District democracy dashed
(CNS): The government passed through its Advisory District Councils Bill (2010) by eight votes to five in the Legislative Assembly on Monday afternoon, paving the way for members of these new local bodies, which will advise MLAs, to be appointed by Cabinet as opposed to winning their place through a vote. The bill was opposed by the only independent member and the entire opposition bench after government refused to reconsider making them elected councils or bodies chosen by all the constituency MLAs, dashing hopes for district democracy. Despite the premier’s decision to have the bodies appointed, McKeeva Bush said the bill would improve public participation and set in train an “evolutionary change” between the governed and those who govern.
Bush spoke about democracy owing much to Christianity (despite the fact that it originated in ancient Greece before the birth of Christ) and said that while Cayman was not a theocracy it had drawn heavily on its Christian heritage and he hoped it would continue to do so. He did not say if this meant that the Governor in Cabinet (aka government) would be appointing members of the church to each of the district councils. He did say, however, that the creation of the councils was the start of new kind of representation which would “significantly enhance” the country’s system of governance.
“This promises a different quality of involvement by the public from anything we have seen before,” Bush told his legislative colleagues.
His enthusiasm for the councils, which will consist of ten members, all appointed by the Cabinet with the opposition leader allowed to recommend just two members, was not equalled on the opposition benches. Alden McLaughlin, who spoke against the bill, first said the councils were designed to be extensions of democracy and not a rubber stamp for government.
“Its objective was not to become a creature of government, bound to carry out government’s will. That was what it was seeking not to do,” said the George Town MLA, who added that government could essentially control every member of the committee.
He warned that the country would wind up with functionaries of government sitting in a constitutional role pushing government policy, which could not be an improvement on democracy. The George Town member said it was a tragedy that the Constitution was being used to introduce something as undemocratic as what was being proposed.
His colleague Arden McLean, who has a single member constituency in East End, agreed with McLaughlin and raised what he said was a very real concern for him that the councils would be used to steamroll his opposition to the East End seaport. He said government could load the East End district council with people who supported the port, despite the fact that his constituents who had voted for him were against it. In support of the principle of district councils, he said they should be elected in a town hall style meeting or at election time, otherwise the people would not have a real voice, he said.
“You think that government is going to pick someone in East End that supports me?” he asked rhetorically. “No. Let’s get real. They are going to pick people who support the cargo dock. This is the real world and if we don’t see it we have our heads in the sand.”
McLean stated that the proposal to appoint through Cabinet was undemocratic and that the democratic process was about much more than handing someone an appointment to a board. “The councils should be about empowering people and this isn’t empowering anyone,” he said.
The independent member from North Side submitted a full amendment to the government’s bill to make the councils elected. As the only MLA who already has a district council in his constituency of North Side, Ezzard Miller offered to give everyone a copy of the Constitution under which his district council was created so that it could be used as a model.
Miller said he was particularly opposed to government’s bill and proposal to appoint the councils as a result of the use of the word 'party' because, as an independent, under this law he wasn’t entitled to recommend anyone. Moreover, the fundamental difference between the North Side district council and that proposed by government was that the government councils would be appointed and controlled by the Governor in Cabinet and his was elected.
He said his own district council was elected “by the people, of the people and for the people” as all district councils should be under the law. Miller revealed how he consulted his council before and after every sitting and was guided by those locally elected people who, he said, as volunteers had done a fantastic job.
Concerned about how the agendas would be set by whom, he pointed out that the district councils should hold their MLAs accountable to the manifesto on which they were elected to serve and not what government policy now is.
“I can’t support this bill as is, so, as is my usual modus operandi, I shall offer my amendments to the bill,” Miller told his legislative colleagues, before he read out his proposed changes to turn the government’s intention to appoint the councils into an elected system. After making his case, Miller said he believed the country’s electorate was becoming more sophisticated. “We need to enable them and to show greater respect for the people’s participation,” he added.
The premier was not persuaded by anyone on the opposition benches, however, and said government had a right to put people on the local councils. Despite the fact that the North Side district council was elected, he criticized it as he said it was Miller’s supporters.
Bush insisted that the bill was a good law and saw nothing wrong in the appointment of the councils being dominated by Cabinet. Becoming quite angry with the opposition for suggesting that the government would be loading thecouncils with its supporters regarding the port in East End, he denied that government would be manipulating the membership. He said that he had always supported the idea of advisory district councils and pushed for it during his whole political career.
