Guest Writer

National Conservation Law – never this version

Most jurisdictions in North America have an environmental protection law to protect the natural environment from the overzealous activities of man. Such a law, including the National Conservation Law proposed for the Cayman Islands, in order to be enacted, has to pass a number of tests: parliamentary democracy, affordability, economic growth, and reasonableness. 

Unfortunately, in my opinion, the proposed conservation law, for the reasons which follow, fails all of these tests.

Parliamentary democracy:

In a Parliamentary democracy such as ours, a Minister of the Crown has responsibility over a subject area, such as the environment, and is accountable to the Crown and the Legislative Assembly for the performance of those duties which accompany that responsibility. In the Environmental Protection Law of the Province of Ontario (Ontario Law), as an example, the responsibility for the environment and the duties and powers which go along with that responsibility reside with the Minister of the Environment for Ontario. Section 4(1) of the Ontario Law states, in part, the following: “The Minister, for the purposes of administration and enforcement of this Act and the regulations, may …” Under the Ontario Law, the Minister of Environment may delegate the performance of any his powers to a Director; however, his duties and the ultimate responsibility for administration and enforcement of the Law cannot be delegated.

Director of Environment: Section 5(1)(a) of the proposed Conservation Law states that the Director of the Department of Environment shall “administer and enforce the provisions of this Law”. This cannot be, as it violates our system of Parliamentary democracy. It is the Minister of the Environment for the Cayman Islands who must be responsible and accountable for the protection of the environment and the performance of the powers and duties which are stated in the proposed Conservation Law. Unfortunately, the Minister of the Environment is not even mentioned in the proposed Conservation Law.

National Conservation Council: The comment made above with respect to the Director of Environment also applies to the proposed National Conservation Council. This proposed Council, to be made up of 11 voting members (5 public officers and 6 civilians, with 5 to be appointed by the Cabinet and the other by the National Trust), would have power to: (a) approve “management plans” for protected areas; (b) approve “conservation plans” for protected and other species; (c) grant a permit to a person exempting him from the provisions of the Conservation Law; (d) requiring environmental assessments; and (e) refuse to agree to a proposed action where the latter would be likely to have an adverse effect on a “protected area” or on the “critical habitat” of a “protected species”.

One wonders to whom the proposed Council is accountable for the performance of its duties and the exercise of its powers. The proposed Conservation Law does not answer this question. Without accountability to the Minister of Environment, the system will not work as it will lead to an abuse of power by the unaccountable Council and/or unsatisfactory performance (deadlock). There is a saying that a camel is a horse invented by a committee; this applies to the proposed Council. Quite apart from the accountability aspect, given its membership of 11 and the makeup of that membership, the powers and duties given to the proposed Council are so numerous and broad that, as a practical matter, it will be unable to function effectively, even if given the funds and people to do so, which, in the current economic environment, is unlikely at best. 

Affordability:

Affordability has two aspects: (a) the cost of the administrative machinery established by the proposed Conservation Law to administer and enforce its provisions; and (b) the cost of the opportunities lost to the Islands, and its government, to receive money from activities which will be caught by such administrative machinery while the Director of Environment, the proposed Council, land owners, developers, the Cabinet and the Grand Court wrestle with the challenges created by “protected areas”, “buffer zones”, “protected species” (225 and counting),  “species” which may be threatened, the “critical habitats” of “protectedspecies” and “species” which may be threatened, “permits”, “licences”, “management plans”, “conservation plans” (one for each “protected species”) and the draconian penalty of CI $ 500,000 for the commission of an offence (every offence is said to be one of strict liability; that is, the words “knowingly” and “intentionally” are irrelevant to the commission of the offence).

If the two costs referred to above have been quantified, the amount should be revealed to the public. If unknown, in the current economic climate, the Islands cannot afford to establish an administrative machinery, with unknown costs, in the proposed Conservation Law.

Economic growth:

Given the current perilous state of the Cayman Islands economy, what the Islands need is economic growth and not inhibition of that growth. Given (a) the broad scope of the proposed Conservation Law; (b) the lack of a role for the Ministerof Environment; (c) the powers given to and duties imposed on the proposed Council (given its membership structure), even if such a body is assumed to be in line with our principles of Parliamentary democracy; (d) the draconian penalty of CI $500,000 for a strict liability “offence” which  probably will inhibit or paralyze decision-making by “entities” and “public officers” who, pursuant to section 35(4) of the proposed Conservation Law must consult with and obtain the approval of the proposed Council before making almost any decision (I find the wording of the proposed section 35(4) frightening and capable of prohibiting all future development: “Every entity and public officer shall, in accordance with any directives made by the Council, consult with the Council and take into account any views of the Council before taking any action including the making of any decision or the giving of any undertaking or approval that would or would be likely to have an adverse effect on the environment generally or on any natural resource.”); and (e) the ability of any person or organization anywhere in the world: (i) to propose to the Council that an area of land, whether Crown land or private land, be designated as a “protected area”; and (ii) to petition that a “species” be added to the list of “protected species” (already at 225 and each having a “critical habitat”), the inexorable conclusion is that future economic growth will be inhibited by the proposed Conservation Law and that private enterprise will be further shackled.

