BL&P Rate Hearing Completed

No To Increase for Barbados' Poorest

BANGO submitted its closing arguments in the electricity rate hearing. Click here to read a copy.

The three-man team presented it closing arguments selectively on Rate Shock, Lost Revenue and Capital.

Rate Shock deals with the present increases due to the oil prices and argues that any increases will only make matters worse for the poorer population. It reveals that 65,000 workers or 53,000 households are under severe pressure. Some interesting facts came out here.

Lost Revenue questions the fact that TeleBarbados which is an associate company of BL&P, is allowed to attach to poles at nominal rates, while asking consumers to pay for cost recovery. TeleBarbados is not only getting a free ride but they have also been given the entire pole network and this keeps out the competition for TeleBarbados. Very nice cozy position. Overall, BL&P is not seeking to collect a cool $1.6M annually which it should be collecting from C&W and TeleBarbados.

In terms of Capital, the BL&P engaged two experts to do studies. They did studies of North America and not the Caribbean. In this regard we are asking the FTC not to place any reliance on those studies and to commission a study of the Caribbean Stock Exchanges to see how those figures match up before they make a decision of rebalancing equity and debt as sources of raising capital.

Rate Hearing Starts

PHOTO: Rate Hearing at LES Conference Centre

The start of the Rate Hearing into the application by BL&P saw Intervenors making their first contributions after Sir Henry Forde laid out the case for BL&P.

BANGO’s opening was presented by Douglas Skeete. The day was taken up with the presentations and ended with the BL&P introducing its first witness, Mr. Peter Williams, the chief executive officer of the BL&P. Today was day 2 of the hearing. it started out with the cross examination of Mr. Williams by Intervenors. Mr. Clyde Mascoll for the Small Business Association started the cross examination.

By the end of the Day, Mr. Malcolm Taitt of BARCRO was still cross examining. He will continue tomorrow for a short time tomorrow and will be followed by BANGO’s team of Douglas Skeete, Chris Halsall and Roosevelt King in that order.

BANGO recorded an audio version of both Day 1 and Day 2 of the hearing for those who may desire to follow the hearing. We will venture to post links to recording each day. See links for Day 1 and Day 2 below:

Day 1

Rate Hearing 1 of 3

Rate Hearing 2 of 3

Rate Hearing 3 of 3

Day 2

Rate Hearing 1 of 3

Rate Hearing 2 of 3

Rate Hearing 3 of 3

Beware and Be Aware!

Reports from Canada indicate more deaths and illnesses from the vaccine than from swine flu. Apart from the story below which was drawn to public attention by one blogger, here are some more links that can help you cross check its validity:

http://alobar.livejournal.com/3386581.html

http://clareswinney.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/over-a-hundred-sick-after-receiving-tamiflu-vaccine/

http://noliesradio.org/archives/6016

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://a.abcnews.com/images/Health/ap_india_swine_flu_090821_mn.jpg&imgrefurl=http://abcnews.go.com/m/screen%3Fid%3D8380187%26pid%3D26&usg=___QutbkO224twivaXoL-476T_9Ms=&h=240&w=320&sz=28&hl=en&start=15&sig2=s3r2lq1_z4bbhypr1IE5Yw&um=1&tbnid=7bjPANaiXFWpTM:&tbnh=89&tbnw=118&prev=/images%3Fq%3DTamiflu%2Bvaccine%2Bto%2BIndians%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1B3GGGL_enBB306BB306%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1&ei=mZO7SvbXEoT-tAOIw4n8Aw


The real pandemic is caused by flu vaccines and targets minorities

Last week, many of the aboriginal people in the remote west coast village of Ahousaht were innoculated with the tamiflu vaccine. Today, over a hundred of them are sick, and the sickness is spreading.

In the same week, body bags were sent to similarly remote native reserves in northern Manitoba that have also received the tamiflu vaccine.

On the face of things, it appears that flu vaccinations are causing a sickness that is being deliberately aimed at aboriginal people across Canada, and this sickness will be fatal: a fact acknowledged by the Canadian government by their "routine" sending of body bags to these Indian villages.