“They will say anything to try and sound credible,” Bush yelled at the opposite side of the house. “I know their shenanigans,” and he accused McLaughlin, who he said was “some kind of lawyer”, of twisting the language of the bill.
The premier said he did not believe the people wanted the councils to be elected as they were advisory bodies and not local government. He also indicated that this would enable other “good people” who may not be on the electoral list to offer advice to MLAs.
Category: Headline News
Appointed by the Premier to be bobble heads designated to move in only one direction — up and down as in "yes, Yes, YES"!
Welcome, Caymanians, to your new Rubber Stamp Democracy.
God Save the Great Leader for Life, Premier McKeeva!!
I personnaly think that this law is another jab at democracy in the Cayman Islands if there is any to begin with.Now what sense does it make to have cabinet chose persons not even necessary from that district advise the same cabinet. Oh! thanks for the one pastor per district from a church hopefully from that district The Leader of Opposision gets to choose 2 WOW! I am amazed at the boldness of all this but can’t say I am surprised any more. I have exercised my duty to vote now for 20 years or so, stayed out of politics and did what I was expected to do and be an ambassador for our Tourism, a good citizen, trusting our politicians. How blind can one be.We ALL have to pay attention and encourage and educate those who never voted before to excersise their right the next time around and by God let’s not forget. Call me blind and stupid but that is about to change. My grandchildren will one day ask the question. WHAT were they thinking? WHAT did you do about it? In the meantime unsolved murders,armed robberies.declining of morals and attitudes, intimidation and financial difficulties leading to unwarranted stress! Yes dear God help us reunite together for everyone’s sake. Michel Lemay
Mr. Chucky Clifford warned Cayman about McKeeva and the UDP and too many people did not listen.
Now as a people we must accept the government you voted for. It is said that "a country gets the government it deserves"……in other words the government you voted into office.
The big question is : Can we as a country survive 2 more years of this ???
I think not…..we must act now Cayman !!!
A 22 yr old Caymanian to the bone !
So what are you going to DO?
In all posts someone always remembers what the great Chucky said years ago….hmmmm…who would that be?? Lets guess…
I am baffled how many people look towards the Governor to do something. Haven’t you all learned any lessons from the Governor who came before him, and the one who was around before that? Have any of them done anything that could have gotten them in "hot water"?
The Governor is just here to collect a salary and hold another position to be later added to his resume. He is not going to make his life any harder than what it should be as he soon will be moving on again.
Stop looking to otherpeople to fix the mess you all have created. If you want a change, I suggest that the people who have the right to vote stick their heads together and figure out how to strip certain people off their powers. I am afraid this will take some research, planning, legal consultation and a lot of cash – but NOBODY is going to do it for you!
This "mess" was created because the people of Cayman lack what is needed to keep their leadership in line the same way all the many well payed accountants lack any meaningfull skills at record keeping. Its like building a car that only goes backwards. The only way this gets fixed is by letting it kill itself and start over. The Caymanian way of Government was never going to work forever. There is now way that they(CIG) will ever be able to pay off the dept they have created and still keep stealing the money needed to feed itself.
Here we are in a new year but folks things have not and will not change until our Premier stops strangling every effort being made to keep Democracy alive in the cayman Islands.The district councils being proposed are another fine example of "here we go again"Our Premier has already gone public with the fact that he did not vote for our new Constitution and it goes to show you that he does not want to go along with any part of it either.If memory serves me correctly in his New Years address to the islands did he not say that we should all work together for the betterment of Cayman?Mr.Premier is this your idea of working together?I hope that you will start to show a bit more tolerance of your fellow members of the House and start to lead by example for a change and put whats best for these islands FIRST!!!
People, sorry to burst your fantasy bubble!
I think the first order of business would be to grant the local populace a right to have a vote of no confidence in the Police Commissioner
‘…..deserving the same rights and freedoms as those in the United Kingdom…’
What rights and freedoms do you not have? You also have the right to a British Passport…?
