Evidence of a Solution Seeking a Problem in the Current Governance Arrangements of Barbados!

Sandra Mason
Submitted by Roland R Clarke PhD (UPenn 95), Caribbean Energy Consultant, Member of the Private Financing Advisory Network (PFAN), Barbados – www.linkedin.com/in/rolandclarke

A solution is only required when there is a problem for resolution.  It seems to me that the kernel “problem” in Barbados’ governance arrangements at this time, is the failure of the President to act with timeliness in using the power bestowed to that office under the current Constitution.  For me, this is not a problem per sec, but rather a potential lost opportunity.

In order to resolve that particular “problem”, all that needs to happen is that: 

(a) The President should reach out to those who are known to be in opposition to the Government within the context of our recent national general elections; or 

(b) Politically active “individuals” from the known non-government political parties could/should offer themselves to the President to serve as Opposition Senators. This notwithstanding that any “qualified person” can offer themselves to the President irrespective of party affiliation or otherwise; AND

(c) The President shall use her best judgement to make the final decision and selection of two Opposition Senators.  

One more thing, the Prime Minister (PM) must select one more “qualified” individual to be a Government Senator. The notion of “keeping a seat” for an unqualified individual is untenable.  That problem could easily be fixed after the fact.  It is also recognised that not all qualified individuals may be available right away to take the oath of office and sit in the Senate.  The key is for the PM to make the selection NOW. 

Once the Parliament is fully “constituted” as per the argument of at least one constitutional lawyer of national repute, then any and all constitutional changes could be properly laid before the Senate AFTER the fact. 

In sum, the current impasse is artificially and prematurely created. It only serves to potentially lay bare an intent to insert “political parties” into the Constitution of Barbados for the first time at least since 1966. So far, I have not heard any objections from any political party (as a corporate person in its own right) to the proposed change to the Constitution regarding the insertion of a role for political parties. The silence of the political parties speaks volumes.

Clearly, the solution has predated the problem!

I assert that the premature creation of the problem above also lays bare the potential for a qualified citizen and resident of Barbados to seek leave of the President to bring a Constitutional motion against the President, if such a motion cannot be brought immediately and directly before the High Court of Barbados. Surely all concerned citizens and residents of Barbados would wish for the most vaunted governance institutions of Barbados to be protected at all times. We must protect the King of our National Chest Board, should we not?

The constitutional basis for my analysis above is given in alphabetical listing as follows:

A. Choosing the Leader of the Opposition in the Lower House of Barbados:

Section 74(2) of the Barbados Constitution states in part:

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

Provided that this subsection shall have effect in relation to any period between a dissolution of Parliament and the day on which the next election of members of the House of Assembly is held as if Parliament had not been dissolved…” etc..

B. Two Senators to be Appointed by the Leader of the Opposition. I took the liberty of pre-supposing that these two Senators would be “in opposition” to the Government. However, the Constitution is silent on my supposition. See

Section 36 of the Barbados Constitution states:

“36. (1) The Senate shall consist of twenty-one persons who, being qualified for appointment as Senators in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution, have been so appointed in accordance with the provisions of this section. 

(2) Twelve Senators shall be appointed by the Governor-General, acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister, by instrument under the Public Seal. 

(3) Two Senators shall be appointed by the Governor-General, acting in accordance with the advice of the Leader of the Opposition, by instrument under the Public Seal. 

(4) Seven Senators shall be appointed by the Governor-General, acting in his discretion, by instrument under the Public Seal, to represent religious, economic or social interests or such other interests as the Governor-General considers ought to be represented:

Provided that before appointing any person under this subsection the Governor-General shall consult such persons as, in his discretion, he considers can speak for those interests and ought to be consulted.”

C. The two Houses of Parliament “may” meet at the time for a limited purpose at the time of writing this article.

Section 50(1) of the Barbados Constitution states:

“50. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, each House may regulate its own procedure and for this purpose may make Standing Orders. 

(2) Each House may act notwithstanding any vacancy in its membership and the presence or participation of any person not entitled to be present at or to participate in the proceedings of the House shall not invalidate those proceedings.”

D. The issue of a quorum is only relevant during the “sitting” of the Senate. It seems to me that a “sitting” can only occur after the initial establishment of the Senate. See –

Section (52) of the Barbados Constitution states:

52. (1) If at any time during a sitting of the Senate objection is taken by a member that there is not a quorum present and, after such interval as may be prescribed by the Standing Orders of the Senate, the person presiding ascertains that there is still not a quorum present, he shall thereupon adjourn the Senate. 

