Dear Sir,

The current bill of rights is based on a flawed ideology which will cripple this country down the lines and will in fact deliver a fatal blow to the tradition of this nation by providing anyone from our outside of this country an erosive component to the foundation of this country.

Section 6 is the good intentions that will pave our path to hell.

Here’s a question:

The proposal seems to attempt to prevent discrimination; however, it does so by identifying and labeling “groups” or people rather than to protect “individual” rights irrespective of the person’s “group qualification”. The bill itself discriminates in order to prevent discrimination, in essence.

For example, if you take the US bill of rights, it doesn’t qualify a particular individual into a particular groups. And it does so by design.

The current constitution discriminates, yes, that’s right, discriminates in the name of good intentions, and puts people into groups of victims, suggesting that they are in fact discriminated against, and therefore need to be identified/labeled and protected by this bill in the name of inequality, independently and separated from the “normal person” group.

This creates and forces us to identify ourselves as different and classifies us into, race, sexual orientation, nationality, religion and God knows what else, and promotes grouping and divide within society. Another question is, if these group rights need to be protected independently, have all groups been identified and assigned special constitutional protection from (most us) the regular people group?

The bill also seems to provide/allow discrimination toward ex-pats in terms of employment by way of 1) It’s okay to discriminate for a work position based in your nationality and 2) the bill of rights “perhaps” being applicable only if you are Caymanian was some of the suggestions. Actually there was some dancing around by HRC on this issue so this remains unclear.

In either case, how then does one differentiate whether a gay ex-pat for example, hasn’t been denied work for reasons because of their particular sexual orientation or whether it was due to their status position (not being Caymanian)?

Could that possibly allow for the ex-pat to sue for sexual orientation discrimination thereby blurring the lines of the type of discrimination?

Not being Caymanian vs. their sexual orientation?

Sounds like you’re opening a huge can of worms to me.

If you say that the bill only applies to Caymanians and would therefore not protect expats under these provisions, then are you not saying that discrimination against sexual orientation is okay, unless you are Caymanian? Defying the whole purpose of the Bill of Rights, which is ultimately designed to protect against its labeled pre-packed, discriminated, upon groups. This bill reeks of conflicts.

The fact of the matter is this bill of rights will be used and abused and the courts will use it to legislate from the bench and to force minority agendas onto the majority, despite any votes cast at the ballot box as it does everywhere else you see in the world. To suggest that this bill will be any different is complete insanity and a huge deception.

Example Prop 8 banning gay marriages passed by ballot in the states of California and Florida amongst other states. The gay community is now fighting this through the courts using the bill of rights to overturn the will of the voters at the ballot box and they will eventually win.

The path to hell is paved with good intentions.

Richard Terrance