By Shirley Osborne

There is a document circulating in the public domain, which purports to be the best version of a suitable Constitution of Montserrat that some people have been able to come up with. But, is it really just the easiest, least bothersome, cheapest, most convenient, or least difficult?

And, yes! Do, please, note that I did not write “being circulated.” And for the very good reason that it seems to me, and to some other people, that those who are actually and officially responsible for making sure this proposed Constitution does get circulated so it could be discussed and thought through and changed and improved where necessary, are not doing a good job, at all, of having it circulated so that it might be properly and thoroughly discussed and thought through and changed and improved where necessary. So, the thing is circulating just because it is in the air, so to speak. That does not speak well for The Responsibles. Nor does it bode well for those for whom they are responsible.
Point Number One.

Point Number Two.
This proposed Constitution of Montserrat is an astonishingly slim document.

In an era when every other conscientious, trustworthy, and dare I say, loving, set of governors, (or rulers, or owners) is theoretically, publicly, and in practice, acknowledging the expediency of respecting basic human rights;

In an era when every other smart, sensible set of governors (or rulers or owners) is paying attention to the rights of human beings, even if not actually appreciating the fundamental wisdom and basic goodness of doing so;

In a era when every intelligent, educated set of governors (or rulers or owners) is theoretically, publicly, and in practice, acknowledging that there are more rights that belong to human beings than the few noted in the Magna Carta, and to a greater number of classes of human beings than noted in that anachronistic document;

And in an era when every intelligent, educated set of governors (or rulers or owners) is theoretically, publicly, and in practice, acknowledging that Thomas Paine had some of the right ideas, and that the basic, fundamental, and inalienable human Rights are not only of Man, but also of Women and Children;

At a time when the people of the Cayman Islands, for example, have been careful to include protections against slavery and forced labour, and against torture and inhuman treatment in their (new, British-brokered) Constitution;

At this time when Anguilla, for instance, was careful to include, in their (new) Constitution, provision for the establishment of a Human Rights Commission, and specific protections for women;

Even now, when the (new) Constitution of the BVI includes a clause ensuring the protection of children, as well as its natural environment, and recognises the people’s right to education;

Even as India, for example, is considering including the right of access to food in its Constitution;

Even now, I say, we in Montserrat, are having this incomplete, unfinished, sketchy, first-draft, few pages of a thing fobbed off onto us, and with the full and enlightened complicity of The Government of Montserrat, no less.

Oh and I say enlightened, because was it not a most enlightened member of our government who summarily, and very uncouthly, from what I hear, rejected the suggestion that there might be someone somewhere who might know something that he doesn’t about drafting and negotiating new constitutions?

So, I wonder whether our elected members of government are unwilling to do with our Constitution what it is generally agreed among good people that it is good practice to do with such documents, what democracy requires, and that which many Montserratians want done with ours solely because they are aware that they don’t know how? Well! Socrates did say that the wisest person is the one who knows that he does not know.

Could it be, then, that their hostility toward suggestions that they “do the right thing” is really an indication that, being incapable and conscious of this incompetence, they are also therefore, tetchy and sensitive about it? Isn’t there an expression for this in clinical psychology?

I ask – did the other countries succeed in negotiating a more acceptable Constitution for themselves because their government people are highly-educated, well-cultured, and widely-read, informed and committed, well-travelled and aware of what the world is really like? Is it that they have the best interests of their country at heart? That they want the best, and only the very best, for their country and people? And are willing to put themselves on the line to achieve it?

Do our government people not know what is best? Do ours not have a sensible concept of what “best” is? Or are they, quite simply, not interested, not invested, and really couldn’t care less about ensuring that Montserratians have the absolute best possible? Do they not care about the good of us?

Do they not know that the enslavement and forced labour of children, women, and men is of real and increasing concern worldwide? Are they not aware of the extreme prevalence of domestic violence and relationship abuse in Montserrat and the lasting damage that it does, and that no-one has the right to abuse another? Are they not aware that repressive governments, evil political entities, and abusive civil service operatives, actually do torture and treat human beings inhumanly everywhere in the world? Are they not aware that that foul and offensive dump over in Blake’s is not merely an eyesore, but constitutes real degradation of the environment and a health hazard for Montserratians and that Montserratians have a right to a safe and pleasant environment?

Or, is it that they do know of Thomas Paine, but that they choose to ignore the part about the sole responsibility of Government being the safeguarding of the individual and the individual’s inherent and inalienable rights?

Or, shall we just assume that they know that Thomas Paine was sentenced to hanging for seditious libel, by the same Crown with which they should, now, be negotiating to ensure the protection of the rights of all the People of Montserrat?

Or, maybe we should just accept that our government people are short-sighted and self-interested and neither knowledgeable nor wise.

Are not capable or courageous.

Forty-five minus sixty is less than nothing!  You cannot get 60 out of 45, no way! To promote otherwise will be a deception; you will be living a charade. If you have a project that will cost $100.00 and all the money you have is $45.00, you will have to borrow, beg or steal $55.00 in order to complete the project.

Even so, that is only possible if you need help once; but if you have to do that project every year, no one will give or lend to you $55.00 each year. You would be wise to abandon that project. To seek to do otherwise or think that all is well with you, will be a blatant pretense; it will be such a travesty, that even your mother will laugh at you and call you a failure.

The foregoing is all common sense. But some will find a reason to call it nonsense just because it is written in The Montserrat Reporter. Any way, please read on.

The foregoing is the true financial situation of Montserrat. We are living a blatant charade. Montserrat expects to collect this year through its system of tax laws collects only $45million, yet each year it pays $60 million to politicians, pensioners and public servants. Another scenario is that each year Montserrat collects $45 million in revenue but each year it pays out $100 million in recurrent expenses. So in order to survive each fiscal year, Montserrat begs or gets $55 million from British taxpayers money. We beg Britain to pay for our health care, our education, our road maintenance, our social welfare programs and other luxury payments to civil servants and politicians, because one hundred from forty-five result in begging.

