Judiciary: Corrupting The Morals Of Society
The ‘Judiciary’ is not only one of the free institutions alluded to in the ‘Five Founding Constitution Principles’ of ‘Antigua and Barbuda,’ but also one of the three arms of governance. Its mantra includes; (a) ‘Being the ‘Vanguard of the nation; (b) Looking closely at the behavior of the two other arms, the ‘Executive and Legislature; (b) To see there is no behavior incompatible with, or subversive to democracy, or actions oppressive to the will and adverse to the happiness and prosperity of the people.’ In its Civil and Criminal Jurisdictions,’ to interpret duly enacted domestic Laws. Then in the administration of justice, ensure fair, unbiased and equitable dispensation of justice to all litigants, defendants and accused persons. These are not only the will of the electorate, but also reasonable expectations of the people. Therefore, in its juridical role, there shall reflect; (i) ‘Sound judicial judgment; (ii) Rationality; and (iii) Making informed ethical and moral judicial decisions.’
This commentary looks specifically at the ‘Orders of Her Ladyship, Madame Justice Marissa Robertson.’ Such is contained in the ‘Joint Civil Claim by ‘openly homosexual male Orden David and Alexandrina Wong’ [Paragraphs 14 & 20], instituted against the ‘State and People’ through ‘Attorney General, Steadroy ‘Cutie’ Benjamin’ [Claim No: ANUHC V2021/0042]. Incidentally, the holder of the office of such office, is also the ‘Principal Legal Adviser to the Government.’ It also looks at the apparent conniving behavior of the State, in ‘Conceding’ that the law infringes ‘Buggery Rights’ [Sexual offences Act: Sections 12 and 15: No. 9 of 1995]. The ‘Second Claimant Alexandrina Wong,’ was also identified as ‘Executive Director’ of the organization duly registered as ‘Women Against Rape (WAR).’
ADVOCATES OF SEXUAL DEPRAVITY
Whatever may have been the motivating factor or incentivized or vested interests, to all intents and purposes, the organization duly registered as ‘WAR,’ may have done the most unthinkable. Given the citizen’s responses on national television, those whose consciences have been outraged, have now seen this ‘Organization’ as one composed of ‘Hypocrites.’ They are now seen as ‘Advocates of Sexual Depravity.’ For on the right side of their mouths, some have claimed to be virtuous and against ‘Rape,’ yet on the left side of their mouths, they have embraced the prohibited abnormal sexual act of ‘Buggery. This was made abundantly clear when this organization, through a co-founding member and ‘Executive Director,’ deposed before, and petitioned the ‘Judiciary’ that the ‘Sexual Rights of Homosexuals’ had been infringed by existing statutory provisions.
It may have been clear in the minds of Parliamentarians, that husbands and wives might become ‘Sexually Adventurous.’ Whether or not they may have been so disposed, it may have been their collective belief that other persons, male and female, having attained the ‘consensual age of 16 years and over,’ may also become sexually perverse. It appears also that keen attention was paid to the law as then existed, and still exists before the institution of litigious proceedings against the Defendant, ‘Attorney General.’ In view of the anticipatory perverseness, they inserted a permissible provision in the ‘Sexual Offences Act’ [No. 9 of 1995].
Some twenty-two days ago [July 5, 2022], and eleven days of a ‘Judicial Ruling on Abortion’ [US: June 24, 2022], this nation saw its Judiciary taking a most dangerous step. It slid down a slippery slope to ‘Moral Destruction.’ It became the first among the ‘Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) to order ‘State Legislators’ to revisit the ‘Sexual Offences Act.’ This was either for the purposes of either; (i) ‘Repealing Section 12; and (ii) Amending Section 15.’ These Sections respectively refer to (a) ‘Buggery; and (b) Serious Indecency.’ The latter Section speaks generally to persons who commit an act capable of being cited for ‘Serious Indecency, on or towards another person [Section 15 (1)]. Incidentally, without criminal sanctions, the law allows a provisional exception. Thus, such acts may be performed consensually by an adult male upon an adult female, and vice versa. These acts shall only be performed only in ‘Private’ [Section 15 (2)].
