The Unjust Clauses of the Cayman Constitution 2009

| 15/04/2010

In 1766 during tense relations between the Thirteen Colonies of the Americas and the Kingdom of Great Britain, history records that the British Parliament ratified a sinful Act, an Act called the Declaratory Act, which asserted that the British Parliament had absolute power to make laws and changes for the Thirteen Colonists of the Americas, "in all cases whatsoever" even though they were unrepresented in the Kingdom of Great Britain’s Parliament.

As a result of what followed the Act, the imposition of taxes without representation and their tyranny on the colonists, the American Revolutionary War was inevitable in 1775.

Eventually in July 1776, the Thirteen Colonies of the Americas declared their Independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain. The spirit behind the Declaratory Act that Parliament "had, hath, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America … in all cases whatsoever," would later be manifested in other colonial language imbedded in documents like the Cayman Islands Constitution 2009

This document was cleverly designed and put together to reject the democratic representation of the Caymanian people and their future generation when it states in Part II, Section 33, pertaining to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that “the Governor may act against the advice given to him or her by the Cabinet— if he or she is instructed to do so by Her Majesty through a Secretary of State; or if, in his or her judgment, such advice would adversely affect any of the special responsibilities of the Governor set out in section 55.” Note here that the Cabinet is elected by the Caymanian People.

Then in Part IX of the said Constitution, Section 125, it nullifies and cancels out all elected powers for and by the Cayman Island’s people, making the entire Constitution itself null and immaterial to UK interest. It nicely states in one sentence, “There is reserved to Her Majesty full power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Cayman Islands.” May I say that the major percentage of Caymanians that voted for this Constitution in 2009, did not and COULD NOT have realized the grave implications of how much economic authority they had retained to the Crown or for Her Majesty’s interest. If they had known what representation is, I am sure many of them would have thought twice before approving the national document.

The Cayman Islands Constitution 2009 gave more rope to the Governor and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to bind usat will from ever having our voices heard in the chambers of their Parliament. And for sure the interest of the United Kingdom over the democratic representation of the people will be difficult to override by the United Nations when a percentage of our own constituency have voted “yea” in its favor. It reminds me of the same spirit, that dark spirit of tyranny behind the Declaratory Act of 1766 – that an entity, such as the FCO and her Governors, can "in all cases whatsoever" even though the people are not represented, impose taxation, make laws and statutes of sufficient force for their perspective of what is “for the peace, order and good government of the Cayman Islands” – as if the people living here don’t know better or exist.

We see the lamb speak but act like a dragon; we see the Chagos Islanders, who they evicted from their homes for a U.S. military base still without compensation, and we see the Turks & Cacaos, under the guise of corruption undermined although there was corruption there like anywhere else – still the people of Turks & Caicos are taken for naught by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office!

In 1967 a number of British colonies in the Caribbean chose to change their statuses to states in free association with the United Kingdom. The name for these colonies was called the West Indies Associated States. They included Saint Christopher-Nevis-Anguilla, Dominica, Grenada, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent, and Antigua. Their statuses were sanctioned by the Associated Statehood Act 1967. The condition of the Act entailed that each state had full control over its own constitution and self-governance, the United Kingdom retained responsibility for only external affairs and military protection. The British monarch remained head of state, and the Governor of the islands was a local citizen under the said constitutional powers. After several years, the West Indies Associated States eventaully dissolved with Anguilla reverting back to a British Overseas Territory (BOT) like the Cayman Islands.

Nevertheless, couldn’t we have chosen a much better state for our self-determination than fall under the dangerous provisions imbedded in a document???

Wake up, Cayman!

God is awake!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Viewpoint

Comments (47)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. konroy says:

    In addition – this is what Thomas Paine, the "tongue of the American Revolution" said against the British Imperialist:

    "I believe in the EQUALITY of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy."

    Notice EQUALITY… That word has alot of meaning. Anyone who opposes Caymanians from seeking equality, endorses Imperialism. And our country does not have to go Independent in order for its citizens to be treated EQUAL like the citizens in the UK. 