Let us be very honest and sincere; the situation here is so full of pretense that it is ridiculous. No one will ever be able to take one hundred from forty-five; neither will the British continue to give $55 million each year to subsidize our lifestyles. The lie of a good life we live on Montserrat is a mere charade. What a travesty! But life, good life and good living, are all about taxation.

Yes taxation! I use word taxation with no ill will or to make mockery of Montserrat politicians. But the reality is that our politicians must be very bold about this subject, because Montserrat needs a very novel way to deal with the burden of taxation and tax arrears if we are to maintain and enjoy social equilibrium in the space called home.  Believe me, dangerous and uncertain days are ahead. In fact Montserrat may not survive this decade, socially if we bury our heads in the golden volcanic ash.

Earlier this year I listened to the budget debate and except for the Chief Minister; no other politician mentioned the word taxation. No other legislator concerned himself with the word revenue. Instead I heard grandiose phrases and praises. One of them even beat his chest and demanded his rights from Britain. He intimated that his son has a British passport and therefore his son has as much right as any Englishman to British taxpayers money.

None of them seemed to understood that taxation is way up there on the high echelon of Godly duties expected from earthling men.   Imagine our Legislature is jam packed with clergymen, yet none seem to remember that Jesus discussed taxation.  Certainly politicians of the cloth must know that Taxation is next to Godliness! Taxation is a Godly duty, and they must speak about taxes much more with the people.

Please do not get me wrong; we have other issues on Montserrat besides taxation and tax arrears. In fact things are not what they seem. We are on the brink of a social collapse.

The ordinary and the needy Montserratians are hurting.

They complain to me; but I am no watchdog!  I tell them that I can only write about it for posterity. Still they insist, you must write, they say.

They complain that politicians, some civil servants and some pensioners are doing very well, while the ordinary and the needy are catching hell right here on Montserrat.

They lament over the ‘select few’ aligned beneficially to RUBENOMICS who will always do well while the foolish party stalwarts are falling rapidly off the edge.

They complain that Montserrat is a civil servant’s paradise but a nightmarish hell for the ordinary and the needy.

The private sector complains that members are unable to compete with the civil servants in the few business opportunities offered on the rock. They say the civil servants have no overhead, because they do their private jobs from the government offices, and they pay no rent or utility bills.

Bee the horn blower beep complained that the PS civil servants have taken over the car rental business. He said that the only people who visit Montserrat come on government business, so the ‘Perm nent seck rie tree’ have an advantage to get their vehicles rented.

The electricians complain that the inspector will undercut their contract prices and some have become afraid of him.
.
The plumbers complain that MUL has a private plumbing crew plying for work on residential and commercial construction sites.

The needy and the ordinary Montserratian have lost hope. They know that forty-five million dollars in revenue cannot sustain an expense of one hundred million dollars. Yet they want to hold on.

The ordinary and the needy want to hold on even though they know that our politicians and senior public officials exist only to ‘ bus-up’ and share among themselves the taxpayers money. They complain that these officials grant themselves luxury salary payments in the name of Professional and Duty allowances and unnecessary travel and entertainment allowances.

Yet we want to hold on even though we can hear The Swordsman’s warning to all Montserratians…that the Superior Mystical forces of the universe have detailed that Montserrat will not last another decade. Even in the Astral realm it has been heralded that Montserrat will self-destruct socially in the near future, possible within seven years, because the political, social and financial management of Montserrat is a mere charade.

But can we stop the charade? Yes we can! But we must make some serious management adjustments politically, socially and financially.  Our revenue collections must accommodate our expenditure and adequate savings. It is stupidity to think that we can extract sixty from forty-five, or that Montserrat can spend one hundred when we collect only forty-five.

by PTV (People’s Television)

The end of the long August holiday weekend, the last long weekend until Christmas, saw people in Montserrat back at work on Tuesday.

Sunday, August 1, was Emancipation day.  Worshipers in Montserrat’s churches   again gave thanks, as they have been inclined to do for the past one hundred and seventy-six years, that they are no longer enslaved,  and  regarded as sub human creatures by the people whom they served and enriched.

In terms of celebration, emancipation from slavery   served once again, however peripherally,  as the inspiration for Cudjoe Head Day in the village where, according to oral history,  the head of a runaway slave was displayed as a warning and reminder to any others who may have considered following his example.

Additionally, in terms of constitutional advancement, emancipation day found the people of Montserrat thinking more than ever before about the deeper meaning of freedom from slavery.

Being the time of a soul searching constitutional debate, progress since the reading of the emancipation act on August 1, 1834 has become for many, a haunting preoccupation.

And faced with the irrefutable truth that Montserrat style colonialism is a direct derivative and close cousin of its administrative precursor, Government finds itself bending over backwards to interpret the draft revised constitution as an act of further liberation.

The controversy this has sparked is unfortunate.  But at this time of heightened reflection, there is no indication that it is about to end, because there are many who remain fully persuaded that, in a way of speaking, the draft revised constitution is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to modernize colonialism- the much despised administrative system   whose emergence in Montserrat and elsewhere can be directly traced to slavery.

But Chief Minister Meade, having indicated his support for the draft revised constitution in its current form, has set  about convincing the people of Montserrat that ratification of an essentially unchanged colonial power structure, represents a positive step towards self determination for Montserrat.

It has been revealed however, that the need for economic aid and Montserrat’s cash strapped condition are the real reasons why Montserrat’s official line has been to support a document which, in all likelihood,  would not be countenanced by any government in normal times.

Government’s support for the draft constitution order of May 2010 is evidently based on the perception that to do otherwise would adversely affect the flow from Britain of badly needed financial assistance. Constitutional Experts are, however, indicating a major problem with this perception; neither has Britain been comfortable with the assertion that this is the indeed the case.

It is Britain’s position that it is willing and ready to grant independence to Montserrat as soon as a majority of the island’s people express a desire to move in that direction.

Admittedly, independence is a direction that Montserrat is fearful of in its present state of need, and Chief minister Meade pointed this out in a recent discussion with journalists.

In effect then, as many people see it, simply stated, Montserrat has no real alternative but to accept its colonial status. This unfortunate situation, to the extent that it is true, is considered by some experts to be the same as having no choice at all.  And to the extent that independence is equated to freedom, they contend that an individual or community that is not free,  cannot choose not to be free.