Before you express your shock and denial at the idea that people are being racially targeted and killed, remember that murdering Indians with vaccinations is not a new or abnormal thing in Canada. Indeed, it's how we Europeans "won the land", and it's one of the ways we keep it.

In 1862, Anglican church missionaries Rev. John Sheepshanks and Robert Brown inoculated interior Salish Indians in B.C. with a live smallpox virus that wiped out entire native communities within a month, just prior to the settlement of this native land by gold prospectors associated with these missionaries and government officials.

In 1909, Dr. Peter Bryce of the Indian Affairs department in Ottawa claimed that Catholic and Protestant churches were deliberately exposing native children to smallpox and tuberculosis in residential schools across Canada, and letting them die untreated. Thousands of children died as a result. (Globe and Mail, April 24, 2007)

In 1932, B.C. provincial police attempted to lay charges against Catholic missionaries who had sent smallpox-laden Indian children back among their families along the Fraser river near Mission, BC. The RCMP intervened and protected the church, even though whole villages were wiped out as a result of the church's actions.

In 1969, native children who escaped from the Nanaimo Indian Hospital on Vancouver Island described being inoculated with shots that caused many of them to die "with bloated up bodies and scabs all over", to quote one survivor.

Knowing this history, it's not surprising when Indians on isolated Canadian reserves start sickening and dying en masse from sudden illnesses, after receiving flu shots. After all, it's still the law in Canada, under the apartheid Indian Act, that no on-reserve Indian can refuse medical treatments or experimentation. So it's small wonder that these reserves are the places being targeted first to be injected with untested, unsafe and potentially lethal flu vaccines.

As an entire race of involuntary test subjects, Indians in Canada are a weather vane for what will befall all of us, and very soon. For the very techniques and weapons of genocide perfected against aboriginal people are now being deployed against "mainstream" Canadians.

Under Bill C-6, which is about to pass third reading in Parliament and become the law, no Canadian will be allowed to refuse inoculations for the swine flu, despite the fact that it is relatively benign and mild, and has killed only people who are already immune-compromised. Indeed, it is astounding that such coercion and dictatorial laws are being employed to deal with what the chief Canadian Health Officer has called a "mild seasonal flu".

Clearly, another agenda is at work; but the time to ascertain and challenge that agenda has all but run out. This coming month, forced inoculations and imprisonment of those who refuse them may be a reality across Canada. And for what reason? Clearly, not for public health, considering the sickness and death caused by previous swine flu vaccines.

I believe that the real pandemic is about to be unleashed through the very vaccines being pushed by governments and pharmaceutical giants like Novartis and Glaxo Smith Kline. The shots will be the cause, not the cure, of the pandemic. Of course, those in power can disprove this by simply being the first people to take the swine flu shot: an event about as likely as these companies forgoing the multi-billion dollar profits they will reap from the mass vaccinations.

It's indeed ironic that, very soon, many "white" Canadians may be suffering the same fate that aboriginal people have for centuries. Perhaps it's fitting. For if we are indeed being targeted for extermination, or at the least martial law and dictatorship, we finally can have the chance to shed our complicity in the genocide of other people, and get on the right side of humanity - simply by having to fight the system that is causing mass murder.

Source: http://www.sott.net/articles/show/193626-The-real-pandemic-is-caused-by-flu-vaccines-and-targets-minorities

Tamiflu Side Effects

Noting that the Ministry of Health has been advising Barbadians to use Tamiflu against the spread of swine flu, you should note that this is not without its problems and that all the side effects of Tamiflu are not know. The other hazard is that Tamiflu may cause side effects if used with other drugs and dietary supplements. Here is an advisory from drugs.com:

Tamiflu Side Effects

Stop using Tamiflu and get emergency medical help if you have any of these signs of an allergic reaction: hives; difficulty breathing; swelling of your face, lips, tongue, or throat; a red and blistering or peeling skin rash. Some people using oseltamivir have had rare side effects of sudden confusion, delirium, hallucinations, unusual behavior, or self-injury. These symptoms have occurred most often in children. It is not known whether Tamiflu was the exact cause of these symptoms. However, anyone using this medicine should be watched closely for signs of confusion or unusual behavior. Call a doctor at once if you or the child using Tamiflu has any of these symptoms.

