The most beautiful place on earth

I took a plane home instead of the usual boat ride. Gives you a different perspective. How lucky are we? (click to enlarge)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Licks like peas! (this is a loooong post)

Sometimes, as a little boy, you get a spanking. Daddy puts you over his knee and administers a few staccato smacks to convey his displeasure. It hurts, but not too bad. Other times, mummy is waiting at the door with a supple guava branch switch, and the blows rain down from all angles, and you are running, and covering, and hiding, and crying, and wondering what the hell happened, and why is mummy so vex.

Politically, last week’s “no” vote, was definitely the latter. A real "cut ass."

56% to 43% is as resounding as it gets in SVG. Don’t let anybody tell you any different. As far as I know, the only time more Vincentians agreed on anything in a voting booth is when the NDP won all 15 seats in the country. The 12-3 ULP landslide of 2001 was also a 56% majority.

This was a beating.

Now, in the last days of the referendum campaign, I could see that the “yes” was not going to get the required 67% of the vote. But I was certain that they would get the majority of the votes! In fact, if you asked me on the eve of the election, you could have gotten me to predict something in the range of 59% - 62% “yes.”

Just goes to show how little I know.

Maybe it was the Busy Signal show – the biggest crowd in SVG I’ve ever seen. Maybe it was another huge crowd the next day at Rabbacca. Maybe it was the fact that everything that the “no” voters said sounded so angry, and so bitter, and so unrelated to the merits of the constitution, which, in my opinion, remains a pretty good document. I dunno. But I clearly misread the mood of Vincentians.

But I’m not alone in that misreading. If the government thought that 43% was even possible, no way they go through with this referendum. They must have assumed that their floor was something in the mid-50s, with a ceiling in the mid-60s. Otherwise, why even try? And throughout their campaign, they remained resolutely on the high ground, extolling the virtues of the constitution and resisting the mudslinging from the other side. (The only possible exception to this was the Oakes Bros./SCL/passport selling revelations. But I think that was relevant to the constitutional debate as well). You only maintain the high ground if you’re sure that you’re winning or you’re sure that you’ve already lost. I gotta think that they were feeling pretty good about themselves, up until the last minute.

I waited to type this post, first because I was in shock, and second, because I wanted to see the data. I’ve studied it. It aint pretty. Let’s analyse, shall we?

Question #1: What does this “no” vote mean?

This is the $6 million question. The easiest (and wrongest) answer is: “it means that the people of SVG are fully satisfied with their present constitution.” Problem with that answer is that only one side was even talking about the constitution. The other side made this a referendum on the government, no matter what the question on the ballot paper said. In many ways, both sides were talking past each other.

So does the “no” vote mean that Vincentians are dissatisfied with the government? Some of it clearly means exactly that. Many of those who voted “no” were voting against Ralph. Maybe even most of them. But some were also voting against getting rid of the queen. Some were voting out of fear of change. Some were voting against Hugo Chavez (don’t ask). How many? I don’t know. And neither do you.

Was it simply a general expression of dissatisfaction in a rough economic period? Was it a specific attempt to send the ULP a message? Was it a harbinger of the next general election? I don’t know. And I suspect no one will know for sure until we can look back with the benefit of a few years’ hindsight. Sure, everyone is spinning it for their own purposes, but its all hopeful spinning. We’re all flying blind here. This has never happened before in SVG.

Question #2: Will some of the “good ideas” be implemented legislatively?

The “no” voters tried to deflate many of the innovations in the new constitution by saying “you can do that through regular legislation.” So whenever someone said Integrity Commission, Human Rights Commission, Ombudsman, gay marriage, etc., their rejoinder was “big deal! You can do that through regular legislation!” (of course, other things that could be done through regular legislation – details of local gov’t, details of constituency funding, details of land compensation, etc. – the “no” voters wanted included in the constitution, but I digress).

So the question now is: What chance is there that these things will become part of our regular laws?

My guess? Somewhere between slim and none. The problem with regular legislation is that new administrations invariably alter it. NDP passes a law selling passports? ULP abolishes it? NDP passes “greedy bill?” ULP abolishes it. Old Labour Party passed a law on local government? NDP gutted it. NDP passes law on education? ULP amends it. And so on.

