Should women be Ordained?

 Revolutionary movements have taken root at a very fast rate and it's taking over everywhere, in earlier times traditions have always been subtly altered little by little in order to “suit the times”, but now it’s no longer so  subtle instead anti-traditionalist and liberal movements are coming from behind closed doors, speaking in hushed voices, now they speak openly seeking to destroy every ounce of establish  convention and to upset the natural order of things which could only lead to anarchy and chaos, the rules that were once seen as set ,rigid and vital to the maintenance of our orderly society  are now being tossed out the window in favour of relativism. Sad to say this attitude is not limited solely to the irreligious as it once was but now it’s creeping into churches all over the world, the rules that were once upheld as being set in stone are now called outdated and in need of reform.  I am of course speaking to the issue of ordination of women, a topic that has been the subject of controversy and debate in most of the world’s major Christian denominations.

                                

In November of last year the General Synod of the Church of England had a debate on whether or not women should or should not be ordained as Bishops in the Church of England after  long and  rigorous deliberation the Synod decided not to allow the ordination of female bishops. That vote was not very well received in the court of public opinion many especially the British media made every effort to vilify the Council,  accusing the Synod of being gender biased and old fashion, a sentiment  that was apparently shared by many in the Government including Prime Minister David Cameron (a conservative in name only), a man who calls himself a devout Anglican yet he also attacked the Synod stating that it was his own personal opinion  that women should be allowed to be bishops, he further went on to state he was very sad and disappointed at their decision,  but I really must ask Mr. Cameron since when was he a clergyman or layman? Since when does he have a vote in the General Synod, since when does the government have  the right to bully the Church into getting what it wants, if the General Synod votes to not allow women bishops then that should be the end of the matter unfortunately this is  not so and it’s not hard to see why, after all looking at it from a logical point of view there is a double standard in the whole process is there not, why allow women to be priest anyhow if they can’t become bishops? It does seem quite silly doesn't it.

Turning to the Catholics and the Orthodox Churches  , those two groups have a tendency to be more counterrevolutionary than any others, guided by the strict rules of Canon law which clearly states that only men can be serve as priest (sure women are ordained as Nuns, but that’s a whole different story), but even within those ranks there are still dissenting views as some would seek to upset the balance of power in favour of greater liberalization of the Church 

                              

Another group of  focus is the Seventh Day Adventist Church, a growing worldwide  movement it’s now the largest and most powerful religious organization here in Jamaica, the debate on female ordination has  been raging through its membership  in the world , at present the position put forward by the central body of the General Conference is in line with traditional and conservative principles but all is not well in paradise, In the summer of last year both  the Pacific and Columbia   Union Conferences of the church voted to break ranks with the  main hierarchy and  authorize the ordination of female pastors, regardless of the fact that they  were blasted by the  World Church body for going against both biblical writings and the traditional values as set forth by the church, they paid no heed to the reprimand. To make matters worse the debate is far from over as more and more conferences and unions are set to join them in their outright rebellion against the Church hierarchy.

 Those in favour of female ordination use arguments such as “God can  use anyone”, “Women were among the early church founders”, “The Holy Spirit can be poured out on both men and women as long the person is willing”  and all sorts of bollocks , sure God can use a woman to do his work but that does not mean it should be as an ordained minister, that's what the laity is for. Another claim put forward by the liberals is that banning female ordination is outdated, a relic from a patriarchal society with no place in the modern world , that stance is also a bogus one, I see no reason why God would explicitly forbid something in the ancient times  and then turn around and give license to it the modern age, human thinking may change over the centuries, God does not. some also claim that if women are allowed to rise to the highest ranks in the secular world, shouldn't the same thing apply to religion?, another ludicrous argument if you ask me,

                                                          

 All these arguments all have one thing in common, all they do is appeal to emotion and personal sentiments subject to one’s own narrow view of the world while at the same time ignoring both scriptural and  other non-canonical guidelines that clearly oppose the ordination of women, the very Bible itself which churches claims to follow has been quite clear from the days of the levitical priesthood to Jesus’ selection of his apostles that only men  should ever be allowed to serve as priest, of course women do have their roles to play too but NOT as ordained ministers. I find it quite ironic that the Catholics the only church known to openly make a case against sola scriptura, is actually acquiescent with the scriptures in this regard, while protestant churches openly defy the Bible’s instructions on female ordination yet claim that it is the only rule of their practice of faith, sounds a bit hypocritical doesn't it.

