2020 legistlation - Whats going to become law?

[Monk BANzai]

What legislation is going to be "law" as of 2020? - Road Act and otherwise?

We still have almost 3 months to pay Fixed Penalties?
Demerit System and other "Penalty based" systems.... Law?

[pugboy]

camera tickets in the mail they keep bumping they gum on
but most of them idiot drivers don’t have proper address anyways

stuey should launch a new drivers permit program and force proper tracking of drivers and license plate

[Dizzy28]

http://www.ttparliament.org/publications.php?mid=28

Bills Introduced during the 5th Session of the 11th Republican Parliament

[Monk BANzai]

http://www.ttparliament.org/publications.php?mid=28

Bills Introduced during the 5th Session of the 11th Republican Parliament

good stuff.

[Dizzy28]

http://www.ttparliament.org/publications.php?mid=28

Bills Introduced during the 5th Session of the 11th Republican Parliament

good stuff.

There's also supposed to be an agenda for the next session of Parliament. I am not seeing it yet so maybe they haven't yet put it up.

[redmanjp]

Cannabis Control Bill to regulate supply & licenses
newly amended Road Traffic Act to cater for red light & speed cams, tickets in mail (which i probably won't get in time as my mail still going to a previous address we does only pick up every 2 months)

[linton]

....and a lot of other laws to regulate citizens but as usual, none to regulate themselves.

[88sins]

camera tickets in the mail they keep bumping they gum on
but most of them idiot drivers don’t have proper address anyways

stuey should launch a new drivers permit program and force proper tracking of drivers and license plate

yuh really want them to be able to know who you are and where you are at all times? remember, arse worries openly stated that Trini's have no right to privacy, not even in their own homes.

[Redman]

camera tickets in the mail they keep bumping they gum on
but most of them idiot drivers don’t have proper address anyways

stuey should launch a new drivers permit program and force proper tracking of drivers and license plate

yuh really want them to be able to know who you are and where you are at all times? remember, arse worries openly stated that Trini's have no right to privacy, not even in their own homes.

He is also the only one that read the constitution as it is.
His singular point remains....the right to privacy is not absolute.

[pugboy]

the reality is plenty drivers have wrong address on their dp

a padna was knocked down and police were never able to serve the driver a summons because address was fake

[Dizzy28]

camera tickets in the mail they keep bumping they gum on
but most of them idiot drivers don’t have proper address anyways

stuey should launch a new drivers permit program and force proper tracking of drivers and license plate

yuh really want them to be able to know who you are and where you are at all times? remember, arse worries openly stated that Trini's have no right to privacy, not even in their own homes.

He is also the only one that read the constitution as it is.
His singular point remains....the right to privacy is not absolute.

Laughs in Cambridge Analytica!!

[De Dragon]

camera tickets in the mail they keep bumping they gum on
but most of them idiot drivers don’t have proper address anyways

stuey should launch a new drivers permit program and force proper tracking of drivers and license plate

yuh really want them to be able to know who you are and where you are at all times? remember, arse worries openly stated that Trini's have no right to privacy, not even in their own homes.

He is also the only one that read the constitution as it is.
His singular point remains....the right to privacy is not absolute.

But that's not what he said though. Good looking out for a fellow PNM though.

[Redman]

Fair enough...I have it wrong.
Carry on.
Hansard below.

We say that there is no enshrined right that is being infringed. We say specifically that there is no right to privacy as some people alleged exists in this jurisdiction, but which our courts do not recognize specifically so.
Our Constitution does in section 4(c) recognize the right to private and family life. Our courts are replete with judgments that say that the right to privacy is not per se a right. Our common law recognizes a right which says that there is breach of confidence. Our equitable jurisdiction has, most recently, in certain cases recognized an equitable jurisdiction to the protection of certain privacy issues, but the debate is still ongoing with respect to a right of privacy per se.
We say that even if one were to take it as an allegation that there is an intrusion into section 4(c) of the Constitution, that we do not need to look to a three-fifths majority argument, because the law is proportionate and taking avail of dicta such as Baroness Hale has offered for our consideration, such as many of our cases have recognized—be it Surratt, be it any one of the decisions—that we simply need to look to whether there is a proportionate safeguard to the operation

[sMASH]

the one thing alwaris was right about, was that we dont have rights to privacy. cause, we are subjects to the crown, or the neo crown, or the post colonial crown.