If you are Caymanian, do you have the right to select your Governor? Do you have the right to draft your own Constitution without UK interference? Do you have the right to make laws contrary to the Mother country? Do you have the right to vote on major issues on whether to have the death penalty, homosexuality taught in schools, bearing arms for one’s self-defense, et cetera…? Do you have the right to have your own Commissioner of Police? Do you have the prevelege of not being afraid of the UK declaring full british rule upon you, dissolving your legislature and undermining your elected cabinet?
Don’t be so naive!
"If you are Caymanian, do you have the right to select your Governor ….etc,etc "?
No, but you do have the right to declare independence if you think you’ve got such a bad deal.
You also have the right to self determination and the right to go it alone.
Well stop moaning, go independent and sink like a stone.
Naive? How do you figure that?
Moan, moan, moan….sit on butt and do nothing but moan. Independence is there if you want it or get your British passport and go live in UK and you will have everything you mentioned above…….
‘Do you have the prevelege of not being afraid of the UK declaring full british rule upon you, dissolving your legislature and undermining your elected cabinet?’
Why are you afraid? Not happy with your elected cabinet? Then do something to make the cabinet accountable to those who elected it and stop sitting aroud and moaning and groaning.
Why don’t you go to Haiti to do some voluntary work as you appear to have too much time on your hands for complaining.
You also have the right to determine your own destiny and not be spoon fed any longer.
Ideally, I believe that should be sooner rather than later.
It was a tragic day and an awful twist of fate, to win an election… and then become Premier. Always somewhat of a religious zealot, and arrogant when Leader of Government Business, he has become unbearable in his self-righteousness, as he foists HIS definition of democracy on Cayman. This is just another example of Bush’s "I love democracy—-except for."
This will not stop here. This, I’m afraid, is only the beginning.
"Always two there are, no more, no less: a master and an apprentice." — Yoda
If you would only follow the code, you would be on the council.
We call upon The Governor not to sign this Bill.
It does not reflect the intention of The Constitution.
who’s we? i support it…i can never get a hold of the ministers!
don’t miss the forest for the trees…
I also call upon H.E. Governor not to sign this Bill.
Dennie Warren Jr.
345-926-0716
It is amazing to me still that despite all that Bush has done for himself and all he has not done for Cayman and everyone not on his payroll that anyone would expect anything else from him. Caymanians have gotten exactly what they wanted and voted for. And if you think you got it bad now just wait every 80 days and see where Cayman is headed. Is it just me or is takeing responsibility for yourself just not an option here?
Irrespective of how these Councils are appointed, the whole concept is a sham at best, indicative of the age old Cayman problem of needing ten people to do the work of one.
"let the people of these islands decide or at the very least have some say in who should represent us on these district councils and stop the obvious cronyism that is going to shut up a few".
I agree, let ALL of the people of these islands decide – give the expats a voice. You don’t have to listen to their voice, but at least let them have their say.
Good luck finding more than 10 other persons willing to stand up and be counted among the CIGs enemies that are not ex-pats. Cayman is already ruled by a dictator and there is no going back. Not without a show of intelligent force from the people of Cayman. Maybe in 80 years?
All is not lost yet! There are still a few tools that scares the hell out of polictians in Cayman. e.g. one man one vote scenario where everyone voter has the opportunity to vote in each district would make many of our elected folk mess in their pants.
As our Democratic rights were being robbed, so apparently was Gino’s Pizza.
There is no democracy in appointed cronie councils. This district council will hold the MLA’s accountable? Are we so foolish as to believe this. The council in West Bay will go no where. Once again a sound bite and lip service from Mr. Bush. Do you all believe this?
I myself have been kind of supportive to the UDP because I am personally all for development and moving the island into the future. But I have to say this is wrong. District councils should be elected by the people who they represent. But to tell you the truth, I am not at all surprised because that what leaders do, they do everything they can to stay in charge, I’m sure that if the PPM is in charge after the next election they will fill the Council with PPM supporters just as I’m sure the UDP will do now.
It’s just the nature of Politics….As I’ve said in the past Politicians are Politicians no matter what the party, they all have the same agenda which is the success of their party and to stay in charge..
Give credit where it is due. The PPM for all their faults have never shown themselves to behave in such a way. They have never been dictatorial or to appoint persons to committees simply to do as they say. Unfortunately that is what passes for leadership in Cayman these days.
As these councils are to be appointed, and not elected, is there any legal prohibition of expats serving on them?