SERIOUS INDECENCY OVERLOOKED
The provision states; ‘Subsection (1) does not apply to an act of ‘Serious Indecency’ committed in Private.’ It excludes; (a) ‘Husband and wife; and (b) Adult male and females.’ This incidentally, may have been overlooked by the; (i) Attorney General: and Attorneys (ii) Dr. David Dorsett; and (iii) Carla brooks-Harris.’ The ‘Claimants; (i) ‘Orden David; and (ii) Alexandrina Wong; and (iii) Attorneys Douglas Mendes SC: and (iv) Andrew O’Kola’ urged the Court to look at ‘Same-Sex’ per anum sexual acts.’ Instructively, the Court observed the provision that made exclusion for ‘consensual privately performed acts of ‘Serious Indecency’ [Section 15 (2)].
Public perception may have been manipulated that citizen’s may have believed that ‘Buggery Rights’ exist on ‘Antigua and Barbuda.’ There may be no doubt of the inescapable gripping influence of the undaunted ‘Prime Minister Gaston Browne.’ A spell appeared to be all it takes. On the members of Cabinet, he appeared to have been endowed with the unique ability to make some members feel they are ‘Goats,’ while others feel like ‘Sheep.’ Thus, likened to ‘former Prime Minister, Dr. Baldwin Spencer,’ he apparently knows when to transform and separate them. Ironically, it was him that threw out the ‘Litigious Suggestion’ to persons so affected that they may litigate against the ‘State Law’ [Video: Pointe FM-99.1: 2021]. He was also quoted by a foreign news portal as ‘supportive of the ‘LGBTQ’ [Loop: June 27, 2021].
AG CAUGHT IN MONKEY PANTS
By virtue of his constitutional positions, the ‘Attorney General’ within the Cabinet, has the dual role of; (i) ‘Minister; and (ii) Legal Adviser.’ The provision states; (a) ‘There shall be an Attorney General of Antigua and Barbuds: and (b) He shall be the ‘Principal Legal Adviser’ to the Government’ [CO: 1981: Section 82]. Logic therefore, dictates, that in the instant Case, it is the ’Attorney General’ with responsibility to advise the Government on ‘Legal Matters.’ In the ‘Claim against the office holder, ‘Her Ladyship, Madame Justice Marissa Robertson’ was asked to look at the ‘Buggery and Serious Indecency Sections,’ as opposed to looking to see if the ‘Sexual Offences Act’ was inconsistent with the ‘Supreme Law- the Constitution Order.’
MORALLY UPSTANDING JUSTICES
Though obtained recently in another jurisdiction, one shall not fail to appreciate the courageous, ethical, and moral stance of the ‘Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).’ One shall also not fail to recognize the tenacity and forthrightness of ‘Justice Samuel Alito.’ On a ‘Writ of Certiorari’ to roll back ‘Abortion Rights,’ then conceptually and literally believed that such was entrenched in the ‘United States Constitution Order,’ five ‘Morally-Upstanding Justices,’ believed it was against ‘God and Morality’ to turn wombs into reservoirs and churn fetuses to flow as ‘Streams of Blood.’ The Justices, clearly did not wish their souls to be perished in purgatory, or to be seen as ‘Sinning Against God’ and to offend those that have, and continues to acknowledge ‘GOD’s Supremacy.’
IN GOD WE TRUST
We truly and affirm our belief in the national motto; ‘In God We Trust’ [1956: Wikipedia]. We are ‘Legal Luminaries.’ We are appointed Justices to protect you from all forms of injustices, including discriminatory practices and acts of immorality. Still, we will not support or counsel the works of devils.’ Though we are ‘Social Animals,’ we are neither political prostitutes, nor hypocrites. On the issue of ‘Abortion and Abortion Rights,’ this was what ‘Justice Samuel Anthony Alito’ wrote; ‘The authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and elected representatives’ [USA: No. 19 -1392: Pp 8-79: June 26, 2022]. Then ‘Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’ and four other Justices, including ‘Amy Coney Barrett’ responded; ‘…We are associated with this opinion; …We concur.’ These are the Justices that have made the historic decision for the majority of the ‘332, 403, 650 people.’
