Missing law at heart of cruise vote case
(CNS): The legal team representing Shirley Roulstone, who filed for a judicial review of the government’s cruise port referendum process, argued that government’s failure to enact a framework referendum law has led to a catalogue of problems surrounding how the petition for the referendum, the law for this specific vote and now the campaign in the run-up to the vote have been handled. Lawyers said government’s breach of duty, given the absence of a general law, has led to serious inequities and allowed it to dictate the rules of a people’s vote.
Chris Butler, from Matrix Chambers in London, presented Roulstone’s case to Justice Tim Owen, who is presiding over the anticipated legal hearing, which opened in Grand court Wednesday morning. He said that how elections and referendums are conducted is fundamental to democracy, as he set out the problems that the lack of general legislation has caused to the conduct of this proposed vote so far and argued that was why the missing law mattered so much.
With issued such as government including the cargo dock in the question, even though the petition made no mention of that issue, and the “grossly misleading” information it had circulated as fact during the campaign so far, Butler implied that it seems to have “suited government” not to have the necessary general law in place.
A significant amount of the concerns that campaigners for the vote now have boil down to the missing general legislation. Butler argued that it would have been expected that such a law would set the rules for how petition signatures are collected in the case of a people-initiated referendum, how they are verified, how the question and dates are set, the rules around campaign finance and the boundaries, limitations or guardrails needed to ensure that fairness and equality prevail during any referendum campaign.
But the failure to enact the required law has led to government’s policy to support a cruise dock dominating the rules every step of the way. Butler said that this is because the government, and by extension the Legislative Assembly, is not impartial on this vote and would not be in any people’s vote, and that is reflected in the specific port referendum law.
Starting with its approach to the verification to the massive inequities in promotional spending, the referendum campaigners have been put at a disadvantage while the government had “a free hand” in setting the rules, Butler argued.
He pointed out that government had required all 5,300 people, the number needed to trigger the poll, to sign a second document before it would accept the veracity of the petition. Then, given its access to publicly funded media, the missing referendum law has seen government put out propaganda as fact.
Butler offered the court various examples, including the open promotion and invitation by the premier to those who had signed the petition to remove their names. He argued that even the disenfranchisement of potential voters was caused by the missing framework law, as the specific port legislation made no provision about opportunities for voters to register.
He pointed out that when the question was first passed and the dates set, there was almost no window of opportunity for new voters to register, which a basic law would be expected to make provision for. He said government had “strikingly failed to protect the right voters have to register”.
The lawyer also argued the complete absence of any campaign finance rules, even in the bespoke law for the actual vote, had compounded the inequities. He argued that it was not just about how much was spent but the issue of transparency and the problem of unknown third party backers.
But he said the absence of campaign finance rules was “not surprising” because “it suits the government” not to be constrained in this case. He suggested that government was well aware that the opposition to its port policy is coming from a grassroots civil organisation with no money and no wealthy backers that could outspend the government.
On the other hand, it has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of public cash promoting the port, which has also been supported by the spending of its commercial partners on the project, and there is no public record of that expenditure.
It is currently estimated that government alone has spent around $420,000 in public money, compared to the CPR spending of just $75,000, which has come from private small donors and the campaign supporters’ pockets.
In addition, the use of Radio Cayman highlights another major inequity. As a popular local radio station, government has used its ownership of the medium to run thousands of free ads, a service not offered to the CPR. It also dressed up those policy promotional adverts as public service announcements when they were not and contained many disputed claims and not facts.
Butler argued that, in general, government had abused its power to promote “grossly misleading” claims about the project in official literature and at meetings.
Following Butler’s intense and detailed arguments about the missing law, Tom Lowe QC, who is representing the National Trust, backed most of what he had said. But Lowe urged the judge to look at the misleading position government has made about the environmental threats.
He described some claims as “really shameful”, in particular the government’s efforts to mislead people into thinking that the reefs in the harbour are already destroyed by cruise ship anchors, when the truth of the matter is that it is home to some of the best reefs in the country. Lowe said that even the tourism ministry’s own environmental consultants, Baird, had found that there was an “abundance of living coral” in the George Town Harbour.
He said the government had some serious legal hurdles, as it appeared intent on contravening its own National Conservation Law regarding endangered species, which the reefs provide a home to, with this proposed construction. Lowe also raised the extensive, unfair and unjust approach taken by the government and the “fundamental need for fair play” in any referendum.