Great point! I am an ex-pat and a pirate so I am qualified to be another well payed yes man on the CIGs payroll. I have no morals to speak of and think bush is the best Pirate King to come along in 100 years. I can be reached at iamnotapirate.com and will work for whatever I can steal so I should fit right in.
I wish the people that voted yes for the new constitution would have read it first.
Once again the Constitution is used as an excuse for the Premier’s ability to misuse his powers! If the Constitution were not in place he would be even more (if possible) draconian in his authority.
It is well that we do not have a military force otherwise he would have it run by his supporters so that like some African despots we would never be able to remove him from power.
His actions are becoming so like Mugabe’s I would not be surprised if he starts seizing property to give "back" to his supporters!
" Despite the fact that the North Side district council was elected, he criticized it as he said it was Miller’s supporters."
There is the crux of the matter. Mac isn’t concerned about all of Cayman, he is concerned only with those who pledge their support.
Surely you don’t think you can choose who you want to represent you. McKeeva knows what is best for you. He will just tell you what to do and stuff the district councils with folks who will make sure you do it.
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain." The Wizard of Oz
another blow for democracy in cayman….governor where are you?
These district counsels should have been appointed by an election from the registered voters in each district.
I cannot believe that this is another one of the Premier’s moves to secure his candidacy once again in the next general elections.
We all know that the entire board of these persons for each district will be filled with UDP supporters and if an odd independant one is thrown in the mix it is only to save face, but will no doubt be outnumbered when decisions times come around.
The Premier has flown over the coop and someone better do something, I have to agree with many on this blog, the Governor is so silent I have to wonder if we do have one? We see him now and then, but it’s as if he has a muzzle on his mouth.
We are so screwed it’s pathetic.
Caymanians, if you want to stop this you have to raise your voices at all levels, failure to speak and be seen is going to end your future.
The amount of Caymanians I know leaving this country shows that they are seeking a better life and it certainly isn’t here any longer.
But when you really look at the big picture that is what the Premier wants, he would like to see a mass movement of his people out of the country that they love so he can really turn this into what he wants and that’s a dictatorship.
I find this really funny…can you imagine a UDP elected council in North Side telling Ezzard what he MUST bring to NS and SAY in the house??? Or a PPM dominated council in West Bay telling Premier what they need and what he should say? I know…”democracy dashed!”
Clearly these councils must be aligned with the government of the day and also dissolve with any government change. Waste of time & money otherwise. The only reason we are even having this debate is because it is “mid-term” and the economy is poor. What would happen if you had a popular government and disgruntled councils? What would get done?
Arden worried that the people of East End might support the dock and TELL him do so in LA proves my point above. Simple fact, these are not General ELECTIONS, these are support councils to assist the MLAs know what is going on in their districts–basically a waste of time and money for a constituency of 450 people, or even in an area of 3 or 4,000 people. Clearly a model from the UK where someone typically represents 100,000 or more and would have no way of knowing what was going on or the local needs.
Heard Ezzard say he had 40 people in North Side ‘elect’ the council there….hmmm…big majority decision.
Government by District Councils…do not think so. Government by elected MLAs with accountability at the polls.
In reality if a district council is voted in by the people of the district you should get supporters of the current elected member. This SHOULD happen due to him winning the popular vote meaning he has mass support.
Where this might not happen is if the vote was tight and then many of the elected member supporters did not show up to vote.
I still believe it is the best way to be done.
HOWEVER, this is not to say they always like what he is doing.
I see this as Big Mac’s way of control.
Which is why I said "The only reason we are even having this debate is because it is "mid-term" and the economy is poor"…. Right after an election the councils would likely match the election result, and thus should mirror the government of the day.
We need to think this through carefully not with this UDP/PPM slant…what was Alden and Kurt thinking when they wrote this into the constitution? They should say.
What of the independent members? if they win a seat (such as Ezzard) they could easily be out voted in a district "democratically" by a party apparatus at the council level. Then what? and so what?
Do these councils really matter as all the LEGAL decisions are done in the LA anyway.
If the councils are voted from each district without Government intervention, so what? they do not impact the decision making process.
Not sure what the fuss is here other than anti-UDP or anti-PPM rhetoric.
This is really not about democracy…that occurs every four years legally.