Reasonableness:

It does not seem reasonable to me that we would: (a) ignore the principles of Parliamentary democracy; (b) bring into force the proposed Conservation Law without any idea of what the machinery to administer and enforce it will cost and without any idea of the cost of the money which will be foregone by the Islands and its Government as a result of the implementation of the proposed Law; and (c) ignore the need for further economic growth leading to jobs for Caymanians. It does not seem reasonable to me that we could ever believe that giving powers and duties to an unaccountable proposed Council (never mind funds and people to do the job), could work in the real world.

Conclusion:

Despite all of the above, Cayman needs a law to protect the environment, including wildlife. Such a law, however, must pass the tests of parliamentary democracy, affordability, economic growth and reasonableness. The current proposed Conservation Law is not the law we need, not now, not ever. We need to go back to the drawing board and start again. 

The Department of Environment's detailed response

Continue Reading

Environmental Charter has force of law

Following the historic day on which the Bill of Rights became effective, it is worth reminding the country, and our legislators in particular, that the protection of the environment provided for in paragraph 18 of the Bill is already meant to be safeguarded by the commitments made by the government in the name of the people of these Islands in the Environmental Charter – Cayman Islands, signed by McKeeva Bush on 26 September 2001.

Lest Mr Bush, or anyone else, presume that the Charter is merely a list of  nice intentions which can be conveniently ignored, the findings of the Bermuda Ombudsman in her report, Today's Choices – Tomorrow's Costs, Systemic Investigation into the Process and Scope of Analysis for Special Development Orders, February 2012 and the follow-up Special Report of 1 June 2012 (both available at www.ombudsman.bm) should leave no one in any doubt that the Cayman Islands Environmental Charter has the force of law. 

Along with a number of other Overseas Territories, the Cayman Islands and Bermuda each entered into its own Environmental Charter with the UK in 2001. The charters are identical except for minor punctuation. The Bermuda Ombudsman's role is similar to that of our Complaints Commissioner. Like the Complaints Commissioner, the Ombudsman is authorised to launch investigations on her own motion in the public interest.

In her report into the conduct of the approval process for the Tucker Bay Development the Bermuda Ombudsman concluded that Bermuda is obliged to conduct Environmental Impact Assessments prior to approval in principle for development proposals that are major or likely to have adverseeffect on the environment.

She says: "This obligation is established by Bermuda's signature in 2001 to the UK Environmental Charter" and further, that the obligations arising out of the Charter are not discretionary. "The UK Charter is more than just a statement of good intentions. There is no enforcement mechanism, however, like the Tax Information Exchange Agreements [of] recent years, our signature on the UK Environmental Charter has the force of law. Our word must be our bond."

The Ombudsman did not reach this conclusion lightly but only after having examined the relevant principles of international law, common law laid down by the Privy Council and the UK courts that, though not binding, is persuasive in the Cayman Islands as it is in Bermuda, international best practices and standards for public consultation and data gathering and analysis and having consulted widely within and without Bermuda.

As a matter of law, international agreements are legally binding when they are (i) signed in writing, with specific commitments; (ii) entered into without coercion or duress; and (iii) there is no express written provision that the signatories do not intend to be bound. The agreement need not include enforcement mechanisms for non-compliance. As the Ombudsman said, "In such cases, the primary sanction for non-compliance is the risk to the reputations of signatory governments."

A reading of the detailed reports leads to the inevitable conclusion that the Ombudsman's statement that “Our signature [of the Charter] created a legitimate expectation that environmental impact assessments (“EIAs”) would be conducted prior to approval of certain developments” applies equally in the Cayman Islands, and in fact in respect of the entire Charter.

Mr Bush's signature on the Charter created a legitimate expectation that all commitments will be carried out. Of special concern are the Charter commitments couched in mandatory terms. These are:

The government of the Cayman Islands will:

Commitment 2 – Ensure the protection and restoration of key habitats, species and landscape features through legislation and appropriate management structures and mechanisms, including a protected areas policy, and attempt the control and eradication of invasive species.

Commitment 3 – Ensure that environmental considerations are integrated within social and economic planning processes, promote sustainable patterns of production and consumption within the Territory.

Commitment 4 – Ensure that EIAs are undertaken before approving major projects while developing our growth management strategy.

Commitment 5 – Commit to open and consultative decision-making on developments and plans which may affect the environment; ensure that EIAs include consultation with stakeholders.