Squarely facing this dilemma, a group of journalists have indicated to  Chief minister Meade that he has no choice at this time but to take Britain at its word and promptly enquire into how much and what forms of assistance may be available to establish Montserrat  as an independent country, similar in administrative style and stature to its OECS partners.

The problem with this, to the extent that one exists, is that full independence, having being unsold by successive administrations  as being unrealistic, has left the impression that  the colonial status quo, slightly modified, is indeed  Montserrat’s only constitutional option.

But this is not playing well in CARICOM where leaders have repeatedly and consistently called on Britain to decolonize its Caribbean Colonies. And, Montserrat as the only member of CARICOM and OECS that is governed under a colonial constitution, finds itself constantly struggling to juggle its two allegiances.

It is for this reason that on Emancipation day 2010 – it was the meaning of   freedom itself that came under scrutiny among a wide cross-section of Montserratians.  In addition, it is the length and nature of the remaining journey to this illusive state of being that is now, at this pivotal moment, mostly on the minds of many thinking people, as they strive to interpret the pros and cons of the questionable draft revised constitution.

by Shirley Osborne

Whereas it is my understanding that the Constitution is the highest law of the land,
Whereas it is also my wish that Montserrat be a democratic society,
Whereas I admit to reservations about the democratic-ness of the United Kingdom, and
Whereas I fully subscribe to the notion of “the Rule of Law”
I hereby request clarification.

Indeed, I crave clarification.

Did I misunderstand what I was taught? Did my teachers misunderstand and therefore have rendered me now, mis-taught?

Here’s my concern.
My understanding of democracy is that it is grounded in, inter alia, the rule of law. In papers published by the University of Iowa Center for International Finance and Development, The Rule of Law is addressed in the following manner:
“it can be understood as a legal-political regime under which the law restrains the government by promoting certain liberties and creating order and predictability regarding how a country functions. In the most basic sense, the rule of law is a system that attempts to protect the rights of citizens from arbitrary and abusive use of government power.”
I like this definition. But, who knows, the University of Iowa might be wrong, too.

There is a book entitled, The Morality of Law, by Lon Fuller, which discusses eight (8) elements of law that, it is commonly believed, must be true of societies aspiring to democracy and the rule of law. He believes that “the law must avoid contradiction.” I wrote last week about the first important contradiction I noticed in the new proposed Constitution for Montserrat, so I will let this point just stand for the moment.

However, another condition that the Morality of Law believes must also be true of the laws of the society, and the very first one that Fuller identifies, is that “Laws must exist and those laws should be obeyed by all, including government officials.” Is the Governor of Montserrat not a government official? Royal Majesty is not government?

I ask the questions because I read in the proposed Constitution, the document that aspires to be the formal statement of highest law of my Montserrat that,

(3)  “Subject to this Constitution and any law by which any functions are conferred on the Governor, the Governor shall perform all his or her functions (including functions which are expressed by this Constitution to be exercisable in his or her discretion or in his or her judgement) according to such instructions, if any, as may be given to him or her by Her Majesty; but the question whether or not the Governor has in any matter complied with any such instructions shall not be enquired into by any court.”

And, moreover, in the section entitled “The Exercise of Governor’s Functions”,

(4) “Where the Governor is by this Constitution or any other law directed to exercise any function in accordance with the advice of, or after consultation with, any person or authority, the question whether he or she has so exercised that function shall not be enquired into by any court.”

I am partly culturally British, I suppose, so let me first say this – “I beg your pardon?”
But, I think that Americans, those ex-British subversives, are infinitely better at exclamations and expletives, so let me say also this – “ARE YOU FREEKING KIDDING ME??!!” “SHALL NOT BE ENQUIRED INTO BY ANY COURT??!! NO £&@£%£@ WAY!!”

The compliance, or failures to comply, of the Governor, “shall not be enquired into by any court.”

Let me see if I got this right. The governor of Montserrat is not bound by the Rule of Law or the Laws of Montserrat. The Governor of Montserrat, who is not Montserratian, is above the law of Montserrat.  Above the Constitution of Montserrat. Why? Because the Governor of Montserrat is, “of the Crown”? Or, because after all, this is the Constitution of only Montserrat?

But, No!? It’s not just the Governor. Her Majesty is also above the law. Her Majesty cannot be “enquired into.” And that makes perfect sense since Great Britain is, among other things, a monarchical society. Monarchy is not democratic.  Monarchy is even anti-democratic. Majesty and Royalty are not elements of democratic societies and this is one example of royalty empowered and promulgated by ill-begotten gains, to wit, invasion, imperialism, oppression, slavery, colonialism, and now, apparently neo-colonialism. The antithesis of a democracy, if ever there was one.

But, I’m smart. I get it. Britain is not a democracy, so it follows that Montserrat is also not a democracy. And, apparently, not going to be one, either, if certain people have their way.

Man! What was I thinking? There I went again, expecting too much for my little island.
Just who do I think we are?

Let’s think about this for a moment shall we?

The proposed Constitution stipulates that there are actions or failures to act, on the part of the Governor that cannot be enquired into by any court, that are outside of the jurisdiction of any court. So, the Governor is above the law. Not bound by the Constitution, as all citizens of Montserrat are.

The Governor, however, is not a citizen of Montserrat. The Governor of the people is not one of the people. Does that matter? But Montserrat shall have a Governor, and there is a special class of privileged being that gets that honour, and which class has no Montserratian members. Does that matter?

The Constitution does not say that the Governor shall not be Montserratian. The Governor could be Montserratian since Montserratians are not expressly excluded, but the clear implication here, it seems obvious to me, is that the Governor really, “shall be not Montserratian.” I get this partly because the Constitution does bother to state quite clearly that the Deputy Governor “shall be Montserratian.” The British are magnanimous. Very gracious of them to be so generous and sensitive and democratic, I’m sure.

So, the Montserratian Deputy Governor is appointed by the not-Montserratian Governor of Montserrat only with the prior approval of the (not-Montserratian) Secretary of State, and acts only “under the authority” and “at the discretion” of the not-Montserratian Governor of Montserrat and, one assumes, the person or office by whose pleasure the governor holds office.

