A successful unsuccessful State of Emergency

So just short three weeks of the end to this illegitimate state of emergency I have come to the conclusion that it is a successful unsuccessful state of emergency. First of all during the SOE and the imposition of a curfew murders and rapes continued. After the lifting of the curfew and rentention of the SOE, murders and rapes continued. Last week a claim was made that rapes are on the rise and about two days after the police service published a release saying that sexual offences are on the decline.

After the police and army dug up a bunch of old guns, the security forces along with representatives of the People's Partnership Government all patted themselves on the back and claimed victory in ridding this country of illegal guns and restricting criminal activity. They even had a big public event where they invited the UN to come to Trinidad to destroy guns, yet still three weeks shy of the end of this State of Emergency the country's security forces are on high alert because of death threats against the Prime Minister and curiously enough "only three" other government ministers who seem to have been 'specifically' hand picked for this criminal plot. The Prime Minister has stated that this plot is being commissioned by criminal elements who are angry over the 'success' of the State of Emergency.

I'm not sure I understand this current situation facing our country. If the State of Emergency was successful in stunting the free movement of criminals in this country, getting illegal guns off the streets and destroying criminal enterprises then how come these criminal elements still exist and more so how come they have the capacity and resources to plot an assasination on the Prime Minister if the State of Emergency was successful? If after almost three months of a State of Emergency we have criminal elements in this country that are so powerful that they have the resources to plan an assasination againts the Prime Minister and three top government officials then one can only conclude that this is a successful unsuccessful state of emergency. The question is where does that leave us as a nation?

Under a State of Curiosity

I find it extremely curious that under a State of Emergency certain sectors of this country can protest "without police permission" to have a duly appointed school principal removed from her position, and no action is taken against them. I find it curious that under a state of emergency the board of a denominational school can disregard the instruction of a government commission and refuse to allow a school principal to return to school. I find it curious that under a state of emergency a board of a denominational school can put chains on a school to prevent a government appointed school principal from entering a school thereby putting the education of children in jeapordy & disturbing the peace.

I find it curious that under a state of emergency a goverment minister will go to the police station to support a 'friend' on the board of a denominational school that is engaged in disregarding instructions from both the Ministry of Education and Teaching Service Commission. I find it curious that under a state of emergency people can come on our national television and insight violence with impunity. I find it curious that under a state of emergency the Government of Trinidad and Tobago seem unable to bring the board of a denominational school to order yet they claim to be taking on criminal "big fish". I'm under a state of curiosity.

Police's treatment of female citizen needs to be investigated

Last night (Monday) I saw a video clipping on TV6's U Report showing police officers arresting a young lady on Ariapita Avenue and if anything this video did was show the total lack of professionalism of the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service, their abject ignorance and lack of commonsense. The video clearly showed the young lady claiming she did not refuse to take the breathelzyer test so why was she arrested? She did not use obscene language, was clearly not drunk and certainly did not pose a threat to the public. I therefore have a few questions for Police Commissioner Dwayne Gibbs.

1) Did these police officers read this young woman her rights?

2) Did they inform the young woman of the reason for detaining her?

3) Did the police have reason to believe that under this State of Emergency this young woman is a gang member or had criminal intent or posed a threat to the state?

4) Why did a male police officer attempt to roughly handle a female citizen despite the presence of a female officer?

5) Why did the male officer insist on attempting to roughly handle a female citizen despite her objections to him putting his hands on her?

6) Why is a female citizen wearing a skirt and high heels treated in such an inhumane and degrading manner by being made to 'cock up' in the back of a police vehicle?

7) Is the police so void of commonsense that they could not logically deduce that they should have put this young lady in the back seat of the police vehicle?

Only in an uncivilized third world country would a young lady be treated in such a disgraceful and degrading manner, even male suspects are placed in the interior of police vehicles in developed countries. Good luck in implementing your 21st century policing plan Commissioner Gibbs but from this video alone, I can tell that retraining these "thugs in blue uniform" is going to be a colossal challenge. I do not envy you.

Questions for Kamla..

Out of curiosity my dear Prime Minister, how do you know that only 7% of the scholarship recipients were of East Indian descent? Did your government conduct a DNA examination of the scholarship recipients? I have many East Indian friends with non-seemingly East Indian names so I would hope that you did not base your accusation exclusively on the recipient's surnames. Is this the modus operandi of your government Mrs. Persad-Bissessar? Governance by eugenics and ethnicity? I noticed in your accusation you said "7% of the recipients were of East Indian descent and the other 93% were of non East Indian descent", perhaps you should clarify to both the population and Anil Roberts what you mean by "Non East Indian", because when you said it Anil Roberts was heard by the entire nation shouting over your voice asking, "not even a Dougla?". I would have thought that non East Indian would mean Afros, Douglas, Syrians, Chinese, Caucasian etc, but it seems Anil Roberts begs to differ.

Why were you only capable of giving a specific percentage of the East Indians that received scholarships but you couldn't tell the population how many Africans, Chinese, Syrians, Douglas and Caucasians were given scholarships? By deliberately withholding information on what ethnic group or groups made up the 93% I fail to understand your claims of racial discrimination. Also what does this mean of the 7% of East Indians who received scholarships? How were they able to secure scholarships from an alleged discriminatory government (according to you)? Did this 7% betray the larger East Indian community to secure these scholarships? Now that former Minister of Culture Ms Marlene Mc Donald has indicated in Parliament that it was a five member committee, two of which are of East Indian descent were the one's responsible for interviewing the scholarship awardees, is our Prime Minister indicating that these two citizens of East Indian descent aided and abetted the PNM in engaging in racial discrimination?

Apart from considering the recipient's ethnicity did you or your government contemplate any other reasons why they were selected? Are the person's selected from a particular economic stratum? Was the government offering scholarships for courses which it deemed priority? And while we are on the topic of the ethnic composition of tertiary education students, does this mean that the People's Partnership Government is going to launch an investigation into why so many of the persons admitted into the medical school at UWI are of East Indian descent? And last but not least, forgive me if I seem to be slow, but could you please explain to me of what relevance is the PNM's awarding of scholarships to the current $50b budget debate? How does the PNM awarding scholarships to only 7% East Indians bear any relevance to the fact that your government is about to once again embark upon deficit budgeting in what is the largest budget in the history of this country, and to date the citizens of this country still have not received a lucid explanation as to how your government intends to utilize this money. You do remember that this is a budget debate don't you?

