Editorial: A strictly legal view (unclear piece of legislation)

POSTED: 11/28/11 7:54 AM

A call by political activist Eldridge van Putten for Jules James to resign as a member of parliament is dead on arrival for sure. And there is good reason. The majority of his colleagues “refuse to throw him under the bus” and he himself seemingly “shall not be moved.”
The ultimate reason though is that while James has perpetuated what many believe is a heinous act, no one is calling for him and his colleagues in parliament or for the government they control to repair an unclear piece of legislation that could prevent situations similar to what has happened at Simpson Bay Resort and Marina, which used to be Pelican Resort. That sort of advocacy is what is needed to truly move this country forward.
In fact every time people fail to press for that law to be amended, they give James the legal ground to stay in parliament and to stay at his job. They also allow him to state that he is fulfilling his vow to upholding the law – or at least his interpretation of the law -, because the present law leaves it to the owners of companies to decide what they do with their business, even if it’s one that they’ve purchased. As sick and twisted and even rigid as that sounds that is the way it is from a strictly legal perspective.
The real enemy here is not Jules James. It is the law as it stands. Until he votes to keep the current law instead of changing it Jules James belongs where he is: in parliament and at Simpson Bay Resort and Marina.

Did you like this? Share it:
Editorial: A strictly legal view (unclear piece of legislation) by

Comments are closed.