The state would do well to make a Solomon-like offer: when a woman is in her third trimester (or has recently given birth), she could be eligible to a $5000 grant if she agrees to have an abortion (or euthanize the baby). For most people, this is not a lot of money, least of all to go through such horrors -- but if she is the kind of street rat that would take the money, we will all be spared.

Between free-at-point-of-service medicine that encourages overusers to take everything they can get, and the senior citizens' grant, we already spend far too much money on the elderly -- money which is not an investment at all -- and pittances on education, research, development and knowledge creation. What is needed is raising the retirement age to 80.

If you reach old age and haven't managed your financial portfolio you're insane and shouldn't expect other people to support you. These fleshbags need to be euthanized.

I'm torn. The UNC Women's caucus release in question says

"While we acknowledge the right of citizens to protest this incident went way beyond that since it showed that some misguided members of our society continue to see the abuse of women and violence as acceptable."

And it is bad that they characterize the protest as something that "went way beyond that," as if to accuse Fuad of lawbreaking, which would be a horrible precedent for free speech.

That said, *freedom of speech isn't freedom from criticism*. This is the first time in more than 20 years I have heard of beating bobolees, and the use of a display of violent rage as a form of protest, while completely within their rights, really is quite horrifying and frightening, at least to me. Fuad should have more decency than that barbarism.

Unfortunately, Gillian, the Judiciary does not command the public trust or confidence.

Those two notions - trust and confidence - may be related, but here I'm talking about them separately.

The most obvious part is that the judiciary is not regarded as competent. It is not able to hear and deliver justice in a timely manner, and although that may be because of systematic lack of capacity, it also raises questions about officer discipline and work ethic and professionalism. Our particular national Judiciary is thus in need of extraordinary public oversight to ensure professionalism.

The other part is that we don't expect the judiciary to act impartially. Let me be clear: this is not an accusation of poor systematic behaviour; this is an accusation of corruption and bad faith. Not only do we citizens barely expect to have access to the courts, but we expect decisions to be bought if we live long enough to see them.

So I agree with you that drastic overhauls of the judiciary are in order. But pretending that our officers of law deserve *more* of our trust, faith and respect is exactly the wrong direction. They deserve far less than we give them. We need a court in each of the 134 districts of Trinidad and each of the 12 counties of Tobago, we must record and webcast all of our trials, we must directly elect the judicial appointing apparatus, and we also need both a corruption tribunal and an incompetence punishment framework.

Candidates.

This is corrupt, fascist industrial policy and absolutely nothing else. The government is destroying one supplier's stock of weed so the price will rise and raise profits for someone in the government or their friends.

I am talking about the anti-gay bigots who "claim to embody higher love while preaching hate-filled messages about a group of human beings." The subject is perfectly fit for the text and there is nothing in the text to suggest Baldeosingh meant otherwise.

Well said. It's about time we had gay marriages in Trinbago.

I agree, but bear in mind that it means that there should be no heterosexual marriage either, or any marriage at all, at least under the law. And that's great. Marriage is not the government's business.

The man was pardoned by an act of a parliament held at gunpoint! That is duress. The pardon is invalid.