|
|
|
|
Aug
24
Written by:
Godfrey Smith
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
The devil, as the Churches should know, lurks treacherously in the details. Canon LeRoy Flowers' statement on the Open Your Eyes television breakfast show that Prime Minister Barrow had met the Churches "more than half way" in addressing their concerns about his proposed 9th Amendment to the Belize Constitution simply cannot be supported by the facts.
On July 22nd 2011 Mr. Barrow's government introduced the 9th Amendment in the House of Representatives triggering an avalanche of opposition to the idea that a parliamentary supermajority could amend anything in the constitution without court audit.
Hard on the heels of the Bar Association and the Chamber of Commerce's press releases expressing opposition to the 9th Amendment came the Belize Council of Churches' press release on August 8th 2011 under the hand of its president, Canon Flowers.
The Churches were "most concerned" about the "conferral of unbridled legislative power to change the constitution". First, they said that the constitution "properly imposes substantive limitations on the power of the National Assembly to make laws" and that any amendment inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the constitution was "beyond the law making authority of the National Assembly".
Second, they felt it "critical that [the courts] be able to examine the content of amendments to our constitution and not be limited to merely checking to see that the procedural requirements for changing the constitution ... have been met."
Thirdly, while they supported that state ownership and control of public utilities be entrenched in the constitution, they didn't agree with barring the court's power to inquire into the "validity of the acquisitions nor any derogation of the rights of the former owners". They ended by calling on the government to "secure the public utilities for the Belizean people in a manner which respects the rights of the former owners..."
The Churches should know that even after Mr. Barrow's trimmings, their three points of concern remain - unadulterated - in the proposed revised bill. The bill will still contain the phrase "and there is no other limitation, whether substantive or procedural, on the power of the National Assembly to alter this Constitution" thereby leaving the Churches' first and second concerns utterly unaddressed and undiminished.
Second, leaving the phrase "that the acquisition of [BTL] was duly carried out for a public purpose..." in the revised bill again fails to address the concern raised by the Churches in their third point.
If they think carefully enough about it, the Churches might see that the mere introduction of the 9th amendment flies in the face of their injunction to government that it secures the utilities for the people "in a manner which respects the rights of the former owners". The former owners have cases pending in court the outcome of which the government is trying to interfere with by legislative enactment.
The Churches have fallen short in their responsibility to the public. Of their own volition, they (rightly) waded into the debate on a critical national issue. They publicly expressed three reasoned points of fundamental concern they had with the 9th Amendment. After a meeting with Mr. Barrow, the Churches announced they were now in support of the bill with certain agreed changes. There are changes indeed; but they do not at all mitigate the core concerns of the Churches.
The Churches have an obligation to explain themselves. Is it that they no longer have the concerns they expressed in their August 8th 2011 press release? If yes, then they need to share their new enlightenment with the public. It takes but a brief examination to see that Mr. Barrow's concessions do not at all allay their core concerns. So why did they agree to a trimming of the foliage while the poisonous roots remain?
A Biblical analogy might perhaps make the point. Suppose a clever Caribbean theologian proposes to Pope Benedict at the Vatican or Archbishop Williams at Lambeth Palace that the following amendment be made to the 9th Commandment just to clarify what must be its obvious interpretation:
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, save and except if she is only a common law wife which in any event the Church does not recognize or if thy neighbor is a woman married to another woman under Same Sex Marriage Acts or if thy neighbor is an Atheist and thus can't properly be considered thy neighbor or any such similar circumstance whatsoever or howsoever arising which makes it plain that thy neighbor's wife should not actually be considered thy neighbor's wife.
A wide swath of Caribbean people would support the amendment; an equally substantial portion wouldn't. In an attempt to placate those opposed, the theologian deletes from his proposed amendment the text that appears in red:
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, save and except if she is only a common law wife which in any event the Church does not recognize or if thy neighbor is a woman married to another woman under Same Sex Marriage Acts or if thy neighbor is an Atheist and thus can't properly be considered thy neighbor or any such similar circumstance whatsoever howsoever arising which makes it plain that thy neighbor's wife should not be considered thy neighbor's wife.