Commitment 8 – Ensure that legislation and policies reflect the principle that the polluter should pay for prevention or remedies; establish effective monitoring and enforcement mechanisms.

Commitment 11 – Abide by the principles set out in the Rio Declaration of Environment and Development and work towards meeting International Development Targets on the environment.  The principles of the Rio Declaration require that: (a)  development and environmental protection must constitute an integral part of the development process, public consultation and access to information held by public authorities concerning the environment must be available; (b) prior to approval, and EIA shall be undertaken to provide the scientific evidence necessary for the determination, under the Precautionary Principle to do no harm, of whether proposals threaten serious or irreversible damage to the environment.  

A review of the recent news headlines in the last month alone shows how abjectly the government has failed in this regard. For example:

Commitment 2. Minister Scotland has still not brought any form of the Conservation Bill (more than 10 years in the making) to the Legislative Assembly. Yesterday the Animals Law was amended to remove the only animal sanctuary designated within it for Cayman Brac. Even where restoration of habitat has taken place, it is taking further legal action to prevent its destruction for a second time in South Sound.

Commitments 3, 4, 5 and 11. The Eagle Assets Investments Ltd. Frank Sound development, by DoE calculations, represents cumulative applications of 535 acres of land. The Duck Pond proposals from Caymarl Ltd represent 416 acres of land. Together these amount to more than 2% of the entire Cayman Islands. No EIA’s are available.  There are apparently no plans to conduct an EIA for the Shetty Hospital. Primary shrubland and forest on land owned by Mr Imparato in the vicinity of the hospital site has been razed to the ground with no apparent authority. 

Preparatory work has begun at the proposed Dart landfill site in Bodden Town ahead of an EIA. Terms of reference were made public on the DoE website only on Monday.

If the people of the Cayman Islands are to have confidence that any approvals given for these projects are made by a "government [that] shall, in all its decisions, have due regard to the need to foster and protect an environment that is not harmful to the health or well-being of present and future generations, while promoting justifiable economic and social development", as the Bill of Rights mandates, then it must ensure that appropriate legislation is passed, environmental impact assessments (EIA) are undertaken before approval is given and the public must have reasonable time for consultation.

Government must also train its staff in its obligations under all the laws of the Islands. It is no answer, as offered in the Eagle case, that the planning regulations do not permit the CPA to require a Planned Area Development application and EIA when it is abundantly clear that the proposed development, being drip fed in stages, is of a magnitude that requires such actions. The Charter mandates that you do it.

Continue Reading

Personal responsibility

Our country is now at a crossroads as our premier faces, basically, an ultimatum from the UK on the FFR and the CHEC deal.  He has been told that he needs to pass the FFR as agreed upon and signed by him over a year ago, and that due process must be shown with the dock fiasco.  This, along with many other problems over his leadership and ongoing investigations, has produced overwhelming  support for him to step down and, if he fails to do so, for the UDP elected members to remove him as they can constitutionally can do.

The problem is there is a lack of people taking personal responsibility for their action – first and foremost the premier, who is claiming that he signed “under duress”.  It must be remembered that he gave not just his word but, as our leader, the word of the Cayman people that he would carry through on the undertaking.  He is now backing down on that, breaking not just his word but, by default, the word of the Cayman people.

Our elected UDP members, who are turning a deaf ear to the desires of the people who elected them, are not taking personal responsibility. They were elected, not to do what is best for the premier, but for the people.  They are not doing so and will be held responsible by the people for blindly following the premier’s lead with no consideration for what is best to save our country.

The Cayman public is also not taking personal responsibility. In the comment section here on CNS and comments on the Compass website we have hundreds of people giving their opinions of what should be done.  People are calling for the premier to step down, for the UK to take over, for the UDP members to deal with it, and all the while doing it under the guise of “Anonymous” and other hide-behind-names.  How can we expect to be taken seriously if we are not willing to take personal responsibility for our beliefs and comments?

Maybe I can start a trend.

I, Len Layman, believe that the premier should step aside.  I believe that if he doesn’t, the other UDP members should force it. If neither of these things happens, we should not blame the UK for the outcome.  I believe a large majority of Caymanians believe as I do.

Agree with me or disagree with me but please stand up and do it openly.  We can make a difference if we do.

I believe if we all take personal responsibly we can change things for the better.

Continue Reading

In the hands of voters

With the US Presidential election dominating much of the media coverage, our thoughts, business conversations and even the late night comedy shows these days, it can serve us in the Cayman Islands as a window through which to look at our own upcoming election in May 2013.

In the US, some political pundits have distilled the very close race to two issues symbolized by two different men – an appreciation for the pervasive social issues represented by Obama and an aggressive focus on the economic recovery represented by Romney. Some say the dividing line will be which of these two issues are deemed more important and more urgent by more voters.

