Black Immigrant Daily News

R?agir ? cet article

NewsAmericasNow.com

Black Immigrant Daily News

NewsAmericasNow.com

Black Immigrant Daily News

Judiciary Gone Onyan Crazy

Rawlston Pompey

It has been widely preached and accepted by the nation and society that, ‘Man shall not commit buggery on same, or members of opposite sex.’ That has been heard by the ‘Voice of the People.’ Such Voice is that of ‘God’ (Vox Populi Vox Dei).’ Through ‘God’s’ inspiration, the people’s Voices were heard throughout the nation and in the Diaspora [ABS TV: July 6, 2022]. This was when the ‘Judiciary’ appeared to have been called upon to destroy the Christian-dominated society. Making it legal for the abnormal sexual acts of ‘Buggery and Indecency,’ to be free of prosecutorial consequences, plane loads of visitors began to touch down at ‘VC Bird International Airport (VCBIA)’ [ANR: July, 12, 2022].

BONDS OF FRIEENDSHIP

Today, the way has been paved a ‘Men’ that feel ‘Gay’ to form ‘Bonds of Friendship,’ then go in private; have fun all day, then sing, ‘Oh Happy Day’ [Philip Doddridge: 1755]. Yester-year, the ‘Shadow of Darkness’ almost obscured the sun from shining down on the twin-island nation of ‘Antigua and Barbuda.’ The citizenry, bereaved by the passing of these two ‘National Heroes,’ had been plunged into mourning. Today, the nation groans, as ‘Sir Vere Cornwall Bird’ and Sir George Hubert Walter’ turn in their graves at the ‘National Heroes Park.’ These men, the only males in that park has no time to discuss sex. They may have had enough of that. But they have been deeply disturbed, not with the ‘Dissenting Row’ between the ‘Commonwealth of Dominica’ and its ‘Apex’ Caribbean Court of Justice’ (CCJ)’ [ANR: July 11, 2022], but by that which transpired within this nation’s Judiciary.’

PERSPECTIVE

This commentary is comprehensive. It seeks not to; (a) ‘…Criticize or condemn; (b) …Reproach or recrimination; nor in any way, offering suggestions; nor to (c) …Influence discriminatory practices against persons grouped as ‘Sexual Minorities. It primarily looks at the ‘State’s’ apparent unwholesome behavior,’ by its use of the ‘Clergy and Judiciary’ for ‘Non-Divine Purposes.’ Some came with stripes like uncaged tigers; Some with spots like leopards; Some as hungry lions. Those came as preachers in collars and robes; Some as lawyers in gowns, often showed a ‘Love of Money.’ These are the ones that often seen as wolves hiding in sheep clothing. They are ready to devour.

SECULAR SHOCK AND AWE

Given recent developments within the ‘Judiciary,’ the nation with a population of some ‘100, 000’ people of various religious denominations, was plunged into ‘Secular Shock and Awe.’ The overwhelming majority of the population who acknowledge ‘God’ as the ‘Supreme Being,’ publicly took umbrage with a rather unpopular ‘Judicial Decision.’ According to the ‘Judicial Decision,’ a homosexual male ‘Orden David’ and Executive Director of the organization ‘Women Against Rape Incorporated (WARI)-Alexander Wong,’ laid that their homosexual rights have been infringed by the ‘Law’ [ANUHCV2021/0042].

SCRIPTURAL TEACHING

It has never been for the want of ‘Scriptural Teaching.’  ‘Men on the Pulpit’ continue to caution; ‘Whosoever lieth with a man as he would with a woman, or whichever woman allowed a man sexual pleasure not intended by ‘God,’ such in the Scriptures is considered ‘an Abomination unto God’ [Leviticus 22: 13].  That would have been ‘Yesterday and such could fitting be applied to those referred in the ‘Jamaican Gospel – One Day Christians’ [1989: Lloyd Lovindeer: YouTube].

CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE

The ‘Judiciary’ appeared to have ignored the very ‘Founding Constitutional Principle’ that states; ‘Whereas the ‘People of Antigua and Barbuda’ proclaim that they are a Sovereign nation founded upon the principle that acknowledge the ‘Supremacy of God’ [CO: 1981: Principle: ‘A’].  Given man’s desire for sexual gratification, man was known to have embarked upon certain ‘Adventurism.’ Frequently man has been seen to have done the unthinkable. There has been no fear of consequences. Modern civilization has dictated punishment for ‘Abnormal Sexual Activities’ be limited to ‘Custodial Sentences.’