[Redman]

the one thing alwaris was right about, was that we dont have rights to privacy. cause, we are subjects to the crown, or the neo crown, or the post colonial crown.

We are subject to the constitution-as it is written.

[sMASH]

the one thing alwaris was right about, was that we dont have rights to privacy. cause, we are subjects to the crown, or the neo crown, or the post colonial crown.

We are subject to the constitution-as it is written.

not completely ture, we are subject to those who interpret the constitution.

[Ben_spanna]

Not sure about laws, but a lot a lot of serious speculation of a looming about the devaluation of our dollar very soon, but say wha, 2020 will be full of challenges......

[sMASH]

Not sure about laws, but a lot a lot of serious speculation of a looming about the devaluation of our dollar very soon, but say wha, 2020 will be full of challenges......

hoss, since before stuart analytica said that they 'managing' who getting and how much, but keeping the price stable, that told u that it was scarce. and anything in demand will go up in price.

pnm artificially kept it low for a long long time.

[Redman]

Its been a dirty float since it floated.

[Dizzy28]

Not sure about laws, but a lot a lot of serious speculation of a looming about the devaluation of our dollar very soon, but say wha, 2020 will be full of challenges......

Imbert always speaks about defending the TT$. Something really drastic have to happen for them to devalue less than $7 to 1.

IMF maybe but I don't think we at that point yet to need their intervention.

[De Dragon]

Fair enough...I have it wrong.
Carry on.
Hansard below.

We say that there is no enshrined right that is being infringed. We say specifically that there is no right to privacy as some people alleged exists in this jurisdiction, but which our courts do not recognize specifically so.
Our Constitution does in section 4(c) recognize the right to private and family life. Our courts are replete with judgments that say that the right to privacy is not per se a right. Our common law recognizes a right which says that there is breach of confidence. Our equitable jurisdiction has, most recently, in certain cases recognized an equitable jurisdiction to the protection of certain privacy issues, but the debate is still ongoing with respect to a right of privacy per se.
We say that even if one were to take it as an allegation that there is an intrusion into section 4(c) of the Constitution, that we do not need to look to a three-fifths majority argument, because the law is proportionate and taking avail of dicta such as Baroness Hale has offered for our consideration, such as many of our cases have recognized—be it Surratt, be it any one of the decisions—that we simply need to look to whether there is a proportionate safeguard to the operation

So where are the cited judgements, and why is there still a debate? I know Arse-Wari isn't a legal luminary by any stretch, but even when I did business law, you had to cite settled case law.


Mr Michael De La Bastide.

"The Con­sti­tu­tion does pro­vide for a right to pri­va­cy, the ques­tion is how is that de­fined. What are its lim­its? How does it rec­on­cile with the right to free­dom of ex­pres­sion? Ob­vi­ous­ly there has to be some bal­ance...Re­spect for pri­vate life looks very much like re­spect for pri­va­cy and that is hard­ly dis­tin­guish­able from the right to pri­va­cy." (News­day, May 5, 2016).

Per­haps, these dif­fer­ences of opin­ion might more eas­i­ly be un­der­stood if there was some back­ground un­der­stand­ing to how the Con­sti­tu­tion has sec­tion 4(c) which reads as fol­lows:

"(c) the right of the in­di­vid­ual to re­spect for his pri­vate and fam­i­ly life."

