Suckoo defends motion, apologises for offence
Alva Suckoo, Bodden Town MLA (Photo by Dennie Warren Jr)
(CNS): Backbench MLA Alva Suckoo has apologised for offending anyone with the comments he made in the Legislative Assembly last week during the controversial debate on the preservation of marriage but has taken aim at the chair of the Human Rights Commission, James Austin-Smith, and the letter he sent to the premier Thursday. Suckoo claims he was not attacking anyone for their sexuality but was stating his position on marriage and the reasons why he “did not think it was acceptable to change the Constitution of the Cayman Islands to ensure this right for same-sex couples”.
“I am sorry if what I said offended anyone. It was not my intention. I was making a point about the Constitution, not the gay community,” he told CNS, as he acknowledged that unfair discrimination was wrong. “I have lived overseas and know what it is like to be a minority and it is unfortunate people thought I was discriminating.”
Suckoo sent a statement to the press Friday morning (posted below) suggesting that Austin-Smith “needs to stop sensationalising the issue” and accused him of a political agenda. Suckoo did not criticise the speech delivered by his Bodden Town colleague and veteran MLA, Anthony Eden on 13 August, but he also said he supported the position taken by Wayne Panton who declared his full backing for the LGBT Community on Tuesday.
“Let me state that I am not distancing myself from my colleagues in Bodden Town. Mr Eden made his points and I support and defend his right to do so on the floor of the House. I also support and respect the Hon. Wayne Panton for his position and subsequent comments,” Suckoo wrote, before taking aim at Austin-Smith who has called on the premier to condemn the comments made in the LA and introduce same-sex unions.
Suckoo said he was suspicious of Austin-Smith’s to “attack” on his parliamentary privilege, as he accused the HRC chair of being silent “on the much larger issues”. Suckoo claimed he was being attacked because he took a position contrary to the agenda to legalise same-sex marriage but denied engaging in hate speech.
However, in his short contribution seconding Eden’s private member’s motion Suckoo had made a number of discriminatory remarks himself and offered support to Eden after he finished his shocking presentation. Suckoo stated, “”I think my colleague covered all of the important points and I want to thank him …”
Suckoo had also claimed that the Cayman Islands had “different cultural values” and same-sex marriage was “not reflective of our cultural values”. He also implied that he believe that homosexuality was a lifestyle choice or a “concept” that he said he could not support, describing it as a sin and asked who would legislate to allow sin, as he spoke about drug addicts and adulterers.
Talking to CNS about his position on the issue Friday after releasing the letter to the press, he admitted that when it comes to preaching morals from the floor of the Legislative Assembly, politicians are in danger of making themselves targets. But he denied that he had committed adultery, in the face of numerous allegations being made about him in relation to his own private life.
Suckoo also took aim at same-sex couples as parents, and said such unions were not healthy for raising children, as he accused lesbians of rearing masculine girls based on what he claimed was a social study. However, he dismissed the body of scientific evidence now pointing to the occurrence of same-sex relationships in the natural world.
Indicating he did not want to discriminate against gay people, he dismissed the need to legislate for same-sex unions, saying he had received no representation for it and did not think his constituents wanted it. He accused the campaign for marriage in the LGBT community and the promotion of gay lifestyles as “suspicious” because “heterosexuals don’t promote their lifestyle” and gay behaviour was “creeping into our part of world”, as he wondered what the agenda was.
Despite his own discriminatory comments, Suckoo said he opposed the oppression of human beings and even after offering his support for denying LGBT people the right to marry, he said they need not fear he was attempting to ”restrict rights”, suggesting that, like drug addicts and adulterers, homosexuals should be helped.
Suckoo is not alone, however, in his apparent confusion over what constitutions discrimination.
Winston Connolly also released a statement Thursday to The Cayman Reporter stating that he opposes discrimination in any form but did not condemn Eden’s comments. He said he did not agree with some of the comments made during the debate but he supported the motion. Hovering between articulating the need for an end to discrimination against everyone and opposing marriage for same-sex couples, he pointed to the real issue at the heart of the current controversy.
“When a politician refuses to answer a question, they feel that whatever they say they will lose. Especially on this topic, as you feel trapped between appeasing socially conservative supporters and being painted as a ‘bigot’ by opponents,” Connolly said.
Following the debate, Wayne Panton remains the only politician to roundly condemn the comments made in the LA. The premier has also remained silent on the issue and has not yet responded to the HRC chair’s letter.
Alva Suckoo’s letter to the press regarding HRC criticisms 21.08.15
Category: Government oversight, Politics
CNS would be so kind and establish a Poll to see all who wants this enacted with demographics and religion please.
Many of you readers dont want religion in the mix either right??!!
Oh, please. The typical CNS reader is a liberal expat. No poll on any such matter by CNS is going to be remotely scientific.
“and asked who would legislate to allow sin”
you all do all the time, otherwise we would not have a turtle farm in Cayman and the economy would not be based on usury.
And we would have not workpermits, as “we should welcome foreigners in our land as if they are one of us”.
#hypocrite
It’s things like this that always get me thinking of George Carlin jokes:
“Religion has convinced people that there’s an invisible man…living in the sky, who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn’t want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer and burn and scream until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you and he needs money.”
Politicians need money too, and they’ll just about say and do anything to get some.
Uh, politicians do not “need” money; they just “want” it.
Big difference.
Who really pay attention to Alva’s BS political commentary? He needs to start looking a new job ahead of the 2017 Elections.
May 2017 couldn’t come soon enough. Sorry though Alva, Eden and Marco should be asked to step down. We don’t need politicians like that running our country. Yet don’t think that will happen, Osbourne is still in office he should have been told to step down also. Everything is always forgotten about!!! but this time the people should demand that the three are asked to leave. We voted them in, we have a right to vote them out.
So now duly elected representatives who broadly reflect reflect the moral views of their constituents should be forced to step down because you don’t share their moral views? This is going from the ridiculous to the sublime!