For the ‘Pro-Abortionist,’ it may have been well reinforced in their minds having seen the litigious ruling in the Case of; ‘Roe v Wade’ that was judicially sanctioned five decades ago’ [410 US: 113: January 22, 1973]. Unlike the ‘overwhelming 7-2 majority in that Judicial Decision,’ modern-day morally and spiritually-thinking ‘Justices’ appeared guided by Christian upbringing and principles, and regard for the ‘Rule of Law.’ Though lessened to a ‘5-4 majority, they have properly directed themselves in overturning that which had been long ingrained in the minds of many activists and ‘Abortionists.’ Likened to the Judges that made the earlier Ruling, that the ’United States Constitution Order’ guarantees a ‘Right to Abort’ the life of the ‘Unborn’ [NPR: June 24, 2022], this ‘Justice Samuel Alito- authored Judicial Decision,’ says it was an illusion.
With a lifetime achievement and longevity of tenure until death, the ’Justices’ on the ‘Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS),’ could afford to say; ‘We are not politicians; We do not vie for elective office; We do not go into homes and communities soliciting or canvassing electoral votes; We do not go on political platform to preach the ‘Gospel of Politics.’ In fact, we do not even go on Pulpits to preach the ‘Gospel of Jesus Christ.’ We have studied and practiced law; We are not like the two other arms of governance; They are about the most dangerous institutions. We are not subordinate, nor subservient to them. We are not here to do the biddings of those in a ‘Morally Bankrupt’ political system. Those on the other two other arms, do not always agree with our judicial decisions. Conversely, we also do not always agree with their administrative policies and legislative or despotic actions.
ABOMINATION UNTO GOD
Instructively, the nation has a population of some ‘99, 594 people.’ The estimated community of ‘Morally Upright People,’ was said to be ‘well over 94%.’ The ‘Civil Claim’ was brought by two people. Then ‘One Judge’ foisted upon the ‘Legislature’ and by extension, the populace an unpopular decision to accept a practice the ‘Holy Scripture’ has declared ‘an Abomination unto to God.’ The Court identified a male as ‘First Claimant’ ‘an openly homosexual male ‘Orden David.’ The ‘Second Claimant’ was only identified as a female ‘Alexandrina Wong’ of the organization called ‘Women Against Rape Incorporation (WARI).’ She was one of the co-founders of the organization called ‘Women Against Rape Incorporation (WARI).’
DISCRIMINATORY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Ironically, the other ‘Co-founding members have been (i) ‘Member of Parliament Samantha Marshall; (ii) …Senator Gail Christian: and (iii) former School Principal Monica Isaac,’ These women, devoted themselves and bravely took on the challenge of fighting ‘War Against Rape’ of women and girls. They were particularly concerned with the frequent reports of sexual assaults perpetrated against the vulnerable females in the lower strata of society. Opportunistically, well-positioned as ‘Executive Director’ of the organization, the Executive Director,’ appeared surreptitiously seizing the opportunity in going forward with a homosexual male to petition the Court. Both litigants have asked the Court to review the prohibitive law of ‘Buggery,’ and hold it ‘Discriminatory and Unconstitutional.’
MEN OF CLOTH
The ‘State’ not only appeared to have failed itself miserably, but also the majority of the citizens not disposed to be engaged in certain abnormal sexual behaviors. It has always been that ‘Men of Cloth’ shall not have one foot on the road to ‘Heaven’ and one foot on the road to ‘Hell.’ They could never arrive at both places at the same time. Still, in the secular world, those that cannot be used ‘politically’ to take the message to the electorate, then other uses shall be made of them. The Scripture may have been contradicted, when ‘Church Pastor’ deviated from the ‘Straight and Narrow way. He may have abandoned his ‘Theological Calling,’ and may have been under illusion that his ‘Law Firm of Associates’ had been solely retained for the purposes of representing the personal interests of the ‘Attorney General.’