(2) For the purposes of this section a quorum of the Senate shall consist of eight Senators besides the person presiding.

E. The President is “required” to act in lieu of the Leader of the Opposition, “under the current circumstances in Barbados” at the time of writing this article (at least in my opinion given the use of the word “shall” below). 

Section 75 of the Barbados Constitution states:

“75. During any period in which there is a vacancy in the office of Leader of the Opposition by reason of the fact that no Leader of opposition. person is both qualified in accordance with this Constitution for, and willing to accept, appointment to that office, the Governor-General shall- 

(a) act in his discretion in the exercise of any function in respect of which it is provided in this Constitution that the Governor-General shall act in accordance with the advice of the Leader of the Opposition; and

(b) act on the recommendation of the Prime Minister in the exercise of any function in respect of which it is provided in this Constitution that the Governor-General shall act on the recommendation of the Prime Minister after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition.”

Reference: Do note that the quotes above are taken from the full text version of the Barbados Constitution, posted on the web site of the Organisation of American States (OAS). Since the posting of this full text document, the Barbados Parliament has recently documented thirty-six (36) instances of constitutional amendments in a piecemeal fashion on their website. My current understanding is that the thirty-six (36) documents speak to amendments having to do with the recent transition to republic status by Barbados. See the full text version of the Barbados Constitution at – https://www.oas.org/dil/the_constitution_of_barbados.pdf

My two bits,

172 comments

  • Skerrit was smarter than Mitchell or Ms. Mockley.

    He made sure the Opposition got 3 seats in the election!!

    Like

  • @BT
    Read sec75. It explains vacant to mean when there in no one qualified.
    If there is no one qualified, as per other sections, then there is no one to accept the role.
    Such applies in a 30-0 election result.
    All else is a #lottashite

    Liked by 2 people

  • @NO


    No phantom Parliament here

    by CHRISTOPHER BLACKMAN I WISH TO COMMEND the paper and Colville Mounsey for reproducing the provisions of the Constitution of Barbados which have been the subject of national debate for the past two weeks or so.
    There are two further provisions, Section 52 (2) and Section 49 not mentioned in the article, to which I shall later refer as I consider them relevant and germane to the issues for consideration.
    I propose to make a few observations on the issues being ventilated.
    It may not be widely known that the Senate of Barbados is a pre-Independence creation.
    It came into being on April 4, 1964, by the Barbados (Letters Patent Consolidation) Order 1964, (S.I 491 Of 1964), replacing the then Legislative Council. Article 9 of the Letters Patent
    established the Senate with these words: “There shall be a Senate in and for the island.”
    Section 36
    Article 10 (now Section 36) determined the number of senators (21) to be appointed by the Governor acting in accordance with the provisions of the Article.
    The pre-Independence provisions for the Senate were carried over to the Independence Constitution with only the consequential name changes of Governor General and Prime Minister for Governor and Premier, respectively. The 1966 Barbados Independence Order
    at Section 35 provided for the establishment of Parliament with these words: “There shall be a Parliament of Barbados which shall consist of Her Majesty, a Senate and a House of Assembly.” The 2021 amendment, which led to the establishment of the republic, substitutes the word “President” for “Her Majesty”.
    Note that the Establishment provision of the Constitution speaks to a Senate and a House of Assembly.
    Section 36, in relation to the Senate, and Section 41, in relation to the House of Assembly, merely stipulate the numbers to constitute those bodies.
    Golden rule
    Those who have sat as judges are aware that in construing either laws or constitutions, they are required to read the law or constitution as a whole as what may not be clear in one section may be explained in another section. In doing so, the judicial officer would apply the golden rule of construction, which would permit the court
    to depart from the primary meaning rule, which can sometimes result in absurd outcomes.
    In the case of Grey vs Pearson [1857] 6 HL Cases 61, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Wensleydale, observed that “the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to unless that would lead to some absurdity or some repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument, in which case the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words may be modified, so as to avoid the absurdity and inconsistency”.
    In the ongoing debate, there has been an inordinate attention to the word “shall” in Section 36, with the inference that it is mandatory in its intent.
    Five definitions
    The definition of the word in Black’s Law Dictionary is not that conclusive as there are five definitions given, two of which permit the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words to be modified to avoid the absurdity that the existence of a legislative body could be nullified by the absence of a member or members. I ask the question: Did the framers of the Constitution create a body whose functionality could be frustrated or stymied by the failure of an appointing authority to exercise his or her authority? I don’t believe that they did and if, perchance by error, that appeared to have been the outcome, the application of the golden rule is clearly the solution for a monstrous absurdity.
    However, before Section 36 is considered, Section 62 (2) of the Constitution must also be considered. That Section reads: “As soon as may be after every General Election, the President shall proceed under Section 36 to the appointment of Senators.”
    Existence
    This provision of necessity recognises the existence of a Senate, for which people are selected or appointed.
    The words “as soon as may be” at the start of the subsection do not require that the appointments be concurrent. It is only essential that there are eight senators plus the presiding officer to be in place to do business.
    See Section 52(2) of the Constitution.
    There could be a scenario when both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition recommend the appointment of their respective nominees for the Senate, a total of 14 people but the President, in his or her discretion, chooses not to appoint or does not utilise the full number of seven provided for. Will it be argued that in those circumstances the Senate does not exist?
    I now consider Section 49 of the Constitution. This section details the special majority of two-thirds of the members of each House required to amend or alter the Constitution.
    The several amendments to the Constitution, as detailed in Mr Mounsey’s article, speak to the history of amendments.
    Special majority
    In 1980 the
    Tenantries Freehold Purchase Act and a later amendment in 1989 were passed by that special majority, which in the case of the Senate is 14 senators.
    Conversely, during the Parliamentary Session of 2018-2021, two pieces of legislation which required 14 votes were not passed in the Senate as 14 senators did not vote for the bills. The first measure to fall was the constitutional amendment relating to the treatment of people sentenced to death, while the other related to the bill on the integrity legislation.
    In the first case, all 21 senators were present; in the other, a number of senators were absent.
    The governing principle, however, to amend or alter the Constitution, is that there should be two-thirds of the members.
    In this article I have not been concerned with whatever may be the political considerations as to who may do what or otherwise.
    My concern is to assert the proper way to construe legislation and constitutions, the legitimacy of our institutions and to strongly deprecate any suggestion that we have a phantom Parliament.
    I find that description offensive.

