Monarchy vs a Corrupt Republic: Part 3

 

 

The following is part three of a speech is was presented by yours truly at a town hall meeting discussing corruption in Jamaica and how it should affect our view of a republic.

 

The truth is that this government of ours think only in the short term as is typical of politicians. They have stated time and again that their constitutional reform is limited to replacing Charles III with a President. My question is that, if the government is so committed to transforming Jamaica, then why are not tackling more substantial areas?  E.g. the structure of the court system, in an article written by Yours Truly entitled “Ditch the Court, keep the King.” I pointed out that replacing the JCPC with the CCJ would be a far more substantial change as this would significantly affect how our courts would rule in death penalty cases, surely that means much more to the ordinary man than the presidential aspirations of a few PNP and JLP politicians? And it is not just the court issue, I’m sure we all aware of the situation regarding Professor Richard Albert whose membership on the Constitutional Reform Committee has been a source of controversy. The government responding by stating that his citizenship status and political views have nothing to with becoming a republic. Additionally, a letter published by The Gleaner dated April 19, 2023 put forward a series of other proposals for reform such as fixed election dates, proportional representation, impeachment for corrupt activities and recall for non-performing MPs. I would personally add fixed terms for MPs as well as independent senators although these was not stated in the article.

 

What is the point here? Each of these proposals would go a far way in helping to keep the government more accountable to the people of this country, but the government is not interested in any of this. Having fixed election dates and a recall system for Members of Parliament would do 2 things, 1. MPs would no longer able to ignore their constituencies for long periods of time until the next campaign cycle rolls around, and 2. the government couldn’t easily manipulate the election date to a time that they feel is most advantageous to them. Both of these changes would immediately affect how MPs perform in their duties. Can you imagine how politicians would be forced to change their modus operandi if they knew that corrupt activities would get them impeached?  In the 2007 election campaign, the JLP under Bruce Golding had promised that they would look at adding impeachment procedures in our constitution, yet nothing has come of it. The inclusion of independent non-partisan senators would add more diverse viewpoints to the upper house of our legislature but instead they insist on keeping the 13-8 setup which ensures that the senate will only be filled by party loyalists who failed to win a seat in the general election.

 

A president of a republic is supposed to represent his people but the government clearly has no intention of representing the people. This is clear as the constitutional reform process has given them an opportunity to increase representation at all levels in both central and local government and all this government wants to do is have a president, who will be selected by them. So where does the representation of the people come in? simply put, it’s not important to them. The government claims that it wants to do public consultation and education but what they are really doing is propaganda where they simply tell the people what they are going to do and expect total complicity. Frankly even then, their efforts are not entirely in good faith, as they have given the impression that they are moving from the Westminster model to something else. Nothing could be further from the truth as the government has no plans to move away from Westminster save in one aspect. What is interesting to note is that contrary to popular opinion, the Westminster model can itself be tweaked and still remain Westminster in essence for example Australia has an elected upper house while New Zealand has proportional representation, both have fixed election dates. Yet notwithstanding this, they are fundamentally Westminster democracies with ministers responsible to parliament (not separate from it) and a governor-general to represent the monarchy. I say this to say that I  am not all opposed to Westminster, as I stated above the most democratic countries in the world (Norway, Finland Denmark and Sweden) all use a variation of Westminster so it clear that the system has it virtues and can be tweaked to improve representation.

 

 What I find unacceptable however is the false narrative where the government isn’t telling the people that the Westminster model isn’t going anywhere and allows the false impression to persist. I suppose they don’t want the people asking what is the point of reform if it isn’t going to be comprehensive. But that is the point, it was NEVER meant to be comprehensive, it was meant to be very narrow and this is why I stated in an earlier article entitled “wrong priorities” (January 19, 2023) that the government isn’t concerned with the aspirations of the people but more soothing their egos. They want a president, because they think it will make them look good. We know this, because that is exactly what happened in Barbados when the government took a unilateral decision to become a republic, it was celebrated in the American press for days and that is what this government wants, their moment in the sun. Yet this will NOT be about the Jamaican people, it will be about our local overlords virtue signaling about they overcame the “oppressive” monarchy. The irony is that King Charles isn’t oppressing anyone, not even members of own family who are in open rebellion against the Crown (son, daughter-in-law, brother) and the government would not have overcome anything because the King has already said that he will only stay with realms that WANT him to stay. The only people that will be oppressed and overcome is us, not by the royal family but by the bipartisan duopoly that has ruled over us since 1962, yet this is not the narrative that will be told in the media but instead the false impression will be given about us breaking some imaginable shackles but which is why we are told that is about the national psyche, an intangible and in-concrete concept that is made up entirely in their own heads. The deceptive nature of this narrative is exactly why I say that the position of head of state in a country like ours cannot be subjected to partisan whims, it must be truly apolitical and there is no institution that represents neutrality, more than the crown. Or as the Times so elegantly put it in 1996 “Politicians debating the future of our monarchy resemble a poachers’ convention deliberating on the future role of the gamekeeper.”

 

We are constantly told that the monarchy is just a figurehead and that moving to president is mere cosmetic, this is fiction, the truth is that crown retains much authority such as dissolving parliament, appointing ministers and ambassadors, proclaiming states of emergency and granting royal assent to bills. Some may argue that all these powers should be in hands of someone local, I would answer by reminding them that all these powers are already exercised by someone local i.e. The Governor-General. So why not formalize it by turning the office of governor-general into the office of president? Here is why, because whereas a vice-regal office represents a completely neutral Crown, a presidential 0ffice represents the ruling political class, the argument that the president would represent the people is a fairy tale because a president not chosen by the people cannot represent them. It is a lie that a governor-general need not tell. The truth is that our system works because it provides us with the benefits of having an apolitical monarchy but also provides us with a middleman who is one of our own to exercise all the prerogatives associated with royalty. The ruling class isn’t ignorant of this fact but are counting on us not to know so they can push their agenda. And what is their agenda? Greater power and influence for themselves.

