Barbados Chief Justice informs United Nations of human rights violation against Raul Garcia

Barbados Chief Justice Marston Gibson

Now this is interesting…

When was the last time you heard of the Chief Justice of a sovereign country informing UN High Commissioner for Human Rights of a violation of human rights in his own country?

Good for Chief Justice Marston Gibson. That took integrity and courage. Nice to see those qualities exhibited by our top judge.

Bajan Reporter has the whole story and a video of UN Commissioner Navi Pillay explaining how she learned about Raul Garcia’s plight.

Advertisements

21 Comments

Filed under Barbados, Crime & Law, Human Rights

21 responses to “Barbados Chief Justice informs United Nations of human rights violation against Raul Garcia

  1. PLANTATION DEEDS FROM 1926 UP TODAY A ND SEE MASSIVE FRAUD ,

    We all are happy that some person with high rank can speak up for Justice,To be the Chief Justice and take the lead role in law . He now need to issue an Order and hold the one with the keys in contempt of Court Order.What type of lawyer can the Attorney General Be ?, What type of lawyer is the Prime Minister ,? Who also held both roles. On day soon they both might make QC for the crooks they are .Quick Crooks,
    Kings of Fraud , Treason punishable by hanging for that true Bill crime Against the State…Attorney General Brathwaite , where the hell you and this so call PM get your law papers at ?,,, froot loops box.
    Both of you let an outsider tell you your work , Both of you need to read the words you took an Oath to .What law allow you all to behave this way .BLP and DLP , dont fight each other , for you all the same ,
    Let the man be Free. Self help is also the Law , when there is a absents of law.
    Vote : Bajan Free Party .( BFP)Get the RATS out the Peoples House.

  2. Norwood resident

    It is strange to have the Chief Justice ‘informing’ on his own country though!

  3. 189

    The Chief is also a Citizen Free to speak his mind when law are being broken, DLP nor the BLP wanted him . The man who put him there has died.DAVID.if Clico made DAVID look bad maybe the CJ will make him look good

    vote BFP

  4. robert ross

    @ BFP

    Like Plantation and Norwood, I am also perplexed by this. The CJ is not the obvious person to have done this…it would have been Commissiong who is said to be his lawyer. And what’s happened to him? But in any event, the CJ’s hand is in it somewhere else the statement could never have been made. I argued somewhere that any lawyer acting for Garcia might have brought a Constitutional Motion to get him released. Nothing happened of course. But there is still potential and Garcia would then, at the discretion of the Director of CLS and subject to appeal, have been legally aided. If so, the case might have come before the Chief Justice and so……and it might still, if the 2008 case (you (BFP) provided) were to be utilised. So, yes, it is odd.

  5. watcher

    The Chief Justice really is a Chief Justice. That is refreshing to know. Congratulations Sir on your effort.

  6. tedd

    integrity at long last

  7. tedd

    not at long last in respect to Mr gibson , but at long last for persons in high posts in babados

  8. Anonymous

    You know, when I read these comments concerning justice in Barbados it would make one think that there is no justice at all residing in my island. Just mere injustices that is sown into the psyche of our people until it is common-place to accept nothing less mediocre practices. So when I see comments kudo-ing the the New CJ I cannot help but wonder what all the other CJ’s before him were doing and why has these mal practices that has paint the law in Barbados with a very ugly stigma, allowed to continue unabated.

  9. WordSong

    The Chief Justice probably did it before someone else did. Garcia’s case – is it not already before all the other leading international human rights institutions?

  10. 189

    Anonymous
    April 7, 2012 at 4:56 pm
    The last CJ was David Simmons, He and his Brother Keith with other law firms in Barbados made a mess of the system of Laws to get around Plantations lands ,That is how money is made on this small island,Even the Ministers , Prime Ministers and the Attorney Generals for the past 25 years or so. BLP and DLP parties . Persons cases ran over 20years until one side died and even the lawyers past away with the cases not being heard..Money change hands to go around the laws and some laws past to get in the way of what is right.
    Evan today in some cases you can pay in full and still takes years to see the deed. They wait for the right person to die before the hand off or the recording of the deed .
    The last PM had to bring in this CJ in from the states, for there were none that was clean to hold to post,,, think of it ,,, and Island with 279,000 and not one was clean.
    So if you had to pull the roots of Fraud out this island called Barbados the island would sink below the ocean.

    Anonymous ,,, This is the answer to your question ,,, so far on the top he stand alone.

  11. boarcatspeaks

    Refreshing indeed to have and see a Chief Justice conducting himself like one and not a political appointee. The ONLY thing saving Barbados is the Court retaining its independence from Government.