    Christopher Blackman GCM, SC is a retired Justice of Appeal in The Bahamas and Belize.

    Liked by 1 person

  • David
    This is an argument by Justice B for ‘what makes sense, given the intent of the legislation’ RATHER than about what is written in the existing law. Telling us that there are 5 different meanings of the word ‘SHALL’ is not particularly helpful.
    Also if he wants to talk about ‘absurdity’ as an argument for making sound legal judgement, Bushie could refer him to a plethora of local High Court judgements that have become practically the norm – needing CCJ sanity to redress them.

    Nobody is saying that the INTENT of the legislation is to frustrate the business of the state, but that the EFFECT of the incompetently written Law does EXACTLY that – and it makes the new Republic look bad….
    It all begs the question – What was the point of creating a new republic and keeping all the OLD conditions?… even unchanged laws enacted BEFORE independence…
    …and in any case, this is coming from one of the architects of our current ‘exemplary’ Legal system is it not…?

    The BIG joke is that we have a recent precedent …AND a ‘solution’, so either we are saying that THAT fix was illegal in 2018, or we are deliberately shooting ourselves in the foot in 2022.

    Like

  • Don’t agree Bush Tea. In a very simple way he explains how interpreting laws must be done when there are ‘absurdities’ to navigate.

    Liked by 1 person

  • NorthernObserverFebruary 15, 2022 11:34 PM

    @BT
    Read sec75. It explains vacant to mean when there in no one qualified.
    If there is no one qualified, as per other sections, then there is no one to accept the role.
    Such applies in a 30-0 election result.
    All else is a #lottashite

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

    Read the two other sections which define qualifications and disqualifications, 43 and 44!!

    Applies to all 30 members, including the PM and Leader of the Opposition.

    All that separates these two from the rest in their respective groups is that the groups to which they belong have determined who is to be their leader.

    Until that is done the GG/President cannot appoint a leader of the opposition because there is no group in the House of Assembly in existence that can be imagined as sitting in opposition to the Government.

    The underlying “qualification” if you could call it that for the leader of the opposition is that there must be a group in Parliament who sits in opposition who has selected him/her to be its leader.

    No group = no Leader

    Read 74(3) and you will see how the Office of the Leader of the Opposition becomes vacant after the GG has created it.