    This is a very important principle that needs to be understood.

    Peace 

     

  2. Anonymous says:

    Am I the only one who is cognisant of the fact that we are almost two and a half centuries past 1776! So what’s wrong with the Queen reserving absolute power? Why is this an issue? The Thirteen Colonies of the Americas were just that, colonies. In other words, the Crown owned them! And if you own someting you want to have final say in what happens to your asset, no? There is nothing "unjust" about it! 

    Hello!? We are a colony! As much as we like to think we are a big ol’ wealthy semi-independent "nation", truth is we are a poor little fly-speck on the globe with no wealth-producing industry at all. And we are owned by the UK. However, the England of 1776 was not the democracy that England is now. And the King was absolutely not playing by any democratic rules.

    I can see trying to break free of a despot, but unless someone sees someting I do not, trying to make a comparison between the situation relating to Thirteen Colonies of the Americas and the Kingdom of Great Britain then, and the relationship with the Cayman Islands and the U.K today is absurd. We have no "taxation without representation". What we seem to have is reckless spending and irresponsible fiscal policies by those in our history who supposedly represented us.

    In light of the two loans recently facilitated to a virtually bankrupt Cayman Islands, I would say an opposing condition exists: the Queen has given us permission to obtain what we asked for but still we resist even seriously considering England’s pleas to us to provide for a sustainable economy and good accounting practices in our government. So who is being slighted in this case?  I think England is being pretty damn forebearing.

    Believe me when I say this, investor perception of our stability, and therefore investor confidence in this country, is rooted very, very deeply in our status as a British colony. Whoever does not believe this is a dangerous mentally deficient uneducated mindless brain-dead moron devoid of any shred of understanding of the truth!

    I think preservation of our fragile financial services industry is one very compelling reason not to seek independance. As an independent country we will have no benefit of the resistance of the USA to really bully us because as a British colony the U.S. can only bully us as far as the UK, their staunch ally, allows. There are unwritten rules to play by now.

    As for England, regardless of the rhetoric from the UK to the contrary, England is not going to "shut us down" anytime soon because if our financial services indusrty goes kaput, she will have to cough up some support $$ because we are after all a colony.

    However, if we go independent, we could very well become a perceived fiscal threat and one can imagine, that with no offsetting obligation of the UK government to assist us as her colony, those tax-greedy bluebloods in positions of power in England and their allies could be after our blood in short order. 

    Worse yet, in light of the clearly expressed intention of many American politicians to end the existence of this so-called "tax haven", as a lone little independent Cayman Islands we will subject to any type of harassment and brutal bullying Washington can muster. Folks, that in itself should send shivers down your spine!

    It is all fine and good to spew garbage about our options and "liberty" and all such tripe and nonsense stemming from a skull void of viable gray matter. However, without any real political clout in the world and lacking any type of alternative industry to fall back on, an independent or even a freely associated Cayman Islands would be weaker than a newborn lamb and poorer than a church mouse. For God’s  sake all you "independence" people, have you this soon forgotten that we just went pleading for funds to bale us out twice?

    Do we really have any evidence to support the inference that the UK has acted with sinister intentions in trying to regulate her colonies recently? I think the UK would like to avoid international embarassment by her unruly "children" and thus may have to be a bit heavy handed at times: "Spare the rod, spoil the child." But that is a parent’s option.

    As far as the new constitution is concerned, in many provisions, especially those involving human rights, our government can act in opposition to the constitution if it is deemed by those in power to be in the best interest of public order and the good of the country. So we have the choice of the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea when it comes to imposing "imperial power".

    Independence?? Ha! We cannot even get our own government financial accounts straight and reported correctly without "Mom" getting on our butts! What a joke that we could, at this point in time anyway, survive unsupervised and without a higher power holding us accountable!