So why would I, as an incumbent government, pass a law that will constrain me, that can easily be modified when I leave? Especially when I now have a great excuse not to pass such laws – “What was that? You want an integrity commission? Well, so did we, but that concept was overwhelmingly rejected by the Vincentian people in Nov. 2009.” And who will we, the voters, be, to tell them no? We did vote against it! Similarly, you can kiss reduced powers of the Prime Minister goodbye. When next the PM handpicks some top civil servant, his response to the hue and cry will be “I wanted to give up this power, but the Vincentian people told me that they trust the PM to use it effectively.” I can see it now…

My gut tells me that the reform most likely to be implemented is the two new constituencies. That is something else that can be done with just a parliamentary majority. If I’m the ULP right now, back against the wall, I’m carving out a couple new safe seats. (And for all those who thought that the new constitution said the new boundaries commission couldn’t be challenged in court but the old one could – go ahead and try.)

(Allow me to digress again: did anyone notice that 2,390 people voted in the Northern Grenadines and 1,506 voted in the Southern? For a total of 3,896 people? Am I the only one who is bothered by the fact that a Grenadines voter’s vote counts for twice as much as a mainlander? More people voted in North Windward, East St. George, East Kingstown, and South Leeward than did those in both Grenadines seats combined. Yet they only get to pick one representative, and the Grenadines pick two. Put another way, 1,200 votes in the Southern Grenadines is a landslide victory. Same amount in East St. George is a landslide defeat. Mainland votes are very diluted compared to Grenadines votes. It’s also why it’s so easy for the NDP to form a government with less than a majority of the popular vote. 3,000 NDP votes get you two seats in the Grenadines. It gets you one on the mainland. Making the Grenadines two seats was a crude and cynical political ploy unsupported by any demographic data. Glad I got that off my chest, lol)

Question #3: What does this mean for the 2010 elections?

The easiest (and wrongest) answer is that it means that the NDP will win 13 seats to the ULP’s 2, because the “no” vote was in the majority in 13 of the 15 constituencies. The second easiest (and second wrongest) answer is that it means nothing, that “ULP voters” stayed home, and that the election is a different kettle of fish.

Lets look at the numbers, shall we?

29,019 people voted “no.” Twenty-nine thousand votes aint gonna win you a “real” election in SVG. In 2005, the winners got 32,006. In 2001, they got 32,925. In 2005, the losers got 25,653 – only 3,336 less than the “no” vote got last week.

And, keep in mind, that 6,690 new voters have registered between 2005 and now.

In short, if every single “no” goes to the polls and votes NDP in 2010, that doesn’t get them a win. They probably need to find another 4,000 votes on top of that.

Of course, its easier to find 4,000 votes than it is to find 10,500, which is what the ULP will probably need to hold on to office. Because if 29,000 votes don’t win an election, 22,500 isn’t looking so promising either.

But the excuse that “ULP voters didn’t come out”  is just that – an excuse. NDP support increased from 2001 to 2005 by 1,809 votes, while ULP fell by 919. You can say that 919 voters stayed home. I’ll buy that. But you can’t tell me that 9,500 voters stayed home. If that many of "your supporters" stayed home, they don’t support you anymore.

I agree that voter turnout was low. In 2001, 58,398 people voted. In 2005, 57,958 went to the polls – a slight dip of 440 (even though voter registration increased). In the referendum, 52,156 voted. That’s 5,802 less than voted in 2005, and 6,242 less than 2001 (not counting the 6,690 new voters who’ve registered).

Here’s where the ULP “apathetic voter” argument gets a little shaky: In the referendum, 6,242 less people voted (compared to 2001) and “yes” got 6,526 votes less than “no.” Almost the same number, eh? But are you telling me that EVERYONE who stated home from the referendum is a ULP supporter?!? And even if that’s true, odds are that the 6,690 new voters since the last election are probably more pro-NDP than pro-ULP, because new voters tend to be more pro-opposition than pro-incumbent.

So, for the next election, out of a pool of about 13,000 voters (stay-at-homes plus new registrants), the ULP needs about 70% of them to vote incumbent. That’s a tall order.

I will, however, accept that the low turn-out suggests that more of those who stayed home were ULP fans than NDP fans. That seems logical. Opposition voters are always more passionate and eager to stick it in the eye of the incumbents. So I can accept that the ULP will be more competitive in the general elections than the “yes” vote was in the referendum.

Where will they compete? If I accept that ULP voters did not show up, and that they will show up in an election, I have to look at constituencies where “yes” got a percentage in the mid- to high- 40s.  Stay-at-homes could turn that around. Immediately, then, I would concede East Kingstown (38% yes), Central Kingstown (35%), West Kingstown (35), South Leeward (38), North Leeward (39), Northern Grenadines (15) and Southern Grenadines (31) – it would be a whole lot of reenergized ULP supporters to turn that around.

