Chris Must List Arrest

I see we’ve gotten back to the Sedition Act, Trinidad and Tobago! How fun!

In 2019, I wrote about the Vijay Maharaj sedition/constitution case, and why I disagreed with the High Court finding of unconstitutionality despite hating the Act. That judgment has since been overturned on appeal (duh!). I continue to hold the view that the Act is constitutional despite hating its substance and being a free speech absolutist. Now, Canadian vlogger, Christopher “ChrisMustList” Hugh has been arrested for sedition (from what I can tell).

Do I think he is guilty under section 4(1)(c) of the Sedition Act? Long story short, yes.

As a watcher of his vlogs, I recall one video in which an interviewee called for an uprising to the system. This was included in the vlog, which was published on the ChrisMustList YouTube channel. For reasons discussed in my previous Sedition Act essay linked above, the mens rea under sections 4(c) and 4(d) of the Act is not “a seditious intention,” but an intention to publish. ChrisMustList, as a vlogger, always intends to publish his vlogs. The sole question in respect of that sedition charge under subsections 4(1)(c) and (d) would, therefore, be whether the thing he published was seditious. I think a call to uprise and overthrow the system in the manner I recall in the video is, by definition, seditious. That’s the boring part.

Do I think this should be a law? No. Arresting and convicting people for acts carried out with seditious intention in the narrow sense contemplated by the Act in sections 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(b) is fine. Arresting people for passively publishing under sections 4(1)(c) and 4(1)(d) simply does not accord with the purpose of criminal law. It does not prevent, deter, reduce, or punish for the substantive crime. It does not rehabilitate criminals. It is just a law for having a law’s sake, and it gives government the power to arrest people for passively (even unknowingly) disseminating seditious content.

If we think it through, what does arresting, prosecuting, and convicting ChrisMustList do about the threatened uprising by the interviewee? Absolutely nothing. What does it do about crime or gang violence in Trinidad and Tobago? Absolutely nothing. What does it do for Trinidad and Tobago? Zip! It is convenient to arrest him because it adds a notch to the TT Police Service’s belt if they achieve a conviction, but it is simply productive unproductiveness. I find it shameful.

The more interesting conversation that we should be having is why this section of law is still on the books. Why has our Parliament not done its job by enacting up-to-date legislation to address our modern needs? The same can be said about the mandatory death penalty and other sections in the Offences Against the Person Act and the Sexual Offences Act, and several other pieces of legislation. Why do we keep having to do judicial gymnastics to get around parliamentary laziness?

I believe that there is too much job security for elected officials who have no real incentives to offer sensible policy solutions. They are reelected regardless of what they do, say, or omit to do. Can we please vote more sensibly next year? What would that even look like?

An inheritance, an identity, and some words of questionable wisdom.

It is 5:40 a.m. on Tamil Thai Pongal 2024. My insomnia is in full swing, and my brain is working overtime. For some reason, a preoccupation with my own identity has overcome me this morning. My primary suspicion is that the talks of removing Colonial statues and of deporting immigrants triggered it, so I am sticking to that theory. My identity is not in crisis because of colonialism, and immigrants are not the devil. I feel grateful. I am happy that biology, war, culture, time, luck, technology, love, and hate if I am being completely honest, conspired to bring me into existence, just so that I could want for sleep in this very moment and tell the world about it as if it is some profound thing. Isn’t that funny?

Generations ago, my Tamil great great grandfather took a trip from Ceylon to the much smaller island of Barbados for some business of which I have not been apprised. There, he met the love of his life. Emily Alleyne was a mulatto chick with an adventurous spirit, who clearly couldn’t get enough of him. After their long honeymoon back in Ceylon, they settled in San Juan, Trinidad, of all places. My great granny, Nora, and her siblings, eventually came along. That was how I would come to be a Trinidadian a century later.

Nora would marry, too. He was of Chinese, Indian, and African heritage with a Muslim dad. He somehow turned out to be an Anglican and a Roman Catholic at the same time. Their marriage would last, though not their relationship, and Nora would eventually tell me of how much his name—Lionel—suited him because truth was his mortal enemy.

Before their permanent separation, they would make their first-born, Victor, and their identical twins, Rodney and Senley, the former of which would turn out to be the little man who funded my university studies, despite barely being able to read.

Rodney would leave home at a young age because of verbal and physical abuse by various stepfathers who came along. He would move to Arima, where at 22, he would meet Miriam Makeba’s long-lost twin of pure gorgeousness, from whom I inherit the majority of my good looks, Paulina. She was training to be a midwife. He would ask her to stop, promising to take care of her. She would, and he would keep his word until her dying day in December 2017.

Paulina’s dad, Clifford Meyers (pronounced Mares), was an English, Spanish, and French patois-speaking man of mixed heritage. She was his twin. He would meet Juliana Torres, a Mestizo woman of Venezuelan heritage. With her, he had two boys and two girls. After all that baby-making, he would marry someone else… Because of course he would. 😅

Paulina and Rodney would make my mother Alison, along with the twins, Ashton and Arlene. These people had no idea that they would all come to be some of my most cherished humans, despite our myriad differences.

Meanwhile, in the sleepy, seaside village of Blanchisseuse on Trinidad’s North Coast, some other magic (or madness) was happening.

Maureille Elie, who spoke not a word of English or Spanish, met a mixed Venezuelan woman who spoke English and Spanish by chance. I only know her as Mamita, and I have only seen one photo of her. With her, he would have a relationship (don’t ask me how, but I reckon it was short given the limited communication capabilities) and make his only biological child, my granny Louisa Edith De Leon. The Vene would move to Belmont after they broke up. I presume she learnt English. She would make several more daughters of non-Elie paternity.

Maureille would keep his daughter and would marry an absolute witch by all accounts. The very smart and promising Louisa, who became fluent in English at primary school and spoke French-patois at home, would be withdrawn from school altogether on her stepmother’s orders. Her teachers begged. Her headmaster pleaded. It did not work. As such, she did not even have a primary school certificate, despite being a really smart cookie. The joys of being a girl back in the day!

Louisa would, nevertheless, become skilled in various domestic arts, as well as crochet, which would take her to Tobago and her mother’s Venezuela for competitions. She would make two sons for two men—the older, Herbert, whose father was a lawyer, would win an island scholarship. The other, Courtney, was for some other professional man from Couva, Trinidad. He would become a soldier, then a drug addict after his batch made a drug raid. He would also become my most loved paternal uncle despite this flaw.

Louisa would remain in her father’s house until the unlucky (for her, not me) day that a Vincentian man of French and African roots, Ralph Martineaux, would stumble into her life and marry her. They would make a few children in Blanchisseuse, then move to Arima where they would make the rest of their 9 gremlins together. The unfortunate man I would come to call my father, John Martineaux, was their second-to-last child and favourite boy child.

John and Alison would grow separately in the same little village in Arima. They would go to primary school and secondary school separately, and they would have somewhat separate friends. One day in 1990, his best friend, Derek, and her best friend, Carol, whom I would grow up calling Uncle Derek and Aunty Carol, would get married. John and Alison would meet at that wedding and would later learn that their families had intermarried before while planning their own wedding four years later.

Four years later, they would also be building a house together while I was brewing in Alison’s tummy after what, in hindsight, I consider to be a really bad decision to date below her league. They would marry the December after I was born, in a huge wedding ceremony, planned for almost a year. My dearest brother would come about three years later, looking like Emily Alleyne, who had travelled to Ceylon with her love. More importantly, he would share Emily’s adventurous spirit.

None of the things which I’ve outlined above would have happened if empires were shy about imperialism and if borders were impenetrable fortresses meant to protect against so-called cultural degradation and ethnic replacement. Quite frankly, us racial and cultural mutts have as much of a right to exist freely as anyone else, and we would prefer it if you didn’t try to get in our way. We are not some disease that needs to be contained, lest we contaminate the prized flock. Continents and histories had to join forces just to bring us about, and we intend to not disappoint them for their efforts.

Had colonialism and immigration not happened, some random man from a South Asian island owned by a monarch of two European islands, who also happened to own, among other things, a bunch of smaller islands on a new continent, wouldn’t be able to take a ship, sail to the other side of the globe, meet a woman with slave and planter blood, marry her, move to another island where neither had roots, and make Trini babies. The ship would not exist, and neither would the empire.

