11 Year old passes CAPE (A level) Subjects : Worshipping the wrong achievement

http://www.trinidadexpress.com/featured-news/11-year-old_passes_CAPE_subjects-144314385.html

"

Somma Chevalier brought her parents great joy after she wrote the Caribbean Advanced Proficiency Examination (CAPE) at the tender age of 11.

Her mother, Marsha Badri-Chevalier, praised her daughter's efforts after she received four 3s, one 2 and one 4 in the following subjects: Mathematics 3, English Language 3, Principles of Accounts 2, Principles of Business 3, Social Studies 3 and Human and Social Biology 4."

I think this is actually a bad thing... Good for the girl who can achieve so much at a young age but this obsession with 'grades' and paper qualifications is keeping caribbean society back.



To get those grades she would have had to sacrifice socialization , play and activities she should be enjoying as a child. That will have a negative impact on her development..
I had a teacher who started UWI at 16 and had a masters and a PHD very very early in life, he partly regretted it because he was always a social outcast : The youngest in ever class , never had the time to socialize and enjoy life.



Steve Jobs and Gates dropped out of university -no major qualifications. They changed the world and made the world's biggest companies. Grades- Don't- matter. What you can create from nothing is what matters, not what you regurgitate.

'T&T paying for but not using CCJ'

http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/_T_T_paying_for_but_not_using_CCJ_-144489695.html

I went to a conference on these issues in the High Court and met (Well walked within 3 feet of ) half the CCJ judges... Met one of them , justice Anderson, in UWI cavehill and talked to him for a bit.

There are over 200 appeals to the court of appeal of Trinidad per year,less than 20 of those go to the privy council for final appeal mainly due to the cost involved . This means the poor cannot access a final appeal.

In Guyana , a nation that accepted the CCJ, most of the appeals have been by middle class individuals , not big businessmen as some might expect.

And in some cases the Privy Council is producing inferior law because they are :
1. Not familiar with our cultural circumstances.
2. Realize they are unfamiliar , and thus don't try to develop the law where it may infringe on our cultural practices.

If you read the Joseph and boyce CCJ judgement and the PC judgement , the CCJ judgement is far more comprehensive (100 pages) and in my opinion superior...


Joseph and Boyce Judgement : http://www.worldcourts.com/ccj/eng/decisions/2006.11.08_Attorney_General_v_Joseph.htm

Attorneys launch project to highlight discrimination against gays

Two young attorneys, Trinidadian Tamara Sylvestor and American Jacqueline Bevilacqua, have launched a collaborative project to document discrimination against persons of such sexual orientation in T&T.

They have also set up an e-mail account, tellyourstorytnt@gmail.com for such persons to lodge complaints.

Their goal is to provide a base for policy or legal action and for public education. The two have set out to document real cases and to find facts and trace patterns of discrimination and denial of services and employment based on sexual orientation or gender expression.

http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2011/11/07/attorneys-launch-project-highlight-discrimination-against-gays

A Constitutional Emergency?

On August 21^st 2011 a state of emergency was declared in Trinidad and Tobago to deal with crime. Pursuant to section 7 of the constitution, the President made the Emergency Powers Regulations, 2011 . Since that date the rights of the people of T&T have been damaged under the guise of a national security plan that flies in the face of basic human rights.
The state has a positive duty to promote and protect human rights by its actions and policy. During this emergency we have seen the exact opposite. The ‘Granny Quilla’ issue where a 14 year old girl jokingly suggested the Prime minister should be assassinated is an example of a draconian infringement of rights.
The state threatened legal action against the young girl , with the Attorney General suggesting that she ‘Turn herself over to the police and let the law take its course’ . Beyond traumatizing a young girl, the state’s handling of this matter seriously damaged the public’s right to free speech. Since this incident much of the public has been afraid to air political views for fear of prosecution.
At no point in time did the state properly clarify the extent to which the right to free speech had been limited. Instead, with their policy of ‘monitoring’ Facebook , the state has allowed the population to believe that they will be punished for discussing and condemning the acts of the government.
This arbitrariness is against the rule of law . How are citizens to act lawfully and exercise their rights when faced with such vague yet draconian policies?
Looking at the State of Emergency regulations, we see that many rights are limited that have no connection with the crime situation.
In particular, Section 7 of the regulations makes it illegal to take part in any public meeting or march without permission, limiting freedom of movement. Sections 13 and 14 limit freedom of expression and the freedom to receive and impart information. Criminals do not protest or seek to inform the public of their grievances. How then is it justifiable to limit the public’s rights in such a way?
Section 7 (3) of the constitution allows limitations of rights under the SOE to have effect once they are reasonably justifiable for the purpose of dealing with the situation that exists.
This echoes the venerable DeFreitas test for determining what a reasonably justifiable limitation of a right is :
(1) There must be a sufficiently important objective to justify limiting the right.
(2) The measures designed to meet the legislative objective must be rationally connected to it.
(3) That the means utilized must be no more than is necessary to accomplish the objective.
The last leg of the test is also similar to Article 4 of the ICCPR:

“1 . In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation “
We see a similar caveat again repeated in the Paris Minimum Standards of Human Rights norms in a state of emergency. This document crystalizes customary international law and is highly persuasive:

“2. The power to take derogatory measures as aforesaid is subject to five general conditions:
(b) Such measures must be strictly proportionate to the exigencies of the situation.

(c) Such measures must not be inconsistent with the other obligations of the state under international law.”

In light of the case law, international documents and the very wording of the constitution, how can unnecessary limitations of rights be justified? Unless the government can show that these measures were important to maintaining order and dealing with the crime situation, the state of emergency can be said to be in breach of both the Constitution and International Law.