Who says that a hypothetical candidate for the councils (moot point since they won’t be elected until the UDP passes from power and this law can be amended) would represent any party? The council is meant to be comprised of individuals who that particular district choose to represent their particular community, not to lead the country, but to be their voice to gov’t at large. Personally I would be loathe to hypothetically elect any candidate leaning too much toward either party, but rather would hope for someone solely dedicated to looking out for my needs as a member of X district.
There are tons of Caymanians out there who care more for their community, and would therefore be perfect for this type of position, than political power. Think of all the people we all want to run for gov’t, but they don’t do it because it means playing by the current rules to win (ie handing out Christmas dinners, turtle meat, fill, cash and paying mortgages to buy votes). This was meant to be the opportunity for those sensible members of society to speak out for what is right for their neighbors – health, safety and the opportunity to succeed.
But as I prefaced this comment, it’s moot because with the current manifestation the councils are to take on, they will simply be a waste of time by appointing political lackeys who want a bit of political spotlight and experience to perhaps one day run for the LA to continue the current failed system.
How can there be true Democracy in Cayman if the members of these new local bodies, which will advise MLAs, are to be appointed by Cabinet as opposed to winning their place through a vote.
Isn’t it very obvious that the Cabinet will appoint persons who they want that will only advise the MLAs with what they are told to advise them about from the Cabinet. In other words, the Cabinet will tell the Advisory District Councils what they MUST advise the MLAs on and if they don’t, they will be replaced.
Is this Democracy?
Well, when we have a Dictator as Premier, I suppose this is just "par for the course"!
People, we have to put an end to this Dictatorial way of Governing Cayman before its too late and we are another Venezuela!
How can there be true democracy in Cayman when the majority of the people living here (either unregistered to vote or uneligible to vote) have no voice in the government? Those who are not registered to vote have made their choice, but what about those who are excluded by law due to their country of origin? They may not have legal citizenship, but certainly they have a stake in this country. A government elected by fifteen thousand out of a population of fifty thousand is NOT a democracy. South Africa had a similar system for many years. Nelson Mandela won the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to abolish that system, and now he is considered one of the great leaders in history. Whould anyone here consider a Caymanian leader who tried to change our system great? I certainly doubt it.
Nelson Mandela did not in the nobel peace prize for giving foreigners citizenship.
He also didn’t dis-enfranchise the white minority once he became President of South Africa. He worked very hard to ensure that all South Africans had a say in their government.
Yup ‘all South Africans’
Please tell me what country in the world allows NON citizens to vote? Let’s take the US for example – it awards green cards (permanent residence) to people who qualify and they too have a stake in the welfare of the country as they pay taxes, however, they are precluded from voting in Federal and State elections.
South Africa and Mandela worked for a vote for indigenous South African’s that were precluded from voting based on apartheid. Yes, Cayman is in a unique situation because there are more expats than citizens but the laws of every country that I know of (I admit I am not an expert on all) allows only for CITIZENS to vote, however that citizenship was obtained.
Having a stake (whether financial or otherwise) in a country does not equal the right to vote in that country. Earn citizenship and then you have the right to influence the governmental policies.
"Earn citizenship and then you have the right to influence the governmental policies"
Kinda hard to earn citizenship when the Immagration Dept. keeps "losing" my paperwork.
"Please tell me what country in the world allows NON citizens to vote?" OK – the UK.
So Mr Alan Nivia you are saying that a non citizen can vote for your new prime minister in the UK?
If you are going to ask questions like that, it might help if you (a) ask the right question and (b) know the answer first.
The Prime Minister isn’t directly elected. Neither is the Premier of the Cayman Islands. Nor, for what it’s worth, is the President of the USA. Anyway, look at this page to see who can vote in British elections:
http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/who_can_register_to_vote.aspx
If you are a Commonwealth citizen or Irish, "yes". Although of course the term "vote for a prime minister" does not make sense in the context of UK elections since the voting there is for parliamentary constituency candidates.
As has been pointed out before, the denial of the right to vote for resident British citizens and resident BOT citizens in Cayman is almost certainly illegal.
At the sub-national and supra-national level, resident EU citizens also get the right to vote.
"As has been pointed out before, the denial of the right to vote for resident British citizens and resident BOT citizens in Cayman is almost certainly illegal".