Less serious Tamiflu side effects may include:

• nausea, vomiting, diarrhea;
• dizziness, headache;
• nosebleed;
• eye redness or discomfort;
• sleep problems (insomnia); or
• cough or other respiratory symptoms.

This is not a complete list of side effects and others may occur.

What other drugs will affect Tamiflu?
There may be other that can interact with Tamiflu. Tell your doctor about all the prescription and over-the-counter medications you use. This includes vitamins, minerals, herbal products, and drugs prescribed by other doctors. Do not start using a new medication without telling your doctor.

Experts warned dispersal of Tamiflu would do more harm than good

News
World news
Swine flu

guardian.co.uk, Sunday 16 August 2009 21.30 BST
By James Sturcke

The government rejected advice from its expert advisers on swine flu, who said there was no need for the widespread use of Tamiflu and suggested that the public should simply be told to take paracetamol.

An independent panel set up by the Department of Health warned ministers that plans to make the stockpiled drug widely available could do more harm than good, by helping the flu virus to develop resistance to the drug.

But ministers pressed ahead with a policy of mass prescription, fearing the public would not tolerate being told that the millions of doses of Tamiflu held by the state could not be used during a pandemic, one of the committee members has told the Guardian.

"It was felt ... it would simply be unacceptable to the UK population to tell them we had a huge stockpile of drugs but they were not going to be made available," Professor Robert Dingwall, a member of the Committee on Ethical Aspects of Pandemic Influenza, said.

Today one of the country's foremost flu experts called for the national helpline to be shut down to stop hundreds of thousands of doses of Tamiflu going out in an unregulated way, which could render it useless when a more dominant strain returns in the autumn.

As it became clear that the current outbreak only had mild symptoms, the committee recommended that antivirals should only be given to those in high risk categories, like pregnant women or people with existing respiratory illnesses. It suggested the government explain to people that they would not be given medicine they did not need and should use off-the- shelf flu treatments.

"There were discussions within the Health Protection Authority and the Department of Health, once it became clear that swine flu was a relatively mild infection, about whether to reserve antivirals for high-risk groups and to advise the general population to treat themselves with paracetamol or ibuprofen," said Dingwall, director of the Institute for Science and Society at Nottingham University.

"Some people wanted to take a long-term view of the risk of resistance developing and to seek to preserve the effectiveness of antivirals for the next pandemic, which may be more severe."

Last month, the government launched the national pandemic flu service which authorised more than 511,000 courses of Tamiflu and Relenza treatment during its first fortnight in operation.

Oxford University researchers have warned that antivirals are not a "magic bullet" against flu, and that resistance to the drug could develop, making it useless to fight any future and potentially more serious pandemic flu strain.

The concern was seconded by flu expert Hugh Pennington, emeritus professor at Aberdeen University, who called for the national flu line to be shut down.

"I am concerned about the vast amount of Tamiflu that is going out almost unregulated," he told the Guardian. "We are increasing the possibility that the flu will become resistant sooner or later. At the moment there is no desperate need for Tamiflu. We should be reconsidering its issue, rather than encouraging its use.

"I think we should stop the national pandemic flu service. It was put there for an outbreak of far higher mortality than we have. If you get a resistant strain that becomes dominant in the autumn, Tamiflu will then be useless."

A senior government adviser, Prof Peter Openshaw, said the government was told during the early stages of the current outbreak of the "significant side effects" that Tamiflu was causing in some people.

"I think there was, in some quarters, a slight over-optimism about the acceptability of prophylactic medication and its effectiveness," said Openshaw, a member of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies. "Maybe some of the less clinical scientific advisers perhaps slightly over-inflated expectations of the ease and efficiency of antiviral treatment. Many of us who do clinical work and are clinically trained had a bit more of a jaundiced view of how things may turn out."

