political burnout, and they did not see the need for an election call in the same way Mia did

    Barbados became a Republic for a couple of reasons
    O to cut ties with Colonial History of Great Britain’s slavery
    O as a reset for the nation to forge it’s future

    The Republic change came in off the back of #BlackLivesMatter protests in USA which spread globally about killing of George Floyd and discussions about slavery and systemic white supremacy and racism

    Barbados needs to view itself as part of the African diaspora as black people are all one and the same regardless of culture
    There are more blacks in places like New York (+2m) London (+1m) which have global cultures of all ethnic groups from all countries

    Barbados future will be brighter if it looks to it’s motherland to plot it’s journey

    Like

  • It was the treacherous opposition that sabotaged the anti-corruption bill in the Senate. “Observing” once again twists history.

    Those who trust and follow our Supreme Leader unconditionally demonstrate not only loyalty but also strength of character, discipline, love of truth and integrity.

    Like

  • The new Constitution needs to be looked at as a new System build, instead of tinkering with the current legacy system.
    The role of Senate and appointment of Senators is based on the system of British monarchy as the figurehead of the nation and not from the Senate of a Republic where people are elected.

    Like

  • @Observing

    We revisit leadership?

    The assumption is that leaders come from the people?

    If no leaders are willing to emerge from among us does it reflect on current crop of leaders or …

    Like

  • @ Observing
    How did we become numb. Research and go into the BU archives;
    We called for an AG to be fired when we had 32 murders; we praised another AG when we had 49
    We said that the cabinet was bloated with lot of idiots when it was 15; we said we said it was no needed when it was 26
    We said Stuart was insensitive and asleep when he failed to talk ; we said that Mottley is right not to talk with the nurses
    We marched up and down on behalf of the workers; then we told them if they strike that “ others” are watching and they would pull down the country in the eyes of those who want to come here
    Enuff for now. If you want to know how we got here just ask those on BU who are blinded by political loyalty to either the BLP or DLP
    I think the learned amongst us call it some big word: polarization.

    Liked by 1 person

  • @ Tron February 8, 2022 6:42 AM
    (Quote):
    It was the treacherous opposition that sabotaged the anti-corruption bill in the Senate. “Observing” once again twists history.
    (Unquote).
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Come off it, Tron!

    Which “opposition” threw a spanner in the poorly-designed body of legislation which would have resulted only in another system of apartheid when it comes to integrity in public life and in declaration of assets?

    That was one failure you cannot place on the shoulders of the political heirs or even the king Fumble since the ghost of Barrow was totally absent from that august Chamber as it should continue to be until the people returns the DLP body to where it matters most?

    What’s the sense of amending the Constitution to achieve a narrow selfish political objective of having an imaginary Opposition without a concomitant provision for an Opposing Voice where it matters most; that is, in the People’s elected Assembly?

    Will there be a concomitant adjustment of the Constitution to recognize the role of political parties as part of the electoral structure and process of Governance in the new republic?

    Will the political party- which has been given a recognized role of Opposition in Parliament- be given a subvention to facilitate the effective performance of the same Opposing function?

    Like

  • Our leaders aren’t the problem. The problem is us.
    ~~~~~~~~
    GOOD
    …at least we have one person in Observing, who understands the concept of brass bowls.

    On another similar note,
    Listening closely to Bishop Atherley it has become much clearer to Bushie, why he was unable to retain a seat in our HOA.
    The man is obviously much too honest, clear-thinking, people-oriented and forthright, to be representing a bunch of brass bowl Bajans who appear intent on getting back to the ‘good old days’ when we all lived happily on Tron’s plantations ‘protected’ by his kith and kin.
    Between Atherley and Caswell, we have now had the opportunity to see what true representation can look like…. and we have rejected the offer in typical Brass Bowl style….
    As we come to regret our collective idiocy (shortly).., BU will serve as a record of our shooting ourselves in the donkey… …cause the OTHER news media are even worse than brass…

    Good article Observing.
    99% true…

    Like

  • @Bush Tea

    You are aware Atherley suffered a transformation when the opportunity to cross the floor appeared. If it didn’t one can only speculate about the status quo not being interrupted if only by the gentle ripple created by his emergence as LoO.

    Like

  • Charade and symbols is what the people want
    Don’t blame the people for rewarding those who delivered
    Good governance my foot
    Constitution be dam
    Long and short of the story
    An article exposing the IMF sending messages to govt cutting out a path whereby govt can’t increase retirement age
    Gets a yawn
    An article asking govt to cut taxes in.order for citizens to keep up with rising prices gets a yawn
    Question where is the media practitioners voices
    Not a peeping sound
    Jesus take the wheel

    Like

  • @Skinner
    The us isn’t us here. Though some may say pseudonyms ar a cop out.

    @Bushie
    Took a nuff years but we here. lol. And yes, the common sense plain talking honest people seem not to stand a chance bout here.

    @David
    re. Leadership
    Every cycle creates future conditions that require a different type of leader/leadership. SKinner hit the nail on the head when we only see leaders in the same way we saw them 40-50 years ago.

    Tom and Barrow were leaders for their times
    Sandi was an aberration
    Owen capitalised on no confidene and became a leader for his time
    Both MaM and DJT were leaders for their time. MaM was lucky that DJT passed on.
    Freundel was an aberration.
    This double 30-0 coupled with the “major” transformation of life, law and liberties will in essence require another type of leader for that time

    The point is, though leadership come from the people, if the people do no participate, advocate AND agitate then we get the same problems over and over again.
    Problem with participation: Leaders now do not want to here dissenting/opposing voices. It’s my way or nothing.
    Problem with advocacy: Vindictiveness and fear as silenced alot of advocacy. Similarly everything is seen in a political lens only
    Problem with agitation: Trade unions have become lap dogs and muffled mutts.

    To use Gladwell – Mia and David = Outliers
    Freundel = tipping point
    Balance is needed again. Too far east always ends up west.