Then the denial of the right to Caymanians and other BOTCs to vote in UK national elections must also be illegal.
There are ways to influence governmental policies other than voting.
I agree, non-citizens should not be allowed to vote. But the continued wholesale exclusion of the majority of residents on these islands from having ANY input into the processes of dealing with community issues will seal your doom.
"Please tell me what country in the world allows NON citizens to vote"?
Check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_foreigners_to_vote
So some non citizens are allowed to vote but they must be of a certain nationality. European countries allow citizens from other EU countries to vote. But the list of who can vote in terms of non citizens is very restricted.
So which nationality should we allow to vote?
Should we also look into the fact that the examples are of much larger countries that can afford extra people.
The EU is more like a super state, or is moving that way. People are thinking in older terms when they say they allow non-citizens to vote. They’re EU citizens from the state of the UK, like people from Florida are citizens of the US.
"Let’s take the US for example – it awards green cards (permanent residence) to people who qualify and they too have a stake in the welfare of the country"
So, you admit that expats have a stake in the welfare of this country, yet you would deny them their right to have a voice. You seem to be a victim of the same irrational paranoia that afflicts the anti-immigrant bigots in the U.S. – that by granting rights to others, you will somehow lose those rights yourself.
You are truly a simpleton. It is self-evident that anyone who resides in Cayman has a "stake" here, and it is also self-evident that that cannot be the basis for the right to vote. It is not the basis for that right anywhere in the world and merely some mindset of "anti-immigrant bigots" as you suggest.
Obviously, granting the right to vote masses of others does dilute your vote. There is nothing irrational or paranoid about it. It is a simple fact.
"Obviously, granting the right to vote masses of others does dilute your vote. There is nothing irrational or paranoid about it. It is a simple fact"
And should only be of concern to you if your political mindset is so completely backwards as to be rejected by the vast overwelming majority of sensible people, or if your name is Sarah Palin. Nope, nothing irrational or paranoid about it.
You seemed to be obsessed with U.S. domestic politics. The vast majority of countries in the world reflect our position – that the right to vote should be reserved to citizens. Clearly, you would like to the right to vote because you wish to influence the country’s policies in your interest. Likewise we wish to influence our country’s policies in our interest. Obviously, those respective interests may conflict. There is nothing "paranoid" or "irrational" at all about our position. These appear to be words that you throw around when you disagree with someone but you cannot support your position with coherent reasoning. That is backward.
"There is nothing "paranoid" or "irrational" at all about our position"
What is paranoid and irrational is the assumption that there is a conflict of interests here. Of course, we can’t agree on every issue all of the time, but I would respectfully submit to you that we probably see eye to eye more often than not. On those occasions when there is disagreement, the solution is resonable dialog, not argument. I do not seek to further my interests at the expense of yours. Can you say the same?
I would like to believe that but one only need need the expat versus Caymanian posts on CNS to discover that that is an idealistic fantasy.
Then I must be an idealist and a simpleton because I don’t believe everything has to be Caymanian vs. expat. We share a love for these islands, that is why we both call Cayman home. There isn’t any reason we can’t work together for the common good.
I wish there were more of you, but you are clearly in the minority amongst expats.
Your comments are ridiculous. They have been satisfactorily answered here on CNS a number of times and yet you continue to post them as if they have some merit.
A fairly typical narrow-referenced response one often sees on CNS. You just keep that self-justification rolling on . . .
As far as ECHR compliance goes, the limits on the right to stand in elections are certainly non-compliant. The limits on right to vote are much more likely than not to be non-complaint. Citing non-convention states such as the US or Canada broadly shows how out of touch with legal reality your arguments are.
Which means?
Rubbish.
1. The limits on standing for elections (that you must not be a citizen of any other country) are fairly common. The European court grants countries a large margin of appreciation under Article 3 of Protocol 1 and it assesses cases in the light of the political evolution of the country concerned. While the European Convention on Nationality prohibits discrimination against dual citizens the UK is not a party to that Convention.
2. The limitation of the right to vote to citizens is found in many other countries who have signed the ECHR, e.g. France, Denmark, Sweden. An EU citizen who is resident in the UK is not entitled to vote in UK national elections (although he will be entitled to vote in local elections). The UK does allow Commonwealth citizens and Irish citizens to vote in parliamentary elections but that simply reflects a gesture from the days of the Empire rather than any human right.
