List

Click here to see suggested analysis.

Dear . . . ,

The Governor General of Saint Lucia, . . . has forwarded to the Office of the Prime Minister a letter dated December 22, 2003, which was originally addressed to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II in which you sought her intervention in withholding the Royal Assent from thc amended Criminal Code of Saint Lucia. I am pleased to reply on behalf of the Prime Minister.

Your letter contains certain inaccuracies which are in need of correction. To begin with you stated that 'it has been reported that the Parliament of the island of Saint Lucia voted to legalise abortion.' This statement is categorically flawed. The Government of Saint Lucia has amended its Criminal Code and has not legalised abortion or introduced an “Abortion Bill” as you claimed in your letter. As part of the Government's overall review of the island's Criminal Code, sections 164-166 was amended to permit abortion only under special circumstances, namely rape and incest. Furthermore, abortion was always permitted under the laws of Saint Lucia.

A careful examination of the amended sections of the Criminal Code governing abortion will clearly illustrate that it is more prohibitive than the clauses that it replaced. The amended clauses on abortion clearly defined and specified the groups and the conditions under which abortions are permitted. In comparison, the previous clauses governing abortion were opened to greater manipulation since it was left the discretion of a physician to determine whether an abortion was necessary. Consequently, it is grossly inaccurate to equate the amended abortion clauses with permittlng abortion on demand.

Furthermore, the hallmark of a truly democratic society is its level tolerance and responsiveness to the all the sectors of its population irrespective of race, religion creed or class. Whereas, the Government recognizes that Saint Lucia is a predominantly Christian society, it also recognizes that religion should not be used as a tool to impose the will of certain sectors of the citizenry on the entire population. Within democratic societies the protection of the rights of the minority is just as important as the protection of the rights of the majority. Hence, the denial of the rights of any constitutes a form of injustice. An enlightened and just government has a responsibility to govern on behalf of all its citizens, in a fair and indiscriminating manner. Perhaps Sir, this why the proponents of the separation of Church and State found wisdom in the separation of Church and State jurisdiction. A government, given that it has a whole nation as its constituency cannot enact laws based on personal conviction and religion beliefs. Narrow sectoral interest cannot be the basis for public policy. Affairs of the state and public policy must therefore be dictated and determined by the General Good and the General Will.

It is even the more surprising that you have appealed to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II to intervene and to withhold the Royal Assent from what you termed the 'Saint Lucian Bill'. Need I remind you that Her Majesty's Government since 1967 enacted laws making abortion legal in the United Kingdom. Whereas the Government found it prudent as far back as 1967 to legalise abortion, you are appealing to Her Majesty, to deny assent to Saint Lucia's Criminal Code, under which sections 164-166 permit abortion under special circumstances. This too me defies logic. I am certain that your are aware that Saint Lucia is a sovereign nation and it is within its sovereign prerogative to legislate in the interest of the public good. I am convinced that the Government has not acted in a manner that injudicious to public interest.

(CSOU: All grammatical errors are as contained in the original letter. Names have been withheld since this letter was privately addressed.)

Back to top