    (3) The office of Leader of the Opposition shall become vacant-

    (a) if, after an election of members of the House of Assembly following any dissolution of Parliament and before that
    House first meets thereafter, he is informed by the Governor-General that the Governor-General is about to appoint another person as Leader of the Opposition;

    (b) if he ceases to be a member of the House of Assembly for any reason other than a dissolution of Parliament; or

    (c) if his appointment is revoked under the provisions of subsection (4).

    (4) If, in the judgment of the Governor-General, the Leader of the Opposition no longer is able to command the support of
    a majority of those members of the House of Assembly who do not support the Government, or, as the case may be, the
    support of the largest single group of such members who are prepared to support one leader, the Governor-General may
    revoke the appointment of the Leader of the Opposition.

    Section 74 comes before Section 75 for a reason.

    The GG has to create the post which she does solely by using her judgment.

    In the case of Reverent Joe, that judgment was sadly lacking and she ate the apple.

    This time around, no serpent is available to cause her to have to make a decision and lead her astray.

    Like

  • NO GROUP = NO LEADER

    Like

  • The intent of the legislation is to assure the State and its citizens of a Parliamentary Democracy.

    A parliamentary Democracy must have an opposition.

    The senate comes after this basic requirement and exists only if this basic requirement is met.

    Fitting senators on a pinhead through legal gymnastics frustrates the business of the State.

    Like

  • Judge B, like others, is frustrating the business of the State.

    Like

  • @john
    No group = No leader. Exactly, there are no group of opposing member(s), hence, no LoO.
    In the absence of that person, the President shall act and appoint the two required Senators, otherwise done upon the advice of the LoO.
    Real simple.

    Liked by 2 people

  • NorthernObserverFebruary 16, 2022 8:48 AM

    @john
    No group = No leader. Exactly, there are no group of opposing member(s), hence, no LoO.
    In the absence of that person …

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

    Nope!!

    In the presence of a vacancy in that office which was previously filled!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    No mention of absence, only vacancy!!

    Even simpler.

    Like

  • @ David
    “Don’t agree Bush Tea. In a very simple way he explains how interpreting laws must be done when there are ‘absurdities’ to navigate.”
    ~~~~~~~~
    ‘SIMPLE’? Your BS meter may be malfunctioning Boss…
    LOL
    ha ha ha … OK.
    anyway…
    Bushie is done did dat….
    It is just another ‘concert’ on the Titanic deck anyway…
    Bushie keeping his eyes on (and proximity to) a specific lifeboat …..

    Like

  • @Bush Tea

    The blogmaster knows you to be a sensible person, knowing when to fold.

    Liked by 1 person

  • “A parliamentary Democracy must have an opposition.”

    except when the opposition do not win any seats then parliament contains no opposition

    As DLP and BLP are politically identical (left of centre) two sides of the same coin anyhow, it is only a matter of individuals personalities to chose from in the political theatrical show to subdue and control the masses with a spectator sport that they watch and do not participate in

    Liked by 1 person

  • 555dubstreetFebruary 16, 2022 9:57 AM

    “A parliamentary Democracy must have an opposition.”

    except when the opposition do not win any seats then parliament contains no opposition

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

    Find us this exception described in the constitution.

    If you cant, and I know you can’t, then the result is an unconstitutional Parliament.

    Like

  • The doctrine of absurdity holds that commonsense interpretations should be preferred in such cases, rather than literal readings. Under the absurdity doctrine, American courts have interpreted statutes contrary to their plain meaning in order to avoid absurd legal conclusions. It is contrasted with literalism.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki

    Liked by 1 person

  • The fundamental requirement for the coming into existence of the post of Leader of the Opposition is that there must be a group that sits in the House of Assembly that acts in opposition to the Government.

    Once this fundamental requirement has been met, a Leader can be chosen.

    When any aspiring leader comes to the GG, he/she is telling her that there is a group that sits in the House of Assembly and it has chosen him/her to be its leader.

    If this is false, the person appearing before the GG is being dishonest.

    If the GG appoints him/her, she is complicit in his/her dishonesty.

    The GG cannot appoint the two opposition senators until she brings the post of Leader of the opposition into existence.

    The post cannot become vacant until it is first created and filled.

    Like

  • “Find us this exception described in the constitution.”

    You were sitting on it and it disappeared up your own bum hole

    We all thank God that you are an officiator of fuck all

    Like

  • @John
    It is now clear why you have spent so much of the last 30 years embroiled in legal challenges.

    Like

  • @ No

    That is a low blow questioning John’s briefs to counsel.