The re­al­i­ty is that the in­de­pen­dent coun­tries of the Com­mon­wealth Caribbean, with the ex­cep­tion of T&T, adopt­ed the tem­plate of the Eu­ro­pean Con­ven­tion on Hu­man Rights 1950, while T&T de­vi­at­ed in its adop­tion of the Cana­di­an Bill of Rights 1960 tem­plate for the chap­ter on hu­man rights in its In­de­pen­dence Con­sti­tu­tion.

The Draft In­de­pen­dence Con­sti­tu­tion pub­lished in the Guardian on Feb­ru­ary 20, 1962, con­tained the fol­low­ing pro­vi­sions re­lat­ing to pri­va­cy at sec­tion 11(c):

"(c) re­spect for the pri­va­cy of his home and oth­er prop­er­ty...."

This draft word­ing would have been weak­er than what ob­tains now had it been re­tained."

Forgive me if I defer to a SC, and former CJ with intimate knowledge of our Constitution instead of a political hack, who took 7 years to get a law degree.

[Redman]

Fair enough...I have it wrong.
Carry on.
Hansard below.

We say that there is no enshrined right that is being infringed. We say specifically that there is no right to privacy as some people alleged exists in this jurisdiction, but which our courts do not recognize specifically so.
Our Constitution does in section 4(c) recognize the right to private and family life. Our courts are replete with judgments that say that the right to privacy is not per se a right. Our common law recognizes a right which says that there is breach of confidence. Our equitable jurisdiction has, most recently, in certain cases recognized an equitable jurisdiction to the protection of certain privacy issues, but the debate is still ongoing with respect to a right of privacy per se.
We say that even if one were to take it as an allegation that there is an intrusion into section 4(c) of the Constitution, that we do not need to look to a three-fifths majority argument, because the law is proportionate and taking avail of dicta such as Baroness Hale has offered for our consideration, such as many of our cases have recognized—be it Surratt, be it any one of the decisions—that we simply need to look to whether there is a proportionate safeguard to the operation

So where are the cited judgements, and why is there still a debate? I know Arse-Wari isn't a legal luminary by any stretch, but even when I did business law, you had to cite settled case law.


Mr Michael De La Bastide.

"The Con­sti­tu­tion does pro­vide for a right to pri­va­cy, the ques­tion is how is that de­fined. What are its lim­its? How does it rec­on­cile with the right to free­dom of ex­pres­sion? Ob­vi­ous­ly there has to be some bal­ance...Re­spect for pri­vate life looks very much like re­spect for pri­va­cy and that is hard­ly dis­tin­guish­able from the right to pri­va­cy." (News­day, May 5, 2016).

Per­haps, these dif­fer­ences of opin­ion might more eas­i­ly be un­der­stood if there was some back­ground un­der­stand­ing to how the Con­sti­tu­tion has sec­tion 4(c) which reads as fol­lows:

"(c) the right of the in­di­vid­ual to re­spect for his pri­vate and fam­i­ly life."

The re­al­i­ty is that the in­de­pen­dent coun­tries of the Com­mon­wealth Caribbean, with the ex­cep­tion of T&T, adopt­ed the tem­plate of the Eu­ro­pean Con­ven­tion on Hu­man Rights 1950, while T&T de­vi­at­ed in its adop­tion of the Cana­di­an Bill of Rights 1960 tem­plate for the chap­ter on hu­man rights in its In­de­pen­dence Con­sti­tu­tion.

The Draft In­de­pen­dence Con­sti­tu­tion pub­lished in the Guardian on Feb­ru­ary 20, 1962, con­tained the fol­low­ing pro­vi­sions re­lat­ing to pri­va­cy at sec­tion 11(c):

"(c) re­spect for the pri­va­cy of his home and oth­er prop­er­ty...."

This draft word­ing would have been weak­er than what ob­tains now had it been re­tained."

Forgive me if I defer to a SC, and former CJ with intimate knowledge of our Constitution instead of a political hack, who took 7 years to get a law degree.