Openshaw said antivirals were effective only if used within 36 to 48 hours of symptoms developing. "If the treatment is delayed they are relatively ineffective.

"On the other hand, we do have this large stockpile available and I think there is an advantage in trying to treat cases early, in order to reduce the severity and the number of patients who end up needing hospital care."

Such a policy could "blunt" a spike of cases, reducing pressure on health resources, he said.

The pandemic ethical committee was set up at the request of Sir Liam Donaldson, the chief medical officer, to assist planners and policy makers with ethical aspects of decisions they face in a pandemic, such as how to allocate scarce drugs when many people are sick.

At its last meeting in May, when it was already becoming clear that the current H1N1 strain was causing a relatively mild disease in most people, the committee discussed the government's antiviral strategy.

Members feared that the widespread use of antivirals in the current outbreak was incompatible with the principle of minimising harm, minutes from the meeting show. The current outbreak did not alter the risk of a more serious flu pandemic developing in the future. There would be ethical concerns if the blanket use of antivirals compromised their effectiveness in the future.

Members said it was important to use antivirals in the most appropriate way, not just because the government had a stockpile of the drugs. The committee called on the government to explain to the public that they were no cure for flu.

The committee concluded that it would be appropriate to offer antivirals as treatment only for those in risk groups, or with underlying conditions.

In a statement, the Department of Health said: "Protecting the public is the prime concern of our strategy, which has been shaped by advice from the most eminent specialists from the beginning.

"There is still doubt about how swine flu affects people – a safety-first approach is the best approach. This means offering antivirals when required. However, we will keep this policy under review as we learn more about the virus and its effects. This is in line with the views of both the Committee on Ethical Aspects of Pandemic Influenza and of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/16/swine-flu-tamiflu-helpline-paracetamol

Listen to Professor Hugh Pennington warning of Drug Resistant Swine Flu Strain - Pop out audio.

Barbados Consumers' Watch

New Consumer Organisation on Membership Drive

Photo: Annette Beckett

It's time to cut the talk and get involved. The only way that consumers will get their rights is for consumers themselves to get up and to do something about it. This is the message on the membership form of the Check it out: Barbados Consumers' Watch being circulated, seeking membership.

Do you think that we need a strong consumer body? The form queries. "What do you think a consumer organisation can do for you and the consumers of Barbados?" it continues.

The driving force behind the new organisation is none other than Ms. Annette Beckett, former President of the Barbados Netball Association, who has been several times commended for her leadership in Netball.

There is no doubt that Barbados does need a strong consumer organisation, but it can only happen if you the consumers answer the call to come together. We sincerely hope that you come out and support Annette with this effort.

This effort is being supported by BANGO because of its attempt to attract mass membership. This is an opportunity to create an organisation to support you the consumer and to keep you informed with new information and also to build an archive of standards which could be accessed by members.

This effort is so necessary at a time when global economic arrangements include free trade. This means that Government can no longer impose such mechanisms as price controls and it is now up to the consumer to take guard in order to enjoy the level of consumerism we had before.

It is now for consumers to monitor such things as quality and safety. We need to be linked to such agencies as the FDA and hundreds of standards bodies across the globe as well as to our own BNSI. This has nothing to do with studying legislation and interpreting the limits of the legislation as well as intervening into public hearings or even going to the consumer Claims Tribunal. This new organisation promises this level of consumer services.

The Organisation already has a blog site where consumers can find relevant information and at the same time watch Consumer TV bringing the latest consumer news, features, documentaries, hearings and lectures.

You may download a copy of the Membership Form here and when you are finished completing and returning it, visit: Barbados Consumers' Watch.