LAW- DEFINED

Prominent British jurist ‘Sir William Blackstone’ defines ‘Law’ as; ‘A rule of conduct, prescribed by a Superior (Parliament) by which an ‘Inferior (People) is bound to obey’ [July 10, 1723-February 14, 1780]. The Judiciary does not make law. However, ‘Interpretations and Practice Directions’ are said to have the force of law. State, but more so, people may face peril of ‘Judicial Sanctions’ for non-compliance. Unlike the ‘Magistracy,’ the Superior Courts; (i) ‘First Instance (High Court) t: (ii) Intermediate (Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (ECSC); and (iii) Apex Court (Privy Council,’ may cite and commit to prison the disobedient for ‘Contempt of Court.’ Given this definition, likened to the citizenry, including the ‘Sexual Minorities,’ the ‘State is also subject to the law’ [CO: 1981: Principle: ‘D’].

MISCHIEF AIMED BY PARLIAMENT

The law by, and in itself, cannot be accused of infringing or intruding upon the ‘Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the Individual.’ Neither shall Courts call upon the State justify an enactment, when the ‘Mischief Aimed by Parliament’ shall be ‘Judicially Noticeable’ by ‘State-sanctioned appointment of competent Judicial officers.’ From professional training, knowledge and practical experience, though a ‘Law’ exists, and creates various criminal offences, such ‘Law’ is harmless to the citizenry until enforced. Such enforcement is guided by; (a) ‘…On view by an officer: or (b) …Duly afforded reasonable grounds for suspicion: or (c) …On charge of a third person. This charge shall be well founded.’ From the ‘Judgement,’ the Claimants appeared not to have deposed that there had been some infringements, either by the ‘Defendant or Agencies or Agents of the State.’

SPOUSE – BUGGERY – INDECENCY

It has been in the individual depositions of ‘Orden David and Alexandrina Wong’, that ‘Adult Men and Women’ shall have, and reserve the right to engage in ‘Buggery,’ without criminal sanctions’ [Paragraphs 14, 19, 22 & 23]. Many may recall the controversy surrounding the legislative attempt to give a ‘Fictional Definition of Spouse,’ Though not necessarily the perceived intention for giving it legal effect, public outrage, uproar and disquiet, forced Members of Parliament to abort that which then appeared to have been misconstrued as the primary purpose. The enactment was for the defined purpose of preventing concealment of ‘Criminal Proceeds.’ Talk radio programme hosts referred to it as ’18: 6.’ Today, ‘12: 15’ are ‘Buggery and Indecency’ [SOA: No.9 of 1995].

BUGGERY/INDECENCY RIGHTS

The Judgement discloses that the ’Claimant’ works with populations identified by the ‘International Health Organization and the Ministry of Health’ on the most vulnerable to ‘HIV/AIDS’ [Overview: Paragraph 5]. The ’Second Claimant’ was identified as the co-founder and Executive Director of an incorporated organization nationally known as ‘Women Against Rape (WAR).’ Though not referred in the ‘Judgment,’ the other co-founding member has been then practicing attorney ‘Samantha Marshall.’  Currently a serving ‘Member of Parliament, she is also a member of the sitting Government. It may have boggled the mind if she lacked organizational knowledge that the ‘Executive Director’ had filed a ‘Buggery and Indecency Rights Claim’ against: (a) ‘Her Government: (b) Attorney General; and (c) …Her Parliamentary and Cabinet colleagues.’

INTIMATE CHOICE

In the ‘Judgement’ High Court Judge, ‘Her Ladyship, Madame Justice Marissa Robertson’ revealed her findings. The findings speak to, inter alia, the ‘Selection of an Intimate Partner,’ in the ‘Introduction and Findings,’ she considers it; ‘An Intimate Choice’ Secularly, when he took instructions to represent ‘Attorney General Steadroy ‘Cutie’ Benjamin’ in litigious proceedings, he may have sold his own Soul. Subdued by demons and induced into partaking of the ‘Tree of Knowledge and Evil,’ he had allowed ‘Satan’ to lead him away from ‘God’s Pulpit’ into ‘Pit,’ not too far from the devil and not too far from fire and brimstone.’

ABSTINENCE – PREVENTION -DETERRENCE

The ‘State’s Parliament’ duly considered certain prescriptive measures to control ‘Eroticism’ as it affects abnormal sex. Purposefully aimed at ‘abstinence; prevention; and Deterrence,’ but specifically intended to inculcate a deepened ‘Sense of Morality.’ The ‘State’s Parliament’ duly considered certain prescriptive measures to control ‘Eroticism’ as it affects abnormal sex. The law, purposefully aimed at ‘Abstinence; Prevention; and Deterrence,’ and specifically intended to inculcate a deepened ‘Sense of Morality,’ has been un-challengeably struck down.

MEASURED RESPONSE

Man, woman and child, they have seen the gate into immorality opened to all sexually-oriented persons for ‘Same-Sex’ cohabitation and gratification. Most vocal has been ‘Religious Leadership and affiliate bodies. But standing firmly on ‘Scriptural and Christian Principles,’ has been ‘Church Leader, Pastor and Educator Dr. Hensworth Jonas.’ He provided a ‘Measured Response.’ Articulating his personal and congregational thoughts, he was video-captured. Adamant that the ‘Judicial Decision’ outraged the public conscience and offended ‘Public Morality,’ passionately, he said; ‘No one Judge should decide for the nation, and the Government should appeal the decision’ [Observer: July 8, 2022]. The conscientious-objector shall know that the ‘Attorney General’ never countered the Claim made by the Claimants.