It boggles my mind. The people of Montserrat can deputise or “act” Governor. Just not “be” Governor. In this day and age!

In this day and age, some still believe that we are not smart enough, good enough, or something else enough to “Governor” ourselves. Not that the Governor-ing of Montserrat is such a demanding job! And, with all due respect, it’s not as if the Crown or who for it, ever sends its bright sparks “to governor” little, insignificant, not-democratic Montserrat. And, in any case, I know lots of Montserratian sparks who are significantly brighter than any that have ever come from the “Crown”, and I don’t know about anybody else, but if I have to have a governor at all, especially one whose actions cannot be enquired into by any court, I want that person to be the brightest available spark. And I want, even more especially, that person to be “wan oo awee.” Famoolay.

I know some very bright and capable and trustworthy Montserratians by whom I would be governored. Not necessarily gladly, I would have to clarify, but only because the idea of being governed in this way irks me at my core. However, since, evidently, I have no choice but to be governed, I will accept to be, but with conditions.

I want a Montserratian Governor of Montserrat.

By Howell Bramble

As the debate on the draft Constitution heats up the erosion of trust should be put to rest by declarations of moral principles from the Montserrat Government and the Foreign Office officials in London who deal with Montserrat’s affairs.

It is being put about that the urgency for Legislative approval of the Draft Constitution is fueled by a Foreign Office promise of permission for the Montserrat Government’s accession to a new regional Treaty. It would be a very sad  reflection on prevailing  political morality if any such quid pro quo is used to short- circuit the consultative  process, especially since what can be regarded as serious  discussion of the issues has only began. Some of us  give  no credence  whatsoever to reports which introduce  the morality of certain perpetrators of that brand of persuasive conduct strictly forbidden by our current electoral laws.

Authors of the draft constitution can take a bow for including a Bill  of Rights and other  provisions which legal minds indicate were always covered in what they call the common law. They can also claim congratulations for revealing quite clearly that where Her Majesty the Queen reserves to herself power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Montserrat she does so “With the advice of Her Privy Council.”

The gravamen of discontent is not really the reserve powers retained by the Governor on Her Majesty’s behalf but the persistent insistence with the idea that when the Governor exercises his discretion on behalf of Her Majesty “Whether or not the Governor has complied with …….. instructions shall not be enquired into by any court.

Discontent is not rejection of reasonable checks in the constitution while Montserrat  is an Overseas Territory. Discontent arises from the reality that Governors (and the Attorneys General who advise them) can be persons of poor discretion.  History recalls that when the seat of government for the Leeward Islands was based in Antigua,  a Governor by the name of Colonel Gordon met his demise on that island. The persons who were taken to Britain for trial were freed because  the British officials in those ancient times agreed that Colonel Gordon “was of a notorious reputation.”

Let us not ignore the fact that in recent times three Governors of Montserrat failed to interpret the General Orders correctly resulting in administrative  performance which was deemed “Wednesbury unreasonable.”

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is an ancient democracy. It’s peoples survived the black death, triumphed over feudalism, slavery and varying  degrees of tyranny. In their quest for freedom they put to flight the great Spanish Armada; they overcame Napoleon, erecting to his memory a train station called Waterloo. They stood up to Hitler’s bliztzerieg and emerged triumphant. These peoples blessed mankind with the Magna Carta  which emphasizes the supremacy of the law over the Monarchy, the lords and commoners alike.

Come  on Britain, come on Messrs. Cameron, Klegg and company, the most important impetus that your new constitution can give to the good governance process in 2010 is to ensure that British appointed Governors of this island are not exempt from the scrutiny of the High Court whenever they exercise discretionary powers on behalf of Her Majesty.

In respect of the Overseas Territories, Her Majesty’s  Conservative-Liberal coalition must  show consistency and throw out  all unfair policy hang-overs from the Blair-Brown era allowing the citizens of the scattered islands the full benefit of freedom and the accountability that accompanies it.

Moreover, if what we have on Montserrat is a situation in which detractors and supporters of the Government alike are insisting that the Governor’s “discretion” should be subjected to Judicial Review while the elected persons (with the  notable exception of Donaldson Romeo) are crying “power to the Governor” it seems appropriate that the new constitution should be armed with provision for Referendum and Recall.

The drafters of the constitution should exercise much caution on the issue of powers of pardon. There will never be a situation in which the Governor of Montserrat  cannot effectively consult with a majority of Ministers within forty eight hours. In view of the well known  aversion of Caucasian residents to any of their kith and kin spending time in Her Majesty’s prison  that pardon issue could make for a serious dilemma for the Governor.

At a time when the World Wild Life Federation has announced plans to double by 2020 the number of tigers on the planet, our daft constitution fails to address the crying need for some attempt to protect and preserve the Montserratian species of  residents and participants in the political process. So whereas they hasten to disenfranchise property-owning and taxpaying Montserratians – some of whom lost millions of dollars worth of property to the volcanic eruption, but relocated because of the crisis, they graciously extend to Commonwealth citizens  the right to be nominated for elections after three years residence. While we ought to welcome our Commonwealth friends and value their contribution, it would seem politic to extend their residential qualification period for nomination to fifteen or twenty years.

Drafters of the new constitution and the legislators reportedly anxious to dismiss the legitimate misgivings of the population and pass it into law, are not invited to duplicate the sentiments of the independence constitution which Britain gave to St. Kitts and Nevis. That constitution bars from standing for public office persons whose  parents were not born in the federation thereby excluding persons who had previously held elected office for several years.

Just like Montserratians who migrate to other lands, our Commonwealth friends bear family concerns and seek first and foremost to get remittances back home. They  retain  and nurture their identity; they organize themselves into communal organizations and fan the identity flames with impressively organized national day celebrations. But they are workers and consumers. The availability of their labour discourages slothfulness among the locals and it is unfair and unwise to accuse them of putting themselves in line to acquire the much sought after Montserrat passport. U.K. officials will realize that insistence on a slower path to qualification for nomination for elections towers above the vulgarity of  those who dismissed the indigenous peoples of Diego Garica as “transient workers.”