State of Emergency Lacking Constitutional Validity

It has been two weeks since the People’s Partnership Government declared a state of emergency and citizens still remain in the dark as to the reasons for having our constitution suspended and thus being deprived of our fundamental democratic and constitutional rights. As per section 1 (9) of our constitution “within three days of making the proclamation, the President shall deliver to the Speaker for presentation to the House of Representatives a statement setting out the specific grounds on which the decision to declare the existence of a state of public emergency was based”.

Mr. Sandy in his contribution to the debate on the motion to extend the state of emergency for three months repeated the Attorney General’s claim that a major crisis was averted and that there was an immediate threat and endangerment to public safety. To date however, both Mr. Ramlogan and Mr. Sandy have refused to give this nation the “specific grounds” on which this state of emergency was called. In a most ingenious way, the Minister of National Security resorted to the cover of “matters of national security” as his reasons for not telling the citizens of this country why exactly a state of emergency was called.

The refusal of the Attorney General and Minister of National Security to inform this country as to the “specific grounds” for having declared a state of emergency does not seem to be in accordance with our constitution. The constitution is quite clear the President must tell our Parliament the “SPECIFIC GROUNDS” on which the state of emergency was called. Nowhere in the constitution does it state that if the state of emergency pertains to a matter of national security that the government can withhold information from citizens. As a matter of fact that entire notion proffered by the Attorney General and Minister of National Security is vulgarly nonsensical as the very purpose of having the provision for a state of emergency in our constitution is to deal with matters of national security in whatever form they may arise, be it natural disaster, disease pandemic or an attack on our democratic institutions by way of a coup.

In seeking to allay justifiable concerns as to the governments declaration and handling of the state of emergency, during his debate Mr. Sandy recapped all the previous state of emergencies our country has been under. What Mr. Sandy did not say in our Parliament as he ought to have, is of all our previous states of emergencies the citizens of this country knew exactly why we had a state of emergency. This is the first time in the history of our country that a state of emergency has been called and citizens have not been appraised as to the ‘specific grounds’ for declaring such. Therefore, what this People’s Partnership Government has done is set a dangerous precedent where any government in the future can call a state of emergency to further their agenda, be it genuine, political or even oppressive and all that government would have to do to circumvent the constitutional and democratic rights of citizens of this country is use the cloak of “matters of national security” and thus avoid accountability to the electorate.

Whether one is in support of the ‘reasoning’ behind this government’s state of emergency or against it, one must take note of this dangerous precedent that has been set by the People’s Partnership Government and its implications for our democratic survival. It seems foolhardy that in order to get a temporary relief from crime because of the abject failure of our security services that we should allow such a colossal undermining of our constitutional mechanisms. Quite frankly I’m not sure which frightens me the most, the government’s reckless manipulation of our constitutional apparatus or citizen’s ignorance to the implications of government’s actions.

Trinbagonians would do well to heed the words of Netsanet Belay, Director of Policy Research at CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation regarding our state of emergency, “The State of Emergency, inappropriate legislation and broad implementation of a curfew represent a disproportionate interference with fundamental rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly enshrined both in the constitution of Trinidad and Tobago and throughout international human rights law. After just two weeks, Trinbagonian citizens risk signing away civic freedoms that have taken forty-nine years of hard struggle and nation-building to win. Persistent crime and personal insecurity are very real threats to many Caribbean nations and need to be taken seriously. Nevertheless the trend we are witnessing across the Caribbean region of using disproportionate security-based measures will only weaken trust in state institutions and could lead to a virtual close down of space for citizens and civil society participation.”

Anand Ramlogan The Transformer

I am without a doubt convinced that Attorney General Anand Ramlogan is a transformer, our own local version of 'Bumble Bee'. As the current Attorney General Anand Ramlogan is in his glee, using non-bailable law such as the Anti Gang Act to detain alleged criminals. But this was the same Anand Ramlogan who wrote a long diatribe against the anti kidnapping bill and it's consequences re: it being a non bailable offence. Now Anand is singing a totally different tune. But you see unlike most Trinidadians my memory eh short! I WILL HIT YOU FOR SIX RAMLOGAN. SEE THE FOLLOWING TRINIDAD GUARDIAN ARTICLE WRITTEN BY NONE OTHER, THE INCUMBENT ATTORNEY GENERAL ANAND RAMLOGAN ON THE 1ST AUGUST 2004!

"Manning’s knee-jerk crime plan" - by ANAND RAMLOGAN (Before being appointed Attorney General and suffering from a delusional swelling of the male part!)

PM Manning unveiled his great crime plan last week. It was greeted with a series of brutal murders and demands for “less talk, more action.” The headline grabber was the “no bail for kidnappers” strategy.

This knee-jerk legislative reaction to what is admittedly a frightening problem is one that must be cautiously studied. The erosion of human rights and the enlargement of State power (that can later be misused and abused) normally take place in the height of a crisis, with the full support of the people, because rational thought is overwhelmed by panic and fear. (In 2004 who would have thought that Anand in one of his editorials to the Guardian was simply describing the state in which he would have the country when he is appointed Attorney General. These words adequately describes the People's Partnership Government's state of emergency)

At present, kidnapping is a criminal offence punishable by life imprisonment. Though it is a bailable offence, magistrates have the power to refuse bail under the Bail Act, because of the seriousness of the offence and its prevalence in society.

Carlos Manickchand and his gang were, for example, refused bail, as have many others who have been charged for kidnapping. Persons charged for car theft and drug offences have routinely been refused bail by magistrates.

A magistrate can set a high bail that is beyond the reach of the accused person, and he would not be out the following morning. We see this happening every day in our courts, so why all the fuss now? (Why all the fuss indeed Anand? Why did your government call a state of emergency to detain criminals when you knew before you even became Attorney General that a magistrate can set a high bail if need be?)

If persons charged with kidnapping offences are being released on bail too frequently, then perhaps our magistrates are setting bail too low, and the Chief Justice needs to issue some guidelines. (I GUESS THE SAME CAN BE SAID FOR ANY CRIMINAL OFFENCE WHICH OUR MAGISTRATES MAY HAVE BEEN SETTING BAIL TOO LOW FOR)

Surely, the seriousness and prevalence of the offence must weigh heavily in the magistrate's mind and tilt the scales towards imposition of onerous bail conditions in appropriate cases.