I see no reason why Christian churches should change their rules to be in line with temporal principles, quite contrary to the liberal argument that the church should “become more modern”, the Bible in Daniel  7 refers to The Holy Father as the “Ancient of Days” , or is the Church going to suggest that God himself should “get with the times” as well. A religion that has priestesses is not a Christian religion a fact well shown by centuries of history, God  himself designed a totally male dominated priesthood in Exodus 28 in order to separate it from the neighbouring pagan religions all of which were headed by high priestesses, Throughout the long centuries of Church history from the time of the apostles through to modern times male dominated clergy has always been the order of the day as was stated by  the apostle St Paul who said in 1 Timothy 2: 12 "I suffer not a woman to teach, or to usurp authority over the man. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVJkU7YYqy8

Church of England Debate over women Bishops

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_4kihGg0ds

Seventh Day Adventist Debate on female ordination.

Republican Myths, Lies and Misconceptions

Over the years,  those who argue in favour of turning Jamaica and other Caribbean Islands into republics have come up with several arguments as to why we should no longer have the Queen as our Head of State, however all the arguments put forward can be refuted, in truth none of the arguments they put forward stand up to scrutiny and  if one really takes time out to examine the substance of the facts instead of listening to popular arguments that “sounds good” then this will become quite apparent to them. Here are some of the ridiculous notions put forward by these treasonous republicans and ways in which their arguments can be answered.

MYTH #1: Our head of state is a  foreigner, not a  Citizen.                                                                                                                                                               FACT:This is the most common republican myth. While it’s true that Queen Elizabeth does not live in the Caribbean, she cannot be labelled as a 'foreigner'. Historically and by tradition Elizabeth II is our lawful Queen. She knows and takes great measures to know everything about her realm and the citizens therein. To say that Queen is a British Citizen is inaccurate, the Truth is that The Queen is not a citizen but Sovereign of all  her realms and territories which include Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Several Caribbean Countries and therefore Citizenship in flows from the Crown. The Queen is not a foreigner, but rather a non-resident -- a professional, globe-trotting head of state for a society which enjoys its existence in a border-less world.

MYTH #2: The Queen represents only the White Elites and Not the Majority who are of African descent.                                                                                                                  FACT:This happens to be one of the weakest republican arguments, and also one of the most widely used. Elizabeth II is the Queen of countless different nations (i.e. Jamaica, the Bahamas, New Zealand etc....) and hundreds of different peoples and cultures.  Also due to the Queen's bloodlines, Elizabeth II is quite "multicultural". Among the strains that can be identified in the backgrounds of the Queen are: Scottish, Welsh,  French, German, Greek, Italian, Persian etc... As such, the Queen is very capable of representing the great majority of Her People. , furthermore not everyone in the West Indies is of African descent, instead the Caribbean region is a melting pot of many different cultures and peoples which have come to our shores over the long centuries of history, such groups would include the British, the Chinese, the Indians and the original native peoples.

MYTH #3: By having a monarch as head of state, democracy can never truly exist.                                                                                               FACT:A weak argument! Even before we gained independence we have always had forms of democracy existing in the Region, The House of Assembly in Barbados goes back as far as 1652 and is regarded as one the oldest Parliaments in the World. Furthermore If we are to Compare Caribbean Countries that use the Westminster system of Government to other Caribbean Governments not under the Crown such as Haiti under “Papa Doc”, the Dominican Republic under Rafael Trujillo or Cuba’s Communist Regime under the Castro Brothers. Then we would find that the Commonwealth Caribbean has a longer and stronger tradition of democracy than their republican counterparts even though we got our independence much later than our Latin American Neighbours. By having a non-partisan monarch, democracy flourishes, By representing the people, the Crown has the authority to dismiss a government that abuses its power or acts illegally. By using emergency powers, The Crown can act if there is a vacuum of political power. Republicans label all this as constitutional fiction. They are wrong! Just because these powers are rarely used, it does not render them useless. These powers provide a safety guard, or Constitutional Fire Extinguisher  which safeguards our precious democracy. Other republicans argue that a president can be non-partisan, or won't have any allegiance/ties to a political party. But how could an elected or appointed President not be partisan, when he/she got their job with the backing of a political party?  Some republicans have suggested the idea of making the Governor-General a ceremonial President and abolish all ties to the Queen.  They wish to abolished the present  system of government and  give their  proposed republican governments the exact powers of the previous royal government. This begs the question of why change something to something exactly the same?