Google Court Decision Guarantees Public Protection on the Internet

Abusers to Pay for "Transgressions"

I feel compelled to post this as a means of helping users to get an understanding of where they legally stand with internet usage. I believe that everyone should know their rights and when it comes to the internet, rights are hazy in the minds of the public. Many who are connected to the internet browse with much fear of viruses and other threats, especially theft of their identity; we hear the horror stories of identity theft and wish it not to be visited upon us.

It is important to note that when you start a blog or use any virtual platform like facebook, you agree to the terms of service of the provider. The action of BFP to post a defamatory article exceeded professional boundaries and breached the wordpress terms to which it had agreed. This defamatory exposition followed a long period of time where bloggers using BU were harassed, threatened and bullied to stop commenting on BU. It is a very important point because all along, BFP have been insinuating that BU commenters are without quality and that the BFP blog is superior. These are myths which must be debunked because from the wordpress policy on freedom of speech, a blog thread will only be removed if it contravenes wordpress’ Terms of Service and a blog thread was removed from BFP by wordpress.

It means that BFP breached the Terms of Service of Wordpress.com and that wordpress took action against them based on the complaint of a private citizen. The next step for a private citizen who has been so harmed is to apply to the court for an order of pre-action disclosure to aid in bringing an action against the perpetrator.

I have only recently seen a copy of the Judgement in the Google case and after reading it, my conclusion is that this ruling is very relevant to us and brings the “virtual” internet environment in touch with the reality of modern day life, in such a way that there is no erosion of established rights and freedoms.

It seems obvious too that the USA is miles ahead of us down here struggling with these issues. This is obviously not the first such USA Court ruling as precedents are cited. Further, it is interesting to note how the legal principles have been transposed to the virtual environment, to make it a certainty that any citizen whose rights are infringed by an anonymous person on the internet has a guarantee from the court that it will force disclosure of the identity of the transgressor. Barbados did pass an act dealing with the use of the computer and digital transactions but I am unable to put my hands on it right now.

However, there can be no debate that the computer is an extension of the person and the internet is an extension of our environment where everything that happens in public is or can be at the fingertips of each user; transcending time lapses and distances between locations.

Of interest, here is the Court’s take on internet usage:

The court also rejects the Anonymous Blogger’s argument that this court should find as a matter of law that Internet blogs serve as a modern day forum for conveying personal opinions, including invective and ranting, and that the statements in this action when considered in that context, cannot be reasonably understood as factual assertions. To the contrary, as one court in Virginia has articulated: “In that the Internet provides a virtually unlimited, inexpensive, and almost immediate means of communication with tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people, the dangers of its misuse cannot be ignored. The protection of the right to communicate anonymously must be balanced against the need to assure that those persons who choose to abuse the opportunities presented by this medium can be made to answer for such transgressions. Those who suffer damages as a result of tortious or other actionable communications on the Internet should be able to seek appropriate redress by preventing the wrongdoers from hiding behind an illusory shield of purported First Amendment rights.”

Anonymity has always been a bother to me. When I walk down Broad Street I am not anonymous so why when I go out into the “virtual” world I must be anonymous to the point where I am a shadow or a phantom? Hence, what the court has done is reinforced the principle that “transgressors” cannot do wrong and get away with it. Conversely, the court also guarantees that if you have not done a wrong, your anonymity will be protected.

In the Google case, for example, the test employed here was to determine if a wrong was committed. Google contended that no wrong was committed. The Judgment states:

“In opposing (the) petitioner’s application, the Anonymous Blogger contends that (the) petitioner is not entitled to pre-action discovery because she cannot demonstrate a meritorious claim for defamation.”

Similarities lie in the two cases because on all points of law, BFP had “prima facie” defamed. There was/is nothing to contend. The defamation came by saying that an identifiable citizen and public personality was “protecting” (definitively) criminal activity; an accusation that is capable of being either proved or disproved.

The second element of the BFP case was malice because the BFP author admitted that the information could be confirmed on the internet and failed to give due consideration to the fact that it was out of the jurisdiction of Barbados and hence there could be no withholding of information from the Barbados Police.