A non-bailable offence means that once arrested and charged, you will remain behind bars until your trial, regardless of the paucity or strength of the evidence against you. It’s almost as if you're presumed guilty, rather than innocent. In effect, politicians could use it to remove and incarcerate political opponents from society; police officers could use it to get rid of a troublesome boyfriend or husband to access a “slack” wife or girlfriend. (YET STILL HE IS TRYING TO CONVINCE US THAT UNDER A StATE OF EMERGENCY THE POLICE AND ARMY WILL NOT ABUSE THEIR AUTHORITY, AND TO ADD TO THAT HE IS DOING EXACTLY WHAT HE CLAIMED COULD BE DONE, HE IS PRESUMING THE GUILT OF ALL THOSE THUS DETAINED UNDER THIS FARCICAL STATE OF EMERGENCY!)

There are very few non-bailable offences in our law. These are: murder, treason, piracy or hijacking, and any offence for which the penalty is death. A non-bailable offence means that once arrested and charged, you will remain behind bars until your trial, regardless of the paucity or strength of the evidence against you.

It could easily be misused and abused, because the judiciary would have no power to grant bail, and the ultimate power to deprive a citizen of his liberty is given to the police, who can charge on the flimsiest basis.

It places the liberty of citizens in the hands of the police, because once someone is charged for a non-bailable offence, he/she would be amputated from society and incarcerated like a convicted criminal.

Pressing the right buttons, a drug dealer could easily manipulate the police service to get rid of competitors, so that he could control their turf.

If every time a particular crime increases we allow our politicians to fool us with the knee-jerk reaction of new legislation to make the offence non-bailable, then car theft, robbery with violence and drug offences should all be non-bailable.(ANAND RAMLOGAN, YOU MEAN LIKE HOW YOU AND AUNTY KAMLA MADE THE VERY SAME CAR THEFT, ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE AND DRUG TRAFFICKING NON-BAILABLE OFFENCES AS PER THE FIRST SCHEDULE OF THE ANTI GANG ACT WHICH YOUR GOVERNMENT IS TAKING CREDIT FOR HAVING LAID IN PARLIAMENT? YOU MEAN LIKE HOW YOU AND KAMLA TRYING TO FOOL US WITH THIS KNEE-JERK STATE OF ABUSE OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS? OH SHUCKS....AH MEAN STATE OF EMERGENCY?)

If every time a particular crime increases we allow our politicians to fool us with the knee-jerk reaction of new legislation to make the offence non-bailable, then car theft, robbery with violence and drug offences should all be non-bailable.

The trauma inflicted on a victim, whose home is robbed while his/her children are tied and beaten to near death, is not any less than that of a parent whose child is kidnapped. It's no use making qualitative distinctions in the effects of serious crimes.

It is a serious thing for the State to deny an accused bail in circumstances where the backlog of criminal cases in the magistrates’ court system means that an innocent man could be jailed for several years before he is even given an opportunity to prove his innocence. (YET STILL YOU AND GIBBS BOASTING OF HOW MANY PEOPLE YOU HAVE DETAINED UNDER THIS FARCICAL STATE OF STUPIDITY ....OH SHUCKS AH MEAN STATE OF EMERGENCY. ARE THESE ALLEGED CRIMINALS GOING TO BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE MR. TRANSFORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL?)

By the time he wins his case, his whole life is ruined. The main weapon in the fight against crime is an efficient and expeditious system of criminal justice. (NOTICE IN 2004 ANAND RAMLOGAN WAS NOT ESPOUSING NOR WAS HE PROMOTING ANY STATE OF EMERGENCY!)

Part of what motivates kidnappers on bail to commit more crimes is the long delay in trying and convicting them. We are all falling into a trap cleverly set by a clueless PNM. (SEEMS THE ONLY TRAP WE FELL FOR IS VOTING FOR A DECEITFUL LYING GOVERNMENT)

The problem is not the lack of laws, but rather the lack of penetrating policing and enforcement of the existing laws.

“No bail for kidnappers” will deflect the nation's attention from the incompetence of the Government, the impotence of the police, as the spotlight once again shifts to Panday. If he refuses to support this amendment, the nation would be so busy “ponging” and “cussin'” him, that no one will have time to focus on the real issue of the Government's inability to deal with crime. (I WONDER WHOSE INCOMPETENCE ANAND RAMLOGAN IS CURRENTLY DEFLECTING? OH GOSH THEY CUSS PANDAY, YOU MEAN LIKE HOW YOU CUSSING ROWLEY FOR CRITICIZING YOUR ILLEGAL STATE OF EMERGENCY? EH ANDAND?)

The mad rush to make new laws every time we have a problem is a reflection of the idle and bankrupt intellectual state of the PNM. The unthinking rush to embrace and welcome this “no bail policy” for kidnapping might be a reflection of our desperation and helplessness.

There's no point in making new laws when the present ones aren't properly utilised. (NOR IS THERE ANY POINT IN CALLING A STATE OF EMERGENCY WHEN LAWS SUCH AS THE ANTI GANG ACT, FIRE ARMS ACT AND THE FINANCIAL ACT AREN'T BEING PROPERLY UTILISED)

http://legacy.guardian.co.tt/archives/2004-08-01/ramlogan.html

State of Emergency An Abuse of The Constitution

I do not support a state of emergency and the suspension of my democratic and constitutional rights just so the police can do routine police raids. This state of emergency by the People's Partnership Government is ill advised and an abuse of our constitution. The state of emergency has yielded nothing to suggest it is worthwhile, arresting a few hundred persons and seizing a few grams of weed and cocaine does not justify the suspension of our constitution. Denying citizens of their constitutional and democratic rights is a serious issue and is not something that should be done flippantly. I heard the Attorney General justify the state of emergency because of the expected rise in violence that would have occurred because of a $22 million TT drug bust. My response to that is so what? In 2007 the US Justice Department made a drug bust of $45 million US dollars, TT $289 million and to date there has been no declaration of a state of emergency in the United States of America, a country which has more guns than T&T in any given state due to their constitution granting their citizens the right to bare arms!

Mr. Martin Daly made a very valid point on TV6 news on Tuesday night, one does not call a state of emergency to seize six guns, a few grams of illegal drugs and a hundred or so people. Even if I am to be generous and give them credit for finding to date just under ten fire arms with some ammunition and the few grams of drugs (no major drug or arms bust as of day three, no big drug financier arrested), is it that the hundred or so persons arrested are all going to be charged collectively for these few guns, ammunition and drugs? I ask because the government is beating their chest in triumph and claiming success in arresting/detaining these people, but has any of the legal luminaries in this country asked what crime these people have committed? Is it that once you have been held by the police under a farcical state of emergency you are automatically guilty? Have any of these men been taken before a court of law, successfully and judicial tried and convicted for a crime that will see them be locked away for a very long time? And if they have not been charged and tried by a court of law why is the government claiming victory? Is the government preempting the conviction of these men who have been detained? Is that legal and constitutional? Does anyone not find it strange that under a state of emergency where the government has the authority to go after any and every criminal that it is only men being loaded into the police vehicles? Are we a nation where it is only the male homo sapien that commits crime? If that is the case then our country is certainly replete with research material for any discerning anthropologist.