Some man by a Trini beach wouldn’t be speaking a derivative of French, and the woman he fell for wouldn’t have been speaking English or Spanish. There would be no school from which little Louisa could be pulled, and she would have no Arima to move to with Ralph. There would be no such thing as a Trini, as the island would still be called Iere. It would be inhabited by a handful of my ancestors who had a proclivity for feathers and cassava-use. And god bless pone and farine!

There would be no Paulina and no Rodney. There would be no Alison or John. There would be no me to write you this long piece of prose about myself, defending the merits of ancient empires in this beautiful English language. There would be no phone on which I could type it from my American-made bed under the cooling breeze of a Chinese-made fan. There would be no you to write it to, and no internet to which I could publish this manner of madness.

As the insomnia that probably kept Emily awake and dreaming of adventure keeps me awake now, and as my yearning to travel across oceans to see what life has to offer continues to arrest me, I am amused that anyone would want to remove statues that commemorate a period in Trini history that had to happen for me to happen.

As the citizens of countries of immigrants pontificate about why their borders should be closed to protect “their culture”, and as they try to justify why us third-world scum should be seen as inferior, I wonder whether they would hold their own ancestors to these newfound standards. Are people willing to be closed to their own existence?

An open world that is honest about and at peace with its past will likely honour it and make a great future. A world where people can move, meet, mix, and mingle is the best world. Sometimes, those opportunities turn into pensive lawyers with asocial sleeping patterns who really understand what it means to be a Westerner. Happy Tamil Thai Pongal! May we reap the fruits of our labour and stare at the sun. Maybe one day, soon again, there will be another empire on whom she never sets!

Populists, Anchor Babies, Diplomats, and Vivek Ramaswamy.

When Vivek Ramaswamy withdrew from the US presidential race, I was overjoyed. He has since endorsed ex-president and fellow businessman Donald Trump… It’s not ideal… but he’s no longer running, which is great. My issues with Vivek can be summed up in two main points: 1. I think that he is an opportunistic and unprincipled populist, and 2. I think that he is a hypocrite. These points overlap in many ways, but I’ll discuss them seriatim below.

Opportunistic Vivek

It is, of course, at the forefront of my mind that Vivek was a politician marketing himself as a businessman first. He is a brand, first and foremost. It is the fact that he is a successful businessman who chose to enter the political ring that makes him a politician. All politiciams should be scrutinised because they are inherently opportunistic until they prove otherwise. Substantively, I think that much of the guy’s campaign focussed on undocumented immigrants and “securing the border,” not because he was particularly passionate about the subject matter, but because he knew that it worked for Trump in 2016.

He chose to adopt the populism that Trump exploited because he knew that it was a formula for incensing the working class masses of Middle America. I am not a fan of populists or anti-immigrant sentiments, but the borderline fascistic ideology is only a small part of what grinds my gears. It is the insult that upsets me more.

The intentional exploitation of xenophobic tendencies for political gain gave me pause, especially because I knew that it was intentional. Everything he did was intentional. It may be the libertarianism values I espouse, or the bored theatre kid in me, but when I close my eyes and think of Vivek, the image that energes is a seething Patrick Bateman mid-bludgeon, enjoying his orgasmic, psychopathic thrills. Only, instead of bludgeoning someone to death, he is insulting people’s intelligence.

Deep down, I genuinely believe that Vivek thinks that “those people” are too silly to be reasoned with, and as a result, he has to emotionally manipulate them into supporting him by fuelling their sense of lack. It is run-of-the-mill marketing, but it is still insulting. I would more quickly trust a shark that told me it just wanted to speak about its lord and saviour Jesus Christ while I had an open wound and was bleeding out on the Pacific Ocean floor than trust a word that comes out of opportunistic Vivek’s mouth!

To facilitate his condescending opportunism, he opined that the children of undocumented immigrants should be denied birthright citizenship in the same way that the children of diplomats are denied the same. The argument was dumb. Vivek proffered that it was because diplomats were not subject to the law that they could not receive that citizenship benefit. His dubious analogy was that undocumented immigrants were criminals and, therefore, were not subject to US law. As such, their children born on US soil should not receive the Constitutional birthright citizenship.

To the drunk or the illiterate, the comparison was sensible. To the sensible, it was drunk and illiterate. The pesky little fact that being a criminal requires a person to be subject to the criminal jurisdiction (which diplomats are not) and be convicted as such (which diplomats cannot be), gets in the way of that tirade. A smart, Harvard-trained lawyer would know that this was foolish circular reasoning…but convenience trumped reasoning because those people are too stupid to know that. I rest my case on this point.

Hypocritical Vivek

A perfect example of that unfortunate man’s opportunism was his hypocrisy when it came to market principles. Our dearest Vivek took to Twitter to praise Javier Milei’s deregulation of the Argentine housing market and the consequent doubling of supply with 20% down and decreasing rents. Vote for him, he said, and it would be a vote for deregulated markets! He conveniently knew of the benefits of deregulated markets but refused (or failed—which is worse) to acknowledge that those same principles applied to labour… and therefore immigration by extension!

This was a most disturbing foursome among himself, Hayek, Friedman, and Keynes, and was very disappointing. Protectionism has never known a prettier, more deceitful face!

To add insult to injury, all this lamenting and fomenting about anchor babies while using market economics like a Miss America world peace campaign came from the chief anchor baby!

Vivek, a first-generation American immigrant, was, through his magical birthright citizenship, the means by which his own mother could become an American. His father, who was on a non-immigrant visa, and who is still not a US citizen, was his family’s route to the US and the only reason dearest Vivek was able to have the opportunities that he could in Ohio. He chose to become the chief campaigner against himself, making a narrow distinction based on the fact of his father’s visa, knowing fully well that his intelligent Indian compatriots whom US citizens want to hire are unable to get work visas because of systemic failures brought about by the kinds of policies he was endorsing. Much less for the remainder of non-Indians whom US citizens also want to hire, who cannot legally enter the US workforce because of counterproductive, bureaucratic nonsense.

I don’t know about you, but a person who not only warns but tries to prevent me from doing the very thing he did, which worked for him, is not trustworthy. That is the epitome of hypocrisy. With that thought, I leave you to think, knowing that in about four years, this man will show up again to try and charm the boxers off many a Midwestern, beer-drinking uncle.

Balls, Bacchanal and Back to Basics…

Nicki Minaj’s cousin’s friend’s testicles caused a bit of a stir this week! I will probably NEVER have the opportunity to write anything remotely close to that opening sentence again, so carpe diem!

True or not, though— and I neither know of its veracity, nor trust Teary Terrance to inform me of same— it has brought to light a major issue that many have been ringing the alarm about since early 2020: why are we being censored about something that is supposedly apolitical? I will share some of my thoughts on the COVID-19 response and then share my vaccine experience.

COVID-19 restrictions have brought the world to its knees in most places. Government after government has imposed measures which have only increased in their austerity over time. It started off with social distancing and mask mandates and very rapidly devolved into lockdowns and states of emergency with suspended constititional rights and strict curfews in some countries. And to what end? Cases have skyrocketed, the virus has mutated more than thrice and there seems to be no light at the end of what was supposedly a tunnel in March 2020.

Initially, COVID-19 was thought to proliferate via large droplet spread. The information that it was actually spread through aerosols was suppressed, until one night, silently, WHO updated its website.

There was discussion that it spread from a market in Wuhan, China that sold bats as food…then there was mounting evidence that it was a lab leak…now we can’t talk about that without being called cooks.

We all hoped for a vaccine. At first, there was talk about immunity…then there was talk about “It doesn’t give you immunity, but it prevents severe symptoms!” and now, you mention a leaky vaccine and become a social pariah.

Hydroxychloroquine initially didn’t help and was not approved, then it did, then whenever you asked about it, it was as if you cursed somebody’s mother straight to her face.

This international COVID-19 response (with the exception of countries like Sweden, which is ironically atheist) is like a bad religion. State and international agencies have banded together to preach their doctrines of divide and conquor without any regard for truth, and in all the mêlée, hymns of “Trust the science!” and “Vaccinate to operate!” have been sung as offerings to the gods in heaven with no sign of rain. If ever there was a shining priesthood, it would be the media houses!

