Gordon Robinson | Law in society

It’s early September 1976.

My study buddy and I have survived the first two years of legal ‘education’ at and have a choice of courses for final year. Since we realised from the outset little useful knowledge was available, we consider our choices against a mission to get out as easily as possible to begin learning how to be lawyers.

The first subject attracting me is ‘Law in Society’. The course requirement was for students to prepare a ‘Thesis’ on how laws work in real life. I turn to my friend, “They only want an Essay. I wrote those weekly at Campion.” It’s our first choice. We also choose ‘Human Rights’ and ‘Administrative Law’, because campus scuttlebutt (calm down Deacon Peter) had it they were previously one course.

That turns out excellently as, under the guidance of iconic Telford Georges (Human Rights) and Dorcas White (Administrative Law), I gather more helpful career information than in any other course.

But I digress. This is all about Law in Society. So I come home for Christmas and write my ‘thesis’ on crime and punishment over a single weekend. My theme is ‘morals can’t be legislated’. I also staunchly oppose capital punishment. On my return to Barbados, I deliver it to the Course Director (who, out of compassion, I won’t name) and do a Pontius Pilate on one course.

But I’m called to his office a week later. My work is barely decipherable through gallons of red ink generously contributed. His main comment is “not enough research” (true). Then, in a grave tone, he says, “Gordon, I don’t want to frighten you, but if the next draft isn’t significantly improved, you’re in danger of failing.”

I take the document directly to the Dean’s secretary, who ‘roasts’ for students typing their work, charging per word. I instruct her to re-type it verbatim. “If you finish before 4.00 p.m., I’ll pay double (thank you Garrison Savannah).” She does. I resubmit the document as a final draft. I’m graded ‘C’, which would’ve disappointed most of my grade-conscious colleagues but which satisfies me.

One down. Four to go.

FAILED MISERABLY

My perspective on Law in Society hasn’t changed. All historical attempts to legislate morals have failed miserably. The fundamental question remains: whose morals should Government legislate? Deacon Peter continued down his garden (of Eden?) path on Friday, writing:

“Because two adults consent to something … cannot by itself justify that something. Other considerations come into play, like psychological damage, the possibility of genetic abnormalities, the health of the family, and the intrinsic quality of the action itself.”

Lord, deliver us! Yes, other considerations always come into play. If you eat a dead bat you might infect the world with COVID-19. If two adults consent to divorce, causing trauma to children; or to using contraception, defying Roman Catholic morals, equating it to murder; or consent to heterosexual marital infidelity; or to marriage of their 12-year-old daughter to a 40-year-old man, should the law criminalise any of these? Which ones? Why?

The issue isn’t my beliefs. It’s how far Government should go to protect selected morals.

C’Mon, Peter. I know now mass communication abounds, and mindless dogma easily identified and discredited, the Church is desperate for a fearmongering tool to keep flocks tithing. Just don’t pretend Government must help you spread irrational phobias. It has helped enough. Your business isn’t taxed.

Lest we forget, Jesus, a ‘grounds’ bredren who kept company with sex worker and lepers; comforted and helped the sick, poor and suffering, never preached any of this homophobic rubbish. He was an anti-authoritarian rebel who defied convention and dedicated his life to loving all.

Jesus. Never. Built. A. Church!

Jesus. Never. Passed. A. Plate!

Jesus worked voluntarily. He preached love, period. It’s ‘homo-not-so-sapiens’ who twists Jesus’ words to create worship through fear; preys on weak-minded person’s feelings of guilt to con them out of their hard-earned to build huge monstrosities and pay Priests a variety of non-taxable allowances. Jesus often railed against Church hypocrisy and empathised with ‘sinners’, while trying to help them be better.

But the Church presents Jesus as a VERY white man (although middle-east-born) who is forever angry at us for experiencing life and insists on worship rather than education. Jesus asked us to BELIEVE in Him, NOT to WORSHIP Him. Peter’s ‘church’ not only maintains this racist, imperialist, lobotomising falsehood, it threatens sinners with Hell unless they pay tithes (which the Catechism calls “a work of justice pleasing to God”).

Really? Seriously? KMT!

Peace and Love.

Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.