In the capacity of a practicing attorney for the Government, ‘Dr. David Dorsett’ may have been professionally reckless and ‘Spiritually Treacherous.’ In such capacity, he shall have known that he would have been advocating more for the devil than the ‘Government.’ This came when he undertook the job of ‘Conceding to the Court’ that ‘Sections 12 and 15’ of the ‘Sexual Offences Act,’ infringed the ‘Evolutionary Rights’ of ‘Homosexual Claimant Orden David’ and Women Against Rape’ Executive Director, ‘Alexandrina Wong’ [Paragraph 87]. He appeared, not only to have compromised the ‘Word of God,’ but also runs the risk of sacrificing his ‘Soul and Salvation’ to the devil. All have not only ‘Sinned’ and come short of the ‘Glory of God,’ but have also become ‘Fugitives from God.’
Such sexual act, whether or not by consenting adults, it was never considered a ‘Right’ of any male or female citizen to be so engaged. In as much as ‘Church of God of Prophecy (COGOP) Pastor Dr. David Dorsett,’ Attorney for the ‘State,’ contended that ‘fundamental rights do evolve,’ no abnormal sexual acts have never been the ‘Scriptural and Theological Teachings’ to any ‘Church Pastor or Congregant.’ It appeared more of a ‘Comical Concession,’ when the ‘State Attorney, Pastor Dr. David Dorsett and Carla Brooks-Harris’ ‘CONCEDED’ that ‘Sections 12 and 15’ infringed the ‘Buggery Rights’ of the Claimants ‘Orden David and Alexandrina Wong’ [Paragraph 87: ANUHCV2021/0042]. Moreover, ‘Ministers of Religion’ shall not seek ‘Vain Glory,’ by kneeling in prayer to ‘God’ at night, and walk with the ‘Devil’ in the ‘Day.’
COST TO CLAIMANTS
Then adding insult to injury, ‘Her Ladyship, Madame Justice Marissa Robertson,’ ordered; ‘It is ordered that the Defendant shall pay the Costs of the Claimants in an amount to be assessed, if not agreed within 21 days’ [Paragraph 89]. As it relates to ‘Sodomy’ and other sexual acts considered ‘Serious Indecency’ on men and women, the ‘Judiciary’ following a foreign cultural practice that these are entrenched rights in the ‘Constitution Order of Antigua and Barbuda.’ It appears it wants to transform the nation into the ancient cities of ‘Sodom and Gomorrah’ [KJV: Genesis 19: 1-29]. Consequent upon a recent ‘Order’ by ‘Her Ladyship, Madame Justice Marissa Robertson,’ there may have been a mischaracterization and an unfounded belief that the ‘Constitution Order’ guarantees ‘Consensual homosexual conduct’ to heterosexual male and female and ‘Same-sex males’.
OPPOSITION TO CONCESSION
The Cabinet Members said to have expressed strong ‘Opposition to the Concession’ for the ‘Claimants Orden David and Alexandrina Wong’ to have ‘Buggery Rights,’ reportedly numbered less than the fingers on one hand. For the annals of history and posterity, those so identified were; (i) ‘Sir Molwyn Joseph: (ii) E. Paul ‘Chet’ Greene; and (iii) Dean Jonas.’ Fortified in ‘Christianity and their religious beliefs,’ they are edified and guided by Scriptural teaching that states; ‘When a man has sexual intercourse with another man, as with a woman, both men are doing something disgusting, and must be put to death’ [God’s Word: 1996 Edn: Leviticus 20: 13]. These members may not necessarily need ‘Spiritual Advice’ or be called upon to ‘Repent.’ Though not necessarily ‘Paragons of Virtue,’ these three members still live by a ‘platform of morals and religious principles.’
The ‘Orders’ so made, have the potential to undermine confidence in the ‘Judiciary. Not mounting a legal fight, the Court has ordered ‘Legal Costs’ against the ‘State and People.’ A mere ‘Concession’ has come at the expense of the people, who have become unnecessarily indebted to the ‘Law Firm Watt and Associates’ for ‘Legal Services’ rendered and ‘Legal Costs’ to the Claimants for the ‘Concession.’ Now ‘Members of Cabinet’ were reported to be seeking ‘Spiritual Advice’ [ABN: July 14, 2022]. These members shall have sought such ‘Guidance from God’ through ‘Church Pastor Dr. David Dorsett.’ Instead, he was made to be seen as having ‘No Spiritual Authority’ as well as no ‘Ethical Scruples’ or Moral Integrity,’ [Soca Artist: Wanski: 2009].