The senior counsel also revealed that the Trust is acting as an “intervener” in this judicial review, but there are plans to bring a much more substantial legal case regarding the environmental threat posed by the project.
The case continues in Court 3 Thursday with the government’s response. Check back to CNS throughout this week for full coverage of the court proceedings followed by details revealed in the documents supporting the case.
- Fascinated
- Happy
- Sad
- Angry
- Bored
- Afraid
Category: Local News
If we’re going to be honest, the missing law here is the twice approved and passed, once amended, Standards in Public Life Law. That’s the 800lb gorilla that criminalizes normalized standard operating procedures in LA, Boards, Committees and all senior civil servant positions with authority to skew results and conspire against truth and honesty.
9.39 You need to come off it . You have a one track mind and sound like a broken record.
Well the review wrapped up today and it’s looking like a NO vote for Shirley and CPR . the only concession seems likely to be the revised as agreed between Cabinet and Shirley Roulstone’s lawyers.Oh and maybe a recommendation for a future law providing guidelines for future referendums but it wont apply to this one.
To 4.16pm 23/01 “Remove Caymanian grandparent requirement from elections law – to put all Caymanians on same footing, thus broadening pool of eligible candidates” .Now it is all starting to make sense. Now we see the reason for all the expat support for CPR . Some have suggested that they are in fact the driving force behind CPR.When we look at the group out calling for protection of Eden Rock, and then read this it all adds up.What also seems connected is the actions of the British Foreign Affairs committee seeking voting rights for all UK nationals living in Cayman; that action didn’t just appear from thin air, more likely it was raised by UK Nationals living/working here.Locals supporting the petition would do well to look carefully before getting involved with any group going forward; just be sure that they have your interest at heart and are not using you to advance some other agenda.
There are no legally recognized tiers of belongership, yet there continues to be this paper/born inequality as codified in the Elections Law. It’s a shame that every obvious legal point needs to be sent for judicial review in the Cayman Islands. As far as moral qualification, we need not look further than where “having a Caymanian Grandparent” has got us with this corrupt regime that refuses to enact basic conflict rules.
Stop the pathetic attempt to bring in division and nationalism! Plenty ordinary Caymanians are prepared to tell the Gov to stuff their cruise crock!
12.07am You are not one of them though.
Vote yes for prosperity.
Vote no to Trolls
Your prosperity comes in the form of greed and destruction.
Voting No!! – Civil Servant
I love it how Cayman News Service thumbs up and down only shows the anti-port votes prior to voting and then ONLY AFTER a PRO vote it shows the real vote count.
CNS: The thumbs function is a popular WordPress plugin. There are a few basic settings, such as the style of the thumbs, but otherwise we have no control over the thumb vote. It functions as the people who wrote the code meant it to. Whatever you think you’re seeing, you’re not seeing. The code does not care who is voting or what the subject matter is. It’s just code.
It’s just code, but it is still odd to press your chosen thumb and suddenly see a completely new set of numbers. Happens all the time.
CNS: Possibly you refreshed the page, possibly many people are voting at the same time. There’s nothing nefarious about it though.
It’s to do with page caching. Your browser uses an ‘old’ copy until a new one is called by you. When you click a thumb, it reloads the page, including all the changes that other voters have caused since it was last refreshed.
I really hope people Vote No when it is time.
The more information that comes out the worse and worse this looks for government and the cruise lines… and most importantly for Cayman.
Shameful.
Absence of a law cuts both way. A general referendum law would have also had rules regarding how long you have to collect the signatures for a successful petition.The CPR had almost 6 to months to do that and that’s a very long time to show that something has strong public interest. They could have been given only 2 months if the rules were enshrined in a law. In some countries you have as little as 6-8 weeks.
exactly right.
Just a slight correction 10.16am, CPR was launched in August 2018 which means they had a whole year to gather signatures AND to fight for a General Referendum Law. After failing to fight for this law they now try to lay the blame solely at the feet of Government while trying to free themselves of any blame.
List examples.