What is even more worrying is the fact that there was no need for a state of emergency when our Parliament inclusive of both Government and Opposition members passed in Parliament the Anti Gang Legislation which gives the police the authority to adequately address the crime situation in T&T without calling a state of emergency and depriving law abiding citizens of their constitutional rights. Some of the police's authority under the act include but are not limited too :-

* The authority to arrest without a warrant any person he has reasonable cause to believe is a gang member or has reasonable cause to believe has committed an offence under this Act.

* The authority to enter with a warrant issued by a magistrate any dwelling house if he has reasonable cause to believe a gang member will be found in that dwelling house.

* The authority to enter "without" a warrant any place or premises not used as a dwelling house and search the same if he has reasonable cause a gang member will be found in such place or premises

* Notwithstanding any law to the contrary a police officer may detain without a warrant for a period not exceeding 24 hours any person who he reasonably suspects having committed an offense under this Act

* If a senior officer has reason to believe that detention of a person without charge is necessary to preserve evidence relating to an offence or to obtain such evidence by questioning the detained person the senior officer may apply to a magistrate for a detention order not exceeding 144 hours (6 days).

The sad part about this entire fiasco is the Opposition the main body responsible for keeping the government in check seemed to have been asleep on the job. However I was heartened to see Dr. Rowley finally espouse what I have been saying in my personal capacity for the past few days, that this state of emergency was not needed, is excessive and just simply does not make sense when we have the necessary legislation in place for the police to deal with the criminal element. True to form the Honourable Prime Minister has immediately criticized Dr. Rowley's claims saying the Anti Gang Legislation could not have been used by the government to carry out the current exercises under the state of emergency as the act is specifically geared towards 'gangs' and gang members. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is simply a case of the Prime Minister not only being pedantic with legal jargon but also insulting the intelligence of the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago. According to Cambridge's Online dictionary one of the definitions for a gang is "a group of criminals who work together". It's definition for a gangster is "a member of an organized group of criminals". What part of these definitions do not apply to the criminals operating in the various hot spots in T&T? They work together and consort with each other, they have a sophisticated communication network that includes BBming and texting, and they are well organized in the execution of their illicit activities. It therefore stands to reason that the Anti Gang Act was fully capable of being utilized to carry out the current operations of the security forces, more importantly the police service and not the army!

In addition the Anti Gang Act further states "For the purpose of this Act, it shall not be necessary to show that a particular gang, possesses, acknowledges or is known by a particular name, insignia, flag, means of recognition, secret signal or code, creed, belief, structure, leadership or command structure, method of operation or criminal enterprise, concentration or speciality, membership, age or other qualification, initiation rites, geographical or territorial situs, boundary or location, or other unifying mark, manner, protocol or method of expressing or indicating its membership when the gang's existence can be demonstrated by a preponderance of other admissible evidence, but any evidence reasonably tending to show or demonstrate the existence of or membership in a gang shall be admissable in any action or proceedings brought under this ACT!" In the Act a gang member is stated as "a person who belongs to a gang, or a person who knowingly acts in capacity of an agent for an accessory to, or voluntarily associates himself with any gang-related activity.....". The act further states that "gang-related activity means any criminal activity, enterprise, pursuit, or undertaking in relation to any of the offences listed in the First Schedule acquiesced in, or consented or agreed to, or directed, ordered, authorized, requested or ratified.

What all of this means is all the state has to do is prove one has committed an offence or engages in "gang-related activity" as is listed in the First Schedule of the Anti Gang Act and you can be convicted under this legislation as a gang member once you commit a gang related offence''! Some of the gang-related activity in the First Schedule are but not limited to :-

* Possession of imitation firearms in pursuance of any criminal offence

* Larceny of a motor vehicle

* Arson

* Receiving stolen goods

* Possession of bullet-proof vest, firearm or ammunition for benefit of gang

* Demanding money with menaces

* Murder

* Shooting or wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm, unlawful wounding

* Robbery, robbery with aggravation, robbery with violence

* Assault occasioning actual bodily harm

* Possession and use of a firearm or ammunition with intent to endanger life

* Possession of firearm or ammunition without licence certificate or permit

* Trafficking a dangerous drug or being in possession of a dangerous drug for the purpose of trafficking

* Rape & grievous sexual assault

* Kidnapping & Kidnapping for ransom

With the above in mind I cannot fathom nor understand how our Prime Minister, our head of government, can publicly state that the Anti Gang Act could not have been used to deal with escalating crime situation which would have seen the police carrying out the very duties they are currently carrying out while our constitution and our democratic rights remained intact. I am very concerned by the fact that we had valid Parliamentary legislation in place to be used by the security services in the full operation of our constitution and rather than use this available legislation and the resources available to it to mobilize the police service in executing their duties, the government instead chooses to adopt what is known internationally as one of the most drastic acts a government can ever perpetuate against it's own citizens, a state of emergency. What is even more worrying is that our Head of State the President does not seem to have the necessary legal advisory team in place to review present legislation etc, which ought to be utilized to deal with a situation before calling a state of emergency.

Why is the government so hell bent on justifying this state of emergency when the results of it thus far shows that it is clearly not worthwhile as these so called 'successes' could have been achieved with a normal police raid under the Anti Gang Act? Why is it that the government seem to be engaging in a campaign of misinformation regarding the legislation and laws that were available to it as well as the capacity of said legislation to deal with the crime problem without interfering and suspending our country's constitution? No government should be allowed to flippantly call a state of emergency when all evidence suggests that they had absolutely no need too. This is a very dangerous precedent that the government has set and I'm very disappointed that the various legal luminaries and the opposition of this country all seem to have been caught with their pants down and the consequence of that lethargy of our respective political and legal vanguards may very well see the creation of a runaway government drunk on power.

Are T&T's Police Really Paid Well?

With a crime rate per capita higher than that of the United States, can it truly be said that Police Officers in Trinidad and Tobago are well paid? The Express has quoted Minister of National Security as saying that per month a married constable will receive $9,516 per month, a married sergeant $11,460 and a married inspector $12,324. In light of the high risks involved regarding the job of a police officer, especially with regard to the high crime rate of our country can one truly say our officers are paid well? Mr. Sandy was on TV6 morning show saying that one cannot put a price to police work or on an officer's life. He said that even if each officer was paid $100,000 it still does not equate to the value of their life. What I want to know is if that is the case does that justify our police officers being severely under paid?