  12. yatiniteasy

    I wonder what the Chief Justice thinks of the type of sentences being handed down by the Barbados Courts.
    Ill draw his attention to two cases, printed side by side in The Nation April 5th.The first case is that of a young man who violently attacked and robbed a man of his gold chain, in broad daylight, whilst armed with a pistol, which he placed at the neck of the victim,I did not see a charge for assault with a deadly weapon, possession of (I assume) an unlicensed gun.No mention of what happened to his two accomplices who were in the getaway car.He was found guilty and got one year at Dodds
    The other case is of a hungry, homeless man who stole a $3 piece of cheese from a supermarket. Not something to be condoned, but cu dear, you gine gi he 6 months at Dodds for dat?
    This sort of discriminatory Justice really bothers me, but maybe I`m alone on this. Sentence should be proportionate to the crime committed.

    In Republic by Plato, the character Thrasymachus argues that justice is the interest of the strong—merely a name for what the powerful or cunning ruler has imposed on the people.

  13. PLANTATION DEEDS FROM 1926 UP TODAY A ND SEE MASSIVE FRAUD ,

    Commissiong is no ones lawyer , I hope he is not being paid,,,, , Where was this loud mouth no action Fraud man?That would not even show and sign for Garcia , , He must have been paid in full, So no need to show up, Mr Garcia has no lawyer ,
    . , Another weasel and profiteering lawyer first rate RAT.. I think the Chief Justice did a test of his own words, The CJ showed up to watch and see if Commissong would show up , The CJ doing public defender work off the bench,, .
    All it seem to Me that the CJ not in the PM and AG pocket like EX CJ Simmons.
    If the CJ is reading , just follow that RAT to his nest and see all the rest.

  14. Newbie

    It is still early days for Mr Gibson but I like his style

  15. robert ross

    With Yatin in mind

    Another area is the misuse of the provisions of the Bail Act in particular in District A. Once again the 16yo boy now held in Dodds for 10 months came before magistrate Bannister today. Despite threats two months ago that he would dismiss the charges if the police hadn’t got their act together, he still insists on setting bail at a figure this boy’s family cannot hope to meet – was $50,000 now $35,000., and has failed to act as he said. There has still been no pre-trial disclosure despite three promises over a six week period. Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence? Why is bail being used as a punishment? Bannister who listens readily to prosecutors – well, he’s ex-police – refused to listen to the boy’s attorney. Frankly, he’s a disgrace to the Bench.

  16. Duppy Lizard

    it seems the criminals have a Fortitude of persons who rally behind them..This is just another case of Cultural Impenetration.
    The innocent have to be Shamed,Disgraced,Pulled to the lowest depths by Lawyers who although know better do so For RECOGNITION.
    The stupid loopholes in the present system is a criminals delight and thanks to previous lawyers who have made good use of those flaws,,,there are many more who take pleasure for their own upliftment regardless of guilt.

    To say the law is an ass is an absolute understatement.

  17. robert ross

    ‘The innocent have to be shamed, disgraced…’

    That’s just the point. A man IS innocent under our Constitution UNTIL he has been proved guilty. Or should we dispense with that? And if so, in the name of what?

  18. Anonymous

    DO I smell a Banana Republic well in the making?

  19. Mark Fentry

    I hope that what I’m about to convey here is not an affront to anyone’s intelligence, but, if such is the case, then you have my sincere apology. Presently, there are those I believe, who would argue that is it too much of an idealist perspective on my part; to even entertain the idea of wanting to granting Mr. Garcia permanent residency for the psychological trauma that he has suffered thus far, at the hands of an inflexible, and imperceptible government.
    But, undoubtedly, it is by no means clear, and convincing to me, that there is a deliberate attempt on the part of the Barbadian government, to close their ears to the voice of conscious reason, with respect Mr. .Garcia’s predicament.
    Now, it is exceedingly difficult for me to comprehend intellectually, philosophically, or jurisdictionally, the manner in which Barbados government is going to rationally objectify their treatment of a man who has paid his debt to society already, but nonetheless, continues to labor vehemently for his personal autonomy.
    In any event, if rational minds hope to gain any justice for Mr. Garcia in this case, I would suggest that we consult our moral conscience for starts. Incontrovertibly, however, it is not enough to say that just because a man has contravened the laws of a sovereign country, irrespective of his immigration status that somehow his right to due process under the same laws, disappears. Now, regardless, of Mr. Garcia’s country’s refusal to readmit him back, this shouldn’t prevent those in authority from acting on their moral imperative in this case. I believe that in the absent of a legal remedy, it is only fitting that one elects to consult their moral conscience, as barometer for gaining some trajectory in a case of this nature.
    Now, I’m not proposing at all, that the government of Barbados should abandon they effort to persecute with the strictness of the law, those elements who threaten to undermine the safety and tranquility of our county. But we have to consult our moral conscience I believe, to determine whether this has been the case here.
    I take the unpopular position of knowing that the treatment of Mr. Garcia stems fundamentally from his status as a foreigner. Being born and bred in the ambiance of Barbadian ethos, and being party to the same bigotry that is so deeply rooted within our culture. I’m nonetheless unequivocal in my support of Mr. Garcia.
    Yet, as I have said earlier, it is up to the Barbadian government to muster the courage, and the testicular fortitude to admit their improprieties in this case.
    Moreover, there is no apparent reason why Mr. Garcia shouldn’t be free to exercise the right to freedom that God and nature bestow on him. Now, we have to ask ourselves this question, do the lack of political perceptibility on the part of the Barbados government, justifies the psychological trauma that Mr. Garcia is presently enduring?