I have shown in no uncertain terms that if the government was serious about meaningful reform then there are several steps they could take in this but instead they have resorted to empty platitudes. I have shown that the government’s interest is more is symbols and optics that benefit them than in change that benefit the nation. Writing of the late Queen in 1998, the Daily Telegraph stated “We should all bear carefully in mind the constitutional safeguards inherent in the monarchy: While the Queen occupies the highest office of state, no one can take over the government. While she is head of the law, no politician can take over the courts. While she is ultimately in command of the Armed Forces, no would-be dictator can take over the Army. The Queen’s only power, in short, is to deny power to anyone else. Any attempt to tamper with the royal prerogative must be firmly resisted.”  And that is the central point

 Most of all, if you get nothing from this speech get this, people are inherently corrupt, politicians more so, we need institutions to keep them honest and this government is not interested in any such institution that would limit them, their ambition is to have it all in reach and so long as the monarchy is in the way they cannot get there, that is bad news for them but should be good news for us the people.  We know the arguments against the monarchy already, independence; democracy; black man time now; mental slavery and all the rest but for all these arguments I shall repeat the words of celebrated author C.S. Lewis “Monarchy can easily be debunked, but watch the faces, mark well the debunkers. These are the men whose taproot in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire mere equality they cannot reach it. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.”

THE END

Monarchy vs a Corrupt Republic Part 2

 

The following is part two of a speech is was presented by yours truly at a town hall meeting discussing corruption in Jamaica and how it should affect our view of a republic.

The point being made here is that replacing the monarch with a president will never ever enhance development but it may stifle it, depending on who is in office, I can point to solid evidence for this. In 1962, Uganda became independent with Elizabeth II  as its head, a year later they amended the constitution to remove her, contrary to popular belief however, they did NOT become a republic. Instead they became an elective monarchy where the rulers of the different Ugandan tribal states would take turns as head of state with the inaugural holder of the “presidential” office being Mutesa II, Kabaka of Buganda. From 1962-1966, Uganda was noted as one of the fastest growing economies in Africa. Then in 1966, The Prime Minister decided that he wanted to highest office for himself decided to overthrow the Kabaka . Suffice it to say that this started the road to Uganda’s decline. Unlike the monarch who was already independently wealthy, both Obote and his successor Idi Amin looted the country’s coffers to enrich themselves and the nation suffered a great deal from the hands of their presidential tyrants, suffice to say that had Uganda remained a constitutional monarchy (either tied to the Commonwealth or a local elective monarchy), the executive would have never have had the power to engage in its widespread corruption as the government would have be limited by the fact of a higher authority above them. Is it any wonder that the constitutional reform agenda has no other focus? as German sociologist Max Weber once stated “Parliamentary monarchy fulfils a role which an elected president never can. It formally limits the politicians’ thirst for power because with it the supreme office of the state is occupied once and for all.”

But this discourse is not one on democracy but one on corruption, yet it is still important to point this out because if the very root of the presidential office is less than honest, everything else can be called into question. Now turning to corruption, let’s do the analysis for that one. According the latest corruption perception index, the most corrupt countries are Somalia, South Sudan, Syria and Yemen again all republics. In contrast to this, the least corrupt countries are Denmark, Finland, New Zealand, Norway and Singapore. Of these 5, 3 are still monarchies and other 2 actually became republics against their will (Finland in 1917 Russian revolution and Singapore being expelled from Malaysia in 1965).

So with that history, that begs the question, why is our government so keen on a republic? Is it to heal slavery? The gullible may believe that, but I’m not so convinced, the men who wrote our independence constitution were much closer to slavery days than we are now yet they saw it fit to give us a constitutional monarchy. Or is it they will tell you that we need to be independent. Again this argument holds no water because Jamaica is already a recognized sovereign state the world over, nor can they legitimately claim that our constitutional structure is backward because there are first world developed countries that have a similar structure such as Canada or Australia, so it is hardly convincing that this is about developing ourselves because a King is no hindrance to development or independence, any more than a president is a help to it. Some republicans will posit national pride as the reason and this is notion I find most bizarre and quite offensive and here is why? Jamaica is a beautiful country, we have so much to offer the world, from our natural beauty to our culture from  to our sporting achievements  and so much more more, the very idea that I need someone to call Mr. President or Madam President before I can feel any pride for my country is one I utterly reject.  Thatcher saw the truth of that when she rightfully declared “Those who imagine that a politician would make a better figurehead than a hereditary monarch might perhaps make the acquaintance of more politicians.” And speaking of a figurehead especially the need for one who looks like us, I reckon we already a governor-general for serve that purpose.  The organization Monarchy New Zealand refers to a set up like ours as a “team of three” in which the power of the executive is more diffused because it is shared between three individuals, the monarch, the governor-general and the prime minister.  This arrangement works because each office helps to keep the other two in check thus power is diffused rather than fused.

 

Why does this arrangement work in a monarchy but not in a republic?  First of all, we must ask ourselves, what is the purpose of the state? Of any state?  According to Crown Prince Otto of Austria also a noted scholar and elder statesman, the purpose of the state is to exist not for its own sake but for the sake of the people that it is meant to serve. Its authority is circumscribed by the rights of its citizens. It is only free to act in those fields within their remit. The State is therefore at all times the servant of natural law. Or perhaps we could comprehend it if it is stated more crudely, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a French socialist politician puts it as follows “Authority, which in monarchy is the principle of governing, is in republics the aim of the government.” What does that mean to us? And why should it matter? There are many who are of the view that all we need is change in the title of the governor-general to president, remove all reference to The Crown and everything will go on as they always have. I will however disabuse you of that notion. One of the biggest arguments republicans use to bolster their cause is the fact that we live in the 21^st century, the royals being acutely aware of this fact are not going to commit any infraction that will effectively abolish themselves and the governor-general also being aware of this sentiment will also tread very carefully. A president on other hand does not have anyone calling for his/her head constantly simply by virtue of their existence, therefore without this sense of foreboding hanging over them they would not be subjected to the same careful inclinations in the exercise of their duties.

One of the primary goals of every monarch is to leave behind a strong legacy for their heirs to inherit, in his book “Democracy: The God that Failed” Professor Hans Herman Hoppe made mention of the fact that in a republic, a president holds the use of the current resource of the state but does NOT own its capital value since unlike a king, a president cannot pass on his title to an heir, in fact in some cases his successor might even be an enemy (e.g. Trump and Biden). With this in mind a president has no incentive to maintain or even enhance the value of the government estate but instead as a mere trustee, he knows he has but a short time to acquire whatever he can from his office before term limits eventually force him out to make room for his replacement . We need only to look to the  US presidency where most incumbents leave office considerably wealthier than they were before going in. We are often told that president would give our children a chance to aspire to something, but the truth is there is no president that really goes into office thinking about any future office holder. King Charles on the other hand would most certainly have succession at the forefront of his mind, the legacy that he would leave behind for Prince William and Prince George, hence his own notion on how to conduct himself on throne would be guided by this consideration in a way a president will not. This fact alone lessens any likelihood of a monarch’s involvement in corruption since he knows it will mean not only the end of his own reign but the end of  dynasty's future prospects.

