You are not logged in.
Well folks, it seems that our allegiance to Elizabeth and her tribe in that rat infested Abattoir called Buckingham Palace, is more deeply rooted than previously thought? Because while we were here busily discussing the drawbacks in our desire to advance the causes of our Grenadian autonomy, that woman was laughing she backdide off at us, knowing fully well that we still have that inate desire to hang on to her Petticoat, no matter what.
And at the end of the day, we were reminded once again of that salient issue; the slave mentality that continues to act as an impediment to our supposedly independent thinking. It was being played out in prime Grenadian time and on center stages at the voting precincts for all to see. It appears that our good Cousins in Saint Vincent may have shu-shued in the ears of our Grenadian Brothers and Sisters as we were about to vote on our referendum. They may have said "in the good name of 'our Queen' and 'with pride in our subject designation'...... doh vote for dat" and so, we did not.
Our readers here may recall that on November 25, 2009, Vincentians went to the pols and casted their votes to retain Queen Elizabeth as Head of State instead of giving more power to their home-grown politicians vying "to be the King/Queen in their own country". How dare! they aspire to achieve any Kingly and Queenly status, the equivalent to that of OUR MAJESTY.
And remembering it was Elizabeth who in 1983, abandoned her Governor General, Sir. Paul Scoon (a French man to boot) as he took up refuge in a closet with his Wife, awaiting their faiths by "those Revo, Lego beasts". Yet! Yet! just one year earlier, in 1982, that same Queen had no problems sending a flotilla of war ships all the way down to the Falkland Islands in Argentina to protect those way-word, British citizens down dey.
Did we Grenadians remember that?
Did we even care that the Wretch did not lift a finger to help us in our darkest days of hell?
And what did Scoon do as a repayment for Her Majesty's abandonment? he advanced her cause on the death penality and refused to Hang dem murderous "so and so" for their heinous crimes on our people.
No wonder why we had kicked his hass out of the French Quarters some years earlier, he was to dam csut!
But for those of you who were following this exercise in adult franchise, it was indeed in satisfaction of the tenets of our democracy; a rear undertaking which could not have been more satisfying because it gave our citizenry the opportunity to say yea or ney to the proposed changes to our constitution.
No one could argue that all seven provisions in that bill, particularly the two that points to our autonomy would have brought us closer to the day of a possible Grenada renaissance.
They were as follows:
(a) The substitution with a Caribbean Supreme Court as the final court of appeals for Grenada instead of that dash! Privy Council.
(b) A requirement that would bound public officials when taking office to swear allegiance to the state of Grenada instead of to Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors.
Yes! Grenadians, it seems that these two Shackles that continue to weigh heavily on our Ankles have not rusted with time. And despite the salinity from the waters of The Middle Passage, they continued to be viewed as "the jewel in the crown" that only subjugation can bring and for which we so proudly wear. The salt, it seems, had done more damage to infest our minds instead and that, we continue to endure to this day.
So on November 24, 2016 the Grenadian voting populace had made a decision to inadvertently vote "YES" to keep those Shackels of the Crown firmly around their necks and ankles, a setback of another one hundred years to our renaissance. And despite the efforts of our own brilliant minds; having earned the accolade of Doctorate in their respective fields, still it was not enough to convince "the supposedly more learned John Public, to shed Motha's jewelry of Neck Chains and Ankle Bracelets. Instead they voted to continue singing "God Save Our Gracious Queen".
"Poor jab dem! Dey en know how Mutha would have been pleased to see them, at least try to walk by themselves instead of always reaching out for her hands".
So as one ponders the thought of "whether we will ever be able to find ourselves", I can bet if Dr. Francis Alexis had secured the services of "an English Gentleman" to present the referendum case to the Grenadian people, all seven provisions of that bill would have been passed, inadvertently or not.
"Is so we dey"
The Monsieur from the French Quarters
There are so much there, ah doh know way to start. Maybe just maybe Grenada, will be much better under the rule of the British. Them politicians tief too damn much. I can't get pass ah TIEFING Politician, especially when Grenadians are suffering.
I believe that, this thing was ah farce from the start. The Grenadian people had something force on them and they just did not understand, what the hell was going on. When ah Radio host and the TRAITOR in one Senator Chester Humphrey was the main spokes persons for this referendum and words like if you vote against it, you are dumb and you wasted your parents money when they send you school, how are you suppose to feel?