    At this point in time we have the maturity level of a rebellous teenager who thinks Mom’s rules are "unfair" and who wants to be lord and master of his own life. However, we lack the maturity and ability to even clean up our own room muchless run the household! Can you magine the mess if Mom gave us the keys and moved out?  Oh, my God! I cannot even imagine.

    Becoming a Crown Dependency – if the UK were to agree to this –  would not obviate the current situation as Crown dependencies may only pass legislation with the UK’s consent.

    Who knows what tomorrow may hold? But, as it stands right now, life is good and continuing as a "colony" is the only viable option. We simply are not ready to ply our own course. Only the brain-dead could think otherwise.

    • konroy says:

      Hmmm… can’t help but not respond

      You said:

      "Am I the only one who is cognisant of the fact that we are almost two and a half centuries past 1776! So what’s wrong with the Queen reserving absolute power? Why is this an issue? The Thirteen Colonies of the Americas were just that, colonies. In other words, the Crown owned them! And if you own someting you want to have final say in what happens to your asset, no? There is nothing ‘unjust’ about it!" 

      Friend, that the Queen can reserve absolute power over the colonies is morally wrong and unjust!  Why?  Because we are not property!  That we are property or some asset is a slavery mentality. A man does not own a woman, or a woman, a man – unless he or she is so deluded that man or woman is his/her property. Hence, the Crown can not rigthfully own the Cayman Islands unless all 50,000 of its native inhabitants sells the Islands to her. She claims ownership from colonial times – that is where the 17th Century can be tied to now. 

      You said:

      "Hello!? We are a colony! As much as we like to think we are a big ol’ wealthy semi-independent "nation", truth is we are a poor little fly-speck on the globe with no wealth-producing industry at all. And we are owned by the UK. However, the England of 1776 was not the democracy that England is now. And the King was absolutely not playing by any democratic rules."

      Agree… but still doesn’t mean that the UK is freed from people who would love not to play by any democratic rules

      You said:

      "I can see trying to break free of a despot, but unless someone sees someting I do not, trying to make a comparison between the situation relating to Thirteen Colonies of the Americas and the Kingdom of Great Britain then, and the relationship with the Cayman Islands and the U.K today is absurd. We have no "taxation without representation". What we seem to have is reckless spending and irresponsible fiscal policies by those in our history who supposedly represented us."

      I think the writer made a good comparison! The writer is talking about the unjust representation upon UK colonies, especially, what Cayman have. Remember the United States was a colony as well. They had taxes imposed on them by the UK Parliament. We may not have any taxes imposed on us for now (at least, not yet), but there is a serious loophole in the Constitution that provides the Governor and FCO to impose ANY LAW upon us.   

      You said:

      "I think England is being pretty damn forebearing [to us]."

      Of course, she is being damn forebearing to us, but what she does positive in one hand, does not mean both hands. On the other hand, she has disregarded the Chagos Islanders (British citizens) of returning to their homes. They (the FCO leading) have recently passed more laws this year that made their return more indefinite! So what they do in one hand, looking like a saint, concerned for the Cayman Islands – they do in the other what is not right and just

      You said and I had to laugh:

      "Believe me when I say this, investor perception of our stability, and therefore investor confidence in this country, is rooted very, very deeply in our status as a British colony. Whoever does not believe this is a dangerous mentally deficient uneducated mindless brain-dead moron devoid of any shred of understanding of the truth!"

      I guess I am dangerous and uneducated. Did the British come here and build up our financial industry???  Or, was it the locals and Caymanians that made Cayman the place it is now?  I assure you the latter 🙂

      You said:

      "I think preservation of our fragile financial services industry is one very compelling reason not to seek independance."

      What does this have to do with Independence???  I thought it he spoke about Free Association – not Independence.  I think you are stretching it a bit; or, curbing the entire subject to suit your own fears! 

      Sorry for telling it like it is. 🙂

      You said:

      "Folks, that in itself should send shivers down your spine!"