DENOMINATIONAL STATISTICAL DATA

Looking at the ‘Christian-Dominated society (CDS),’ Religious Leader, Dr. Hensworth Jonas’ clearly has good reasons for his reaction. Research has revealed ‘Denominational Statistical Data’ of the societal make-up of the Churches within the nation. Among the populace, it has been referred to as the ‘Christian Society.’ The data consists of: (i) ‘Anglican-17.6%: (ii) Seventh Day Adventist-12.4; (iii) Pentecostal 12.2%: (iv) Moravian-8.3%: (v) Methodist-5.6%; (vi) Wesleyan Holiness-4.5% (vii) Church of Gog of Prophecy 4.1%: (viii) Baptist 3.6%; (ix) Roman Catholic 3.2%; (x) Other- 12.2%; (x) Unspecified-5.5%; and None-5.9%’ [2011 Est Source: Index Mundi]. Given these Data, it can be inferred that the ‘Sexual Minority’ with no affiliation to any of these Denomination might be among the ‘5.9 Percentage.’

FIERY BAPTISM

From a pastoral perspective, ‘Religious Leader, Assistant Church Pastor, Dr. David Dorsett,’ may have secularly offended ‘God.’ He may also have unwittingly and blasphemously positioned himself for a ‘Fiery Baptism.’ Among the citizenry, he will have caused outraged to the ‘Moral Conscience’ of the ‘Christian Community.’ Such outrage may also have been provoked among, members of the wider society. In his ‘Pastoral Capacity,’ he shall have known that the ‘Sexual Rights’ claimed by the litigants were not in comport with the Scriptures he preached.’ Seemingly faced with ‘Moral Turpitude’ and starved of wisdom and cornered by ‘Reason and Conscience.’ Congregants have not only been spiritually edified, revived, uplifted and filled.

HEAVENLY KINGDOM

Saving his Soul from purgatory, this may have easily presented by his assistant ‘Carla Harris-Brooks-Harris’ have done. This attorney clearly has no desire to spend eternity, anywhere else, but in ‘Heavenly Kingdom.’ No one enters that ‘Kingdom’ with impurities. Though he had been ‘Divinely Called’ to ‘God’s Sanctuary and Pulpit.  A spiritually-acclaimed Leader and ‘Assistant Pastor of the Church of God of Prophecy (COGOP), Dr. David Dorsett,’ in the ‘World of Secularity,’ he is also a ‘Prominent Practicing Attorney’ within the nation’s Judiciary.’ In his three-points ‘Sunday Sermons,’ he has always provided through the ‘Word of the Living God,’ spiritual enlightenment to ‘Souls Sick with Sin.’

REASONABLENESS AND JUSTIFICATION

The ‘Founding Constitution Principle’ has also alluded to the behavior of the State. It states; ‘The State is subject to the law.’ [CO: 1981: Principle: ‘D’].  Litigants shall know that constitutional rights come with duties and responsibilities. The citizenry shall also know that constitutionally entrenched rights, are subject to ‘Statutory Limitations.’ In clear and precise language, the ‘Constitution’ states; ‘…Nothing contained in, or done under the ‘Authority of any Law’ shall be held to be inconsistent with the constitutional provisions. The Constitution expects that those enforcing law in the interest of the public and protection of society, shall act with ‘Reasonableness and Justification.’ While the ‘Law’ is neither a person, agent, nor agency of the State,’ logic dictates that no citizen can be offended by a law not enforced by ‘State agencies or agents.’

ACTUAL INFRINGEMENTS

The ‘Judgment’ refers to ‘Sections; 3, 5. 7. 12, 14, 15 and 18’ of certain ‘Constitutionally Entrenched Rights’ [Chapter II]. It also cites the ‘Criminalize Offences; ’12 and 15’ [Sexual Offences Act: No. 9 of 1995].’ These speak to ‘Buggery and Serious Indecency.’ The Court appeared to have concentrated only on the law as opposed to seeking to ascertain if the Claimants had experience ‘Actual Infringements’ by agencies or agents of the ‘State.’ For an understanding of these offences, the ‘Statute’ interprets the former as; (a) ‘Sexual intercourse per anum by a male person with a male person or by a male person with a female person.’ Instructively, the ‘Judicial Notes’ reflect no deposed evidence of alleged ‘State Infringements,’ including ‘Intrusion into personal privacy.’

