A suggestion by an advisor to British Prime Minister David Cameron for Jamaica to retain the Queen as her head of state has been greeted with mostly cynicism by Jamaica Observer online readers. The call was made by Shaun Bailey, who was guest at the Observer’s weekly Monday Exchange. Bailey is of Jamaican heritage. Here are some edited comments:
Trinidad & Tobago, Guyana and Dominica took the republican route. I don't see why our country, [which] was at the forefront of independence in the WI and the largest populated country, did not abolish the queen as our head of state earlier. The UK does nothing for Jamaica.
If the queen is my head of state, why do I need a visa to go see her?
Keep the Queen, people. At least, she is the only person out there who won't sell us out.
Portia was just putting on a show when she made mention of removing the queen. If Canada and Australia, two of the largest members in the commonwealth, see no big deal in keeping the queen, why should Jamaica care? If Portia was our queen, we would be in a sad state, because she can't even run her own constituency. I am happy to keep the queen. We have more important issues; we need to solve crime, massive debt and education problems, just to name a few.
Mr Advisor to Mr Cameron, I suggest you advise said PM to remove the visa restrictions placed on the people who are "loyal" subjects to his Queen. Mr Advisor to Mr Cameron, I suggest you advise said PM to look long and hard at the discrimination dished out to the "loyal" subjects to his Queen. Mr Advisor to Mr Cameron, I suggest you advise said PM to give an apology to the many descendants of said World War who right now cannot stand in that room you stood in, simply because of our nationality. Finally, Mr Advisor to the PM, I suggest you look at the smaller picture: Dem nuh want wi inna dem country. Why should we, the "loyal" subjects, pledge allegiance to said Queen?
I don't want to get cross! Jamaica should have removed the Queen from 1962. Why 40 years later we still wondering?
You can keep her. There's nothing worse than a brainwashed black man. There's no benefit in keeping the queen; in fact, it's more harmful to our psyche and our identity as a republic.
Why do we need the queen? We don't! Jamaica has a shared history with England, which is true, but we should realise it's time to break the shackles of this modern-day colonialism. The shared history of Britain and the Jamaican isle aren't necessarily something that should invoke pride; slavery was never a good thing, at least for our ancestors, who suffered at the hands of the British. It is time to move forward; the idea that we need the queen is just another way for England to keep a hold on it's "commonwealth".
My sentiments... after all, look where we are 50 years after Independence. The Queen not troubling us. I don't see why I should change for the sake of change. History has taught me to be very wary.
Mr Bailey has to be more specific in touting the benefits of retaining the queen as head of state. The dark exploitative history of colonialism is too strong for many nations. We need to access everything honestly and openly on both sides.
Food for thought, we should look before we leap. It's like a lot of folk believes that there are greener pastures outside of Jamaica, but when they jump over the fence they find a rude awakening. This is not meant for all, but for a great percentage. There is a saying, 'puss and dog don't have the same luck'.
With all the unresolved problems that Jamaica has, especially with crime and the economy, where [do] people get time to worry about the Queen?