What appeared unthinkable, was that in ‘Her Ladyship’s’ interpretation of ‘Fundamental Rights of the Individuals’ as entrenched in the ‘Constitution Order, she may also have harbored beliefs different to that of the populace.’ These came when ‘Her Ladyship’ wrote; ‘Specifically, Section 15 excludes from the offence consenting heterosexual adult couples and specifically targets same-sex adults.’ Even when homosexual conduct was not rooted in the history and tradition of the nation. Even so, no inferences, however reasonable or unreasonable, shall be drawn on any member on the ‘Judiciary.’ It shall be known to the ‘Judiciary,’ that the ‘Orders’ had provoked ‘Secret Whispers,’ when it was further written; ‘It is ordered that Subsection 15 (2) (b) of the Act be read as if the words ‘a male person and a female person’ were deleted and replaced with the word ‘Persons’ [Paragraph 82]. This allows for the ‘Sexual Minority’ to have as many encounters.
Before the ‘Court’s Orders,’ the people of ‘Antigua and Barbuda’ not only acknowledged ‘God’ as a ‘Supreme Being,’ the people also recognize that the law symbolizes the public conscience, and that the ‘State’ is subject to the law. In the case of ‘Sodomy Rights,’ within this jurisdiction, those erroneously harboring such belief have been; (i) ‘The Claimants Orden David and Alexandrina Wong: (ii) Their Attorneys Douglas Mendez SC and Andrew O’Kola; (iii) The Defendant, Attorney General Steadroy ‘Cutie’ Benjamin; and (iv) ‘Conceding State Attorney’ Dr. David Dorsett,’ along with ‘Assistant Attorney Carla Brooks-Harris.’ The named Defendant in the litigious proceedings has been the ‘Attorney General.’
FOUNDING CONSTITUTION PRINCIPLE
When ‘Her Ladyship, Madame Justice Marissa Robertson’ ordered repeal of ‘Section 12 (Buggery)’ and also ordered an amendment and make certain insertions into ‘Section 15 (Serious Indecency),’ ‘Her Ladyship’ appeared to have misguidedly or inadvertently overlooked two fundamentals. These are too profoundly important to be allowed to go unnoticed. Firstly, has been the ‘Founding Constitution Principle’ of which the majority of the people have expressed and have shown high regard in acknowledging the ‘Supremacy of God’ [CO: 1981: Principle: ‘A’]. However, likened to the ‘American people,’ that have seen the embracement of ‘Same-Sex Unions’ […], then subsequent prohibition of ‘Abortion,’ the people of ‘Antigua and Barbuda,’ are now faced with a dilemma of ‘Decriminalized Buggery.’
Secondly, has been the ‘Supreme Law’ of the nation. The people expect its institutions, including the ‘Judiciary,’ Ministers of government and Ministers of religion to respect, uphold and have full allegiance to this ‘Law.’ This law anticipates that Parliamentarians may enact laws that may bring grief upon the people. Framers of the Constitution saw such laws as offensive to democracy, human rights, freedom and liberty.’ They also anticipated that an egregious shall always call into question the issue of constitutionality. It was clearly for these reasons that the people insisted on a ‘Supreme Law.’ It states; ‘If any other laws are inconsistent with the ‘Constitution,’ to extent of the inconsistency, the other law shall be void and the Constitution shall prevail’ [CO: 1981: Section 2]. This ‘Section’ appeared not to have been considered.