CONCERNS AND INTERESTS

Given the litigants Claim to engage in homosexual acts, there will have been ‘Good and Sufficient Reasons’ to cite ‘Buggery and Indecency’ that may have the potential to affect; (a) ‘Public Health; and (b) Public Morality.’ These shall have been sufficient to persuade the Court that the prohibitive law, if enforced by ‘State agencies or agents, may have affected; (a) ‘Intrusion of privacy: (b) Infringement; and (c) Limitations,’ on fundamental rights.’ Instructively, neither of these occurred. The provisions contained in the Constitution,’ specify that which might be reasonably required in the national interest. The ‘State’ appeared to have ignored the concerns and interests of the overwhelming majority of the citizenry. Though the Constitution speaks to these, the enforceable provisions are contained in; (a) ‘The Public Health Act’ [Chapter 353]; and (b) The Sexual Offences Act’ [ No. 9 of 1995].

RULE OF LAW

These may be any one or more of these; (i) ‘…In defence of the nation: (ii) …Necessary for public Safety: (iii) …Maintaining public order; (iv) …Upholding public morality; and …Ensuring public health’ [CO: 1981: Section 3]. Most importantly, to ensure that the ‘Rule of Law prevails.’ The Constitution provides an entire ‘Chapter’ of the entitlement and enjoyment of fundamental rights and freedoms’ [CO: 1981: Chapter II]. Abnormal sex acts, including: (i) ‘…Buggery: and (ii) …Indecency,’ are not so constitutionally-entrenched. These sexual acts are capable of being looked at from two civilized perspectives; (i) ‘Protection of public health; and (ii) …Prevention of public immorality.’

FORBIDDEN TREE

Those called to ‘Devine Service’ outside of that which God commanded, ‘Religious Leaders and Preachers’ shall know that they shall not serve God and Satan.’ When God created the ‘Heaven and Earth, ‘He’ not only had ‘Purity of Mind,’ but also mindful of two things. He knew that; (i) ‘…The flesh is weak; and (ii) …Adam and Eve will be led into temptation.’ These, he knew before ‘He’ them into the ‘Garden of Eden,’ ‘He also knew that they would become disobedient and ‘Yield to Temptation.’ So ‘He’ commanded and warned; ‘You shall eat from all trees, except the tree of the ‘Knowledge of Good and Evil,’ God also forewarned them of the consequences of disobedience. He said; ‘Be warned that both of you ‘Yield to Satan,’ both of you shall die, eating from the ‘Forbidden Tree’ [NIV: Genesis 2: 16-17].

BLASPHEMOUS TO GOD

Though not necessarily part of the decision-making regime, moving away from the ‘Pulpit,’ where preaching the ‘Word of God’ has been a ‘Divine Calling and Practice,’ reasonable inferences might be drawn that ‘Beloved Swetes Church of God of Prophecy (COGOP), Pastor Dr. David Dorsett’ may have committed a ‘Cardinal Sin.’ Appearing at the ‘High Court of Justice,’ albeit in a professional capacity of ‘Legal Practitioner,’ with litigious instructions positioned, though not cannibalistic, such appearance speaks to committing ‘Evil to the Flesh.’ Moreover, ‘Conceding’ that ‘Homosexuals reserves the right to ‘Buggery,’ further positioned to be seen as committing an act ‘Blasphemous to God.’

BLASPHEMOUS INSTRUCTIONS

Whether or not for reasons staff inadequacy, incompetency, inefficiency or one of obscurity, a ‘Legal Affairs Ministry’ that shall have been sufficiently staffed was reported to have retained the ‘Legal Services of ‘Watt and Associates.’ Somewhat peculiar, through the nation’s ‘Chief Legal Adviser to the ‘Government’ [CO: 1981: Section 82], ‘Concessional Instructions’ had been issued to make legal representation on behalf of the ‘Legal Affairs Ministry.’ Then through one of the Firm’s associates and assistant attorney Carla Brooks-Harris’ ‘Blasphemous Instructions’ had been circuited to ‘High Court of Justice, ‘Her Ladyship, Madame Justice Marissa Robertson.’

UNENFORCED LAW

Besides, neither by the ‘Attorney General,’ nor the offending Sections of law as cited – 12 and 15’ [SOA: 1995], had intruded in anyone’s privacy to ascertain who was playing ‘Bulgarney or Washie’ In respect to social commentator ‘Sir Paul Richards- King Obstinate,’ no Claimant could have accused ‘Commissioner Atlee Rodney’ of eavesdropping to detect who had ‘Water Hose’ and who was ‘Passing Blows’ [1998: The Eclipse: YouTube]. While it is natural for people to harbor fear, the ‘Unenforced Law,’ hold no terror. Neither has it been ever accused of infringing the entrenched constitutional rights, freedoms and liberties’ [CO: 1981: Chapter II].