How do our police officers pay look in comparison to the pay of officers in other countries where the crime rate per capita is not as high as ours? Well in the UK police officers salary are as follows : -

Constables

On commencing service - £23,259, TT annual equivalent $251,025, Monthly TT Equivalent $20,918!!!

Constables at Pay Point 5

£31,032, TT annual equivalent $334,916, TT monthly Equivalent $27,909

Constables at Pay Point 10

£36,519, TT annual equivalent $394,135, TT monthly Equivalent $32,844

Sargeant's Pay 1yr in Position

£37,767, TT annual equivalent $407,604, TT monthly equivalent $33,967

Sargeant's at Pay Point 4

£41,040, TT annual equivalent $442,928, TT monthly equivalent $36,910

Inspector Pay Point 1

£48,108 with a raise bracket to £50,163, TT annual equivalent $519,210, TT monthly equivalent $43,267

Inspector Pay Point 3

£50,751 with a raise bracket to £52,818, TT annual equivalent $547,735, TT monthly equivalent $45,644

In the United States the average base pay for a New York State Trooper is USD $5,938 per month, which is TT $38,219 per month. However with over time a 2009 US Bureau Consensus found that with overtime officers took home on average USD $96,890 per annum which works out to be USD $8000 per month and a TT equivalent of $51,492 per month. As of 2010 the aveage salary for all ranks was USD $112,537 per annum, TT $724,276 per annum which works out to be TT $60,356 per month. Front line troopers took home in 2010 on average USD $101,574, TT $653,720 per annum which works out to be TT $54,476 per month. As a group Supreme Court Judges and New York City Judges are the only public servants who made more money than New York Police Officers with an average of USD $14,000 per annum. The interesting thing to note however is New York City Police Officers are the 'second highest paid' officers in the United States as Police Officers in New Jersey are actually paid more than New York Officers. Dennis Hallion an Executive of the National Troopers Council when asked to comment on the USD 112,000 salary for officers said "not enough".

So with these figures in mind, I can't see how Mr. Sandy can boast about a local married constable being paid $9,516 to leave his family every day and put his life at risk for another man's family and expect that police officer to be motivated and enthusiastic about his job but let's be real the majority of police officers are constables, and even when one considers the salaries of our senior officers it can be clearly shown from the figures that constables in the UK and US are working for twice the salary than our local senior officers. I agree asking for a ridiculous increase for officers such as a 50% increase may not be feasible, but certainly a 5% increase by government is totally out of order.

United States Employees Striking despite Economic situation

The Central Bank Governor has said that T&T's economy is fragile and a national strike will harm our economy. Trade Unionist have responded to Mr. William's claims asking 'When is the right time to strike'. The local media has flooded us with images and stories of the USA's debt, the crash of their stock market etc. Yet still on Monday 45,000 Verizon workers walked off the job in protests over labour negotiations with the telecommunications giant.

My question is if United States workers could still strike despite the state of their economy, then why can't citizens of Trinidad and Tobago strike for a just wage? Our economy is better than the USA and we have local companies like Republic Bank churning out profits like $806 million and growing their asset base to $46.2 billion dollars, OneMedia Caribbean made $44.5 million and Ansa McAl made $954 million. Make no mistake, economic troubles or not I assure you that the shareholders of the aforementioned companies will receive their millions in dividends, the managers will receive their thousands in bonuses, so why can't workers who are responsible for the profits seek a just wage? It is indeed a travesty and a criminal act to pay out dividends to shareholders and bonuses to management while denying employees a just wage.

WHAT THE EXPRESS, GUARDIAN, AND NEWSDAY DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE >>>>>>>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44048667/ns/business/

Buh doh worry....GOOGLE IS THE BIBLE OF THE 21ST CENTURY!!! KAMLA, WINSTON DOOKERAN, EWART WILLIAMS...YOU NAME IT....WE WILL EXPOSE ALLLLLLLLLLLLL AH DEM!!!

Tone it down Mrs. Mahabir-Wyatt

One need not try too hard to guess what class of society Mrs. Diana Mahabir-Wyatt belongs to with her latest letter to the Express Editor entitled “Industrial Relation Act Gives Government Power to Act”. In her letter she outlined briefly how the Industrial Relations Act was established and the fact that the Industrial Court was established under said Act to deal with current issues such as the current impasse between the Government and Trade Unions. She lamented the fact that both Government and Trade Unions are refusing to refer their matters to the Industrial Court and questioned whether they wanted a reasoned and sober solution. I find it very disingenuous on Ms. Mahabir-Wyatt’s part to give mention to the Industrial Court without mentioning the fact that said court is underfunded and short staffed hence any matter that is referred to that court takes years to resolve. Whether her failure to disclose such blatant and well know facts was deliberate or due to ignorance is not certain, and while I cannot speak for employers such factors do weigh heavily on the minds of Trade Unionists who are seeking a speedy resolution in the interests of members that does not constitute blindly accepting 5% or whatever unreasonable offer is made by the employer.

Mrs. Mahabir-Wyatt then paid particular attention to Section 69 of the Industrial Relations Act which prohibits members of the Public Service, the Teaching Service, the Prison Service, the Fire Service and the Central Bank from going on strike. The Act further states the holder of an office in a trade union who calls for or causes industrial action to be taken or who induces or persuades any other person to take such action is liable on summary conviction to a fine of $10,000 and to imprisonment for 18 months." In Mrs. Mahabir-Wyatt’s estimation “industrial action” is an illegal strike which attempting to “shut down the country” would qualify as, and she lamented the fact that the government is ignoring the law and in her estimation, stated in closing that “we like it so”.

Quite frankly anyone who understands basic human psychology will know that the government of the day, whomever they may be, will do well to not only ignore that draconian law but to delete it from our law books altogether. I was highly amused by Mrs. Mahabir-Wyatt’s letter and found it novice to say the least, but worst yet I found it to be dangerous and void of deep contemplation as to the social consequences that could occur should the government take such a high handed approach. I was totally surprised that Mrs. Mahabir-Wyatt thinks that public servants striking despite a law preventing them from doing so is some kind of novelty and something unique to Trinidad and Tobago. On the contrary whether the right is given or not public servants, federal employees or civil servants as they are called in different parts of the world exercise the right to strike without compunction in countries such as Australia, United States, Canada, England, India and France.

