← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

I believe that Prime Minister Mottley will be fondly remembered as the greatest political leader Barbados ever had in our republican era, for one main reason – her restraint when compared to those who came after her.

In 1966, our Constitution was written to protect the citizens of an independent nation from the harmful actions of their elected Government. In this Republic, those protections are mostly gone or are meaningless. The danger that all citizens now face was described by the British historian, John Acton, who observed: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

ABSOLUTE POWER.

Our Prime Minister has almost absolute power over Barbados. However, she has exercised admirable restraint in the use of this power in our Republic. I do not know any other person except Jesus who can be trusted not to abuse such power. Every future administration without Prime Minister Mottley at the helm will likely be highly risky for us all.

Regardless of the impeccable characters and caring intents of future political candidates, if they are elected in this Republic, they will soon get drunk on the power they wield – and woe to any questioning citizen. When they turn on the public as history shows they inevitably will, citizens can only appeal to the same administration that is harming them – which makes such appeals ineffective.

EXPOSED.

The Cybercrime Bill (2024) exposed the intent of a government intoxicated with absolute power. Our kind, considerate and empathetic elected representatives supported sending citizens to prison for seven years and fining each of us $70,000 simply for writing or sharing something that someone felt was annoying.

Our wise and caring members of the Joint Select Committee exposed the impact of such intoxicating power on those close to the throne. After listening to the emotional pleadings of Barbadians on these harsh, unreasonable and out-of-all-proportion penalties for non-offences, they recommended that the Government increase the fines to $100,000 and prison sentences to 10 years. Welcome to the new Republic.

INTIMIDATION.

The aim of the Cybercrime Bill appeared to make everyone guilty, so that the Government may pardon those who fall in line – and harm those who do not. This is the normal way of tyranny. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights agreed to hear the case against the Government. However, their intervention will only delay the inevitable where the only writing published in Barbados must be by party supporters praising the Government. Based on the normal behaviour of our established media, we are not far from that nightmare.

The full implementation of the intimidation phase of this new Republic has been delayed, but it seems inevitable. We are building a foundation for our elected leaders to harm those who are not intimidated into silence, with threats of being bankrupt and imprisoned for 10 years. Tragically, our elected representatives seem oblivious to what they are building – for others to abuse.

When we are forced to live in constant fear, and mourn the absence of those severely punished for simply questioning, then we will long for a return to the good-old-days when Prime Minister Mottley exercised considerable restraint while wielding almost absolute power.

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


Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

13 responses to “How Barbados Became a Republic 3 ”


  1. Davie, dah ain’t nah tekers on dis won, cause it Fula pepper. Hot, hot, feeling hot n moe hot 🎤🎶🥁🥵Murderahhhhhhhh, Murderahhhhhhhh, Davie come n get yah worl. Cum Davie Cum n holler fah Murderahhhhhhhh, Murderahhhhhhhh 🥁🎶ahh cumin 🤣 oh lordie!!!

  2. NorthernObserver Avatar
    NorthernObserver

    After two solid contributions, on how Barbados became a Republic, #3 is a disappointment. Maybe after 1 & 2, my expectations were too high.
    It changes course IMO, towards legislation which could easily have been enacted in a pre-Republic Barbados. Little about “how we got here”.
    The move towards dominant power, or how the GoB exposes itself, the concept of vindictive Intimidation all had roots before the Republic.


  3. Isaiah’s Commission

    6
    5 “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”

    Reverency


  4. NorthernObserver:

    If we tried to enact this legislation before we became a Republic, we could have appealed to the Governor General. Now, we can only go to the IACHR and other similar bodies who cannot enforce a ruling.


  5. Grenville really has no idea. He speaks about the Barbados constitution of 1966 being written but fails to say by who. Anyone who reads that constitution can easily see that, with its racist preamble, it was written by some colonial bureaucrat in Britain. If he thinks this was written to protect the citizens of Barbados, he’s on planet Mars. According to him, the same British colonial regime that suppressed the peoples uprisings of the 1930s because our foreparents were demanding universal suffrage is concerned about protecting us. Is that why they shot and killed the martyrs of 1937 and sentenced Ulric Grant to 10 years in prison? The issue he raised about government tyranny is part and parcel of the colonial political system that he so loves.

