Aware of the need for constructive, national dialogue on the niggling issue of the participation of individuals with dual citizenship in our development process particularly at the level of parliament, I submitted a personal comment on the subject matter which was published on the DNO website on October 20th 2011.
The piece was designed more to stimulate discussion with a view to not only keeping the subject on the front burner of national dialogue but also at raising the discussions above the political mudslinging. I truly anticipated the public’s response including the diaspora. True to expectation, there was some reaction. I thank those who commented on the submission even though they may have questions about a particular statement that was made. I am grateful too for the kind words. Please let us continue to debate and discuss the issue.
Two days or so after the piece was published a prominent Dominican in the diaspora, Dr. Emmanuel Finn penned his own thoughts and caused the same to be published on DNO as well. I do not know whether he saw my piece or even read it before he made his submission, but clearly, judging from the presentation, he does not come across as someone who is interested in assisting to raise the public dialogue from the crass partisan positions that have bedeviled the same to date.
In fact he appears to be more interested in the outcome of the ongoing court case against Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit and Hon. Petter St. Jean. He wants the court to behave in a particular way and unless it does so then …………….,……….. oh my! God knows what.
According to Dr. Finn, the court would have dispensed a significant misjudgment on jurisprudence in Dominica if it ruled again the petitioners (Messrs Ron Green and Maynard Joseph). That appears to be what is occupying his thoughts and therefore seriously clouding his view on the matter of dual citizenship and its place in our development process.
Compare Dr. Finn’s article with that of Reverend William Watty, one of Dominica’s foremost independent thinkers which was published in the Sun Newspaper on Monday October 24th 2011. Whilst Dr. Watty referenced his arguments on the ongoing court matter he did not stop there. In fact he went on to identify the weakness in the constitution and also to make a very forceful and what I consider an impassioned plea for immediate remedial action on the matter, failing which we would be short changing in our responsibilities as a people to properly order the development process.
In particular, Rev. Watty advanced the view that the specific provision in the constitution dealing with the topic should be revised to eliminate any doubts or second guessing about the real intentions of the forefathers when they drafted the document which is to limit participation in Dominica’s parliamentary business only to those without dual citizenship – period. We do not have to agree with all of his opinions, but I see a clear demonstration of where the discussion ought to go. Let all ideas contend.
Whatever the court’s ruling in the ongoing subject, it will not solve the vexing issue of whether we ought to provide for the participation of Dominicans with dual nationalities in our parliamentary system of governance. This to my mind is the greater, more encompassing concern that has to feature in our political discussion. The court should be allowed to settle the present issue as it has the mandate and capability to do just that. We should not by inference, innuendo or straight talking begin to cast aspersions on the court system long before it settles with a decision. Clearly there were sufficient arguments on either side of the matter for the court to spend almost two weeks listening to arguments as presented by two very experienced and learned attorneys.
The High Court is the institution that was designed by our fore fathers to interpret the provisions of the constitution when such disagreement arises. Our selfish motives and great capacity to argue moral and ethical values as well as present political arguments are not what will decide the case. There are rules that have been established in law for litigation which must be followed. In order words, political, ethical, moral and partisan arguments as are freely aired in the media are not entertained in our system of jurisprudence. So, by Job, let us stick to the existing rules of court procedures and allow the court do its work. The court will decide one way or another. If we seek the intervention of the court, we would have recognized the system by which the court functions and so we must allow the court to do its work
I do not know if Dr. Finn has dual citizenship but the question that must be answered, even after the court case is settled is, Should we or shouldn’t we create the opportunities for people like Dr. Emmanuel Finn and others to participate in the political process in Dominica at the level of parliament and government? That is the issue. It will not be settled if the court orders a bye-election in the La Plaine constituency and removes Hon. Roosevelt Skerrit as Parliamentary Representative for Veille Case and then hand the seat to Maynard Joseph, the elections petitioner. Nor will the issue be settled if the court rules that the petitioners (Ron Green and Maynard Joseph) did not or could not prove their case. The outcome of this matter (at the High Court or Court of Appeal) will only tell us whether the individuals in question contested the elections illegally or not. That is all. Should the discussion end there? I do not think so.