The NNP made it a Political issue and it should not of been. There should of been all kind of meeting all over Grenada, with members of the opposition and every Grenadian should of been involved. The NNP made ah mess of this thing.
Here is what I think defeated this thing, it is the Gay issue. Grenadians were not ready to deal with making gays, ah part of their community. I am willing to bet, of this one was left out, everything else would of gone through.
If there are blame for the defeat, blame it all on the NNP.
I don't agree with the position from "The Frenchman" that "No one could argue that all seven provisions in that bill, particularly the two that points to our autonomy would have brought us closer to the day of a possible Grenada renaissance." Here are some considerations:
A. Issue # 1: This had 4 parts as noted below --
*Caribbean Court of Justice take over from Privy Council. (My position: yes! This provision gets to the autonomy issue that The Frenchman raised.)
*Change name of Grenada's Supreme Court. (My position: no change needed! The proposed name change is just simply semantics.)
*Code of Conduct for public officials. (My position: yes! Having the ethics code will help to curb excesses and deficiencies among public officials that we have all heard about for years.)
*Public Officials continue to swear to the Queen as opposed to swearing to Grenada. (My position: no; to be clear, swear to Grenada!)
B. Issue #2: Replace the 4-member (2 each from the government and the opposition) Elections & Boundaries Commission with a 1-person "independent Chairman".
My position: no! Isn't it obvious that 4 minds are better, theoretically and even practically for sake of balance, than one person acting alone using his/her single brain? The 4-members will collectively have 4 brains to address election and boundaries issues compared to the 1 brain of the then-proposed "independent Chairman". For want of a better analogy, therefore, the decision on this issue is a "no-brainer".
C. Issue #3: Ensure that there is an Opposition Leader, in situations where the government wins ALL seats in the general elections.
My position: yes! What good is it for a democracy to exist if there is no opposition? The decision from the people on this issue is a bit surprising. However, they may have reasoned that 15-0 results are a rarity (even though we have seen it twice at home). The people may have thought that 15-0 will not happen, ever again, and that there will naturally be an opposition and an opposition leader.
D. Issue #4: Ensure a Fixed Date for Elections.
My position: yes! There should not be any headaches with that provision. However, the people may have been satisfied that the bill recognizes that elections will be every 5 years and that it is not absolutely necessary to say the exact date on which the elections must occur. I have no real problem with the rejection of this part of the Referendum.
E. Issue #5: Change the country's name to include (i) Carriacou & Petite Martinique and (ii) have the territory of Grenada include "all other areas which were a part of Grenada at the time of independence in February 1974."
My position: no. Adding Carriacou and Petite Martinique got my vote but then I made the overall decision to reject that issue because of the last requirement to include "all other areas . . ." That is vague and begs the question: why not include those other areas in the official name of the country? If the issue is to be precise about all territories that form Grenada, then include ALL of them in the country's official name. But, doing so would make the official name much, much, much too long. Simply saying GRENADA is enough! The rejection was proper.
F. Issue #6: Bill of Rights expansion to include:
*individual rights including those arrested;
*protection of intellectual property;
*protection of children including those born out of wedlock;
*guarantee public education for children under 16 and those with disabilities under 18;
*recognition of gender equality;
*protection of the environment & protection of those with physical disabilities
My position: yes. Why is it that the people could not see this provision as being positive? It affects everyone and makes sense.
G. Issue #7: Prime Minister's Term of Office. Prevent anyone from serving 3 consecutive terms as PM.
My position: yes! There is no need for someone to serve 3 consecutive terms as Grenada's PM. The rejection of this provision may be because the people did not understand that it prevents a potential 15 + year rule (that could be 20 or more years) by any one person. Unfortunately, with the rejection by the people, that very scenario is what they have endorsed.
From the assessment above, I have pointed out that not all issues required acceptance by the Grenadian public. So, I agreed with them in some instances but had some disagreements.
As to the autonomy issue raised by The Frenchman, it seems to me that only Issue #1 is on point and even so only on two of its subsections: the CCJ v the Privy Council and Swearing Allegiance to the Queen v. Grenada. I had mixed responses: Yes, in disagreement with the people on the CCJ v. Privy Council matter (because they chose the Privy Council while I wished for the CCJ) and No on the swearing allegiance matter, again in disagreement with the Grenadian people (because they chose to continue swearing to the Queen while I wanted swearing allegiance to Grenada).