The unscrupulous activities of this government are endless. One underhanded action that Mr. Butler appears to have left out of his argument to the court, is the government’s insistence that government employees, the majority of whom are Caymanians with the right to vote, not discuss or comment on the referendum. That letter from Franz late last year to all government employees was a scare tactic and I’m shocked that it hasn’t gotten more rebuke from the public. That letter was very cleverly written and intentionally ambiguous. Was Franz telling civil servants not to discuss the referendum at work, so as not to distract them from their duties? Was he telling them not to discuss it with their clients, for example, over the counter at the Lands Office? It was not clear exactly where and when they could and could not discuss the matter. Every civil servant that I’ve spoken to tells me that their understanding of that letter was that they couldn’t discuss the referendum. Period. Not even with family and friends at home or in social settings. In fact, I myself witnessed one civil servant speaking about the referendum in public to a group of friends, only to be hushed by those same people with, “Boy, if you want to keep your job you better try hush”. I was so shocked and dismayed that, even though I was not party to the conversation, I felt compelled to jump in tell them all that they as Caymanians had the right to speak their minds freely whenever and wherever they wanted! A few looked incredulous while others gave me a “Yeah, you’re right!”
The point that I’m making is that this type of intimidation from senior government officials directed at civil servants should be LOUDLY rebuke by ALL Caymanians. I totally expect that letter to be recirculated to civil servants again before the referendum vote. I hope that the judge hearing this matter will intervene and make it clear to government officials that they must cease and desist from ANY intimidation of civil servants in any way, shape or form.
You better cease and desist with empowering people ! We are everywhere and still know what you did last summer.
Signed
The Government
We support you.
The people.
Pure Propaganda . Just trying to influence the vote, that’s what you are doing.
In the grand scheme of things, this only shows that we are not much different than any “Banana Republic”. Alden, Moses, and the rest of the lodge MLA’s truly are pushing an agenda that will assist them and their “brethren” in the private sector.
It is very ironic that we in the Cayman Islands push our tourism product partly based on our environment and yet we see fit to dredge up and destroy mangroves, ponds and beaches all around Grand Cayman.
The cargo port aspect of the referendum is a bunch of pure baloney (bologna).
And when you look at the financial figures of what we supposedly as a country are to gain from the new Port – how about publishing some figures on the costs that are going to be associated with the increased pressure on our infrastructure – to include government-related entity personnel costs, outsourcing costs, etc, etc. etc.
If Government, and especially Moses wasn’t pushing this so hard and trying to cram it down our throats, then perhaps I would believe that he is doing it in the best interest of our islands.
Also, please take time to do a little research on the companies who seem fit to gain from the new port – here referring to the cruise lines – especially one in particular who seem to always be in court or are being fined for violations – a simple google search will enlighten those who are curious.
What an embarrassment.
Unbelievable.
dam trouble makers
What is not mentioned here is how much time Radio Cayman has given to anti-port supporters to attend the talk show and speak about their perspective on the port. Time given to talk on the talk show is worth at least tens of thousands of dollars if you consider how much a 30 second ad cost on the radio. The anti- port supports are allowed to talk for and hour to hour and half on many occasions. CNS this is an emotional issue for many but can we have fair and balance reporting please. Thank you.
How is this relevant to this story?
7.38am It is relevant because CPR has raised the issue of Government spending vs CPR spending on airtime.
Anyone can visit and be on air for the Radio Cayman talk show. There is no charge for that.
So if you are running your platform on an extremely short budget, this would be the best option. So I’m not sure what your argument is here…
The government has the same option. But they shoes to spend almost half a million dollars to put out propaganda and anti-democratic BS.
So true.
KC , how can you compare the slimy actions of our politicians to individuals legally trying to express themselves with THEIR OWN MONEY, and not money belonging to the people of the Cayman Islands?
That’s for the CIG lawyer(s) to raise before the court for CNS to report on it. The news can only report what gets said. Not what we wish were said.
Absolutely correct, this is all just trouble makers stirring up the pot.
CIG is also allowed on the Talk shows but it prefers to use the people’s revenue for misleading adverts and refuses to engage with the public on said shows.
$12 is the cost of a 30 second radio ad. To cost $10,000, they’d have to be on 833x or 7 straight hours. lol
Alden and Moses have no shame.
They worse than Muckeeva and his udp pirates
Thanks Shirls and CPR for fighting the good fight. You’re all heroes
This government are exposed as liars and charlatans. Thank you Shirley. Thank you National Trust and thank you CPR for exposing them and taking them to court for the world to see what they are. Corruption and deceit are like cancer which must be cut out immediately.