Not what was said. How it was said. if I called Eden or Suckoo a pedophile they’d sue me. How do you think it makes gay people feel?
Dear Al,
Thank you and Mr Eden for doing so much to educate people of Cayman regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from the wise words of our gifted MLAs, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Jamaicans?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the RCIPS to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you and your fellow MLAs have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I’m confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan,
Perhaps Mr Eden can shed light on Deuteronomy 22:23-29
If man meets rapes a virgin girl and they are discovered. He shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver and must marry her for he has violated her and can never divorce her.
Does this mean she can never divorce him? What if the virgin girl has no father, can the rapist get her for free or less? What does 50 shekels work out to be in Ci currency?
Thank you Mr Eden.
A shekel is a unit of weight equal to about 11 grams, so 50 shekels is about 550 grams or 19.4 ounces. The value is fluctuating right now.
Does that mean there is a discount?
Masterpiece!
Try reading the New Testament. Very clearly regarded as mortal sin there as well.
Someone should explain to this cretin the difference between the old covenant and the new covenant and that Christians are under the latter.
You made my day, thank you!!!
You must be a fan of the West Wing. President Bartlett has a very similar tirade at a bunch of Christian fundamentalists. Brilliant and to the point.
Oh yes, he could shape his fingers and smite all of you like he did with Sodom and Gomorrah but he is giving you all a chance to repent and turn from your wicke
“I am sorry you are offended by my bigotry”
Sigh. I am Caymanian. I was raised in a very conservative family. I have gay relatives. I personally am not comfortable with same sex marriage. I think this is due to some deep rooted prejudice due to my upbringing. I hope I will overcome it. Because I love my gay family members and I love my gay friends. And I was truly appalled at the language Anthony used in the LA. I am trying very hard to be more open minded. As I know what it’s like to be told who you’re not supposed to love. Just over 50 years ago, interracial couples could not marry in some parts of the US. Under those laws, many of us would not exist!
But for so long, we grew up in a culture that taught us that homosexuality was wrong. Nevermind the horrible things going on between heterosexuals in our community – rape, incest, domestic violence and of course rampant adultery.
So it is a tough issue, even for someone like me who considers myself a liberal thinker and who often goes against the grain.
But what is not acceptable is hatred and violence against anyone. I was so disappointed in Anthony’s comments. He too has gay relatives, although he may not want to admit or acknowledge it. I know he is of another more conservative generation, but that does not excuse the more outrageous things that he said.
Although I understand where they are coming from, I am also disappointed in Al and Winston. Like me, they could honestly say that due to their upbringing they are not comfortable with gay marriage (which Winston kind of said) but that they do not agree with the hatred of Anthony’s words. I would have more respect for them for honesty.
But… I guess that gets you no where in the world of politics. Just disappointing all around.
However, Al did make some good points in that there are many other forms of discrimination occurring in Cayman that need urgent attention – more so than gay marriage. The comments made on this site about Caymanians prove him right. We are not ignorant or illiterate or unworthy. Just as gays are not evil.
Very well written and thought out. ALL of us have a gay member in our family. I grew up with one knowing she was different. Growing up she wanted (fr age 5) no dolls, no boyfriends and I noticed she had a liking mainly for pretty girls until we reached a certain age and she tried her best to hide it. She also wanted to work on cars and boat engines and disliked dressing up of any sort. I know she was different and so did she but we kept quiet , oppressed almost. She tried to live different accepting God into her life and even married a male to try and shake these strong feelings for religiously and “culturally” it wasn’t right. Eventually she came out and it took everything in her will to do so. Everyday is a fight but she still has her morals and principles and her sexuality does not define her. For like us she just wants to be loved and love another it just so happens she prefers the same sex just as we prefer the opposite. Admittingly it was hard to accept but I now understand it. What I DO NOT UNDERSTAND / CONDONE is the media constantly promoting gays, transgenders etc…which I definitely believe psychologically plays a big impact on the younger generation and have no tolerance for those who practice this just for the fun of it (with any and everyone) resulting in more and more people disliking this who sincerely and biologically are gay. We love her the same whether or not out hypocritical country does. Incest, corruption and rape (whether same sex or otherwise ) are more accepted – DISGUSTING!!!!!!
And as far the political controversy goes does one really think they will agree/ admit to any of this OF COURSE NOT that would mean less votes.
CNS this report has a hint of bias I think! It is clear that the HRC should be more concentrated in the efforts to ensure that human rights are upheld in such areas as legal aid, fair trial, policing (insert laundry list here) to a similar degree as in the latest letter to the premier. Mr. Austin Smith is so quick to write the premier on this singular issue while other known problems languish.
I think that he and CNS may need to examine this apparent anxiety. Human Rights violations are always and everywhere in Cayman and just to go run off their mouth …knowing all to well about the long long long road to Strasbourg which I don’t think a case from Cayman has ever reached. I challenge human rights commission to report on the extent of human rights violations and the extent that any singular instance of reaching the ECHR. Time for the Human Rights Commission to focus on all the issues and to take an equal approach (key word “equal)
Thank you
How is it we have heard nothing from Ezzard and Arden who are usually so vocal on everything? Both like to give the impression of being macho men, not willing to take any nonsense especially if it seems to be coming from foreigners trying to mash up their country’s culture, so I would really have expected them to get stuck into this one – especially Ezzard.
Oh I can hardly wait to hear from Ezzard!
No need to apologize XXXXX. The majority of caymanians are against implementing the laws the HRC are calling for. We don’t want it why can’t you understand that and we won’t allow it to be forced on us either so stand your ground Mr. suckoo the people of bodden town still support you.
So good of you to speak for the people of Bodden Town, except you didn’t ask me or my friends and we are all for HRC and LBGT rights. So just speak for yourself, no one gave you a right to speak for anyone else.
To 5:25pm, I the person of Bodden Town doesn’t support you, Anthony Suckoo and the other moron. So don’t speak for me and I am sure quite a few people of Bodden Town feel the someway as I !!!