But that’s only seven seats. Seven seats don’t win you an election in SVG.

(another aside: did anyone else notice that Arnhim Eustace's East Kingstown Seat got the smallest referendum "bounce" out of the three Kingstown seats?)

ULP’s “stay at home” referendum voters could make a difference in North Windward (48% yes), South Central Windward (46%), Marriaqua (49%), East St. George (44%), West St. George (44%), and Central Leeward (45%). Of course, the ULP would be counting on North Central Windward (74% yes) and South Windward (52%), as “safe” seats.

(yet another aside: although South Windward was only one of two seats that went "yes," did you notice that, in real numbers, it experienced the biggest swing towards the "no"/NDP side? South Windward was actually the seat with the biggest slippage)

So, if everything broke in the ULP’s favour in the next 12 months, and they got their apathetic voters energised, they’re looking at an 8-7 win. But that, too, is a tall order.

The next year is gonna be interesting.

Question #4: Is constitutional reform in SVG dead?

Yep. Deader than dead. Stick a fork in it. We won’t be reforming our constitution until the Privy Council kicks us out. Or the British end the monarchy. Or gay couples are getting married on Young Island. This is the one we’re stuck with.

SVG in the "Laboratory" (or, who's funding YOUR campaign?)

Just when you thought that the yes/no campaign was heading to a predictable campaign crescendo (rallies, entertainers, candlelight marches, big crowds, etc.), PM Gonsalves has thrown a monkey wrench in the whole process. He has charged that the NDP's "no vote" campaign is being run by the "Oakes Brothers" -- CEOs of "Strategic Communications Laboratories," a shadowy outfit that helped the NDP in its 1998 election campaign.


More ominously, he questioned whether the funds to pay the Oakes Brothers' hefty fees were coming through some commitment to return SVG to the bad old days of economic citizenship, and selling passports to foreigners. Specifically, he mentioned a firm called Henley & Partners, which markets such passports exclusively in St. Kitts, and also sells them in Dominica. Apparently, Arnhim made a secret trip to St. Kitts, and the implication -- but not the allegation -- is that there were some funds exchanged there.


Within minutes of the PM's press conference, the Oakes Bros. SCL Elections website (http://www.sclelections.org/) was offline.


The NDP quickly responded that the Oakes Bros. were indeed in town and on the case. However, they claimed that the Oakes Bros. were working pro bono, and that no money changed hands. Further, they claimed that they had no contact whatsoever with Henley & Partners, who, they claimed, were seeking legal advice.


Setting aside for the moment that it would be impossible to know that someone was seeking legal advice unless you were, indeed, in contact with them (hmmmm...) the web is full of juicy and salacious info about our British visitors. Some tidbits:

NIGEL OAKES and Strategic Communications Laboratories

1. Has been quoted as saying that his companies, including Behavioural Dynamics, “use the same techniques as Aristotle and Hitler. . . We appeal to people on an emotional level to get them to agree on a functional level.”
2. Described his work as “mindbending for political purposes.”
3. Has an employee, Mark Broughton, SCL’s public affairs director, who advocated using the company to tell lies to the public, saying “sometimes the means to an end has to be recognized.”
4. Falsely stated on his website that he studied Psychology at the University College London (UCL). However, British Freedom of Information requests to UCL revealed that “Nigel Oakes never attended UCL.” After UCL confirmed that he never attended, Mr. Oakes changed the information on the website to say that he “studied Psychology.” He does not say where he studied Psychology.
5. Falsely stated that he “set up an academic working group at London University.” British Freedom of Information requests to London University revealed that this was also false.
6. Received US$2 million to “lift the deteriorating public image of Indonesian President Abdurrahman Wahid” in 2000. However, he shut down his operations and “quit after his public relations methods came under scrutiny.”
7. Of that US$2 million, at least $300,000 was paid in cash.
8. Claims that his consultancy fees are in the region of US$1 million
9. SCL had “annual profitability of between 9% and 15% on international turnover of $257 million (£141 million) between 1995 and 2003.”
10. Expected “15% per cent profitability on turnover of £100 million” between 2004 and 2006
11. Created and funded false NGOs and groups in Indonesia, which were paid to stress messages that favoured the president of Indonesia.
12. Created a false NGOs called the “Foundation of Independent Journalists,” which held seminars on “journalistic ethics and independence” while being paid to deliver messages favourable to the President.
13. Screened supposedly independent television commercials – which were actually secretly created by SCL – “stressing religious and ethnic harmony” that favoured his client.
14. Shortly before he fled Indonesia, he also fled Thailand in the middle of a project, although the circumstances are unclear
15. Establishes “Op Centres” which use “psy ops” (Psychological Operations). According to the SCL website, these Op Centres create “behavioural compliance.”
16. “Modules within the Opcentres can range from “Word-of Mouth Units” to “Cultural Alignment Units” and previous projects SCL have undertaken for clients include to “Design and develop a permanent military strategic communication facility capable of delivering strategic and operational psyop campaigns for a South Asian country.” and to “Design, build and install a Homeland Security Centre for an Asian country. The Opcentre can override all national radio and TV broadcasts in time of crisis.”
17. Claims to be involved in military psyops campaigns
18. Offered to sell a story of his romance with Lady Helen Windsor to the British press (LOL)
19. Was thrown out of Windsor Castle after he attempted to gate crash a party held there. (LOL 2X)