    Morning again all.

    Just observing

    Like

  • The biggest irony is that the attitude of people is shaped by the environment. Around and around we go…

    Like

  • @ David
    Saul ‘suffered a transformation’ on the road to Damascus too and became a legend.

    You need to understand that your baseline point of reference, which is tagged to historical political dogma, is fatally flawed.
    It is IMPOSSIBLE to properly address a serious weakness without a sound understanding of the root causes.
    This whole nonsense about ‘political acumen’ is trite, and is being unravelled as we speak.
    The daunting REALITY is that the fight is NOT against flesh and brass, but against much more complex and sophisticated forces…
    However, Bushie understands the fun of ’tilting at windmills…’. It is what keeps BU interesting.
    Perhaps one day we will seek to go BEYOND such trivia to the real issues.

    Like

  • 170 square miles divided by 30 seats = 5.66666667 square miles per seat

    bigger countries have local councils, state and national governments

    seems like Barbados is role playing more than serving it’s needs best

    Like

  • The opposition’s attempts to overthrow the government and eliminate democracy are becoming increasingly desperate and radical.

    Bishop Atherley has now gone completely bonkers. He wants taxpayers to support the party of money laundering and corruption, the DLP, with 150,000 BBD annually. This totally insane proposal is like asking rape victims to support their rapist.

    It is obvious that for some, the Omicron variety permanently influences the brain. How else is this very shameful and immoral proposal by the Leader of the Opposition for a rival party to be understood.

    Justice means that the state supports parties according to their electoral success. So 100% campaign aid to the BLP and 0% to the other parties.

    Our Supreme Leader should continue to stand by democratic principles and the people. Under no circumstances should she cave in to the DLP to remove the constitutional order and establish an undemocratic despotism of the opposition.

    Like

  • Steupse!

    Like

  • @Bush Tea

    Could it be that political dogma is real for mere mortals and the complex and sophisticated forces will have to take care of itself if by your explanation it is beyond us to solve?

    Like

  • Not you, Observing.

    Down the anti- homosexual rabbit hole we go, taking the lives of those who were so born with them.

    High profile casualty – former Miss America Chelsie Kryst. Apparently she could not reconcile her sexuality with her Christianity.

    You guys, in your ignorance, kill people.

    From the comfort of our living room, my sneaky son heard one independent candidate up at Bayley’s School ranting and raving about homosexuality. He heard nothing else proposed. Strange though because he invited the known homosexual sitting in my garage to come to his meeting. Maybe he wanted to convert him. Conversion “Therapy” works so well.

    Didn’t know my son was even listening. But he was. Even he knows that Barbados will not be saved by ostracising homosexuals! He too had a closet homosexual friend who committed suicide a couple of years ago. The young man’s best friend told my son that he was homosexual after his death. A decent Barbadian youth bit the dust you guys threw in his face.

    Let the innuendo begin! Donna protests too much. Maybe her son is a homosexual, after all, she is suffocating him due to her rejection by somebody.

    Or maybe Donna herself is lesbian! She sure hates men enough.

    Old fartism at its worst!

    I swear, that is what ails us MOST!

    I gone to “plant some seeds” like a good brass bowl “unreal” woman.

    STEUPSE, MAN, STEUPSE!

    Like

  • @ David
    The problem with being misguided is that your fantasies are ‘real’ in your mind.
    Don Quixote, on seeing the windmill shouted “Fortune is guiding our affairs better than we could have ever hoped”. … And saying this, he spurred his horse Rocinante without heeding what his squire Sancho was shouting to him, that he was attacking windmills and not giants….

    Like

  • Ok Bushie, you are free as always to share your opinions to BU LOL.

    Like

  • A full story of deception is being played out today in the House of Parliament having no opposition or member of Parliament to say NO
    Is this who we are ?

    Like

  • @William Skinner February 8, 2022 7:14 AM “We said that the cabinet was bloated with lot of idiots when it was 15; we said we said it was no needed when it was 26.”

    I am not sure that they were called idiots on BU, but wherever 2 or 3 are gathered together…

    Like

  • Bushie’s writings……Just beyond our imagination…

    Like

  • @Donna February 8, 2022 9:53 AM “Down the anti- homosexual rabbit hole we go, taking the lives of those who were so born with them. High profile casualty – former Miss America Chelsie Kryst. Apparently she could not reconcile her sexuality with her Christianity…He too had a closet homosexual friend who committed suicide a couple of years ago…You guys, in your ignorance, kill people. From the comfort of our living room, my sneaky son heard one independent candidate up at Bayley’s School ranting and raving about homosexuality. He heard nothing else proposed. Strange though because he invited the known homosexual sitting in my garage to come to his meeting. Maybe he wanted to convert him. Conversion “Therapy” works so well.”

    This is so sad. And to think that a political candidate would think that he or she could gain votes by cussing homosexuals.

    Just as some people thought they could gain votes by cussing women.

    It doesn’t work.

    Don’t we all have a sibling, a cousin, a child, a church member, a person in our gap, a friend, a neice or nephew or even a parent is homosexual?

    Stupssseee!!! indeed.

    Like

  • de pedantic Dribbler

    @Observing who opined: “In 2022 though only a few spoke, despite the fact that the issues of the day were just as weighty and critical as 2018. So what does this mean???” REALLY… That sir is a very GENEROUS way of conflating 2018 and 2021-22!

    The issues of a nation wreaked by a world-wide pandemic and the vagaries of an aggressive but purposeful leader (in simple terms) were the same as the country reeking of sewerage back-flow and the BS of a meek and ineffectual leader (again in simple terms)…. Interesting!

    Also when you say that “I posit that Freundel fatigue, followed by economic fatigue, followed by Covid fatigue has lashed us as a public into sitting silently whether we want to admit it or not. That silence has led others to act and behave in ways that we do not agree with but we do or can do nothing about.”