Which brings us to the Cayman context – what will be the deciding factors in our election? Just like the United States, we have our fair share of economic challenges and social problems. They are both important and both urgently in need of effective solutions. How do we decide who to elect?

We have just over 6 months to clarify in our minds and as a country what are the most important things we want from the next Government. We need to look ahead and picture the type of Caymanian society we want to be living in 2017 and beyond, then set out our expectations of what the next Government and leadership should look like to help create this vision of Cayman. Unless we are honest with ourselves, set realistic expectations and are prepared to work to achieve these goals, we will continue to get the substandard to mediocre representation we have had in successive Governments and quite likely slide into the realms of a third world country that was once great, like many of our regional neighbors.

How do we the people, the voters, ensure we get from here at the end of 2012 to where we want to be in 2017?

Let us start by being accountable and honest about our people, the state of the country and our leaders. The myriad of issues and challenges we face as a country have been created or facilitated by Caymanians, and our own people have held the positions, the power and the decision making ability by their role on various Government appointed boards, top Civil Service positions and, in particular, those elected to the Legislative Assembly.

All who have served in these various roles had position, power and decision making abilities which could have been used to prevent or at least address these problems. Yet, these same leaders over the past 12-15 years frequently chose political expedience, popularity and the bartering of business favours over doing the right thing for Caymanians. Sometimes the wrong thing was done simply to satisfy someone’s ego and good people within the system failed to stand up for the right thing.

The 2013 election is our best opportunity to take definitive action and put our country back on the right course. Today, we must challenge ourselves and our leaders with an old Caymanian saying “If you KNOW better, DO better”. 

How do we as a country DO better?

First, set goals. Be clear on what we want. Keep this simple but pragmatic. Let’s consider three areas wherewe need to have clear goals and the aspiring politicians will need to demonstrate their plans to implement viable solutions.

Area #1 – The Caymanian Economy:

We should want a stronger economy where Caymanians are able to participate and benefit from this economic miracle without being made to feel like beggars in their own country. Markers of an improved economy will include a healthy and sustainable Government budget, reduced taxes and fees, near zero unemployment of Caymanians, strong economic sectors such as financial services, tourism, commerce and development, a high confidence level in the jurisdiction which acts to stabilize the economy both from within and from those outside looking in. We should want a country where new business opportunities are available to ‘indigenous’ Caymanians and not just the 'new' Caymanians who leverage an expatriate network to help themselves and their own friends and family at the direct exclusion of existing Caymanian businesses or aspiring entrepreneurs.
   
Area #2 – Employment (Education & Training):

In order for us to have Caymanians participating in a healthy economy, regardless of the social status or current economic means, we need to have an education and training system which is designed to create competent, capable and ready to work Caymanians – whether they want to be a professional accountant or a professional janitor. We need equal focus on education as on training. The education needs to be more than the physical buildings and facilities.

We need a country where the education and adult training programmes provide the tools, teaching, quality teachers and support systems to allow people to achieve their highest potential. Training programmes in particular need to be effective and accessible, and work to make sure our people are employable and able to advance in their chosen area of work. These training programmes cannot leave a generation behind, they MUST be geared to help working adults who are struggling financially with families and yet want to access necessary skills improvement and training. These training programmes must be designed to produce successes and reinforced by supporting Immigration, Labour and Employment policies across the entire Government.

Area #3 – A healthy, harmonious Caymanian society:

The single most important goal we ought to have for our country is that of a healthy society, with harmony, mutual respect and full integration of the expatriates and new Caymanians into the Caymanian way of life, culture and communities. This is very important to all of us – that expatriates are integrated into our society and not the other way around – because that is what every other developed country in the world does as it welcomes immigrants from all walks of life, whether doctors or janitors.

Expecting expatriates to integrate into our society is to seek harmony and mutual respect; being pro-Caymanian is a transparent nationalist view similar to how Americans, Canadians, British, Brazilians, Singaporeans and Germans feel about their own country. Today, being pro-Caymanian is met with suspicion and interpreted as being “xenophobic” – that is just the result of generations of Caymanians who have been told to keep quiet and take whatever they are handed down by successive Governments and business leaders who have regularly taken advantage of our traditionally humble demeanor, quiet nature and naiveté.

After the social failings of the past 25 years by some of the same political players and policy makers seeking re-election in 2013, the new Caymanian society must be Caymanian first and by that, all those who chose to move here to live, work and even seek permanent residence must adopt the paradigm that Cayman is a place to respect, value and preserve the very things* that attracted you here in the first place. In my mind that is best described as “Cayman for Caymanians and all who love it and choose to make it their home.” 