ISSUE #4: The Sir James Factor (or Anansi rides again)

James Mitchell is bored. His hotel is closed. And his US$100 million Isle de Qatre deal is in limbo – his investors a victim of the global economic crisis.

What’s a sharp, still-vibrant octogenarian, with huge reserves of national popular support to do?

Go back to politics, of course!

Like an old boxer coming out of retirement, Sir James is back in the political ring. It’s a real blast from the past. And all of a sudden, Ralphie isn’t the only Vincy politician coming up with witty catch phrases and memorable quotes. A few gems so far:

“If better can’t be done, let worse continue”

“Burn it! I want us to burn this new constitution!”

“The queen aint trouble nobody”

“Nobody touching this constitution when we vote no. We voting no, and nobody coming to interfere with it while Son Mitchell alive!”

“We are going to vote No with this constitution, and let me tell Mr. Leacock, if you get into parliament and think you are going to interfere with the constitution we have here, I coming out to deal with you, too!”

. . . and the beat goes on. Sir James, as always, is a soundbite waiting to happen.

The SVG government is positively giddy that Sir James is back. Read that again. I did not mistype. The government is claiming to be thrilled. They think that if James is back, shooting from the lip, spreading dissention in the ranks of the NDP, challenging Arnhim, dissing Eustace, and generally being his usual disruptive self, it will only weaken the opposition to the Constitutional referendum.

Sir James has already disagreed with a number of Eustace’s positions on the constitution: He thinks the NDP should not have pulled out of the drafting process. He thinks that their call for prime ministerial term limits is balderdash. He wants an even bigger parliament than the new constitution proposes, even though the NDP is calling for a smaller one. And he is strongly in favour of retaining the queen and the Privy Council, in direct contradiction with the official NDP line.

Not to mention Sir James’ constant, emasculating attacks on Senator Leacock (including asking him if he was “seeing his period(!)”). The government thinks that this infighting and sniping will push people to ignore the disjointed opposition and vote “yes” on the referendum, or, at worst “just stay home and not vote “no.”

Me? I’m not so sure.

For all of his divisiveness, the fact is that Sir James is still a big box-office draw for the NDP faithful. He’s also a warm and fuzzy reminder of their glory years in power (the corruption and mismanagement fading into distant memory). The fact is, if Sir James is speaking at an NDP meeting, more people turn up. They turn up to hear him say “vote no.”

How is it a good thing if more people are hearing the opposition message?

All the opposition needs is 34% of the vote.  That’s not hard to get. People at the opposition rallies aren’t grasping the finer points of the differences between Sir James and Arnhim. They’re coming out, and hearing “vote no.”

The intellectual dissection of Sir James’ positions don’t capture the electricity that he generates among the faithful. It’s something that Arnhim & Co. can’t do. He may be an ornery and backward old coot, but he carries the same charismatic glow that separates Ralph from the rest of his corps.

Make no mistake. Sir James is an asset to the opposition’s “no vote” campaign.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that he is an asset to the opposition, generally.  Sir James didn’t get on the boat from Bequia to defend a beloved old constitution. Far from it. We already know that – in 1979 and 1984 – he made no bones about the fact that he doesn’t like our old constitution.

For Sir James, this is about the 2010 elections.

He’s already declared that the Arnhim needs to get 51% of the vote in the referendum, or “crapaud smoke yuh pipe.” Well, guess what? No way in hell Arnhim gets 51%. Thirty-five percent? Likely. Forty percent? Possible. Fifty-one? Never in a million years.