I am of the view that these restrictions have long ceased to be about public health, and have become a governmental experiment on how much oppression citizens would tolerate…at least here in T&T. I realise that by saying this, many will be upset with me or choose to shun me, but it is what it is. I am fed up of seeing people divided on what is supposed to be a unifying issue. I find it particularly annoying that many are treating their fellow citizens like lepers just for having questions about what the authorities say, especially when it pertains to their own health and well-being. And, while I am grateful that I know, with a fair degree of certainty, whose side most people would have been on in Nazi Germany or under Soviet communism, I can’t say that it isn’t disheartening to witness. I tried to shut up and just ignore it all until it blew over because I was getting depressed, but that attempt was a massive fail. I don’t have the personality for it. I really don’t.

As a budding bioethicist, I never thought that the pendulum would swing back in the direction that questioned whether individuals could have control over their own bodies. I thought that the Tuskegee experiments were enough of a smear on certain reputations to prevent such a reversion, but I was wrong. I have seen lawyers who have made careers talking about constructive dismissals pretending that mandates by employers could not possibly constitute constructive dismissals. Everyone seems eager to please the government and it is scary! While I may not be as erudite as these legal scholars, having just finished my studies, I know that concentration camps like Auschwitz and institutions like slavery were once bolstered by legality. We can make all the legal arguments we want, but legality does not necessarily translate into morality and ethics. Issues of health require us to operate according to basic principles of legitimacy…like bodily autonomy and parental responsibility for their own children. I’m too principled to make this an academic argument and I’ll never apologise for that. I am sorry for whoever is willing to do that. To be clear, here is where I stand:

1. Denying children socialisation and schooling for two years is child abuse.

2. Mandating that they will only regain normalcy if their parents let you put a substance into their bodies to help protect adults (this is not a disease that is particularly threatening to children) is child abuse.

3. Threatening people’s livelihoods after reducing their earnings for two years is governmental overstep.

4. Having weekly press conferences to disseminate whatever information you tailor to your own desires is propagandism.

5. Cursing and hissing at the populace that pays you, Honourable Mr. Prime Minister and Honourable Madame President, and showing contempt for regular people who are struggling to eat while your state salary has not stopped running is despotism.

6. Parading yourselves on social media after vaccination, and figuratively (though sometimes literally) spitting on citizens who have valid concerns about the vaccine makes you the modern equivalent of a gulag guard. It isn’t cute. It’s tacky.

7. As for the chambers of commerce calling for more lockdowns, your behaviour is exactly why anti-trust laws were developed. Everyone can see that you’re leveraging the governmental overstep to stamp out small businesses.

This nonsense must stop! Honest, uncensored conversations must be had about whatever concerns us all. Some do not need to be treated as if they are more equal than others!

Now for my vaccine experience…apologies in advance for this being T.M.I.

I took the Sinopharm two-dose vaccine in August because it was what was available when I went. My reasons for getting the vaccine shall remain private. I did not want to share my vaccine status because I think that it is nobody’s business, but I did take it, and I had side effects.

My period after my first dose came a staggering EIGHT DAYS EARLY and was much worse than I was accustomed to having…and I’ve grown accustomed to going through hell once per month!

On my first day, my cramps were so bad that I could not walk. I spent the day doubled over in bed, scarfing down NSAIDs and hoping for the best. My liver is probably still recovering. I typically would get milder pre-period cramps, but this time, I had none. Usually, my bad period cramps would start on the second day and would last two and a half days, but not this time.

My first day is also usually light, followed by two heavy days, one medium to light day and one very light day, but post-vaccine, on day one, I was running through pads and tampons like Elaine Thompson-Herah and Usain Bolt’s love child.

Never before had I ever leaked through a tampon, but in a record-breaking three hours, I leaked through two of them, switched to an overnight pad, and filled that to the brim in another hour.

My period blood, which is usually a dark crimson colour and a bit thicker, but not as thick as clots, was a bright vermillion, as if I had been cut open, and was a liquid consistency and not thick. I continued filling overnight pads and chugging diclofenac for four days straight (and there was breaktgrough pain despite overdosing on these) until on day five, I had moderate flow that was still crampy. On day 6, my period was gone.

I told the Dr. at my vaccination site (Wallerfield) what had happened when I returned for dose 2. He told me that a couple women had mentioned having the issue, but it didn’t seem to be permanent. How he knew that it was impermanent when he likely only saw them once (there were different doctors when I went for the two doses) is unclear to me.

I spoke with friends and with other women on the net. Most of them reported changes in their menstrual periods post-vaccine. For some, it came earlier. For others, it was later. Almost invariably, they had abnormally heavy and abnormally crampy periods post-vaccine…irrespective of the brand of vaccine they received (I spoke with AZ, Pfizer, J+J and Sinopharm recipients).

It does not seem that these reports are being taken seriously, and as a 26 year old woman who wants children in the near future, I cannot say that I am unconcerned about my prospects given this experience.

I was called an anti-vaxxer AFTER receiving the vaccine because I asked questions and dared to say that I was pro-choice about it. I’ve had people who did not know that I took the vaccine tell me that as an “anti-vaxxer”, if I die from not taking the vaccine, it would be what I deserved. I’ve seen people call for the culling of the unvaccinated and I’ve seen them celebrate people’s unfortunate deaths. I see no reason why my experience should be presumed to be different from anyone else who has raised questions or concerns. This is absolutely ridiculous and I never thought that I would see certain people embody this level of atrocity in my lifetime!

I have not yet had my period after dose 2. It is due today, and I already feel nauseated, crampy and sometimes, dizzy. My experience will be added here so that this portion of the blog post will be updated in due course.

UPDATE: My period came this morning 17/09/2021. It is heavy!!!!! I have cramps. I’ve had 4 diclofenac tablets already for the morning and I am still having breakthrough pain. I can walk though. Cramps aren’t as bad as last month, but still worse than my “normal”.

UPDATE: It is 18/09/2021 and I have EXTREMELY BAD cramps and my period is still heavier than usual. I took my diclofenac painkillers, but I am having breakthrough pain. The pain never fully stops. I can walk, but I have to stop intermittently to withatand the cramps which are terrible, which have me bent over and bracing myself against walls, cupboards or whatever else is in reach. My stomach is burning from the painkillers.

UPDATE: It is 10/01/2022. I did not get a period for December 2021. The last day of my last period was 12 November 2021. I presume that I ovulated, because my skin usually becomes glowy around ovulation and I look extra pretty. That happened around 25 November, 2021 for my bar call (lucky). I don’t know what is going on.

My PMS/PMDD for November into December 2021 was very strange. It started off with vertigo, an intense migraine with both a flashy visual aura and an auditory aura (this one was very scary, as I don’t recall ever having one), then a smaller migraine with just visual aura. I was in bed for three days, laying in the dark. After that, I had nausea and got cramps. Since then, I have vacillated between feeling sort of normal and feeling absolutely crappy, both physically and mentally. My skin has not been doing well. It has been very irritated. I feel bloated and I am getting bouts of depression. I am getting menstrual cramps intermittently, but still no period. My tracker says I am on day 63 of this cycle. I’m scared.

UPDATE: On Friday 18th February, 2022, my period kind of maybe sort of returned? Flow is light and is not red. It is brown and has been brown for three days so far. I’m not sure what to make of this. I have mild cramps, fatigue and mild nausea. It’s a step up from how I’ve been feeling since November with almost permanent PMS/PMDD symptoms. Hopefully, the worst part of this thing is over. I think going outside to garden has helped as I’ve gotten more sunlight. That’s anecdotal.

11/03/22 My period came yesterday. Was lightish snd brown. It seems to be picking up. I have normal flow today. Bad cramps but not as bad as the first cycle after vax. I am exhausted and low energy and sore.

12/03/22 So much for normam flow! I woke up in a pool of blood this morning. Bathed and stuff. Changed into a tampon from the pad I was wearing. Well, I leaked through that in 3 hours. And badly. My light grey panty is red. Like not exaggerating. WTF?

15/03/22 STILL going with cramps.