As a matter of fact in the England from where our Westminster System came, public servants are not denied the right to strike unless their duties are necessary for the safety and security of the public. Civil servants in France are granted the right to strike under the French Constitution and in Canada at least five provinces grants public workers the right to strike, the others allow strike action even though it is not legal, while all prevent them from striking if they belong to the protective services. Even at a Federal level Canadian federal workers are allowed to strike within statutory limits as per the Federal Public Service Staff Relations Act of 1967. Despite having a long history of anti-strike laws, in the US today there are no less than 38 states which prevent public sector workers from striking and 12 states have actually legalized public sector striking. In his 1998 report “Behavioural Determinants of Public Sector Illegal Strikes”, Robert Hebdon surmised that due to the many laws that attempt to prevent workers from striking, in systems like the US and Canada the “illegal strike” is an inevitable element of these industrial systems.

S.T. Cooke summoned it up more precisely when he stated “Taking away the right to strike is a bit like eliminating the vapour safety valve on a boiler. Employees need to know that they have this means of relieving their frustrations and internal tension even if they never use it. Otherwise an explosion is inevitable”. The consequences of a government’s high handed approach can be seen in the manner in which the Reagan Government dealt with the striking Air Traffic Controllers back in 1981. Federal law required federal employees at that time to take an oath not to strike and made strike action illegal. Needless to say talks between the Professional Air Traffic Controllers and the Federal Aviation Administration broke down and the workers went on strike. The US District Court ruled the strike action illegal and a contempt of court and President Reagan ordered the firing of all air traffic controllers who did not return to work within forty eight hours of his order.

Despite the legal sanctions and threat of job loss only 800 employees returned to work within the President’s 48 hour deadline. Dismissal letters were issued to the non-compliant employees, however it must be noted that despite the Reagan Government’s firm stand, the entire action against the controllers proved to be totally ineffective. The sanctions totally disrupted air traffic services and the government precluded any form of settlement with the majority of the traffic controllers which ultimately aggravated the very situation they sought to remedy and prevent. After all was said and done it was the public and the economy that suffered the most from the firing of the air traffic controllers. Hence the reason I stated earlier that Mrs. Mahabir-Wyatt’s stance that the government implements the law seems novice to say the least and not well thought out.

I would also like to inform Mrs. Mahabir-Wyatt that the Industrial Act notwithstanding the fact that it is our national law, does in fact run counter to International Labour Conventions. The International Labour Organisation has repeatedly admonished and advised successive T&T Government’s that their term ‘essential services’ in the Industrial Act is excessively broad in comparison to International Labour Standards and it is successive T&T Governments, who are the agents of citizens of Trinidad and Tobago and who are supposed to be acting in our best interest, they are the ones who have repeatedly refused to amend the Industrial Act as advised by the ILO. The ILO has also repeatedly made calls for the Government of T&T to change the Collective Bargaining Laws of the Act which state that collective agreements must be for a maximum of five years and a minimum of three years making it almost impossible for workers on short term contracts to be covered by such agreements.

Mrs. Mahabir-Wyatt, now you understand why our government obstinately refuses to comply with International Labour Standards, it also explains their fondness for hiring people on contract! Our government the body which is supposed to be seeking our interest has been deliberately denying entire sectors of our economy, their legitimate rights by refusing to comply with International Labour Standards. As it stands the Industrial Relations Act of T&T is a flawed piece of legislation that runs counter to International Laws and Standards. As a matter of fact just as recent as April of this year the ILO Committee of Experts condemned the UK Government for preventing and denying prison officers the right to strike. The ILO has indicated that the UK Government either gives prison officers the right to strike or have adequate compensatory mechanisms in place to compensate prison officers for denying them the right to strike. Is Mrs. Mahabir-Wyatt aware of any such compensatory mechanisms in place for our security services here in T&T?

And last but not least, though she tried to make a joke of it, Mrs. Mahabir-Wyatt’s suggestion that the government acts with regard imprisoning for 18 months any one holding a trade union office and who instructs public servants to strike, had to be the least thought out aspect of her letter. Why would anyone advocate the jailing of any trade unionist at a volatile and heated industrial time like this is beyond me. I guess if nothing else we can all breathe a sigh of relief that Mrs. Mahabir-Wyatt is not the first female Prime Minister of this country because I dare say, the very state of emergency which the government claims to be dodging would have certainly been upon us by now. I’m keeping my fingers cross that Mrs. Persad-Biessessar would demonstrate a more levelled and reasoned head and contemplate deeply on her actions with regard this current labour impasse than her counterpart Mrs. Mahabir-Wyatt. As a former executive director for the Caribbean Centre for Human Rights I must say I'm surprised by the sentiments expressed by Mrs. Mahabir-Wyatt.

ECA issuing threats to the working class of T&T

Last week the Employer’s Consultative Association issued a statement saying that any strike action by trade unions in the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago could result in workers being laid off from their jobs. What I found curious about such a statement being made by an association that is operating freely in a modern day democratic society is the fact that they did not state why workers would be laid off for exercising their democratic rights.

ECA chairman Keston Nancoo was quoted in the Express as saying "In the present set of circumstances, while we acknowledge the right of trade unions to use their organisation and institutional power to resist attacks on social and labour rights, we do believe that the time has come for us to break with tradition and to introduce greater levels of creativity, innovation and imagination, supported by the will to succeed and the belief in the possibility of change". So again I ask the question, if it is as Mr. Nancoo states that the ECA recognises the right of trade unions to use their institutional power to resist attacks on social and labour rights, why then does his organisation foresee that workers will be laid off for exercising those rights, an act which would no doubt be in contravention of not only our democratic freedoms but a contravention of good industrial relation practice?

Is Mr. Nancoo indicating the ECA’s subtle acceptance that despite the so called advancement of democracy, end of slavery and indenturedship that members of his organisation are still openly victimising workers for exercising their democratic rights? Is Mr. Nancoo now subtly admitting that members of his organisation are employing tactics of our former colonial masters when our forefathers took to the streets and downed tools when they were of the opinion that they were being exploited, treated unfairly and not being given a fair share of the profits which they toiled to generate? I do believe Mr. Nancoo and the ECA owes the citizens of this country an explanation with regards his organisation’s latest statement.

I for one cannot understand why Mr. Nancoo would advocate a break with tradition when it seems members of his association are well prepared to engage in tactics of the past such as victimising workers for engaging in industrial action, and to issue threats such as the above statement. If it is that Mr. Nancoo’s members are not only going to continue their acts of depriving workers of a just wage but also victimise them when they seek to fight for just wages as their democratic rights permits them to, then surely Mr. Nancoo cannot reasonably expect the trade unions to break with tradition. I do believe what Mr. Nancoo and the ECA are engaging in is what is called “double speak”.

While the ECA is pleading with trade unions to “put their country first”, one cannot help but notice that they have issued no such request to their respective members who are making millions in profit. How come the ECA does not see it as a duty to remind it’s members who are raking in millions of dollars in profits despite the global financial crisis, that they need to put country first by ensuring they pay their workers well and give them a just share of profits to ensure that poverty eradication remains a priority in our beloved country and a descent standard of living for the workers who were responsible for them making such millions is secured?

One Caribbean Media Ltd has reported a $44.5 million before tax profit for the half-year ended June 30 2011. Republic Bank Group has recorded a net profit attributable to shareholders of $525.3 million for the financial half year ended March 31 2011 and just posted a 7% increase over their 9month results. Ansa McAL reported a $954m profit for its shareholders. Yet still the ECA is silent with regards to the patriotic responsibilities of these organisations in terms of rewarding employees and ensuring that they have a good standard of living.

I want to let Mr. Nancoo and the members of his organisation know that the workers of this country will not revert to the kind of oppression that was endured by our forefathers. We will not be susceptible to tomfoolery and masked threats. I also want to remind Mr. Nancoo that throughout history the number one crippling factor in economies the world over is the greed of the employer class and their reluctance to fairly distribute the wealth, so he can mamaguy the working class in T&T all he wants it is the employer class that stands to lose the most. I therefore recommend to Mr. Nancoo to advise his members to "put country first" and ensure that the wealth of this nation is fairly distributed to all and not greedily hoarded and controlled by a few.

Conversations with God's zealot - This post will change your views on marriage and secure you a good laugh!

The following is an exerpt from a BB conversation I had with a "very very" religious friend today, a very zealous chap indeed. Now let me just say from the onset that I respect people's religious views and quite frankly people's religious views are inconsequential to me, needless to say, from experience most religious people are not very tolerable of my views nor do they extend the same hand of courtesy.

The purpose of this blog is two fold; 1) to demonstrate how idealogies such as religion impede mental development and festers ignorance of a world we are inseparable from. How it misleads the mind to conjure up a false relationship and a false connection from a phyiscal world to that of an alleged spiritual world. 2) And this is probably the MAIN REASON OF ME POSTING is that I totally enjoy riling this person up and this conversation was particularly funny especially the ending LOL hahahaha.

Now before you proceed let me just clarify certain things, I do not subscribe to a life of promiscuity, I'm still searching for that elusive "one", the one where once you meet them, staying faithful will become second nature because that emotional and psychologic bond has been formed between both of you. Do I believe in marriage yes I most definitely do (for it's social and emotional benefits, such as a stable household, and as a societal practice of publicly expressing your love for the person. Contrary to popular belief in ancient Rome love was a stupid reason to get married as the Romans used marriage to form political and financial alliances, hence a woman had no choice in whom she married, was not asked who she loved, she was simply given away by her father like chattel. I beg to strongly differ with the Romans of course because I know for a fact I am an emotional being and 'Love' or that chemical state of mind we refer to as love should be the ONLY REASON TWO PEOPLE GET'S MARRIED, THAT IS MY ABSOLUTE CONVICTION), do I believe it's a God appointed institution? NO and for those of you who want the truth about the history of marriage feel free to enlighten yourselves at the following link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage ...here is a little teaser to wet your appetite, some snippets :-) "In Ancient Greece, no specific civil ceremony was required for the creation of a marriage – only mutual agreement and the fact that the couple must regard each other as husband and wife accordingly.

From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter,with no uniform religious or other ceremony being required. However, bishop Ignatius of Antioch writing around 110 to bishop Polycarp of Smyrna exhorts, "[I]t becomes both men and women who marry, to form their union with the approval of the bishop, that their marriage may be according to God, and not after their own lust."[21]

In the 12th century women were obligated to take the name of their husbands and starting in the second half of the 16th century parental consent along with the church's consent was required for marriage.[22]

As part of the Protestant Reformation, the role of recording marriages and setting the rules for marriage passed to the state, reflecting Martin Luther's view that marriage was a "worldly thing".[27] By the 17th century many of the Protestant European countries had a state involvement in marriage. As of 2000, the average marriage age range was 25–44 years for men and 22–39 years for women. In England, under the Anglican Church, marriage by consent and cohabitation was valid until the passage of Lord Hardwicke's Act in 1753. This act instituted certain requirements for marriage, including the performance of a religious ceremony observed by witnesses.[28]

As part of the Counter-Reformation, in 1563 the Council of Trent decreed that a Roman Catholic marriage would be recognized only if the marriage ceremony was officiated by a priest with two witnesses. The Council also authorized a Catechism, issued in 1566, which defined marriage as, "The conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, which obliges them to live together throughout life."[29]


Back to the BB conversation, the origin of the conversation stems from the following BB status which the person had "Trying to live right". Knowing fully well that the status had religious connotations I began my scheme of aggravation and thus the conversation begins.......(grins wickedly) P.S. incase you are wondering about the photo to this blog, that was the photo that was sent to me by the person which led to how the conversation concluded. For the ease of reference the person shall simply be discribed as Hysus to identify what their responses were and I will simply be described as "Me"

And so it begins...



Me: LOL
Me: Always remember what is "right" is always determined by society ergo it is subjective.

Hysus: I don't follow society. I try to live accroding to what the holy bible says. Try to disect and apply and so far the bible has made more sense than my own ideas.

Me: But the bible is a product of society, written by MEN.

Hysus: That's why I said disect and apply and if what it makes sense trying by it.

Me: That's okay once we understand the source of that which you are disecting.

Hysus: The source is written by man but if when disected and applied is found to be right and can only help you be better, then whether written by man through inspiration from God or just man alone, what's right is right. You see God can only reach us through men especially those who try to be difficult! If you seek you will find. Just try that for a change. Its a biblical statement but it has truth if you seek you will find.

Me: "Inspiration"? is a subjective term. People also get inspiration from weed and cocaine. What proof do you have that these men are "inspired" by a God? There is none other that them saying so. What is right is subjective. Long ago it was considered 'right' for a man to beat his wife!

Me: Besides this same bible says do not put your trust in man and seeing that God did not have a personal conversation with me telling me he inspired them then I only have their word.....shall I put my "trust" in them? Whether you call it "faith" the fact is you are putting your trust in a mere imperfect mortal like yourself because you have never heard or seen God personally.