      Oh I am so scared of change now…

      I guess I should jump on your bandwagon and preach to all that they should not worry about bettering our relations between us and the UK. Besides, she mean us all too well 🙂

      You said:

      "Without any real political clout in the world and lacking any type of alternative industry to fall back on… a freely associated Cayman Islands would be weaker than a newborn lamb and poorer than a church mouse."

      I don’t think so!  To be an Associated State, would mean we become a Protectorate. The UK (or US or some other country if she does not want to) will aid us in protection. The people of the Islands will be allowed to elect their own Governor and have a government that is secured from outside or imperial influence. Comprende?  Sounds good to me – Besides we are now implementing good anti-corruption laws. Once such laws are implemented, why can’t we run our own affairs??? You say we are like a "newborn lamb" – it just shows you how little you think of Caymanians and their democracy. 

      You said – and here is where I see ignorance:

      "Do we really have any evidence to support the inference that the UK has acted with sinister intentions in trying to regulate her colonies recently? I think the UK would like to avoid international embarassment"

      First, the media is paid not to broadcast everything!  And that comment that there is no evidence is just ignorance on your part!!!

      You said:

      "So we have the choice of the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea when it comes to imposing "imperial power".

      Already you are limiting our choices between the Imperial power and our self-determination as a nation. Can you be so narrow-minded?

      You said:

      "We cannot even get our own government financial accounts straight and reported correctly without "Mom" getting on our butts!"

      True… we have to grow up and improve our infrastructure. But Free Association is still an open option. Are you suggesting that we should be dependent all our lives on "Mom"???

      You said:

      "Who knows what tomorrow may hold? But, as it stands right now, life is good and continuing as a "colony" is the only viable option."

      I disagree – yes we should tread softly and get our house in order, but you are delusional to think that our voices are secured in being a colony. It is just a time-bomb waiting to detonate!

  3. Anonymous says:

    The Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865

    http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1865/pdf/ukpga_18650063_en.pdf

    That’s another evil and nondemocratic act against the people of British Overseas Territories. An act to remove doubts as to the validity of colonial laws – They will do any thing to keep this imbalance of power. Australia manage to got herself freed from the dreadful Act. "The Acts resolved the anomalous power of the United Kingdom’s parliament to legislate over the individual Australian states, a power that it had exercised since colonial times" – Wikipedia on Australia Act 1986 

    But we are too small to fight them and easily to be bullied. How can you fight self-interest? We are too small. All they have to send is one warship with 500 men to declare full rule, and that would be more than our Police Service. They don’t care – It is all about keeping power like they did in the slave days.

    Outside help may be the answer!

    Peace 

  4. Anonymous says:

    None of this is new. There were perhaps a few people misled by Truman Bodden’s scare tactic memo that the new Constitution represented a major constitutional advance but most people were not.

    "The Cayman Islands Constitution 2009 gave more rope to the Governor and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to bind us at will from ever having our voices heard in the chambers of their Parliament".

    It did no such thing. Do you seriously think we were better off under the old Constitution? It changed absolutely nothing in terms of the Governor and the British Govt’s ultimate authority over us.  

    The British Govt. has taken the view that it is no longer offering free association status to its territories. Realistically, there is little that we can do about that except perhaps lobbying the United Nations Committee on Decolonization to exert pressure on the British Govt.  No doubt this was tried by the NGOs to no avail.

    • Anonymous says:

      Friend, when there is a will to succeed, there is a way. Jesus fell three times carrying the cross before being crucified. Shall we just give into what is wrong?  Shall we give into what may negatively effect our future? 

  5. John says:

    Excellent writing!   :o)

    I hope something is done before the "we" will be the what "they" want over us. Thank you

  6. Flibbertygibbet says:

    Well we all know that opinion is largely derived from your misplaced obsession with the view that increasing gun ownership is good for the Cayman Islands.