Given all that I am seeing, I am not at all going to be a coward about this. We are going back to basics. Repeat after me… “People’s bodies belong to them and them alone. Nobody has a right to make anyone else put any substance into his/her body without consent. Nobody has a right to silence discourse on any subject whatsoever. Everyone has a right to ask questions.”

This pandemic is about our fundamental rights! Wake up!

The Death of Civilisation?

Two ideas popped into my head at about 2 a.m. today and I thought that it would be best to write them down. They are somewhat connected, albeit loosely. I am still processing them, so they are more postulations than conclusions, but in the words of JBP, you write to find out what you think!

The first idea is that as a civilisation moves beyond its physicality, it begins losing its identity and the people within it also become more prone to losing their identities.

Western civilisation has moved more and more away from the physicality of industry and more and more towards a digital age of ideas. Things which have been traditionally physical, such as newspapers, money etc. have gone digital for the most part and have gone through process of stripping them down to their bare bones. The idea of a newspaper or of money is what remains.

Similarly, the idea of identity seems to be less tethered to the body and what it does. There is a popular description of things as social constructs and seemingly constant experimentation in that regard on the one hand, yet people seem to be in more identity crises than previously.

My suspicion is that this social trend towards disembodied identity is a response to the world itself becoming less embodied. Humans are, after all, a part of their world. It would explain why these ideas take root much easier among intellectuals than working class people.

The second idea is much easier to conceptualize, though I am not entirely sure if it is original. I think that western civilisation has an autoimmune disorder.

As information becomes more available, it seems that autoimmune disorders are linked to leaky gut. The tight junctions between intestinal cells are weaker because of some chemical process and so things which typically would have remained on the outside of the body (the digestive tract is actually a long tube through rather than inside of the body) are leeching into it. This seems to be tied, at least in part, to ingesting certain proteins like gluten in quantities which are too large and for periods which are too long. The weakening of these tight junctions and the leeching in of these toxins cause the body to malfunction and mount an immune response against itself.

Similarly, western civilisation seems to have ingested the ideas of postmodernism that there is no inherent value in its precepts and that everything is relative. These ideas are leeching into its institutions and these very institutions are malfunctioning and self-destructing by adhering to select values. e.g. openmindedness, intellectualism, markets.

Anyway, those are some crude explanations which are far from thorough I’m going back to bed.

Transgender wars

Changing gender wasn’t even a thing till the 20th century. This new concept discombobulated many minds, with hostility toward trans people. But now, happily, they’ve won the argument over their right to be themselves. In fact we seem to have gone to the other extreme. Transgender issues have become a minefield of political correctness, with […]
Transgender wars

Nuance, not race.

It has been an interesting few days. Over the weekend, I watched the story of a hit piece on Yale Law Professor, Amy Chua unfold. On April 8, 2021, she shared a letter alleging that she was being victimized by Yale administrators based on false allegations that she hosted dinner parties in breach of COVID-19 Guidelines. Then, news of Caron Nazario, a US Army Lieutenant who was pepper sprayed at gunpoint during a traffic stop for not having a licence plate spread like wildfire. The story of Daunte Wright being shot after he resisted arrest and attempted to escape police custody completed the unholy trinity of occurrences that have bewildered me. On their faces, all three of these stories seem unrelated, but a common thread connects them. That is, identity politics. I find it all intellectually lazy.

In Chua’s case, she took to Twitter on Saturday to say that the Yale administration did not expect her to fight back as an Asian-American woman. She provided no evidence of racially motivated hate, and stated her unsubstantiated sentiments boldly, as if any questioning of her narrative would be proof of the thing alleged. In the Nazario and Wright cases, Black Lives Matter activists predictably took the opportunity to “peacefully protest” (the well-known euphemism for “riot”), all based on the unsubstantiated presumption that the men were treated the way they were because of skin colour. What’s more, looting is being described as “material liberation” and as usual, the bad behaviour of hooligans is being justified by those plagued by the bigotry of low expectations.

Whenever baseless assertions about racism are thrown about, they rob the persons alleging mistreatment of credibility. In my view, Chua’s situation raises a major issue of a breach of confidentiality perpetrated by the Yale administration, which ought to be independently investigated. Yale has a lot to answer for in their treatment of her. Her eagerness to weaponize her race, however, made me wonder whether there was merit to the allegations raised against her. If there are no skeletons in one’s closet, then sticking to the pertinent issues should be the best move. Imputing racial malice to persons without providing evidence of it would be a lazy jab and a grab, not even at low-hanging fruit, but at fruit already on the ground. That kind of personal debasement is telling of how entrenched identity politics has become in the US.

As regards Lieutenant Nazario, an opportunity to address the very real issue of the US Police’s use of force presented itself. This useful discussion is being drowned out by the race-baiters who thought it necessary to mention that Nazario was an Afro-Latino, despite no evidence of racial motivation in the body cam footage. I am of the opinion that the officer who pepper-sprayed Nazario and his dog was belligerent. I am of the opinion that he was a textbook a-hole. I am of the opinion that he was power-hungry. I have no evidence that he was racist. Further, he has since been fired. The other officer, who seemed reasonable in the circumstances, seemed to be of lower rank than his loud counterpart and he complied with orders while still attempting to assist Nazario with his compliance. Hitting Nazario, pepper-spraying him for no obvious reason, and making him lay on the ground when he was pulled over for a missing licence plate? UTTERLY UNCALLED FOR! Nazario is suing and justice will be served, based on the evidence presented to the judge. The chips will fall where they may.

I think that Wright’s case is different. In the body cam footage, he very clearly resisted arrest. He also clearly attempted to escape. They were aware of a warrant for his arrest for possession of an illegal firearm, and so his detention was lawful. The officer who shot him shouted “Taser! Taser! Taser!” before firing her weapon. She expressed complete shock and regret immediately after she realized what she had done. I think it was an honest mistake, but honest mistakes can also be reckless. Reckless, fatal mistakes are called manslaughter. Manslaughter is a crime, which, if proved by evidence, can result in jail time.

I do not think that someone who could so easily mistake a gun for a taser should be carrying either of those weapons, as her fitness for office would be very clearly compromised. I also do not think that the officer did what she did because she hated black people, as is the narrative that is being pushed. Had it been her black partner— the person initially arresting Wright— what would have been the narrative?

All in all, I think that neither race-baiting moaners nor trigger-happy cops should be held up as beacons of society. More so, at least in the case of the latter cohort, they are not representative of their groups. Failing to acknowledge that causes unnecessary strife and social degradation. We must approach everything with sobriety of mind, fairness, and basic sense. We have all spent too long thinking tribally, and cities are burning because of it. I think conversations between reasonable people are long overdue.

Long live reason!

Aďdendum: After watching this video of the Nazario detention, I can understand the officers’ perspective a bit better. The belligerent officer seems more reasonable.

Support for Sedition Act?

INTRODUCTION

The dust has settled. The press has (mostly) hushed. The order has been set aside pending appeal. This is a case which will make its way to the Privy Council in due course, with very high costs paid out to Senior Counsel. Fittingly, I have decided to share my thoughts on Justice Seepersad’s January 13^th, 2020 judgment on sections 3, 4 and 13 of the Trinidad and Tobago Sedition Act.

As someone who runs a blog and who has worked in journalism before, freedom of expression is very dear to my heart. I must emphasise that the idea of sedition laws is not my cup of tea. In my view, all opinions belong in the public arena where we can scrutinise them. If they are not sufficiently robust in the face of scrutiny, we can ridicule and dismiss them.

My beliefs alone allow me to empathise with Justice Seepersad’s stance. I fully endorse his assertion that we must highlight any unjustifiable limits placed on our constitutional right to freedom of expression. Any attempt to erode this right must be properly addressed and I would be the first in line to champion this cause.

Be that as it may, I also must acknowledge that the legal arena is seldom about personal beliefs. Lawyers are trained to interpret and apply the law to facts. Judges, who are trained lawyers with greater power, must do the same. Their power naturally confers a greater responsibility upon them in carrying out their duties.

I am compelled by conscience and by my cherished pre-frontal cortex to say that this judgment does not sit well with me. The procedural point on substitution is not interesting enough for my present endeavours, but I will discuss the substantive content on sedition. To properly communicate my position, I must have a preliminary discussion on the doctrine of separation of powers. This is because it underpins my commentary and provides a framework for understanding the professional role of a judge.