Whilst this BTer does not like the whole LGBT thing, I don’t think its my business to tell anybody how to lead their own private lives, and just for the record I DO NOT SUPPORT MR SUCKOO as you assume, and I doubt he has all the people of BT supporting him as in reality BT has a rather large and currently very underground LGBT community itself.
Marriage is pointless anyway…why do people even waste the money. Just move in? Declare yourself a common law partnership what is the obsession with marriage.
Richard Goulden. Just a question now..need fredback on subject matter. What are your views (and all others who care to comment) on granting legal rights to allow gays to hold civil unions and legally be able to receive and give/transfer assets between partners? Currently it is a fact that we have gays within our midst; but they are not (as is said) made to feel welcome. Also; on death of any one partner the assets of the deseased partner cannot be passed on to the other as a “surviving spouse” as is done with male/female unions.
What are your thoughts on allowing legal civil union recognition??
Thank you George Ebanks.
I am gay and have lived her for over 10 years and todate have not faced any problems. I am not in the closet as those that know me are aware. I made a choice to move to Cayman. I knew the culture and respected it.
I have read the comments on here and it’s safe to say that a lot of people have jumped on the bandwagon and using the topic to spew their own anger when in fact they really don’t care or even understand what is going on but it’s a perfect outlet to yell and scream.
I however would like to know if all the gay supporters on this website would be comfortable if god forbid the website was hacked and their names revealed? Or would all the supporters on here actually show up to march in town? I suspect not.
I say this because the topic is a perfect one to brew up a storm however for the most of us, we do not care to be called out and would actually prefer to live a quiet and private life. If everyone that’s calling for change on here over the past week had shown up to the lecture series carried by the law school then I would feel these comments in support are genuine but unfortunately that was not the case and the comments on here can only be taken as a grain of salt.
But in every society you will have different characters. Some seeking to be noticed, some that are lost and others that are just trouble makers. Yes we have gay trouble makers.
As I’ve said, I moved here and knew the culture and lay of the land. I never came here with hopes of changing anyone or anything. Our life has been peaceful but unfortunately others see it different and try to create chaos which is one of the reasons we left the big city. We care about living our lives peacefully. We have many straight Caymanian friends and we have no issues.
The HRC is good to have but please don’t use us to further any hidden motive. For anyone that has a gay friend think hard before commenting and fueling the fire because if you think hard about that gay person you know do you think they would want all this chaos? It’s very clear on reading these comments, that the majority make no sense and I strongly feel that CNS is adding to sensationalism by moving the topic further up the page and pushing other stories down ; the HRC was quick in responding creating more issues.
For the real gay persons that moved to Cayman, they did so to get away from chaos and all this nonsense. We made the choice to come here so let’s respect that. There is no need to fuel the fire. We can leave if the culture is not for us but don’t make it bad for those of us that want serenity.
So you aren’t interested in being treated as an equal to others. Fine, don’t understand why, but whatever. Yes, you can leave anytime. But what of the Caymanians? Do I have to leave because my countrymen are still so backward? I shouldn’t have to just because of whom I love.
And what message does it send to our children that gays, blacks, witches, albinos, and others are evil, cursed, and going to hell? Agree that marriage as a ritual is old-fashioned nonsense but when a woman cannot visit her life partner who is in a coma in the hospital because some aunt says Jesus is going to burn her in hell. . . .
No I am black and I
Huh? You clearly have difficulty with logical, coherent thinking. You have mixed up a whole lot of things to invoke your persecution complex.
O.K. Uncle Tom.
Respect due to you sir/madam
I’ve about had it with the utter nonsense of hiding bigotry behind the phrase “love the sinner, hate the sin.”
CNS: The rest of this comment is posted here Featured comment: Faith and marriage
While we are on the issue of marriage;
How do we feel about polygamous marriage?
Can me and my 5 consenting girlfriends / lovers depend on your support for our desire to be legally married as well?
Please provide reasons for your answer.
(I am looking for sincere feedback this time and not the typical jokes re multiple wives and mother-in-laws.)
I raise this point because this issue is really about the definition of marriage more so than “gay rights”. Once that changes, who are we to disallow ANYONE from marrying another consenting person(s)? Furthermore, who are we to limit the members of a marriage to 2 individuals? On what basis? The Bible? Standing legislation? Christian ideals?
If we think the challenge to the boundaries of marriage will end at gay marriage we are sadly mistaken. This is simply the flavour issue of the day.
Prepare yourselves, and good luck.
*Don’t forget to list your reasons…thanks!
– Whodatis
The absence of marriage equivalence for gay couples has caused many direct practical legal problems and has been driven in a large part by significant discrimination against the gay community. The drivers for reform are less present in respect of polygamous marriage and there seems less of a pressing practical or symbolic need for such change in modern western society and the polygamous marriage lobby is far less effective than the gay lobby. That is not an attempt at a fundamental distinction, but rather some practical differences as to why gay marriage is on the present agenda.
You still did not answer the question – in fact, you merely stated the obvious.
Furthermore, if we are to now change the definition of marriage would this not also be the time to cater for all possible scenarios – catering for every orientation and total number of willing partners?
Or are we suddenly realising we are hypocritical and disingenuous in our supposed stance of equality for all?
if it does not affect others and everyone is consenting then whatever floats your boat who.
most married people seem to be in polygamous relationships already, just their spouse doesn’t know.
just look at Ashly Madison for proof, or all those married people in my church congregation having affairs.
I suppose polygamy could be allowed under a “freedom of religion” act, if there were Mormons, Sharia muslims, or what-have-you. South Africa, for example, has the “Recognition of Customary Marriages Act”, which allows polygamy and could possibly apply to Cayman. Historically, and annecdotally, there are precedents, such as seafarers who had wives and families both in Cayman and another port, but does that still happen? Maybe it does on another level.
The situation of Caymanian women with multiple relationships and resulting babies “could” be deemed as polyandry, as well as the male equivalent of polygamy.