  7. Question:
    Should a petition of over 25% of the electorate be made, sent to Cabinet, and a national vote (referendum) be called to amend the present Constitution to a Constitution where the Cayman Islands will be in Free Association with the UK?
    Please Thumbs-up if yes – I understand what Free Association is and I agree with the commentator 100%
    Please Thumbs-down if No – I do not understand what Free Association is, and I have no problem with the clauses in our Constitution, giving more power to the UK than the people here

    *Note: Please do not answer if you do not understand what a Protectorate or an Associated State is – and second, if you are not a born and raised-up here Caymanian! Maybe CNS can make a similar poll like this one, because there are so many Caymanians scared of change and think that Independence is our only option and that our politicians here are more corrupt than the one’s in the UK should we ever change.
    So it would be wonderful if Caymanians are educated about this and our politicians assist in educating the people as well about this option.
    THANK YOU

    • Pit Bull says:

      There is no option acceptable to the UK other than the status quo or independence.  And any loss of UK oversight and ultimate decision making will kill our offshore business and destroy our economy.  And you can petition all you like but ultimately the Cayman Constitution is law which derives force from Parliament who have complete control over its contents.  And I for one am glad of that. 

      • John says:

        Oh please…

        Oversight from the UK is like oversight from the Imperial dragon itself. Enough with your fear-mongering!  Can’t we think for ourselves???  The more comments you make pit bull, is the more bull… "And you can petition all you like" – It that the best you can do to discourage Caymanians from a just cause 

  8. Anonymous says:

    Interesting article! Circa 1910, C. G. H. Goring argued at a meeting of the Justices and Vestrymen in George Town  that the Governor in Jamaica was not likely to understand things better than twenty seven men from the spot. "Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose". Hopefully a 100 years  from now this discussion on fundamantal issues will no longer be necessary!

  9. frank rizzo says:

    You couldn’t tell us this before it went to vote?

    • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

      These things were discussed on the talk shows a number of times.

      • frank rizzo says:

        My bad. It’s just the way it has been laid out here makes me want to believe I’m hearing it for the first time.

      • IRON CLAD says:

        Dennie, with all due respect – not everyone listens to the talk shows, not everyone can read either(for what its worth).

  10. Anonymous says:

    One word… independence. Otherwise, we are unable to truly lead ourselves.

    Another thought – freedom can be wonderful, glorious and adventurous, but it can be just as scary, lonely and imprisoning as being dependent.

    Is Cayman really ready to cut the cord with the UK? Who would bail us out when our corrupt government runs the country into the ground? hmmm….

    • sandy says:

      One word… Free Association, become an Associated State.

      That makes more sense to me than to remain how we are by the delusional 15% Caymanians that voted us this way. We can become Independent, but we need a country to militarily protect us, and who will? 

      So… to me, to be an Associated State with the UK, would be our best option than for us to go Independence.

      Hmmm… If the UK is not willing to allow to become an Asscociated State – then what?

      • frank rizzo says:

        That’s six words, and I don’t think the UK will join us as an Associated State for free.

        Cayman: How much would it cost us to join up with you in Free Association?

        UK: How much ya got?

    • Anonymous says:

      "Who would bail us out when our corrupt government runs the country into the ground? hmmm…."

      Who will bail us out when the UK’s corrupt government runs the country into the ground? hmmm…

      Who is more CORRUPT?

      The UK and her bloody history or the Cayman Islands? hmmm…

      CASE CLOSE

      • Well says:

        From the short effective history of Cayman having any political power, I would certainly says Cayman.  UK national politics has relatively little by way of a history of corruption. 

        • Anonymous says:

          lol… what a naive and ignorant comment. you just don’t know ur history do you?

          • Too true says:

            Is a politics degree is not enough?  Since you obviously know all about this, give us a few concrete examples of cabinet ministers using powers of national governance in a corrupt manner in the last 25 years.

        • Too true says:

          Absolutely – when was the last time there was any evidence a cabinet minister was influenced as a result of corrupt practices in the UK? 

        • Anonymous says:

           

           
          So you are saying that Cayman’s politicians are more CORRUPT than the UK’s Members of Parliament??? That Caymanians need to be afraid so afraid of corruption here than in the UK???
           