Our Constitution is supreme. It creates three arms of government and each arm has a distinct role.

Our executive arm functions administratively. It sets policy. It enforces laws. It generally manages and regulates the day to day functions of the State. It is also the arm which engages internationally in a representative capacity.
Our legislative arm is Parliament. It is made up of the Senate and the House of Representatives, which work together with the President to enact law. Its members are both elected and appointed persons who, through drafting, debating, passing and assenting processes, act to advance the collective will of the citizens.
Our judiciary is the third arm of government. It functions as a tribunal which interprets and applies law and monitors executive and legislative functions. It does not set policy, but it ensures that policy implementation (law-making) and executive decision-making are done within the confines of legality.

The arms of government may only do what the Constitution allows them to do. If a member of one arm attempts to mix his role with the role of a member of another arm, that is considered an overstep. Such a member would be acting outside of the constitutionally set parameters and all of those actions would be illegal.

This tripartite division of labour, affectionately called the doctrine of separation of powers, exists to insure us against tyranny. Through this mechanism, we are given the assurance that power does not rest with any individual or with any small group of individuals.

COMMENTARY

With the above in mind, I turn to my two issues with the judgment.

Firstly, I am of the view that Justice Seepersad either misunderstood or failed to execute his duty in delivering the judgment. I discuss this at great length below.

My second issue can be discussed more briefly. Simply put, I think that the way that Justice Seepersad has interpreted the constitution has left constitutional law in a very precarious position.

ISSUE 1: MISUNDERSTANDING OF OR FAILURE TO EXECUTE HIS DUTY

As the sitting judge, Justice Seepersad had to decide whether sections 3, 4 and 13 of the Sedition Act were unconstitutional. This was an exercise in interpretation and his necessary first step would have been to figure out the meaning of the words in the sections. This interpretation process involves specific, time-tested rules, principles and presumptions. Within the judgment, there is a complete absence of any reference to these rules, principles and presumptions (with the exception of a misplaced mention of the presumption of mens rea), and it is based on this absence that I advance the first leg of my argument.

In a 51-page judgment, the honourable judge provides a lengthy history of sedition laws and refers to our local Sedition Act. He outlines the claimants’ argument that the sections “offend the principle of legal certainty” and goes through the formidable task of defining legal certainty by quoting several cases. After that, things seem to go awry.

His Lordship concludes that the sections are vague but does not provide any proper reasoning to support this conclusion. No rules of interpretation are applied. No construction is engaged in, or, if it is, no record of this engagement has made its way into the final judgment. We are left hanging in mid-air and have to make a quantum leap from counsel’s argument to this unsubstantiated conclusion. As such, the conclusion that the sections are vague is a non-sequitur when carefully examined.

I agree wholeheartedly that laws must be certain, but I am particularly puzzled that His Lordship has quoted Gallagher v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others [2019] UKSC 3 as supportive of his conclusion.

Gallagher says (and I agree) that law must be accessible to the people subject to it, that those people may need to seek professional legal advice to understand it, and that it must involve a sufficient degree of foreseeability, so that no discretion that is so wide that it can only be enforced by subjective standards, can ever be conferred by law. This is what is known as the principle of legal certainty. Can it be said that the impugned sections of the Sedition Act offend that principle?

If Gallagher references the need to seek professional legal advice for legal interpretation, mere legalese (Complex language or legal jargon which offends common sense and the English language) cannot render any provision vague. This is true even if it is a penal provision. Lawyers are trained to understand legalese, much to our chagrin. It follows then, that a law is vague only if it is impossible for lawyers to figure out what it means when asked to do so, or, if when lawyers do figure out its meaning, it confers a discretion so wide that the legality of its enforcement cannot be objectively scrutinised. The lawyer’s (and judge’s) task is interpretation. They must use established rules, presumptions and principles to figure out what legislation means first. If no mention of these rules, presumptions and principles is made in a 51-page judgment, it naturally favours a presumption that no proper interpretation has been conducted.

Of course it is possible that Justice Seepersad has simply interpreted the legislation before writing his judgment and has given an opinion based on that interpretation. I am not convinced that he has. I say this because he has misquoted section 3(1)(a) of our Sedition Act in a very material way.

When one is interpreting legislation, the way that words are used is extremely important. Where the same words are used in the same way throughout one piece of legislation, they are presumed to have a consistent meaning. The corollary of this is that where words are used differently, they must be construed differently. Parliament is very deliberate with its use of language and so it includes and excludes words, capitalisations and other grammatical and linguistic tools intentionally. Misquoting a provision one is under a duty to interpret frustrates the interpretation process. It is this misquote that I think serves as the final nail in the honourable judge’s coffin where the conclusion on vagueness is concerned. The misquote convinces me that the judgment is delivered on ideological grounds and that the honourable judge was keen on expressing his opinion and not on ascertaining the meaning of the enacted provisions.

SECTION 3

In Paragraph 92 of his judgment, His Lordship says:

“The words used do not indicate with sufficient certainty, the specific conduct which is prohibited and which is subject to criminal sanction. Section 3(1) defines seditious intent as the bringing of hatred or contempt or the inciting of dissatisfaction against the government. What does dissatisfaction mean? The democratic process is strengthened by vibrant opposition which can challenge the efficacy and effectiveness of governmental policy and performance thereby acting as an essential check and balance against the abuse of executive power. While the Act does provide for, pointing out via lawful means, errors and defects, with a view of effecting reform, the character of what may be viewed as “lawful means” may vary from generation to generation and the pointing out of defects and errors may not necessarily be engaged without inciting dissatisfaction.”

Section 3(1)(a) does not define a seditious intent as the “bringing of hatred or contempt or the inciting of dissatisfaction against the government”. It says that a seditious intention is one which “brings into hatred or contempt or excites disaffection (not ‘dissatisfaction’) against Government (not ‘the government’).”

I acknowledge that typographical errors can happen when humans use word processors, but this is much more than a typographical error. This misquote conveniently favours what is clearly His Lordship’s personal views as echoed throughout the judgment. Justice Seepersad seems particularly convinced that the Sedition Act stifles criticism against the government, and I got the sense that this view was unshakeable. The real question, though, is whether this view withstands scrutiny.

Throughout section 3, ‘Government’ and ‘the government’ are used in different ways. The former is used to create mens rea. The latter is used to clarify an exception to mens rea. These words have distinct meanings.

‘Government’, which is a mass noun used without a definitive article is ‘the system by which a state or community is governed’. In our case, our lawfully implemented democratic system with its three arms is ‘Government’.

‘The government’, which has a definite article, is ‘the group of people with the authority to govern a country or state at a particular time’. The Oxford English Dictionary can be consulted to verify this.

We often forget the importance of definite articles in language and in conveying meaning. They are meant to specify which members of a class are the subject or object of a sentence.

For example, “A fireman was walking down a street.” means that it could be any fireman who was walking down any street. “The fireman was walking down the street.” means that it was one specific fireman who was walking down one specific, albeit undefined, street.

While this may seem like a hairline distinction, hairline distinctions are exactly why the interpretation process is necessary. His Lordship’s failure to acknowledge this fundamental difference in the use of language is clear evidence of him not going through the interpretation process.

If that is not enough, a look at the Sedition Act shows an evident trend, which favours a very narrow interpretation of its provisions.

As Justice Seepersad acknowledged in paragraph 92 of his judgment, section 3(2) of the Sedition Act expressly allows for the intention to point out of errors, criticise etc. This section clarifies that it is completely legal to do something with the intention to excite persons to change any matter within the State by law established through ‘lawful means‘.

I gather that the honourable judge’s contention is that what is ‘lawful means’ changes and so that provision confers a discretion that is too wide for it to be legally certain. That is a very strange position to hold. The law itself changes over time. There was a time when a man could not rape his wife and now, he very well can. What is lawful can change over time, but that does not blur the lines of what is lawful at any given time. It does not cause vagueness. If it did, then there would be no sensible measure by which the very thing complained of -change- could be tracked! What exactly would be the point of reference?

If an intention to criticise is expressly legal, what is the mens rea under section 3 of the Sedition Act?