As you say, as long as all parties are consenting adults, and the children are properly loved and cared for, I don’t really mind. Wishing you and your 5 ladies the best of luck.
On the other hand, maybe Whodatis is a woman. In that case, if she wished to marry her 5 girlfriends (especially if they are hot) there would be no problem. The Marriage Act would be ammended in a last-minute midnight session.
Whodatis would totally clean up from TMZ, Fox News, movie deals, etc., and, for sure, put Cayman on the map
Whodatis would also look much better in a bikini than you-know-who!
– Whodatis
Re: “I suppose polygamy could be allowed under a “freedom of religion” act, if there were Mormons, Sharia muslims, or what-have-you. South Africa, for example, has the “Recognition of Customary Marriages Act”, which allows polygamy and could possibly apply to Cayman.”
According to you, it sounds as if suddenly the religion and the culture of the people / country in question does hold a legitimate role in determining their definition and allowances of marriage.
Interesting. Unquestionably hypocritical, but interesting.
(No surprise there though. We’ve grown accustomed to the bullcrap by now.)
I’m done.
Good point. You might add that issue goes beyond numbers as well, if you want to reinforce the point. For example, why should a gay couple benefit from civil union whereas a heterosexual couple, who may have mutual rights as common law partners in other jurisdictions, have none? The latest viewpoint Faith and Marriage is an interesting exploration of whether what excites one side is the concept of religious marriage being challenged/extended to those that do not meet their religious beliefs – so the same issue should apply to say Muslims who are entitled under their religion to marry up to 4 wives – and what excites the other is the idea that they are being denied rights in law because of who they are or what they do. That seems to open the possibility of a compromise in which rights are granted whilst preserving the definition of marriage.
However, it would appear from Minister Eden’s comments that his view at least – and given your “sadly mistaken” comment perhaps you as well – the issue of defining marriage seems to be a superficial point. At the heart of it appears to be the idea that opening society to a range of alternative practices and lifestyles is fundamentally damaging to the social fabric or self perception of a large group of Caymanians, irrespective of whether traditional definitions of marriage are protected and what is being done is adding rights rather than subtracting or diluting the existing beliefs of others. Allowing minorities rights which challenge or run contrary to deeply held beliefs is seen as undermining those beliefs, and cannot be tolerated.
Personally I believe that those that subscribe to the “traditional” views espoused by Minister Eden and Mr Suckoo have far more to fear on the one hand from hetereosexual couples who have moved away from the concept of marriage, and the growing atheism and agnosticism in society than homosexuals, who are always going to be a minority , and on the other believers in other religions who, with the increasing numbers in our society, who will presumably at some point ask for defence/recognition of their believes. Will traditional Caymanian church goers be accepting of Muslims or Hindus, one wonders. Somehow I doubt it.
I find it interesting that the HRC / James Austin-Smith has only now identified “hate speech” in the Cayman Islands. There is an abundance of it right here on CNS and presented in very advanced vocabulary so undoubtedly uttered by well-educated (and most likely influential) members of our population.
On a daily basis Caymanians are disregarded and disrespected as if nothing more than an inconvenient side-show. Personally, this issue takes priority in my book and I only wish more Caymanians were able to see what is really at play here.
The outspoken “pro gay” lobbyists and supporters claim to be taking a righteous stand against bigotry – yet when Caymanians are the target thereof it is the hardest thing to find said lobbyists on this very forum.
It is interesting that the LGBT movement has attracted such global support but the longstanding reality of discriminated groups of people is wholly ignored and in fact endorsed. (Caymanians also need to realize that we are being swiftly categorized into that spot within our local societal makeup.)
I love my lesbian first cousin as much as I love my straight one, however, that does not negate the fact that the prospects of a fair chance for success in their own country has never been worse…for BOTH of them.
I refuse to leapfrog over the real and pressing issues, issues that have led to our rise in unemployment and crime, onto relatively inconsequential varieties. Rest assured, the newly sprang self-righteous anti-bigots would definitely prefer said leap.
I care very little about “hate speech” when I see so many “hate acts” being inflicted on my fellow Caymanians.
– Whodatis
#wtpmrawftv
(Pin drop)
– Whodatis
Well said 1:28. Very well written.
and let us not forget your own hate speech about the english and expats in general
What baffles me is why the HRC thinks that this LGBT issue is such an over-riding issue that it much take immediate and bold action to address it.
What about the plight of the poor Cuban boat people? Aren’t they not discriminated against as they seek freedom and opportunity as they sometimes find safe harbour within our shores? Where does the right seeking HRC stand on those people? When last did they speak out and DEMAND for their human rights??
What about young Caymanian boys and girls not being able to find work?. For the most part because of outright discrimination. Is that not an area that the HRC should wade into and explore?
What about the right of conscience of every sober minded; and yes, perhaps ultra christian conservative, who are in the majority indigenous 3rd n 4th generation caymanian, and cannot bring themselves to even fathom much less accept a life style that they consider abborant!..where are their right of conscience in this? Isn’t that a right that the good old HRC should busy themselves protecting?
Also; the HRC had a “rush to judgement” here because what was said by Min. Archer was both erudite and appropriate. Why say, as the chair of the HSA said in his letter..”they all”?..
Indeed; if adhered to fully; the extreme views and wishes of our very own HRC would ban the bible itself ( as many of its words would by extension constitute “hate speech”) from our community and our churches.
The same bible that one uses in our courts to take oaths as well as on the floor of our parliament to swear alligence to the Crown.
Human rights requires tolerance and understanding; and in the case of the long held and conservative beliefs of our Cayman Islands traditions; TIME!
Gay rights will most certainly NEVER be achieved by the selective and “in your face” stand being displayed by way of the letter of the HRC Chair which I term as an “outburst”!
i agree with your points of view 100%
Well, actually, George, lots and lots of things baffle you. The definition of the word “outburst” is obviously one of them.