          Well let’s see if what you are saying is TRUE…
          Worldwide Corruption Perceptions Ranking of Countries
          by Transparency International – http://www.tranperancy.org
          Ranking            Country
           
          1                      New Zealand
          2                      Denmark
          3                      Singapore
          3                      Sweden
          5                      Switzerland
          6                      Finland
          6                      Netherlands
          8                      Australia
          8                      Canada
          8                      Iceland
          11                    Norway
          12                    Hong Kong
          12                    Luxemburg
          14                    Germany
          14                    Ireland
          16                    Austria
          17                    Japan
          17                    United Kingdom
           
          Wow!!! Typical British so caught up with CORRUPTION elsewhere yet rated at 17 below Hong Kong and Australia, and failing to clean there own house :o)
           
          Not to mention the recent United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal triggered by the unauthorized publication in 2009 of expense claims made by members of the United Kingdom Parliament over several years. Read up on it – it will enlighten you! Did you ever hear of Cayman’s ministers in any scandal with this magnitude like that of the Members of Parliament? Over 100 ministers involved in the misuse of the people’s funds.
           
           
          Look at the list of ministers you are asking Caymanians to trust:
          Bob Ainsworth claimed nearly £6,000 for the redecoration of his designated second home
          Charlotte Atkins claimed more than £35,000 in renovations on her second home allowance including £20,000 for windows, £4,000 for the chimney, £9,000 for the bathroom and nearly £2,000 for the garden
          Vera Baird claimed the cost of Christmas tree decorations
          Celia Barlow used her second home allowance to spend more than £28,000 on stamp duty, legal costs and renovations despite telling the fees office that the property would become her main home
          Alan Beithclaimed £117,000 in second home allowances while his wife, Baroness Maddock, claimed £60,000 in House of Lords expenses for staying at the same address. He also used his office expenses to pay for his London secretary to spend a month in his constituency during the last general election campaign
          Sir Paul Beresford, who works up to three days a week as a dentist, designated his west London property, which includes his surgery, as his second home on his parliamentary allowances
          Ben Bradshawused his allowance to pay the mortgage interest on a flat he owned jointly with his boyfriend
          Malcolm Brucewas able to claim thousands of pounds towards the running of both his London flat and his constituency home.
          Chris Bryant (the former FCO Minister always on us about “WE SHOULD TAX”)changed second home twice in two years to claim £20,000
          Barry Gardiner made £198,500 profit from a flat funded and refurbished at taxpayers’ expense
          David Gauke claimed £10,248.32 in stamp duty and fees involved in the purchase of his second home in London
          Andrew Georgeused parliamentary expenses for a London flat used by his student daughter. He also claimed hundreds of pounds for hotel stays with his wife. He has said he will repay £20 for a hotel breakfast
          And the list goes on and on, and this is just 2009…
          I can’t see how you can come on this site and say that Cayman better not change its self-determination because it is too corrupt. HELLO!!!  No overseas territory is corrupt like the United Kingdom government. Wake-up!
           
           
           
           
           
  11. whodatis says:

    Good work Matthew.

    However, with the recent news of our Civil Service failing to execute their crucial task that just so happens to be of paramount importance to this country – I am a bit pessimistic towards our ability and desire for self-determination.

    The responsibility / accountability dodging enabling concepts of Jesus and the Queen seem to have really done a serious number on us as a collective.

    It really appears as though those in power and charged with the relevant duties are truly at a loss for what to do. It seems many of us do not quite appreciate the seriousness of our current situation.

    If this is in fact the case, and we prove incapable to grow a pair, then direct rule will be a very difficult development to argue against.

    Bottom line.

    (Regardless of how one looks at this situation – the buck stops with our elected representatives ofgovernment. Sort it out people!)

    • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

      Thank you for contributing.  It’s really up to the People, not the elected representatives of the People, because it is the Caymanian People who still possess a small degree of political power to decide our today as well as future.  We the People are the decision makers and we should be living up to that responsibility by instructing our representatives regarding our vision for today and the long term – not the other way around.