JUDICIAL CONSIDERATION

That which ‘Her Ladyship Madame Justice Marissa Robertson’ notes as being asked of the Court to give ‘Judicial Consideration.’ She looked at legislation criminalizing ‘certain sexual activities between ‘Same-Sex,’ but consenting adults’ [Paragraph 1]. The Claims of possible infringement of right and invasion of privacy,’ appears more ‘Imaginary and Anticipatory’ than of reality or actuality. As it affects ‘Indecency’ this is interpreted as ‘An act other than sexual intercourse (whether natural or unnatural) by a person involving the use of the genital organ for the purpose of arousing, or gratifying sexual desire.’

EXISTENCE OF LAW

The citizenry is not alone in harboring thoughts far removed from reality. The ‘Judiciary and public administrators, invariably gives the impression that they do. It appears some ‘Courts’ are sufficiently advanced in ‘Sexual Science.’ Some seem to possess the unique capacity to see when two adults in privacy groping or fondling each other’s genitals. Clearly, outside of ‘Figment of Imagination,’ it would make ‘Mockery of the Judiciary,’ to conclude that the mere ‘Existence of Law’ infringes the rights of persons. That which shall be known by all a sundry, is that the law exists, not only to curb societal lawlessness, but also abnormal sexual conduct that offends and/or pose ‘Public Health risks and Public Morality.’  

ROMANTICISM TO EROTISM

Likened to other parts of the world, men and women who appeared psychologically and sexually confused, have been seeking societal and political acceptance not only of the overwhelming way they feel, but also of their ‘Sexually Preferences.’ Those so disposed, are not alone. Others came in all manner, and to society, they have perpetrated all kinds of evil against the ‘Will of God’ and ‘Secular wishes and electoral mandates’ of the people. Men avoiding the pleasures of ‘Romanticism’ with members of the opposite sex, seem to have found themselves under the ‘Influence of Eroticism’ with those of the ‘Same-Sex.’ In the eyes of ‘God and Man’ they will have been guilty of ‘Abomination.’

FICTIONALIZED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT

Reflected in a recent Judgement, ‘Her Ladyship’s wrote; ‘The Respondent in these proceedings has ‘CONCEDED’ that the understanding of fundamental rights has EVOLVED.’ In making the point sufficiently clear to the Court, it continues; ‘So that the provisions of Sections 12 and 15 (Buggery and Indecency) do infringed the rights of the Claimants (Orden David/Alexandrina Wong) and others so circumstanced (Tasheka Lavann: Prince Warren (Assylumed in Canada) and Washington Bramble.’  The assumed, but ‘Fictionalized Constitutional Right’ to indulgence in the scripturally declared ‘Sin’ has been judicially made legal [St. Vincent Times: July 6, 2022].

VAGUE JUDICIAL LANGUAGE

Whether or not pastorally exalted to the Pulpit, ‘Dr. David Dorset’ may have been sufficiently briefed to ‘Leave the Devil Alone.’ Seemingly, that may have been exactly needed in leading the Pastor and his assistant away from the ‘Holy Scripture’ that warns of ‘Death’ for those engaged in the abominable crime of ‘Buggery’ [Leviticus: 22: 13].’ Apparently sensing an internal struggle with the devil, she carefully, but in ‘Vague Judicial Language,’ wrote; ‘The position of Counsel resulted in Counsel adopting a particular course, regarding the ‘Impugned Sections.

LITIGANTS/CLAIMANTS

Looking at the recent ‘Judgment’ on the Claims made by litigants, the Claim speaks to the consensual adult right to be indulged in ‘Buggery and/or Indecency.’ This, as currently obtains in the ‘United Kingdom,’ is legally permitted in private. Within this jurisdiction, there has been any search of private premises. Neither has there ever been the arrests of any ‘Homosexuals, nor Lesbians.’ Except for a few men and women who may have exhibited effeminate tendencies or masculinity, law enforcement was not known to have pursued this ‘Sexual Minority.’ The ‘First Instance Court’ delivered a Judgement favor of the ‘Litigants/ Claimants ‘Orden David and Alexandrina Wong.’ The litigants were bravely, ably, competently and professionally represented by attorney Andrew O’Kola.’

INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACH

Consequent upon the need for social control and that of immoral behaviors, certain abnormal sexual acts were defined as ‘Buggery and Indecency.’ For discouragement, it criminalizes these acts and made both punishable’ [Sexual Offences Act: No. 13 of 1995: Sections 12 and 15].  The ‘State Conceded that the law by itself had infringed the rights of the Claimant. Satisfied with the inferred ‘Instructional Approach’ by ‘Counsel for the State, ‘Her Ladyship’ gratuitously wrote; ‘The Court expresses gratitude to the Counsel for the Defendant (Attorney General Steadroy ‘Cutie’ Benjamin) for their approach to the conduct of these proceedings.’ Contrastingly, ‘Her Ladyship,’ showered praises on Counsel for the Claimants. It wrote; ‘The Court expresses its gratitude to Counsel for the Claimants for their very thorough submissions’ [Paragraph 90].