Thank you George Ebanks, I was in the process of penning an opinion on the actions of the HRC head and his rush to judgment in the face of his silence on the hate speech that is published daily with regards to indigenous Caymanians in the media. you took the words “right out of my mouth”. (I know, I know….We are ALL driftwood, says people who still do not understand what being Caymanian means, even when they choose to move here and live among us)
Cayman is Cayman and it is what it is, no mater the fact that people who are attracted to Cayman come here and try to change us, to what they left behind.
When a Caymanian speaks the truth about what Cayman and Caymanians are, they are castigated in the most harsh and hateful of terms, called ignorant, corrupt, Christian bible waving fools, told they do not know how to run our own country, discredited for making Cayman what it is today, denied opportunity for employment above the glass ceiling, told they are no good social service sycophants when they do not have a job, barbaric turtle meat eating nincompoops and anything else hateful they can think to print ………… yet never a word from Mr, Austin-Smith, as Chairman of the HRC. When Caymanians are discriminated against publicly, Mr. Austin-Smith is silent.
I complimented Mr. Panton on his position, because personally, I agree with his more tolerant stance ……….. that does not mean that my mother and father are ignorant fools because they think differently and took me to Church every Sunday or taught me differently. It also does not mean that me, Mr. Suckoo, Mr. Panton or you George, are in the majority. In a democracy, a majority counts for a something, as it should.
The hatefulness expressed by new arrivals to our shores, and quite often, late departures who no longer live among us but have access to a computer, is no less hateful than words uttered by Mr. Eden………….notwithstanding that I might not agree with him.
The job of an MLA is not like that of say an accountant, the job description by its very nature, is to reflect the mindset of his constituency ………. otherwise retribution is swift and final at the next election.
Those that preach that Cayman is backwaterish and needs to “fix” everything about this Island leave me to wonder, why they are attracted to what they claim is a dysfunctional democracy? then again I know, because they do not hesitate to tell me, it’s only the money they cannot make at home, then they leave and take their money with them………… They just want to change the place for them while they are here!
Thank you Mr. Suckoo for your more moderate stance towards the LGBT minority community, live and let live but marriage is marriage, other laws can, and should, be introduced to satisfy their right to security of partnership they seek.
When greed is the driven within, all avenues to keep the flow flowing, are sought after. Stepping on toes. Accomplishment, move on up…….caring for the country and Caymanians are never considered. Heartless to the core. ‘Love’ is losing its value, due to selfishness and greed…..live and let love.
I’m not quite sure what Mr. Eden’s hate filled speech was to do with local unemployment.
But let me respond anyway.
Please explain why Caymanian employers employ so many ex-pats. Are they prejudiced against Caymanian people too?
Time and again I hear from my Caymanian friends that they would love to avoid the expense and uncertainty of recruiting overseas if only they could recruit quality employees locally.
Am I saying that every Caymanian is unemployable? NO!
Am I saying that every Caymanian is lazy? NO!!! And DOUBLE NO!
But there is usually a good reason why someone is unemployed. And it starts with poor local education in government schools. And it also means looking in the mirror.
There you go again…………..you are not saying that Caymanians are unemployable, you are not saying that Caymanians are lazy or anything like that ………….. but “with poor local education in government schools”……………..well that just makes the vast majority of Caymanians young people who have to attend those schools………….well, ignorant, uneducated, fools…………..
Are we not lucky to get you to come fill a job for us? Bigot!
You see this is where ignorance knows no bounds.
When a person, expat or otherwise points out that the country’s unemployment problems are down to government providing poor educations standards they are actually sticking up for Caymanians, and pointing out the failures of CIG and the disadvantages this presents in the job market.
Instead of getting all angry at the commenter, how about getting off your backsides and campaigning government to provide a decent education and vocational training with internationally recognised qualifications (rather than local ones which mean you are stuck with the Cayman market), skills training and apprenticeships so that young Caymanians stand a better chance in the world than their forefathers did? Nothing will change if you sit, complain and hand out blame, take positive action for your people and your country and DEMAND what you are entitled to.
We are talking about people who don’t belief in the Big Bang and evolution. We are not talking about rational or sensible people and there is no point in trying to treat them as such.
But they do understand that when two gay men get together there is also a big bang…
Don’t forget the belief in a virgin birth and resurrection too.
keep on digging alvin…..every word uttered makes you look like a bigger fool…..
The end time is near.
No one is fighting to feed the hungered.
No one is fighting to shelter the homeless.
No one is fighting to get work for the unemployed.
No one is fighting to curb serious crime.
No one is fighting to ensure our kids are educated according to international standards.
Yet the HRC is concerned about the lawmakers of today not legalizing same sex marriages. We bigger issues than that.
Thats the problem with this island today, when the US sneezes, we run and cleans it nose. We are to stand our ground on what we believe in and that’s the end of the story. If they wanna come here and work or if they are living here indefinitely so be it but tell what we need to do to make their life happy with regards to going our beliefs and principles.
We’re becoming a minority in our own island as stands with the hundreds different nationalities voicing their opinions on what should be done.
If they want to marry someone of the same sex, go do it on “Uncle Sam’s” soil. U travel there for every other reason so you could do that there too, but not here.
i agree with you 100%
As a straight expat, I know nine gay men and one lesbian. ALL but one are Caymanian, three from prominent Caymanian families so in my case at least, I’m in support of them and their hope of being treated like everyone else. So cut the crap about it being a foreign issue.
It is a foreign issue my friend. When the Bible was removed from the schools and the image of Ten Commandments was removed from some of the Courts Houses/rooms everything started to go haywire in the US. Religious Education is no longer a part of the school curriculum. They longer speak about God in public and if you do, you’re looked down upon. It is because of Christ why there is the existence of man & woman, not adam & steve.
I don’t care if my very Caymanians want to engage in same sex marriages. These same “prominent Caymanians” you speak probably has a stronger family ties to the US than they do to this soil. Not all prominent Caymanians are outright true Caymanians either remember that too. If you think im joking, wait until it’s time to cast their votes in US election and you’ll hear the chatter.
