Commentary
The CMA Position on the WhitePaper
The Position of the CMAon the Theological, Social and Ethical implications of the proposed'Modern Partnership'.
Several Churches have submitted their reactionsto the recent proposals for a 'Modern Partnership' between Britainand what are still legally her Dependent Territories. These CMAnotes form an attempt to draw together some of these reactions,and to form a basis for discussion between the CMA and MLAs andany relevant British officials.
1. The Churches perceive that the White Paper proposalscontain elements which run contrary to the social ethic taughtby the Christian Church. This received and taught social ethicis formed by a covenantal view of society that derives from theoffer of Covenant that God makes to man in our Lord Jesus Christ.The White Paper proposals seek to modify the basic societal structureof the Overseas Territories (as they are being referred to inanticipation of necessary parliamentary legislation) by introducingthe humanistic ethic of Napoleonic atheism.
While the covenantal ethic is expressed by a pattern of `belonging'privileges and responsibilities at the apex of which are the privilegesand responsibilities of belonging to God in Christ, the humanisticethic is expressed in man-made lists of human 'rights'. Theseare not perceived as necessarily conferred by God, but are ratherconceived as an intrinsic property of humanness and higher thanGod, whose 'presence' in the system must itself be conformed totheir demands.
One inevitable result of the introduction of these changes isthat the Churches will be brought into an increasingly irreconcilableopposition to the State, a condition quite foreign to the historyof the Islands, whose parliamentary and judicial traditions derivefrom British sources and have always been broadly conceived inChristian terms. Though Church and State have always been distinctinstitutions here, there has been until now an appreciative cooperationbetween the two, which the proposed changes seem set to overturn.
2. The proposed 'partnership' to which the White Paperrefers is to be comprised of a framework consisting of (1) theconstitutions of the Territories and (2) the international obligationsof the UK that are relevant to the Territories. While the Constitutionof the Cayman Islands is well known to the Cayman Islands citizenryand reviews to it have been made with the full knowledge of thepeople, and any changes proposed in it would be expected to bedone in a spirit of the fullest consultation possible, the "internationalobligations of the UK that are relevant to the Territories"are almost completely unknown here.
The White Paper itself specifically mentions two conventions,the European Convention on Human Rights and the (UN) InternationalCovenant on Civil and Political Rights. The White Paper givesthese only as examples of Britain's international obligations,and nowhere supplies a complete list. In the Draft Cayman IslandsNational Youth Policy, four other UN conventions are stated toapply. To these and perhaps a considerable further number of conventions,the proposed partnership envisages the constitutions and the legaland regulatory framework of the Territories to be conformed mandatorily.
The extent of the changes thus being demanded to the Cayman IslandsConstitution and to our legal and regulatory framework is currentlyunfathomable. The Cayman Islands citizenry is, in effect, beingasked to sign a blank cheque to authorise an unknown extent ofchange to the Cayman Islands.
We are advised that the likely legal ramifications of such anaction could be paralysing. Issues will arise requiring the sortof legal and other advice that now occupies a veritable army oflawyers at Whitehall. The Cayman Islands Government should considerseriously where or how it would procure the resources to copewith the situation. Several of the Conventions themselves employdiffering terms for the same concepts and a number of the 'rights'in the UN Conventions conflict with certain "rights"in the European Convention on Human Rights.
3. The putative change in name from Dependent to OverseasTerritories serves to portray an ideal of Britain and her Territoriesmoving together in agreement and mutual accommodation and respect.Indeed, if a contract is truly to be a partnership, its provisionsmust be agreed and not imposed.
One must presume that the characterisation of the proposed partnershipas "modern" should be intended to reinforce that conceptof mutual agreement. It is inconceivable that in a 'Modern Partnership'there might be certain provisions and obligations in the contractto which one party is most strongly opposed and others to whichit is not even privy.
The Cayman Islands citizenry should clearly be given the opportunityof evaluating all aspects of the proposed partnership before acommitment to it is made on its behalf. The Cayman Islands citizenryand electorate needs to possess a full list of the applicableconventions to which it is being asked to commit itself, and topossess for each applicable convention the full list of its provisions.Even more importantly, the citizenry needs to see how in the recentpast the provisions of the conventions have been applied to differentcases by judicial authorities, and what laws have effectivelybeen created this way.
Much of this new law is made by unelected judges sitting in Luxembourgand Strasbourg who, to all intents and purposes, dictate lawsto the UK and other Parliaments. Indeed from the 1st October 2000,UK judges have taken on the same role under the Human Rights Act.The citizenry and electorate must clearly understand that a verysubstantial corpus of law, created by judicial bodies, to whichthe Cayman Islands will be subject will have had no specific parliamentarysanction, either by the Cayman Islands Legislative Assembly orby any British-type legislature. There must be major educativeeffort and debate undertaken about the nature and effect of theproposed partnership before it is formalised, and alternativeproposals should be encouraged and thought through.