SECTIONS: ‘18: 6’ – FIRE AND STEEL

Yester-year, controversy reigned when ‘former Attorney General Justin L. Simon QC’ introduced a new meaning of ‘Spouse’ to the Parliament. This was defined as; ‘Two persons of

the same sex, living together.’ That was called ’18: 6.’ Surprised a shocked, then ‘Prime Minster Baldwin Spencer’ chucklingly quizzed; ‘What is this saying?’ The ‘Chief Legal Adviser to the Government,’ responded, ‘It is a ‘Legal Fiction.’ Then ‘Education Minister Bertrand Joseph,’ a devout Christian, interjected, ‘Concubinage; …It covers everybody.’ A gleeful ‘House Speaker D. Giselle Isaac’ chimed in, ‘…That’s privilege progressive.’ Making the definition both political, and an issue against ‘Public Morality,’ devout Christians Molwyn Joseph and Lionel ‘Max’ Hurst,’ popularized it on their radio programme; ‘Fire and Steel’ as ’18: 6]. Today, with the ruling against ‘Sections 12: 15’ that decriminalized ‘Buggery and Indecency,’ controversy still reigns among the citizenry-Christian community and Religious Leadership.’

MORALITY/COMMON DECENCY

Looked at from the perspective of an act Against ‘Public Morality and Common Decency,’ society has long criminalized ‘Buggery and Indecency’ as unwholesome ‘Social Vices.’ It has also specified prescriptive legislative punishment of varying terms of imprisonment, including a possible custodial sentence of life imprisonment. There has been a war with the ‘Moralists’ opposing this particular ‘Vice,’ with the ‘Immoralists’ that have embraced it. Conscious of societal denunciation and/or uprising and electoral punishment, those vying for an electoral privilege in sitting in the Legislative Chambers, have been mortally afraid of tabling a ‘Bill’ in Parliament to bring some measure of respite to the participants.

KING ONYAN

Dependent upon inner feelings and thoughts, the song was capable of being interpreted many ways. They condemned both the artiste and the song. They huffed and puffed; rant and rave. They held vigils, marched and made impromptu speeches. Though not necessarily a mind reader, ‘King Onyan’ may very well have been thinking of other things. Given reports of a spike in rapists attacks, all doors and windows were to be securely fastened from would-be intruders. That year, female revelers may have been pre-occupied only with Carnival. Ten years later, seemingly, the ‘Women’ who said they were ‘Against Rape,’ and condemned the ‘Song,’ are now seeking, either to have their ‘Back Doors Kicked Een.’ or others with locked ‘Front Doors.’

ANTI-RAPE WOMEN

Whatever may have been the underlying reasons or incentivization, ‘Drama and Hypocrisy’ unfolded.’ These occurred when one of the ‘Anti-Rape Women’ supported now advocating and saying that it is right for a ‘Man’ of their fancy and sexually-disposed, to ‘Kick’ in the ‘Back Doors. To these ‘Litigants,’ given the population make-up of the nation, whether or not homosexual males migrate from ‘Australia, Burma, Canada, China, Dominica, Grenada, India, Russia, Sri Lanka or Syria,’ they have secured a ‘Legal Right’ to enter ‘Guyanese Homes’ from the ‘Back Door.’ Such invitation has been extended by those born ‘Men,’ but claimed to be

CRAZY ONYAN

Even as some women were born ‘Men,’ they have harbored the belief that they are ‘Men.’ In these grouping, there is now no gender discrimination. Yester-year some ‘Against Rape Activists’ went frantic when musician/social commentator ‘Toriano Edwards,’ musically known as ‘King Onyan,’ sang; ‘Kick Een She Back Door’ [July 11, 2012: Antigua Summer Festival]. The ‘Women Against Rape,’ yet with minds of ‘Carnality and Depravity,’ ascribed sexual meaning to the song. This group, then thought that they want to have no dealings with ‘Crazy Onyan.’ His suggestion was not in keeping with gentlemanly behavior. But now, they seemed to have been ‘Perceptively Correct.’

SEXUAL IMMORALITY

While some societal behaviors appear reprehensible and objectionable, it shall be accepted that such exhibitions are all part of human nature and experience. Instinctively and repulsively, humans sometimes exhibit beast-like behavior. The ‘Sexually Immoral and Rebellious’ was often let loose on society. While some conduct appears not to have been consistent with; (i) ‘…Society’s customs and practices; (ii) …Mores and values; and (iii) …Not in keeping with the scripturally-prescribed ‘Ten Commandments.’ Though not necessarily so, it has been made sufficiently clear that irrespective of social and legal consequences, some of mankind have taken the conscious decision to be disobedient to ‘God’ and whatever social laws promulgated to check man’s behavior.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

As it affects ‘Protection’ of the ‘Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the Individual,’ the Constitution provides recourse, how citizens may seek redress. It states it this way; ‘Any person who is unlawfully arrested or detained by any other person, subject to such defences as may be provided by law, be entitled to compensation for such unlawful arrest or detention’ [CO: 1981: Section 5 (7)]. That which appears capable of being inferred from this provision, is that offended or aggrieved citizens, reserve the right to cause the ’Judiciary’ to be visited upon any person. This also included the ‘State.’ Incidentally ‘Buggery and Indecency,’ as criminalized in the ‘Sexual Offences Act,’ are not entrenched as constitutional rights [SOA: No. 9 of 1995: Sections 12: 15].