    Like

  • de pedantic Dribbler

    @David, surely absurdity applies whenever one intends to obfuscate simply for its sake… in the face of such willful contradictions the continued perverse commentary can in fact take hold and become a part of the societal dialogue as ‘facts’. … As we saw so pointedly in US.

    Here on BU it’s a tad laughable but perverse nonetheless.

    Stay safe.

    Like

  • @Dee Word

    It all spheres of life we have ‘characters’. BU is no different.

    Like

  • I leave the bright boys to look for the Bajan Kraken!

    The Amurkan Kraken is stuck in My Pillow Dreamland.

    I too glad I en nuh bright boy!

    Like

  • Jesus Lord, David! I told the bright boys that long time ago!

    Blasted common sense! No court is going to interpret the Constitution in that way because it would be absurd to do so!

    It would serve no good purpose and would lead, to use Ezra’s term, to a political cul-de-sac or dead end from which there could be no way out!

    Therefore that interpretation could not have been intended!

    It would be an UNENFORCABLE LAW! NOBODY COULD BE FORCED TO VOTE IN AN OPPOSITION AND NOBODY, HAVING BEEN VOTED INTO HIS/HER SEAT COULD BE FORCED TO ACT AS OPPOSITION.

    Lotta shite from the so-called maguffies, possessing wisdom beyond our understanding!

    And that’s not all the shite they indulge in either!

    The Adam and Eve shite story needed flushing long time.

    I remember my young people poking holes in it and laughing without any prompting from me. All I did was roll the tape and invite discussion and BOOM, the whole thing exploded.

    This is why my hope lies with the young people. They are not afraid to question because they have not been taught to accept without question.

    And you know what? The good and sensible principles of Christianity remained. The baby was not tossed out with the bath water.

    Last thing I heard, my former Sunday School student who won an exhibition and was studying at Columbia University with a view to becoming a doctor and living in America is faltering because she says that in America it’s all about the money and not the patient.

    All the old men’s tales will soon be tossed and the world will be better for it.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Should read “CONSTITUTIONAL cul-de-sac”.

    Like

  • NorthernObserverFebruary 16, 2022 10:38 AM

    @John
    It is now clear why you have spent so much of the last 30 years embroiled in legal challenges.

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

    That 30 years has been a wonderful experience learning a new skill.

    During that 30 years I became familiar with not one but 3 constitutional motions which my mother was advised by her lawyer to bring against the AG citing delay.

    The third was last heard in 2013 and it had reached the stage where the AG had to defend why an inquiry into damages against the office of AG should take place.

    Everything shut down!!!!

    Since the basis for bringing the constitutional motion was that she was denied a fair and speedy trial as guaranteed by the constitution and the delays up to then were depriving her of her those rights I would think if it is ever adjudicated it should be a slam dunk matter.

    After all, 2013 – 2022 is 9 more years of delay.

    I’ve been there done that and I know what I am talking about.

    Check what the constitution says about a fair and speedy trial.

    “(8) Any court or other tribunal prescribed by law for the
    determination of the existence or extent of any civil right or
    obligation shall be established by law and shall be independent
    and impartial; and where proceedings for such a determination
    are instituted by any person before such court or other tribunal,
    the case shall be given a fair hearing within a reasonable time. “

    Like

  • People should be falling over backwards thanking me for making my extensive experience in the law courts in Barbados, the CCJ, the UK, Canada and America at their disposal … and all for free.

    Patriotism at its height!!

    Undoubtedly a true patriot.

    Like

  • Just like a true “Antifa thug”! Very patriotic!

    Like

  • If I fall it would be from laughter!

    “Wuhlaus! Muh belly! Wuhlaus! Un gun FALL!”

    The ordinary class laugh, of course! Yuh know I doan belong to BU’s upper class!

    Murdaaaaaaaaaah!

    Like

  • Here is the irony.

    Citizen Braithwaite was the holder of the office of AG from 23 October 2010.

    Citizen Knox was suing the office of the AG held by Citizen Braithwaite.

    What’s the difference between the two citizens?

    Why should one get a fair trial in a reasonable time and not the other with 2 of the 3 constitutional motions outstanding for more than a decade?

    http://caribbeanelections.com/knowledge/biography/bios/brathwaite_adriel.asp

    Like

  • Just like 74 comes before 75, CV 69 of 2011, CV 70 of 2011 and CV 1468 of 2012 all come before CV 109 of 2022.

    Shouldn’t Citizen Braithwaite get in line and wait his turn?

