International law absolutely requires a
ship of war to fly its ensign at the commencement of any hostile
acts, i.e., before firing on the enemy. During battle there is no
purpose in striking the colours other than to indicate surrender.

Nailing the colours to the mast is a
traditional sign of defiance, indicating that the colours will never
be struck, that the ship will never surrender.

Above: Wikipedia

Billie “Bee” Bryan, Founder &
President, She/Her/Hers of Colours Cayman has indeed given notice to
both Cayman's Premier, Alden McLaughlin and H.E. Cayman's Governor,
Martyn Roper, that her organization for the LGBTI community are ready
for battle. Colours have been raised and nailed in place.

In two separate letters, each sent to
the media under one missive, have given notice , “respectfully”,
they are not nor ever will surrender.

In Colours Cayman letter to the Premier
it states:

“Colours Cayman is disappointed that
you did not find the time to discuss our concerns regarding the
detrimental impact on minorities and human rights that will
inevitably be caused by the proposed constitutional reform.”

“Unless our organisation finds itself
in a position where we are constitutionally able to find an effective
legal remedy in this jurisdiction, wherever the courts of the Cayman
Islands recognise that there have been breaches of the Bill of
Rights, we will be forced to take any legal action necessary to stop
this constitutional reform. This constitutional reform will
effectively force minorities to go to Buckingham Palace, i.e. 5,000
miles away, to seek effective legal remedy whenever local courts find
that violations of human rights have been made by local legislators,
unless you are able to articulate in law otherwise

Then follows a lengthy argument under
three headings - “CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM”, “THE CAYMAN ISLANDS
RATHER ANOMALOUS CONSTITUTION REQUIRES SECTION 81” and “SUBSTANTIVE
AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED REFORM”.

In Colours Cayman letter to H.E. The
Governor it states:

“As you are very well aware the UK is
a parliamentary democracy. In contrast, the Cayman Islands is a
constitutional democracy. This is a difference that our local
politicians are struggling to grasp. In brief, it means that, in the
UK, their parliament is supreme, whereas in the Cayman Islands, our
written constitution, instead, is supreme. The effect of this is that
our written constitution sits ‘above’ all branches of local
government and all local (i.e. Cayman Islands) legislation.”

Then follows a legal opinion.

Afterwards comes this:

“We are currently experiencing the
failure of the Human Rights Act 1998 type system in the Cayman
Islands in relation to the adoption of a legal framework for same
sex-couples. The Court of Appeal declared in November that LGBTI+
people have a constitutional right to a legal framework and ordered
the government to put that framework in place “expeditiously,”
yet there is no evidence of anything having been done. In this
respect, could you, Your Excellency publicly state by when the UK
would deem the Cayman Islands government not to have acted
“expeditiously” in accordance with the order of the Court and, as
such, would step in and legislate by Order in Council as you have
previously suggested would happen in those circumstances.
Respectfully, we need a definitive deadline.”

The letter then points out under the
proposed constitution the existing Section 81 that at the moment
gives powers to the Governor to legislate where deemed necessary,
will be repealed. They then give an example, not surprisingly it is
“to secure compliance with international human rights obligations”.

“...Its removal will take people of
the Cayman Islands back to the times of pre-French revolution. Not
wishing to get too historical, but Section 16 of the Declaration of
the Rights of the Man and of the Citizen of 1789 set the pivotal
principle that any codified written constitution should follow since
then:

“16. A society in which the
observance of the law is not assured, nor the separation of powers
defined, has no constitution at all.”'

They then ask a key question, “Why is
it that only human rights are left without effective legal remedy in
this jurisdiction, such as the lack of a legal framework for same-sex
couples (to which we have a constitutional right)? Is the UK setting
the foundations for a system of governance in the Cayman Islands that
is able to trample over the rights of minorities at the whims of the
majority?”

We have published in full in today's
iNews Cayman both Colours Cayman letters and both demand reading no
matter what side of the fence you lay.

This will not be the last time I will
be writing on this subject as the Colours have been raised and nailed
in place.