I suspect this would still be unacceptable to both the pope and the archbishop, regardless of how compelling and obvious the argument might be, because one does not lightly tinker with sacred texts and prescriptions.
I cannot join in the heaping of encomiums upon the Church for their supposed achievement in getting the PM to trim the text of the 9th amendment because my frank belief is that they were duped and outmaneuvered by the PM using a simple lawyer's trick.
I fear the Canon dost protest too much when he plaintively repeats that that they are not lawyers and that we have to trust the PM. Does not the Good Book counsel that trust should be placed in God, not man? The Churches should never have entered the negotiation with the PM unarmed. They should have taken their legal advisor. Unless of course they felt that in God they had the supreme advisor; in which case, He failed them miserably.
Copyright ©2011 Godfrey Smith
13 comment(s) so far...
Re: Churches Drink from PM’s Poisoned Chalice
I pray that the opposing lawyers, including Mr. Smith, would be honest with the Belizean people and confess that the only problem they have with the 9th. is the entrenchment of the people's ownership of utility companies. The court has already ruled that their jurisdiction cannot be ousted. The nonsense that the 9th. will make parliament, and not the Constitution, supreme is pregnant garbage.
By Erv Wade on
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
|
Re: Churches Drink from PM’s Poisoned Chalice
After several demonstrations by the PM that he has a penchant for being dishonest with the people; having lied about several issues and simply not disclosing important information to the people on whose behalf he claims to be causing all this unease - I have no faith that the 9th amendment bill is in earnest.
Was it true that Argentian group made offer to GOB to purchase shares in BTL?
Why did PM take our money out of Central Bank and SSB to put in BTL without asking our permission?
What is the true state of our economy and what are the implications of this mess to the economy and people of Belize?
What is the status of BTL? Is it worthwhile to the Belizean people? We seem to be putting in and are yet to derive those benefits that PM Barrow spoke of? In fact there seems to be one set of people who are enjoying those benefits.
Why has PM Barrow defied the Courts in its rulings against the government on this matter?
Why is he not listening to voices of observers outside of Belize who are now paying keen attention to this matter with trepidation for the people and economy of Belize?
Why does PM Barrow believe that he and only he knows it all? What happened to the workers shares?
If BTL is performing so well as some of Barrow's people purport, then what's need for our money and why haven't we gotten lower rates from BTL as was promised by the PM in his manifesto?
Because the PM has disrespected the Courts and just about everyone who disagrees with him I have no faith that we will see a change in his pattern and any opportunity to put more power in his hands gives me and many who oppose the 9th amendment in whatever version great trepidations.
By Rhenae Nunez on
Thursday, August 25, 2011
|
Re: Churches Drink from PM’s Poisoned Chalice
I don't trust the trimmings the PM did and I don't support the 9th Amendment Bill. Once bitten twice shy
By Free Mind on
Thursday, August 25, 2011
|
Re: Churches Drink from PM’s Poisoned Chalice
The truth can be a real pain for some folks. Great job Godfrey!!!!