The 2013 election is our best opportunity to take definitive action and put our country back on the right course. If you don’t know where you’re going, any road will take you there. This is why it is essential that first and foremost we are clear on what we want as a country.
Secondly, we need to leverage our individual power to bring about change by voting differently in 2013. Know the worth of your vote. We need to expect more and get more from those who want to lead.

Do not just give your vote away based on long term friendships, family loyalties or the promise of a handout. Do not allow anyone to insult your intelligence, pride and personal integrity with the usual handouts which pale in comparison to the personal perks, privileges and financial (not to mention the professional and commercial) rewards they are capable of reaping whilst in office.

Reserve your vote for those individuals who you feel have earned it based on their efforts, their performance in public, private and professional life AND how transparent and logically they explain to you how electing them will help the country and in so doing, improve the quality of your day to day life in the Cayman Islands. We have a real opportunity to bring an end to the cycle of the career politician who has received much over the years yet provided so little in return to help our country. If you have any doubts, the evidence of their track record is best illustrated in the current state of the country which is their collective legacy. 

As voters, we need to stand united on our platform of better governance, better representation and accountability. Anybody who has not performed, who has failed to represent the people, their constituents and their legitimate concerns and who appeared to be avoiding accountability (particularly the members of Cabinet and former Ministers) and yet remained content to receive all the perks and hefty compensation have to be removed from office. We cannot afford any more free riders. Ask yourself the question “in four years what has the individual done to earn my confidence, support, respect and most importantly, my vote on Election Day?”

For those newcomers and would-be first time politicians, ask the same tough questions. While they may not have a record in public office, they have a responsibility to demonstrate to you their character, their track record of getting things done and doing the RIGHT things when they had an opportunity to do so. Aspiring leaders must demonstrate their past willingness to listen and be accountable; otherwise their claims will be no more than campaign rhetoric until they get elected.

Do not give your vote away based on personalities, empty promises or party loyalty. Treat your votes as one of your most valuable tools to get the type of Government you want and create the type of Cayman where we can feel confident, comfortable and proud to raise our families, run our businesses and invite visitors. Reserve your vote for the leaders who best PROVE to you that they have a plan which can be implemented whilst not bankrupting us either morally or financially.

Expect More from Candidates — it is the only way to get more from elected officials and from Government. Vote carefully. Your vote will determine how the Cayman Islands move forward in 2013. Will we advance the prosperity and peace through better Governance and Accountability? Or will we vote for parties, personalities and promises and propel ourselves into 4 more years of misery, divisiveness and creating an even greater disparity between the haves and have-nots in our tiny country.

All of our problems are fixable. Let’s work together to DO better now that we KNOW better.

Continue Reading

Proposed stamp duty increase on real estate

Included in the Government’s newest revenue raising measures is a proposal to increase stamp duty on the sale of real estate to 7.5%. Unlike the current stamp duty regime where, excluding waterfront properties in the Seven Mile Beach corridor and certain areas in George Town in which the rate is already 7.5%, Caymanians and non-Caymanians pay different rates of duty (4% and 6% respectively),  the 7.5% rate would apply to everyone no matter where the property was located.

To put it into historical perspective, stamp duty rates for non-SMB properties have not been this high for over 10 years – since prior to November 2001. In fact, from November 2001 to July 2006 the rate was 5% across the board.

However, the Government did provide some limited relief by alsoproposing to increase the values for stamp duty concessions for first time Caymanian buyers as follows:

(a) No stamp duty on vacant land up to $100,000 or houses or condos up to  $300,000;

(b) Stamp duty of 2% on land between $100,000 and $150,000 along with houses or  condos valued between $300,000 and $400,000.

I’ve always agreed with the principal that where a tax is applied, all persons should be subject to the same level of tax, e.g. no distinctions due to citizenship. However, there are obviously a significant number of Caymanians who are not first time buyers or who are buying properties at prices higher than the above thresholds. These persons will now be required to pay 7.5% instead of 4% — a whopping increase of 88%. Non-Caymanians, who were paying 6% duty, will pay 7.5%, a 25% increase.

As a result, I have been getting numerous enquiries from my clients and customers asking whether there is some way to pay duty now before the higher rate comes into effect. This is not a new scenario for the Cayman Islands as in the last 10 years the stamp duty rates have gone up and down several times. Many people are unaware that it is possible to pay stamp duty on a purchase agreement and then pay no stamp duty on the subsequent Transfer of Land where the agreement and Transfer conform to one another, i.e. same parties, same price, same property.

In the past, the practice of the Government Valuation Department has been that where a Purchase Agreement is submitted and stamp duty paid prior to the date that the stamp duty rate is increased, and the purchase is not completed until after the date of the increase becomes effective, the Valuation Dept will not reassess or ask for additional duty, even though the rates have changed between the date of agreement and date of completion.