A lot of you expats look down on us Caymanians, hate the very ground we walk on but want to milk this cow for all you can get. You all want to have legislation put in place just to suit unna.
Again, if my Caymanians and “prominent Caymanians” like you said wants engage in a same sex union, run and do it on uncle sam soil, they go there for everything else, they could do that there too.
What about the motion that him and Mr Eden brought some time back to prevent discrimination against the foreign spouses of Caymanians as compared to the foreign spouses of foreigners granted Cayman Status. Foreign spouses of Caymanians must wait 7 years to receive Cayman Status whereas foreign spouses of foreigners get it in a year or two…
Is Mr Suckoo going to apologize that his Government accepted the motion then just swept it under the rug?
Also the human rights people have been silent on this blatant discrimination… Why?
I wonder if its because most of the human rights people are themselves foreigners?…
This “man” needs to learn the difference between “apologist” and “apology”. His statement was not the latter because he is the former.
I’m sorry, but XXXXXXX
CNS: Can you send me proof of your claims?
what really surprise me is that we haven’t heard the voice from the LGBT community here, wait, which community? this is not USA, they are not an organization here with leaders and activists…. why are you guys fighting for then? yet to hear the first gay making a public statement…. have you even bother to ask them? how many are in steady relationship that want to legalized it? show me the census result, one number…. going to battle for what…..
They are all in the closet in Cayman, and for good reason given the ignorance and mis-information that continues to circulate in many parts of this community.
“He (Alva Suckoo) accused the campaign for marriage in the LGBT community and the promotion of gay lifestyles as “suspicious” because “heterosexuals don’t promote their lifestyle” and gay behaviour was “creeping into our part of world”, as he wondered what the agenda was.”
– Black pride and equality didn’t openly and actively promote their blackness and need for equality in countries which had suffered slavery until they had enough traction to do so. A slave in Jamaica speaking out about freedom and equality to open society including his or her masters would likely be killed. When enough traction is there, however, and those formerly silenced and disempowered populations gain a voice, that is when more demands for inclusion are made – and so they should be!
– Women’s agitation for the vote and feminism is general – again as with the example above – women slowly chipped away and some put themselves in danger more agressively challenging the status quo, until it became commonplace for women to promote women’s rights and the need for equality openly.
There are numerous more examples – the point is this: why on earth would heterosexuals have to have an agenda and promote our lifestyles? We are already the openly accepted, mainline, majority, understood, more common, sexual orientation.
Mr Suckoo please ask yourself why did blacks and women have to promote their agenda? They were always there, they didn’t “creep in” to mainstream society, they were just not heard, not respected, not given equal legal and societal status.
All that people of different sexual orientations want is to be afforded the same rights and respect as the mainstream heterosexuals. That is why the agenda. That is why the fight.
Mr Suckoo – this “behaviour” is not “creeping into our part of the world” – Cayman will likely have the same representative estimated percentage of heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals etc. as anywhere else. The difference is that they (and in many other parts of the Caribbean) have been forced to live under cover, with no hope of rights an respects afforded to them (much as blacks and women beforehand legally) – until the time is ripe for them to agitate for equality.
That time has arrived.
This isn’t an apology. This a poor attempt at trying to justify the discrimination against the gay community.
Oh i’m sorry if I sound like like im being discriminating but here are some non relevant points as to why we shouldn’t have same sex union. Can’t even apologise without discriminating. -.-
Any responsible HRC chair would say exactly what Mr Austin-Smith said, @5:46.
I am an expatriate, but like the majority of Caymanians I believe the sanctity of marriage is not meant for same sex couples.
I agree! In fact, the sanctity of marriage should only be allowed for those of religious beliefs (it’s holy matrimony, after all). So let’s make marriage something that only means anything and gives specific rights and status as it relates to the Church, without sanctioning from the State.
Then, let the State have a civil status that confers actual civil rights to couples regardless of the sexual orientation. Marriage and its sanctity are thus protected from the heathens.
You wouldn’t deny the right to public education or access to public healthcare (and other such civic privileges) to someone based on their sexuality, so why do so when it relates to the benefits from a legal partnership? Decouple the term marriage from civil partnerships and everybody wins.
You can then go on spouting your thought that your civil partnership is special and sacred and blessed because you are also “married,” and I, as a non-religious, heterosexual individual, can still enjoy the same civil benefits with my partner as you do with yours without giving a single crap about the specific term “marriage” as it relates to my legal rights and privileges (as could a homosexual couple). We all win, so I know you would be totally in support of this measure, no?
I like Suckoo’s photo. Look real statesman like.
“Let me state that I am not distancing myself from my colleagues in Bodden Town”, so that is not an apology by anyone’s standards. The silence of the Premier is as predictable as it is cowardly.
Back peddle back peddle, forward a little, left a little, right a little, everyone happy now? Err, no. Jelly fish have more backbone
The issue is whether adults should be entitled to make “informed and consensual” sexual acts, without fear of discrimination or retribution.
It has nothing to do with gay sex being “crammed down your throat”, if you find it offensive or against your moral values or interpretation of the Bible, you are certainly entitled to that position (I have Christian friends, including Yale University Divinity School graduates, who have totally different interpretations).
This is why drugging someone up and sexing them does not fit the definition, as well as pretending a goat or a young child can give informed consent.
Actually, it’s about the right to be recognised as next of kin at your partner’s bedside in a hospital, for inheritance and a myiad of other legal reasons that the rest of us never give a second thought to.
I hear you @2.25pm.(Anonymous). Duly noted with thanks.
That is not the issue at all. Homosexual acts between consenting adults in private was legalised many years ago.
Not in any way do I reflect on the moral, social or legal issue, but please understand, Cayman must soon deal with these global issues, it is at the door, one cannot bury a head in the sand, deal with reality.