An example of such a scenario playing out can be seen approximately a decade ago in the uprising known as the Arab spring. Several nations in West Asia and North Africa went through a revolutionary fervor with citizens demanding more rights, better living conditions and greater representation in governments. In the wake of this, republics such as Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Yemen all experienced a complete breakdown of civil authority as exemplified by the complete overthrow of existing governments. In contrast, monarchies like Jordan, Morocco and Bahrain served as a moderating influence, yes changes were indeed made to these countries but the changes were smoother and did not come in the wake of any long lasting instability. This is due in no small part to Kings who proved themselves open to changes. Yom and Gause argue that the “Arab Spring might just as well be called the Arab Republics’ Spring” because monarchies remained relatively stable while republican regimes in the region collapsed or experienced monumental shifts.  What was it that caused the difference where King Abdullah II and King Mohammed VI were able to retain their thrones while men like Hosni Mubarak and Abdullah Saleh were forced demit office? Were not the latter democratically elected by their people as a president should be? First of all, neither president was chosen by the people, they were selected by a small group of elites, secondly both presidents headed regimes that were notorious for corruption and repression of dissent and third, both of these presidents were siphoning state resources, lining the pockets of their cronies. In stark contrast to this stands the Kings of Jordan and Morocco both of whom being in the position that they were in recognized that if they wanted a secure monarchy to pass to the next generation, social and political changes were necessary which allowed them to survive and their people to thrive,

 

But wait, you might ask, doesn’t that mean that the royals are just as self-interested as elected politicians? Yes, this is so. However, it is in human nature to be self-interested even those are doing good often do so with self-interested motives in mind e.g. European powers didn’t abolish slavery out of the goodness of their hearts but because the industrial revolution meant slavery was no longer profitable to them to them. Yet the slaves enjoy the benefit of freedom from the taskmasters once emancipation was proclaimed. Similarly, when companies participate in charity work, is it because they are benevolent heroes? Not at all, they are looking for the tax breaks that come with it. Yet the disadvantaged persons who benefit from the charity efforts are still grateful for it. What is my point here, the Kantian worldview of innate human goodness is a fallacy, yet many republics claim this as their legacy simply by virtue of that fact they have a head of state who claims some electoral legitimacy (which at times does not even exist). The Machiavellian worldview on the other hand is far more accurate and this is especially because many misunderstand it in the first place.  In his 1532 masterpiece “The Prince” Machiavelli makes mention of the fact that while a monarch should deal ruthlessly with foreign powers, he should also deal justly and kindly with his own citizens in that way, he will be loved at home and feared abroad. Yet in discussing the Machiavellian point of view, scholarship often mentions only half the story. The point is this, both monarchs and presidents are human and both are flawed and self-interested, what makes the difference however is that a monarch has far more to lose as he has the next generation to consider whereas a president can only ever see as far as the end of his term.  Even while still Prince of Wales, we often heard Charles III talk about the kind of world he is leaving behind for his upcoming grandchildren, Joe Biden and Donald Trump on the other hand cannot seem to think beyond the 2024 polls. Is it not better then to cast our lot with a head of state that has a longer, more visionary view in mind?

To be Continued in Part three 

Monarchy vs a Corrupt Republic : Part 1

 

The following is part one of a speech is was presented by yours truly at a town hall meeting discussing corruption in Jamaica and how it should affect our view of a republic.

“I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong”

These words were spoken by the then Princess Elizabeth (who later became Queen Elizabeth II) on the occasion of her 21^st birthday.

It would be hard-pressed to hear any president of any republic legitimately make a similar pledge because this might be indicative of his ambition to rule for life, such a notion which is normal and expected of a monarch would be alarming for a president since it would go against the very idea of what a president is meant to be which is a temporary guardian of the highest office of the state. Indeed, during the Trump years, some in the US media who were hostile to him kept referring to him as the “occupant of the White House”. In a way they were correct, but this is not limited to Trump but is in fact applicable to all US presidents ever since George Washington and that is exactly the point of what a president is supposed to be.

A key argument used by republicans is that a republic is a “modern” form of government while monarchies belong only in the past or in fairy tales. This of course is misleading as the truth is republics are quite old, going all the way back to classical Greece. If anything, a proper historical understanding only proves that monarchies are a longer lasting form of state. For instance, When Jamaica was captured by England in 1655, England for the first and only time in its history was a republic . But a mere 5 years later, the republican experiment was ended lasting only 11 years in total. Clearly republicanism didn’t work out then. But I have yet to have anyone to prove to me that if the republic did last then colonialism or slavery would not have happened. In fact, the history not only of Cromwell’s republic but also of Revolutionary France, pre-civil war United States and the numerous communists regimes of the 20th century, all prove that a republican form of government does not mean freedom for all. What is my point exactly? To downplay slavery or colonialism? Not at all, people are flawed in every age and the idea that a republican form of government will somehow wipe the slate clean is absolute nonsense. 

Many republics claim virtue as an exclusive right but in the same vein they also claim an exclusive hold on democracy. One does not need to look very far to see that for the lie that it is.  Why mention this? An important part of integrity is the ability to tell the truth and the reality is that many republics that give lip service to democracy are hardly democracies. Just take one look at the democracy index, at the very top of this list is  Norway, followed by New Zealand, Iceland, Sweden and Denmark (note that of the countries I just mentioned only Iceland is a republic). Compare that with the very bottom of this list i.e. the least democratic countries. Well there is Afghanistan (for obvious reasons) followed by North Korea, Myanmar and Central African Republic, all republics of some kind.

But in addition to this even in cases where republics are democratic, the element of dishonesty remains. This is more so in parliamentary republic than a presidential one. In a presidential republic, the president is truly a representative of the people as he is elected by the people and whoever wins the overall national popular vote wins the election (an exception to this is the US where the election is determine by not by national vote but by state vote and thus the candidate that wins the most states also wins the most electoral college votes).

A parliamentary republic also gives lip service to popular sovereignty but it is a farce as the president is not chosen by the people but rather is nominated by the prime minister and rubber stamped by parliament. Indeed, just a few weeks ago, our neighbour Trinidad and Tobago installed Christine Kangaloo as the 7^th president of their republic. It should be noted that while the media kept referring to it as an election, it was really an appointment. Kangaloo’s appointment was not without controversy as the official opposition party was thoroughly opposed to her nomination, but PM Rowley having the majority in parliament just pushed it through anyway. As we all know, the latest announcement from the Ministry of Legal and Constitutional Affairs states that the republican model being considered for Jamaica is similar to the one used in Trinidad. What is point of this stating this? Contrary to the very ideal of popular sovereignty, the head of state is not at all the representative of a sovereign people but rather a creature of the head of government which belies the notion of democratic legitimacy or apolitical neutrality.