    ….Who are those others good sir??? Are they the “us” … if so can we stop this psychological circle jerk narrative, please!

    A leader is the person who evolves from a group to direct and guide those therein….it is NONSENSCAL to argue that we have no leaders (of this caliber or some other)….ANY PERSON who we ALLOW to speak for us from within the group — which means we do not remove them as our advocate — is DE FACTO the LEADER!

    And SILENCE (our apathy) is an absolutely perfectly passive way to assert one’s intentions and desires!

    Like

  • This thing got curious and more curious
    A Parliament reconvenes without an.opposition
    Never in the history of Barbados decomcracy under any given leadership has this happen
    Wuh Happen
    I gonna drink a rum and coke to celebrate
    The breaking of a new day

    Like

  • @ Hants
    Bushie’s writings……Just beyond our imagination…
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Be honest Hants, …you REALLY mean “way beyond our understanding…. Bushie talking shiite”… LOL, ha ha ha

    Man Skippa, If you want the parables interpreted …just ask…

    Liked by 1 person

  • But ac, yuh mean that you aint got NO SHAME at all???!!!
    WOMAN!!
    There is no opposition because you and your shiite party have managed to so piss of Bajans with your ignorance and arrogance, that if 30 green monkeys from st Joseph had been the only opponents in the last two elections, the result would STILL be 30-0.
    Best that you can do now is change your BU handle to ‘angel fox’ and stop talking about politics.

    Liked by 1 person

  • And continue to piss us off with the acting president Steve Blackett calling shots.

    Like

  • Bush tea don’t try uh piss parade on me
    It not gonna work
    Better yet u check the Constitution and tek up that problem there
    Ole boar

    Like

  • @Cuddear:
    Don’t we all have a sibling, a cousin, a child, a church member, a person in our gap, a friend, a neice or nephew or even a parent is homosexual?

    True dat. Even in my family. I know a family that has 3.

    @Bushie
    Yuh know we St. Joseph monkeys too purty ‘n smart. Smarter than the voters.

    Like

  • Ooooooooh! Beyond our understanding!

    Ego squared!

    Lotta shite! Wunnuh could swallow that mouthful an’ call it chocolate.

    Not Donna.

    Lotta shite!

    Like

  • angela cox February 8, 2022 3:15 PM #: “Never in the history of Barbados decomcracy under any given leadership has this happen.”

    Because, “never in the history of Barbados” has one political party won ALL the parliamentary seats.

    Who’s at fault if the framers of the Constitution did not take into consideration such a situation may occur?

    How is the Constitution applicable in those circumstances?

    Unless, we keep holding general elections until an Opposition is ‘elected?’

    Like

  • @Artax

    You forgot to add and during this term no MP crossed the floor a la Bishop Atherley.

    Like

  • @ Dame+Bajans,

    You are a Canadian citizen and know the power of the LGBTQS2 community.

    Sooner or later pressure will be brought to bear on PM MIA to be more accomodating to that community in Barbados.

    Like

  • Today a bunch of yes sheep entered Parliament made a decision that the President voice can only be heard when all the members absent of an opposition makes a decision.for her

    Like

  • (Quote):
    Sooner or later pressure will be brought to bear on PM MIA to be more accomodating to that community in Barbados.
    (Unquote).
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    And what better standard bearer can there be to promote the social rights and responsibilities to that ‘class’ of citizens of the new republic!

    If the ex-mother country can ditch long time ago the stigma that is still so strongly attached to that minority group in Barbados why can’t the newly liberated republic show similar maturity by first eradicating those discriminatory laws and then revising the Constitution to protect specifically that group from any form of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

    If the government can go so far as to amend the Constitution simply to accommodate the voice of the youth in that of an18 year-old, why can’t a whole community (representing an estimated more than 5% of the country’s resident population) also have the Constitutionally-enshrined right to display openly how they feel about love instead of having to hide their bushels of talent in the closet?

    Even Peter Wick ham, after another round of open confession, would see such an epiphany on the PM’s part as a ‘Come-to-Jesus’ moment of true rainbow love.

    Like

  • The media is the problem.

    Fake news is believed without question.

