As we continue to consider our constitution, we have seen that the first 12 sections of the 1982 Order described “constitutional” freedoms that lack assurances. Most began with clear rights declarations, followed by exceptions. But Section 13 puts exceptions ahead of any rights!
Section 13: “Protection from discrimination on the grounds of race, etc”
Another fundamental liberty in any democracy is for the rule of law to treat everyone fairly, without fear or favour. Section 13 offers exceptions before such rights: “(1) Subject to the provisions of subsections (4), (5) and (7) of this section, no law shall make any provision which is discriminatory either of itself or in its effect.” [1] Oh, wait. What exceptions do subsections 4, 5 and 7 make?
Subsection 2 continues with exceptions: “(2) Subject to the provisions of subsections (6), (7) and (8) of this section, no person shall be treated in a discriminatory manner by any person acting by virtue of any written law or in the performance of the functions of any public office or any public authority.”[1]
Subsection 3 finally addresses the Section title: “(3) In this section, the expression ‘discriminatory’ means affording different treatment to different persons attributable wholly or mainly to their respective descriptions by race, place of origin, political opinions, colour or creed whereby persons of one such description are subjected to disabilities or restrictions to which persons of another such description are not made subject or are accorded privileges or advantages which are not accorded to persons of another such description.” [1] Okay, sounds promising. But…
…but not for non-belongers?
Subsection 4 excludes immigrants and tourists, saying, “(4) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to any law so far as that law makes provision—with respect to persons who do not belong to Anguilla;” where it acknowledges that non-citizens may hew to other laws. It continues, “for the application, in the case of persons of any such description as is mentioned in subsection (3) of this section (or of persons connected with such persons), of the law with respect to adoption, marriage, divorce, burial, devolution of property on death or other like matters which is the personal law of persons of that description;”[1] Yes, this is from the Order. Verbatim. But what about people who marry under our laws? Or alien landholders’ rights for their heirs? Exceptions?
And the fourth subsection adds, “or for the imposition of taxation or appropriation of revenue by the Government of Anguilla or any local authority or body for local purposes.” [1] This must be how it is constitutional to charge stamp taxes, work permit and tourist visa fees, higher departure fees, or even different rates of property tax to non-citizens after they may have invested their life savings to join the community. Hmm.
…With exceptions to exceptions!
But then, exceptions to exceptions start flying in Subsections 5 to 7, “(5) Nothing contained in any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of subsection (1) of this section to the extent that it makes provision with respect to qualifications for service as a public officer, or as a member of a disciplined force or for the service of a local government authority or a body corporate established by any law for public purposes.” And Subsection 6 continues, “(6) Subsection (2) of this section shall not apply to anything which is expressly or by necessary implication authorised to be done by any such provision of law as is referred to in subsection (4) or (5) of this section.” [1] Wait. What?
Whereas Subsection 7 seems hopeful if one reads it several times, but what lawyer anywhere would go before a magistrate to make a case based on this: “(7) Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of this section to the extent that the law in question makes provision whereby persons of any such description as is mentioned in subsection (3) of this section may be subjected to any restriction on the rights and freedoms guaranteed by sections 5, 8, 10, 11 and 12 of this Constitution, being such a restriction as is authorised by paragraph (a), (b) or (g) of subsection (3) of section 5, subsection (2) of section 8, subsection (6) of section 10, subsection (2) of section 11,or subsection (2) of section 12, as the case may be.” [1] Aren’t laws for all meant to be clear enough for all to follow?
And then, Subsection 8 appears to repeat earlier exceptions, “(8) Nothing in subsection (2) of this section shall affect any discretion relating to the institution, conduct or discontinuance of civil or criminal proceedings in any court that is vested in any person by or under this Constitution or any other law.” [1] Suggesting that any judge and any law might apply “discretion” as they see fit in the future. Voila.
Anguilla Must Lead – Not Follow “Leading” Nations!
In 2024, the largest democracy in the world eroded religious freedom by advancing the Citizenship (Amendment) Act. It facilitates citizenship for “immigrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan – provided they are not Muslim”…with the party in power shifting India from a secular democracy of 1.3 billion into a majoritarian rule based on religion.[2] Does their constitution perhaps share British roots that allow “any law” to erode rights?
In another large democracy, long awaited gender equality also ended. It took until 1963 to entitle women to equal pay in America – just four years before Anguilla’s revolution.[3] But, in 2022, women lost their constitutional right to privacy, and in turn, their ability to protect that economic equality.[4] By 2025, 19 US states banned or limited women’s rights, which has been associated with more frequent maternal and infant deaths and greater rates of economic insecurity.[5]
In Anguilla, discrimination based on the “place of origin” emerged with the passage of both the 2021 and 2025 GST laws. Specifically, both laws require business records to be in English. This discriminated against anyone who had previously enjoyed not only freedom from forced oaths, inspection without warrants, testifying against oneself – but also the privacy and freedom to keep records in whatever language they chose. In addition to a culturally intrusive demand, the laws allow that, “the Comptroller may, by notice in writing, require the person keeping the record to provide at that person’s expense a translation into English by a translator selected by the Comptroller for this purpose.” [6] Before GST, this disadvantage based on “place of origin” and language preferences did not exist for members of the private sector. Time to lead – and stop electing leaders who pass laws to destroy our rights and impoverish our people.
A Constitution or a Compromise?
The expression “Go Big or Go Home” comes to mind regarding the review of the Anguilla constitution, which is an amalgam of the 1982 Order and amendment bills. Our “people” have made Anguilla an exceptional destination for decades, which is consistent with our egalitarian society. Is continuing with a constitution that allows exceptions to equality consistent with who we are as a nation?
Will new clauses help protect AI revenues for the financial independence needed to protect our civil rights and our democracy? Or will a lack of constitutional guardrails and spending reserves leave us vulnerable to “policy based loans” and humiliating conditions of aid after the next big storm?
Will Anguilla set new standards for democracies around the world, or continue following with one compromise after another? And… Will our revised constitution have the clarity to deem laws like the General Services Tax (GST) unconstitutional, even as it revokes our righteous rights, right now?
Repeal GST – and pass a balanced budget bill. Now.
This article reflects issues raised on July 5, 2021, at the House Select Committee on GST Public Hearing.
[1]The Anguilla Constitution Order 1982; [2] https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/11/asia/india-citizenship-amendment-act-bjp-intl; [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963; [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade; [5] https://www.cnn.com/us/abortion-access-restrictions-bans-us-dg; [6] Goods and Services and General Services Acts, 2021 and 2025.