Here is another impartial plea to elevate the discussion above simple partisan considerations and our frustrations over the results of the December 2009 General Elections. As a people we must clearly decide “yes” or “no” to the question. I have already advanced the view that there is room for every contending, statesman-like opinion. None should be left out of the equation. We will not settle the issue by simply pointing fingers at Prime Minister Skerrit, Mr. Petter St. Jean or for that matter Mr. Ron Green and or Maynard Joseph.
Below is a copy of a comment I made previously on this issue. I read your piece last week and I am pleased that the discussion continues! One of the things that confuses me, is the intensity of disdain that our folks in Dominica feel for our compatriots who chose to migrate for one reason or another! In the USA with it’s abundance of resources, both human and natural, a person not American-born, can occupy almost any government position, except the presidency. The examples are numerous, Schwartzeneger, Rubio, Albright, Colin Powel etc. Yet we, with our paucity of resources, are so bent on keeping well-intentioned dominicans out, that we are willing to cut our noses to spite our faces. I hope that one day, we can pause and think calmly and rationally about this important, and maybe even pivotal issue!
September 8, 2011 Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 7 0
Oh I am so sorry for DA, and feel pity for Ron Green. You know “thief never like to see other people with long bag”. Ron Green has admitted to being a repeated offender, and should not have been at the front of this legal action. He has lost all credibility and trust, and made himself a “political has-been”, his political career is now naught. I would like to ask Mr. Green, if like all good US citizen, did he file his income tax annually, and did he vote in the US elections using absentee ballots? I ask this because when Rosie brought up the idea of Dominicans overseas being able to vote by absentee ballot, these were the people who were against it, yet were enjoying these benefits for themselves. Oh the hypocrisy!!
I think that the Dominican constitution must be upheld, and justice must be done. However, when an act(legal/illegal) has been allowed to occur repeatedly, it becomes a custom. The law must be equally and justly applied to all every time, not only sometime.
The discussion that should really be held now,is to allow Dominican expatriots to be able to hold public office after being back home for a specified period of time! Dominica would benefit more from that for sure!!
Correction: Colin Powell was April 5, 1937 in Harlem. But I completely agree with your position.
I think it all comes down to jealousy. But that is not unique to Dominica. This is a human condition.
There is nothing wrong with the constitution, and it does not need to be changed.
But there is something wrong with black people, who are dishonest, and envious. The constitution provides for dual nationals, it also provides for any of us taking part n our elections, all it is asking of us is commitment. Why will anyone want to change the laws of the land for their selfish purposes.
Why do you want a loophole to escape too, if you are truly wanting to serve the people who voted for you.
say the constitution stays, it does not need changing, but the minds and hearts of Dominicans, need to be changed from the hatred they have against one another and the greed and jealousy.
so mr charles… u wrote an article called ‘raising the bar’ simply to discuss why mr finn’s article wasn’t good… or didn’t raise the bar and was politically minded or motivated…hhmmm so that’s ‘raising the bar’….??
There is no such thing as a “French Passport” France is a member of the EEC, so French people have an EEC Passport, so for anyone to say they seea French Passport is talking rubbish. The difference is Ron Green has a USA Passport and never a Dominican Passport, becasue the USA did not allow Duel citizenship,so for 20 years Ron sat in the House as an American but that was fine, because Eddison James saw him as a Dominican, yet as an American Ron takes the PM to court saying he has a French Passport and demanding to see that Passport, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FRENCH PASSPORT! I guess the difference is Ron Green only had USA Citizenship, and never Dominica becasue you have to give up your birth passport to get a USA Passport, but as a EEC Passport Holder you can still have you Birth place Passport!
WRONG.!!!!!!!!!!!!…. My passport is written ” Republique Francaise” so it is indeed a French passport.