My Academic Webpage for Scholarly Works

My academic webpage for scholarly works

Since Cavehill Law Society went broke and my work was not published in the student journal..which im not sure still exists.. I took the liberty of publishing my own work online .
I do believe in the importance of my writing in developing the law , My thesis on the universality of human rights in particular is *actually* on the cutting edge of legal thinking and i’v only found 1 paper that covers similar ground on the entire internets.


http://works.bepress.com/jonathan_bhagan/

Damage to ASA Wright and to My heritage

http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2012-03-12/asa-wright-falls-under-backhoes-dynamite

http://www.oas.org/dsd/fida/laws/legislation/trinidad_&_tobago/trinidad_&_tobago_ema-2000.pdf

"calling on Government to call a halt to quarrying on the mountain ridge facing the centre. The call was made yesterday at a news briefing at the centre. It follows complaints from the centre, as well as local and foreign supporters, about quarrying in the area. Though the quarrying looks like a small scar on the hillside from the centre, to birdwatchers and nature enthusiasts it is not only an eyesore but a direct threat to the habitat of animals in an area known for its biodiversity"


My Ancestors used to own the land that presently consists of Asa Wright and stretches of the mountains and valley around it. Approximately 100 years ago the land was used for a cocoa estate , and there is still an estate house and a water mill in the valley.


My distant family still owns land in the valley north of Asa Wright and the mountains above it , so i am even more pissed than the average eco-activist.

The EMA as an authority is a huge white elephant that routinely fails to do its job. It might as well be closed down so that taxpayer dollars are saved.


I'v heard the bullshit argument before that it 'isn't in the EMA's purview to be a watchdog' and that the EMA doesnt have such powers..... Which is more crap , the powers the EMA needs to deal protect the environment are already in the Environmental Managment Act 2000.

Section 16 (h) of the act states that : " The functions of the EMA are to take all appropriate action for the prevention and control of pollution and the conservation of the environment"
Section 20 of the Act States that " The Authority has the power to do all things necessary or convenient to be done for or in connection with the performance of its functions" .

Basically the Authority DOES in deed have the power to stop any act that damages the environment . Using broad interpretation a judge can read into the act ANY power that is required for the EMA to protect the environment.
Given that Trinidad and Tobago is a signatory to various International Environmental treaties , such an interpretation of the act must be taken in order to fulfill its treaty obligations ( Joseph and Boyce case and R v Lyons for the law students) .
Now that it can be said that the EMA does have the power to act and deal with environmental abuse , can its lack of action be tolerated?

I personally want all EMA executives to write a public apology to the nation for their incompetence. You are not only destroying the heritage of the nation, but MY personal heritage as well.

Get your act together , remember our tax dollars pay YOU . You are accountable to us. As it stands now the EMA might as well be closed down and those tax dollars saved, because it is failing its job.

Yes i want to fire you from your jobs sirs , and i mean every amount of disrespect that goes with that statement.

Imbert on the new children's Bill

http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Imbert-Bill-could-criminalise-children-142269765.html

It is good that someone is standing up to look at the bill critical and point out the absurdities in the legislation. Criminalizing sex between underage children is madness in a society where a majority of people have had sexual experiences by the age of 13 .

One line in particular i have issue with:
"He also criticised clause 85 of the bill which stated that the local Court would have jurisdiction over incidents that occurred in other countries. Imbert pointed out that laws of this type cannot have an extra-territorial nature"
Imbert is wrong on this point. I just came back from a conference in Jamaica where an american professor of international human rights kept harping to me that the Rape was a crime against humanity thanks to X person who got it included in the treaty establishing the international Criminal Court .
Crimes against humanity that go against basic norms of human rights and international law are triable by any court. Crimes against a state's national are also triable in the home state under the Protective principle of criminal jurisdiction..
I do believe Trinbagonian courts should be allowed to try foreigners who abuse our children in the interest of the best possible protection, such a thing would be a rare occurence in any event.

Its not about "Marriage" , The need to be politically correct on LGBT Rights

"

PNM to discuss policy on same sex marriages

http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/PNM-to-discuss-policy-on-same-sex-marriages-141120073.html

Once again we have a bunch of politicians talking out of their collective asses on issues they do not understand. This time the rhetoric they use does actual damage to the LGBT rights debate in the country.
I am 99% sure that no gay rights group has ever brought a proposal for 'Gay Marriage' to the table . They are simply fighting for basic rights , Equality before the law , Domestic Violence protection , Protection under the Equal Opportunities act which prevents discrimination in the workplace.
To make the debate one about 'gay marriage' does injustice to all parties by spreading misinformation .
Many conservative people do support some basic equality for LGBT persons , but any talk of 'Gay Marriage' is seen by them as an attack on religious institutions and inspire in them only disdain and indifference.

I must commend Rowley for being tactful and setting the issue aside , he could have easily turned it into a gay-bashing session to score points with the crowd , but he didnt.

And i must stress : Any proper discussion on gay rights must bring to the table groups such as CAISO , and persons who are knowledgeable about the issue and will treat with the debate with the care that is necessary.
I would rather not see a bunch of politicians discuss the issue.. At best they will make several misteps , frame the argument badly and then sweep the entire issue under the rug for a few more years. At worst a politician will use gay bashing to score points with the masses , encouraging a climate of hate and intolerance.

And i must stress again : Gay Marriage is a debate that is only relevant to the United States and nations that already have basic equality for LGBT persons , it is not relevant in the caribbean and will not come up as an issue for many years.

Legally , i do believe Gay marriage requires legislative change and thus the support of Parliament and society as a whole, thus it will take time for Caribbean society to change and accept the idea.
Basic Gay rights on the other hand are not an issue for debate , they will be granted either by legislation or through Court action against laws that prevent equality. The constitution of Trinidad and Tobago guarentees Equality of all persons before the law , any law that goes against this is unconstitutional.