Note that the courts proclaimed that abusers must be made to pay for “their transgressions”. Society cannot tolerate such abuse with impunity because it would wreak havoc on the society and it ought not to be inflicted on the society. However, without strong evidence that a wrong has been perpetrated, anonymity is protected. In the case of BFP there is a strong case that defamation was perpetrated; based on a statement that can be proven false and evidence that the conclusion is outrageous and could not be construed as fair comment. The Judge had this to say about such an eventuality under the term “Pre-Action Disclosure”:

"The law in New York governing pre-action discovery is well settled. CPLR 3 102(c) requires a court order for pre-action disclosure to aid in bringing an action or to preserve information. See Matter of Uddin v. New York Citv Transit Authority, 27 AD3d 265,266 (1st Dept 2006). When a party seeks pre-action disclosure to secure additional information necessary to frame a complaint or to identify the proper defendant with respect to a known cause of action, “courts traditionally require a strong showing that a cause of action exists.” Siegel, Supplementary Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 31025 at 92. “‘A petition for pre-action discovery should only be granted when the petitioner demonstrates that he or she has a meritorious cause of action and that the information sought is material and necessary to the actionable wrong.”’ Matter Uddin v. New York Citv Transit Authority, supra at 266 (quoting Holzman v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authoritv, 271 AD2d 346, 347 [1st Dept 2000]); accord Matter of Peters v. Southeby’s Inc., 34 AD3d 29, 34 (1st Dept 2006), lv app den 8 NY3d 809 (2007); Matter of Bliss v. Jafin, 176 AD2d 106, 108 (1st Dept 1991); Matter of Stewart v. New York City Transit Authority, 112 AD2d 939 (2nd Dept 1985). “As a general rule, ‘the adequacy of merit rests within the sound discretion of the court. ’”

The courts recognise that the internet is a legitimate means of communications which has become commonplace and, to the extent that it is a public tool, it has to be for public benefit; as such the courts’ mandate as the judicial arm of the State is to ensure that it is safe for public use. The courts are therefore protecting blogs like Barbados Underground, which have objectives of freedom of speech; frank and free discussion at the national level on national issues and interests, but more important, has no hidden agenda to cause harm.

What this established is the boundaries where free speech and the anonymous use of the internet stops. The lessons learned are that you can blog your fingers off so long as you do not defame or commit other offenses such as being a nuisance or persecuting people or any actionable offenses which can be committed via the internet. Here is where the word “Transgressions” as used by the court is best understood because it does not stop at defamation; “Transgressions” is construed here to cover the spectrum of rights and responsibilities which we publicly enjoy.

Having said the above it is your right and your duty to ensure that none of these transgressions are inflicted upon you. By taking a stand, and for every transgression corrected, the more we will enjoy the rights given to us under our constitution and laws of Barbados. The downside of not standing up is that you will be bullied and intimidated as was experienced on BU.

A good guideline for blogging can be found in the wordpress.com policy on abuse and freedom of speech. Under abuse, wordpress states:
In addition to spam and copyright issues, we will suspend blogs or blog posts for the following types of abuse: • Personal threats and revealing of personal information • Calls to violence • Impersonation of a private person • Accusations that can be proven wrong (for example wrongfully calling someone a convicted felon)

Under freedom of speech wordpress is even more instructive. It states:

“The team behind WordPress.com strongly believes in freedom of speech. Our service is designed to let internet users freely express any ideas and opinions without us censoring or endorsing them. We think this has led to many great blogs being published on WordPress.com. However, you may also find the occasional blog that offends you. It might offend us as well, but while we are strict about shutting down blogs that violate our terms of service (no spam, personal threats, incitement of violence, etc), we will not shut down blogs because they are offensive. We think the right response to bad or offensive ideas is to speak out against them, not to censor them.”

In this regard, Barbados Underground should rise to the occasion and hold itself up as the example for all to see and follow because it has stuck within the boundaries of the terms of service of wordpress. Obviously, contributors, without any idea of the law or terms of service were able to gauge what was reasonable and acceptable.