  6. NorthernObserver Avatar
    NorthernObserver

    GPII
    I think you are living in an alternative universe, if you think the GG of any independent former colony is going to question the legislation passed by an elected parliament. Even if one seeks relief. They aren’t getting involved.


  7. Uh-oh! I en sayin’ a word.


  8. Correction.Barbados was NOT a republic until two years ago. Mottley was Prime Minister of an Independent Nation, that was NOT a Republic.


  9. Tee:

    Please read the Constitution (1966) to familiarise yourself with the protections given to citizens and the limits on government power over citizens. It is different from the colonial laws that governed Barbados in the 1930s.


  10. Northern Observer:

    No administration since our Independence to Republic brought anything close that had penalties to non-offenses that are in the Cybercrime Bill. Therefore, a Governor General had no reason to object and every reason to assent.

    The Computer Misuse Act was passed pre-Republic, and the offenses are well defined and the penalties justifiable. Not so with the Cybercrime Bill that is set to replace it.


  11. Grenville, I have thoroughly read the constitution and can discuss with you in detail why it does not provide the protections of citizens that you claim. For a start, the constitution does not address the social needs of the citizens, including the right to a livelihood, the right to access to healthcare or a home. These are fundamental human rights that are not even addressed in the 1966 constitution. That document reflects the constitutional thinking of the so-called Westminster representative democracy which is neither representative nor democratic. In fact, the complaints you are making about the way the monarchy was replaced by the republic are an inevitable feature of the so-called representative democracy. This is how it is designed to work. The current BLP government won all the seats in the last election with something like the votes of 25% of the electorate. They then carry out actions like selling out the country to rich foreigners and the citizens have no constitutional mechanism to stop them. The electors cannot instruct their “representative” how to vote in parliament nor can they recall him or her if they are dissatisfied with their performance. And this all happens under your 1966 constitution because that constitution is designed to maintain the system established by the English slave masters. Definitely, it has had to make some concessions like accepting universal suffrage because of the struggle of our foreparents but it is not a constitution worth defending. We need a modern political system with a modern constitution which empowers the people of Barbados to be involved in the decisions that affect their lives.


  12. Barbados became a ‘republic’ when we rejected Owen Arthur’s sober advice about potential despotic behaviors. (There is ALWAYS a warning…)
    Just as the USA subsequently became the ‘fourth Reich’ when THOSE jokers insisted on electing a German hater, criminal, tax-evader, and pussy-grabber named ‘DRUMPF’ as their president… They had MULTIPLE warnings….

    The COMMON factor is familiarly known as ‘Satan’..

    … but more commonly referenced nowadays as ‘International agencies’… or what the Bible termed as ‘The Beast with multiple heads’ – (UN / IMF / IDB / WHO / USESCO / UNAIDS / ILO)…

    The REAL GLOBAL battle (and the ONLY issue of significance really) is NOT related to us brass bowls and to our transient issues… but to SPIRITUAL POWERS in high places.

    ..and trying to decipher such SPIRITUAL BATTLE TACTICS via our shiite eyes – using ‘economics, (WETHTI!!), law, history and even science – is much like a caveman writing a desertation on the Wall Street investment setup.

    We are now WELL PAST the point where any of the shiite being done, by what are mere poppets of the Beast, matters as key strategic initiatives…

    The REAL key (SPIRITUAL) players will soon lose patience and reveal themselves – as the REAL battle nears the final armageddon …

    We live in the MOST interesting time in ALL of history…

    oooh! – and there is ALWAYS a warning….!


  13. Tee:

    Perhaps you need to read it again. Please note Chapter 3 which details the rights and freedoms of individuals. The first clause is provided for your information.

    11. Whereas every person in Barbados is entitled to the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual, that is to say, the right, whatever his race, place of origin, political opinions, colour, creed or sex, but subject to respect for the rights and freedoms of others and for the public interest, to each and all of the following, namely-

    (a) life, liberty and security of the person;
    (b) protection for the privacy of his home and other property and from deprivation of property without compensation;
    (c) the protection of the law; and
    (d) freedom of conscience, of expression and of assembly and association,

    the following provisions of this Chapter shall have effect for the purpose of affording protection to those rights and freedoms subject to such limitations of that protection as are contained in those provisions, being limitations designed to ensure that the enjoyment of the said rights and freedoms by any individual does not prejudice the rights and freedoms of others or the public interest.

The blogmaster invites you to join and add value to the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading