Hail to the Chief

This week the Jamaican Tory pays special tribute to a noble man who in his life embodied most of the values values that the Jamaican Tory esteems as honourable, upright and patriotic this person is none other than the Right Excellent Sir William Alexander Bustamante affectionately called “Chief”, Jamaica’s first Prime Minister and National Hero often credited as the father of modern Jamaican conservatism, Sir Alexander would have celebrated his 129^th birthday today had he been alive.

                                         
He was born as William Alexander Clarke in Hanover  on February 24, 1884,  to a mixed raced couple he spent his early years growing up in rural Jamaica before going off to explore Latin America as a young man it was there that he befriended a Cuban sea Captain who had such a great impact on him that he changed his surname by Deed Poll to Bustamante, he also began making use of his second name of Alexander rather than his first given name of William.  In 1932 he returned to Jamaica and began to take an interest in political matters by writing to the Daily Gleaner and also got involved in the Trade Union Movement by starting out as General Secretary of the Jamaica Workers Union, he later went to establish his own Bustamante Industrial Trade Union. As every schoolchild in Jamaica ought to know, modern politics in Jamaica and the rest of the Caribbean developed from this alliance between unions and political parties. Bustamante was for a short while placed in prison by the then colonial government but did not stay long thanks to the efforts of his influential cousin and political rival Norman Manley who was credited as the best Jamaican lawyer of his time. Bustamante upon coming out  joined Manley’s  People’s National Party (PNP) but later withdrew his membership as he was opposed to the PNP’s radical views which were inched towards establishing  socialism in Jamaica, he founded the Jamaica Labour Party in 1943 as conservative movement to counteract the PNP’s proposed revolution. Even though both Manley and Bustamante wanted Jamaica to be free of crown colony rule, the conservative JLP wanted Jamaica to have full Dominion status within the British Commonwealth  similar to Canada and New Zealand, Bustamante though anti-colonial was fiercely loyal to the Crown and was once quoted as shouting in one of his political rallies “Long Live the King but Denham  must go” to which Governor Denham traitorously responded “There is only one king in King’s House” he was of course referring not to King George VI  but rather to himself by falsely claiming to be King of the island.

              

In 1944 Jamaica had it’s first general elections under Universal Adult suffrage which was won by the JLP but he still did not become Chief Minister until 1953 even though he was leader of the majority as the Governor still remained as head of the executive until that time, Chief was however elected chairman of the KSAC and Mayor of Kingston in 1947. In 1955 his luck changed as he lost the elections to the PNP and became leader of the opposition but felt compensated  after  being made a Knight Bachelor by Her Majesty  Queen Elizabeth II  later that same year .

 

 By the mid-1950s the new buzzword was federation, this idea proposed that all the colonies within the British West Indies should unite under a single banner and gain their independence from British rule under one flag, this idea was initially supported by both Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom as well the local political elite including the Chief, interestingly neither  Sir Alex nor Manley contested seats in the Federal Parliament instead choosing to focus more on Provincial politics even though they were both  recognized as leaders of their respective parties, Bustamante for the right and Manley for the left . Even though I’m a huge fan of the Chief I must say that choosing to withdraw his support from the federation later on was a mistake yet that was precisely what he did, with pressure mounting from all sides Premier Manley had no choice but to call a referendum on the matter, the resulting was a resounding NO for federation and YES for independence. Next came the writing of Jamaica’s constitution this was done be a team of statesmen and legal experts on both sides of the political divide, the bi partisan committee took weeks to decide on what form of government we should have and even though not everyone on the committee approved both Bustamante and Manley were fiercely adamant that Jamaica was to be a constitutional monarchy based on the rules of British styled parliamentary democracy, there was talk that some wanted Jamaica to be either a US styled Presidential republic or an Parliamentary Republic based on the Irish model, the two political giants of the time utterly rejected this idea, a very wise choice as far as I’m concerned  for that I’ll be eternally grateful , contrary to erroneous propaganda put out by republicans there is no evidence to suggest that Bustamante nor Manley wanted a republic in fact the very constitution that we have now is proof enough that they were both loyal monarchist, their struggle was against colonialism not the monarchy.
                          

Following the writing  of the constitution another general election was held to see who would form the first government of the Dominion of Jamaica, the JLP won and Bustamante was appointed  Premier which would be automatically transformed into Prime Minister on August 6, 1962, he was made a Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire and  appointed as the first West Indian member of  Her Majesty’s Privy Council, a month later he married his former private secretary and longtime mistress Miss Gladys Longbridge.  Jamaica prospered under the Chief’s tenure as he stuck true to the principles of good old fashioned Toryism as a model for social and economic development, he has also careful not to have any dealings with the radical communist regimes of his day by proudly proclaiming that “Jamaica is with the West”, he was respected by many internationally and held audiences with great like-minded men such as Sir Winston Churchill and Emperor Haile Selassie I.
                          

The Chief received many accolades and awards over his lifetime some of them already mentioned  but none was in comparison to the Order of National Hero that was awarded to both himself and Norman Manley for their great contribution to the founding of the modern Jamaica, the Order of National Hero is the highest and most prestigious  award  that Jamaica could  give to one of its loyal subjects . Sir Alexander retired from active politics in 1967 and spent 10 long years enjoying the fruits of his labour before dying at the ripe old age of 93 on August 6, 1977 exactly fifteen years after he first became Prime Minister of our fair island dominion.

Economics for Dummies: Tax More, Spend More, Borrow More

This week I intend to write on something that has been in the news since last week, this concerns the new tax package which the government has again unleashed on the people of this country and needless to say the government has failed miserably  with a capital F. In this latest development in the saga our ever increasing downward spiral, taxes were hiked on P.A.Y.E workers , ports of entry, stamp duties  as well as a whole new set of increases to the General Consumption Tax (GCT) and Special Consumption Tax (SCT), all this against the backdrop of the Jamaican Dollar (JMD) currently standing at $96.07 to United States $1.00, inflation in this country is at the worst it has ever been, commodity prices are sky high while consumer confidence extremely low, the government could not have done this at a worst possible time.

                           

 As one would expect, the people of Jamaica are quite displeased with the government, everyone including Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, various private sector groups as well as political pundits and  financial analyst are taking the government to task over its handling of the situation and rightly so,The President of the Private Sector Organization (PSOJ) expressed  his  horror that the government decided to proceed as it saw fit without consulting any of the relevant stakeholders, while the Opposition for their part have called the taxes illegal since in essence what the government is really doing violates the principle of “no double taxation” as the government is effectively levying taxes on retailers, consumers and also manufacturers (in some cases) for the same products.

                            

Of course I cannot talk about the latest tax package without mentioning the most stinging point which has to do with the National Housing Trust, let me start by saying that my heart really goes out to everyone who has been adversely affected by this act of cruelty and tyranny on that part of our elected leaders,  This administration has very little conscience dipping their fingers into taxpayers hard earned savings at the NHT, some persons  had spent most of their adult working lives making contributions to the NHT and still they  have not been able take out a mortgage on a house of their desire, now with the government stealing their hard earned savings the dreams of many ordinary working class Jamaicans may never become a reality all because the government wasn't prudent enough to not let the national debt reach this enormous stage in the first place.

                    

Some may argue in defence of the government by claiming that their hands are tied and that these measures are forced through by the  International Monetary Fund rather than by the government, this while true  is in itself a source of contention as it is clear that the GoJ under  duress from the IMF have seen it fit to impose these measures without even first tabling them in the House of Representatives a clear violation of the constitution which says that all money bills shall be introduced in the House, the actions of the government are clearly unconstitutional as they violate the principle of no taxation without representation,  it  also violates the principle of parliamentary supremacy which is a key ingredient in our Westminster system of 

government.

                        

 The Government has shown that fiscal prudence is certainly not it’s strong suit as all these measures put forward only serve one purpose only, borrowing money from the IMF to repay its debts, the trouble with that is that sooner or later they will have to borrow from somebody else to repay the IMF and so on and so forth, the cycle will be a never ending one.  These people never learn; borrowing to pay debt is nonsense, robbing Peter to pay Paul will only work for a while but after that who are you going to rob in order to pay Peter?  The best way to get out of debt is by working to pay it off, being fiscally conservative is the best way to go, the government  is encouraging the rest of the country to exercise discipline and tighten their belts while they themselves continue to live in luxury  if that is not hypocrisy then I don't know what is,   what they really should do is take their own advice and do the same.  

The Real Enemy of the state?

I  must weigh in on an issue that has been making the news whereby Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller was heard on public media referring to opposition leader Andrew Holness as the “enemy of the State” , If I didn't know before that our Prime Minister was completely daft of all reason I certainly know now, it’s not the first time that sister P has been known to place her foot in her mouth with her ridiculous politically motivated comments but my God this one definitely takes the cake, even I thought she had better sense, they’ll be talking about this one for years to come.

                            

Needless to say several members and supporters of the Jamaica Labour Party were incensed and rightly so, the Prime Minister’s comments were extremely repugnant and if interpreted the wrong way could be construed to mean an accusation of treason against the opposition leader that would have been cause for concern, as such the JLP demanded that she withdraw the comments immediately and apologize (Holness himself has already said that he doesn't even think the PM is worth replying to as the comments are pure ludicrous), but the Prime Minister is standing her ground insisting that she did nothing wrong.

                                       

The statement made by the leader of the People’s National Party and her subsequent response to mounting calls for a withdrawal/apology is  characteristic of a true autocrat, behaving as though she is infallible or that no one has the right to criticize her  and to make matters worse this incident is  not even  the first time that Mrs. Simpson Miller has shown that she is intolerant of criticism, well here's a news flash for you Madam PM we are a democracy NOT a banana republic (or any kind of republic as a matter of fact) , the opposition leader has a constitutional right and duty to speak out against the government when the need arises, how dare you seek to take that right away, are you trying to subvert the constitution of Jamaica or something?

                      

Truth be told it is the PM and not her opposition counterpart that can be seen as the real enemy of the state, enemy of both the Crown and the People, ever since her party was returned to power 13 months ago this country has been sliding down the brink of disaster, nothing is as it should be, unemployment is on the rise, the same can be said for inflation and taxes  while at the same time wages continue to dip or be frozen, the NIR is at an all time low, while there are it is highly speculated that free health care and free tuition up to the secondary level are to be cut all this is against the backdrop of the PM and her comrade co-conspirators continuing  to live in luxury, I mean seriously, spending  $60 million of  taxpayers’ money to buy SUVs in a period of  austerity?  who does that? . The PNP has demonstrated time and time again that they have no real love for the people of this country regardless of how much they give lip service to the contrary, so tell me who the real enemy of the state is.

                               

Of course nothing demonstrates more clearly the true identity of the enemy of that state than the Prime Minister’s proposal for constitutional reform, Under section 68 of the Jamaica Order in Council executive authority is vested in the Crown and as such the sovereign is the personification of the state itself it therefore stands to reason that anyone who sets them-self up against this legitimate authority by proposing the removal of the monarch is by virtue of such an enemy of the sovereign which would make him/her an enemy of the (personification of the) state.

The Prime Minister has demonstrated that she has little regard for the constitution on so many occasions quite frankly I’m shocked that the Governor-General has not pulled a John Kerr on her as yet. But to be frank she really needs to take a breather and deal with the issues that are affecting this country in a calm and tactical manner befitting of a true leader, if she’s being criticized by the opposition, she would do well to listen and take heed  and not jump to conclusions making idiotic comments which could only serve to land her in trouble and sway public opinion against her 

On the matter of abdication

Early last week  Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands announced to the citizens of her Kingdom and the entire world that she intends to abdicate on Queen’s Day in April  and hand over the crown to her son Willem Alexander, Crown Prince of the Netherlands and Prince of Orange making him the first Dutch King in 123 years, the last time the Netherlands has had a male monarch was in 1890 when King Willem III died, since then the Dutch people have had a succession of Queens, first Wilhelmina, then Juliana and finally Beatrix all of whom abdicated to facilitate the next generation after reigning for a long period.

                        

 Within the Commonwealth Realms there have been speculations as to whether or not our Queen  Elizabeth II will follow the example of her Dutch counterpart and abdicate in favour of her son Charles, Prince of Wales after all she has been on the throne for twice as long as  Queen Beatrix and the Prince of Wales has been in waiting much longer the Prince of Orange, in fact he is the longest waiting heir apparent of all time beating the record previously set by his great-great-grandfather King Edward VII who ascended the throne at 59 years old. Despite these facts the Queen shows no sign of wanting to slow down despite celebrating her Diamond Jubilee last year, in fact this week the Queen will mark 61 years on the throne inching closer yet to the record set by her great-great-grandmother Queen Victoria and given the fact that longevity of life is a common trait among her female ancestors there are speculations by many that she will in fact eventually become the longest reigning sovereign of all time in the history of the Commonwealth therefore abdication is certainly not in the cards at this time.

                                      

It is no secret that Queen Elizabeth views her job as a lifetime commitment and takes her coronation oath very seriously as it was a vow solemnly made to both God and to her loyal subjects , even before her ascension she has committed her life to duty and service, who can forget those now famous words she spoke on her 21^st birthday in South Africa so long ago “my whole life whether it be long or short, shall be dedicated to your service and  to the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong”  that sentence alone should have been enough to dispel any notions whatsoever that the Queen would abdicate her responsibilities but some continue to speculate on this matter.

                          

To be frank Dutch tradition is totally different from those used in the British Commonwealth , whereas in the Netherlands the monarch is actually expected to abdicate after reigning for a long period of time though this period is totally at the Monarch’s  discretion. In the Commonwealth abdication has a very negative connotation, who could forget the Abdication crisis of 1936 involving the Queen’s uncle King Edward VIII, who gave up his birthright to marry an American divorcee we surely don't want a repeat of that incident, here in the Commonwealth we expect our monarch to reign for life, if they get too old or too ill to carry out their daily duties then a regent may be appointed as was done when King George III was declared mentally unstable in 1811, his heir (who later succeeded him as King George IV) became regent, still final authority still rest with the Sovereign as long has he or she is alive. 

                                      

One must also remember that the Dutch concept of monarchy is totally different from ours. In the Netherlands and some our European countries the monarch is now regarded as a citizen (though this was not always so) and as such the monarch goes through an investiture or enthronement ceremony rather than a coronation. In the Commonwealth Realms this is no so, our Head of State is not a citizen but she is sovereign and we are her subjects ,it would have been a very sticky situation for her to be citizen of 16 sovereign countries, inherently she could only be a citizen of one and a foreigner to the rest. This is why she is anointed and crowned as our sovereign lady in her coronation ceremony, she is the living embodiment of the state and all its authority, sovereignty does not rest with the people, it rest with her and as such she cannot afford to give up the throne whenever she likes but instead is bound to stay true to her coronation oath. King Edward VIII had a lucky escape since he abdicated before he got a chance to be anointed or to take the coronation oath (regardless he was still king), or else his position would have been a much more precarious one, had he been crowned he maybe would have felt more obliged to stay infuriating his ministers even more and could possibly lead to another king being involuntarily deposed by parliament like what happened to King James II in 1688, that would have been an even more unpleasant scenario had it happened that way.

                                      

Queen Beatrix is possibly the most well loved and loved respected figure throughout her Kingdom but now she’s calling it quits , but Queen Elizabeth II shows no sign of wanting to follow suit, she intends to reign till her last breath which really and truly is the monarchist way of doing things, I personally hope to see her stick around at least long enough to beat the previous record set by Queen Victoria and become the longest reigning Queen ever in Commonwealth history. 

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