STATE INSTRUCTIONS

These have not only been unique to this nation, but have been an international phenomenon. As far as the ‘Judiciary’ has ruled, there have been open public dissent and disquiet over certain decisions. None more evident to the society, than that contained in a recently delivered ‘High Court of Judgement.’ Left ‘Litigiously Unchallenged,’ these sexually immoral acts, not only became ‘Reality,’ but also permissible. The only people that appeared not to have been dismayed, were the overwhelming majority of Legislators.’ The citizenry frowned in disgust, were left distressed and distraught.  These occurred when ‘Religious Leader and Church of God Pastor, Dr. David Dorsett,’ seemingly used as a conveyor of ‘State Instructions,’ conceded that though clearly seen as act against ‘Public Immorality,’ the ‘Powerless-Law’ had infringed the rights of ‘Homosexuals and Lesbians.’

LEGAL DUTIES – LEGAL AUTHORITY

The Defendant appeared to have failed to shock the ‘Conscience of the Court’ with contrary, factual, credible, persuasive and believable legal arguments. The Court, also appeared not to have find as facts that in actuality that the ‘State,’ through; (i) ‘Its Attorney General and Chief Legal Adviser to the Government; (ii) …Law enforcement agencies; or (iii) …Agents’ intruded or invaded the Claimants; (a) ‘Privacy; (b) …Restricted their freedom of expression, movement or liberty,’ whether by arrest or detention, as the Constitution allowed with ‘Reasonableness.’ The Police Act’ not only imposes ‘Legal Duties,’ but also provides ‘Legal Authority’ for the enforcement of the ‘Criminal Law’ [Sections 22 and 23: Police Act; Chapter 330].’

PUBLIC INTEREST

It is well known that the ‘Pubic Interest’ has always supersede all other interests. Most ‘Attorneys General’ are familiar with this ‘Universal Principle.’ If no one else knows, both Cabinet Members, Attorney General Steadroy ‘Cutie’ Benjamin’ and Attorney-at-law and Co-founder of the organization ‘Women Against Rape Incorporated (WARI), are not unmindful of this principle. Given the recent developments, one with the ‘Spirit of Discernment’ may conclude that the outcome of these proceedings, appeared to have been a Foregone Conclusion.’

CONCLUSION

With no countering Claim, there may have been no other significant issue to be determined by ‘Her Ladyship.’ She wrote; ‘The position of Counsel resulted in Counsel adopting a particular course regarding the impugned Sections 12 and 15 of the Sexual Offences Act’ [Paragraph 87: Judgment]. Nome shall impute or impugn the ‘Integrity,’ neither of the ‘Judicial officer,’ nor the ‘Judiciary.’ None may also quiz the author who shall be apportioned blame or who might be guilty of ‘Calculated Negligence.’ This commentary is neither about blame, negligence nor incompetence. Even so, it begs two ‘Fundamental Questions;’ (i) ‘What the State attorneys, ‘Dr. David Dorsett and Carla Brooks-Harris’ were called upon to respond as it relates to ‘Limitation of Rights:  and (ii) …What informed the decision to ‘CONCEDE’ that the law has the capability to enforce itself?’ Moreover, the Defendant appeared to have failed to shock the ‘Conscience of the Court’ with evidence, so cogent and so persuasive the legal arguments, that ‘Her Ladyship, Madame Justice Marissa Robertson’ shall have been felt compelled to give acute judicial considerations, balancing the ‘Individual Rights of the Claimants’ and the ‘Interest of the Public.’ A non-contesting Defendant will have strengthened the Claims of the Claimants by its ill-advised or misguided Concession’ that the ‘Impugned Sections 12 and 15,’ factually infringed their rights.’ Spared further adjudication and satisfied that the Claimants have made out a ‘Prima Facie Case’ [Paragraph 86], ‘Her Ladyship,’ appeared to have encountered no difficulty in making an unchallengeable ‘Judicial Decision.’ All have sinned and come short of ‘God’s Glory.’ When the Roll is Called up Yonder.’ Some will go to ‘Heaven’ and some will go to ‘Hell.’ Blessed be His Name.’ ***

CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHATSAPP GROUP

NewsAmericasNow.com

Black Immigrant Daily News

Twitter sued Tesla CEO Elon Musk on Tuesday, trying to force him to complete his $44 billion takeover of the social media company by accusing him of “outlandish” and “bad faith” actions that have caused the platform irreparable harm and “wreaked havoc” on its stock price.