No need to defer-you just need to finish the article that you cherry picked from.

https://www.guardian.co.tt/article-6.2. ... 3054e41a84

This draft word­ing would have been weak­er than what ob­tains now had it been re­tained.
The change emerged out of pro­pos­als ad­vanced by the Bar As­so­ci­a­tion of T&T at the Meet­ing of Com­men­ta­tors on the Draft Con­sti­tu­tion at Queen's Hall over the pe­ri­od April 25-27, 1962. The Pres­i­dent of the Bar As­so­ci­a­tion at that time, Mr (lat­er Sir) Hugh Wood­ing made a plea at the Queen's Hall Con­fer­ence for the adop­tion of the Cana­di­an Bill of Rights, suit­ably amend­ed, to re­place the mod­i­fied tem­plate of the Eu­ro­pean Con­ven­tion on Hu­man Rights that was in­clud­ed in the Draft In­de­pen­dence Con­sti­tu­tion.

Mr Wood­ing said, in­ter alia:

"We have adapt­ed things, amend­ed them, added cer­tain things, delet­ed cer­tain things, and in the same way we can take the Cana­di­an Bill of Rights and adapt them to suit us, and I do not see why we should be lim­it­ed to choos­ing the Cana­di­an Bill of Rights as it is or re­fus­ing to con­sid­er it al­to­geth­er. I put for­ward, on be­half of the Bar As­so­ci­a­tion, that it should be tak­en as a mod­el, and it should be used as a means where­by we can help to shape our think­ing in the mat­ter, mod­i­fy­ing it to the ex­tent that may be nec­es­sary, and re­mem­ber­ing al­so that this Cana­di­an Bill of Rights is some­thing which came in­to ex­is­tence in 1960 and forms no part of the Con­sti­tu­tion of Cana­da."

The pro­pos­als ad­vanced by Mr Wood­ing and the Bar As­so­ci­a­tion were con­sid­ered by the Cab­i­net, to­geth­er with oth­er pro­pos­als made at the meet­ing. The chair­man of the Queen's Hall Con­fer­ence made the fol­low­ing state­ment at the com­mence­ment of the pro­ceed­ings on Fri­day April 27, 1962:

"I am hap­py to be in a po­si­tion to in­form you, on the au­thor­i­ty of the Cab­i­net, that your writ­ten com­ments and your sug­ges­tions made in this hall have re­ceived pre­lim­i­nary con­sid­er­a­tion. Fur­ther de­tailed con­sid­er­a­tion will of course be giv­en to them but al­ready cer­tain de­ci­sions have been tak­en. These de­ci­sions are that at the Joint Se­lect Com­mit­tee to be­gin on Mon­day the Gov­ern­ment rep­re­sen­ta­tives will pro­pose :.....(c) the sub­sti­tu­tion for Chap­ter II of a Bill of Rights along the lines of the Cana­di­an Bill of Rights with ap­pro­pri­ate mod­i­fi­ca­tions in­clud­ing the in­tro­duc­tion of safe­guards. (Ap­plause)."

This ex­tract from the ver­ba­tim record of the Queen's Hall Con­fer­ence pro­vides an un­der­stand­ing of how T&T switched from the mod­i­fied tem­plate of the Eu­ro­pean Con­ven­tion on Hu­man Rights 1950 and adopt­ed the Cana­di­an Bill of Rights 1960 tem­plate for its bill of rights in 1962. That tem­plate was re­tained in 1976 when the coun­try be­came a re­pub­lic and it is from there that pri­va­cy can be de­bat­ed.

[pete]

The traffic law update supposed to make it so that if you don't pay the ticket, it goes up after a couple weeks and then a month. After that you will not be able to any licensing office transaction with the vehicle til it's paid. That means no inspection and no transfers. Insurance companies may also deny insurance when ya go to renew.
If the driver is given a ticket and doesn't pay, their license also gets cancelled so you may get pulled out and lose your license in future traffic stops.