4. All this should be undertaken before any action is takento begin changing the local law on the basis of the proposed partnership.The proposed action of removing the legal impediments againsthomosexual acts in private is envisaged in the White Paper andin subsequent official pronouncements as one of the first of thenecessary changes.
The immediate serious effect of this will be on the society ratherthan on those currently practising such acts. It will signifythe removal of the capacity of the Cayman Islands community toregulate itself socially, and it will be seen widely as imposinga decree that is foreign to its ethos, and as an oppressive act.The CMA also sees such an action as opening up to children andothers of this society a door into a lifestyle that is dangerousand damaging to them and the whole community, a lifestyle thatis specifically proscribed by all the sources and teachings ofthe Faith, and especially by Scripture itself.
Standing in opposition to Scripture, the Christian ethic and theChurch's sacramental understanding of Matrimony is the EuropeanConvention itself, which interprets 'family life' to include homosexualrelationships.
The CMA is bound to oppose this proposal to change the local lawabsolutely, and warns the community that a declared oppositionof the churches of the Cayman Islands within the membership ofthe Cayman Ministers' Association to an imminent State proposalsuch as this one may well be the shape of things to come shouldthe proposed 'Modern Partnership' be promulgated without substantialpublic exposure, education, debate and amendment.
May God guide, protect and bless the government and people ofthe Cayman Islands.
Cayman IslandsMinisters' Association
ThePolitical System of the Cayman Islands
It's election time once again and the talkseems endless by candidates throughout the Islands on many issues,and on things that are not even issues. In all of the talk, wehear most of the emphasis being placed on trying to convince thevoting public to "vote for us/me on November 8th and we/Iwill make things better for you!". This is certainly notan issue and is the same chorus we hear every four years.
Seeing that the political system of the Cayman Islands is themost crucial at hand and is the root cause of our political problems,I am convinced that it needs to be looked at in a different light,and we the people must get involved in dealing with this mostimportant issue.
If we look closely at the political system of these Islands, wewould better understand why so many opportunists are attractedto the political arena. Most people have the idea that it is themonthly pay cheque that attracts everyone, but the truth is, fatas the cheque may be, it is nothing compared to what they canachieve (in terms of material wealth), since the system allowsthem "too much freedom".
While it is true that "morality cannot be legislated",it is also true that "behavior can be regulated"; adjustingthe laws of our political system can regulate the behavior ofpoliticians.
With the current system having no established "Conflict ofInterest Legislation", MLA's (Members of the LegislativeAssembly) can focus on their own business interests as they chooseto (looking after themselves at the detriment of the country andits people).
They can do basically, whatever they feel like doing or not doing,and when something goes wrong, they can point fingers in all directions,simply because we have a political system without accountability,making them free to always take advantage of a bad situation.
They are not even required to spend quality time communicatingwith the people, but every four years (election time) we are madeto feel important again. The present system has no real soundlaws to govern the Government of the Cayman Islands, and is amuch too cruel and unjust system.
It is no wonder we keep making the same mistake every four years,believing that an `X 'will give us a true say. It is because wehave always failed to see that it is NOT possible to get justicedone as long as we live and operate under an unjust system. Thistype of system never fails to produce a majority of 15 peoplewho never fail to work with the system (like a vicious cycle).
These types of politicians along with this system, will alwaystake advantage of us as long as we allow them to do so. Thereis always talk by politicians about improving the system, however,we never see any significant improvements. After all, it worksperfectly well for them, therefore if it is left to them to improvethe system, it will NEVER happen.
We the people of these Islands can no longer sit still, behavingin such a casual manner, under a system that allows the peoplewhom we elect to represent us, to constantly take advantage ofus at our own expense! All the evidence is right before our eyes.Along with the burdensome high costs of living, we see increasein crime and lawlessness, and a drug epidemic (yes epidemic) whichis basically being ignored.
We are also faced with an overcrowded prison situation, whichis a reflection of our society's many social ills. Along withthe destruction of our most important resource, OUR YOUTH, wesee the destruction of our precious and very important environment.Our economy keeps going downhill, while the politicians continuewith their careless spending and endless borrowing and we thepeople are left to pay the price for it all.
If this is what democracy has to offer, then we do not need it.This is a hopeless system and IT MUST GO!
It is time that we the people put our minds and hands togetherin taking the proper action to ensure that a NEW, IMPROVED POLITICALSYSTEM is established here in the Cayman Islands. One with a sound"Conflict of Interest Legislation"; a system that willprovide accountability, one that will require all MLA's to representthe people on a full-time basis and a system that will providethe people the right to call for an "early election"if necessary.
There is much improvements to be made in our Political Systemand until this is achieved, we will continue to fight a losingbattle in the field of Politics!
Oriel Avalon Anglin
A very concerned Caymanian