I for one am not necessarily here to argue for a presidential type system as that too comes with a host of political problems least of all is gridlock as is exemplified by government shutdowns in the US when the White House and Capitol Hill are controlled by opposing parties. The parliamentary system serves us quite well but such a system is not going to allow a directly elected president. Nor will I ever advocate for one, I am after all, a deeply devout monarchist, one who would have sided with King George III in the American Revolution, supported Shah Mohammed Reza in Iran’s 1979 revolution or backed Emperor Selassie against the Derg regime. My point is this, the very nature of the presidential office in of parliamentary republic is dishonest because it claims a legitimacy that it does not truly possess. Why is monarchy not the same? Simple…monarchy does NOT claim to have democratic legitimacy , the primary exercisers of royal authority (King and G0vernor-General) are not elected, this is known and accepted by all as simply part and parcel of a monarchical system. But what the Crown does do is provide a framework for elected officials to function in the various officers under our constitutional arrangement. As our late Queen once stated “My Job is not to govern, but to ensure that there is a government”. This is a far more honest setup than one in which an unelected president is masking as an elected one simply by virtue of their title.

This was seen not only in Trinidad but also in Barbados where upon being selected in 2021, news items both locally and overseas kept referring to Sandra Mason as the first elected president of Barbados, that too was patently false, the truth is that Mason was nominated and appointed by Mia Mottley after using her supermajority in the House of Assembly to rubberstamp her choice. Incidentally enough 3 years earlier when Mason was appointed as governor-general upon the nomination of PM Freundel Stuart, none made the claim that she was elected because indeed she was not, but change the vice-regal title to a presidential one and replace Queen with parliament and all of a sudden an appointment is being confused for an election. There is clear disparity between what the presidency is purported to be and what it actually is.

This is important as too often the concept of republicanism has often been conflated with what it means to be a democracy. This comes mainly from an influx of an Americanized culture which makes the two somewhat indistinguishable regardless of what Democrats and Republicans will tell you. But in truth democracy refers to above all else, the right of the people to participate in determining their own development and future. Yet it should be noted neither of the two classical forms of government is by nature linked with democracy. Democracy as well as autocracy can exists with or without a monarch. This argument applies not only to democracy but overall development. Last year, The PM told the Prince of Wales (then Duke of Cambridge) that Jamaica would be moving on from the monarchy and become a developed country. This conflation was celebrated by those not paying attention as often republicans love using the monarchy as a scapegoat for why Jamaica is not a first world country. But objectively speaking there is nothing in having a King that would indicate a lack of development. If anyone is holding us back, it is not King Charles or the late Queen Elizabeth but our own corrupt politicians.  The last thing we need is but another politician added to the mix. The Spectator in 1997 puts it this way “The monarchy is a political referee, not a political player, and there is a lot of sense in having a referee different from the players. It lessens the danger that the referee might try to start playing.”

Stay Tuned for Part two

President Freundel Stuart? Not Likely

I know it has taken me a while to get to this issue, a week and 3 days to be precise but given the nature of a busy schedule such things are unavoidable. That being said it would be remiss of the Jamaican Tory not to make mention of events going on in our fellow CARICOM state of Barbados.On March 23, news broke to the world that the sitting Prime Minister of Barbados, The Right Honourable Freudel Stuart plans in short order to change Barbados’ constitution and turn Barbados from a monarchy into a republic.

As to why he would make this move? his simple reason was that Barbados would soon be celebrating the 50^th anniversary of its independence (next year to be precise) and so it was just the time to move on. If there was ever a lame excuse for anything Stuart laid it out right there. I mean seriously “it’s time?”, is that supposed to be an explanation or some stupid cliché, it’s one thing to openly announce treason like that but to lay is so bare with such a non-excuse is truly uncharacteristic of a Prime Minister. Time for what exactly? To break with over four centuries of Bajan history? To pretend of though the past did not happen? To throw out a perfectly functioning constitution for no good reason? He obviously did not outline his so called “logic” clearly enough, no wonder the people won’t support him. Trying to wash the last half a millennium of Bajan history will do no good whatsoever, unlike most other islands in the Caribbean that constantly changed hands between colonial powers, Barbados has always been an essentially English island, where British culture and traditional ideology is so strong that many even refer to it as Little England and as the most “British place on earth”, much to the envy of several other parts of the Commonwealth who see themselves in the same light.

    

What really irked me however is when he actually dared to invoke the name of Barbados’ first Prime Minister Errol Barrow as justification. As far as I’m concerned to try and identify oneself with the founding father of the Barbadian realm is only adding insult to injury. Like Stuart, Barrow also took an oath to the Crown, like Stuart, Errol also served on the Queen’s Privy Council. The difference between is that Errol Barrow never wavered in his loyalty to his sovereign, unfortunately the same cannot be said for Stuart who is a traitor, an oath breaker and an attempted usurper, Barrow would probably turn in his grave if he could only know what was happening to the stable constitution he and the other founding fathers had worked to hard to give to the people of Barbados. So deep was Barrow’s loyalty to Her Majesty that he even managed to influence other members of his family in like regard, as proven by the appointment of his sister as Dame Nita Barrow, Governor-General of Barbados, the first and only woman to ever be appointed to such an esteemed rank. For Stuart to compare now himself to Barrow is truly sacrilegious and that’s putting it mildly.

              

After years of following monarchist vs republican debates, I cannot help to make a comparison between the arguments made by anti-royals (especially in the Commonwealth) all of which are clichéd which only goes to show their lack of credibility since every argument put forward by these republicans have been discredited, time and again. One thing I can most certainly say is that Stuart’s pronouncement is far too reminiscent of his Jamaican counterpart Portia Simpson Miller who also announced similar plans in 2012 and for the exact reasons that he did, it has been three years and yet there has been no further word on moves to abolish Jamaica’s monarchy. I for one however am most certainly not complaining, as far as I’m concerned, keeping the constitution as it is, is a good thing for Jamaica as it is for Barbados. Becoming a republic simply for the sake of it, just so some politician can get the chance to call himself “Mr. President” will do no good whatsoever.  In fact histories on every single continent is filled with stories of countries than abandon their monarchies only to end up with something far worse, not that I’m predicting the same will certainly happen to Barbados but the chance is very much real thus upsetting the apple cart is ALWAYS an unwise move.