Kimpton/Dart Hotel:
Wikipedia:
LGBT[edit]
Every year, the company sponsors a red-ribbon campaign generating awareness and funds for local HIV service agencies. In addition, local hotels make donations to LGBT charities and host events for local community groups. Kimpton formed K-GLEN, the Kimpton Gay and Lesbian Employee Network, to advise the company on personnel and community outreach concerns. The committee meets quarterly and has representation from every region of the country. The company was included as one of the ten best companies for gay and lesbian employees by The Advocate.[14] It has received a 100% rating on the Corporate Equality Index released by the Human Rights Campaign every year since 2005.[15]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_HOYk9ED9Q
Once again we find ourselves commenting and debating on issues that have no place in a 21st century government. What a monumental waste of time and money.
Whilst Messrs Eden, Suckoo et al. grimly cling on to a moral doctrine that has its basis in a 2000 year old book of fiction that history has proven to benefit the few at the expense of the many, your constituents continue to see mt trashmore grow, local unemployment rise and confidence in their elected leaders diminish.
You have been elected to bring something productive and fresh to the table, not to reheat yesterdays stale leftovers. Before you make the call to stand at the next election, I would challenge you to examine your motives. Do you want to move Cayman forward? Do you want to help your constituents with real world problems they face every day? Or, as has been evidenced of late, are you simply choosing to use your privileged position as a personal pulpit from which you can preach to your insecurities?
And to you the voters, remember, these guys are accountable to you for results. If you want to ask your pastor for guidance on the rights and wrongs of gay marriage thats your choice. But its not your honourable MLA’s job. They are here to enact policy to enhance your future, not to pontificate on moral crusades.
Think about it.
Why is Alva apologizing for speaking his mind? We elected him to defend the rights of Caymanians and he did so. He doesn’t owe anyone an apology for doing his job.
Who ever forced him to apologize is in the wrong. Not him.
So gay Caymanians don’t have rights?
They have plenty of rights.
He did not apologed for speaking his mind on retaining the sanctity of marriage he apologized if anyone was offended. In other words no one who care about Cayman and our culture should have been offended. There is a huge difference. Why should we give a rats behind if some of you out ther do not agree.
The reality is that had Eden presented a balanced opinion, the motion would have passed quietly and surprised no-one. The HRC would probably have expressed its disappointment and we would all have moved on.
What has caused the HRC to write is the outright hatred that was displayed towards the LGBT citizens of this country. HUGE mistake by a seasoned politician. Now that you have cemented your legacy Mr Eden, its time to retire.
Mr Suckoo your attack on the HRC and in particular the Chairman shows your bias and has done nothing to redeem you in my book. You should also look up the meaning of “apology” as your letter is far from one.
Would it make a difference if the HRC had a born Caymanian head? Having not one, but TWO foreigners in charge often results in a ‘foreign’ approach and maybe even an agenda that is ‘foreign’ to the local populous. How can we trust that their purpose is genuine?
As far as I’ve heard this year, they are gung ho on forcing our hand, regardless of what we want and are guilt-tripping us about what other HRC’s around the world have done to other countries. That’s a form of blackmail and cultural terrorism. It is absolutely wrong for the local HRC to oppose the views of the people in this country and to try to strong-arm the government into imposing laws that do not reflect our values. Why do we have them here if their only quest is to antagonize, berate and destroy the fabric of Caymanian culture. Yes, we know it has faults, but they are ‘our’ faults to deal with, not some Johnny-come-lately’s pet project.
Based on what I’ve heard from the HRC, I am severely disappointed. I believe the HRC constitution should mandate that the President or the Vice-President of the HRC must be of Caymanian origin to ensure that the people of Cayman (who should always, rightfully come first) are fairly and adequately represented. As it stands, it is not a proper ‘human rights’ committee, it is an ‘expats rights’ committee as all of its obvious agendas appear to be ‘foreign’ to Caymanians.
Gay rights is not for Cayman. Apart from our moral and religious beliefs, it will only cause chaos and more divide than the political party system. Our children should not be subject to an immoral and unnatural lifestyle because “in this day and age” the rest of the world is allowing it. It’s undue ‘peer pressure’. It’s toxic and it’s just WRONG FOR CAYMAN!
How does the origin of the head of the HRC make any difference as to whether human rights have been breached or not? Discrimination against anyone doesnt depend on the identity of the victim, the discriminator or the person that calls it out. You may not agree that homosexuals deserve protection against discrimination, but that is an entirely different argument. If you do believe that then say so instead of trying to say the HRC isn’t doing their job. Of course you have a slight problem in that the constitution doesn’t agree with you, nor do a hell of a lot of Caymanians, but at least you would be being honest.
It might make a difference to the priority given to this issue above all other really pressing discrimination issues.
I’m happy to say I don’t vote in your district but I’m ashamed that we have bigots like you and that dinosaur Tony Eden representing the Cayman Islands.
Is it painful, you know, sitting on the fence?
You can’t sit on the fence here Alva. This is a tough one for politicians but this answer really does not cut it. Either way before reelection occurs every voter should have a clear understanding of what sides of every issue the politicians stand for. Be it gay rights, the dock and environment or whatever concerns you. You surely must have an understanding of your districts leaders before you vote.
He is not on any fence. He merely said ,he is sorry if what he said offended anyone, why should speaking up for marriage offend anyone. He did not say that he is sorry for saying what he said. There is a huge difference. Some of you really do not understand the nuances of the English language.
So dumb.
The best thing for you to do Alva IS STEP DOWN, the next the Governor should enforce you to step down, cause Alden don’t have no b….s to say anything
I beg your pardon but the governor did not elect him. As I said before there are thousands of bible believing God fearing people in his constituency who cannot wait until next election to put him right back in. He has been there for us and we will be there for him and there is nothing all of you can do. He did not apologize , no need to. In cayman we always say ” sorry if what I said offended you but”………” That is what he meant, so is really does not matter how much all of you twist his words we know what he meant and that is all that matters. He stood up and spoke up for the sanctity of marriage and we applaud him. Al show up, pay attention, pick and speak your words with truth and do not be attached to the outcome.
