Submission 6
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023
To: ConstitutionalReform
Subject: Submissions re. Preamble & Chapter 3
Dear Commissioners,
Please find attached copies of my oral submissions made at the town hall meetings held on November
6th and November 24th.
Submission to the Constitutional Reform Commission
Focus: PREAMBLE
The question asked was whether the existing Preamble should be replaced by
the one recommended by the Forde Commission.
The answer is, “Yes, but with some modification”. These are listed below.
After Paragraph 5 which begins, “we recognize the profound changes that have taken place in Barbados and the outside world”, add a parallel paragraph that speaks to the profound changes in values eg: ‘We recognize that after the decades of the twentieth century which led to a state of moral decay, we have an abiding need for spiritual and intellectual renewal.” (Hungarian Constitution 2011. The paragraph was kept in the 2013 Amendment)
In terms of logical sequence, reorder paragraph 6 (‘a’ in the current Constitution):
a. God comes before humans. We acknowledge him first and foremost: “founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God...” The Forde Commission states: “founded upon principles that acknowledge the dignity and worth of the Human Person, the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual, the central role of the Family in a free society and the supremacy of God.”
b.Add the word ‘equal’ as a qualifier to ‘dignity and worth’: “the equal dignity and worth of the human person”
i. The revised paragraph would then read: “Reaffirm that the sovereignty of the People and the nation of Barbados is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the equal dignity and worth of the Human Person, the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual, and the central role of the Family in a free society.
3. Paragraph (b) of the current Constitution was not included in the Forde Commission Preamble. This should be added to the revised Constitution, but change ‘their’ to ‘our’ and change ‘men’ to ‘human beings’ so that it reads: “We reaffirm our belief that human beings and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of the law”. In the approved Charter the phrase ‘moral and spiritual’ was changed to ‘moral and sensible.’
4. Paragraph 8: Add something that that speaks to the right of the people to recall a member of parliament who is underperforming.
Conclusion: Through word choice and careful sentence structure in the Preamble, the revised Constitution should clearly Identify the society as faith-based, rather than allude to it as humanistic, atheistic or agnostic.
Good afternoon. My name is [Redacted]
As citizens, we hold different world views and beliefs but we are all citizens of the same country and we have a common interest in its development. Therefore, in revising the Constitution we cannot afford to focus on world views and beliefs. Rather, we must be guided by considerations of the long-term, sustainable development of the country.
This afternoon I speak with a decided focus on the children and youth of today, and the precious children that are yet unborn. Our collective duty towards them is one of care and protection. We owe them the gift of honesty and truth, beginning with the very language that will shape their thoughts and mould their minds.
Article I of the Charter of Barbados, 2021 includes the term ‘sexual orientation’. This is a controversial term which has been willingly embraced by fewer than 30 of the 195 nations of the world. The reasons for the controversy are what I shall outline today while making a case for the non-inclusion of the term in the revised Constitution.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government’s mantra was: Follow the science and act out of an abundance of caution.
With respect to the use of the term ‘sexual orientation’ I would like to suggest that a similar approach be adopted, and that we both follow the science and act with an abundance of caution when considering whether to import this term from the Charter into the revised Constitution, as the implications of its inclusion will reverberate for years to come.
‘Sexual orientation’ is a term used to denote sexual attraction and preference for one’s own sex or the opposite sex. This definition pivots on the assumption that “biological sex is non-binary and gender is fluid.” These assumptions are contrary to observations based on biological facts and are instead guided by ideology.
Biological sex is binary [1]. Among humans, reproduction involves the fusion of two haploid cells the gametes which contain half of the genetic information. The recombination of the two, and only two, sex chromosomes, X and Y during reproduction, determines the biological sex of the offspring. Therefore, biological sex is an innate and immutable binary trait that is unalterable by psychosocial or any other factors.
The existence of congenital sexual disorders and the existence of intersex persons does not negate the binary nature of sexual determination. Furthermore, sex is not merely a matter of external genitalia but also encompasses various indicators including the internal reproductive organs, the predominant sex hormones, physical structure and development, voice, facial features and more.
The controversy lies in the modern divorce between biological sex and gender (maleness and femaleness). Using the argument of the rare outliers of intersex or indeterminate sex at birth, some scientists have advanced the notion that there is no significant relationship between biological sex and gender, and that gender is fluid. This is inaccurate. Despite surgical intervention and hormone treatments which may make superficial differences to one’s outward appearance, a male remains male, and a female remains female. This is so because maleness and femaleness are a matter of fact, not self determination.
I should note here that even among those who espouse the term sexual orientation, there seems to be some confusion as to what is sex and what is gender. Whereas a popular distinction used to be that “sex is biological, and gender is a sociological construct”, this seems to be changing and what used to be called ‘sexual reassignment surgery’ is now conceptualized as gender reassignment or gender-affirming surgery.
Be that as it may, if the term ‘sexual orientation’ is included in a revised Constitution, then how will it be defined and circumscribed? How will one determine boundaries?
According to bodies such as the WHO and the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) the term ‘sexual orientation’ has to do with sexual attraction and preference. This we have established is based on a modern ideology that sexual orientation is independent of both biological sex and gender, which themselves may be unrelated. These ideas continue to evolve while biological facts remain the same.
Therefore, if we choose to import the term from Article 1 of the Charter of Barbados, 2021 into the Constitution, we will tacitly be abandoning logic and common sense in favour of an ideological notion. This is not who we are.
I propose that we do not include this term in a Constitution that will guide us as a Republic for at least a generation.
The supreme law of any land cannot rest firmly on any evolving psychosocial ideology in any area but must be grounded firmly on facts.
Children and youth are our future. We cannot afford to mess with their minds. In deciding whether to import the controversial and unscientific term ‘sexual orientation’ from the Charter into the revised Constitution, I implore the Constitutional Committee to follow the science and act out of an abundance of caution.
Thank you.