             

There is an old saying that a “drowning man will clutch at a straw”, this is precisely what is happening here. Politicians who pull this kind of stunt normally tends to pull this kind of stunt as part of their main profession, i.e. politics.  How ironic is it that Freundel Stuart made this announcement less than a week after the Island's leading newspaper The Barbados Nation showed that he was well behind in the polls as many persons would gladly vote his rival into office if given half a chance at this very moment. A PM in trouble would clearly need something to make himself more relevant, what better scapegoat to use than the Queen?  Nothing as clearly demonstrates the blatant politics behind it than the manner of the announcement, it must be noted that Stuart did not announce his latest scheme in an address to the people of Barbados but rather to a rally of his own supporters in an effort to drum up a sleazy campaign which was later leaked to the media,  to call it tacky would a gross understatement.

If The Prime Minister was under the impression that such a move would win him support he is dead wrong, in fact all the evidence points to contrary, all the polls indicate that people of Barbados most certainly do not want their beloved realm to be turned into a republic and I don’t blame them, in fact I feel exactly the same when it comes to Jamaica and have made no secret about my allegiance to the Queen who has the sole legitimate right to reign over both Jamaica and Barbados as well as the  rest of the Commonwealth. The people of Barbados are not interested in supporting a usurper which is exactly what Stuart will become if he tries to make himself President, the same also applies to whatever puppet president he will try to use a figurehead to promote is treasonous anti-royalist and most certainly anti-Bajan agenda.

         

Constitutional Monarchy is very much etched in the Barbados psyche, as demonstrated by the fact the Barbados probably has more knights and dames than the rest of the Caribbean put together, (it was also the first country to the Caribbean to establish its own unique order of Knighthood), I wonder how many of these nobles would be willing to give up their titles and status under a new republic, my guess is none. Just one trip to that island would be enough to tell immediately why is known as “Little England”, the idea of Barbados becoming a republic is as ludicrous as the idea of Britain becoming a republic, it simply will not happen (not after that nonsense that happened with Cromwell), nor is it eventually inevitable contrary to the propaganda spread by traitorous republicans, hence the Prime Minister should do himself a favour and actually find useful to talk about and leave well enough alone.

Time of crisis: Royal vs Political leadership

I cannot help but weigh in on the controversy of the comments made by US President Barack Obama at a prayer breakfast last week. Addressing the group of his country’s most powerful church leaders, the President began his speech by talking about America’s historical role in the setting the precedent for separation of Church and State and also made much of America’s early Christian values. He then proceeded to make reference to the current situation going on the Middle East speaking about the barbaric acts committed by various groups in the name of Islam, most of his references concerned the terrorist organization known as ISIS. What was really controversial however was when he all of a sudden changed his tune from speaking about Muslims and decided to attack Christianity instead, basically telling the leaders of Christendom that the Islamic state is not to be condemned as the Christian faith itself has a bad history by carrying on the Crusades  in the Dark Ages and also approving of slavery and the slave trade all over the Americas centuries later.

                  

As one can expect the Church and particularly conservative Christians were rightly incensed by the President’s comparison of Christians and these terrorists. It’s not to say that whatever he said was totally false as history itself bears witness to the truth of both the crusades and slavery. But rather one cannot help but question, what motivated him to make such an utterance, surely this was not some offhand comment but rather was clearly crafted and its intention was deliberate. I put it to you that Mr. Obama purposely decided to hit out at the church right on their own turf. Obama knew perfectly well what he was doing, he wanted to be controversial, he wanted to stick it to the right wing where it hurts. He however did more than that however. As one GOP senator so ably put it, President Obama by his very comments had poured insult on every single Christian in the US by his comments, whether his intention was to go that far cannot be ascertained but that’s precisely what he ended up doing.  

       

The president’s comments were seen as a double edged sword for many, insulting Christians and in support of Islamic values. This then leads many to question, “whose side is he really on, ours or theirs?” It is most certainly not the first time that President Obama has made comments sympathetic towards to the Islamic cause. In fact he has done it so many times that he is dubbed as the first “Muslim President of the United States” as he has been more accepting of Islamic values than all his 42 predecessors combined. In a nation however that still has a Christian majority, this has never boded well and given that Christianity has historically been seen as part of American core values , Obama’s speech has led to him being dubbed as Anti-American.

This view of the President and his outlook cannot be good for him at all, as it makes him look very out of touch with his country’s values. Had the comments made been echoed by the leader of a Middle Eastern nation, then it would have been less controversial given that this region of the world is dominated by Muslims. But for the leader of any western nation to make such a comment speaks volumes and raises serious questions for many.

         

Other western political  leaders, while not as blatant as Obama have also done very little in condemning the waving tide of radical Islam that is now sweeping Western nations by storm and instead seems to adhere to neo-Marxist doctrine of multiculturalism that seeks to preach acceptance while tradition western values and societies are being run into the ground. Thankfully one man has taken up the charge of defending Christianity and Western civilization, none other than His Royal Highness Charles, Prince of Wales. The heir to the throne has taken the initiative, speaking against the rising tide of Islam in the west, decrying multicultural propaganda by insisting the Muslims adapt or leave the UK and most importantly of all defending the rights of Christians in the Middle East who though now a minority have always been allowed to peacefully coexist with their Muslim neighbours until the rise of the terrorists. The Prince through his ingenuity has pushed leaped and bounds, in an era where many of even Europe’s royals seems intent on keeping quiet, he has decided that he would be the voice of the voiceless Christian minority in that part of the world. No doubt his comments would have ruffled some feathers among the political elite especially in the UK, who seems intent on shutting up like everybody else and remaining blind to the tragedy unfolding before their eyes. Prince Charles however is pushing the envelope, boldly stating what no other western leader be they royal or political seems to have the guts to say and for that he has my absolute support.

               

Another royal who also deserves to be commended for tackling this issue head on is His Majesty the King of Jordan.  Though the leader of a Muslim nation, Jordan’s Muslims have often been more of a sensible bunch than say the lot that runs ISIS and other terror groups. This must be mainly as a result of their stance on Sharia law and the radical violence that comes with it. King Abdullah in recent times has stepped up the plate as the leading opponent of ISIS in the region and is doing whatever it takes to stamp out this threat and make both the region and the world a safer place.