    Like

  • (Quote):
    The words “as soon as may be” at the start of the subsection do not require that the appointments be concurrent. It is only essential that there are eight senators plus the presiding officer to be in place to do business.
    (Unquote).
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Blogmaster, is the goodly jurist suggesting that the Constitution provides for the election of a “presiding officer” aka President of the same Senate requiring the appointment of only eight senators to that Upper Chamber?

    No wonder some consider Bim to be on the precipice of a republic ruled by a minority led by a burgeoning despot who can announce the name of that “Presiding Officer” long before that nominated 8 plus ‘one’ had the opportunity to convene to select such an officer and a deputy as enunciated in the Supreme Law of the Bajan Land?

    Eight plus One cannot form even a majority of 12 far less a 2/3rd of 14 out of 21.

    The question still remains: Why then this NEED to appointment two Senators to represent an Opposition in a rubber-stamping theatre but which does NOT exist in the People’s elected Legislative Assembly?

    Like

  • @Miller

    It is very clear what Blackman is saying.

    Like

  • David,

    My atheist best friend’s daughter, also studying in America on athletic scholarship was going into forensic science. Well, she studied it and passed with flying colours and now she wants to become an attorney instead, fighting to right injustices.

    I recently saw an investigative journalist’s report on the corrupt use of forensics. Also watch a very dry and exact female forensic scientist give testimony in a US trial. CSI is very misleading! Forensics often projects certainty where none exists. Even in DNA analysis, there often are dubious opinions given. Probably many more innocent people locked up than we know.

    When she returns I will ask her what changed her mind from working in the field of forensic science. I would not be surprised if this was the reason.

    And…. do you know how many people have looked at her with scorn because she and her family are atheist?

    But why are they atheist? Because the God people persist in absurdities.

    No young woman who feels comfortable questioning the Bible will fall for the misogynistic narratives therein.

    Liked by 1 person

  • “The question still remains: Why then this NEED to appointment two Senators to represent an Opposition in a rubber-stamping theatre but which does NOT exist in the People’s elected Legislative Assembly?”

    It is a (minority) voice in the authorisation process despite a silent absence in the preliminary formation process, any objections raised will be noted on record for completeness and posterity

    (note the usage of big words articulated for a simple honest and true explanation)
    (the universe is always rotating)

    Like

  • “No young woman who feels comfortable questioning the Bible will fall for the misogynistic narratives therein.”

    in context it was a time before the birth control contraceptive pill and the gun
    men used to fight and go to war women raised families and taught the children
    men used to work and teach their sons their trade
    girls learned cooking and making clothes etc
    and were considered the weaker sex
    but there were cases of queens and women warriors

    people were uneducated and used to lie embellish and exaggerate stories to impress their points on others

    Like

  • @ David February 16, 2022 12:28 PM
    (Quote).
    It is very clear what Blackman is saying.
    (Unquote).
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    So why then are millions of taxpayers dollars being spent to employ a cacophony of lawyers (some selected by one of the parties to sit on Boards and Commissions) to present such a simple open-and-shut case to the moribund Bajan judicial system on behalf of the AG’s Office already saddled with lawyers in receipt of a nice secure salary?

    Like

  • DonnaFebruary 16, 2022 12:31 PM

    David,

    My atheist best friend’s daughter, also studying in America on athletic scholarship was going into forensic science.

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

    Are you sure you don’t mean your athletic best friend’s daughter. also studying in America on an aetheistic scholarship was going into forensic science.

    Like

  • @Miller

    The case is not restricted to oral arguments, there affidavits and responses to affidavits that will be added to the process. This is the legal system to ensure the scales of Justice balance?

    Like

  • MillerFebruary 16, 2022 1:34 PM

    @ David February 16, 2022 12:28 PM
    (Quote).
    It is very clear what Blackman is saying.
    (Unquote).
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    So why then are millions of taxpayers dollars being spent to employ a cacophony of lawyers (some selected by one of the parties to sit on Boards and Commissions) to present such a simple open-and-shut case to the moribund Bajan judicial system on behalf of the AG’s Office already saddled with lawyers in receipt of a nice secure salary?

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

    He is part of the cabal trying to waste time on the Senate which is a red herring.

    The basic requirement of a group in the House of Assembly which sits in opposition to the Government cannot be met with a 30 – 0 nullity.

    Like

  • Citizen Braithwaite and his lawyers Garth Patterson et al, appear to be part of the cabal.

    The problem they have is they are dealing with a nullity.

    Like

  • in attempting to divide a nullity, they are all exposing exactly who they are.