    Like

  • The Irish solution

    by GARTH PATTERSON

    IT TURNS OUT that we aren’t alone – and I’m not referring to aliens. Exactly two years ago, a general election was held in the Republic of Ireland for the Dáil Éireann, which is the lower house, and principal chamber, of the Oireachtas (Irish legislature).
    The election was called following the dissolution of the House by the president, at the request of the Taoiseach (prime minister), Leo Varadkar, on January 14, 2020.
    The general election for the upper chamber, the Seanad (or Senate), was held on March 30, 2020, and 49 senators were elected to the Seanad. However, that did not complete the complement of sixty senators contemplated by the Constitution of Ireland, which provided for the remaining 11 senators to be nominated by the incoming prime minister.
    Article 18.1 of the Irish Constitution provided that the Senate “shall be composed of sixty members, of whom eleven shall be nominated members and forty-nine shall be elected members”.
    There was a lacuna between the general election of the House in February 2020 and the election of the new Prime Minister, Micheál Martin, on June 27, 2020. Consequently, the remaining 11 senators were not nominated by Prime Minister Martin until June 27.
    Pressed hard
    The Senate, in the meantime, had only the 49 newly elected senators in place, and several of them pressed hard for the president to convene the first sitting, notwithstanding the fact that 11 of the Senate seats had not yet been filled. After a firestorm of controversy, a constitutional motion was ultimately filed in the High Court in mid-June 2020 by ten of the 49 newly elected senators seeking a declaration that the Senate was entitled to sit and pass legislation, notwithstanding that the prime minister had not appointed the 11 senators, and that the Oireachtas (comprising the House and Senate) was not debarred from functioning as a legislature.
    The three-judge Divisional Court, after hearing the arguments, delivered its 30-page decision ( Senator Ivana Bacik et al v An Taoiseach et al [2020] IEHC 313) on June 29, 2020, unanimously holding that the Constitution clearly and unambiguously meant that the Senate must comprise all 60 members. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ contention that the Senate was permitted to sit before the prime minister had nominated the 11 senators and held that the first meeting of the Senate could only lawfully take place when all 60 members identified in Article 18.1, elected and nominated, were in place. What follows is a summary of the principal reasons, delivered by the president of the court, for the decision, which all apply with equal force to Barbados’ current constitutional crisis.
    Applicable principles of interpretation:
    The Constitution, as the fundamental law of the state, must be accepted, interpreted, and construed according to the words which are used; and these words, where the meaning is plain and unambiguous, must be given their literal meaning.
    Words denoting numbers, places or identified persons admit of no debate. If a literal interpretation of one provision might bring it into conflict with the literal meaning of another provision, then it is legitimate to resort to the harmonious approach with a view to interpreting both provisions in a way which avoids inconsistency. The words, the Senate “shall be composed of 60 members …”, considered on their own, and without reference to their Constitutional context, are clear and unambiguous.
    They are expressed in the imperative “shall”. The words tell us what the Senate is composed of. The words “composed of” are words used in everyday speech. There is no ambiguity about any of that. Article 18.1 (our section 36) clearly and unambiguously means that the Senate, an institution or organ of state, that is created by the Constitution must be comprise of 60 members. References elsewhere in the Constitution to the Senate are to be interpreted in the same way.
    Rejected
    Casual vacancies and quorum:
    The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the provisions of the Constitution that deal with casual vacancies and quorum show that the Senate can function without its full complement of members. It said that Article 18.1 (our section 36) prescribes the complement of members necessary to constitute the Senate and, having done so, it was then necessary to consider what should be done in the event that a vacancy subsequently arose in order to ensure that the Senate would, in such event, continue to have its full complement of members.
    Similarly, to ensure the smooth running of the Senate, it was necessary for the Constitution to provide that the Senate could fix its own quorum. However, both of those provisions presuppose that the Senate has a fixed number of members. Those provisions reinforce the meaning of Article 18.1 explained above rather than to undermine it. The reference to the Senate in those provisions is a reference to the organ of state containing the 60 members prescribed by Article 18.1.
    Meaning of “Senate”:
    On each occasion where the Constitution bestows upon the Senate a power or a function, that power or function is bestowed upon the body whose composition, and thus its identity, is as described at Article 18.1 (our section 36). It means that the Senate must be composed of 60 members, 49 elected and 11 nominated.
    It does not have a variable meaning depending upon the context in which it appears. The basic principle of construction is that, when a body is defined in one part of a legal document, it is that definition that describes the body whenever it is referred to throughout the document. Article 15 (our section 35) of the Constitution provides for the Oireachtas as the National Parliament and makes clear that the Oireachtas consists of the President and two Houses, namely a House of Representatives and a Senate.
    Neither of the latter terms is otherwise defined and when Article 15 refers to Senate, it has in mind a Senate composed in accordance with Article 18.1 (our section 36). That is an inescapable conclusion. The people chose a bicameral Parliament with an upper House comprising not just elected members but also nominated members. That is an integral element of the constitutional architecture of the form of democracy chosen by the people when they enacted the Constitution.
    Powers of government
    Senate does not exist:
    Article 6 makes it clear that the powers of government are exercisable only by or on the authority of the organs of state established by the Constitution. This means the Senate must be as established by the Constitution i.e., Article 18.1 (our section 36). Article 18.9 (our section 39) makes it clear that the members of the Senate cease to hold office prior to an election.
    The constitutional scheme clearly envisages that there will be periods when the Senate cannot sit and during which periods legislation cannot be passed by the Parliament. The fact that it provides that the members of the Senate cease holding office before a general election, rather than providing for a dissolution of the Senate, is immaterial. The Senate does not exist unless it is constituted as required by Article 18.1 (our section 36). There is nothing in the terms of the Constitution which would permit the convening of a partially constituted Senate comprising only the 49 elected senators.
    Postscript:
    The Irish experience, and the decision of the Divisional Court, provides a clear road map for, and solution to, this ugly constitutional quagmire in which our Government finds itself. The Senate is not properly constituted and an assemblage of 18 senators does not comport with the unambiguous meaning of “Senate” set out in section 36 of our Constitution i.e., 21 persons appointed by the President in accordance with that section. As presently constituted, the Senate and, by extension, Parliament are neither fish nor fowl. They simply do not exist, and any laws passed by this phantom Parliament will be invalid.
    Garth Patterson is a Senior Counsel.

    Source: Nation

    Liked by 1 person

  • Garth u are correct but a weakened democratic party and the members of Parliament does not have the intestinal fortitude to fight the PM along with standing vanguard for the Constituion
    The dlp in my opinion when accepting those two senate seats would now become the laughing stock going forward as a party as being neither fish or foul having to rely on the benevolence of the PM to save them from further down fall
    Jesus take the wheel

    Liked by 1 person

  • Whether the DLP accepts or not it remains a laughing stock because the outcome was predictable. If the DLP does not accept we will probably see Grenville and Atherley in the Senate. More laughter if this should occur.

