Illegitimacy or powerlessness?
November 26, 2000
By A. H. Hotep
Legitimacy or power starts with learning the laws and either obeying the existing laws or advancing reasonable arguments and actions to have the laws changes.
No one is simply going to win a Parliamentary seat by default, that is poor reasoning. They may win because the other parties were not legally qualified to go up. The opposition candidates have their support in the districts and they should benefit from the false declarations of the two UNC candidates. They are winning by 'de fault' of Gypsy and Chaitan who were at most dishonest and at least stupid. (I believe both)
No amount of diatribe by Mr. Solomon could excuse these two men from lying and breaking the law. I welcome Mr. Solomon's history lesson which should be recognised and is instructive for the future. Unfortunately I have been calling for programs to treat with our history and I have never heard Mr. Solomon support this call. We should not accept using history to attempt to legitimize a present wrong. These 'gentlemen' were not so reflective before breaking the law. I myself offered Gypsy the opportunity to learn his history and he disregarded my gesture. He disqualified himself from using that knowledge to inform his actions.
The intent of the law was to discriminate against persons who freely choose to hold dual citizenships. They declared oaths to put the interest of a foreign nation first. Read the oath:
“I HEREBY declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, State or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States of America when required by law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
Having served their personal and other foreign interests, they would have liked to gain an unfair advantage over other people who were not so privileged and who stuck it out in the hope of improving this country.
The intent should have been to deny persons from gaining access to the highest offices of the land when these people cannot prove that they have committed themselves to improving this country and certainly if these people know in advance they could run away from the consequences of the decisions they make.
I wonder if Mr. Solomon is advancing an argument in his own interest because he may have dual citizenship and would like to be a parliamentarian. If so, he should advance arguements for having the law changed and not try to confuse the issue.
If these characters with dual citizenship feel they can impart something to the natives, let them join the teaching profession, but certainly not add to the amount of foreign spin doctoring that takes place because a few people feel they have acquired the foreign skill of manipulating language.
Most of these people who hold dual citizenship and are vying for prominent political positions; they would like access to the treasury plus have the stature of being ministers to improve their personal positions here and abroad. They do not take oaths seriously and are the worst examples of leaders. Denying them is to prevent more people from doing foolishness in high offices.
This dual citizenship issue is a separate discussion from the fact that Gypsy and Chaitan knew what the requirements were before nomination day and they never protested the requirements. The government also knew of this pitfall as Independent senator Spencer brought it up in parliament in September and "Ramesh himself advised Jamaican-born candidate Robert Saunds about the illegitimacy of running for office with dual citizenship," as reported by Donna Yawching.
All parties knew of the requirements before nomination day and there should be no delay in disqualifying these two 'gentlemen'.
The debate about the law can take place after parliament resumes following the elections.
Back to stealing elections
Back / Home
|