MOCKERY OF THE CONSTITUTION
Whether or not blame may be apportioned to the ‘Office of the Attorney General’ or the ‘Judiciary,’ it appears obvious that the ‘Constitution Order’ may have been mocked. It was provided for; Members of Parliament and the Senate, attorneys-at-law (i) ‘Samantha Marshall: (ii) Alincia Grant: (iii) Maureen Payne-Hyman; (iv) Gail Christian’ to remind themselves, when certain issues come up, whether or not in Cabinet or in the ‘Sacred Chambers of Parliament,’ they shall be so guided. It states; ‘The Constitution is the ‘Supreme Law of Antigua and Barbuda’ [CO: 1981: Section 2]. These Members shall all remind themselves of the ‘Principles’ on which the nation was founded.
The ‘Watchdog’ of this ‘Law,’ has been the ‘Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs.’ Members have often reminded ‘Attorneys General,’ that the people have advised differently to that which they have tendered to the ‘Executive. In the instant case, the ‘Notes of Cabinet’ may not necessarily reflect those Members that may have been against the ‘Litigious Concession’ that ‘Buggery is a Right.’ Even without the benefit of such ‘Notes,’ citizens know that only certain ‘Male Ministers’ of ‘Testicular Fortitude’ that reportedly opposed to the Cabinet’s undocumented position not to challenge the ‘Joint Claim of Orden David and Alexandrina Wong’ who contended that ‘Sections 12 and 15’ were discriminatory,’ thus claiming homosexual right to engage in sexual acts of ‘Buggery and Serious Indecency’ with males and females [Paragraph 4: ANUHCV2021/0042].
UPSTANDING CABINET MEMBERS
Frequently, an ‘Attorney General’s advice does not even worth ’14 Grammes of Cannabis.’ Even so, given the ‘Constitutional Positions,’ as ‘Principal Legal Adviser to the Government,’ the collective ‘Membership of Cabinet’ is to be guided by his professional knowledge and advice. The very law (Sexual Offences Act) that guides the conduct of the populace, the same law guides the conduct of; (i) ‘Prime Minister Gaston Browne: (ii) Legal Affairs Minister Steadroy ‘Cutie’ Benjamin; (iii) Sir Robin Yearwood: (iv) Sir Molwyn Joseph; (v) Dean Jonas; (vi) E. Paul ‘Chet’ Greene: (vii) Lennox Weston: (viii) Melford Nicholas: (ix) Michael Browne; and (x) Samantha Marshall.’ It would be unthinkable that in their formative years, these ‘Upstanding Cabinet Members’ were ever instructed or urged to follow non-scriptural teachings.
GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST
When the ‘Ministry of Legal Affairs’ was forced into litigious proceedings, members of Cabinet’ apparently knew not that it would involve two other secular governmental Ministries and a religious Ministry. In the case of the former, through a ‘Minister of Religion, Pastor Doctor David Dorsett,’ consequent upon his ‘Theological Calling,’ he shall have known that there imposes upon himself, a religious duty to preach the ‘Gospel of Jesus Christ’ to the people of ‘Antigua and Barbuda.’ The former being that which the ‘Holy Scripture’ has declared as ‘Abominable’ [Leviticus 20: 13]. The latter being ‘Serious Indecency’ [Section 12: Sexual offences Act: No. 9 of 1995]. The secular Ministries, were undoubtedly; (i) ‘The Ministry of Religion; Tourism; and (ii) …Health.’
Secularly, that of the ‘Ministry of Tourism’ was well known to all a sundry. Among its mandate has been the ‘Attraction and Wooing Tourists’ to this sun-drenched nation. This has been so, whether or not they are considered: (a) ‘High end tourists: (b) Low end; or ‘Gay men or lesbians.’ Without being offensively discriminatory, all visitors were to be welcomed, not only for their personal experiences, but also in helping to boost the nation’s fragile tourism industry. This ‘Ministry’ will have already seen some visitors posing alongside a ’Virgin Atlantic Passenger Aircraft,’ waving two ‘Rainbow Colored Flags’ at ‘VC. Bird International Airport (VCBIA)’ [ANR: July 14, 2022]. This indicated an airport poised to see additional visitors flooding the ‘Entry/Departure Lounge.’