Indeed, the special circumstances of Montserrat call for inclusiveness which for electoral purposes would include the diaspora, or some of them. As MNI-Alive so aptly shows, the revolution in communications technology has shrunken our planet  giving persons residing in the United Kingdom, North America and several other parts of the world unbroken connections with their homeland.

How can legislators  entertain the idea of giving the Governor the right to allocate lands?  Governors are human beings with their own personal friends and agendas. What if a Governor decided to allocate to some foreigner lands best suited for the geothermal  project?  What if  the Governor is persuaded  to allocate for use as a toxic dump site the new bit of land created by the eruption of the volcano on the Southeastern tip of our island?

There appears to be a section of the draft constitution which is intended to permit the Governor, contrary to British Parliamentary practice, to continue the folly of appointing elected persons to offices of emolument under the Crown. That sort of thing creates corruption and should not be allowed.

Rally to the cause, push the consultation, join the national conversation, keep Montserrat alive.

By Shirley Osborne

Enquiring minds would like legal minds to consider and respond to the question of whether a Constitution could properly be said to be valid, or trustworthy, if it clearly and demonstrably is also (self) contradictory. And if it is clearly and demonstrably is untrustworthy and invalid, what ought the remedies be? Because, remedies there ought to be.

Let’s read together, shall we?

From the very first section of the document, Part I, entitled, Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, under the section subtitled, “Fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual.” It reads:

Whereas every person in Montserrat is entitled to the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual, that is to say, the right, without distinction of any kind, such as sex, sexual orientation, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status, but subject to respect for the rights and freedoms of others and for the public interest, to each and all of the following, namely –

(a) life, liberty, security of the person and the protection of the law;
(b)freedom of conscience, of expression, and of assembly and association;
(c) protection for his or her private and family life, the privacy of his or her home and other property and from deprivation of property save in the public interest and on payment of fair compensation.

Clear enough. Not bad at all. No quarrel there. No possibility of discrimination evident anywhere.

In a later section of this same Part I, entitled, “Protection of private and family life and privacy of home and other property” it also reads,

(1) Every person has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, his or her home and his or her correspondence.

Again, this is good. This is a free country. Every one’s home is her castle. Everyone’s house his fiefdom. And then, everything changes.

The “Protection of right to marry” of Part I very clearly stipulates that:

(1)    Every man and woman of marriageable age (as determined by or under any law) has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex and to found a family.

So! But! What if, a man or woman of marriageable age wanted to marry a person not of the opposite sex and to found a family? Then, what? What, then do those persons do?

The question I’m asking here is not whether the Constitution ought to grant the right to marry people of the same sex, although of course the entirety of my thoughts on that matter would be, “Yes” … but that is another fight, and it is somebody else’s, not mine.

Clearly, according to the section on the “Fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual,” it would be discriminatory, and therefore unConstitutional, to deny any person the right to marry on the basis of “sex, sexual orientation, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status,..”

Equally clearly, under the “Protection of private and family life and privacy of home and other property” every person has the fundamental right to “to respect for his or her private and family life, his or her home” and it would therefore be discriminatory, and therefore also unConstitutional, to deny any person this right on the basis of, “sex, sexual orientation, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status..”

The integrity of this document is not negotiable. If it denies a person, or group of persons, any right that it says they and all other people must have, it is being discriminatory. This document ostensibly legislates against discrimination. And equally ostensibly legislates it into being. So, how does Montserrat square that?

My point, here, is that if the document says one thing in one section, then says something in another section that obviously and unquestionably contradicts what it says in the first section, then it is worthless and cannot be trusted. The same principles and standards apply to the written statements that people make, as are applicable to their verbal avowals.  If a person tells you one lie, you have to question whether there was only one lie, and what, therefore, might the others lies be.  If there is one lie, then there could very likely be others. One ought to check thoroughly, very thoroughly, before signing. Who wouldn’t agree?

It is natural, and wise, I might add, to doubt the integrity of any person or document which contradicts itself. Lies are a breach of trust. They are untrustworthy by definition, and liars are treacherous by their very nature. The potential for harm and injury is clear and indisputable. A Constitution is an entity, a whole, a “One Thing.” So, following the logic along, if any part of it is untrustworthy the whole is also potentially treacherous, harmful, and injurious. If it lies about the rights of one group can it be trusted to not be lying about those it says it confers on any others?

I think not. It must, therefore, be reviewed, discussed, revised, negotiated, and corrected.  Properly. Minutely. Properly. Respectfully.

So far, not so good.

To murder a people is to kill that people. A Montserrat proverb state that there is more than one way to kill…. Yet kill is kill, and to kill is to murder. Yes, murder is a very serious crime worthy of the most skilful investigation. I do not know who is responsible for MDC, but I shall assume that it is DFID; and so I will lump the two together in my scream to Interpol for help and protection.

MDC was created to bring life to the people of Montserrat. Their Articles of Incorporation lists twenty-two separate functions and objects that should enable MDC through its directors to rival the government of Montserrat in terms of enhancing economic activity. But what has happened in Montserrat since MDC incorporation? Is it Economic Life, is it Economic Death, or is it Economic Murder?

Let me examine one of the functions of the MDC, the function to manage the new town development at Little Bay and to manage the property portfolio.

How could one manage a property portfolio without knowing the boundaries of the property and it’s various plots? Little Bay is no longer a grazing platform for cattle and sheep. Little Bay has become billion-dollar piece of real estate, so we must ensure that a million dollar cadastral survey is carried out there. And a million dollar survey means the employing the most professional and experienced firm of surveyors that money can buy.

True, the Chief Minister went on radio and complained that the survey of the town centre was not done… but what is the rush? or will just any survey do? No! No, nothing but the best is good for 21st century Montserrat.  To employ any but the best surveyors for Little Bay is to recklessly murder Montserrat’s Little Bay. A recklessly done survey will kill the future generations of property owners with boundary disputes and litigation. To foolishly contract an unlicensed surveyor would mean that a very serious crime would have been committed against the people of Montserrat; and if it is necessary to involve Interpol now, then let it be so. Believe me, MDC has become the herald of economic death and destruction for the people of Montserrat; and I wonder if DFID has ulterior motives for condoning their recklessness.