            

At the end of the day, one thing is sure. As King Abdullah rightly pointed out, this state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue. Comments like those made by Obama are of no help. National leaders are meant to boost morale, not tear them down, which sadly is precisely what the president seems to be intent on doing. Thankfully with men like King Abdullah and Prince Charles out there, there are still voices of reason, voices of hope.  Royal men who are not willing stand idly by and watch the world burn under the threat of Islamists but are whatever they can to pick  up the slack left sorely lacking by many political leaders in the west. After all as the old saying goes, “The only way that evil can triumph is when good men stand by and do nothing”. 

Threatening Rise of Radical Islam

Sometime last week I got a rather rude shock after seeing a story in which former US President Jimmy Carter called on the United States and its allies in the European Union to legally recognize Hamas as a legitimate political actor instead of being merely a terrorist organisation as was traditionally thought.

This development of course is rather disturbing for one single reason, Hamas isn't called Terrorist simply because it is Palestinian or Islamic, if that were the case Fatah would certainly be designated in a similar manner, the truth is that Hamas’ reputation as a terrorist organisation is well deserved as over the years this very movement has been in the very forefront of insurgency activities in that region of the world. Giving recognition to such an entity would not solve the crisis as Carter claims but instead would only serve to make matters worse.

                       

What the ex-President fails to get is that giving Hamas recognition would serve to strengthen not only them but other Islamist groups that make similar claims which would be extremely dangerous in the era where the rise of radical Islam is becoming such a powerful force in the Middle East and even beyond. One needs only to take a look at Egypt under Mohammed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood to see how quickly a country can go downhill when a government which such radical views take over, it wasn't very long before the people of Egypt finally had enough and so deposed him via a coup d’état.

                                     

And as if that’s not proof enough just take a good look at what’s going on in Syria where rebels present themselves as freedom fighters are now locked in a struggle to overthrow the government and seize power for themselves . Regardless of efforts by the liberal media to put their own spin on things and vilify Assad it is quite clear that the Syrian rebels are not as noble as they appear to be. These same groups  are known to be in league with terrorists organisations across the Middle East along with advocacy of an Islamic republic along the lines of Iran and persecution of religious minorities make them unfit to be the governing anybody at all, yet they are continuously aided by the liberal powers of the West.

                             

Of course nothing serves as greater proof to illustrate my point than the rise of the new radical self-styled Caliphate known as ISIS, this group takes evil to a whole new level so much so that even Al Qaeda and the Taliban want nothing to do with the likes of them. This group of unstable lunatics even go as far as to claim that they have the “right” to govern all Muslims in the world and seek to extend their control over the entire Islamic community worldwide. This kind of thinking has precarious not only for the Middle East but also for Western countries that now possess an alarmingly high number of Muslim immigrants.

                        

The rise of Islamic actors as a political and cultural force in Europe is an especially worrying trend as little by little traditional European culture is being undermined the face of this alien invasion of their sovereignty so much so to the point where they’re being given special treatment and are even now demanding more. A few months ago a story broke that the British courts now recognised Sharia law as valid in cases in regarding Muslims and even this week announced that a Muslim man who has more than one wife can even claim benefits of these wives, this of course raises several questions such as the legality of polygamy and the welfare system in the UK where immigrants are entitled to more benefits than legal taxpaying British subjects. Elsewhere in Europe is facing similar challenges whereas Muslims feels as though they’re not obliged to obey the law of the land even going as far as to advocate for the setting up of separate Islamic states in Europe similar to what happened in Norway earlier this week. These same factors combined with the rise of ISIS and the strong possibility that such a movement could spread in their vindictive attempt to spread their world domination propaganda is exactly what makes Mr. Carter’s comments so ill advised. Whether the liberals want to face it or not Hamas was a terrorist group upon foundation and it is still one today or is the so called famous saying that “The United States does not negotiate with Terrorist” no longer applicable.

                       

Of course all I have just written here is merely a tip of the iceberg in this rather long saga of radical Islam and the apparent Apathy (maybe even Sympathy) that liberals in the west seem to have for the likes of them while ignoring the cries for help of Christians who are undergoing serious persecution as a result of their faith. Until Western governments wake up and realize how serious this threat is then I’m afraid we will continue to have this threat hanging over our heads for years to come.

Religious vs Secular morality

It’s been a while since last I wrote but as of late an issue came to light that I feel I must comment on, as it regards to secular interference into the affairs of the Church, a few weeks ago a newspaper story broke out that students at the Northern Caribbean University in Mandeville, Jamaica, in institution owned and operated by the Seventh Day Adventist Church were suspended after performing a cheer-leading ritual that depicted scenes that look to promote homosexual lifestyle, it also subsequently reported that said students were also barred from participation in any further activities during their remaining time at the institution due to their lack of regard for the student code of conduct as set forth by the university which they say are guided by the principles of the Church itself.

                

However I’m not here to take about the action taken by the university but rather the public reaction to the university’s action. I’m amazed to see the amount of public outcry that erupted as liberals wasted no time vilifying both the University and the Church that owns it, some of the more common descriptions are “travesty of justice”,  “ridiculous”, “outrageous” and these were only the nicer terms that they used. Some even went as far as to claim that the university is  imposing it’s values on it’s students and call their actions a violation of the principles of “separation of church and state” while accusing the Adventist Church of not holding up the ideals of religious liberty. I cannot help but wonder how ridiculous people can get with these absurd comments, it is a known fact that the Adventist Church has always been a keen supporter of the principles of religious liberty in whatever country they are situated, and in a country like Jamaica where the influence remains every strong, they are among the loudest voices to raise the alarm whenever the concept of religious liberty seem to be under threat. As for separation of Church and State, that claim is just as unfounded seeing as the University is owned  and funded by the Church and not the State, therefore it’s only natural that Adventist principles and practices should take precedence in a Church-run institution, that principle applies not only for Adventist but also for the Catholics, Anglicans, Baptist or any other religious body that operates a similar institution, the University is run by the Church and is not publicly owned thus separation of Church and State does not apply.

               

I must make note of a newspaper article written by the professor from another university concerning the issue, in her writings this professor (who shall remain nameless)  actually goes as far as to claim that the Church is “suffering from performance anxiety and wrestling with alternate sexuality” . To illustrate her stance, she raises the point where the church held a summit in South Africa in order to address the problem, she was careful to point out that No- Known LGBT Adventist were invited to attend, I wonder if it ever occurred to the professor that no such persons were invited because they are not recognized by the Church? The last time I checked, being affiliated with the LGBT community was enough to warrant excommunication (or disfellowshipping) within the ranks of the Church and seeing as only members in good standing would be invited to attend such a conference, then it’s highly unlikely that any member of the LGBT community would warrant an invitation. She goes to call the Church’s view one-sided and prejudiced, she ended by  thesis by calling on the Church to be more tolerant and open to the idea of allowing LGBT persons to join its ranks.