So when Arnhim fails to meet Sir James’ standard (even if he succeeds in blocking the referendum), Sir James gets to say “if this was an election, you would’ve lost again. You guys need me back.” That will set off the infighting and drama that the ULP is hoping for.

Can Sir James lead his party to another election victory? I doubt it. I don’t see the majority of the country being swayed by his backwardness, old-timey charms and idiosyncrasies. He can pull 35%, but that only gets you back into opposition.  Vincentians have evolved a bit past Sir James particular brand of politics. Remember, the last time a Sir James-led party got the majority of the vote in SVG was 1994 – a full 15 years ago.

Sir James? Bad for the constitution’s referendum prospects. Bad for the NDP’s election prospects.

ISSUE #3: Why Vote "No"? (or, cutting off your nose to spite your face)

This is not an argument for Yes or No based on any particular issue. It's a practical question regarding choices and options.

The debate over what should and should not be in the proposed New Constitution is over. We have a bill. Two-thirds of the Parliament have voted for it. The public will be voting on it in November.

As such, if we're voting, we have ONLY TWO CHOICES: Either we vote yes and get the new constitution, or we vote no and keep the old one. Pick one – old constitution or new constitution. There is no third option on Nov. 25th.

So, here is my question: Are those voting "no" saying that the new constitution is WORSE than the current one? It's not about what is the best, most ideal, most perfect Constitution. It's not about your personal wish-list for constitutional provisions. The perfect constitution is not on the ballot on Nov. 25. So, the question is, which option is better?

I've heard opposition members applaud various provisions in the new Constitution, but still say that they are voting "no". Why? Is there something in the new Constitution that is worse that what exists in the old one? Or is it just that they don't think it goes far enough? Because "not going far enough" doesn't seem to be a reason to vote "no," not if you see overall improvement. If the new Constitution makes "one small step" instead of "one giant leap," shouldn't you, at this point, support the small step?

What am I missing?

ISSUE #2: Term Limits (or, if you can't beat 'em, block 'em)

Term limits are an attractive argument at first blush, but not so easy to implement in parliamentary democracies.

In presidential systems like the USA, its easy. You just say "you cant stand for election more than twice." No, problem, because people run for President in the USA. Its an election where the entire country votes for 1 person or the other.

In parliamentary democracies, (i.e. prime minister systems) it doesn't work that way. Ralph and Arnhim don't run for prime minister – they run in their respective constituencies. so, Ralph is elected only by the people of north central windward, and Arnhim is elected only by the people of East Kingstown. Then, the party with the most seats selects the Prime Minister from among those who won seats. The people don't elect the Prime Minister, the party does.

Why does this matter? Lets work it through. How exactly would you effectively stop someone from being Prime Minister for more than X-number of terms? That person is not running for the post of Prime Minister. You can't do it by limiting the number of times a person runs in his constituency, because the number of years you are a representative and the number of years that you are a prime minister are not the same (Ralph, Arnhim and Sir James all held their seats for longer than they were PMs)

Interestingly, the USA does not limit the number of years you can hold your seat, which is why Ed Kennedy could be representative for Massachusetts for 40-something years. You can be elected Senator till you roll over and die. Robert Byrd has been representing West Virginia for over 50 years straight! 25 Senators have represented their state for over 33 years! (See the full list here).

OK, so you can't limit PM terms by limiting times you can run (as in the USA) because you are not running for Prime Minister. How about if you limit the number of times a party can make you its leader? that would cause other Constitutional issues, as a violation of the people's right to assemble/freedom of speech, etc. Do you want the Constitution interfering with the internal decision-making of a political party? Also, it would simply be cosmetic. The party would symbolically name someone else while the "real power" resided elsewhere.

OK... so how about just saying "no person shall be prime minister for more than X-number of years"? again, you have a problem: Lets say, for example, that the constitution said that no one could be PM for more than 10 years. Then lets apply that to our history: Suppose that was in place during the NDP's 17 years in office. After Sir James served 10, he would step down as PM, but not as Rep. for the Northern Grenadines!... he would not be the PM in name, but who do you think would be calling the shots in cabinet, where he would still be a member? Or if Ralph stepped down as PM but kept his seat in North Central; who would be the real PM? Sir Louis? please... Ralph would still be in the cabinet room, and he would still be the unquestioned decision-maker for the government. In fact, he could still be minister of finance, national security, grenadines affairs, airports and sea ports, etc. How would this change anything?

