Law school defends lecture series on LGBT rights
Professor Robert Wintemute
(CNS): The president of the Truman Bodden Law School student body has defended the lecture series it organised earlier this year about the legal rights of the LGBT community in the Cayman Islands in view of decisions made in the European Court of Human Rights. Following criticisms of that series by the backbench government MLA, Anthony Eden, in the Legislative Assembly, Olivia Connolly said that, far from being misplaced, the series raised an important point of law and triggered a real debate about the issue.
‘Law & Equality in the Modern Day’ was a three-part lecture series that took place in January organised by students with the support of Dr Leonardo Raznovich, who delivered one of the presentations. It also included presentations by Cayman Islands Governor Helen Kilpatrick and guest lecturer, Professor Robert Wintemute. Focused on LGBT and gender rights, Connolly said the series was welcomed by law school faculty, members of government, the local judiciary and the legal profession, as well as the wider community.
The three evening lectures, which were held in the courthouse in George Town, were all very well attended and there was standing room only.
“The aim of the lecture series was to give the students an opportunity to engage with the community, and to complement our studies, bringing classroom learning into the context of pertinent, real world issues. Recent statements have served as proof that LGBT rights and gender equality are indeed ‘Legal Matters that Matter’ in the Cayman Islands, “ Connolly said in the wake of the public outcry following the debate on Eden’s private members motion preserving traditional marriage, in which he described homosexuals as evil. Criticising the law school for holding the series and implying there were more worthy issues to discuss, Eden criticised comments made by Wintemute, implying that outsiders should not be telling Cayman what to do.
“The choice of topic does not indicate a lack of guidance. On the contrary, it was very prescient of the Student Society to have anticipated issues that the Cayman Islands are now facing as a result of the recent ECHR’s decision, requiring member states to offer more legal protection to same-sex couples, omnisciently foreshadowed by Professor Robert Wintemute’s first lecture,” Connolly stated as she defended the subject matter.
“The series prompted a mature public debate about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights in the Cayman Islands, and thanks to those people who attended and have now spoken out, taking these issues forward, I am optimistic that the Student Society has pioneered lasting change,” she added.
Noting the importance of freedom of expression and academic inquiry, she also pointed out the importance of the law as an instrument of progression in society. She said this was highlighted by Dr Leonardo Raznovich in his lecture, ‘From burning at the stake to being welcomed in the Church’.
This year there have been several relevant legal decisions, such as the US Supreme Court judgment in Obergefell v. Hodges and the approval by plebicite of a constitutional amendment in Ireland, both allowing the recognition of gay marriage in the respective countries.
“It is evident that the issue of LGBT rights is an entirely appropriate topic for a legal lecture series. Particularly so in a jurisdiction such as the Cayman Islands, where the law is in lack of human rights protection for LGBT people,” Connolly said, as she called on the community to support the series and reject the criticism.
Following Eden’s debate, his fellow Bodden Town MLA and Cabinet minister, Wayne Panton, condemned the comments and offered his support for the LGBT community and their fight to end discrimination in an interview with CNS. The local Human Rights Commission chair, James Austin-Smith, has also called on the premier to distance himself from the discriminatory and hateful comments made and to introduce same-sex unions as soon as possible.
Premier Alden McLaughlin took no part in the debate but supported Eden’s motion to preserver traditional marriage. He has so far made no comment over the firestorm that has erupted since the debate in the Legislative Assembly and has not yet publicly responded to Austin-Smith.
Category: Local News
I still think that tie was a problem, CNS, despite your decision, okay!!
See, that’s the issue when nature doesn’t take its course.
Look at the animal world. The weaker die off. This leads to the strongest, healthiest and most dominate breeds surviving. Thus ensuring survival of the fittest.
Although many would argue, I will say that I believe that if it was not for the laws of men, the world would be a better place. There would be less issues as only the strong would survive and all these petty people would not be clogging the system up.
It’s sort of like cancer, you try to get rid of it, not encourage it.
I would love to see a point when instead of spending time and a lot of money in court arguing back and forth we could just stand toe to toe, one on one and settle our issues. But the cowards out there can’t.
That was some of Hitler’s justification too!
Did you just suggest that in a civilized world you wish that you could just sort out disagreements through a physical fight? You mean like war but one on one? Are you actually serious about that? This leads to the bigger surviving, not necessarily the best. Einstein would likely have lost such a means of settling a dispute.
Not with the hydrogen bomb.
That, 6.39, would be because you are part of the UK. Which bit do you find so difficult to understand?
