In a recent Editorial I said I was about to commend our Leader of the Opposition McKeeva Bush because he had mostly acted as a leader and statesman. In fact I was most surprised and very pleased. He appeared to be the best Opposition Leader I had seen in the 34 years I have lived here. He was certainly better than any Opposition leader the United Kingdom Parliament had produced.

Unfortunately, it has come to the end and old habits die hard.

Bush, as you all must know, filed a Private Members Motion entitled “Unconstitutional Interference, Conspiracy To Topple An Elected Government And Violation Of Indigenous Population’s Rights….”

I said in the Editorial I am referring to, it “is very unlikely, in my humble opinion, to be debated.”

Wrong. Speaker of the House Julianna O’Connor-Connolly has decided to have it debated.

I also said, “now he [McKeeva Bush] is taking pot shots at [Hon Premier Alden McLaughlin] he might receive a cannon ball in reply.”

Correct. One is already and might even have arrived!

You see, I went on to say, “If Bush does succeed in getting his Motion debated he can say and slander anyone he likes as he has Parliamentary privilege. If he doesn’t get it he will have to be very careful indeed.”

I referred in my Editorial to our Front Page story on April 15 2015 “Cayman Islands opposition leader calls for public enquiry into his arrest and trial”.

If you go to both the Editorial and the main story (see links below) you will see a notice saying both the Editorial and the article have been “AMENDED UPON ADVICE FROM LEGAL AND REQUEST FROM PREMIER’S LAWYERS”.

iNews Cayman received, as I believe all of Cayman’s media houses, a letter via email from lawyers acting for “Hon. Alden McLaughlin, MBE, JP, MLA, Premier of the
Cayman Islands (“Mr McLaughlin”)”.

The email says:
“Defamatory allegations against the Hon. Alden McLaughlin, MBE, JP, MLA

“We are instructed that on the morning of Tuesday 14 April 2015 the Leader of the Opposition, Hon. McKeeva Bush, OBE, JP, MLA, (“Mr Bush”) held a press conference at the Committee Room at the Legislative Assembly building where he addressed the invited media, and opened the press conference by saying:

‘”I have called you here this morning to publicize a motion that we will table in a minute to [sic] the Legislative Assembly ….”

“Mr Bush then distributed to the media in printed form a Private Member’s Motion dated 14 April 2015 (the “Motion”) prepared by him, and read out to the media the content of the Motion. The Motion referred to Mr McLaughlin identifying him by his office. The Motion as read and published by Mr Bush to the assembled media, [WORDS OMITTED HERE] namely the removal of Mr Bush and his democratically elected party from government.

“Mr McLaughlin staunchly denies these allegations made by Mr Bush against him, such being wholly false and unfounded. Mr McLaughlin considers these allegations however to be very serious, and highly damaging and injurious to his reputation. Having taken advice from highly experienced London counsel (which is privileged), we are of the opinion that the words used by Mr Bush and published by him are defamatory of Mr McLaughlin and are actionable by him as such.

“For the avoidance of doubt, it is the case that the words complained of were not spoken by Mr Bush before the Legislative Assembly, nor brought by him by motion before it, but rather were published in the Committee Room within the precincts of the Legislative Assembly building to which the press (as members of the public) had access. Accordingly the words complained of are not protected by the parliamentary immunity otherwise conferred upon words spoken or motion brought before the Assembly, or any committee thereof, by s.3 of the Legislative Assembly (Immunities, Powers and Privileges) Law (1999 Revision).

“Further, in our view the words complained of do not amount to comment, much less fair comment. They were presented by Mr Bush as a statement of fact, [WORDS OMITTED HERE] to a wrongful conspiracy using the coercive powers of the State for undemocratic purposes, nor can they in the circumstances be protected by qualified privilege as being made honestly and in good faith.

“We have advised Mr McLaughlin that it follows that any re-publication or repetition of Mr Bush’s defamatory allegations by the media would in our opinion be actionable by him against the party responsible for that re-publication.

“We are instructed therefore by Mr McLaughlin to request that the media, including your organization, refrain from any re-publication or repetition of Mr Bush’s damaging and false allegations as aforesaid. We trust that this request will be respected and that further action on Mr McLaughlin’s part will not prove necessary.”

In view of this letter and further advice we have removed all references to Bush’s allegations from our previous postings and within the email received from the premier’s lawyers. We have also removed the images of the Parliamentary Motion from Mr Bush we published.

I am not psychic but …..

Refs:
http://www.ieyenews.com/wordpress/the-editor-speaks-oh-dear-just-as-i-was-going-to-commend-mckeeva/
http://www.ieyenews.com/wordpress/cayman-islands-opposition-leader-calls-for-public-enquiry-into-his-arrest-and-trial/