Translation: “I have been forced to make an apology, and am sorry if I offended you with my comments, which you totally misinterpreted. But honestly, isn’t your sensitivity really the problem?”
Sounds like you’re attempting to straddle the fence here Mr. Suckoo (a typical political ploy when trying to appease all – for the sake of votes usually!)
Thanks again Minister Panton and Mr. Austin Smith for your stand to promote tolerance of a section of our community that too often has to live feeling discriminated against. It’s high time that discrimination of ALL forms is called as it is! And stopped!
We need a Caymanian as the head of the HRC now, plain and simple! Austin-Smith is at sea with our culture.
Can you be all at sea in something that does not exist? The Zen of Bigotry and Self-Justification.
Quite right, let Mr Austin-Smith step down and be replaced by Mr Anthony Eden who is totally in step with your “culture”.
Bam!! Good lick, 8:54! That’ll hold them and their foolishness.
It doesn’t matter what nationality is involved here, the comments made by Eden belong in the 16th century and are hateful. In any culture they would be regarded the same.
What you have done is displayed to the world the ongoing problems with the “culture” here. You want someone in the HRC to “agree” with anything said, either for reward, favour, tribal loyalty or through duress.
Also known as corruption, so thank you for this thinly veiled example.
You should report to mr Legges office where your name should be placed in the ledger.
There may be room towards the back.
ERRR…not much of an apology…
“He accused the campaign for marriage in the LGBT community and the promotion of gay lifestyles as “suspicious” because “heterosexuals don’t promote their lifestyle” and gay behaviour was “creeping into our part of world”, as he wondered what the agenda was.”
Yet “Christians” constantly PROMOTE their lifestyle and feel superior to others when doing so, don’t jam that down my world!
When I meet a Christian who TRULY walks the walk then I’m more interested in what he has to say, but for the rest, that spew hate and are hypocrites, you should be so very much ashamed of yourselves.
Just respect others and then in return you might get some respect back.
Every time I meet someone who without asking tells me that they are a church going Christian I am immediately on guard as I know that if they feel the need to declare same they do not have their own internal moral compass to guide them. Weak characters with holier than thou chips on their shoulders will be the first to throw you under the bus and then justify it by twisting the scriptures to suit their needs. Not what our good Lord intended methinks.
Weasel words from Suckoo and Winston, trying desperately to appeal to everyone, bible thumpers and liberal tolerant people alike. No good. You’re both fired. No moral courage. Sad and pathetic. And Suckoo’s attacks on Austin-Smith are xenophobic and ignorant. We don’t need you as our MLA.
Alva please stop you are making yourself sound like an imbecile if this is an apology!
As a Caymanian student I have to agree, that the HRC has been quiet in Cayman until now and it does make one have to question why this particular topic has struck such a nerve with the Chairman.
I am very please to read Mr. Suckoo’s response. He does highlight that many pressing issues needs addressing within the community and whilst this is very important, the same energy should be given to those issues as well by the HRC.
I am also pleased to see that Mr. Connolly has made his position clear on the matter and I respect Mr. Panton and Mr. Eden, which is permissible in a democratic society.
Mr. Austin Smith, my learned friend I suggest you remember the importance of striking a balance in your job why tackling the difficult issues. The job of HRC should be one that represents the entire country and not just a selected “community” – as stated on the website.
This particular topic has struck a nerve because of the vile remarks of Eden and the lack of response from the MLAs…duh…and if you don’t think that this warrants a response from the HRC and represents the whole country then you need a lot more schooling dear.
I suggest you read before speaking. I’ll break it down for you
A. The HRC has been around for quite sometime
B. Other Human Rights issues have been on the burner for a long time and not addressed
C. Why does the gay movement take such priority?
D. Don’t say it’s Mr. Eden’s words either because, ever since the law school held the lecturer series everyone in the gay community got hot in the pants
E. Following the lecture series to be exact, was the first we heard from Austin Smith on anything from the HRC. They have never fought for anything in the Cayman Islands.
F. Why then is this topic of such greater importance over the others? Like I said at D don’t say it’s Mr. Eden’s words.
The CI Student did make a valid point. Facts is facts my dear! Do your homework it’s all there!
Please stop. You are embarrassing us. Our young people need to think more critically than this. You’re studying to be a lawyer. Eden used what amounts to hate speech to attack a segment of the community that is breaking no laws. Get it? You can’t say don’t use the main point of a argument just because you don’t like it. A judge isn’t going to be very kind to you in court if you try that there.
Well done, you know your ABC’s !
The HRC didn’t speak up before because of a bigoted member that blocked any actual advocacy for LGBT rights (and he is a non-Caymanian, I might add). The new membership is not similarly constrained.
I do not believe the authenticity of this comment.
Good God, you two are law students? Well that explains why so many graduates can’t get articling positions.
So what you want is the HRC to only defend human rights that would be approved by the majority or the majority of the minority that have political rights? That would be very pointless.
I have doubts about the authenticity and the motive behind this comment
It seems more interesting to note why this particular topic has struck such a nerve with Mr. Eden, that he would make such devisive, intolerant and hateful comments?
I also just checked the website for the HRC and found much other works that they are doing…so it seems thay are in fact taking a balanced approach.
The main issue here is that Mr. Eden’s comments were hateful and uncalled for!
The HRC is there to protect human rights, which may sometimes vary from the views held by certain members of society, or even the majority of them. Are you seriously trying to say that discrimination is OK as long as the majority of the population support it?
He doesn’t have to make any apology, he, like the majority of Caymanians, do not approve of such a sick thought or idea. They are sick people who needs prayer and intercession.
Prayer? Don’t ya think if there is even a god to begin with that if he didn’t like what was going on he would just snap his fingers and fix it, smite all the gays? Instead, ignorant people like you hide behind your deluded religious perspective and use it as a means to hate what you don’t understand.