In section 3(1)(a), reference is made to the arms of government and their constituent parts and to the Constitution ‘as by law established’. When one pays attention to the definition of ‘Government’ set out above and to these references, it is sensible to conclude that section 3(1)(a) deals with State sovereignty, stability and the rule of law. It is not irreconcilable with our right to freedom of expression at all, but protects it by protecting the system by which it is granted.

‘Seditious intention’ under subsection 3(1)(a) must go beyond mere intention to criticise, or an intention to lawfully campaign to change Government, which are made exceptions under subsection 3(2). Subsection 3(3) of the Sedition Act very clearly requires a tribunal to consider actions from which certain natural consequences flow in determining the fact of mens rea (the mental element of a crime) and so thought crimes are also not created under the Sedition Act. The words in subsection 3(1)(a), when literally construed, have several possible meanings. As such, a construction which considers the legislative purpose is allowed at law. This requires a consideration of the whole piece of legislation.

When the whole of the Sedition Act is considered, I can see that seditious intention under section 3(1)(a) is an intention to incite the complete disregard for or overthrow of lawfully established Government (or its constituent parts) and the Constitution. It is also an intention to do some thing which fosters feelings in others and which would reasonably be expected to cause them to disregard, overthrow or procure the overthrow of lawfully established Government (or its constituent parts) and the Constitution.

I am able to glean this by properly quoting the section, using the definitions of words like ‘contempt’ and ‘disaffection’ which go beyond mere emotions to include disregard and by looking at the other legislative provisions, especially the list of banned publications.

When you hate something so much that you do not find it worthy of consideration, that is contempt. When you have disaffection for something, you are no longer willing to support it. See Oxford English Dictionary as a reference. ‘Hatred’ must be read in that same context and must therefore be construed consistently with the theme of disregard within section 3(1)(a) of the Sedition Act. The constant use of the words ‘as by law established’ also helps, as it emphasises that the sovereignty and legitimacy of the state was at the forefront of legislator’s minds when they enacted this legislation.

Words which have multiple meanings when used in local parlance can have specialised meanings within a legislative regime. Any keen examiner of the Sedition Act would conclude that section 3(1)(a) falls into this specialist category. The banned publications list is comprised of mostly communist propaganda publications. Whether these publications should be banned is a matter for another day, but their nature cannot be ignored. They confirm that the legislators of the day were concerned about the system of government and had the honourable judge bothered to look past his own opinion, he could have figured that out.

Justice Seepersad stated that the Sedition Act was used to prosecute Uriah Butler, whom he described as a freedom fighter. Butler was a historical figure who championed his cause passionately, but we cannot ignore the fact that he was charged in the context of a riot in which a police officer was murdered by persons incensed by his socialist rhetoric. I do not think that His Lordship’s glossing over that fact was prudent…or unintentional.

No mention was made of the attempt at prosecuting the instigators of the 1990 coup under the Sedition Act, but that fact is important. Had they not been given amnesty, they would have been indicted and sentenced under section 4(1)(a) with a mens rea under section 3(1)(b) of the Sedition Act. Would that have been unconstitutional?

His Lordship spoke about the recent indictment of PSA Leader Watson Duke for an offence under the Sedition Act. The case is ongoing and I do not want to comment too much on it, but objectively speaking, when someone says what he did (I am saying this based on some of the extracts I have heard) in this current global climate of terrorism, and especially given what happened in 1990 here in our country, is anyone really surprised by a sedition charge? Why would any sane person insinuate that they like bombs?

With the exception of section 3(1)(c) of the Sedition Act, which is indeed vague when construed, the subsections of section 3 are crystal clear. They deal with intentions to:

incite overthrow of Government or to cause disregard for specific things as outlined above
incite genocide
incite coups d’état or other government interference; and
encourage racial and other inter-group frictions of various kinds.

SECTION 4

Section 4 of the Sedition Act is equally clear when properly read.

Subsections 4(1)(a) and (b) are self-explanatory. Any person who does any act or communicates any statement having the mens rea created under section 3(1) of the Sedition Act is guilty of an offence. His Lordship acknowledges this in paragraph 103 of his judgment.

Subsections 4(1)(c) and (d) are different because they deal with seditious publications and require us to reference the interpretation section (section 2) of the Sedition Act.

Section 2 says:

“newspaper” means a periodical publication containing any public news or comments thereon or any discussion of political matters”

“seditious publication includes every publication, whether periodical or otherwise, having a seditious intention”

“publication includes all written or printed matter, and every thing whether of a nature similar to written or printed matter or not, containing any visible representation, or by its form, shape, or in any manner capable of suggesting words or ideas, and every copy and reproduction of or extract from any publication”

“publish, in relation to a seditious publication, includes publish the publication, either by itself or as part of a newspaper or periodical or otherwise than as part of a newspaper or periodical, for distribution to the public”

His Lordship states at paragraph 104 of his judgment that:

“Under Section 4(1)(c), a person need only to publish a statement that expresses a seditious intention. Accordingly, a newspaper, for example, could be found guilty of sedition even if it only reported a “seditious” statement made by someone else.”

He then says at paragraph 105 of his judgment that:

“There is no express requirement in section 4(1)(c) that the publisher of the statement knowingly or recklessly intended to incite others to commit an unlawful act. However, there is a common law presumption that mens rea is an ingredient of every criminal offence, so it must be presumed that, to be found guilty, there is evidence to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the publisher was aware of the nature of the material. It is therefore unsatisfactory that on its face, Section 4(1)(c) seems not to require such knowledge given that the focus is upon material which expresses a seditious intention.”

I am of the view that His Lordship was correct in his general conclusion at paragraph 103. A newspaper that reports (and by reports, I mean quotes) a seditious statement made by another would be guilty of an offence under section 4(1)(c) of the Sedition Act. I do, however, disagree with his reasoning on mens rea.

It is true that mens rea is a presumed element of a crime. This presumption can be rebutted if a clear intention to the contrary is shown or if the section simply creates a regulatory offence. Such a rebuttal means that a strict liability offence is created. It is also true, as His Lordship has stated, that persons must be aware of the nature of the material if they are to be found guilty. Although his Lordship has not mentioned that the presumption of mens rea rebuttable in his judgment, and as a result has presented a skewed view of the law, my issue is with the complete lack of common sense that he articulated with this statement, which I find very unfortunate.

The presumption of mens rea deals with knowledge based intention and operates when a statutory provision is silent on mens rea. It is detailed in the case of Sweet v Parsley [1970] AC 132 which stipulates that a person must intend to do a criminal act if he is to be found guilty of that criminal act, and if his intention is to be established, the prosecution must show that he knew of the thing being done.

Under section 4(1)(c) of the Sedition Act, the criminal acts are the PUBLISHING, SELLING, DISTRIBUTING or OFFERING FOR SALE of a seditious publication. The crime is not doing these things while HAVING a seditious intention. The mens rea under section 4(1)(c) is completely different to the mens rea under sections 4(1)(a) and (b).

It is IMPOSSIBLE for a newspaper reporter to publish a seditious statement while simultaneously claiming a lack of intention to publish that statement. His Lordship’s clearly did not understand what the presumed mens rea was. If he did, then he intended to give an example that was completely divorced from reality and that is depressing at best.

Practically speaking, the presumption of mens rea would only assist persons charged with passively publishing, selling, distributing or offering for sale seditious publications such as books or films which do not show their infringing content at a glance. This assistance comes because if persons do not know of the seditious content hidden within the relevant publications, they cannot be put on alert of their own furtherance of a crime and cannot intend to commit a crime.

Presumptions are presumptions because they need not be express. They are one of the myriad reasons people hire lawyers and why Gallagher mentioned the need for them to do so on some occasions. There is no merit in the argument at paragraph 105 that section 4(1)(c) should have referenced the mens rea. There is especially no merit in an argument that the section should have mentioned the mens rea created under section 3, because that is not the requisite mens rea for the crime created in that subsection.

Since subsections 4(1)(c) and (d) limit what can and cannot be published, his Lordship’s only route to a declaration of unconstitutionality of section 4 would have been to apply the test in Hinds v R [1977] AC 195. He would have had to show that no reasonable Parliamentarian who understood the Constitutional rights of freedom of thought and expression and freedom of the press could have supposed subsections 4(1)(c) and (d) to have been reasonably required to protect the public’s interest.

