I had resolved when I wrote my first letter no to engage in an extended discourse with Cayman Net News over the roll over policy issue – not because I am not capable and able to do so but because I do not think it is worth the effort and my valuable time.
However, after seeing that newspaper’s puerile response to my letter in its Editor’s Note without responding to a single point I raised, but rather further displaying the main thrust of the point I made in my first letter; that is that Cayman Net News is totally ignorant of this issue and should keep its mouth shut. I feel I should further display that newspaper’s ignorance.
Yes, Mr. Editor of the Cayman Net News, I am extremely proud to be the father of the Cayman Protection Law as originally enacted 27 March 1972.
I do not know from which statement Net News quoted me as saying that the then legal draftsman made a mistake with the original quota numbers. I have never made such a statement nor would I.
It would take a jackass to make such a statement. The Caymanian Protection Law did not stipulate quota numbers. The law authorized the Governor in Council (now Cabinet) to set annual quotas so the legal draftsman would have had nothing to do with quota numbers and if he had made a mistake, I probably would have picked it up anyway.
What I have said, jocularly, many times is that in response to criticism by a special group for only 12 statuses being provided for in the initial quota that they should not be too upset because but for the printer’s devil changing ½ (one or two) to 12, it would have been one or two but that after the printer’s error, we decided to leave it.
I am sure it has bee lost on Net News that on the coming into force of that law all non-Caymanian British subjects and Commonwealth Citizens (the terms were synonymous at the time) who were legally resident in the Islands at that time for more than five years were grandfathered as Caymanians and were entitled to be under the British Subjects Restriction Law, which it replaced.
That number was significant for our small population at the time.
Cayman Net News would not understand that a quota of 12 could in fact result in 60 or more persons being granted Status since it included spouses and children younger than 18 years old; so 12 grants plus 12 spouses plus an average of three children per could would equal 60 people. God knows some turned up with as many as nine children.
As for my being angry about being booted out of political office in 1992, Mr. Seales, as an editor, should know that politicians far greater than myself have been booted out of office after rending sterling service to their country.
Sir Winston Churchill lost the Prime Minister’s post the first election after winning World War II for the world, not just for Britain.
When you can name one politician in Cayman who has done more politically for these islands than myself that will be time enough for me to be angry. Until then I am at peace with myself and have no stress.
Mr. editor of the Cayman Net News, you have gained all the mileage you ever will from the words ‘racism political myopia and international xenophobia.’ You should try to discover the true meaning of a few more.
To help you along I suggest three; understanding, integrity and plain old good common sense.
Benson E. Ebanks