    Like

  • When I hear the blp foot soldiers telling the dlp to take the seats
    I cringed knowing that the backlash from the swirling tongues of PM loyalist can’t wait to remind the party of Mia Benevolence during next election campagain rallies along with the talking point of being grateful and thankful
    Oh what a tangled web a web that would be so tightly weave around the dlp neck for years to come
    Accepting the offer on face value makes Mia looks good but the political price which the dlp.would have to pay is going to be the lost of self respect on the premise it did not fight hard enough to gain political points on self respect
    If only the dlp had make this issue one of having a legal challenge
    I for one would be thinking long and hard as to my support for this party or any party whose self respect has been so lowered that it cannot remove itself from the vice grip of political moorings

    Like

  • DavidFebruary 9, 2022 6:35 AM

    Whether the DLP accepts or not it remains a laughing stock because the outcome was predictable. If the DLP does not accept we will probably see Grenville and Atherley in the Senate. More laughter if this should occur
    Xccc
    You are so right as a matter of fact my Feb 9th comment at 6.37 attempts to make glaring points that can throw the party further into the eyes of many as having lost self respect
    The dye has already been cast

    Like

  • DavidFebruary 9, 2022 6:35 AM

    Whether the DLP accepts or not it remains a laughing stock because the outcome was predictable. If the DLP does not accept we will probably see Grenville and Atherley in the Senate. More laughter if this should occur.

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

    The DLP put its position very clearly and unambiguously in 2018.

    When we win seats, we will nominate senators!!

    It is the BLP that are the clear insurrectionists!!

    Reverend Joe was no leader of the opposition than you or me!!

    It is the DLP that has taken a consistently constitutionally based position that will easily stand up in any court of law.

    Test the BLP position in a proper court and it will collapse like a house of cards!!

    Like

  • Unless someone has their finger on the scale it is impossible to predict an election.

    The laughing stock would then be the people who put their finger on the scale without allowing for a non constitutional result.

    They would be the idiots who reckoned 30 – 0 would simply mean the BLP could do as it pleased under their thumb without realising no parliament could be possible.

    Like

  • Here’s what happened to a country which did away with its Parliamentary opposition!!

    Liked by 1 person

  • Why do people think a new beginning is an ending of good things and an ending is not a new beginning of better things.
    This is my revelation which is deep high forwards backwards side to side in all directions to the centre of the earth to the stars and heavens above across the land over the hills and valleys to the coastlines over the seas around the world south east north west and back again circumventing the globe on planet earth.

    Like

  • Wunnah still talkin’ ’bout de Constitution????

    Liked by 1 person

  • First comes a nation,
    then comes a government,
    then comes a constitution,
    then comes an opposition.

    Like

  • @Angela Cox 6.37am
    Spot on. At least, you have much experience with tight weaves.

    Like

  • Our Supreme Leader will release the seal of Judgment Day and turn Barbados into a Kingdom of Heaven. Normally people say that the sky is blue, but here it is red.

    I can already see the Hyatt glowing behind the Trident at the Garrison!

    Like

  • @ Tron February 9, 2022 12:32 PM
    (Quote):
    Our Supreme Leader will release the seal of Judgment Day and turn Barbados into a Kingdom of Heaven. Normally people say that the sky is blue, but here it is red.
    I can already see the Hyatt glowing behind the Trident at the Garrison!
    (Unquote).
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    In that case, Kingmaker Tron, you ought to rechristen that imaginary hotel and- in its final reincarnation- call it the Mottley Mausoleum of Athena in honour of your Supreme Leader all painted in yellow, red and blue-black.

    If the Freedom Park could be constructed so quickly to coincide with the arrival of the New Republic called RoB why can’t that eponymous hotel be erected to mark the financial demise of Malmoney?

    Don’t you think it’s high time your Constitutionally omnipotent Supreme Leader take matters into Her Own Majesty’s hand by renaming the Queen’s Park the ‘E.D. Mottley Cultural Centre’ to recognize the ‘brilliant’ contribution that patriarch made to the city of Bridgetown.

    Like

  • @David
    Let’s see which justice takes it up and how it is dealt with!
    Recently cases against the government have simply been “tossed out”

    Just observing

    Like

  • @Observing

    What are you suggesting about our Justice System?

    You should not worry, there is the CCJ.

    Like

  • not suggesting, simply stating!!!!!!

    My post says it all regarding the need for “us” to do what “we” need to do.

    This post made the rounds today as well. Food or thought.

    https://nationnews-brb.newsmemory.com/?publink=09823a8ee_1348355

    Just Observing

    Like

  • de pedantic Dribbler

    @David that’s excellent re the Brathwaite court challenge. It will ideally bring this to a conclusion, From my spot in the bleachers I would be quite surprised however if the Parliamentary session is brought is deemed as ‘unlawful’ assembly if it’s goes to CCJ.

    From a political perspective it is interesting that the DLP did not have an amicus brief … they have clearly signaled that they are wary of the legality issues of the offer but it seems that the constitution of the chamber itself is less a concern.

    Like

  • @Dee Word

    Even if it is deemed unlawful what are the options available to government?

    Like

  • Critical Analyzer

    @David February 9, 2022 3:43 PM

    Serves the PM right for going against the voter’s will and trying to give the DLP some sort of voice in parliament. The voters knew better than the PM why they gave them zero seats and now she knows why too.

    A better amendment to the constitution would have to add a 31st seat to the Lower House for Leader of the Opposition and appoint the losing candidate with the highest number of votes as Leader of the Opposition.

    Changing the constitution to recognise party is a danger change when the constitution goes to great pains to not recognize party affiliation.

    Like

  • @CA

    It maybe more complicated. Did the electorate in the FPTP system intend to vote for 30 although it worked out that way?

    Like

  • Critical Analyzer

    @David February 9, 2022 4:54 PM

    It matters not. We only vote for a representative for our own constituency, not a party representative or minister. The political party system has co-oped, corrupted and made a mockery of the whole system.

    We voted for the 30 best representatives, period. If we question the wisdom and will of the voters to choose their own representative, we might as well not have elections an go back to a monarchy.

    If the DLP wanted to bring a motion, they should have brought one against the disenfranchisement of the COVID isolated.

    Like

  • @David February 9, 2022 4:54 PM “It maybe more complicated. Did the electorate in the FPTP system intend to vote for 30 although it worked out that way?”

    What kind of question is this David?