I mentioned the U.S. and Canada because we are more familiar with those jurisdictions and because they are signatories to the ICCPR which has a similar right to vote as the ECHR.
You are simply making empty assertions.
But your argument is predicated on Cayman being a sovereign/contracting entity. It isn’t. It is a sub-national region. As a matter of convention law there is no such concept as a "citizen of the CaymanIslands". The issue would be why UK citizens are being denied the right to vote to sub-national municipal elections in the UK contracting region. And on that argument the balance would be against the status quo. You are simply ignoring the fact that as a matter of law there is no such nationality as Cayman (so says the Privy Council).
You are confusing two separate concepts: "citizenship" and "nationality". British Citizens and BOTCs all have British nationality but we have separate citizenships. For example, British Citizenship gives right of abode in the UK but BOTCship does not. The UK specifically designed it that way. It is hypocritical to be trying to argue that we are all the same when the shoe is onthe other foot. Perhaps someone should have cited the British Nationality Act to the Privy Council since it took no account of it in its decision.
If your analysis is correct wouldn’t the corollary be that the human rights of Caymanians are being infringed since as citizens of a contracting state residing in a "municipality" of that contracting state they are being denied the right to vote in the national elections of the contracting state?
Yes they are – but you would not want to argue that legitimate point (which would let you vote in Westminster elections) simply because it would carry with it inevitable alterations in the franchise in Cayman. I am with you on this one.
Two wrongs do not make a right – if you pardon the pun.
That is not actually my view at all. I said it only to point out that your argument is not feasible. Your whole argument depends upon Cayman being a municipality of the UK, and Cayman is not a municipality of the UK. It is a separate territory for the purposes of Article 3 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention and "the people" and "the legislature" in Article 3 of Protocol 1 must refer to the people and legislature of the relevant territory. The European court allows a wide margin of appreciation in the application of this Article and it is entirely feasible for "the people" of this territory to refer to those who are BOTCs by virtue of their connection with Cayman and have Caymanian status. (The decision of the Privy Council in Thompson v. The Bermuda Dental Board is irrelevant for this purpose.) The legislature in this case is the Legislative Assembly.
Article 3 of Protocol 1 states as follows:
"The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature".
Article 5(4) states as follows: The territory of any State to which this Protocol applies by virtue of the ratification or acceptance by that State, and each territory to which this Protocol is applied by virtue of a declaration by that State under this article, shall be treated as separate territories for the purpose of the references in Articles 2 and 3 to the territory of a State.
"My wife’s country of origin is not Cayman and she votes. Having "a stake in this country" is not what entitles one to vote anywhere in the world."
And what if your wife wanted to stand in the election after living here for 25 years? Where are her rights then?
Non-point. If she wished to stand for office she would be required to renounce any other citizenship she may have in the same way as I would.
"If you wish to demonstrate the long term commitment to these Islands then become naturalised and then obtain Caymanian status"
Gee, I like to become naturalised and obtain Caymanian Status, but there’s this little issue with the roll over…..
That is what rollover was designed to do.
"That is what rollover was designed to do"
So, how am I to demonstrate a long term commitment to these islands then? It’s a real "Catch-22". But I suppose that was the intention, wasn’t it?
If suffrage was ever granted to non citizens, do you think McKeeva, Ezzard and the rest of that lot currently in the LA could ever get elected? Of course not. Maybe we should let expats vote……
…..in order to "temper the skulduggery".
We don’t know who would get elected. Be careful what you wish for. Whoever they elected would be likely to act in the interests of expats, not Caymanians.
"Whoever they elected would be likely to act in the interests of expats, not Caymanians"
You assume too much.
Thatwould be a fair assumption. People will elect people who will further their own interests. One poster has already made it clear that he considers Caymanians his inferiors. Nuff said.
"One poster has already made it clear that he considers Caymanians his inferiors"
I believe that the poster in question implied that a previous poster had a fear of their own inferority, not that Caymanians were inferior.
Of course we all act in what we feel to be our own best interests. That is only natural. Why do you assume that we do not have have mutal interests in the welfare of these islands and all who call them home?
"I believe that the poster in question implied that a previous poster had a fear of their own inferority, not that Caymanians were inferior".