FLUTTERING GAY PRIDE FLAGS
Not so long ago, such ‘Flags’ had sparked controversy after they were hanged on Utility poles and trees over the City of St. John’s. Taking issue with their removal was self-proclaimed lesbian ‘Tasheka Lavann. Media reports quoted her as saying, ‘I want people to see what hatred to a community looks like’ [ANR: July 23, 2017]. The once rejected ‘Flag’ is now being welcomed by officialdom. Even with the two ‘Rainbow Flags’ fluttering in the ‘Summer Breeze,’ that which is most needed are not ‘Fluttering Gay Pride Flags,’ but a few scattered showers of rain to fall upon the nation. They too, have heard of the judicial decision to order the ‘Attorney General’ to decriminalize that which appeared to have seriously curtailed travel to the island-nation.
While the ‘Economic Benefits’ of ‘Tourism’ has been a revenue-earner, none may deny that the possibility exists for the ‘Monkeypox Virus’ to sneak into the nation. Resulting from the Conference and Press Conference, ‘Director General, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus’ sought to bring awareness to the global community. He has given early warning of the ‘multi-country out-break of the Monkeypox Virus,’ that has, so far, left some five persons dead. The ‘Ministries of Legal Affairs; Health; and Tourism,’ may now have grave concerns that the nation and people may be at risk by another imported virus. With the rapid spread reported by the ‘WHO,’ life could once again become ‘Troubling for Travel.’ Such spread across the global community has every component to be likened to ‘Covid-19.’
PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY
Short of declaring it a ‘Pandemic,’ it warned the international community of a ‘Public health Emergency’ [July 21, 2022]. Speaking to those at risk, he identified the ‘Sexual Minority.’ In fact, he implored the international community not to stigmatize ‘Gay members.’ He shared scientific information that men who engage in sexual intercourse with other men, are more at risk of being infected with the ‘Monkeypox Virus’ [WHO: July 23, 2022]. Ironically, even as the nation stands to realize an economic boost, as news circulated that the provision criminalizing ‘Buggery’ has been judicially and successfully challenged, the nation is also at risk.
LEGALLY – SECULARLY AND RELIGIOUSLY
In these ‘Civil Proceedings,’ it is important to identify the ‘Defendant.’ While the ‘Civil Claim’ shall show the ‘Attorney General’ as the offender, the ‘Virtual Defendant’ is the ‘State.’ Thus, these ‘Claims’ have never been in the office holder’s private capacity. Thus, by not advancing arguments, ‘Legally, Secularly and Religiously,’ they had failed to give credence to the task undertaken to represent the ‘named Defendant, Attorney General,’ but the majority of the ‘nation’s population. Such arguments may have been so strong and convincing, as to have caused both ‘Claimants David and Wong’ to show conclusively to the Court that the ‘Buggery Rights’ so claimed, are entrenched in the ‘Supreme Law – the Constitution Order’ [CO: 1981].
Today, the ‘Judiciary’ sought to help a societal minority of an apparent ‘Sexually-Disoriented Group.’ Though the combine issues of ‘Morality and Justice,’ shall not be ignored, those functioning in the privileged capacity as ‘Judicial Officers,’ shall always endeavor to familiarize themselves with the ‘Founding Constitutional Principles.’ Though the global influences are sometimes overwhelming, these principles are among others the nation’s democracy, independence and sovereignty shall always be seen as thriving upon. That which of vital importance to the nation and people’s ‘Spirituality and Morality,’ is that which states; ‘The people of Antigua and Barbuda acknowledge the ‘Supremacy of God’ [CO: 1981: Principle: ‘A’]. Thus, a ‘Judiciary,’ shall not be seen as appearing ‘Hell Bent’ in seeing abnormal sexual acts being permeated the entire moral fabric of this society, but also in protecting the nation’s ‘Mores; Culture; Customs; and Practices.’ The ‘Judiciary’ shall not precipitate slides down precipices that may lead to societal decadence and moral decay. It shall not be perceived as ‘Corrupting the Morals of Society.’ Unlike the ‘Frenchmen; Europeans; Canadians; and Americans,’ we are not yet ‘Twenty Million Antiguans and Barbudans.’ But we are still a nation with morals, values, pride and dignity. GOD SAVE THE NATION
Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]