      Regrettably, through not paying attention, we have chosen in Section 33 of Britain’s instructions for the Cayman Islands (“Constitution”) to remain in the degrading position of subjects in a Colony with the illusion of a democracy.

      The disrespect by some for Human Rights in the Cayman Islands is deplorable.  Caymanians, we must have access to the necessary information… and courage to be involved in the political education and other processes.

      Without clearly defined rights we cannot clearly define, communicate or properly understand the wrongs we must together resist.

      • John says:

        I like that –

        "ILLUSION OF A DEMOCRACY"

        Cayman is sleeping with her comforts until the unpredictable FCO like the writer said, looking like a "lamb acts like a dragon"

  12. Anonymous says:

    This article raises some valid points regarding the relationship between the UK and Cayman. The reality is in many ways worse than this author points out and the options available to Caymanians fewer.

    Anyone interested might also wish to look at the UK’s Colonial Laws Validity Act which says that the UK politicians can legislate for the Cayman Islands even if the law is so unfair to Caymanians that it is "repugnant" to any concept of justice recognised by English law. This lawis still on the books in the UK and was the basis that the UK used to justify throwing the people of the Chagos Islands out of their homes and dumping them destitute in a foreign land.

    For anyone interested in seeing more about the reality facing Caymanians here is the decision of the UK’s House of Lords in relation to the Colonial Laws Validity Act:

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldjudgmt/jd081022/banc-1.htm

     

  13. Caymanian 2 da Bone says:

    Let me give you a clue why those paragraphs are present. The US constitution is based on independence, Cayman is not independent.

    Until Caymanians want independence the Governer will have the ultimate say.

    I find it funny that you see this now, when a year ago there was such a fuss about if the Gays could get married! shock horror. Maybe the Church were in on the deception by diverting everyones attention on to the Gays!

    Chagos island descion was devious and criminal. Turks was not, read the transcripts the T & C premier was as corrupt as they come. His fortune went from around 250,000 to 300,000,00o in the few years he was premier. He got rich off selling the peoples land and filled parliament with his cronies.

    The UK stepping in saved the T & C people from bankcruptcy and hell

    • Anonymous says:

      No no… that’s false, my friend. Independence is not our only option. If you did not read the article, you’ve had states under Free Association status or Protectorates.

      Independence is not our only option. I am surprise that you are a Caymanian to even speak like this. And the he was not saying that the Primier for the T & C was not corruption.

      Read again carefully – he was saying that they used CORRUPTION as an opportunity to do as they like without the people’s consent

  14. Mathew says:

    The purpose of this article composed, is to wake Caymanians up from their slumber – that we are still in charge of our self-determination, and like the Islands of Jamaica, Trinidad & Tobago, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Dominica, Grenada, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent, and Antigua who were once under her rule, we can shape our own destiny for the better.

    I was moved to bring this Constitutional issue up again, because of the FCO’s absolute disregard of Cayman’s taxpayers in their socall fight against "corruption" in the Cayman Islands.

    I was moved to bring it up again because some people actually to this day, don’t know what they voted for – they were so caught up following our politicians here.

    I was moved to bring it up again because we will see her actions, and will be reminded that it was us who passed this Constitution to our children’s children.

    So I was dissatisfied to end with "Wake up, Cayman!" Caymanians also need to see that "God is awake," and saw what we done to ourselves. Still it is not God’s purpose for overseas politicians to disregard the direct representation of any peoples. Still we went ahead and did this to ourselves!

    We have to continue speaking the truth despite the opposition from those who are still asleep. 

    • Oh yes! says:

      Can we try to become like Jamaica and Trinidad with their crime?  Or Trinidad and Antigua with their wonderful economies?  Or Antigua and Grenada with their corruption?  Oh can we see our standard of living plummet?  Can we? 

      And given the fact that this "government" was elected by about 15% of the population, I for one am glad that everything is overseen by London and we have some higher human rights protections.