    I didn’t consult with anybody, not even he who shares my pillow, before casting my vote.
    So how can you or me or anybody else know what the electorate intended, when we did not even tell close family what our intentions were?

    Like

  • de pedantic Dribbler

    @David re “Even if it is deemed unlawful what are the options available to government?”

    Being ruled unlawful would be a MAJOR problem, embarrassment, constitutional crisis call it what u like.

    A question I would pose : is the fact that ALL our senators are appointed a differentiating factor re that Irish Senate chamber of 49 elected and 11 appointed??

    I accept that the word ‘shall’ does mean the same thing regardless but appointees and electees are quite different animals!

    Anyway, off to the lawyers.

    The line n the judgment quoted above does say : “If a literal interpretation of one provision might bring it into conflict with the literal meaning of another provision, then it is legitimate to resort to the harmonious approach with a view to interpreting both provisions in a way which avoids inconsistency.”

    Can we argue away the position that our constitution sought harmony of representation and never intended that our selected upper chamber should never disable governance with a literal interpretation of a 21 seat Senate.

    …Off to the Lawyers!

    I gone.

    Like

  • @CA @SimpleSimon

    There has been enough qualitative and quantitative work done by pollsters to support people vote for many reasons.

    Like

  • @Dee Word

    The 2018 Senate was constituted one short, why no challenge then?

    Liked by 1 person

  • I warned u people that they were silent voices awaiting the outcome of this mess orchestrated by Mia for self interest
    Meow the cat jump out the bag
    Carry on smartly next the CCJ

    Like

  • How many senators were appointed in 2018? Anybody answer yet?

    Like

  • Today I am doing cartwheels jumping hoops
    Thinking that the highest law in the land would be finally get a voice to be heard
    Yes I am praying for an outcome one that would send a message to Mia her actions and utterances are not above being challenged in the court of law
    Being in the wilderness is not a disgrace
    However a PM that would set out by use of political interference deception and theatrics all with indifference to what is constitutional correct makes a mockery of democratic laws and it’s purpose and usefulness towards good governance
    As I once said the Constitution is not a plaything
    It is an instrument founded not only on legal guidance but moral guidance as well

    Like

  • You mean like when it was changed just so an unqualified, who also proved to be incompetent, Chief Justice could be appointed by the the same Adriel Brathwaite? If I were the PM all now one of my 30 would be outside State House.

    Like

  • @Enuff

    Who you recommending, Cynthie?

    Like

  • @ Miller February 9, 2022 1:59 PM

    Athena! What a beautiful comparison!

    Yes, Mia Mottley is our black Athena. Just as Martin Bernal foretold in his trilogy. She brings light into the darkness, she is the beacon for a better future. I have always suspected that you are a secret admirer of our Supreme Leader.

    If Hyatt Corp. doesn’t want to take the financial risk, my advice is to simply tap into the NIS. After all, that’s a tried and tested method of redistribution from black to white. LOL.

    No, seriously. The project is deader than dead. I heard this in the presence of the Lord of the Island, in the presence of Lord Maloney. Hell will sooner freeze over behind the Trident at the Garrison than the Hyatt will be built in the next two or three years.

    With this statement I once again prove my total neutrality on BU.

    Like

  • de pedantic Dribbler

    @David th6at a very pertinent question and one sure to be raised in court even if nuanced differently…

    Namely, ‘is that Parliamentary period now null and void’!…. Or ‘if governance was accepted as validly constituted then … why not now’.

    The latter would be a persuasive point if judges are of the view that a necessity model makes more sense.

    If they are persuaded by Mr Patterson this will be a real conniption… for a few months at least…. Presuming the entire last parliament isn’t upended.

    Lata.

    Like

  • Read ePaper
    Home / Local News / Former AG files constitutional motion over Senate makeup
    Adriel Brathwaite
    Former AG files constitutional motion over Senate makeup – by Kobie Broomes February 9, 2022
    Former Attorney General Adriel Brathwaite Q.C. wants the law courts to make a determination on whether the Senate has been properly constituted.

    The senior lawyer is represented by attorneys Garth Patterson, Q.C. and Michelle Russell who have filed a constitutional motion seeking the intervention of the Supreme Court to make a ruling on the matter.

    In a statement released this afternoon, he contended that the Upper House is not fully constituted, with only 18 of the 21 members appointed so far, and therefore the Parliament is not fully constituted.

    However, the former AG in the last Democratic Labour Party (DLP) administration insisted the move was not politically motivated.

    Below is his full statement:

    The Constitution is our supreme law. It is a body of the core laws and principles that describe the general organisation and operation of the sovereign state of Barbados. It contains fundamental principles and delineates the norms that circumscribe the exercise of powers vested in a government. It is the fountain from which springs the authority of all government action. It is the means by which the key organs of the State, the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary, are established and are infused with the plenitude of authority and powers.
    More fundamentally, our Constitution represents an expression of the shared values, identity, and purpose of our society. It reflects the hopes and aspirations of every citizen of this country, one organised under democratic principles and whose people are inexorably committed to the rule of law. Central to this concept is the requirement that the government must, at all times, act in accordance with the law, especially our supreme law. Our legislative branch of government, in discharging the constitutional remit of making laws for the peace, order, and good government of this country, must be properly constituted at all times, and must pass laws strictly in accordance with the prescriptions of the Constitution, in order for any law passed by it to be infused with the colour of legitimacy.
    Parliament has been convened, and is purporting to conduct business, at a time when one of its key organs, the Senate, has not been constituted in accordance with the clear, unambiguous mandate of Section 36 of our Constitution. Only 18 of the required 21 Senators have been appointed. This means that we do not have a Senate, and, without a Senate, we do not have a Parliament. More importantly, any business that it purports to conduct will be devoid of validity. Despite the clear, urgent calls for the rectification of this unsatisfactory state of affairs, the Government has unlawfully proceeded to pass, in the House, a Bill for an Act of Parliament that alters the Constitution itself, at a time when three of the members of the august Senate body have not been appointed and will, consequently, have no opportunity to debate or vote on these crucial proposed constitutional amendments. This is against the background of no consultation with stakeholders, no attempt to obtain a broad consensus from members of our society about these substantial, fundamental changes to entrenched provisions of the Constitution that have represented our law for over 55 years.
    It is for these reasons that I feel compelled to seek the intervention of the courts to resolve this controversy – one that centres around issues of vital national importance and goes to the root of our democracy. I have today instructed my lawyers to file in the High Court an application that seeks declaratory reliefs aimed at compelling this Government to put its house in order before conducting the affairs of State. I do so in my capacity as a former Attorney General for this country and as a private citizen who is deeply committed to the notion that our government must be according to laws.
    I wish to make it clear that I am not bringing this action on behalf of any political party with which I may have previously been affiliated. My action is guided by my profound desire to ensure that our republic remains a democracy. I place my confidence in the courts, as the guardians of our Constitution, to resolve this pivotal and consequential constitutional crisis.
    I have enlisted the assistance of my good friend and colleague of almost 40 years, Garth Patterson, Q.C., who has kindly answered my call to represent me in this important cause, and he will act on my behalf with the able assistance of Michelle Russell, attorney-at-law.