MYTH #4: A Republic adds value and can be a source of National Pride and Unity.                                    
FACT: Given the tribal nature of Politics within  Caribbean countries, it is unlikely that a President allied to any one political movement would never be truly representative of the entire nation instead they would represent only thier  party supporters and thier financial backers.  As for National or regional unity the Queen  is one of the most potent symbols of Caribbean unity all one needs to do is to take one look at an Eastern Caribbean dollar bill or an OECS stamp to see why, as for national pride, we as people of the West Indies have a great number of achievements that we can be proud of as sovereign states without ever having to look to some uninspiring politician as the ultimate head of state

MYTH #5: The appointment of the Governor General is partisan.                                                       Similar to the previous republican argument, this is the republican counter-argument to the monarchist's argument that presidents are partisan. Republicans point out that some Governors-General over the past 40 or more years have been veteran politicians. While this is true, the Governor-General is not the Head of State. This position is held by the Queen.                                                           MYTH #6: The Monarchy is a part of our colonial heritage, but not a part of our own indigenous Traditions.                                                                                                               FACT:Republicans use this argument to point out that history, culture and tradition are not important as a part of nation's identity, Monarchy as an institution represents centuries of tradition in The Caribbean which did not begin with colonization but rather goes all the way back to the time of the indigenous Tainos and Kalinagoes who were rule by Hereditary Chiefs called Caciques for the Tainos and Oboutous for the Kalinagoes. Republicanism on the other hand was never ever part of Caribbean Culture or Heritage; ever since the first indigenous people landed we have always been under the rule of a reigning sovereign.  Considering that tradition and history are the two factors making up a nation's identity To say that The Monarchy originating from Britain makes it irrelevant to our own indigenous culture is a fallacy because the Commonwealth Caribbean as a region is itself derived from many different peoples and their cultures including the Amerindians, The Africans, The Chinese, The Indians and of course The British among several others.

MYTH #7: The monarchy promotes a lack of a Caribbean identity. Or, the monarchy  promotes colonialism.                                                                                                            FACT: This claim is similar to the one made above however it is not true The monarchy is an important aspect of the Caribbean identity. It is part of our history and tradition. The monarchy does not promote British colonialism in any way. West Indians have shed their colonialist past by changing their national anthems, their national  flags, and by a uniquely Caribbean way of doing business in a global community. We share a Queen with the United Kingdom,  Canada, New Zealand and many more nations. What better way to be global than by sharing a monarchy with the many countries?

MYTH #8: The crown is a Waste of Taxpayers’ money. Or, "Why should my taxes line the pockets of the Queen?"                                                                                                                  FACT: This is generally a fairly weak republican argument. For the record: West Indians do not give any financial support to The Queen in her roles as Head of the Commonwealth, or as Sovereign of her Realms. Nor does she receive any salary from any Caribbean government. In this respect, her role as chief volunteer of the Commonwealth is unexcelled.  Some may argue that money used to pay the Governor General could be put to better use, but they fail to realize that if a president was installed he would be the one getting paid this sum and even more, in fact statistics show that most republics spend more on their presidents in terms of allowances than monarchies spend on their entire royal families. Another advantage of having a monarchy is that money that would have been wasted on  Presidential Elections in a republic can now be put to better use.

MYTH #9: Other Commonwealth nations are dumping the Queen, why shouldn't The Caribbean do the same?                                                                                                                       FACT:  Republicans point out that Jamaica and Barbados are on their way to becoming republics. . After a divisive debate, the People of St Vincent voted against a republic in November 2009.  Of all the countries in the Commonwealth Caribbean Only 3 have Embraced Republican Status and republicanism was imposed without ever putting the issue to the people for them to vote in a referndum, The rest of the West Indies have chosen to remain loyal to the crown. Using the 3 republics as an example to show lack of support for the monarchy is erroneous as that is not even half the numbers of total states in the English Speaking Caribbean, the Majority are still within the Queen’s Domain.

MYTH #10: Having a Monarchy is backwards, a republican system is a sign of forward thinking         
FACT: In what way is the monarchy in any way impeding the Progression of Caribbean States into  modern, progressive societies?, we are world leaders in  many different areas  producing some of the best world has ever seen in areas such as the sciences, the arts, business, sports, music and culture  . Nor does being a monarchy seem in any way to hinder societies as diverse as Japan, Canada, Spain and the Netherlands, compare that to republics such as Zimbabwe or even our neighbours in Haiti . In the end, the statement is one of free expression of opinion. That it is not deeply considered, however facts may be ascertained from examining the United Nations’ annual Human Development Index. In the latest available report, seven of the ten highest-ranked countries in the world are constitutional monarchies, three are republics. While this does not prove monarchy or republic superior, it certainly shows that monarchy is no barrier to being modern and forward-thinking
                                MYTH #11: Monarchy does not take in the dreams and aspirations of our Children and Youth who might have ambitions to ascend the highest office of their Native Land                                                
FACT: A ridiculous claim seeing as in the Commonwealth Caribbean most political power though vested in the Crown is actually exercised by elected officials and every Child or young person can aspire or work towards being Prime Minister of their country if they so choose, and even in Parliamentary republics like Dominica more young people would still have their eyes on Prime Minister’s job rather than that of the President, in any case for those whom wish to become head of state as a native born subject of the Crown, they  can always have a shot at becoming the next governor-general, which is a highly respectable position to have.

Myth #12 : Ending the monarchy is a symbol that we are truly independent, free of all colonial links
FACT: The peoples of the Caribbean realms have demonstrated their independence  in many different  ways, we elect our own political leaders, manage our own economies, we conduct our own domestic and foreign affairs, we maintain our own security and armed forces and are generally recognized as sovereign states by the entire international community, ever since our independence, no nation within the global community has ever challenged our right to sovereignty, what else do we need to prove that we are indeed free? In fact the very monarchy itself is a guarantor of our nationhood since the constitutions of the Commonwealth Caribbean are all promulgated in the name of the Queen, On the other hand  some republics today still have disputes over territorial integrity and political independence examples include Kosovo, Taiwan and South Sudan.

Throne and Altar: Church Life in Jamaica

Last week I remember reading a piece of rather shocking news in fact I'm not sure whether or I should be highly amused or deeply disturbed, according to well placed sources it is said that last week that Youth and Culture Minister Lisa Hanna had the offices of the ministry blessed with “Holy Water” (which is really nothing more than common salt water) during a devotion service at the Ministry to mark the beginning of the new year. It is no secret that in Jamaica the church is a deeply entrenched establishment and being a devout Christian myself, I enjoy a good worship service just as much as the next believer but isn't this whole holy water business taking things a little over the edge, especially since there are many who thinks that such rituals are linked to spiritism and obeah and as such would be very wary to take part while others particularly the irreligious would no doubt find such rituals ridiculous taking them as a joke, this  in fact was little more than a mockery of religion put on by government officials and the clergy for mere show.

                                                     

                                                    

Jamaica is still  for the most part a conservative Christian country (although that is somewhat changing) and as such religion plays a big part in society even at the highest levels of the state, our Head of State the Queen is herself a religious figure as head of the Anglican Church,according to her official title she reigns by the Grace of God and is Defender of the Faith (I'll talk abut the divine right of kings in a subsequent post) , her representative the Governor-General is also a noted religious man having served a number of years as an Ordained pastor and was once head of the Seventh Day Adventist church in the West Indies before being called to serve Queen and country in his present office. The Leaders of both major political parties also join in this by portraying themselves to firm Christian believers  and have been seen  from time to time proudly affirming their Christian principles when debating on many issues affecting national life, unlike in other countries where religion is all but banned from public spaces in Jamaica every public institution from schools to court houses and even parliament itself begins the day with devotions or prayers  while religious personnel are among some of  high profile people within Jamaican society, there is no little doubt that in Jamaica the links between the throne and the altar are indeed very strong.

                                                                  

Regardless of these strong ties, Jamaica as a democratic society prides itself on having total religious freedom, a right guaranteed to all of Her Majesty’s Jamaican Subjects by the constitution, a right that cannot be revoked by the government. The exercise of this right is seen in the fact that Jamaica has countless amount of Christian denominations not to mention other non Christian religions such as Rastafarianism and Islam, in fact it is often said that Jamaica has the most churches per square miles in the world. Yet this diversity is not all as rosy as it’s cut out to be, in fact it is often noted that even though the Church is still has some influence, this is somewhat pale in comparison to what it used to be in early years.                                                                                                                                                        According to a poll taking late last year it has been shown that with the exception of the Seventh Day Adventist all of Jamaica’s other traditionalist churches have been declining sharply over the years in favour of upstart new age churches such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the varying Church of God sects, the Pentecostals and even the Mormons are beginning to gain a foothold, whereas Churches that were once integral to this country’s early historical foundations such as the Anglican Church (also called the Church of Jamaica), the Roman Catholics, the Baptist, the Methodist and the Moravians are all seem to be in recession or something, it’s truly a sad state of affairs when traditional old time religion  is thrown out the window in favour of  so called newer churches, and it’s quite evident that even though we now have more Church buildings, moral decay is now worse than it has ever been, clearly more churches alone is not the answer, but rather religious bodies that are interesting not only in gaining member to swell their ranks but that are also patriotic in their  service to God, Queen and Country, willing to provide for and facilitate the wider community and the interest of the nation on the whole by building of schools, hospitals, aiding the less fortunate and the like, such acts of good citizenry are often known to be carried out by traditional church groups such as the Anglicans, Catholics, Baptists and Adventist, unfortunately I cannot say the same about the new agers like the Mormons or the Jehovah’s  Witnesses whose primary concern is to spread their own propaganda and gain members.

                                       

                                        

Church life and religion in Jamaica is a vast topic, which is by no means exhausted, it’s also a very controversial discussion in many quarters one thing for sure is that the religious life in Jamaica and its diversity is one of the many things that make us  a very unique society 

First Year in Government: Dismal

On Sunday of this week, The People’s  National Party celebrated the  first anniversary of it’s return to Jamaica House as it was on January 6, 2012 that Portia Simpson Miller was reinstated as Prime  Minister after having spent four years in the opposition following their defeat at the polls in 2007, all in all while the performance of the government in their first year back on the job was not entirely catastrophic there is still not much to celebrate, their performance can best be described as lukewarm and dismal.

   

                                     

This view is being supported by some of Jamaica’s leading analyst such as Kevin Chang and Martin Henry in fact most persons have given the government a failing grade for their first year in office and it’s not hard to see why. Never could anyone possibly imagine that after a whole year the Finance Minister Dr. Peter Philips has still not yet finalised a deal with the International Monetary Fund which has only caused investor and consumer confidence to plummet, a sharp dip in the Net International Reserves while commodity prices seem to increase in a period of austerity where wages remain stagnant. The PNP has repeatedly demonstrated its incompetence by continuing to  blame the previous JLP government  (who are now in opposition) for the breakdown in the negotiations, that argument may very well convince the naive  but well thinking Jamaicans know better than to swallow such hogwash, this government has had an entire year to complete the process yet they still have not done so regardless of that fact that the Prime Minister was recorded as saying that negotiations will be concluded within two weeks of taking office in the 2011 National Debates, of course most of us already knew that the two week deadline was not feasible but it only goes to show how this government has lied to the people of this country time and time again in order to gain popularity instead of speaking the truth from the outset.

                                                                                              

The  government has also received a failing grade as far as the employment rate is concerned, the number of Jamaicans unemployed continues to rise currently standing at 12.7%, and is going up even as I write, I wonder what happen to the promise of the so called JEEP? (which is nothing more than a publicity stunt crash programme) which was supposed to provide employment, I mean what sort of government promises to provide its citizens with “emergency employment” instead of something more stable and long term?, clearly these people do not have the nation's best interest at heart.

 The only people in this country who seem to think that the PNP is doing a good job is the PNP itself, one minister was quick to point out that  the negotiations with the IMF as “almost at an end” a rhetoric we have been hearing for several months now with no concrete results while the National Security Minister Peter Bunting was very quick on New Year’s Day to pat himself on the back by quoting minimal reductions in crime while the murder rate still stood at well over a thousand for the last year alone. Of course as expected the biggest propaganda stunt came from none other than the Prime Minister herself who thought it fit to make a national broadcast on the anniversary of her inauguration to “list the achievement of her administration so far” the speech was filled with self praise and over exaggerated figures while matters  of genuine concern were left untouched, according to a release from her office the broadcast was meant to update the nation on what’s being happening so far and to chart the path forward into the future, far from it’s intention the speech did nothing to inspire hope and confidence but was instead filled with vague promises rather than concrete  plans  it was like she was campaigning all over again quite frankly I was not surprised.                                    

                                              

As we all know self praise is no recommendation yet it seem to be one of the few things that the PNP is good at, I really wonder if Jamaica can take four more years of this inept type of governance from those who are supposed to be public servants, the Government need to wake and realise that the honeymoon has long been over it’s full time that they work to establishing full economic independence and accomplish the plans set out by vision 2030 making Jamaica the place to Live, Work, Raise Families and do business. 

Venezuela, Chavez and Petro Caribe

A few weeks ago Venezuela’s duly elected dictator El Caudillo Hugo Chavez was reported by be in grave condition and had once again gone over to Cuba to receive medical treatment including chemotherapy , during this time there was great speculation on whether or not he would actually make it out and  even if  he does would he still be able to carry out his duties as president, it was even reported in the news that he had designated a successor should he be unable to carry on,  the last  news item regarding Chavez stated that he was back in Venezuela and recovering, much to the relief of his allies and the annoyance of his enemies. Throughout this whole scenario there were tensions and uncertainty not only in Venezuela but also in other places including Jamaica and the Caribbean, this of course is due to one thing in particular: Petro Caribe

                                                              

The Petro Caribe deal is a driving pillar of Venezuela’s foreign policy in the Caribbean region since Chavez first took office, the agreements sets out conditions for the provision of Venezuelan oil to signatories of the agreement under which Caribbean countries would be able to purchase oil at 5% -50% of market price up front while the remainder would be payable over 25 year period with a 1% per annum interest rate. Sounds good right, of course being  realists many Caribbean leaders decided to sign the agreement,  so now we are getting oil at a reduced rate, which we don’t have to be worry about paying for at the moment, everything should be OK right? So why then do I still feel uneasy about this deal?

Maybe it’s because I think that Chavez  is not just being benevolent or giving out of the goodness of his heart but rather  he has an ulterior motive, like all of his other policies, the Petro Caribe is filled with overtones of Bolivarianism, ever since he first came to office Chavez  has justified everything he has done by claiming that it’s all a part of the Bolivarian revolution, it’s the reason why he is so critical of the United States and other western countries which he sees as neo-colonizers, it’s why he had the Venezuelan constitution  altered to remove term limits on his presidency, it’s the reason he has close relations with Iran and other fundamentalist Islamic states  and that’s why he urged the creation of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (also called ALBA) to rival other efforts at continental integration such as MERCUSUR or to halt the FTAA agreement from being signed.

                                         

The Petro Caribe is simply an attempt by Chavez to gain a foothold in the Caribbean and so far he seems to succeeding, three Commonwealth Caribbean countries are already ALBA members and he’s still trying to get the rest of us to sign up. When talking Caribbean –Venezuela relations Chavez has no better friend that Vincentian Prime Minister Comrade Ralph Gonsalves, a very shady character who tries to imitate the likes of Chavez and Fidel Castro, he even tried to have the constitution amended to turn St Vincent and the Grenadines into a socialist republic with himself President and Dictator  fortunately he was defeated in a referendum (Her Majesty should have revoked his Prime Ministerial appointment and imprisoned him for this gross act of attempted treason), most Caribbean leaders while not idolizing Chavez still cannot see him for what he really is.

                                             

The Petro Caribe deal is not a generous arrangement as some persons think but rather a devious

attempt by the Chavez regime to make us economically dependent on him for energy and in the long term to place us in a state of high indebtedness to his country , Petro Caribe is not stable but is dependent a Chavez himself, something that was clearly demonstrated last week and prior to that during the Venezuelan Presidential elections earlier this year  when the opposition rival Henrique Capriles promised to repeal the agreement if elected which would have left the Caribbean in  deep trouble of high debt to Venezuela while having to find a new energy partner, sure we can breathe a sigh of relief for  now because  the deal deems safe at present but Comrade Hugo won’t be around forever, what will they do when he’s gone.

                                

Hugo Chavez is nothing if not a master of lies and propaganda, his so called new-found Bolivarian philosophy is nothing more than another name for his own version of communism to impose his own ideas not only on the people of Venezuela but also on the rest of Latin America and even the Caribbean, other Latin Caudillos such as Evil (ahem I mean Evo) Morales in Bolivia, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, Christine Kitchener from Argentina and who could forget Hugo’s best friend Raul Castro in Cuba are all part of it , of course not everyone in the region has bought into Chavez’s ridiculous ideas, thank God for sensible leadership in Chile and Brazil

Prime Ministers in the Commonwealth Caribbean would do well to take heed, the writing is on the wall, Venezuela is NOT our friend one only has to wait to see what will happen after El Caudillo Chavez exits the scene as he will eventually have to like all other leftist dictators whether he wants to or not and his so called Bolivarian revolution is consigned to the dustbin of history 

Royal Baby and Succession Rules-Part II

In last week’s post I touched on the matter of succession to the Throne of the Commonwealth Realms and I wish to continue on that trajectory, I still maintain that changing the rules of succession is a bad initiative because it would open up an entire can up of worms that would be best left untouched, this post intends to point out some of the potential problems that might arise. 
                                                                                                                                                                      

In 1917 King George V drafted a set of letters patent that outlined the composition of the royal family, according to the letters patent the style and title of Royal Highness was limited to the Children of the Sovereign, the Agnatic Grandchildren of the Sovereign and  the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, hence the reason why there is no Prince Peter or Princess Zara as children cannot inherit royal titles from the feminine line unless their mother is the Queen even if their grandmother is.   

                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                              

In relation to that same issue, we must also take into consideration what will happen a generation from now, something I’m sure today’s political leaders in the Commonwealth have not stopped to consider while making this judgment call since they will all  be either retired or dead by then. We all know perfectly well that whenever a Prince gets married outside the royal family then his wife automatically becomes a British Princess by marriage unless of course such a union contravenes the Royal Marriages Act of 1772, the reverse is not true there is no way a man can ever become a prince automatically by marriage to a princess. Some will no doubt raise the point that three Queens regnant had husbands that were made Princes this is only partially true,  first of all, the 3 Queens in question had married foreign princes not commoners so their husbands had the title of prince from birth anyway and the secondly none of them was made a British Prince automatically by marriage, Prince Albert and Prince Philip were created as British Princes by special letters patent which did not even come on the day the marriage but years after the wedding and only after they became the Queen’s official consort while Prince George of Denmark while given a peerage was never recognized as a Prince of the Realm. Given the trajectory of royal weddings for several decades it’s likely that the Duke of Edinburgh will be the last born foreign royal to marry into our royal family and so what if this hypothetical firstborn daughter of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge is named heiress presumptive and then marries a non-royal will he then be named a Prince by marriage similar to what they did to Daniel Westling in Sweden? 

And let us not forget that according to tradition the heir apparent and only him has the right to the titles Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay both of which are automatic, he also has the sole right to use the style Prince of Wales this however is not automatic but rather is a gift of the sovereign bestowed to his (or her) heir apparent, note that an heir presumptive has no right to use either title hence there has never been a Princess of Wales or Duchess of Cornwall in her own right as she could have easily been displaced by the birth of a male heir apparent, I wonder if the Commonwealth leaders have taken time to iron out all these and many more grievances before they make a final decision.

         

                                        

Another thing that is of real concern is the origin of this mode of succession, equal primogeniture was first originated in Sweden in 1980 and as such I must take issue with that for two main reasons, the first one has to do with the fact that equal primogeniture was in fact an amendment to the 1974 instrument of government, the very same one is which the Riksdag stripped the King of all his power and consigned him to be a mere figurehead, of course there are many who also consider the Queen a figurehead mainly because elected politicians are the ones who conduct the daily business of government, while this is true the monarch is by no means a figurehead and still have a great many constitutional duties to perform most of which are done via letters patent, orders in council and the like, but it’s quite clear that the Queen is  still sovereign, the parliament, cabinet,  civil service, foreign service,  court system and  armed forces in every single Commonwealth realm are all merely acting in her name hence she is the State personified, this is not so in Sweden where the King is not even Commander-in-Chief anymore but is consigned to be a mere bystander in the entire governance process while all his powers are transferred to various officials like the Speaker of the House who appoints the Prime Minister who is in turn Commander in Chief of the armed forces, is that really the kind of system we want to adopt where the influence of the monarchy in government is so weak which could only strengthen republican movements especially in realms like Jamaica and Australia which both have openly republican Prime Ministers?, following Sweden’s trajectory will cause all the Commonwealth realms to become republics in all but name we must be careful not to go down that slippery slope.

And speaking of following Sweden’s tradition, whatever happened to “Rule Britannia”? (Britannia here meaning not only Britain but all nations with a strong British heritage), what happened to the good old days when we used to be the trendsetters, when we lead and others followed?  What happened to the pride we used to have as the greatest alliance of nations to ever exist of the face of the earth?  Why should we be following what countries like Sweden or Denmark or the Netherlands is doing when their political culture and realities is so very different from ours? , they should be following us not the other way around .Why do we need to import models used by other countries and then claim to make it our own, this is oddly similar to the pro-republican argument is some realms that the monarchy is colonial and antiquated and wail about the need to establish their “own form of government”when all they are really doing is copying republican models used by other countries and trying to pass it off as an original nationalistic invention.

As a conservative, a traditionalist and a true Jamaican monarchist I still think that tinkering with the rules of succession is a terrible idea (especially since while all other realm governments are debating succession changes, the Jamaican government is capitalizing on the opportunity to debate abolishing the monarchy instead), the Act of Settlement was put in place for a reason and contrary to the propaganda we are hearing, these reasons are still relevant today as they were centuries ago.

These are just a few thoughts for the Commonwealth Heads of Government to ponder under before making that drastic step which could only lead to a host of other unsolved problems.

 GOD SAVE THE QUEEN. 

Royal Baby and Succession Rules-Part I

Yesterday morning I woke up to the most delightful news, Prince William Duke of Cambridge, (son of Charles, Prince of Wales and grandson of Her Majesty the Queen) and his beautiful wife Catherine Duchess of Cambridge are finally having a baby, this is the news that the world has been waiting for ever since their epic almost movie like wedding on April 29, 2011, monarchist all over the world and especially in the Commonwealth are celebrating with them in their happiness, for many of us the timing could not be more perfect, it seems like the perfect end to this Diamond Jubilee (or Diamond and Golden in Jamaica’s case see: http://jamaicatory.blogspot.com/2012/10/jamaicas-double-jubilee-2012.html) year in which London became  the Capital of the world hosting everything from the main Diamond Jubilee celebrations (other celebrations were held across the Commonwealth) to the summer Olympics and Paralympics.