That on top of the penalty points which the Minister can also set at double points temporarily if they think there's high chance of speeding or dui.

Fun times ahead.

[squirrel]

* Re­moval of all tax­es and du­ties on all in­puts for farm­ers. Farm­ing to be­come a tax-free in­dus­try.

Does this include income Tax and is it already effective?

[De Dragon]

Fair enough...I have it wrong.
Carry on.
Hansard below.

We say that there is no enshrined right that is being infringed. We say specifically that there is no right to privacy as some people alleged exists in this jurisdiction, but which our courts do not recognize specifically so.
Our Constitution does in section 4(c) recognize the right to private and family life. Our courts are replete with judgments that say that the right to privacy is not per se a right. Our common law recognizes a right which says that there is breach of confidence. Our equitable jurisdiction has, most recently, in certain cases recognized an equitable jurisdiction to the protection of certain privacy issues, but the debate is still ongoing with respect to a right of privacy per se.
We say that even if one were to take it as an allegation that there is an intrusion into section 4(c) of the Constitution, that we do not need to look to a three-fifths majority argument, because the law is proportionate and taking avail of dicta such as Baroness Hale has offered for our consideration, such as many of our cases have recognized—be it Surratt, be it any one of the decisions—that we simply need to look to whether there is a proportionate safeguard to the operation

So where are the cited judgements, and why is there still a debate? I know Arse-Wari isn't a legal luminary by any stretch, but even when I did business law, you had to cite settled case law.


Mr Michael De La Bastide.

"The Con­sti­tu­tion does pro­vide for a right to pri­va­cy, the ques­tion is how is that de­fined. What are its lim­its? How does it rec­on­cile with the right to free­dom of ex­pres­sion? Ob­vi­ous­ly there has to be some bal­ance...Re­spect for pri­vate life looks very much like re­spect for pri­va­cy and that is hard­ly dis­tin­guish­able from the right to pri­va­cy." (News­day, May 5, 2016).

Per­haps, these dif­fer­ences of opin­ion might more eas­i­ly be un­der­stood if there was some back­ground un­der­stand­ing to how the Con­sti­tu­tion has sec­tion 4(c) which reads as fol­lows:

"(c) the right of the in­di­vid­ual to re­spect for his pri­vate and fam­i­ly life."

The re­al­i­ty is that the in­de­pen­dent coun­tries of the Com­mon­wealth Caribbean, with the ex­cep­tion of T&T, adopt­ed the tem­plate of the Eu­ro­pean Con­ven­tion on Hu­man Rights 1950, while T&T de­vi­at­ed in its adop­tion of the Cana­di­an Bill of Rights 1960 tem­plate for the chap­ter on hu­man rights in its In­de­pen­dence Con­sti­tu­tion.

The Draft In­de­pen­dence Con­sti­tu­tion pub­lished in the Guardian on Feb­ru­ary 20, 1962, con­tained the fol­low­ing pro­vi­sions re­lat­ing to pri­va­cy at sec­tion 11(c):

"(c) re­spect for the pri­va­cy of his home and oth­er prop­er­ty...."

This draft word­ing would have been weak­er than what ob­tains now had it been re­tained."

Forgive me if I defer to a SC, and former CJ with intimate knowledge of our Constitution instead of a political hack, who took 7 years to get a law degree.

No need to defer-you just need to finish the article that you cherry picked from.

https://www.guardian.co.tt/article-6.2. ... 3054e41a84

This draft word­ing would have been weak­er than what ob­tains now had it been re­tained.
The change emerged out of pro­pos­als ad­vanced by the Bar As­so­ci­a­tion of T&T at the Meet­ing of Com­men­ta­tors on the Draft Con­sti­tu­tion at Queen's Hall over the pe­ri­od April 25-27, 1962. The Pres­i­dent of the Bar As­so­ci­a­tion at that time, Mr (lat­er Sir) Hugh Wood­ing made a plea at the Queen's Hall Con­fer­ence for the adop­tion of the Cana­di­an Bill of Rights, suit­ably amend­ed, to re­place the mod­i­fied tem­plate of the Eu­ro­pean Con­ven­tion on Hu­man Rights that was in­clud­ed in the Draft In­de­pen­dence Con­sti­tu­tion.

