Dear Editor
From what Mr. Mark Golding reportedly said at the recently held PNP Conference, it seems fair to conclude that he is twinning the issue of the CCJ becoming Jamaica’s final appellate court with that of removing the British monarch as the head of state of Jamaica. We find this approach to be unfortunate as it smacks more of politicking than of the serious discourse which is needed in deciding which should be Jamaica’s final appellate court. The Jamaican legal profession and Jamaican authorities in general took care and made great effort (when the CCJ was being conceived and established) to insulate and protect that Court from the improper reach and influences of undesirable outside and other corrupting forces. However, the passage of time has revealed weaknesses and flaws in the court, which we feel must be addressed and corrected while the opportunity exists. That opportunity exists now. Hence, we should not now rush into it without enquiring into and correcting the flaws and weaknesses that we contend exists and which we believe would adversely affect a significant number of the population of Jamaica and the Caribbean.
The determination of which court should be our final court deserves a studied approach to the issues rather than an approach which smacks of gambling. What of the fact that the President of the CCJ has said that the CCJ is an “executing agency” for donor funds? To make matters worse, one source of such funds is UN Women, an organisation that engages in outright LGBT+activism! Wanting to rid ourselves of the vestiges of imperialism is understandable, but what is the alternative? There is another type of imperialism which is very present; it is called “cultural imperialism”. It cannot just be that we are concerned only with the slavery of the past whilst burying our heads to the corruption of thought and the resulting mental slavery which the LGBT+ community has wreaked internationally. We are not for one moment of the view that the Privy Council would be more sympathetic to Jamaica or any other country on the issue of opposing LGBT-ism in all its various forms. But we are concerned that the CCJ has declared itself as a court with an agenda, such agenda being the tasks of achieving “course reset” and closure of the alleged “gap between law and society.” This must be considered in the context of the CCJ being an “executing agency” for funds from LGBT+ organisation.
We are of the view that these issues along with others, ought to be addressed before we leave the Privy Council, otherwise, we will find ourselves in a type of imperialism facilitated by our own leadership! These are some of the reasons why we lament Mr. Golding’s twinning of the issues. The issues of the move to republican status and the move to the CCJ need to be examined on individual bases as there are different factors with each.
We are,
Shirley Richards sprichards82@yahoo.com
Maurice Saunders saunders.maurice@gmail.com