That is all well and good. Before you rush off to pay your duty in advance though, please consider that there are a number of different scenarios which can arise regarding paying duty in advance of closing, and the issues can become rather complex when you factor in the various applicable laws and government departments which have a role in collecting duty. I therefore strongly recommend you seek the advice of an attorney before paying stamp duty.

Note also that if for some reason your purchase does not complete, then you cannot obtain a refund of the stamp duty that you have paid on the purchase agreement. For example, this could occur in a situation where you have paid the duty on your agreement, and then your financing falls through and as a result you cannot complete the purchase. You would then be out the amount of duty that you had prepaid on the purchase agreement.

As with any real estate transaction, tread carefully and, as always, buyer beware!

Scott Elliott is a real estate agent at RE/MAX Cayman Islands.

Continue Reading

Pressing ignore

When the environment minister failed to show up at the book launch of the much anticipated second edition of Dr George Proctor’s Flora of the Cayman Islands on Tuesday evening it came as little surprise to those who did attend. Since taking up that portfolio in his ministry, Mark Scotland has made it perfectly clear he has no interest in environmental issues.

He has admitted publicly that the environment would not have been his “first choice” of the responsibilities that make up his health ministry and he has proceeded to demonstrate that fact by essentially ignoring most things that are related to nature, not least the National Conservation Law. Given that his 'past’ business interests are about concrete and tarmac, it is hardly surprising.

Having said that, ignoring this part of his portfolio would not be so bad if it weren’t for the fact that he is an integral part of a government that seems intent on destroying it.

With a mounting list of environmental issues over the last three years, Scotland has done nothing at all to protect the natural resources of the Cayman Islands, even though it is his responsibility to do so. While we cannot yet expect any politician in Cayman to be ready to take the really radical steps that are now required to try and save Cayman from the bulldozer, the fact that he is contributing to its demise while in office should be of real concern to the people.

His failure to turn up to something as uncontroversial as the book launch when the work is so important to our understanding of the environment we are destroying speaks volumes and should serve, if nothing else, as a lesson to us all about how harmful a cross in a box once every four years can be when it’s put in the wrong place.

The problem for the environment locally is that not one politician in Cayman has proved to have the necessary fortitude and understanding of the need to protect the environment properly. The blind pursuit of the development dollar has relegated the air that we breathe, the water we drink, swim, dive and snorkel in, as well as the ground we grow things in, walk and live on to something that, with a little assistance from concrete and tarmac, can generate money, and despite their oft cited Christian principles, money is something our politicians really do love.

They would all do well to remember the over used and somewhat misused quote attributed to native American Indians and popularized by Greenpeace, which points out that once we’ve destroyed nature it is only then that we realize we can’t eat cash.
Lots of us know this already but the struggle is to persuade the others that don’t.

When we go to the polls next May the issue of the environment will be relegated by most politicians to the bottom of their agenda. Public finances, taxes, business, how to make more money, and fighting crime and corruption will all take centre stage over the islands' natural resources. There will be some lip service and waffley speeches about “sustainable development”, which is used consistently by many without them having the slightest clue about what it means. But until the environment becomes a genuine political element in the local landscape, the politicians will continue to ignore it.

While we can at least hope for a new environment minister next year who hopefully will not be so enthusiastic about contributing to its demise, we are unlikely to see a real eco-enthusiast in the post until the people demand it. We, the voting public, cannot blame the politicians for ignoring a subject that is also ignored by the people.

One only has to look at the number of comments on environmental articles on CNS compared to those about crime or political skulduggery and one willsee where the balance of concern lies.

While CNS continues to give a platform to environmental concerns and certainly attracts a solid readership of those who do care, it is apparent that even here there are too many people that don’t. The environmental will only be given the attention it deserves when the voters make it clear that they will only vote for those who demonstrate a genuine commitment to it.

Today is the day to start demanding it because, as we all know, tomorrow will simply be too late.

Continue Reading

Honoring a war criminal in Cayman

Upon overhearing a recent conversation in which it was mentioned that former US President George W. Bush would be speaking in Cayman, I thought to myself that certainly that could not be true. After researching further, I found that he is indeed the keynote speaker at the upcoming Cayman Alternative Investment Summit. 

Beyond the obvious dichotomy of having the complacent architect of the 2008 financial meltdown (which was orchestrated and executed by former Goldman Sachs chairman and Bush Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson) come to a country in which the financial meltdown had significant impacts in the lives of ordinary citizens, is that he is a war criminal by all international and domestic measures.

For the organizers to try and attract this criminal is an abomination to the integrity and intelligence of the citizens of this country and the world. I don’t believe they would approve if someone had invited Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei to speak on the inaccuracies of the Jewish Holocaust.