As for the operators of blogs like David who may feel that they may be the target of a law suit in the event that an anonymous blogger defames somebody. If we take the cue from Google, David’s only legal duty is to release the name of the offender so long as it can be established that an actionable offence has been committed. As a matter of fact, there is nothing wrong with BU adopting a policy to disclose in such circumstances because we cannot be seen as harbouring wrongdoers. To reinforce what I said earlier, it must be established that an “actionable wrong” was committed before an identity is released.

The courts are certainly championing the cause of freedom of speech and the protection of individual rights. Furthermore, a lot more is recognised and settled in law than we realise and we should seek to familiarise ourselves or be taken advantage of by those who would seek to abuse.

Internet Anonymity – A Civic Responsibility

Barbados Free Press – Censored for defamation

It is with a sense of justice that I can report that wordpress.com has removed an offending story from the Barbados Free Press (BFP) Blog, intended defame me and bring the Barbados Association of Non Governmental Organisations into disrepute. BANGO made an official complaint to wordpress.com and they proceeded to immediately remove the thread from BFP.

Indeed the act by BFP was so malicious, that its headline featured prominently in the search engines of google. This also had implications for the good name of the people and the country of Barbados. On seeing this, the question arose in my mind, could this be a Barbadian operating this blog? With its removal by wordpress, this site with the offending thread is no longer turning up in Google search engines.

This brings into sharp focus responsibilities which go with rights. If the idea of internet anonymity is to prevail, those who cherish it must engage those who will use it to do evil to others. It is certainly commonsense that society cannot allow a situation to prevail where individual rights and freedoms can be infringed with impunity; or a situation where a person’s reputation could be maliciously damaged without any recourse to justice.

Quite simply, the law is slowly catching up on those with hidden agendas, who will seek to abuse what is for the public good to achieve their own ends. In this case it seems that the matter of defaming me was used by BFP to bring readers to their blog. Imagine that! The destruction of a person’s reputation is worth getting a few internet users to visit a blog?

The legal breakthrough came with the decision in the Google case and this action by wordpress.com sends home the message that a Google decision can be given by the court again. Furthermore, given the decision and order of the court a clear precedent is established. Therefore the one question that is to be tested is whether the googles and the wordpresses can be sued as accomplices where they refuse to release the identity of an offender in light of the precedent.

What is left to be pursued in this matter is the removal of a second thread which BFP subsequently posted continuing the defamation as well as the identity of the perpetrator.

In the end, this is a victory for free speech because the attempt here was to shut me up and in the process shut up all those who blog on the Barbados Underground; which has become known for its free and frank exchange of comments and opinions. On the other hand, BFP frequently bans those who do not conform to their “orders”.

Indeed, censorship is not a nice thing to have to do if you believe in free speech. BFP certainly got a dose of its own medicine. Any blog which has to be censored for breaching individual rights is certainly not the one to be held up as an example, except for what is not free speech; i.e. where the limit on free speech ends. I will certainly not visit that blog site again or comment or participate in any way. I would advise internet users to seek reputable blog sites to exchange views and comments.

BL&P Rate Hearing

PHOTO (L-R): Chris Halsall and Doug Skeete appearing for BANGO and Sir Henry Forde, counsel for the Applicant is backing.

The process of the Rate Hearing on the application of the Barbados Light & Power Co. Ltd. will continue on Thursday 3rd September 2009 with a Confidentiality Hearing and an Issues Conference in the order following each other on the same day.

Today was the deadline for submissions in support of interventions and for objections to confidentiality. See links below to documents that are part of the public record. If we are able to get electronic copies of other submissions on the public record, we will make them available.

Your comments are welcomed.

BP&P Application, affidavits and exhibits
BANGO submission
BANGO objection to confidentiality

A Message from the Youth

A classic case of Double standards?