    Like

  • February 16, 2022
    Barbados on Tuesday made a plea for the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) to create a global brand in resilience building and planning, renewables and sustainability as it renewed calls for global moral leadership in dealing with issues of climate change.

    https://barbadostoday.bb/2022/02/16/pm-mottley-urges-closer-regional-collaboration-on-energy/

    Like

  • “This is the legal system to ensure the scales of Justice balance?”

    Balance?? I suspect you gave your siblings the smaller half 🍕

    Like

  • @Donna,
    We may speak of the scientific method or of our computer algorithms, but we are learning that sometimes our biases are programmed into system. As an example.. facial recognition programs.. done by a computer and therefore fair….
    No! No! No!
    These programs were validated using people with lighter skin and does a horrible job when given black faces.

    Like

  • HantsFebruary 16, 2022 4:21 PM

    February 16, 2022
    Barbados on Tuesday made a plea for the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) to create a global brand in resilience building and planning, renewables and sustainability as it renewed calls for global moral leadership in dealing with issues of climate change.

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

    She should stick to the law but even there she lacks credibility, no LEC and lack of practice.

    Looks like the climate change doomsday seers are being proven wrong.

    Large portions of the Antarctic ice sheet have appeared and disappeared over the past and will probably do so into the future.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/02/220214183329.htm

    No, the sky is not falling and even it it were, there is nothing to be done about it.

    The polar bears up in the Arctic, bless their hearts, show that they survived it all!!

    “New research definitively resolves a long-standing discrepancy in the geologic record that pitted studies of marine ice-sheet behavior against those that reconstructed past conditions on land. The research lends additional weight to evidence that the Antarctic Ice Sheet is sensitive to small changes in carbon dioxide levels and that, in the past, large portions of the ice sheet could have disappeared under carbon dioxide levels similar to today.”

    Like

  • My best friend is an atheist. Her daughter is the athlete on scholarship. She is also an atheist.

    Like

  • TheO,

    The report was frightening about the forensic evidence. I could not believe what I was reading.

    Damn CSI! DAMN TELEVISION SHOWS! If I had been on a jury with that CSI crap my head, I would have believed all that “irrefutable” evidence.

    The professional woman who was giving expert evidence withstood all the pressure from the prosecutor to state with certainty that she found an exact match. He kept trying to mislead the jury and she did not let him get away with it.

    She was brilliant. I had a much better understanding of the process and the conclusions that can be drawn from the evidence when she was done.

    Like

  • Correction – CSI crap IN my head.

    Like

  • Followed a link, saw this and placed it here.. Will not comment.

    “I know a young, rather successful Barbadian who says that he ‘thanks God’ that his ancestors came to the island as slaves, as he dreads to think of the lifestyle he would be experiencing if he was living in the African town his forefathers came from. He added that he felt more affinity to Britain than he does to Africa.”

    Like

  • Constitution ? what constitution ? dere is oil in dem dar seas.

    Guyana our new best friends. lol

    Like

  • TheOGazertsFebruary 17, 2022 7:42 PM

    Followed a link, saw this and placed it here.. Will not comment.

    “I know a young, rather successful Barbadian who says that he ‘thanks God’ that his ancestors came to the island as slaves, as he dreads to think of the lifestyle he would be experiencing if he was living in the African town his forefathers came from. He added that he felt more affinity to Britain than he does to Africa.”

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

    I am not the young rather successful Bajan but the reason I am grateful my slave ancestors came to Barbados is because had they been in the consignment of the African chief which he sent to Arab lands in the East, all of the males would have had all of their manly parts removed and I would have in Arab blood.

    The females would have gone east as concubines for their Arab owners.

    Not that I have anything against having in Arab blood, just that I would not be who I am today!!

    I don’t feel any affinity to Britain or Africa but plenty to Barbados.

    Thank God they were in the consignment of slaves earmarked by the African chief to go west, to the New World.

    In fact, come to think of it, I have ancestors who were Sephardic Jews from Spain and Portugal so it is very possible I may have in some Arab blood from the trans Sahara trade in African slaves which predated the transatlantic slave trade by over a millennia.

    I don’t feel any affinity to either Spain or Portugal either even though they are both offering me reparations for kicking my ancestors out.

    I don’t have any plans to claim those reparations for the simple reason that my navel string buried in Barbados..

    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/spain-is-inviting-back-jews-expelled-from-the-country-in-the-16th-century-but-don-t-mention-the-muslims-9322518.html

    Like

  • @John
    I was not expecting a reply as I just wanted to show some of the silly thinking that is ongoing.