  20. Mark Fenty

    @ Norwood Resident,
    Norwood, your opinion regarding the Chief Justice actions with respect to Mr. Garcia case, is not fair and well founded in my opinion. Being that as it may, I would probably is dismiss your opinion as merely speculation, predicated upon an emotional reaction.
    If I may ask the question though, what may have possess you to think that holding a man against his will is moral right? Norwood, I’ve had but one view in mind regarding your comment, fundamentally unintelligible, and lacking velocity.
    For one to advanced the view that the Chief Justice has informed on his country, demonstrate quite clearly, your limit scope of comprehend with respect to the moral, political, jurisdictive implications of this case.
    Just to inform you, it has been my individual opinion from the start, that this case transcends periphery of the Barbadian Jurisprudence, and affects fundamentally, the individual human conscience of the Barbadian with some kind of probity. In others words, it is up to every Barbadians I believe, to consult they moral conscience, since there has been a failure on the part Executive, and judicial branches of government to resolve to this political question. Norwood the Chief Justice action equated to nothing more than what Emanuel Kant called the Moral Imperative, which means do the right thing irrespective of opposition or difficulty?

  21. Mark Fenty

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but It is only fitting I believe, that the Chief Justice should be commended for his independence of mind, testicular fortitude, uncommon courage, in relying on his moral conscience to be his guide in Mr. Garcia’s case. Undoubtedly, it is left without saying that the Chief justice actions, exemplifies his independence will, and reestablishes in my view, the moral correctitude that is seems to be lacking in every segment of the Barbados government with respect to the observation of rule of law.

    But, let me say this much, I was immensely impressed by the Chief Justice willingness to listen to the voice of conscious reasoning, and particularly, his effort to sidestepping the voice of public opinion; when he made the decision to inform the United Nations, of the human rights violation against Mr. Garcia. In this context, the Chief Justice actions I believe, will aroused the dormant conscience of a collective public, and heighten its awareness to seriousness of this matter.
    Clearly, the voice of public opinion seems to lack the essential qualities, of discerning what is morally right and morally wrong in this case. And therefore, it must inquire into its distorted principles with directs its thinking in order for it to ascertain the terrifying truth in Mr. Garcia’s case.
    The late John F. Kennedy’s book (“Profiles in Courage”). Has given a dramatic expression to the men not much different than the Chief Justice, who abandon their partisan politics, and favored the national interest, instead of the domestic concerns of their constituents in an effort to make decisions that they knew would end their careers, but their nonetheless, did so because their moral conscience dictated such action.
    Indeed, some will ask the question, what is the paralysis that confines those of us who cannot comprehend the decadence in this case? And then suddenly it struck me quite clearly, that there is soft bigotry that is intricately interfused in our customs, institutions, and way of thinking as Barbadians that we rarely are conscious of.

    Worse yet, I want to call attention, to the fact, that it undermines the moral integrity of the state, when the institution of the Church remains aloof, when the rights and dignity of a human being it being marginalized by an indifferent government. I would expect to have heard a more vehement appeal form the religious body in Barbados in decrying the kind of treatment Mr. Garcia continues to suffer at the hand of and unbending government.
    Like while, one may fairly conclude nonetheless, that there should have been a far deeper felt sorrow on the part of the collective masses for this unusual political happenstance; and not the voice of the lone prophet crying in the wilderness, for justice for Mr. Garcia. The Chief Justice voice I believe has given authority to Mr. Garcia’s cause in no uncertain terms. Thank you Mr. Chief Justice for demonstrate to the weak- hearted among us, the kind of “Balls” it’s takes to do the right thing, irrespective of the forces with remains complacent in the light of moral turpitude. Finally, as I have articulated previously when contented that, when the notion of right of duty is ignored the moral law makes itself heard.