Photo: Jason Francis, President of BYDC

“….Of all the things that struck me in the coverage was the appearance of Senator Griffith. To be more specific, the fact that he attended the swearing-in ceremony with his hair in cornrow style. While he was otherwise well dressed I am of the view that the hairstyle was inappropriate, given the traditions of our Parliament.” Farley, Matthew. “Cornrows not nice for Senate.” The Nation Newspaper 14 Feb 2008.

The recent announcement of new Senator Attorney-At-Law Arthur Holder has sparked some interesting questions in the mind of all forward thinking young people across Barbados. Indeed these questions arise not as to his political affinity or to his competencies but certainly as it relates to the issue of personal appearance particularly the choice to wear cornrows or “plaits” in such hallowed halls as our Upper Chamber. It is difficult to forget the furor ignited when such a personal choice was made into such a contentious issue during last year’s Senate appointments.

One might recall that Prime Minister David Thompson’s appointment of youth leader Damien Griffith to the Upper Chamber last year brought much uproar from such noted public figures as Principal and social commentator Mr. Matthew Farley. However this time around there seems to be a deafening silence from such quarters, especially given the fact that Mr. Holder’s hair style is certainly more pronounced than that of Senator Griffith’s on his appointment. One can vividly remember the emotionally laden and grossly unsubstantiated arguments posited; that allowing Senator Griffith to enter such hallowed walls with his well kept cornrows would precipitate the swift degradation of the august chamber and other such institutions to such levels that “female Senators would flaunt their breast in the face of the President.”

Our young people however have not sat idly by but have taken note, and the numerous concerns on the issue have prompted the Barbados Youth Development Council to ask the question, is this a case of the growing double standards and hypocrisy in our society? For while Mr. Farley called on the custodians of the state “to caution against permitting fashion, fads and elements of the bashment culture invading our institutions” our young people must also act as guardians to ensure that the majority among us who give selflessly to our beloved nation and set positive examples for our peers are not pilloried at the whims and fancies of those who may speak loudest in our society.

Our young people are not for one moment suggesting that they find fault with Mr. Holder’s hair just as we respected and embraced Senator Griffith’s choice of hairstyle on his appointment to the Senate. We recognize that there are norms and values within our society which give rise to our institutions. We also realize however that society is fluid, elusive and changing and while certain norms might remain others will evolve and as long as they do not contribute to the degradation of our society then consideration should be given to embrace them. It was not too long ago that the lack of political rights and freedoms were normalized and institutionalized under colonialism; yet change was embraced so that today we the descendants of a once oppressed people may be able to occupy such spaces as the august chamber of our Upper House. Are we to hold on to those things from our past which have no positive bearing on our future? Do we not have a mind of our own to reshape our institutions to best reflect the diversity and fluidity of our society without causing social upheaval? I believe that question was answered when Senator Griffith took the oath before His Excellency Sir Clifford Husbands. Herein perhaps lies part of the irony and bewilderment for our young people where as a presumably sovereign nation state seeking to go forward we still cling to certain vestiges of our past. For Senator Griffith in that moment of taking the oath whilst adorned in his cornrows, might have represented a desire to assert his sense of identity and self a problem which so many of us still grapple with and refuse to admit. Yet he confronts in the office of His Excellency a symbol of our former colonial rulers and a lingering psyche embedded in our people.

As young people we are open to change, change which will engender a more peaceful, purposeful and productive society for all. Just over forty years ago we confronted and overcame a struggle which retarded us on the basis of the colour of our skin and ascription of a specific socio-economic class. Are we today renewing that struggle based on the length of a man’s years (age) instead of the depth of his character? As youth of this nation just as we embraced Senator Griffith’s choice of hairstyle we are very much open to embracing a departure from the double standards in our society. We therefore call on the custodians of the state (including Mr. Farley) to join us in renouncing such double standards which can have an equally debilitating effect as any perceived socially dysfunctional behavior. The silence brought to bear on the appointment of a new Senator with his maturity, experience and eminence is just as audible and forceful as the castigation of a young Senator with less, experience and prominence. Our young people are listening attentively be careful what you say, or rather refuse not to say!

Yours humbly

Jason K.A Francis

President

BYDC