We can fight tooth and nail about whether publication should be allowed for reporting purposes, but our opinions are irrelevant. When one considers that seditious material threatens the stability of the State, its institutions and its subjects, curtailing the spread of that material is easily justifiable in the public interest. The creation of an absolute penalty for knowingly and intentionally spreading that material is not an unreasonable response to the threat of instability and so it is not likely that the Hinds test would be met. Newspapers can report on seditious material without directly quoting it. They are at liberty to do so, as penal provisions must be strictly interpreted.

SECTION 13

His Lordship acknowledges that Section 13 of the Sedition Act is not ambiguous in Paragraph 106 of his judgment. If sections 3 and 4 are interpreted in accordance with legal rules, presumptions and principles, as done above, then section 13 cannot be deemed unconstitutional.

CONCLUSION ON ISSUE 1

So, if His Lordship has not interpreted the Sedition Act, it would follow that he did not ascertain what the law was at the time. As such, there was no basis on which he could justify his declaration that the sections were unconstitutional. One cannot criticise a law one does not know. While I admire Senior Counsel’s genius argument advanced on the behalf of the claimants regarding our savings law clause, it remained His Lordship’s duty to judge that argument on its merits. A sitting judge cannot allow himself to be seduced by an argument to the extent that he cannot see beyond it. We are shown no useful application of the legal rules of interpretation. We are given no real analysis. We see no independent scrutiny of the claimant’s arguments. As such, it is impossible for me to agree with His Lordship that the sections offend the principle of legal certainty. Further, based on the interpretation I have highlighted above, I am of the view that the sections were not vague enough to offend legal certainty. As such, they could have been saved by our savings law clause.

ISSUE 2: NOVEL CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION HAS LEFT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN A PRECARIOUS POSITION

My second issue with the judgment is much easier to grapple with and Dr Emir Crowne did a spectacular job of detailing this issue, which affords me the convenience of quoting his Wired 868 article. Dr Crowne summarised His Lordship’s opinion as follows:

“With respect to the second set of reasons, Justice Seepersad turned to section 1 of the constitution for guidance. Sub-section 1(1) of the constitution states: “The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago shall be a sovereign democratic State.” And, in a democracy, laws which limit or infringe fundamental right and freedoms can only be justified when sufficiently important, minimally impairing and proportional (Sat Maharaj, paragraphs 157 and 158, citing the Supreme Court of Canada in R v. Oakes, [1986] 1 SCR 103 and Jason Jones v. The Attorney General (et al), CV 2017-00720).

Therefore, since the savings clause only applied to the fundamental human rights and freedoms set out in sections 4 and 5 of the constitution, the court was free to examine if the impugned provisions of the Act infringed other sections of the constitution.

More specifically, Justice Seepersad held that since freedom of expression was a fundamental feature of a sovereign democratic State—notably quoting Sparrow’s words that ‘the people of a country should be free to talk their mind’—the impugned provisions of Act were therefore disproportionate in their reach and effect. In other words, the provisions were unconstitutional in the sense that they undermined basic democratic principles.”

Dr Crowne rightly stated that His Lordship, in using such an interpretation, had treaded into murky waters. Further, he asserted that if this method of interpretation was upheld, the savings law clause (section 6 of our Constitution) would be rendered inert and would cause unpredictability, as claimants could ‘read in’ certain democratic rights where these were not otherwise entrenched.

CONCLUSION ON ISSUE 2

Our common law system is predicated on a system of legal precedent. If Justice Seepersad’s new method of circumventing the savings law clause is endorsed, the floodgates will inevitably be opened. This is especially so for our litigious society. I feel no need to speak further on this issue.

GENERAL CONCLUSION

Justice Seepersad approaches cases with fervour. He is our local Lord Denning and I am sure his judgments will give us ample room for argument on technical legal points for a long time. Fervour, however, when divorced from the logical process and from accountability, becomes zealotry. Unchecked zealotry in high office is tyranny waiting to happen.

The judge’s role is distinct because it is necessary in our country. We pay judges large salaries and offer them substantial pensions and security of tenure because we value their role. If they misunderstand or otherwise do not perform that role, Government is undermined and we all suffer as a result. I cannot endorse any action which favours that outcome.

Our Constitution is sacrosanct and the courts should not make a fool of it by arbitrarily employing it to overstep Parliament. It is admittedly imperfect. Constitutional reform, especially in respect to the savings law clause, remains of utmost importance. Its imperfections, however, can only be ameliorated through due process and by our lawfully constituted Parliament in accordance with its provisions. Anyone with an inkling of respect for democracy would agree with this.

The separation of powers must be respected and held dear to our hearts. There are people in other countries who suffer tremendously because there is no rule of law. This doctrine protects us from ourselves and from persons who mean us harm. Sometimes, we may not like the laws which are used to govern us. Despite our feelings, we must do our jobs within its confines while we use the lawful avenues available to us to change them. We are tied together by a bond of nationality and though we may not always feel like it, we are very fortunate to live in Trinidad and Tobago where no one person or small group is supreme.

I feel like I am mandated to say that the esteemed judges who ensure that our laws and legal system are not brought into disrepute ought not to treat lightly with their duty to us all. Their creativity in completing this task is welcome, but it must always be subject to a robust logical process. They are not legislators. Some of them may want to be, but that is not what we have hired to be. If they wish to do Parliament’s job, they should run for office at elections.

I hope that I have clearly articulated why I do not agree that the Sedition Act, as presently worded, offends the principle of legal certainty and why I do not think that it is inconsistent with the principles, tenets and characteristics of a sovereign democratic state. It is always unfortunate to find myself disagreeing so vociferously with a sitting judge, but that goes to the heart of our democracy. Ironically, it is a right acknowledged and preserved by the legislation that is the subject of this staunch disagreement.

Why I will not be supporting Nikoli Edwards and the Progressive Party

With the exception of the years 1986-1991, two parties have been at the helm of Trinidad and Tobago’s politics. Red and yellow have filled our Parliament houses so much that their very presence seems immutable to most. So, one can imagine the stir when Nikoli Edwards registered his Progressive Party and confirmed that it was a contender for the upcoming national general elections. Nikoli, a 27-year-old man from San Fernando with a history in the civil service and a stint as an independent senator under his belt, declared that Trinidad and Tobago was at a critical point in its history and that his new party was the light that citizens have been asking for. Is it, though? In addition to the knight-in-shining-armour rhetoric, which while seductive, is extremely ambitious, I do not think that what the Progressives offer is what Trinidad and Tobago needs or what I would want to consume. Below, I outline the reasons why I do not think so.

As a member of the curious club, armed with smartphone and, dare I say, hope, I crafted a probing Instagram message on the party’s philosophical underpinnings, vision and mission and hit send. In response, I was told to wait for the June launch for clarification…so I did…and I waited some more…and then it happened. I was left with more questions than answers. In the interest of fairness, I sought Nikoli’s interviews post-launch so that I would not misrepresent his position. It was then that I happened upon this gem. It is the most extensive I have seen him get to date, which is not exactly a compliment.

The characteristic vagueness with which Nikoli speaks is both telling and exhausting. It shows me that he has no concrete ideas or mission or even opinions. That is scary. I mean, when a man can answer the question “Where and what is your manifesto?” with “How about I ask you what you would like to see in a manifesto?” a year before elections, and AFTER launching a whole political party and promising the moon and stars, it becomes clear that he is putting the cart before the horse. His vocabulary is splendid and his eloquence, notable. These are a testament to his communication studies degree, which, if I had to guess, would have first class honours attached. But what good is an eloquent speech about nothing in particular? I have grown weary of waiting for a meaningful response to anything I ask and have concluded that the reason for this vagueness is ignorance. I refuse to be led by a blind man, even if he has really cool hair. That highlights my first issue.