Constitutionally, a prime minister is accountable to the legislature (parliament) and his ruling party. When his party loses, he loses. He/She is selected by his party, not by the people. In a presidential system, the president is accountable directly to the people. He/She can be in power, even when his party is in the minority in the congress (as happens many times in USA).

I don't think you can effectively impose term limits on a prime ministerial parliamentary democracy. I am not aware of any prime minister system that has term limits (that doesn't mean that they don't exist). I know, for e.g., that England, India, Japan, Turkey, Australia and Canada have PMs, but no term limits (see a partial list of term limit countries HERE. Notice that all the term limit countries have Presidents, not Prime Ministers). We would have to completely revamp our entire system of governance to have effective term limits.

That's the Constitutional point. Here is the practical one: in the Caribbean, the electorate is usually tired of you by the 3rd term, at the latest. Our history shows that we have an almost automatic 3-term limit. Here are the longest serving PMs for the English-speaking Caribbean, since independence:

Antigua – 12 years (Vere Bird)
Bahamas – 19 years (Sir Lynden Pindling)
Barbados – 13 years (Owen Arthur)
Belize – 9 years (Said Musa)
Dominica – 14 years (Eugina Charles)
Grenada – 11 years (Eric Gairy)
Guyana (presidential) – 10 years (and counting) (Baharat Jagdeo)
Jamaica – 14 years (PJ Patterson)
St. Kitts – 14 years (and counting) (Denzil Douglas)
St. Lucia – 14 years (Sir John Compton)
SVG – 16 years (Sir James Mitchel)
Trinidad – 20 years (Eric Williams)

Only 3 countries in the history of the independent Caribbean have more than 15 years (3 5-year terms): TnT, Bahamas and SVG. Dominica came close with Eugina Charles. Sir James barely cleared 15 years, and did so without the majority of the votes cast! That's it. Most PMs serve 2 terms, and a few exceptional ones go for 3. But we dont have any history at all of PMs serving forever. We vote them out.

Seems to be working thus far...

ISSUE #1: Those Pesky "Inalienable Rights" (or, is God in YOUR Constitution?)

It's with more than a little amusement that I've watched the battle over whether to add the term "inalienable rights" to the proposed new Constitution. The charge has been led by the Thusian Institute for Religious Liberty (TIRL), although many other Vincentias jumped on the "inalienable" bandwagon as time went on.

To many, the phrase is a vaguely familiar one. "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." We associate the phrase with the United States, and – as with all things American – we ascribe it automatic legitimacy as an ideal worth pursuing. Listening to our call-in show experts, I've heard the claim that it's good enough for the Americans, so it should be good enough for us too (or words to that effect).

But guess what? The term "inalienable rights" does NOT appear anywhere in the US Constitution! Nope, not one single place. Look it up. Instead, the words are in the US Declaration of Independence (using the word "UNalienable" instead of "INalienable"). This is a huge difference.

What's the difference? Well, first off, the Constitution sets forth your rights, not the Declaration of Independence. No one has ever gone to court saying "my Declaration of Independence rights have been violated." It can't happen. Your constitutional rights are in the Constitution, and that document doesn't speak of "inalienable rights" in the USA.

There are other rights in the Declaration of Independence that aren't in the Constitution, including the "right and duty" to "throw off Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security" – in other words, the right to revolution. Imagine THAT in a civil constitution!

In fact, truth be told, the word "God" or "Creator" is also absent from the USA Constitution, as part of its well-known separation of church and state. There is no God in the USA Constitution whatsoever, and intentionally so. As such, you couldn't really argue a divine basis for any US Constitutional right. You can imply it, but you could also imply it in the Vincentian Constitution, without all this hullabaloo for an explicit mention.

But wait, there's more! What about these other inalienable rights advocated by TIRL, like the right to own property? According to Wikipedia, the first draft of the Declaration of Independence said:

That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

However, Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson decided to take the government out of the property business, and instead stick to the pursuit of happiness. The final draft of the Declaration of Independence reads:

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Years later, Franklin famously said that "you don't have a right to happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch it yourself." Talk about a qualified and ill-defined "right"!

So there you have it. People using the most avowedly non-religious democratic Constitution in the world (USA's) as the basis to advocate the addition of religious language. People calling for explicit mention of a phrase by citing a document where it is not explicitly mentioned. High comedy.

Those of you who see a role for God, for inalienable rights generally, or for inalienable rights to property – please don't look to the US Constitution. You're barking up the wrong tree.

Maybe we should draft a Declaration of Independence too?