By Rhenae Nunez on
Thursday, August 25, 2011
|
Re: Churches Drink from PM’s Poisoned Chalice
To begin with, the churches should have addressed their concerns to the House Constitutional Committee, ( in session ) and not to a Cabinet Panel as This Bill came from a House Sitting. At this House Meeting, the Speaker directed the Corresponding House Committee to go and hold Public hearings. During this interim period while the House Committee is holding these official hearings NO ONE has the power or authority to make changes or negotiate to make changes to this Draft Bill. Only the House at a sitting can alter the contents of the Bill in circulation. ( Unless we are living in a Dictatorship ). SECONDLY, the remmoval of the so called offending clauses, where the Courts would be barred to rule on these acquisitions, is actually just like trimming some half the hairs off my head. This does not make me bald. Did the Council of Churches reviewed Section 2 ( new part (2) which makes the Constitution No LONGER the Supreme Law of the Land, because a new clause is inserted which says that the Constitution is not Supreme when it refers to the acquisition of Utilities. THEN the desination of UTILITIES also has an addition which says "Or any other item which the Government considers to be a Utility". SO IN TRUTH the Courts will still be barred from ruling on such acquisitions. My suggestion has been from DAY ONE, do your job under Article 17. Notify,- -clasiffy, - negotiate a and PAY. Otherwise You are actually CONFISCATING. ( in lower places Kleptomanai - ISM )
By Hector David Silva Sr. on
Thursday, August 25, 2011
|
Re: Churches Drink from PM’s Poisoned Chalice
BAD BARBER. The head of the 9th ammendment was trimmed for the benefit of the Council of Churches, but not SHAVED of unwanted hair. FIRST- in a democracy only the House of Representatives has the power to ammend or negotiate on the contents of the Draft Bill, which is now in the consultation process, as mandated by the Speaker at the last sitting of the House, when this Bill was laid on the table. SECONDLY - the removal of those offending clauses to satisfy the Council of Churches concerns, were indeed only a portion of the OFFENSIVE intentions. For Article 2, where the Constitution is the Supreme Law, a new clause has been inserted which reduces the SUPREMACY OF THE HOUSE, where the matter of acqusition of utilities is concerned. Then the House is being empowered by this provision to designate at Article 69, the present three utilities BEING ACQUIRED and any other item which they consider to be a utility. BY this provision, these acquisition will also be BEYOND the jurisdiction of thre Courts, because they WILL NOT fall under the Supremacy of the Constitution.
By Hector David Silva Sr. on
Thursday, August 25, 2011
|
Re: Churches Drink from PM’s Poisoned Chalice
When I heard the news that the church had accepted the 9th Amendment after having meet with Barrow delegate on Friday and Monday and the church leader went with out their attorneys, as a Belizean citizen and a strong person in church my leaders fail me. After hearing Canon Leroy Flower interview in the news asking the opposition leaders and other organization not to crate any more confusion and to accept the 9th amendment with the new changes and haring Pastor Weight in Rise and Shine arguing with Don Hector Silva Sr. about the new changes that he(pastor Weight) was their in the meeting and that it was not as how Godfry Smith is putting it and haring him defend the 9th Amendment every morning in his television, he is sold and all the church leaders too, I hope it will not come and hunt him back in the future, went if in case the government want his television for public purpose and he cannot go to court to challenge it, then he will open his eye, but it will be to late.
It a shame to hear that Canon Leroy Flower place his trust in a man and not in God, he fail us bad very bad.
concerned
Strong believer in God not in a man.
By A concerned Belizean Citizen on
Thursday, August 25, 2011
|
Re: Churches Drink from PM’s Poisoned Chalice
Mr. Smith should refrain from using the name of God in vain in trying to make his point. However, I guess, he does not subscribe to our religious belief as he serves a different Lord.
By Antonio Ramirez on
Thursday, August 25, 2011
|
Re: Churches Drink from PM’s Poisoned Chalice
Mr. Smith should refrain from using the name of God in vain in trying to make his point. However, I guess, he does not subscribe to our religious belief as he serves a different Lord.
By Antonio Ramirez on
Thursday, August 25, 2011
|
Re: Churches Drink from PM’s Poisoned Chalice
I agree with many of the points you make here Mr. Smith...however, I find the last line of this article to be very distasteful and offensive!!!!!
By SAID OLIVER WILBERT BARROW on
Monday, August 29, 2011
|
Re: Churches Drink from PM’s Poisoned Chalice
Mr. Smith,
I thought God was a she?
By John on
Monday, August 29, 2011
|
Re: Churches Drink from PM’s Poisoned Chalice
I think that the lack of responses on this article shows that we are tired of all the political brinksmanship and BULL$&!# surrounding the Ninth Amendment from both sides!!!!
By SAID OLIVER WILBERT BARROW on
Monday, September 05, 2011
|
Re: Churches Drink from PM’s Poisoned Chalice
PUP's are a bunch of Corrupt, Mafia guys, money laundering Group involved in politics!!
and Most of them ARE GAYS.
starting with U!!!!
ending with jaimita
By NIRO on
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
|
|
|
|
Disclaimer
Flashpointbelize.com reserves the right not to publish comments that may be deemed libelous, derogatory or indecent. The views expressed in the comments are not necessarily those of Flashpointbelize.com.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed.
|
Find:
|