France is part of the European Economic Community EEC but they did not renounce their sovereignty!!!!
john Thomas, Why are you posting lies to justify wrong doing? I am a Dominican born who holds a US Passport for 25 years now. I have always had my Dominican passport and NEVER have I been asked to give up my Dominican passport because I have US citizenship. FYI, I travel to DA every year and have always presented my DA passport immigration upon my arrival to Dominica or any of the caribbean islands. I only use my US passport when I am entering the US port and thiat I have been doing for over 25 years. So stop your lies and speak the truth.
ABSOLUTE RUBISH! THE LAW IS CLEAR U SHOULD NOT BE NOMINATED IF U HAVE ALEGANCE TO ANY OTHER COUNTRY, OTHER THAN A COMMONWEALTH COUNTRY. STOP PLAYING POLITIC! NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW AND CONSTITUTION.
It is not CLEAR because there is a court case trying to establish “allegiance’ under the law.
If it were clear…there’d not be a court case.
Furthermore, VAZ is the only precedent which we have on this issue… and perhaps there maybe distinguishing factors at hand.
Either ways…at the end of the day, the courts decision will give new interpretation to the meaning of that s. of the Constitution
WELL SINCE YOU LEFT DOMINICA SOME 38 YEARS AGO AND IS NOW A CANADIAN CITIZEN MAYBE YOU CAN EXPLAIN WHY THE ACCUSED MUST POROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR THE ACCUSER’S CASE ,AND WHAT HAPENED TO “INNOSENT UNTILL PROVED GUILTY BEYOND SHADOW OF DOUBT” .WHY MAKE LABOURITES VICTIMS AND SCAPEGOATS BECAUSE THE LOST AN ELLECTION .IT IS NOT JUSTICE THEY WANT- JUST REVENGE
Is the brother singing for his super? sure sounds like that to me.
The article I must admit is quite articulate.
But really and truely, why spend so much time on Dr. Finn? I would believe that the writer is fresh from a law program and is using this avenue to showcase some of his knowledge or lack of to shine light on the issue of dual citizenship.. but to structure his writing in a way to tilt away from balance is way imbalance…
it is evident that the culture of rot from the top is permiating the middle class and academia as well.
Brother you need to explore the underlying reason for having the section dealing with dual citizenship on the statutes…
this way you will be educating readers like me. then if I am knowledgeable enough I will add to the arguement for allowing the participating of dual citizens in our election. right now I still believe in the saying “you cannot have your cake and eat it” Do you think that if LIncoln and Reagan had spent all their years in England working then return to the Us and run for president…those dual citizens of ours would be in the US? there must be some merit in the piece of legislation.. I want some more insight on it…
by the way “if you cannot take the heat, dont come in the JAm”
I am sure the writer is not the the young attorney who was recently called to the bar provoking those comments. The point is, can we focus on the issue at hand? Finding out who the writer is will not assist in the discussion. The brother is sharing his thoughts. You either like his thoughts/opinions or you do not like the ideas. He did not say he was singing for his supper.It would seem to me that anytime someone would say something complimentary about our peopel and country he/she is classified as “singing for their supper”. It would seem too that if one goes on an anti-Skerrit tirade, he would be doing other things, but singing for his supper. Oh! my people, my people. Why should every discussion point in Dominica be reduced to partisan politics with all its divisiveness? Why should every topical matter be treated with so much partisan contempt?
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves, in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it. -Fred Bastiat-
The last official act of a corrupt government is to loot the nation. And when buying and selling will be controlled by legislation, the first things that will be bought and sold are legislators.
P. J. O’Rourke
The main tenets of Dual Citizenship case involving Skerritt and St. Jean have to do with
—— obtaining a French passport as an adult at 18 yrs. of age and possession of a French passport at Nomination time.
—— So true, other politicians have disobeyed the law. But Skerritt and St. Jean were in court because petitons were filed against their actions. Their actions were challenged.
—— Implementation of the laws on the books is wanting. It is against the law to owe allegiance to any Foreign State and to be a member of Dominica’s Parliament at the same time. Any other Dominican who are not parliamentarians are doing no wrong having dual citizenship? So the law states.
—— Travelling on that French passport as an adult.
—— Having allegiance to a Foreign country, France, as a result of the possession of that country’s passport.
—— Having know that having allegiance to another country disallows one to be a candidate for any elections in Dominica.