Mr Wood­ing said, in­ter alia:

"We have adapt­ed things, amend­ed them, added cer­tain things, delet­ed cer­tain things, and in the same way we can take the Cana­di­an Bill of Rights and adapt them to suit us, and I do not see why we should be lim­it­ed to choos­ing the Cana­di­an Bill of Rights as it is or re­fus­ing to con­sid­er it al­to­geth­er. I put for­ward, on be­half of the Bar As­so­ci­a­tion, that it should be tak­en as a mod­el, and it should be used as a means where­by we can help to shape our think­ing in the mat­ter, mod­i­fy­ing it to the ex­tent that may be nec­es­sary, and re­mem­ber­ing al­so that this Cana­di­an Bill of Rights is some­thing which came in­to ex­is­tence in 1960 and forms no part of the Con­sti­tu­tion of Cana­da."

The pro­pos­als ad­vanced by Mr Wood­ing and the Bar As­so­ci­a­tion were con­sid­ered by the Cab­i­net, to­geth­er with oth­er pro­pos­als made at the meet­ing. The chair­man of the Queen's Hall Con­fer­ence made the fol­low­ing state­ment at the com­mence­ment of the pro­ceed­ings on Fri­day April 27, 1962:

"I am hap­py to be in a po­si­tion to in­form you, on the au­thor­i­ty of the Cab­i­net, that your writ­ten com­ments and your sug­ges­tions made in this hall have re­ceived pre­lim­i­nary con­sid­er­a­tion. Fur­ther de­tailed con­sid­er­a­tion will of course be giv­en to them but al­ready cer­tain de­ci­sions have been tak­en. These de­ci­sions are that at the Joint Se­lect Com­mit­tee to be­gin on Mon­day the Gov­ern­ment rep­re­sen­ta­tives will pro­pose :.....(c) the sub­sti­tu­tion for Chap­ter II of a Bill of Rights along the lines of the Cana­di­an Bill of Rights with ap­pro­pri­ate mod­i­fi­ca­tions in­clud­ing the in­tro­duc­tion of safe­guards. (Ap­plause)."

This ex­tract from the ver­ba­tim record of the Queen's Hall Con­fer­ence pro­vides an un­der­stand­ing of how T&T switched from the mod­i­fied tem­plate of the Eu­ro­pean Con­ven­tion on Hu­man Rights 1950 and adopt­ed the Cana­di­an Bill of Rights 1960 tem­plate for its bill of rights in 1962. That tem­plate was re­tained in 1976 when the coun­try be­came a re­pub­lic and it is from there that pri­va­cy can be de­bat­ed.

Didn't cherry pic PNM fanboy. There is no real relevance about how we came to adopt Canadian vs. European Convention on Human Rights to the AG's insistence that there is NO right to privacy. Again you're going to tell me that's not what came out of tight shirt Arse-Wari's own mouth? Come on, it is 2020, try at least to appear to be not nestled in some PNM man's nether regions nah man!

[paid_influencer]

Not sure about laws, but a lot a lot of serious speculation of a looming about the devaluation of our dollar very soon, but say wha, 2020 will be full of challenges......

Imbert always speaks about defending the TT$. Something really drastic have to happen for them to devalue less than $7 to 1.

IMF maybe but I don't think we at that point yet to need their intervention.

when we run out of foreign reserves and the central bank can no longer inject supply into the system... it will be dramatic.

That is an issue for the next administration though.

[squirrel]

* Re­moval of all tax­es and du­ties on all in­puts for farm­ers. Farm­ing to be­come a tax-free in­dus­try.

Does this include income Tax and is it already effective?

Anyone?