Another function of the MDC is “ to oversee the construction of industrial premises”.

The people of Montserrat do no accept replacing the weelee traders of Festival Village with a sand screening plant as a satisfactory method to oversee the construction of industrial premises. While it is true that sand mining and screening is an industrial activity, we are not satisfied when sand is screened and exported from Festival City, the heartland of the new town centre. It is as if MDC is a mere catalyst for the current economic times, they (MDC) have murdered a poor people for a few rich men.

Montserratians, to silently grin and bear ignorance or to condone badness done to others is not my character; I have to write, because… the fading ink is better than the best memory.

It appears as if the Directors at MDC are infuriated by one of my recent articles. In fact Friday afternoon one director accosted me and demanded that I get the facts before I write about MDC. But I am not a journalist I am a columnist, I write from inside out. I see, I hear, I touch, I smell, I taste and I breathe out in words my feelings and opinions.

Nevertheless, the director boldly demanded that I get the facts, so here I am now seeking the facts. But where were these facts? Who has been advertising these facts?

Yes, the facts please… I am now ready to write about the MDC.

Welcome, and please be seated, directors of MDC you may each offer a silent prayer to sustain you during this meeting.

The Articles of Incorporation speaks of shares and shareholding interest; tell us, who are the shareholders of MDC?  MDC is a company registered under the Companies Act of Montserrat; tell us how it earns an income. What is the expected annual expenditure and how will the MDC finance those expenses? In other words tell us about the budget of the MDC.  Give us some details too; for example, explain how you arrived at the salary budget and the rent expense budget. How much monthly fees are paid to each director? Give us an idea of the capital expenditure of MDC since 2007. Please tell Montserratians what to look for at Little Bay during the next six months.

You asked me to get the facts; but this is not a ‘just wonderin’ piece. You need not sweat though, just write down your answers and tell it to ZJB; and especially that no more than 250 people at a time can get that information online, make sure you tell The Montserrat Reporter where hundreds of thousands get it and read it online.

We never got some facts correctly, but it is better late than never. The former CEO Ms. Laurine was an extremely intelligent and internationally successful Montserratian; tell us the truth about her dismissal. And while you are at it, consider that nothing worthwhile has happened at MDC since you sent home the Vincentian Clarke; give us a reason, any reason why he too was dismissed.  By the way what happened to the man from the Arctic Circle, the Canadian CEO, is it true that the board was so inept and unprofessional that he considered it a waste time to work with the directors?

Have you people at MDC ever taken a look at ‘henseyfenton’s brainchild’ BML and considered the type of ‘business enterprise ownership structure’ that is suitable for Montserrat?  Who owns FLYMONTSERRAT? Is it a family run business? Why did you give that company the taxpayer’s money? Was there an opportunity for every Montserratian taxpayer to purchase shares in Fly Monstrat?  Was there ever a prospectus for Fly Montserrat approved by the ECCB or any other authority?  And when did they fire the local and MDC chairman form the FLY MONTSERRAT board?  Was he an agent of confusion?

MDC needs inward investment. Where do you advertise? What is your advertising Budget? Do you believe that the ‘lollipop jingle’ on ZJB will attract investors? These are “noreplyto” questions, but you can send your response to The Montserrat Reporter. Again, that guarantees that the whole world will see the information via the internet.

Why would you directors of MDC believe that Montserratians are stupid? Didn’t you expect that Montserratians would question the screening and exportation of sand at Little Bay? Didn’t you foresee people would say that MDC moved the vendors from festival village just to bring de man to export he san? Is it true that you gave one of your employees the Million-dollar contract to survey Little Bay? And is it true that your employees don’t know a damn thing about surveying?

You told me to get the facts. Do not reply to my inquiries; send your answers to MNI alive, too.

MDC pays over twenty thousand dollars monthly to its CEO. Montserratians expect excellent and proactive leadership from its directors, not insecure reactions. As if to impress the Governor, you the directors are now busy planting grass and shrubs at the billion-dollar new town centre, but grass in a billion-dollar pasture will only feed wild animals. And those insipid stone works in the round about, the quality of the work scratches the  blood, tear them down now; when it comes to stone works at the new town centre we want nothing below the standard of what is at the entrance to Look Out or at the A& F Service station.

Little Bay, Montserrat billion-dollar new town centre, must be the epitome of Pride and Taste. The five senses of every visitor to Little Bay must leap with excitement, like John the Baptist in Elizabeth’s womb.

One final word to you MDC directors, please review this article and seek to distinguish opinions from facts finding.

Thank you for your attention; this meeting is adjourned until the receipt of Interpol’s report on DFID involvement with MDC reckless management of the Little Bay property portfolio. In the interim I shall seek to have your financiers, the British Government, dismantle the MDC and declare the corporation a disgrace. Again, thank you!

by Man from Baker Hill

It is difficult to accept that in the 21st century Montserrat does not have an Occupational Pension Law. What a horrible shame this is. Imagine, since 2007 both politicians and civil servants pensions have been a serious cause of concern for the UK and Montserrat governments, economically, socially and politically. Yet no one has recognized that Montserrat needs a Law to provide for the establishment, management and regulation of occupational pension plans, IN FACT ALL PENSIONS.

Clearly Montserrat is only a paradise for civil servants and politicians, while the other workers catch hell. Since 1948 or thereabouts there has been a Pension Law to regulate only civil servants pension. And sometime in the 1980’s the politicians created a law to make sure that they too get a pension. But neither of those two groups contributes one red cent to their pensions.

It is hurtful to see the lengths they (POLITICO CIVIL SERVANTS) will go to bleed the public purse. It was just this week I heard the CM say that he will amend the Law to ensure that these non-contributory pensions are passed on to the dependants of the pensioners.  But he is confused; his words were, “the civil servants must not die with their pensions”.

I wonder how he can prevent a pensioner from dying with his pension. A pension cannot stop unless the pensioner dies. You must die before your pension stops. Well… he could create an insurance company and transfer all government pension funds to it; and in the short-run, declare the company bankrupt. In that case the civil servants will die without a pension. For them it would be an unlooked for event, another accident of our current political times.