    Read our ePaper. Fast

    Like

  • What utter nonsense! THIS is where Adriel thinks he should make his mark????

    So what are the options? No government?

    I hear a lotta shite talk but I do not hear any solution.

    The people voted for a government. Why are these idiots trying to deny the outcome of the election?

    What are the options? What is the solution?

    No court can order another election based on an ‘undesirable” result, neither can it order a different result!

    So….what the rh can it do?

    Like

  • @ Critical Analyzer February 9, 2022 5:09 PM
    (Quote):
    It matters not. We only vote for a representative for our own constituency, not a party representative or minister. The political party system has co-oped, corrupted and made a mockery of the whole system.
    (Unquote).
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Correct, CA!

    And that is why the recent piece of legislation to amend the Constitution to provide for the appointment of two senators to that un-elected organ of Parliament to represent the ‘Opposing’ interest of any unsuccessful political party at the general elections is not Kosher.

    What about where it really counts?
    That is, in the HoA to represent the ‘Opposing’ view(s) of those who voted against those members making up the current government.

    The Constitution ought to be amended first to reflect the relevance and function of political parties to the electoral process before any amendment can be made to provide for any political presence in the Senate other than those representing the elected government or any two on the recommendation of those Opposing members elected by the People in the Lower House.

    And that is the pivot on which the proposed amendment can be overturned.

    Like

  • David BU

    I have take off my hat to you !

    You have sided with AG Dale Marshall on this Senategate when he declared…..’ the government is on good grounds with this constitutional amendment case ‘

    Didn’t the AG Marshall said the government was also on good groound – with 2 Deputy Commissioner of Police posts ?

    And it took the – fireside Attorney – Caswell Franklyn to shatter that case ?

    Does AG Marshall have his LEC ?

    I know the PM…..doan have hers !!

    Looka trouble…..

    Like

  • @ angela cox February 9, 2022 7:23 PM
    @ Fractured BLP February 9, 2022 9:45 PM

    Wait … Wrathbait? Is this the same Wrathbait who is close friends with a certain orange jumpsuit currently vacationing in Texas on the federal cotton plantation?

    Indeed, the prime minister’s term of office does not end by calling a general election. If I believe your reasoning, our Supreme Leader would be allowed to rule with emergency decrees without parliament until the Senate is complete.

    Truly a great idea! I didn’t know that our Supreme Leader not only pulled Chris Sinckler over to the BLP, but you two as well. If Mia’s mentor and grandfather of the New Order, our national hero Errol Barrow only knew this: the DLP permanently enables our Supreme Leader to rule as a single person by refusing to serve in the Senate.

    Like

  • yuh think Miller?!!?

    One would think that these lotta lawyers would recognize the fact that the introduction of the term ‘political party’ into the constitution can present even more confusion – depending on how the term is defined.
    While is sounds simple enough to talk about ‘the losing party with the most votes’ …who the hell determines who is a ‘party’?
    What then determines that a ‘party’ is valid? Where is it registered? Who speaks for it?
    The constitution currently does not contemplate any ‘parties’, so such changes should be carefully studied – least they lead to even more sinister anomalies .

    Liked by 1 person

  • de pedantic Dribbler

    @Miller, why would any sensible group of Bajan legislators *…amended first [the Constitution] to reflect the relevance and function of political parties”..

    Surely u jest!

    @Donna there have been no claims of fraud with the elections so there is nary a chance that fresh elections could be adjudicated.

    Brathwaite wants to have confirmed that the Senate has been legally established with only the 18 persons appointed.

    If the courts rule in his favor and the govt loses on appeal then the President will have to basically ‘wheel and come fresh’ by exercising her discretionary duty and appointing the 2 senators and the BLP a person other than Mr 18 years old … and then AFTER all that they would pass the amendments and do as they originally intended with Kothdiwala, anyhow!

    So as you said “… lotta shite talk…”. When it’s all said and dun it’s…. stubborness or hubris or some sort of arrogant gamesmanship.

    As @Enuff said the President could stop all de shiteee toute suite… but maybe things too sweet to stop de par-tee!

    I gone.

    Like

  • Bushie how yuh like muh now
    Yuh Ole boar

    Like

  • Instead of the AG putting policies in.place to clean up crime
    He is being a signatory to crimes in high places orchestrated within intent to putting the Constitution in the firing line of MAM devious actions
    Shame
    I advice the judge not to.plsy hanky panky because the CCJ is also watching the outcome
    The CCJ takes the Constitution
    of the land with all seriousness unlike MAM who tries forcing square pegs in round holes and think the pegs magically does the required job

    Like

  • @Donna

    The system we live gives all and sundry the opportunity to resort to the court for arbitration. We may not agree but it is what it is.

