Books about Anguilla


Wednesday, 9 December 2009


The constitution is purely law; a governing legal document which should evolve with time; like the holy bible does on morals or ethics. As a matter of fact – it’s the “legal” bible for the continuation of democracy and/or good governance.

One can argue that there’s nothing amoral in contravening an Act or a legal power; it’s simply illegal to do so. Illegality has its place in the Court where with a “burden of proof” and actual “evidence”; a judge and/or a jury determine guilt.

Ethics purely deals with morality/immorality behaviours. Morality means a code of conduct or a set of beliefs distinguishing between right and wrong behaviours. This can be displayed purely through public perception or fact; or upon a verdict held by a court of law.

Examples: the “Talk Your Mind” radio talk-show case against the Government of Anguilla (GOA) was not deemed unethical. And yes that case did contravene constitutional and international human rights convention laws. On the other hand, the GOA minister’s case against Ian Donaldson Mitchell CBE, QC, has put the defendant's morals into question - the court held that he is a liar with cost.

Again, the USA (greatest nation on earth today) Constitution proclaims that all men are created equal and free – yet slavery was legal and no women were allowed to vote. Now that’s where ethics and legality merges or divide. Was such an act unethical – yes! Was such an act illegal? – no!

Therefore one can argue that an unethical status may only be bestowed where immorality has been proven or thereafter such decision held by a court of law... my head is spinning and becoming confuse.

In my opinion our constitution (Anguilla) is irrelevant and meaningless - giving its inferiority to an unwritten-constitution (UK) sovereignty. Furthermore, there is no international recognizable citizenship noted as “Anguillian” – it’s purely a myth. The more honest our politicians are with this realization; it saves a nation’s embarrassment.

Why is it unconstitutional to be an American but not to be a Brit or a born Kittitian before Anguilla’s separation from ST. Kitts, when none of them were born on Anguilla? Where does loyalty lie?

The Hon. Neil Rogers remains one of us, deep rooted and cares a hell of a lot more than many, about Anguilla. He holds or held nothing more than an economic citizenship in another country; which many of the others hold or held.

The Hon. Hubert Hughes once held a United Kingdom economic citizenship, before the BOTs citizens were recognized British citizens, which gave him some status and meaning to his life however defiant and ungrateful he become. Did he renounce such before becoming an elected representative? Wasn’t there a high level of uncertainty by that decision? Or was it or is it reciprocal? Or perhaps we are still blinded by a no-reciprocity myth?

However, we must be careful cutting off our noses to spite our faces or cursing the hands that once fed us. It’s shameful to be in Opposition to gratitude and success.

Bearing in mind that public office does not mean public rights to private and family life; let us attack the Hon. Neil Rogers on his political behaviour not on his citizenship – it matters not. Take this matter to Court or shut up. You have no other power with one right which may be meaningless – the right of not to vote for the Hon. Neil Rogers.

But in reality you may not have a better choice.

No comments:

Post a Comment

“Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity” – MLK.