You misunderstood my comment, I think, 9:11. I am glad the UK is moving the agenda on to the front burner; it’s just a bit unfortunate that it has to be done by this side door mechanism of the Law School lectures rather than an Order in Council or whatever that method they used to abolish the death penalty in Cayman (another “Holy Bible evidence” obsession a few years back) is called. Sometimes “doing the right thing” involves strong unpopular action and after Eden’s ignorant, terrible, bilious outburst the other day, the UK should at least be considering stepping in to help the younger decent minded Caymanians like Wayne Panton.
This was NOT NOT put on by the Law School. CNS please make that clear as your header is wrong. Students (a selected few) that attends the school and 1 lecturer spearheaded the lecture series!
Would that then make it “on behalf” of the Law School?
No. Student initiative. Only CNS has published it this way. All other news outlets made it clear it was done by the Student Society.
if you look to past statements, the director of the law school has affirmed his support of the lectures, along with a the majority of the lecturers attending and supporting them……one lecturer may have spoke but the majority did support it….
If that’s your argument then stick to it. Like the person above said, the law school has yet to give what occurred their blessing! Try and run another one…exactly I didn’t think so
Your dismissal of the democratic process here in the Cayman islands is so appalling. You champion the long-dead days of British Imperialism with such confidence and gusto, one would have to ask : Are you some kind of fascist nutcase? And/or a Bible hater? Where is your respect for the expressed will of the Caymanian people? Do you reckon it should be crushed under the heel of your fascist jackboot? Lord help us if the world sees another manifestation of the ideology you expound. You frighten me.
no 8.53 Cayman laws are only for expats.
Yes to protect expats, show me one law that protects Caymanians
3.31-perhaps they could also introduce a series on how people should actually work, like turn up, dont get on the phone, lunch is one hour, do some work, simple kind of stuff. For those that need it.Except they think they are entitled to that and therefore dont need a course. I get so confused sometimes.
Boo, your aggression and intolerance would indicate that you would like to start a war.
Someone needs to tell it like it is. You bible-bashers are practising abomination of Christianity and should be disgusted at your behaviour, especially the MLAs who have spouted bile and hatred. There is secular marriage and there is religious marriage, the two are not the same, one can have the former without the latter and reserve your narrow minded bigotry for your silly fundamentalist religious festivities.
Ireland? Get real, pal. The Irish had a nationwide vote. You seriously saying that if there was a nationwide vote here in Cayman they would vote for the recognition of same sex marriage? In your dreams, sportsfan.
I’ve always wanted to contribute a comment online, and CNS seems the ideal place to begin. Thanks for reading.
Hello, just my two cents.
People need to understand where law comes from.
1) Religion – most of the worlds most basic laws come from religion. One of the main ones is the taking of another’s life.
2) Man Made Law – other than a few, most other laws were for the benefit of mankind. Doesn’t mean their right though.
These are the facts. Simple.
And yes I do agree that other than the people of specific country, no one from another country should be telling them what to do. Hitler tried that, didn’t work out so well.
I take it this person has lived a life untouched by the study of jurisprudence.
Yeah and you live a life of pretend.
Too bad you can’t do anything about it. You just ain’t got it.
Hey I got a genuine idea. If you don’t like where you live because you can’t force your petty ideas down their throat, MOVE to somewhere that will allow that sort of thing, like England.
Leave us alone, wars started this way because the people of a nation didn’t want to do what everyone else was doing.
And their is still nothing you can do about it.
Caymankind supernova.
Sorry. It is not a definitive supernova without a reference to the chagos islands. By all accounts it is a spectacular display though, I grant you that.
I believe you may have confused “Chagos Bingo” with “Caymankind Supernova”. If the post above had mentioned the Chagos Islands, and ideally provided a link to Youtube, it would have created a Chagos Bingo Caymankind Supernova. Like the Higgs Boson such a post is predicted by theory but has proved elusive to isolate. If one did ever occur it is believed that the poster would immediately disappear up their own backside in a Black Hole of BS and emerge later as a warped alien. This is currently the best explanation for what happened to Whodatis.
No. What Hitler did was discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation (amongst other things).
How do you “dislike” that comment? It is a matter of historical record exactly who he murdered and why he did it.
Because the Christians don’t like to be presented with the moral horror of their position.
Hitler didn’t discriminate. He murdered people in gas chambers.
Still looking forward to hearing from the premier…
The Law School and its Students may also wish to consider organizing a lecture series on the practical application of Caymanian Rights not to be discriminated against in the work place.
Or more accurately why many of the currently discriminatory laws favoring Caymanians are illegal.
For a minute there I thought this was a photo of Putin…
But then I found my glasses…
You either have very strong glasses or have not seen a photo of Putin for many many years.
