CurrentCommentary
Is the ChurchBeing Silenced?
The Cayman Ministers' Association (CMA)is constrained to make public our concern that it appears thatthe Church is being silenced in these islands. Much has been saidin recent times about the church and its role in society. We havebeen branded as being conservative, fundamental, high-handed andrepressive.
Unfortunately many no longer see the relevanceof the church in community and as such disregard and even disdainits voice on any social issue. While we do not claim any specialprivilege in society, we have always sought to make a vital andpositive contribution to the overall development of our communityand we believe ourselves called to represent the values and purposeof Christ, upon which the Cayman Islands is founded.
The thrust of this letter is to voice ourconcern that if the present trend is allowed to continue unanswered,we will see the further erosion of the foundational principalsand partnerships that have proven beneficial or this society overmany generations. We therefore declare, that we will not allowourselves to be marginalized or confined to the realm of conservatism.
As this letter will bear out, in our viewamong those to treat the church with scant regard of recent timesis the judiciary. We single out this high and honourable officebecause, in our judgement, the judiciary is the one place to whichany citizen or group should feel free to go in times of threat,discrimination or unfair treatment.
We are particularly concerned that the Hon.Chief Justice, Mr. Anthony Smellie QC, has repeatedly refusedto meet privately with us even after repeated requests with veryclear purpose of intent. We are puzzled by the Chief Justice'srefusal and we now feel compelled after eleven months to makepublic those concerns and ask for a public response.
Readers will recall the legal wrangle betweenthe Rev. Dee Dee Haines and the Courts, which resulted in herbeing charged with contempt of court by the Hon. Justice Henderson,in January of this year, and it is this issue that precipitateda rather unfortunate turn of events between the Chief Justiceand the CMA.
The CMA, being informed of the circumstances,which led Rev. Haines to refuse from divulging the contents ofher counseling conversation, publicly determined that we wouldsupport her in living out the principles of her conviction.
Having done so, which we consider to beour constitutional right, in a democratic society, we were shockedby the rather strange media release from the Hon. Chief Justice,that the CMA could be held in contempt of court for supportingRev. Haines.
We viewed the media release of the ChiefJustice as a blatant infringement on our freedom of speech andan unfortunate interference with the church with respect to itssocial responsibility. It is to this end that the CMA requesteda meeting with the Honourable Chief Justice. Our intention wasto enter into meaningful dialogue with the Judiciary in the hopethat this matter could be clarified and that perhaps the churchcould be advised as to our role in society from the perspectiveof the courts.
In his response, the Chief Justice refusedto meet with us on the grounds that such a meeting "in aclimate of controversy however well intended - is not likelyto be conducive to public acceptance that the judges have remainedand will remain impartial and disinterested".
Other subsequent attempts to have him reconsiderhis position were futile even eleven months after the conclusionof the court case involving Rev. Haines, when surely there nolonger exists a "climate of controversy." We are leftto wonder whether the Chief Justice has pre-judged the intentof the CMA or that he doubts our capacity for objectivity andvaluable contribution on matters pertaining to the well-beingof society.
Since the Chief Justice found it difficultto meet with us to discuss these issues in a private, congenialand civil environment, we feel compelled to call upon him to makea public response to the following questions for our benefit andthat of the community at large.
· On what basis could the CMA statementto the press, committing ourselves to the "proper administrationof justice" in the community, supporting the "principleof confidentiality in the practice of pastoral ministry",and supporting the "Rev. Dee Dee Haines in her stance tolive out her conviction", be considered a contempt of court?
· Are there other compelling reasonswhy the Chief Justice found it unnecessary to meet with the CMA?
· In the eyes of the Judiciary, doesany member of the community have a right to critique any aspectof community life, especially those matters that have to do withthe sacred corridors of the legal fraternity?
· If indeed a charged and controversialclimate existed that would have placed the Judiciary in a precariousposition, would the Hon. Chief Justice say what made it difficultto hold a meeting with the CMA eleven months after our initialrequest?
· Is it the opinion of the ChiefJustice that the church is not capable of responsible negotiationsand as such must protect the Judiciary from any possible deformationof their public image brought on by conversing with us in private?
We noted with great interest the openingremarks of the Hon. Chief Justice at the recently held Human RightsSymposium, September 11-14, in which he stated, "We now enjoya tradition of individual freedoms- perhaps most notably thatof freedom of expression- which may well be unsurpassed anywherein the world." We also note that the Universal Declarationof Human Rights, Article 19 states, "Everyone has the rightto freedom of expression; this right includes freedom to holdopinions without interference and to speak, receive and impartinformation and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
In a climate where the Hon. Chief Justiceis hailing and promoting Human Rights as the way forward, we lookforward to his response to the matters raised herein.
The CMA was and is not seeking confrontation.We only wish that in a society such as the Cayman Islands whereChristian values are cherished that conversation with the Churchwas possible. We also trust that the Courts, like the Church,are prepared to accept reasonable and constructive public scrutinyand criticism.
The public criticism hurled at the churchover the past months, claiming that it is "high-handed"in its approach to social issues, gives the impression that thechurch is neither compassionate, nor rational, nor attuned toreality.
The recent debate in the House on the Motiondealing with Confidentiality Privilege only served to confirma promoted opinion of the church being high-handed and repressive.Very little credence (beyond lip service) was given to the Church'slong-standing presence in, and significant contribution to thecommunity as a social partner to government, to law enforcementagencies and to all other institutions that serve the higher goodof society, including the court itself.
While we understand that the Legislaturemay have found it difficult to grant confidentiality privilegeto the clergy, in the exercise of our duties, we fail to appreciatethe reluctance, on their part, to hold conversation in which thechurch's input could serve to clarify a rather difficult matter,one that neither we, nor the courts, nor the community ever hadto deal with before.
The CMA is greatly concerned that if thejudiciary finds it unnecessary to meet with the church, the Legislatureconsiders it a waste of time to discuss a matter that is in ourview critical to our function in society, and the community viewsthe church's social engagement as high-handed and repressive,then the question must be asked "What do we consider to bethe church's role in this society?"
Furthermore, if the church as a corporatesocial structure, which has played such a prominent and positiverole in the development of this society over many generations,should be treated with such blatant disregard by the powers thatbe, what hope is there for any individual voice to be given afair hearing in expressing his/her concerns, objections or criticism?
In conclusion, we boldly say that if, indeed,there is an attempt to silence the church, then we unequivocallydeclare by a higher Authority that we cannot, we must not andwe will not be silent nor retreat.
Cayman Ministers Association
Copy to:
H. E. the Governor,
Mr. Peter Smith, CBE