As a Commissioner of the Anglican Church in the Diocese of the North Eastern Caribbean and Aruba, I am charged with the responsibility for managing church lands and properties in Anguilla.
That responsibility requires that I be vigilant in safeguarding the Church’s interest with respect to its lands. Consequently, the decision of the Government of Anguilla to allow crown lands adjacent to St. Mary’s Anglican Church to be utilized for purposes inconsistent and disruptive to regular church activities, requires the Church to be proactive in combatting what has turned out to be a continuing nuisance.
The nuisance in question is the establishment of an entertainment area opposite to the St. Mary’s Church. This area is now popularly referred to as “The Strip”. Let me be very clear (given the penchant in our society, well-intentioned or otherwise, to distort or mischaracterize issues) that the Church takes no position against the need for such an area. We only object to its location. The placement of this activity could not be worse, given the noise generated by traffic and amplified music.
The decision to locate this facility next to a place of worship defies accepted planning principles, logic, law and common sense. As one quite knowledgeable of the level of effort required to obtain planning approval, it is not an exaggeration to say that obtaining such approval is marginally easier than having a camel pass through the eye of a needle. For example, a client of mine recently sought planning approval for a project that undoubtedly will increase tourism arrivals to Anguilla thereby creating additional economic activities in the form of jobs. It took two (2) years, several studies and considerable expense for consultants and various reports, before permission was recently granted.
This then begs the question as to what forces were at play so as to why an otherwise vigorous planning regime would allow the establishment of this facility at this location, with scant regard for the well-being of and established Church. We note that there were and are many other places that this activity can be located which would not impact on Church activities. These activities are common place throughout the Caribbean and in every case they are located in areas dedicated to such use.
From a purely legal perspective, it is axiomatic if not trite, that any activity carried out by an adjacent landowner should not in any material way adversely affect the rights of the other adjoining landowner. This should have been a paramount concern to the Planning Department. The historical records confirm that St. Mary’s Church has been in existence at this site for over four hundred (400) years. This Church has been the place where many generations of Anguillians were baptized, confirmed, married, and buried. It is therefore a place near and dear to the hearts of many families. These activities at “the Strip” collide in the worst way with decorum associated with any Church. Is it that secular activities have become so paramount in our society that no consideration is given to religious values? There can be no doubt that the legal rights of the Church have been seriously damaged. It is therefore fair to call into question the intelligence and motives of those persons who decided to locate this complex next to the Church. It must be, as Chalkdust would say, “Somebody has to be mad”.
It has been suggested that the magnitude of the activity was perhaps not foreseeable. I respectfully beg to differ. Over the past years as persons informally congregated in the area, mostly over weekends to market their wares, there has been an increase in noise, traffic and on occasion amplified music. On many occasions the assistance of the Police had to be sought to control the noise as it was affecting Church activity. Therefore, to sanction this site for an activity which would have dramatically increased frequency and level of noise, traffic and crowds there could be no doubt the concomitant nuisance would have increased commensurably. Consequently, for Government to sanction an establishment of this magnitude was a reckless act of the highest order.
Perhaps the most disturbing revelation about this whole issue, is the fear of persons in our society to voice their objections on issues they find objectionable. I have been quite taken back by the number of persons who expressed their concerns about “the Strip” but who do not want to be identified as opposing this activity. To my mind, the fear to speak out on issues of concern can be, and is corrosive to our democratic system. This does not augur well for the future of Anguilla. A democratic society can only foster and thrive when competing ideas are resolved through full, open and vigorous debate. It has become popular on this island to impugn the motives of persons who express competing views rather than engage them in a serious discussion over the merit of the idea. Such an approach may very well lead to a mutually agreeable compromise or resolving a misunderstanding of the issue. For example, I raised this issue with someone I know who had the ability to understand the issue. The person is a pastor and obviously would have understood the religious sensitivities. However, because of his political affiliation, he sought to convince me that the Church was somehow at fault. It is an understatement that I was amazed at his shallow deductions. I would simply remind my fellow Anguillians that being afraid to speak out on issues that deeply affect our society can and will only lead to surrender to the worst elements in our society. I am reminded of the words of Edmund Burke, and I quote: “the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”. Therefore, if we want to safeguard our cherished democratic ideals, these words should awaken us to action.
Simply, what we have here in this matter is a failure of our Leaders to lead. Leadership requires one to have the pulse and sensitivity of the community as to what is right, and have the willingness to stand and fight for what is right regardless of the cost. We cannot sacrifice our long cherished respect for religion for the sake of popular secular trends. We must remember the price paid by abolitionists who campaigned to rid the earth of the scourge of slavery. In more recent times, we need to recall the beatings, imprisonment, stoning, and other indignities endured by Martin Luther King and his associates who fought for rights we today take for granted. We need to remember the twenty seven (27) years Nelson Mandela endured on death-row for his efforts to rid South Africa of its inhumane apartheid system. These were leaders who led because they believed in the righteousness of their cause. None of these causes were popular at the time but they persevered at great personal cost because of their belief in the morality of their cause.
Moreover, in this Lenten Season we need to reflect on the passion of the Jesus Christ, Son of God, though sinless was nonetheless crucified by the authorities of the day simply for preaching love and redemption. To be worthy of leadership one must demonstrate the gravitas to stand up to the Pilates of our day for what is right no matter the cost. One thing can be sure, to countenance and promote disrespect for the Church by sanctioning the establishment of “the Strip” in this location falls far short of any measure one would ascribe to good leadership.
In closing, it is my hope that this issue will resurrect our God-given democratic rights to confront our officials regarding actions we deem detrimental to our villages, churches, schools or country. We cannot be afraid of those who would falsely and conveniently impugn our motives, when we raise objection to their actions. If we do, we will only surrender the arena to the bullies of society, and Anguilla will deserve the leadership it gets. As for me, I aspire neither to leadership or position. I will speak out (note, name not withheld) whenever my conscience requires I do. This I will do without fear or favour. As for “the Strip”, believe me the fight has just begun and will go on until the rightness of the cause is recognized and the Church is afforded redress in the form of its relocation to a more suitable location.