Whatever you say about me is fine…
As long as it keeps you happy and gay…
You should come out of the closet sweetie pie. Since Tinder isn’t doing it for you, download Grinder and I’ll be waiting.
oh dear, another week of LBGT comments…can we find something else to hate for a while? People in loud shirts for example?
Anyone who “disliked” this hilarious comment is in serious need of thinking therapy. Its high time CNS begins vetting contributors for their sense of humour, in my humble opinion (some kind of “humour board”, perhaps?). Thank you.
Oh please don’t. Half the fun is in the responses.
Oh, alright, then. I’ve disbanded the board with immediate effect.
Just end the pointless discrimination and it all goes away.
I hardly think it’s discriminatory to vet people, as I’ve suggested, for their sense of humour.
Apologies, I mistook you for an idiot when you were being sarcastic. It was starting your comment with a lower case letter that confused me.
Well said Ms. Connolly. Somewhat ironic that Eden hid behind the privilege of the LA to spout hate and in the next breath criticised the Student Law Society for speaking up in public on this important topic.
“hid behind the privilege of the L.A”?
Exactly what law would Mr.Eden be guilty of breaking were he to have made those comments outside of the LA? Does anybody know?
Penal Code (2013 Revision):
S.88B. (1) A person who –
(a) Uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour; or
(b) Displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress commits an offence and is liable to imprisonment for three years or, if the offence is committed in the night, to imprisonment for four years.
Thanks. But please confirm the following :
a.Is the cited Penal Code part of the laws of the Cayman Islands, and
b. is there any case history of comments of the nature uttered by Mr.Eden outside of the L.A. resulting in convictions by the courts here in Cayman?
Just trying to establish reality, you will appreciate.
a. No. I cited the Penal Code of Vanuatu because that was obviously relevant and answered your question.
b. Who knows. But it doesn’t really matter does it?
c. Yes, of course a law criminalising insults is stupid. But you’ll have to take that up with Eden too – his government passed the latest version of it!
d. Obviously though Eden went further than insults, and incited hatred and threatened violence. Hopefully we can all agree that makes him a bit of an idiot.
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
a.Not answered.
b.Yes, it does, actually. It provides substance to your contention. (Should be a comma after “matter.).
c. Agreed (first sentence). I don’t need to take that up with anyone, for obvious reasons.We address persons with a title here in the Cayman islands as a matter of respect, so it’s “Mr.Eden”.
d. Not sure what part of my post this, and (c), exactly relates to, but your contentions are subject to scrutiny, surely. There is little “hopeful” to anything you have said, other than the hope that you can learn from the above
e. In the spirit of extending things, keep reading, keep learning, but most importantly, cease being a smart ass.
Ummm…ironically the HRC should be complaining about such a law which abridges freedom of speech rather than trying to use it to prosecute people for saying things they don’t like to hear.
There’s one huge problem with this. Is what all you quote applicable to the society of the Cayman islands? In other words, are the particulars of Mr.Eden’s comments “threatening, abusive etc within the society here? Now you, and the legion of others, can rant and rave about how they are, but the reality remains, are they?
I am pretty sure that the answer is YES just going by all the signs I see in government buildings telling the public what is against the law in terms of language used. That said, the threats of physical violence should not be tolerated in any modern civilized society. Is your argument that “this is Cayman” and “we have our own laws”? Is your argument that this is appropriate and socially acceptable language in Cayman?
Thank you for your response. If I may, please consider the following.
a. The answer “Yes” to my enquiry cannot be based on notices in government buildings. These notices reference the norms of Caymanian society. While they may include the norms of other societies they do not reference the additional norms of other societies, which are freely available for their populations to determine.
b. It is patently clear, to all residents possessed of any knowledge and understanding of Caymanian society, that what Mr.Eden said does not constitute an infraction of the interpretation of the existing laws here in the Cayman Islands. (There is no “homophobia” law here in the Cayman Islands, for example. The chairman of the human rights team appears to differ on this point, and reckons that were Mr. Eden to have not been protected by “parliamentary privilege” he would have been subject to legal prosecution. I disagree on this point.)
c. Threats of physical violence are not presently allowable under Caymanian law. They do not discriminate at all.
d. We operate a full and free democratic parliamentary process here in Cayman. We have, as a result, our own laws. I might disagree with some of them, and my opportunity to voice my disagreement is through the ballot box.
e. My argument, whatever it may be, is voiced through the ballot box.
Thanks, once again, for your very civil response.
I think your pants make you look overweight! Oh no, now I’ve done it. Are the police coming for me?
I think what Eden said was disgusting, and he will pay the price at the polls, but get a grip!