Speculations of a royal pregnancy have been floating around ever since they first got married and even before the day of the wedding, these suppositions reached their highest point earlier this year while the Duke and Duchess were on a tour of the Pacific, but as many of these rumours were being spread by royal watchers I did not make much of it then, but now it has been confirmed by official sources from the Courts of Buckingham Palace, St James Palace and Clarence House, it is further stated that the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh are indeed very pleased but in my opinion I don’t think anybody is more delighted (a part from the couple themselves) than the Prince of Wales who is finally going to be a grandfather, heartiest congratulations goes out to him as well as to the parents

With the announcement of this news, issues with serious implications have been brought back on the agenda namely the rules of royal succession, ever since the royal wedding last year the British Government has been proposing the idea of changing the rules of succession from male preference to one of equal primogeniture a practice started by Sweden and has since spread throughout the rest of Europe (Sweden must be proud to be the trendsetters in something for once). Things got more intense  when their Prime Minister David Cameron made the same pitch at the Commonwealth Heads of Government in November 2011,  Since the monarchy is a multinational entity the United Kingdom  could never change the rules  on its own unless it wants to split the Crown but rather it head to wait to get unanimous agreement from all 16 nations under the Crown (together known as the Commonwealth Realms) from all indications it seem as though the Prime Ministers all approved the new changes. Since then no Realm Government has taken any further steps to make these changes an official part of their legislation by putting it before their parliaments they all claim to be waiting on Great Britain to make the first move.

The basic tenets of the Rule of Succession are spelled out in the 1701 Act of Settlement which basically states that the Succession of the Throne was that male primogeniture meaning that sons of the monarch have the right to succeed before daughters, it also guaranteed the Sovereign’s position as Head of the Church of England (Anglican Church) forbidding anybody who is Roman Catholic or even married to a Roman Catholic from ever wearing the Crown, this last bit was put in directly as safeguard from ever allowing the descendants of  James Edward Stuart, Prince of Wales from ever being ruler (or else instead of Queen Elizabeth II, we would have ended up with Francis Duke of Bavaria as our King Francis I), these are the laws that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers want to have repealed .

I can still vividly remember the  rigorous debates that took place last year across several monarchist groups and networks with many different royalist from all over the Commonwealth  giving their views,  to be frank if I remember correctly the issue almost split the monarchist world in half dividing it  into two main factions one side being liberal and modernist approve the changes to the succession rules while the other side was more conservative and traditionalist who opposed the changes and want the rules to remain as they are in the Act of Settlement ,we still have yet to come to a mutual agreement no doubt conservative  monarchists were fuming over the alterations of the rules (I know this because I was among them ). The modernist will tell you that it’s time to change the rules because it’s the 21^st century and it’s time to  eliminate that kind of bias based on gender and religion, in my opinion that in itself is a ridiculous argument because bias is  the whole point of monarchy anyway, that argument sounds dangerously close to the one put forward by republicans who claim that in the 21^st century  why do we still have a monarch according the to the manager of Republic ( a group of retards calling for the Commonwealth to abandon the monarchy) “the new changes still discriminate against everyone who was not born in the House of Windsor “ seems to me like the liberals are bordering on that kind of reasoning. Quite frankly the removing bias argument is a bogus one because all they are really doing is replacing gender based bias with an age based one so what kind of bias free system are they really talking about?, it’s better to leave well enough alone. The conservative  position is that  monarchy is something that should be based on tradition coming down through the centuries, or else what kind of monarchy do we have, moves like these only serve to weaken the power and influence of the Crown, next thing we’ll hear coming from them is a proposal that the Queen should no longer be considered sovereign, like they do in Sweden where the King is Head of State but the people are still sovereign effectively making it a republic in all but name, we in the Commonwealth Realms should not follow these trends but instead take steps to strengthen the position of our joint monarchy not weaken it.

On the matter of religion, some persons claim that the ban on having a Catholic monarch or even a Catholic consort does not seem to cause as much controversy as it used to, however the Queen’s position in the Church of England always comes up for debate, In this case the Queen has no official religious position outside the UK itself and as such the other realms are not as concerned with this issue. In my opinion I have no objections to the anti-Catholic rules although some say it’s not as relevant as it used to be in the 17^th or 18^th centuries, that may be true but growing up in a  staunchly anti-Catholic  church I was never a fan of the Catholics anyway and so am quite happy and content to never have to swear my allegiance to a Catholic ruler.

In concluding I congratulate Prince and Princess William once on their joyous news, I hope everything goes well with them and that the Duchess gives birth to a bouncing baby boy (yes I’m making a prediction from now) a worthy male heir to the throne, that will give the liberals something to go fume about, don’t get me wrong I’m by no means sexist I know women can also make great monarchs, the last 60 years of Queen Elizabeth’s reign is proof of that  but I still think that politicians tinkering with the rules is a bad idea and that succession to crown should remain exactly as it is now.