Nice attempt at spin. Here is the actual quote: "You are afraid of expats because in the end, you know that you are inferior". Obviously the poster knows nothing about me except that I am Caymanian and so to make a statement that I "know" that I am inferior must mean that he/she automatically considers that Caymanians are inferior. Well, I am not inferior. I am highly educated and perform well relative to my expat counterparts.
Then the poster tried to cover up by suggesting that it was because expats (as a whole) have superior experience, education etc. Like Caymanians, expats cover the full range in terms of education, experience and competence.
We do have common interests, but judging by the anti-Caymanian comments on CNS those are few.
"We do have common interests, but judging by the anti-Caymanian comments on CNS those are few"
What about the anti-expat comments, don’t forget those! As the old adage goes, it takes two to Tango. Clearly, you are highly educated, so why are you trying to sidetrack the real issue here: should everyone who calls these islands home have some voice in their governance? Mind you, we are talking about appointment to a district council, not to actual voting rights in any election. As a previous poster stated, "give the ex-pats a voice, you don’t have to listen to them, but at least let them have their say". Would that really be so bad?
No, actually you misunderstand. I am absolutely in favour of expats being represented on such councils. While the district councils were the subject of the article that was not the point of the post to which I was responding.
"No, actually you misunderstand. I am absolutely in favour of expats being represented on such councils"
Yes, it is an easy thing to misunderstand some of these comments. I guess we do agree on some things after all! Maybe it’s just a question of learning to trust each other. Difficult, but hopefully not impossible.
"Whoever they elected would be likely to act in the interests of expats, not Caymanians"
Because the Premier we have now is really looking out for Caymanians, right?
After all that rambling, what exactly is your justification for denying non-citizens their right to have a voice. You sound like a certain politician from North Side….
Rambling? That was an articulate, reasoned response. Clearly, you are unable to muster and articulate, reasoned rebuttal.
"Clearly, you are unable to muster and articulate, reasoned rebuttal".
Maybe, but I still don’t see the justification for denying people the right to have a voice in a government that has any control over their lives and liberty. Everyone who resides on these islands deserves some form of representation. It is a basic human right and it is only fair. I guess that’s the difference between you and I. You are afraid of expats because in the end, you know that you are inferior.
"You are afraid of expats because in the end, you know that you are inferior".
Aha!!! I figured that if pressed sooner or later one of you would blurt out what you are really thinking! You have unwittingly given the clearest explanation why expats should never be given the right to vote – they consider Caymanians to be their inferiors.
The difference between you and me is that you are a racist.
There is no basic human right for a non-citizen to vote in someone else’s country. If you want to vote send a postal ballot back to your own country. In the meanwhile, if we had even a glimmer of an inclination to support any extension in the right to vote you have surely dashed that.
"you know that you are inferior".
That poster does not speak for me.
"they consider Caymanians to be their inferiors".
Once again I read statements on CNS about myself, as an ex-pat, that simply are not true. As Caymanians are different with different backgrounds, views and motivations, so are expats. I endeavor to treat everyone with respect and I would request that you do the same.
"You are afraid of expats because in the end, you know that you are inferior"
Poor choice of words. Perhaps this would be more accurate:
You are afraid of expats because in the end, they are better educated and have a more diverse experience of the world outside of Cayman.
I think the more he/she repeats it, the more he/she hopes it’ll be perceived to be true.
Ezzard, I have disagreed with you on other things. But it seems like you are the most sensible one in the House. All members of UDP are quiet! Alden is quite, Arden is quite, PPM seems to be quiet (at least for now)! As an Independant member of the LA, please stand up for Democracy – Stand up for your people!
Did you actually read the article? It recorded forceful statements by both Arden and Alden on this issue. How can you say they are quiet?
Hahahah! Mckeeva talking about public participation?
Will someone please state who are the district council members for the district of Savannah/Bodden Town.
Family affair
Hands up!! can I answer you 08:13. Ok, lets put it this way in parables and see if anyone can guess the answer. Riddle: The Bird Cage. Campaign manager is Head district council here in Savannah, Wife and mother in law managers secretary and assistant deputy. Cousins members. Sister running district council office. Is that democracy or is it "We are family, all my sisters and me" Bird Cage .LOL.