—— Our Constitution and Electoral laws clearly states it is wrong.
—— Knowingly, those involved did not tell the truth on the Nomination Form as regards whether they had dual citizenship or not.
—— The Constitution was violated big Time.
—— We as Dominicans must establish that fact. There are penaltiesa for such outright disregard for the Constitution and Laws of the land.
——First Justice must prevail. At the same time there is room for discussing and debating the matter looking at all areas.
—— Electoral Reforms, the provision of Voter ID Cards and cleaning up the bloated Voter’s List are part and parcel of the broader issue of Constitutional Reform
Disappointing that the writer is asking for amendmends to the Constitution on that issue, no problem, but is tight-lipped on Electoral Reforms that many Dominicans have been pleading for. SEVEN YEARS (7) now since Dominicans and the Electoral Commission have requested for funds to make necessary changes to better our electoral process.
He Has said nothing on the refusal of the authorities to give the funds to the Electoral Commission to do its work for elections to be FREE and FAIR in Dominica. The Constitution also gives the Commission the right to conduct elections and request from Govt. funds to assist it in carrying its functioins properly. Those functions: Provision of Voter ID cards and cleaning of the Voters’ list?
Why the reluctance for Electoral reforms? Why the stalling? Why no cleaning of the unclean voter’s List? Why no money for providing Voter ID cards? Why the disrespect for the people in their quest for Electoral Reforms?
Most of us do not even know which law they talking about. Education needs to begin with us knowing which law and the details of that law and of course, WHY that law is on the books.
After this case is settled we need to understand why this situation was allowed to arise. I ssume that the electoral office asks a candidate to declare dual citizenship. Why it is that a candidate is not disqualified from running for elections when it is known that the candidate has dual citizenship? If the law is so clear, why did the electoral office allow disqualified candidates to contest the past 4 or 5 (or more) elections?
It is very clear to me that while you are claiming to be non partisan, you are all but very partisan and decptive. In response to your article, I have a few questions:
1.Why did you have to spend so much time trying to bring down Dr Finn who is not a politician and did not transgress against the
current constitution?
2. We all agree that we need to revisit the current constitution and make neccessary changes. However, this is something to consider in the future.In the meantime, everyone should be judged not on the future laws but current ones.
3. I am not so harsh on neither Mr. St Jean or Ron Green who both violated the constitution. However, I am very harsh on the the Prime Minister not because he transgressed llike the others, but rather, because he was so rude and blatant when he knew the existing constitution and was ruse enough to publicly say that “No rule, no constitution can stop Rosevelt Skeritt from contesting the 2009 election.” My point is, I don’t support some of our laws in Dominica and believe we need to amend them. However, I cannot deliberately violate what is in place now because I feel they are not current, and worse about it, when what is in place now is brought to my attention for me to say that it is not correct and therefore it cannoty stop me. That’s exactly what Skeritt did not as common citizen but the one who holds the biggest political office in the island.
The other question is, do we attempt to amend the constitution by way of a referandum or 2/3 of the house voting yes?
The problem I see is this: I think a lot of people will have trouble separating the amendments from their partisan stance. Therefore the question will not be voted on its merit but rather which political party supports what position.
Another thing is, a lot of resident Domincans hold a certain distain for foreign-based Domincans. Who is to say that they would vote ‘NO’ because they dont want “these people from foreign” to come down and run for elections?
These are questions need asking, but I think before we even attempt to raise the issue of constitutional emendmant, there needs to be some serious education of the masses on the merits or lack of, on the subject.
SKERRIT HAD TEN YEARS TO CHANGE THE LAWS AS REGARDS THE DUEL CITIZENSHIP.SKERRIT HAD SUFFICIENT TIME BEFORE THE ELECTION TO RENOUNCE HIS CITIZENSHIP.NOW, WE ARE FINDING ALL KINDS OF REASONS TO CRITICISE THE LAWS.SKERRIT AND PATTER HAS BROKEN THE LAW ,THEREFORE,THEY SHOULD RESIGN. SKERRIT HAS ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO CHANGE THE LAWS,GO NOW AND THE MAKE THE NECESSARY AMENDMENTS OR CHANGES
The PM whomever it may be cannot and should not be allowed to change the constitution. This has to go through parliament (including the opposition) and the populace as well. It allows for a change that reflects the general population and not just the choice of one person or party.