Have we as a society lost all of our moral direction and compass that we just allow war crimes and criminals to just keep on providing public input? Forget the fact that he has not been prosecuted at The Hague; this is merely for the fact that the United States is the only major country to not recognize the International Court (done so under the Bush presidency). How convenient to be torturing people against existing treaties, then to not recognize the courts that are in place to enforce those treaties.

Beyond the war crimes issues, the largest oxymoron shown here is that George W. Bush is the President that presided over and help cause the worst US economy since the Great Depression. He helped the financial giants of Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, etc., create and execute the largest theft of private citizen’s tax money in the history of the Unites States.

This meltdown not only caused the current world depression, but the money was issued with virtually no strings attached and no fiscal responsibility to repay the American citizens, let alone dictate where the money would be used to help revive the economy. And yet, we are going to have him speak on Alternative Investments. At least Richard Branson (the other keynote speaker) has successful businesses. It has been well documented that George W. Bush was handed several family business that he subsequently ran into the ground prior to joining politics.

Let’s take a quick look at the history of President George W. Bush outstanding public service to the people of the United States and the international community.

• Gained the Presidency through legal technicalities on the 2000 ballot even though he lost the popular vote. Citizens protested and threw fruit and vegetables at his motorcade on the way to inauguration.
• Reduced the villagence on terrorist group watches by the spying agencies.
• Did not head warnings of 9/11 prior to the event actually occurring (mounting current calls for independent investigation into 9/11 are at a fervor pitch among intellectuals particularly architects and engineers in the US).
• Negotiated with the Taliban prior to 9/11 for an oil pipeline in Afghanistan.
• Reduced and/or removed family planning education in schools that advocated the use of birth control putting millions of young adults at increased chances of pregnancy and disease.
• Conditioned HIV/AIDS monetary assistance to Africa so that abstinence-only education is used. Abstinence-only education in general, and dramatically so in Africa, has been proven to be ineffective in stopping the spread of HIV/AIDS.
• Approved the use of torture techniques and secret foreign black sites in violation of every major treaty including the Geneva Convention.
• Invaded Iraq under knowingly false pretenses with inaccurate links to al-Qaeda and terrorism as well as WMD’s (Weapons of Mass Destruction). Current authenticated death tolls put the number of innocent civilian casualties to +/- 120,000. (This does not take into account the deaths of civilians that can be attributed to the downstream effects of the Iraqi invasion. Note that the crimes of Saddam Hussein are not forgotten or set aside. He was an equally murderous war criminal, but two wrongs do not make a right as our parents taught us.)
• Destroyed critical infrastructure in Iraq at the behest of major defense contractors and then immediately gave them no-bid contracts to rebuild these items within the first year of the conflict. Current estimates of the confirmed fraud of these companies are over $60 Billion.
• Approved further violations of the Geneva Convention with torture in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
• Enlisted over 18,000 private mercenary security and special ops private contractors with ties to his administration. Did not allow Iraq to prosecute members of the mercenary force that murdered thousands of Iraqi citizens. 
• Suspended Habeas Corpus, the prominent basis of the legal workings of the US Constitution, with the Patriot Act during the paranoia after 9/11.
• Approved domestic wiretapping of US Citizens and data mining of all emails and internet sites by installing servers at all major internet providers. All these activities were illegal under US law.
• Approved the fabricated financial crisis in September 2008 months before leaving office. This caused the global depression severely affecting Cayman in particular. It was the largest government subsidy to the financial sector in the history of the US. The world economy is still being depressed by the crisis and its ripple-effect crisis.
• Implemented the worst economic plan that plunged the US budget from surplus at the end of the Clinton presidency, to the largest deficit in history.
• Had a final approval rating of 22% and a disapproval rating of 73% according to Gallup Poll. This represented the worst ever dating back to the start of the poll in the 1920’s

Consider the list above, and please research this on your own and find out for yourself the even further damning effects of Bush’s presidency. Recent history has proved that his actions against terrorists did not stop terrorism but has actually increased anti-American sentiment in the world. Note that the Arab Spring was mostly an uprising against dictatorships that were supported and/or at least tolerated by the United States. Such dramatically supported militant governments by President Bush are the examples of Bahrain, Tunisia, Yemen, and Egypt.

This is not a conservative vs. liberal issue, nor is it an evangelical Christian vs. secular or Muslim issue. The fact is that this man and his entourage of cronies left over from the equally disastrous Regan years operated the economy and war machines at the behest of his corporate America friends and not for the best of everyday American citizens. The propaganda and media brainwashing, which has now come to light, caused Bush to be elected the second time and as the approval rating above notes, people finally wised up.

What does this all mean to Cayman? Well if you haven’t been paying attention lately, and most mainstream media has not, the international Occupy Movement is real and has not gone away since the major demonstrations of last year around the world. The movement has become more organized and mobilized. The actions can be seen as successful already by being put into the everyday conversations of the ideals of the movement, which include the incomparable shift in inequality in the United States, and the world, under the Bush administration.