Hysus: You not getting it, I have nothing to prove to you or anyone! I am totally convinced that God is real and my life will always testifies that God is real! Believe what you want to its not my call your choice is your choice. Context is key. To is key to understanding the bible context. Not just a verse or chapter read more more see more. If you really want to know if God exists ask him I am sure he will answer you, I guarantee. Stop fighting God and just talk to him he is there to answer! That I guarantee. But stop thinking that you have to understand everything about God cause you never will.

Me: I beg to differ and unlike you I have no intention of putting any limitations on what I can or cannot understand, to do so would be to live a life of futility. It would also be a complete waste of your grand intellect in which he granted you if in fact he did create you. The human species has made so many advances in science and technology yet a simple thing as understanding a supposed creator or even confirming his existence with actual evidence remains elusive.

Hysus: My beliefv has not one limitation but as I said ask him he will talk to you himself.

Me: I am a physical being and I exist in a physical reality therefore I converse with other physical beings who respond to me. To tell me to just speak to God is a conundrum as God does not exist in my Physical reality...ergo we cannot communicate. That's like trying to light a bulb using plastic string instead of metal wiring...it just ain't going to happen. Contrary to popular belief there is no bridge between the physical and spirit world, hence the reason psychics are considedred frauds along with pastors who's only claim to fame is pocketing people's money!

Hysus: Guess God not ready to open your eyes yet.

Me: He can't speak to me, he does not, nor does he speak to you. Have you ever heard his voice? NO!

Hysus: I said God but pastors are men not perfect. Oh and yes I defintely have heard God. But my walk ain't your walk. Seek and you will find.

Me:Keep telling yourself that until you believe it. There is definition for your claim of 'hearing god'...its called DELUSIONAL.

Hysus: Then I am delusional and have no prob with that. Cause God makes me happy.

Me: The human ears are incapable of hearing anything without a rythmic vibration, and if you can't receive that rythmic vibration then your brain will not register the voice of another. God has no voice with rythmic vibrations because then we would all hear him. So like I said...delusional.

Hysus: And for the first time in my life I can see spiritual things and not fleshly things like everyone else.

Me: Yea Santa Clause also makes children happy....doesn't mean he's real or they can hear him! (roll eye)

Hysus: Oh and the bible says that unless he, meaning God reveals himself to you! You will remain blinded. So I guess God ain't want you to see him yet.

Me: So God the almighty playing peeka boo?....how charming. (roll eye)

Hysus: One day he will open your eyes. I will pray for you in the mean while.

Me: Carry on in your vices...they are inconsequential to me.

Hysus: Don't worry God as A plan for Oke.

Me: In any event question, do you believe the end is near?

Hysus: The end is here

Me: He has a plan for me? Funny enough I thought he granted me free will, if I have free will then I should be able to make my own damn plan. Ah...false advertising as usual! Perhaps God is a conartist!

Hysus: Ok, you just making me laugh yes.

Me: Well if the end is here, Monday morning please liquidate all your worldy investments and give them to me....seing that you won't be needing them!

Hysus: For once I actually stand firm in something I am freely convinced of

Me: I will be coming for my money Monday morning! You keep your convictions I just want the cash! (big grin)

Hysus: Nah that's for my mom, hard luck

Me: (shocked face) But the end is hear! She does not need it...worldy riches will not buy favours with the Lord! (Big grin)

Hysus: You need help yes lol. The more you try to understand God the more confused you will be lol

Me: And what a pity that is, for him to create an entire universe with living beings who are incapable of understanding him.....sad. If man cannot fully understand God as you claim then man could never fully love God because you cannot love that which you do not understand!

THIS IS WHERE THE CONVERSATION GETS REALLY INTERESTING AND FUNNY

Hysus: And you love vagina! Answer that! I guess!

Me: (literally in caps too for full effect for now I had my prey exactly where I wanted him LOL) I UNDERSTAND VAGINA AND ITS PURPOSE, ITS FUNCTIONS AND ITS DESIGNS. HECK I EVEN KNOW HOW THEY TASTE! You mean to tell me YOU don't understand vagina????? (three shocked face smilies) (grins wickedly)

Hysus: That's why vagina giving yuh headache! Cause you ain't understand it but yuh live it though lol. Boy do bible study for tonight lol, you happy yes.

Me: But you can't read or what! I just told you I understand vagina! What gave you the impression vagina is giving me a headache? That's a very liberal assumption

Hysus: Liberal is true and correct get married nah.

Me: You didn't answer me though, do YOU understand vagina?

Hysus: I understand women to an extend that's why I can talk.

Me: Marriage is a man made invention....though I will consider it for its social benefits.

Hysus: You really need help and don't worry God will help you lol

Me: You understand women huh? I wonder if that understanding is the consequence of your many "successful" relationships?

Hysus: You should ask yourself you know more in that area

Me: You don't know the origins of marriage yet you sanctify it....sad...to live such a life of willful ignorance. I never claimed to understand women. I co-exist with other beings and share experiences and idealogies.

Hysus: Don't worry God will help you sir I guarantee it.

Me: But seeing that you want to be condescending and appear as if you have some superior knowledge of the female specie, here is a maxim for you to ponder pon..."Needing someone else to understand is a trap that causes millions of us life long happiness deficit"

Hysus: Ok thanks will keep that in mind. (He then sends the picture of the woman and butterflies in this note with the caption "that is your god, enjoy it") It is at this point I become wild with extacy because he's exactly where I want him to be LOL....I did ponder what is this chaste fellow doing with a picture like that on his phone when I as a sinner and lost soul did not have it! But I did not digress to ask....I wanted to hit him where it hurts...focus focus focus...

Me: Don't be impolite it's not 'Christian like' and reeks of arrogance....definitely not a "Godly trait". I do believe you are suffering from some confusion of your "being" however. That is not my God, that is my essence. For I am a sexual being. Do you know that of all the living creatures on planet earth human beings are the only ones who don't have sex just for procreation? As a matter of fact child rearing is a by product of human sexual encounters rather than its intention. 99% of human sexual encounters are for satisfying pleasure and emotional needs. We have sex just for the pleasure of it, we have no mating season, we have sex when ever, where ever, irrespective of whether the female is ovulating. Perhaps if you took the time to understand your being rather than engaging in spiritual masturbation you would understand life some more! Right now you are an in ideaological grip, you are imprisioned by unsubstantiated beliefs.

Me: LET ME KNOW WHEN YOUR "MATING SEASON" ARRIVES (Grins wickedly) LOL