Finally someone with some rare sense (not common because it was common we all would have it)!
I applaud this article for the most part even if I disagree with the manner in which the writer “subtly” took a jab at the said Dr. Finn
lol….uncle dildo. rare sense….Ok!…agreed
Good one
Well written, thought out article. I agree with you. Let the court decide the issue but we still have to deal with the bigger question.
The Constitution needs to be amended to clarify the issue of dual citizenship. It needs to be amended so there is no room for interpretation and the issues are clear cut.
You just proved yourself to be a man who has the interest of Dominica at heart – it’s not about politics… it’s about Dominicans, our children and their future.
Did you see his last article on the same issue? You need to read it and you will see his interest is not Dominica but purely partisan. He is only now trying to put on a facade because of recent articles written by Brian Alleyne and Dr. Watty
I did comment on his last article and told him that it was a contradictory piece. I even quoted segments which were contradicting each other.
That’s besides the point – this article and what he articulated runs alongside my belief.
Neither or his articles are as biased as that doctor’s. I am not for BLUE or RED… i can think outside these colours and look for what’s in my best interest and that of my children.
Continue singing Ronald. Sing Sing Sing. I think your peice was more partisan than that of Dr. Finn. Have you forgotten the contents of what you wrote? You need to re-visit the peice you wrote and then you will see that your criticism of doctor Finns peice is nothing short of your hypocritical and politically warped mind. Since seeing peices penned by Mr. Brian Alleyne and Dr. Watty you are now coming and trying to pretend that your interest is national. “Franko” all who know you, know exactly where your interest lies, so Sing On, Sing On
Franco has never said that he does not have his own personal view on politics in Dominica. Believe me has his strong views. So he does not need any one for that matter to remind him that he has his own political bias, particularlyas it is not favorable to the “blues”. That is not Breaking News for the leadership of the opposition. Isn’t it his right to freely associate and hold on to views that are not in sync with other people in the society? Franco has been in this business for a very long time. But he can be an independent thinker too. He is simply calling for all of us Dominicans to put our politics aside atleast on this very importasnt issue and rise to the occasion and discuss the issues openly and frankly, without rancour and name calling. Without apportioning blame for this constitutional anomaly on one person or two individuals. As a nationa we must recognize the problem and deal with it. Dr. Finn has his views and Franco has his views. It is Franco’s opinion that Dr. Fin narrowed his contribution on the matter that is presently before the court. You and Dr. Finn and others can disagree with his opinion – so what? That does not make you right and Frnco wrong. Whichever way this matter is settled, come December 011 or 2012 or 2013, it will not solve the bigger issue of whether we allow those with dual citizenship to participate at a certain level in our development process. Is that hard to understand “astersik”? What are your views though? Do you have any? Or are you satisfied with looking for who has biases or not? Speak you mind on the issue. So far you have not accepted the challenge to share your ideas on the issue. Share your thoughts my friend,be bold enough and unafraid of criticism
Franco expect criticism, since we live in a free society. Dominica is still free when I last check. So that Franco, Dr. Finn Asterisk and others who care about the matter can freely propagate their views on things developmental in Dominica. If that is singing for his supper, then so be it, I suspect there will be be a lot more songs to write and singing to come since the issue is expected to remain alive for a long time to come. You will not be forced though to buy the song in its original recording.
Independent thinking is thinking that is not influenced by bias. It is thinking that is non-partisan. It is thinking that reflects honesty, equity and fair comment. It is thinking that represents balance. If you ask “can’t he be an independent thinker?” ” Can’t he freely asssociate?” Then you need to ask the same question on behalf of Dr. Finn if you have any modicum of fairness.
Admin:Who Wrote that article it was well done, and it is good to see that we are still willing to discuss issues with a view to finding solutions rather than casting blame.Thank You Writer