This movement includes many people of various religions, ages, and income groups, but is particularly popular among the younger generations (40 and under). These are the next tourists, customers, and investors in the Cayman Islands. By Cayman continuing to guide its policies towards the old world order, it is missing an opportunity to be a global leader and join the movement.

One step to gain credibility is to publicly admonish the Cayman Alternative Investment Forum and object and prohibit people that have knowingly and publicly broken international war crime laws and whose fiscal policies have caused the Global Depression.

We have the opportunity to receive positive international press (are rarity these days) by making this stand instead of all of the negative press we receive almost daily from the ties to Mitt Romney and bad hedge fund administrators. Let’s stand together Cayman and make a stand for the real Christian values that our country and even Bush himself proclaims to defend, and stop the murderous war criminal and financial thief from speaking in our country.

Related article:

George Bush key speaker

Continue Reading

Play review: “Doubt”

Arguably, one of Cayman’s best kept secrets is the Cayman National Cultural Foundation’s (CNCF) ongoing programme of music, art and theatre events, and the CNCF’s latest theatre production of John Patrick Shanley’s “Doubt” is by far one of the most enjoyable ones to date.  

Experienced and novice live theatre-goers alike will be blown away by the sophistication of both the story and performances.

For those unfamiliar with the story, it is set in a 1960’s Catholic school where Sister Aloysius begins to have doubts about the fun and popular Father Flynn, who seems to have become overly involved in the life of the school’s first black pupil.  Is she overreacting to the situation, or is there truth behind her suspicions?

Directed by veteran theatre director and designer, Henry Muttoo (who is also the Artistic Director of the CNCF), the story weaves the audience through a number of emotions almost seamlessly.  The suggestion of the equally opposing forces of doubt and certainty is presented within the first minute, which then continues to build, scene by scene, as we bear witness to a series of conversations pitting fact and perception against one another.  Muttoo’s decades long history in theatre shines in this interpretation with not only outstanding performances but a vibrant minimalist set.

The brilliance of the story truly lies in the characterizations because it is only through our belief in the performances that we are drawn into the story at such an emotionally deep level.  Muttoo’s casting couldn’t have been better, with Peter Kosa playing Father Flynn in an effortless portrayal of fun and fervour that is so whimsical and natural, one can’t help but like him.  Dark tension is then built against his brightness so ardently by Sister Aloysius, played by an ominous Marcia Muttoo, her rigidity not wavering for one moment, that we again cannot help but dislike her, despite the mounting deductions being made against Flynn. 

Their scene of final confrontation is perhaps one of the most gripping in the whole play.

Poor Sister James, played brilliantly by Rita Estevanovich, is caught in the middle with her innocent approach to life apparent in every tiny gesture and facial expression.  I particularly enjoyed her scene with Kosa where her gentleness is set against the darkness of the accusation and is confronted before us.  Juliet Garricks plays the determined Mrs Muller with exceptional grace and poignancy, throwing yet another wrench into the complex dynamics already at work in this story.  Though she only has one scene it is one of the most memorable in the play as she and Sister Aloysius politely mount their disdain for one another.

Although portraying an intense story line, the characters are also so unique that there are many instances where the audience will find themselves laughing.  This was a welcome though unexpected relief and also added another layer of complexity to the unfolding drama.  Each character is portrayed so naturally the audience truly feels transported into this world.  It is as if the audience becomes a jury to a bizarre trial being played out before our eyes.  The passage of time occurs so swiftly across the two act, two hour performance (with intermission), it is yet another testament to the brilliance at work between director and actor.

The decision to present “Doubt” in the recently renovated Studio Theatre instead of the main stage at Harquail was, in my opinion, perfectly on point as the intimate nature of the space lends beautifully to the subtle nuances of character acting.  Although Muttoo’s use of the arched theatre seating is occasionally distracting when an actor’s back is to you, it also presents an interesting dynamic setting you into the stage as opposed to simply in front of it. 

I cannot express how much I enjoyed my experience of the CNCF production of “Doubt”.  The thought-provoking story explores subjects such as repression, freedom, Puritanism, modernity, hierarchy, equality, sexuality and celibacy all within the already controversial backdrop of the Catholic Church.  I strongly suggest bringing a group to watch the play and then later watching the film, which was not only directed by the playwright himself but also nominated for four Academy Awards.  There is no “doubt” that great discussions are to be had by all.

“Doubt” continues its run from 5 to 14 October, Fridays and Saturdays at 8pm, Sundays at 6pm in the Harquail Studio Theatre.  Tickets are $20 for adults $10 for children and available from Foster’s Food Fair, Funky Tang’s and the Harquail Theatre Box Office (949-5477). Group rates are also available.

Continue Reading