             

As I read through the responses of persons to the incident at NCU particular that of Professor (Nameless), I cannot help but notice that all the criticisms are coming from outsiders who preted to be enlightened and objective but in truth have a more sinister agenda, it leads me to wonder what right do these people have to go interfering internal business of the Church especially since they themselves most certainly aren't members, not with views like that. What I find awfully odd about secularist is that they love to complain about how churches  likes to impose it’s views on other people, yet  they themselves are guilty of the exact same thing by trying to get involved in the affairs of Churches. I mean seriously? To suggest that the Church should start accepting gay persons into it’s ranks? She might as well suggest that the Church disband altogether. Instruction on marriage and family life as well as guidelines on Christian behaviour are among the core beliefs of this faith, any change whatsoever in such a fundamental teaching will shake the very foundations of the church itself and  most certainly not go over very well with most traditionalist Adventist, if any Adventist at all.  The Seventh Day Adventist Church was founded upon core principles and those who wish to join must either abide by the rules or make their exit, the no outsider has any business telling the Church what rules it can keep and which it should discard, the Church’s principle should by guided solely by Biblical principles as well as rules set out in it’s own canon law, and not by the whims of some liberal who feels that having the title of “Professor” automatically makes her a know it all.

                             

I applaud the church for taking the stand that it took and fully support the decision of the university to stand it’s ground and not be swayed from outside pressure by those who have neither the best interest of the church or the best interest of the university at heart, in a country and a world over run by liberals and cultural Marxist, it’s good to see the Seventh Day Adventist church raise the standard high, standing for good spiritual morals and upholding traditionalist family values.

Sharia Law? Wrong Move

After a long silence a number of my longtime readers must be wondering whatever happened to the Jamaican Tory, to be frank my work has kept me quite busy these days so I cannot say I have much in terms in time to make regular posts like I used to, however something happened this week that has caught my attention and I am afraid I can no longer keep silent. It concerns the decision of the British Judiciary to start using Islamic Style Sharia Law in British courts for the first time ever.

            

This latest turn of events is rather unfortunate and deeply disturbing and I cannot help but wonder, what in the world could possess the Law Society in the UK to take such a  backward step?, I mean seriously what in the world were they thinking?. Whatever happened to good old Common Law?, the same Common Law that has been in use for over thousands of years since the time of the early Celts, Anglo-Saxons and Normans? This same proud legal tradition which has been bequeathed to every corner  of the Former British Empire and has stood the test of time for well over a millennium, why is it that the British judiciary now deems that the law of the land is not good enough for the Muslim migrant population in the UK that they have to resort to this retrograde step drawing on something that is totally alien and foreign to British culture.

               

The decision taken by the British judges is but an outward sign of a deeper problem taking over only Great Britain but indeed the entire Western World, this problem is the rise of Islam, for a number of years western countries particularly European ones have swarmed by a large population of Muslim migrants fleeing from one problem or another and coming to settle in new homes , the problem is that whenever they arrive, they still want to behave as though they are in their homeland and refuse to change their lifestyles to suit the culture of their adopted country, this of course begs the question why even bother to leave at all? Today many communities in the UK and indeed across Europe are so filled with them  to the point where white people are now becoming a minority in their very own homeland, something that would have unthinkable even a generation ago, none expresses this sentiment more than British Actor John Cleese who once claimed that London is really and truly no longer  an English city, of course he was criticized for being racist at the time he made the comments, to be quite frankly his concerns had much merit then as they do now, if things continue on this trajectory the United Kingdom of Great Britain will be transformed into the Islamic Republic of Great Britain (the very thought that that even being a possibility sends cold chills all over me).

This notion of Islamic migrant populations taking over Europe is nothing more than a form of self hate and reverse ethnocentrism pushed by the left, in which children are thought to see every culture as superior to their own, they are thought that being European is evil and that they must learn to hate themselves and all the cultural practices of their ancestors all the name of diversity and multiculturalism, what a load of rubbish. Whilst I will admit that Europeans did do some horrible things to other Non-Europeans in the past, that is no excuse to say that everything that comes from Europe is all bad or that their descendants should hate themselves in perpetuity over the bad things that only some of their ancestors participated in. To demand that European countries roll over and wallow in the notion of white guilt is like telling non-Europeans that they should still see themselves as inferior simply because their ancestors were slaves centuries ago, both notions are completely ridiculous and laws should not be altered to suit the needs of foreign migrants, they should either work with the law as it is or go back to where they come from.

               

Being a big fan of history, I used to like reading about the crusades when Islamic warriors clashed with European Knights over control of the Holy Land, indeed England was one of the leading Christian nations involved in the wars and there were even several Kings that fought and bled beside their men to ensure the survival of their culture and way of life, who would not let alien elements invade their country, all these  brave English Knights must be turning in their graves now to  see what is happening to the country they fought and bled for so many centuries ago.

                   

Some of you may be wondering why is it that a Jamaican is taking interest in these legal developments going on in the UK, the truth of the matter is that  over the last 350 years of Jamaica’s history English culture has left of dominant mark on our own history, sure there are a  many other elements  that influence us as well such as the Indigenous Indians, the Chinese, the Indians, the Jews etc. but for the most part Jamaica’s history and culture has been shaped mainly by British and African elements, British culture is deeply steeped into our own culture after all they too form part of our ancestry and as such it’s erosion is should be seen as deep sign that serious changes are on the horizon for western countries and sad to say this change is not for the better.

                     

This commentary was in no way meant to be Islamophobic regardless of how it may sound, the truth of the matter is that I believe Sharia Law has it’s place and that place is in the  Middle East NOT in Britain (or any other western country for that matter),  It is based on the Koran which is not seen as the rule of faith and practice by non-Muslims after all I don’t recall hearing on any Muslim country voting to adopt British Common Law so why should the UK adopt Sharia, a legal system that has a dubious reputation in many western countries and associated with human rights violations such as "honour" killings, mark my words this most backward step will have disastrous consequences. 

Thoughts on the Venezuela crisis

The Jamaican Tory can no longer keep silent on this issue that has been making headlines around the world recently, which has to do with the crisis going on in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, as we all must be aware of by now, the country has been rocked by a series of riots and clashes between the citizens and government forces, for those who may not have been following the story, the whole crisis began early last month with a nationwide student protest over a various number of issues, mainly security, the breakdown of law and order and the poor state of the economy all of which have  been blamed on Venezuela’s current President, Nicholas Maduro.