Hold your horses, sportsfan. Are you saying that were Mr.Eden to have said what he said outside of the L.A. he would have been subject to arrest and prosecution? What country/planet are you living in/on? Because it surely can’t be the Cayman Islands. Get a grip on reality, please!
In that case there should be multiple arrests every day for all the anti-Caymanian posts on CNS.
You are lucky stupidity is not a crime.
Excuse me, how the heck can any thinking person “dislike” my inquiring about what law (if any) Mr.Eden may have fallen foul of? That is so weird (and worrying!).
I do love the repeated, and never tiresome, use of the word “hate” in the language of those who support the L etc agenda. It appears to translate into “anyone who doesn’t agree”. So Orwellian. Please keep it up!
The headline is misleading. The “Law School” has said nothing at all.
Truman certainly hasn’t. Time for him to tune in?
Agreed, 10:55. This agenda is being moved forward by the UK.
Well, it’s the only way to get an opposite view (to the “Holy Bible evidence” gay bashing agenda) heard and discussed publicly in Cayman, @ 6:39.
I have no problem whatsoever with the Law School having the debate nor the Governor speaking (“diversity” is one of her policy interests after all), I deplore Anthony Eden’s vile and hateful comments and I applaud wholeheartedly Wayne Panton’s brave stance on the LGBT issues. XXXXXX
The governor, as the representative of the head of state (the monarch), has no role to play on either side of this issue. She is required to remain entirely neutral. There was a civil war fought over this concept. Parliament is supreme and the monarchy is subservient to it and takes directions from it. The governor has made a serious blunder and her “policy interests” have nothing to do with it. They are her own personal interests and opinions but she may not exercise them in her official capacity as the representative of the head of state.
Bollocks. The Governor has an obligation to ensure we comply with our legal commitments and requirements. We are in breach.
“Bollocks”? Sir/Madam, you are without manners, and evidently surely out of your depth constitutionally. Please desist from making any future commentary of this nature. Thank you.
We are not a sovereign nation. We are a colony. Politically correct terms like “overseas territory” do not change that. We have agreed to be bound by the ECHR. We cannot now turn around and say “except that bit”.
Indeed, but does this “obligation to ensure we comply with our legal commitments” mean that she can do whatever she wants to further this compliance? Please justify her attendance, as the de facto head of state, at a pro LGTD presentation. Is it “carte blanche” for our present governor? Thank you.
She spoke on women’s rights.
The supremacy of Parliament refers to the UK parliament. No one can surely argue that the LA has authority over the Crown, especially when the Governor is able to pass or repeal any law or suspend the LA. And as the other poster has observed the UK government has an obligation to ensure it s overseas territories are complaint with UK treaty obligations and the European court. I am sure the FSD were more than supportive of her involvement. That is part of the deal if we remain as an overseas territory – we accept the overriding authority of the UK. Don’t get to have it both ways – independence is the alternative if you want a truly independent LA.
I agree, but not so sure about the idea of the total support of the FO for her clear stance in support of something that goes against the very nature of the people of the Cayman Islands. Unless the aim of the FO
is to be bloody minded and totally provocative, that is.
She spoke on women’s rights. Not LGBT issues.
So the Governor spoke at this lecture series yet has not bothered to comment on Anthony Eden’s comments in the House! Her silence speaks volumes.
Much like our Premier’s……
She is not permitted to comment on anything said in the LA any more than the queen can comment on what is said in parliament in the U.K. I was amazed she attended the lecture in her official capacity.
She spoke about women’s equality on her lecture series, nothing about the LBGT issue. Please stop commenting if you did not attend the lecture series.
Oh, so her presence did nothing to make people think she was in favour of the LBGTV8 agenda? Well, pardon me for being so naive. Hey, get real before you post another daft comment. Please.
She was just being a good supportive mother and nothing at all wrong with that.
Please, that is beyond nonsensical. She is the de facto head of state 24/7/365. She can’t take a stand on this issue any more than the queen can, despite what some confused individuals above have maintained. She is NOT an law enforcement officer as one tried to claim. That is completely crackers.
She spoke on women’s rights. It was a series on equality and the LGBT issue caught fire because of how non compliant the country is with the law.
How on earth can her presence at a lecture show she’s in favour?? What a retarded attitude you have.
Well, duh, it’s like the queen turning up at presentation (that’s “lecture” to us “retarded” folk) in favour of fox hunting. Has the penny dropped? You get it? My “attitude”? Get real, sportsfan. You are seriously mistaken about the role of your monarch. (PS Update 1972 : The use of terms like “retarded” is not encouraged, for obvious reasons.)
On women’s rights under the law.