My second issue with Nikoli and his Progressive Party overlaps with the first. He does not seem to have a grasp of effective policy. The meaning of “policy” is admittedly elusive, but there are certain things for which I demand exceptional evidence. One of those things is a policy on minimum wage, which I think does more harm than good to an economy. In his discussion with Let’s Talk About It podcast’s Jahleel Castagne, Nikoli, had much to say about Prestige Holdings Limited’s choice to advertise job vacancies in Spanish upon the influx of Venezuelan nationals to our shores. Of particular interest was his suggestion that pressure by the populace to raise the minimum wage was a viable solution to the apparent problem of persons not being able to raise a family on a KFC salary. The alarm bells in my head went off.

According to this study by Meer and West, minimum wages reduce employment (i.e. increase unemployment) over time in a dynamic manner, especially through a reduction in job growth. This holds even when questioning the validity of the traditional demand and supply model. There are arguments made for and against the validity of this traditional methodology which suggests more immediate changes in employment statistics when the minimum wage is increased, though most are for it. A study by Strobl and Walsh entitled “Minimum Wage and Compliance: The Case of Trinidad and Tobago” showed that the introduction of the minimum wage in Trinidad and Tobago resulted in a reduction in employment for low wage earners and an increase in the use of part time workers. This research has been cited by the Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago in a 2013 working p aper by research economists Reshma Mahabir, Vishana Jagessar, Crystal Neptune and Delvin Cox. This article has links to some relevant studies on the impact of minimum wages on unemployment.

To Nikoli’s credit, he acknowledged that people must creep before they walk and shared his own experience working in a herbal shop and later, starting his own herbal soap business. But it is this exact fact that suggests that he is not competent to do the job for which he is asking citizens to hire him. Such a policy decision would directly contradict the reality of his early employment. Sure, it is well-intentioned and even radical (I scoff at the word) to suggest that citizens should stand up and demand a vague “better” in the face of low wages. But if an increase in minimum wages increases unemployment over time, and if, as is most likely the case, traditional methods turn out to be valid and their findings on increases in unemployment in the short term are accurate, then why would he even dare to suggest pressure for such an increase as a solution? Is that actually better? A low-paying job is better than unemployment and these minimum wage jobs offer quick upward mobility through the provision of invaluable working experience. There is no shame in honest work and there is definitely no shame in growth over time. Is it that he wishes that others do not have the opportunity to work their ways up? Does he wish to make starting on a career path more difficult by removing the lowest rung from which people are to boost themselves? His mention of the gender and youth policies, as well as his clear desire to expand the public service only cement my opinions on his failure to grasp what makes for effective policy. Were these even policies? What did the gender and youth policies achieve? Has he seen the public service?

My third issue with Nikoli and his Progressive Party is what I perceive to be his lack of regard for facts. In the interview above, he spoke about the existence of “multiple genders as opposed to male and female.” Biology and reality will make it clear that people are either male or female, with some genetic disorders accounting for intersex persons. Gender Dysphoria is a psychiatric disorder. You can be masculine, or feminine or androgynous in your gender and reflect this in your presentation. You cannot identify as whatever you want under the sun and be sane. That is called a delusion. I do not say this tongue in cheek. The politicising of gender and the invention of additional genders is an actual thing these days and in Canada, attempts have been made to mandate the use of invented pronouns and thus, limit free speech, all in the name of identity politics. I do not play that game and it will not do any good for Trinidad and Tobago to play it. A stable society requires an acknowledgement of basic facts like the existence of two genders.

On the less nefarious end of the ignorance-of-fact-spectrum, Nikoli stated with authority that in Trinidad and Tobago, you have to be at the age of majority (18) to access sexual education and sexual health treatment and resources without parental consent. A quick visit to the TTConnect website would show that this is not true. Further, minors can access information and consent to different medical procedures by meeting the threshold of the common law Gillick Competence test. The rationale of this test is that as a child develops, he or she becomes more independent and thus, is more competent to consent to certain things without parental input. Lord Fraser set out five guidelines in his judgment which are of particular relevance in this discussion, because the Gillick case was actually about sexual health education. He stated that (1) if a minor understands the nature of treatment/the advice given, (2) cannot be persuaded to inform his/her parents, (3) is likely to start or continue sexual intercourse without contraceptive treatment, (4) is likely to suffer physically and/or mentally if treatment is withheld and (5) the best interests of the child are taken into account, the need for parental consent shall be waived. So, Nikoli is either uninformed or intentionally sharing false information. Either situation should inform one’s decision to support him and his party, as it is acceptable to follow neither the ignorant nor the dishonest…especially when a simple Google search clarifies the matter. Can a man be trusted to manage an economy if he cannot manage a basic Google search? Have we not had too many Prime Ministers who bray and talk off the top of their heads on matters of public importance? I think we have.

My fourth issue is simple. Although no clear policy positions have been given by Nikoli, his Progressive Party’s website states that it is Centre Left on politics. What that seems to mean is that the party’s aim is to utilize the existing framework to improve social justice. This would be done through a mixed economy, an extensive social security system, increased regulation, trade union support, progressive taxation, wealth taxes and Keynesian economics. I subscribe to libertarian politics. I lean right. I love capitalism. I think the existing framework is horrible and that the government is too big. I hate regulation because it stymies economic growth and innovation. Trade unions are the bane of my existence and I think that they are a cartel…only, in the words of my friend Kevin, “Cartels actually provide services, so there is a difference!” I hate income taxes because they penalise citizens for being productive. I am definitely NOT a proponent of Keynesian economics. Government spending does nothing more than mislead us into overestimating a stagnant or recessive economy. My politics do not line up with centre-left politics. I like freedom and responsibility and while I do not have an issue with basic social security, I am neither naïve enough to think that it cannot be exploited nor bold enough to pretend that the public funding, monitoring, staffing and auditing of an extensive social safety net, with its high maintenance costs and associated bureaucracy, which inevitably reduce the amount of money allocated to help the people we want to help, is better than private funding and private charity. The quick response to last year’s extensive flooding is proof of the effectiveness of private actions by good and charitable citizens. The Progressives and I fundamentally disagree on what the role of government should be and to me, they are more of the same-old with a fresh, new face.

My fifth and final issue with Nikoli and his Progressive Party happens to be my primary one. His blatant use of identity politics is unbecoming to anyone with a modicum of conscience or maturity. I have already mentioned his pandering to the gender crowd, so it is clear to me that he is willing to play that game. I need not reiterate that aspect of things. The brand of identity politics that he seems to be milking most, however, is that of “youth”. While it is a fact that Nikoli was the youngest person to be appointed to the Senate, he mentions youth like clockwork every time he speaks as if it is some kind of virtue. Youth is as much a virtue as old age and the infusion of us-vs-them talk on age lines is unfortunate…and presumptuous…and sly. I do not see how the number of times one has orbited the sun affects the validity or effectiveness of one’s policies. Of course, if one has not actually outlined any policies, it becomes necessary to find a selling point. I get the sense that his sole aim is to become Trinidad and Tobago’s youngest Prime Minister and that he will stop at nothing to get there.

I am open to proposals and ideas and statistics. I am a sucker for a good scientific study and policies based on empirics. Empirics are sexy. Empirics are also absent from all of his statements and in their stead, we have received buzzwords, good intentions, doe-eyed naivety and shapeless, utopian assertions, which we are apparently supposed to excuse because he is “young” and aspires to “develop Trinidad to its fullest potential”. What exactly he means by that remains unspecified. “Give young blood a chance!” is a statement I have heard too many times this week as if the Progressive Party is owed a chance solely because its leader has not yet hit the big 30.

Politics isn’t musical chairs. The economy isn’t a UWI exam with supplemental exams in Semester 3 if you fail. This is not a Guild Election. We are discussing whether we should put billions of dollars into a government’s hands and trust them with managing it. We are discussing whether we can trust someone to do a job which will facilitate individuals in this country bettering their lives and the lives of their families and loved ones, through autonomy, responsible action, hard work and dedication. None of the previous parties meet the threshold and, in my view, neither does Nikoli’s. Trinidad and Tobago doesn’t need “leadership”. Political pundits have continually told us that we need “leadership”. Smooth-talking intellectuals with no grasp of the reality of our day-to-day lives have told us that they are the answer more times than we can count. What we need is freedom to pursue our best and a government that understands that it is neither parent nor nanny. The Progressive Party is rife with paternalism, is willing to pander to social hijackers like gender politicians and is void of direction. It is for those reasons that I shall not be lending my support to them.