    Like

  • @Fractured BLO

    Time will reveal all.

    What does not change is that the electorate voted 30-0.

    Like

  • @Bush Tea

    A political party defines itself by that entity that was able to organize itself to attract votes in a election.

    Like

  • @ David
    “A political party defines itself by that entity that was able to organize itself to attract votes in a election.”
    ~~~~~~~~~
    Boss! on occasion, Bushie is forced to conclude that you drink some ‘ac’ koolaid.
    Constitutionally, a “political party” CANNOT define itself. It has to be defined LEGALLY if it is mentioned in the highest law.

    So check this now….
    If there is a ‘losing’ party, then there must be a ‘winning’ party. If the ‘losing party’ can name officials, does this imply that the ‘winning party’ has similar rights? IF SO, then who picks the PM? ….and more importantly, who can bring a no confidence vote and declare that they no longer support the PM?
    Right now, it is the majority of the Parliament…. will it now be these nebulous ‘parties’?
    Can the ‘losing party’ arbitrarily DE-SELECT the senators it names? so that we see senators changing after party elections?

    This is a slippery slope…. typical behavior of people who are working by trial and error.

    If these LEGAL ‘EXPERTS’ are so clueless about such BASIC legal issues, can you imagine how completely AT SEA they must be about REALLY complex issues such as social development, economic success, infrastructural development and education?

    Boss, our asses are surely cooked…!!!

    @ ac
    Sis, you done know that Bushie is deeply in LOVE with you… almost as much as the Blog master..
    Those other BU humbugs don’t realize that when you refer to the ‘Ole Bore’, you are talking about our kind of ‘digging’..
    LOL..passing by later for a bit of digging, so loosen those weaves…

    Like

  • @Bush Tea

    In our system do you deny that convention plays a part how we govern? In the case of Barbados you are aware how political parties are formed and recognized. How then is the subvention allocated to the losing party with seats in parliament? Come on Bush Tea, you can do better.

    Like

  • What has giving away our money to their political chums and buddies got to do with the LEGAL status of our constitution?
    The ‘thing’ that our politicians do BEST is give away our money…. to each other, to Malmoney, to Bizzy, to a host of ‘consultants’ and to hoards of lazy, mendicant Bajan BB’s who are for sale – in exchange for their vote to maintain the noose around our necks…

    The problem with changing the constitution is that there exists a CCJ; with Judges who seem able to think with some degree of logic…. and who have been embarrassing our ‘leaders’ on practically every occasion that they have been exposed to the sanity of enlightened scrutiny…

    Only prayer can save us now…. but we have LONG passed the point we we can even RECOGNIZE that fact.
    Our ass is grass!!!

    Like

  • @Bush Tea

    What about the unwillingness of members of the public to step forward and agitate for better? To discharge their civic responsibility? We encourage bottom feeders to represent us in parliament when citizens of integrity refuse to participate in the system of governance we practice. A chicken and egg scenario indeed!

    Like

  • No David – it is NOT chicken and egg…
    What is shows is why YOU are and outlier, and an INSPIRATION to Bajans – even if you modestly fail to recognize it.
    ~~~~~~~~~
    Reflect, if you can, on the history of one Caswell Franklyn. CLEARLY a man of the mold that we NEED to have in ANY Senate of Barbados.
    Do you realize that BU CREATED Caswell?
    Check back the archives and you will see that… Were it not for BU’s support for his moral and ethical attitudes (ofter in the face of wicked attempts to discredit him with slander etc) he would have given up in frustration like many others.

    If ANY of the other SHIITE news outlets in Barbados were to set standards of TRUTH and HONESTY and of STANDING UP for JUSTICE, then many OTHER Caswell would arise and shine.
    Instead, these LACKIE ‘news outlets’ merely parrot the PR of the VERY political miscreants that have polluted the country’s leadership and the Malmonies that rob us blind.
    Bushie said YEARS ago that when Harold Hoyte et at sold off the Nation to outsiders, IT WAS THE DEATH KNELL for the country.
    The country’s ACTUAL EDUCATION SYSTEM is the public press – who create, highlight and promote the national priorities…. and LEADERS.

    Apart from BU, tell Bushie where we have any kind of hope….
    …but you are just as poor as Caswell – so you can’t compete with the wicked…
    Bushie suggested YEARS ago that you start a “Come-Fund-BU” scheme so that you can REALLY make a difference against the Trikidadian mafia, ….but you like you ‘fraid

    Our goose is cooked!

    Like

  • @Bush Tea

    Someone has to act in the Pollyanna role.

    Hope springs eternal.

    Without hope the process of atrophy is uneventful.

    Like

  • DPD,

    I thought he was challenging on other grounds.

    The “problem” will be easily solved by the President. EVENTUALLY. Maybe she WANTS the Court to rule. Then she could not be called “political”.

    Like

  • @Donna

    If the president is directed by the constitution to act in certain circumstances why would she be labeled political?

    Liked by 2 people

  • @ David
    If the president is directed by the constitution to act in certain circumstances why would she be labeled political?
    ~~~~~~
    When loyal German soldiers were directed to operate the gas chambers, why were they labeled as war criminals?

    Like

  • @Bush Tea

    With respect your analogy is not an apple and apple one.

    Like

  • David,

    Yuh really askin’ me dat question??????

    She SHOULD NOT BE, BUT SHE WILL BE!

    See above for Crazy Exhibit 1.

    Like

  • For chrissake! Enough crazy for today!

    Lawd, uh cyan tek it nuh mo’!

    Nearly six years of Trump Madness and now this nonsense!

    What the hell is wrong with people??????

    Pure piffle!

    Like

  • @Donna

    This is what she is probably afraid of, she is a former High Court Justice and should be versed in interpreting the Constitution at above lay level.

    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 )

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