Clearly, the Referendum presented a mixed bag.
Last edited by gripe (Dec 08, 2016 2:37 pm)
Here are the results of the Referendum (with some graphical analysis):
Sorry for the late reply but much appreciate your comprehensive response to my piece, even though a few of your conclusions were somewhat troubling to me. While on the one hand, your sequential approach and analysis made for a good read, the prerequisites leading up to your conclusion "Yes" ....as in agreement to the proposed section of the ammendment and "No".... as to your disagreement, remains puzzling.
But first, permit me to provide clarity on the standards I had set leading up to my position.
I had read the bill in its entirety and quicky concluded that it was obvious that only two sections of the first Bill had met "the required qualifying standards of materiality and fundamentality" necessary to make constitutional change. The "Term Limit" provision came close but in my opinion, was more an issue of functionality hence the disqualifier. The rest of the issues could best be described as.....to use your word, semantics and could have been addressed via parliamentary/legislative agreement. As such, I had not regarded them as germain to my aguement of our autonomy, leading up to our possible renaissance.
That aside, a revisitation of the preamble to your rebuttal.....your stated disagreement, could have been narrowed down to the two sections of the "first issue" I had highlighted. Had you done so, you would have realized that we were more in agreement than in disagreement. The other issues, as we both had recognized, could have only risen to the level of meeting the functional requirements. Nonetheless, were indeed important to the extent that they were part of the exercise.
But focusing on your prerequisites, my puzzlement had to do with your position as follows:
>>>>>*Public Officials continue to swear to the Queen as opposed to swearing to Grenada. <b> (My position: no. </b>
It is here where I felt that your aforementioned Yes/No logic was violated and may require some clarity as your position of "NO" followed by your providing an explanation to that position by saying <b> "swear to Grenada" </b> is the same position of the ammendment.
Your summary seems just as puzzling and could have only met its qualifier with further explanations which you provided.
That leads me to ask, is it possible that the Grenadian people may have also been met with the same yes/no difficulty?
As to our marching towards one day, achieving our Renaissance, that accomplishment cannot come to fruition without first dismantling every vestige of foreign authority; complete control of our autonomy. Hence I regard every step towards that end as a positive one. To do nothing seems to be an abridge to our own ability to think and rationalize; qualities that are not reserve only for any Englishman/woman.
Our people must begin to understand that otherwise we would continue to be regarded as second class...subjects.
The Monsieur from the French Quarters
Frenchman, you addressed some of the issues that I struggled with in responding to your first post and it is why my concluding statement was that "Clearly, the referendum presented a mixed bag." It was "mixed" in a number of ways. However, let me clarify as you have gently urged in your last response:
1. We both agreed on what the correct result should have been on Issue #1 related to the CCJ v. Privy Council and Swearing to the Queen as opposed to Grenada. My position is simply that: (a) I did not agree with the "No" vote regarding the CCJ and (b) I did not agree that Grenada's public officials should continue swearing to the Queen; they should swear to Grenada. Why is my position on the swearing issue puzzling to you?
2. I did not agree with you, however, that Grenadians should have voted "Yes" on all the other issues. I agreed with their "No" votes on Issues #2 and #5. My arguments are fairly straightforward and, in some instances, I gave a possible explanation for Grenadians' "No" votes.
3. Here is my summary position compared to the actual vote:
Issue #1: I disagreed with the "No" vote in part.
Issue #2: I agreed with the "No" vote.
Issue #3: I disagreed with the "No" vote.
Issue #4: I disagreed with the "No" vote.
Issue #5: I agreed with the "No" vote.
Issue #6: I disagreed with the "No" vote.
Issue #7: I disagreed with the "No" vote.
I hope that I have clarified my positions.
Last edited by gripe (Dec 10, 2016 3:03 pm)
>>>>>I hope that I have clarified my positions.<<<<<
Indeed, you have
Should Grenadians get a second bite at the apple on the Referendum issues? If they do, the organizers should allow Grenadian expatriates to vote as well. That should at least increase the voting percentage compared to the recent Referendum turnout.