Yes, bankruptcy, insurance companies and occupational pension Law are the purpose of this article. It is no secret that there are several employee groups with occupational pension plans on Montserrat. At the moment these employees are living lives of desperation because there was never a Law in place to protect them and to regulate their pensions schemes. Unlike civil servants and politicians, these employees contributed to their pensions and some of the insurance companies are near bankruptcy. They paid monies into a fund to prepare for a pension; it is their money. But nobody cares about them.

Every politician in Montserrat knows the problems within the pension and insurance industry of the Caribbean. Still there is no law on the horizon for occupational pensions.
No, nobody cares about these workers! They are not civil servants. The workers have already voted. THEY ARE NOT NEEDED UNTIL THE NEXT ELECTIONS!

Yet the government spent British taxpayers money in the tens of thousands of dollars on consultations and recommendations to amend the civil servants Pension Law.  Shabby recommendations though! No professional could adequately consider replacement income for pension purposes without studying the income tax laws of that country. DFID beware! You cannot compare the replacement income of Anguilans with Montserratians. The Income Tax Laws are different.

In Anguilla no worker pays income tax, where-as in Montserrat, only pensioners do not pay income tax (on their pension).  A replacement income of 85% is unjust; that replacement income on Montserrat will yield a pension of 110 % of final salary.

And talk about replacement income, the situation with the occupational schemes is no different to that of the civil servants. Their pension income combined with the SSF will yield retirement income in excess of 120% of final salary.  And if adjusted for tax-free pension, this might result in 150% of final salary. This is pension, Montserrat style.

There are so many reasons why the Occupational Pension law is absolutely essential now.  The employers and employees need instructions to deal with outmoded pension schemes; and these instructions can only be embodied in a law. And most importantly The Law should protect Montserratians from insurance companies who in the very recent past have been selling pension products disguised as banking instruments. That is another horror story destined to bring about depression and gnashing of teeth to some Montserratians.

This subject is complex; so for the time being I say no more.
But, WANTED, really WANTED: A legislator who wants to be recorded in Montserrat’s history as the one who introduced a workers Bill; the Bill to provide for the management and regulation of occupational pensions.

By Howell Bramble

Why should the British Government, while investing so  much blood and  money in the continuing battle to bring democracy to Afghanistan, seek to impose upon Montserrat and other Overseas Territories a constitution which seeks to vest in their Governors a clumsily resurrected version of the “divine right of Kings?”

Since 1953 when the then Secretary of State for the Colonies, Sir Oliver Lytleton, suspended British Guiana’s constitution, the British have argued, in the words of Clement Atlee that “the essence of a limited constitution is that it must have checks.” Fifty seven years later the greatest exponents of colonialism in all of human history are seeking to maintain those checks by the shamelessly racist assumption that the appointment of Governors automatically gives office holders  super human wisdom.

Lytleton, a Conservative, was described by a female Labour member of Parliament as “A man with an iron hand and a wooden head.” It would be grossly unfair to characterize any Liberal-Conservative Minister in such terms since that regime has just taken office and what is being considered now reflects the imperialistic philosophy of  Gordon Brown’s Labour party which colonial peoples have long regarded as the great champions of colonial freedom.

The imperialism inherent in the draft constitution and the bullying “accept it or take independence” tactics  of the British negotiating team, was calculated to scare legislators of a particularly struggling island into accepting a constitution which constitutes an affront to human dignity.

Legislators had better understand that capitulation in the face of threats is not an option, for having given them that round it would be too late to protest. Those who empowered the team of  bullies would meet every protest with “it’s  the constitution you accepted of your own free will”. It will be too late to confront the Foreign Office Minister with the powerful logic of the Pilkington Commission: “For a choice to be free the range of choice should be not unnecessarily restricted.”`

A recent High Court case demonstrates to Montserratians with absolute clarity that even when the Governor, as head of the public service acts in flagrant violation of General Orders, his Foreign Office superiors cannot be depended upon to restrain him in the interest of fairness and justice.
In the case under reference, (Claude Gerald v The Governor, The Public Service Commission and the Attorney General 2004) Montserratians schooled in the belief that the FCO could be trusted to come out in the interest of fairplay and justice were shocked when these key U.K. civil servants elected to send out counsel from Britain to defend an indefensible position. It took the unanimous decision of three erudite judges of the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal to expose the illegality and unfairness of action taken by one Governor and upheld by his successors and the FCO.

It took the wisdom of a savvy Antiguan lawyer to make the point that the legal underpinnings of the Governor’s hamfisted action was “Wednesbury unreasonable”.  No less a legal authority than the great Lord Diplock  indicates that a decision is Wednesbury unreasonable when it is “so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided upon could have arrived at it.” It is obvious therefore, that Britain sent at least three Governors to Montserrat in recent years who did not enhance the image of the office.

It ought to be abundantly clear and pellucid that any unbiased review would indicate that Her Majesty’s white Foreign Office officials were moved not by the constraints of fairness and legality but by the determination to ensure that their colleague at Government House was spared embarrassment at the hands of any of Her Majesty’s black citizens on Montserrat.

The case underlines the sad and significant decline in British political morality in recent years. It maybe noted  that a Foreign Office headed by the late James Griffiths, Ian McLeod or Lord Carrington would have in such cases demanded the rolling of heads as sure as night follows day.

The  late Willie Bramble brought up his children to believe that “British rights and  British protection are without parallel in the world.” Poor old Willie died without learning how Her Majesty’s Government used lies, trickery, brutality and the most cruel forms of administrative force to expel the inhabitants of Diego Garcia to facilitate a secret treaty with Washington for the construction of “Camp Justice”, a large American base.

Thanks to John Pilger we have learnt how “In high secrecy the Labour Government of Harold Wilson conspired with two American administrations to sweep and sanitize the islands” “The FCO invented the fiction that the islanders were merely transient construction workers”.