You have to eat your mistakes in the Delaware Chancery Court

Back in April, Musk pledged to pay $54.20 a share for Twitter, which agreed to those terms after reversing its initial opposition to the deal. But the two sides have been bracing for a legal fight since the billionaire said Friday that he was backing away from his agreement to buy the company.

Twitter’s lawsuit opens with a sharply-worded accusation: “Musk refuses to honour his obligations to Twitter and its stockholders because the deal he signed no longer serves his personal interests.

It added: “Having mounted a public spectacle to put Twitter in play, and having proposed and then signed a seller-friendly merger agreement, Musk apparently believes that he — unlike every other party subject to Delaware contract law — is free to change his mind, trash the company, disrupt its operations, destroy stockholder value, and walk away.”

Twitter filed its lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery, which frequently handles business disputes among the many corporations — including Twitter — that are incorporated there.

As part of the April deal, Musk and Twitter had agreed to pay each other a $1 billion breakup fee if either was responsible for the deal falling through. The company could have pushed Musk to pay the hefty fee but is going farther than that, trying to force him to complete the full $44 billion purchase approved by the company’s board.

“Oh the irony lol,” Musk tweeted without explanation after Twitter filed the lawsuit.

The arguments and evidence laid out by Twitter are compelling and likely to get a receptive ear in the Delaware court, which doesn’t look kindly on sophisticated buyers with highly-paid legal advisers backing off of deals, said Brian Quinn, a law professor at Boston College.

“They make a very strong argument that this is just buyer’s remorse,” Quinn said. “You have to eat your mistakes in the Delaware Chancery Court. That’s going to work very favourably for Twitter.”

Musk alleged Friday that Twitter has failed to provide enough information about the number of fake accounts on its service. Twitter said last month that it was making available to Musk a ?fire hose” of raw data on hundreds of millions of daily tweets.

The company has said for years in regulatory filings that it believes about 5% of the accounts on the platform are fake. Musk is also alleging that Twitter broke the acquisition agreement when it fired two top managers and laid off a third of its talent-acquisition team.

Twitter’s suit repeatedly emphasises Musk’s contemplation of starting a Twitter competitor — an alternative option he sometimes aired publicly and sometimes privately to Twitter’s executives and board members. While the company has said it cooperated in providing the data he requested on fake “spam bot” accounts, the lawsuit suggests Twitter was concerned that disclosing too much “highly sensitive information” could expose the company to competitive harm if shared.

the best case is he pays the $1 billion breakup fee

The biggest surprise for Quinn was how much evidence Twitter has — for instance, communications with Musk about whether to retain or lay off employees, as well as the billionaire’s own public tweets — to reject his arguments for backing out.

“They are marshalling many of Musk’s own tweets to hoist him on his own petard,” he said.

In a joint press release announcing the acquisition deal, Musk pledged to “unlock” the social media company’s potential by loosening restrictions on speech and rooting out fake accounts. Among his most attention-grabbing promises was to let former President Donald Trump back onto the platform. Musk argued that Twitter’s ban of Trump following the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the US Capitol was “morally bad” and “foolish in the extreme”.

But his confidence didn’t last long. Tesla’s stock — Musk’s primary source of wealth — plummeted amid a broader stock market selloff in May, and Musk soon seemed less enthusiastic about owning Twitter.

“For Musk, the best case is he pays the $1 billion breakup fee but that appears very unlikely,” said Wedbush Securities analyst Daniel Ives. “The irony is that Twitter as a fiduciary is clearly looking to enforce a deal that Musk doesn’t want to get done. It’s like buying a house you don’t want.”

Twitter’s suit calls Musk’s tactics “a model of hypocrisy,” noting that he had emphasised plans to take Twitter private in order to rid it of spam accounts. Once the market declined, Twitter said, “Musk shifted his narrative, suddenly demanding ‘verification’ that spam was not a serious problem on Twitter’s platform, and claiming a burning need to conduct ‘diligence’ he had expressly forsworn.”

Similarly, the company charges that Musk operated in bad faith, accusing him of requesting company information in order to accuse Twitter of providing “misrepresentations” about its business to regulators and investors.

Musk “has been acting against this deal since the market started turning, and has breached the merger agreement repeatedly in the process”, the suit charged.

“He has purported to put the deal on ‘hold’ pending satisfaction of imaginary conditions, breached his financing efforts obligations in the process, violated his obligations to treat requests for consent reasonably and to provide information about financing status, violated his non-disparagement obligation, misused confidential information, and otherwise failed to employ required efforts to consummate the acquisition.”

__________

By MATT O’BRIEN Associated Press

NewsAmericasNow.com