Vote no to the port on referendum day.
Vote out all members of the UNITY government starting with every Cabinet member in 2021 general elections.
They should all resign let’s call an election instead of a referendum.
Voters need to:
1. Petition to enact SIPL law
2. Remove Caymanian grandparent requirement from elections law – to put all Caymanians on same footing, thus broadening pool of eligible candidates
3. Tighten criteria on education and loose rules on criminal/dishonorable/DUI pasts
4. Dissolve LA and call early elections
5. Strip those dishonored by ACC fallout of their honorable for life titles and pensions.
We did that last time!!
There is indeed “an abundance of living coral in George Town Harbour”.
BUT it isn’t where the two piers will be built. Scare stories with vague references to coral but without precise locations do not serve the public well. Yes there might be a small quantity of silt on and around, say, Eden Rock or Whitehall Bay but the natural ebb and flow of the tides and currents will soon wash this away.
If CPR and the National Trust had existed in the late seventies we wouldn’t even have the existing dock, hence none of the development of the last forty years could have happened.
11:25 The conditions around hog sty bay are too mild to disperse the silt quickly even with booms in place. Plus if the pier is built the continuous docking by cruise ships will stir up more silt so it will be an on going problem that will result in high coral mortality.
So those cruise ships anchored out where the docks will go are just hallucinations?
Dredging during the proposed construction will most likely kill a substantial amount of coral both North and South of the construction area, that comes directly from the information that is available to the public.
Don’t forget voter intimidation!. The state was set for this when the premier publicly announced that those in favor of the port need not vote because a no show at the polls was a yes for the port. Although he tried to backtrack, the damage was done. Now everyone knows that anyone who shows up to vote could be assumed to be a “no” vote. Fundamental human rights required voting to be private and anonymous but the way the rules are written, all anonymity is lost and it veey easy to conclude how someone voted. It a person is spotted at the polls, or their car is spotted in the parking lot, then everyone (read their government employer) knows they are against the port. A large percentage of the electorate works for government and is concerned about reprisals for opposing a project that government is so strongly in favor of. And one can safely assume that many won’t vote as a result. If this vote goes forward as proposed, I predict very low voter turnout. The only fair solution is to count 50% +1 of The Votes cast on referendum day and NOT of the electorate as a whole.
Champaign for the necessary change to the Constitution needs to start now.
I’ll certainly drink champagne if the ‘No’ vote wins the referendum.
Voter intimidation – when I first saw this comment, I thought you were referring to the disgraceful behaviour of certain CPR activists, including an MLA, as they were chasing people down the sidewalk at Hurleys and screaming insults at people who did not want to sign – bullying people into signing. Seen with my own eyes, and experienced it personally.
provide proof of these claims or get lost. There is video of Alden and Moses pressuring people to vote a certain way.
David.. it is said ” Never assume anything, it could make an ASS of U and ME” Just because you assume that only no votes will turn out does not mean that we all do.One more thing…if you are a NO supporter but fail to vote your ‘non vote’ will not be counted with or added to the Yes total. It is simply counted with the DID NOT VOTE TOTAL.However since you failed to vote you also failed to help the NO voters which some people might count as helping the Yes voters.
Govt’s simultaneous admissions that it agrees a framework law is required, is currently working on a draft of same but would proceed with the referendum before it becomes law if it wins this case seem to be a bit problematic, not to say contemptuous.
It was CPR who wanted to rush in to a referendum.
How much kool aid have you been drinking today? Obviously you have not been following the news or struggle with reading. If CPR were in a rush do you really think court proceedings would be happening?
How much are you paid to blog pure bollocks?
The observably false. Why do you think this got taken to court in the first place?
Are you actually being paid to gas light people or do you just do it for fun?
@ 7.56am You are absolutely right. In fact at the Town Hall meeting in George Town in May 2019 some of CPR leaders including Johann were worried that Government would be using delaying tactics.In fact some CPR supporters wanted to speed up the process by asking Govt to just take random sample voters for signature verification, rather than verifying the whole lot.However just when we thought that we would have a referendum, a CPR leader Roulstone asks for and gets a delay for a judicial review. So you are correct.in your statement’
Vote No
Vote No to Voting No!