Noting that the files also reveal “an imperious attitude of brutality”, Pilger  points out that in 1966 Sir Paul Gore-Booth the permanent under secretary at the Foreign Office wrote: “We must surely be very tough about this. The object of the exercise was to get some rocks that will remain ours. There will be no indigenous population except seagulls”.

Montserratians who may want to retain blind faith in the rulers of the ancient Empire should be reminded  of the role of Sir Bruce Greatbatch in this evil scheme. Sir Bruce, former Director of the Barbados-based British Development Division in the Caribbean had been put in charge of the sanitizing and “ordered all pet dogs in Diego Garcia to be destroyed”.

Harold Wilson’s latter day disciple, Tony Blair was equally ruthless. In 2000 the High Court ruled the expulsion illegal and within hours of the judgement Blair’s Foreign Office announced it would not be possible for the islanders to return because of the Treaty with Washington, a Treaty which had been concealed from the British Parliament and the United States Congress. Blair’s Government “invoked the archaic Royal Perogative in order to crush the 2000 judgement,” and “a decree was issued that the islanders were banned forever from returning home.” Now their only hope for justice rests with the European Court.

If it was possible for Labour stalwarts like Nye Bevan, Hugh Gaitskell and Fenner Brockway to return from their graves they would certainly lead an effort to put Wilson and Blair behind bars, thereby redeeming the image of the British Labour Party.

Against the background of such political criminality, how can the Montserrat legislature consider giving the Governor the right to allocate land? If HMG genuinely intends to upgrade the constitutions of the Overseas Territories why are they reluctant to subject to Judicial review any discretion the Governor may be called upon to exercise?

Let us face it, stupidity at Government House has been a problem for quite some time. In the 1960s, Sir Alec Douglas Hume, an aristocrat and Conservative Prime Minister, diplomatically and politely resisted American efforts to block the sale of British buses to Cuba claiming that “the Cuban people will be better behaved when they enjoy the comfort our British buses”. That was during the cold war.

Contrast the  highly enlightened  attitude of Sir Alec with that of recent Governors who prevented the Government of Montserrat from accepting  Cuban gifts of energy saving bulbs and free eye care for the population.

The Montserrat Government would be well advised to put Britain’s good intentions to the test by urging the Foreign Office to reopen the negotiations. Given what is involved a British appointed Attorney General cannot be expected to advise the Government on this issue. A  commitment to good intentions by the Foreign Office would mean the allocation of funds to allow the Montserrat people to obtain the advice of at least two Caribbean legal experts.

It should not be forgotten that even in the old days Montserrat was an equal member of the Leeward Islands Federation. Anguilla and Nevis were administratively with St. Kitts, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the Cayman Islands were administratively with Jamaica. Montserrat entered  the West Indies Federation on the same basis as the other members of that grouping.

Instead of giving in to blackmail tactics the Government of Montserrat should be leading the other Caribbean Territories in seeking the kind of constitutional arrangement which will better enable competent and honest politicians to establish the economic foundation for political independence.

By Shirley Osborne

“We have re-established Britain as a leading international player, prepared to take tough decisions to deal with complex and pointed international difficulties – and where necessary, to back them up with action.

Britain’s mutual relationship with the Overseas Territories must be seen in this context: within the overall framework of modernisation and reform, and within Britain’s new international role.”

From the Partnership for Progress and Prosperity White Paper that every Montserratian should, by now, know about, know of, know well, not least since it also very clearly asserts that, regarding constitutional relations, future action will focus on, “measures promoting more open, transparent .and accountable government.”

My questions, naturally enough, me being me, (or should that properly be, I, being me?) … well, anyway, as I was saying …

My questions are not for the British Government, the “we” referenced in the above quotes. I have only questions for the government of my people, (or should that properly be the administrators of my people since “government” implies and presupposes power … the power to decide, to determine, to direct, which, clearly…..

And! Too! Besides! Power is not merely about muscle, literal or figurative. Power is not only having the force to “back them up with action.”

Real power, the kind that lasts, that travels and translates, resides in ability, competence, skill, talent, proficiency, not to mention integrity, which, clearly …..

Well, anyway. For me the primary issue is not the new Constitution. I am not interested in arguing that we don’t need one … quite the contrary. I feel quite strongly that we do, especially given the historical penchant of a certain class of administrators and governments to assert and arrogate unto themselves powers they think they should have, and then to use those powers to abuse the people over whom they think they are entitled to have this power.

No. The issue, for me, is how we get to The Constitution. How we walk that road as a people. And I say, “as a people” because it seems to me that so far, we have not been, through our administrators or because of our administrators, responding to this matter “as a people”. Some of the people got to have a say, indeed. Those in the three or four places that the team got to, were instructed to go to, or deemed it sufficient to go to, did get the chance to say that they were consulted.
The others? In all the other places? I ask again, now, as many of us did then, what were the criteria for deciding on these particular groups of Montserratians to the exclusion of all others of us? And, more to the point, will the others of us get a formal opportunity to consult on this matter? And, if not, why not?

And, over the next three months – and we must remember to not forget to thank the government, the “we” referenced above, for this most magnanimous and undeniably democratic gesture – over the next three months, as the “we” continues to move along in its new international role taking tough decisions and, where necessary, backing them up with action, what should Montserratians expect? (Has anybody forgotten that thing that the sun never set on the last time “we” was a leading international player?)

Ah! But times have changed. The world is different now. People don’t want those things anymore. Besides, we in Montserrat no longer plant limes, or distill rum, and Chances Peak is a volcano, so there’s no chance of that telecommunications conspiracy thing that some people talked about, and there’s to be no more money from that offshore banking thing. Of course, “we” has no interest in us, at all, except, only, “our good”.

So! But! “We” reserves the power to decide what is “our good”? Because that internal self-government thing, make your own decisions, maybe even find a way to earn your own living, is still “not on offer.” ‘Cause when you have no money, and no power to earn money, and administrators and servants with not one entrepreneurial outside-the-box backbone in their bodies, that’s what you get.

So, what role will Montserratians and our administrators play in ensuring the promotion of open, transparent, and accountable government, and freedom of self-determination, and the ensuring our of human rights, and progress and prosperity for us?

That’s my question.
‘