      • Anonymous says:

        lol…

        My friend, since when Indepedence is link to Corruption?

        So the FEAR FACTOR is that every country that goes Independent or tries to change their self-determination for the better, is Corrupt?

        I can see you are so quite content with our flawed Constitution and the UK’s clearance to do whatever she likes with us

      • Anonymous says:

        I agree with you postings 300%.  Every time I see someone posting for independence, I wonder if our people are so blinded by the people who would like to further our downfall for their own devious purposes.  CAYMAN HAS NOTHING TO GO INDEPENDENT WITH.  Tourism and the tax-free status of the Cayman Islands are our only marketable product and with independence comes taxation triple to the little we now have.  That will kill the overseas investors and subsequently the tourism, because with the downward spiral comes even more criminal activity, afterall people still have to eat, sleep and be able to go in out of the rain.  If they are not working, what can they do except turn to crime.  The United Kingdom has kept us out of any outside battles and will continue to do so as long as we remember that the United Kingdom is still over us.

  15. Knal N. Domp says:

    I am your biggest fan and I know you girls are seriously busy, but good proofreading and some judicial editing is the polish on the car, the gleam on the diamonds and the hallmark of quality publishing. You don’t have to be a pitch-perfect David Legge, but at least do aspell check!! Don’t forget also that we are a British Overseas Territory- and that means that we speak and write the Queen’s English.

    favour, not favor

    embedded, not imbedded

    realised, not realized

    Turks & Caicos, not Turks & Cacaos

    CNS: No Knal, you have no idea how seriously busy we are or the difference between having time to properly proofread (or hiring someone to do it for you) and snatching a few seconds here and there to skim through the copy in search of serious snafus. There are a few people out there who frequently point out typos on the site (for which we are grateful) without the lecture (for which we are even more grateful).

    Yes, we are a BOT but the proximity of the US means that both US and UK spelling are generally acceptable here. My kids are taught both at school (government school, note), and thanks to Hallmark "mom" is pretty universal here as opposed to the UK version, even for those of us who are British. By the way, if you look carefully at Grand Cayman magazine you will see that David uses pitch-perfect American spelling and grammar.

    We at CNS use British spelling but we give those writing viewpoints licence (license) to use American spelling if they prefer. "Caicos" I’ll give you, but the rest I will leave as it is.

    Now, perhaps we can get back to discussing the Constitution.

    • ingluishh says:

      C’mon Knal, get over yourself. stay on topic. maybe you can join CIRA (Cayman Islands Reading Aides) and promote "the Queens english" through that more appropriate outlet/avenue.

    • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

      Knal, I prefer “favor” over “favour”.  I also prefer the United States Constitutional rights over the British so called “rights” as well. 🙂

    • M Ployer says:

      Here, here Knal!  If you want to work for me use UK spelling or get your "resume" together.  I do not want to waste my business time checking whether someone can spell "cheque" correctly.

    • pauly cicero says:

      Wouldn’t proofreading and editing be a task for the author?

    • Anonymous says:

      "…but good proofreading and some judicial editing is the polish on the car".

      Did you mean "judicious editing"?

  16. Anon says:

    I voted for the new constitution and I understood the points you raise. My opinion would be that a lot of the "Yea" voters also did. As we develop as a country it may well be that the next time our constitution is revised we will take the step you indicate to move to free association with the UK. However, for now, I for one am OK with the situation. We took some small steps out from under the UK shadow which is good. Large, quick steps may just lead us off a cliff before we realise it.

    I would just like to add that some of the "No" voters in the current Government appear to find things in the document that I do not, e.g. all of the excess pagentry which now seems to be "required" for the head officials. I cannot find these "requirements" anywhere.

  17. Anonymous says:

    Your article is very educating, but unfortunately one year late.

    Had I been enlightened as I am after reading your article I would never have given my vote for the constitution.

    Knowledgeable people like you serve no purpose to people like me unless you show me the horse before I open the gate.