    Your reply, though horrible is somewhat better as you were comparing two different types of slavery.

    Somehow the youngster seem to think that slavery was an all expense paid, all inclusive vacation for his ancestors.

    If necessary, I would thank God for being who I am, but there would not be one word of thanks for enslavement of my ancestors.

    Like

  • How silly! In different circumstances, your parents would not have met and so there would have been no YOU.

    No logic whatsoever!

    Like

  • It is possible you missed my point.

    If necessary, I would thank God for being who I am, but there would not be one word of thanks for enslavement of my ancestors.

    Like

  • “I know a young, rather successful Barbadian who says that he ‘thanks God’ that his ancestors came to the island as slaves, as he dreads to think of the lifestyle he would be experiencing if he was living in the African town his forefathers came from. He added that he felt more affinity to Britain than he does to Africa.”

    if you watch Amazing Grace about Abolition of Slavery that was also an argument used by British parliament to continue their trade

    Africa had 14,000,000 taken as Slaves and double that for those who died on the slave ships, they were bred for 20 generations up to 15 generations

    as the resident Bu mathematician could you work out a rough estimate of the total number of slaves whose lives were a living hell

    if you ain’t sulking

    Like

  • The Human Race
    Africa was ahead Europeans made it behind
    now Africans think they are lesser than Europeans
    The Man has played a number on your mind

    Like

  • bred for 20 generations up to 15 children per mothering slave

    Like

  • TheOGazertsFebruary 18, 2022 9:43 AM

    @John
    I was not expecting a reply as I just wanted to show some of the silly thinking that is ongoing.

    Your reply, though horrible is somewhat better as you were comparing two different types of slavery.

    Somehow the youngster seem to think that slavery was an all expense paid, all inclusive vacation for his ancestors.

    If necessary, I would thank God for being who I am, but there would not be one word of thanks for enslavement of my ancestors.

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

    Slavery is slavery.

    I would suggest every one alive today is more than likely a descendant of slaves.

    … quite apart from the fact that we have been/are all slaves to sin.

    Nothing a human can do about the past except move on and thank God for whatever circumstances placed him/her on this earth at this time and in this place.

    It is the freedom to choose to accept the free gift of redemption He has provided for which He must be thanked.

    Everyone has that freedom including slaves, and there are more slaves today than at any time.

    Like

  • Best things in life are free, regardless of your circumstance.

    Like

  • It is good to know that the minister wants to build 10000 new houses in the next 5 years for the impoverished masses.

    With this, Lord Maloney, the master of the plantation called Barbados, can easily compensate his loss from his patriotic deal with this company with the disreputable name.

    Like

  • “Nothing a human can do about the past except move on and thank God for whatever circumstances placed him/her on this earth at this time and in this place.”

    We have a slight difference of opinion here. I believe we can thank the Good Lord for our existence and that we can separate that from how we got here (through the horrific suffering of others).

    We are here.. we cannot change that.
    Our fore-parents suffered to come here
    … we cannot change that. We don’t have to sing the same song for both events.

    Like

  • TheO,

    That was meant for John.

    Like

  • 10,000 at $100 each is $1M dollars.
    10,000 at $1,000 each is $10M dollars.
    You can do the rest for yourself

    Like

  • Thank God for giving me life? Why should I do that?

    If I wasn’t here then I wouldn’t know that I wasn’t here.

    Therefore, I could miss nothing.

    Do people even think about what they say?

    “The best things in life are free!”

    You have the heart to say that?????????????????????????????????

    Oh dear!

    Like

  • @Donna,
    Good morning,
    How are you today?
    I was not expecting a response from anyone but it appears as if I gave 🐇/🐰 rabbit a carrot.

    Like

  • TheO,

    Good morning to you too! I am doing fine and hope that you are too.

    My responses were meant for John.

    Like

  • DonnaFebruary 18, 2022 9:53 AM

    How silly! In different circumstances, your parents would not have met and so there would have been no YOU.

    No logic whatsoever!

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

    It is only Grasshopper, relax.

    But you have a point, those going East got the cruelest cut.

    Thank God my ancestors got taken west.

    Like

  • Good news!

    Our Honourable Lord Marshal Dale will soon appoint a grand constitutional reform commission. I ask him to send us the drafts in advance so that we can ensure that the pre-eminent position of our Supreme Leader and her movement, as well as the Mottley Youth, are properly reflected in the Constitution.

    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