              

There are many speculations as to what the root cause of the crisis may be as well as reasons as to why it escalated so quickly, but anyone who has followed political and historical happenings in that country would know that this was bound to happen, I don’t mean to sound harsh or judgmental but the truth is that you reap what you sow and that is exactly what is happening here. Ever since the late 1990s Venezuela has been under the spell of a personality cult led by  the late El Caudillo Presidente Hugo Chavez,  a man known for  his eccentrics and twisted charisma that captured people's hearts almost in the same way that Hitler’s Nazism did to Germany in the 1930s . Under his rule he introduced what he called Bolivarian Socialism or Socialism for the 21^st century, both of which were nothing more than code words for saying that he was introducing his own special brand of Communism into the country, his schemed worked brilliantly and from that time up until early in 2013 he was basically untouchable...or so he thought, but alas not even he as mighty as he thought he was could escape from the cold hands of death.  That of course leads us to his successor, the current President Maduro, virtually known for most of his career as Chavez’s main henchman, far less creative or charismatic with hardly an original thought in him; Senor Maduro had big shoes to fill.

            

All throughout Chavez’s years, Venezuela was infested by the host of social and economic problems but Chavez being a master of propaganda gave the impression that things were fast improving for the people in his country, it seems as though however his successor was not nearly as good an expert illusionist as he was hence the reason why many social problems are now coming to the fore and the new administration (which is really a continuation of the Chavez regime) almost a year in power still has no clue as to how solve this country’s problems or at least pretend that they are doing so in a manner that will satisfy the people, hence the open revolt.

            

As I mentioned earlier, I’m not surprised that this is happening; only that it didn’t happen sooner. Socialism no matter how you try to spin it or brand it, never works and the kind of socialism attempted in Venezuela was that of the worst order, now the people of Venezuela are finally beginning to see through their government’s deception, the "Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela" no longer looks like an invincible machine now that Chavez is no longer around to lead them, the big question is how long will this go on? It’s already seen as a major humanitarian crisis (even though now the eyes of the world are fixed on the Ukraine Crisis, which I will deal with in due course), how will the Venezuela’s neighbours in Latin America respond?, what about the Petro-Caribe deal signed between Venezuela and several Caricom states?, what implication will it have for the continuation of this arrangement? All these and more are extremely important questions to ponder in this crisis where the end is not yet in sight. 

Uganda's Dilemma

One must have been living under a rock to not hear about the latest moves made by the government of Uganda against the LGBT people living in their country. Recently the Ugandan Parliament passed a bill making homosexuality a crime punishable by life imprisonment, this bill was later signed into law by President Yoweri Museven. This new basically puts not only every Ugandan LGBT individual but also those who advocate on their behalf at risk because now the state is authorized to adopt the most draconian methods to deal with such persons. This is a rather unique situation indeed even in many countries where gay rights are not recognized this method may seem a bit over the top, in an earlier post I had once stated that due to Putin’s anti-gay  stance, Russia might one day rival Jamaica as the most homophobic country in the world that goes to shows that even the best of us must eat our words at times because clearly Uganda has surpassed Jamaica and Russia to become the new most homophobic nation on earth.

                

Ever since the passage of this bill by Uganda there have been many different views weighing on from different sides of the political spectrum, Ranging from the far right who totally support the measures of the Ugandan government, to the more moderate conservatives, who agree with the idea of a nation standing up for its traditional beliefs and not being influenced by the LGBT agenda pushed by certain liberal western countries but at the same time they also feel that the methods taken to enforce this new law are a bit extreme while at the far end of the spectrum of the leftist who of course are totally flabbergasted by what they describe as a ghastly violation of human rights.

                                  

In all fairness, I think I stand  closer to  the  moderate right on this issue. It is no secret that the Jamaican Tory has never been a fan of the so called “gay rights” movement and anything that will halt the spread of their worldwide influence will certainly have my support. But that still leaves one important question that I’m sure a lot of moderates must be asking themselves right now, “does the ends really justify the means?”, sure the President’s intentions may not be all that bad his methods  can only be described as draconian, how far will this go?, what will be the end result of this? No one knows for sure. To illustrate my meaning earlier this week it came out that a Uganda magazine printed a list of the top 200 gay persons living in the Republic, even some persons who have not previously identified themselves among that group are now on that list,  I cannot help but wonder why this was done. Almost everything else I can understand but this was just plain bizarre as now 200 people will be living with a target on their back every single day that they remain in the country, that was most certainly not a smart move on their part, as mass killings could end of being the result, and I’m not so sure that was the intention of the Ugandan government.

                      

Then of course there is the whole matter of the reaction of the international community, not surprisingly the US and several European countries as well as the liberal media houses and human rights groups that dominate them wasted no time in vilifying the Ugandan government, especially Mr. Museven, several countries have already cut or threatened to cut aid to Uganda. It is no secret that US President Obama is on a mission to spread gay rights all over the world, only a few months ago he found himself in the middle of a row with several African leaders over the very same issue while on a tour of the continent. So naturally this latest development has placed a serious dent in his plan, no wonder he is fuming.  But as I said before regarding Russia and I will repeat the same with regards to Uganda, a sovereign state has every right to enact laws that it thinks are in the best interest of its people and no foreign influence be it governmental or private lobby group has any real authority to dictate to the duly elected government of an independent country what it’s policy should or should not be, that right belongs solely to the citizens of said country.

                        

Before closing  I must say that I find President Museven to be a rather brave man, few would ever dare give assent to such a bill regardless of their personal views for the sheer fact that there are many factors at stake, Uganda is hardly one of the most advanced countries in the world and for its leaders to forego monetary aid in order to stand up for what they truly believe in takes a whole lot of guts.  In a world where it seems as though the LGBT agenda is taking over everywhere it’s refreshing to see that there are those who still refused to be bullied into acceptance but rather choose to follow its own path. For too long now when certain persons (especially celebrities) find it convenient to come out the closet, they are being hailed as being brave and having guts,  in truth however since so many of them are doing it nowadays I would hardly call it brave or unique but rather little more than a publicity stunt to gain more attention. It’s when a person (or in this case a country) chooses to stand up and defy the crowds, defy expectations and freely follow his God-given conscience regardless of the differing opinion that is what truly makes one bold and distinctive, this boldness is exactly what the Government of Uganda displayed with this latest law.