The Modern Legislative Impact of British Imperialism Within the Commonwealth

The British Empire, an international superpower, which, for over a century was the foremost global power, has had far reaching influence since the 16th century. With colonial settlements in nearly every part of the world, Great Britain was poised for global domination. It is within these colonies that the crown set in motion a body of laws rooted in the morality of the day that would stay in place far beyond the time that they were repealed in Britain itself. These remaining fossils left over from days of colonial rule and pervasive imperialism have served to misguide commonwealth nations both diminutive in size, and vast, when it comes to social equality and personal liberty, for which innumerable battles are being waged to this day. 

Imperialism is defined as “a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force.” Imperialism between the 16th and 18th century, the height of Britain's power, was universally enacted without diplomacy, and with heavy military force, that is, unless negotiations were between two European powers over a territory. Diplomacy, was, however, very unlikely to have been offered to natives by European imperialists. At it’s height, Britain held upwards of 115 individual territories worldwide, a list with colonies varying in size from the vastness of Australia to tiny Bermuda.

It was not only soldiers and warships that were sent to these patches of land scattered across the globe. Missionaries in black coats were sent out in droves to spread Christianity to the ‘savages’ who found new borders and rules sprouting up around them. Every Sunday these men of god would stand on pulpits in holy houses built of freshly felled wood and rail against amoral practices that would become felonies on the books. It was through this that numerous colonies, upon finding independence, ratified constitutions that were theocratically biased including enforceable codes of ethics rooted in the religious practices brought to them by imperialistic Britain. 

One such commonwealth colony turned independent nation, His Majesty's Settlement in the Bay of Honduras or British Honduras, now Belize, was subjected to all manner of British colonialism. Initially settled by pirates, British Honduras became a logging colony, to deter the constant threat from Spanish invasion. With the high demand for hardwood within the British empire, the Bay of Honduras was a valuable territory, and as with all British colonies, the vast majority of capital was in the hands of Europeans. This was in part due to laws set by the Legislative Assembly (and assembly composed of British colonists) that restricted the ownership of land to europeans; excluding the Maya and the large population of freed slaves residing within the territory. 

The 1855 European dominated Legislative Assembly had given large landowners in the colony firm titles to their vast estates “but did not allow the Maya to own land; the Maya could only rent land or live on reservations,” a policy whose trickle down through the years has resulted in, policies that, while are still less severe, have all but annexed the modern Maya from leaving their reservations. Though this piece of legislature is not rooted in morality, it is still a remnant of imperialist British rule, whose repercussions the young government of Belize has yet to shake.

To begin looking at how pervasively Britain’s morality centered laws have ingrained themselves within modern commonwealth governments, the constitution is always the best place to begin, and with the case of Belize, that is no different.

WHEREAS the People of Belize- a. affirm that the Nation of Belize shall be founded upon principles which acknowledge the supremacy of God, faith in human rights and fundamental freedoms, the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions, the dignity of the human person and the equal and inalienable rights with which all members of the human family are endowed by their Creator, 

The presence of the Judeo-Christian god within the constitution, arguably the most important document belonging to a nation, sets the mood for the rest of this study. One of the biggest differences between the Belizean emphasis on God within state documents and that of the United States (in God we trust, etc) is that within the former British colony of British Honduras, it is commonly applied. The separation of church and state is a concept almost universally foreign to small commonwealth countries with the church playing a very large part in national politics. A fair comparison would be to the current state of affairs within the United States when it comes to the influence of corporations within governmental proceedings; the church is the biggest most influential special interest group within many commonwealth countries, particularly those who have only recently achieved independence. 

In 98% of commonwealth countries, for example, abortion is only legal if the mother’s life is directly in danger, a policy supported by the many pieces of church propaganda plastered onto billboards proclaiming “one dead, one wounded.” Rape is not considered a special circumstance for which abortion is acceptable. Abortion, which is a universally divisive issue, however is not descriptive enough of the commonwealth in particular to define the state of theocracy present. A case observed recently in Belize regarding witchcraft exemplifies the issue more starkly.

In March of 2013, Patrick E. Jones reported the case of three bottles unearthed in the Cayo district. Within one of these jars was found a candle, a ribbon, herbs of some kind and the identification card of the prospective “victim”. According to Jones, “It contains what, by all accounts was someone putting a curse on another person.” The person for whom the curse was intended was duly notified. The perpetrator was brought up on charges under SUMMARY JURISDICTION (OFFENSES) ACT CHAPTER 98 3.-(1) viii; “A person who pretends or professes to tell fortunes, or uses any subtle craft or device by palmistry, obeah or any such like superstitious means to deceive and impose upon any person whomsoever ... is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.” The status of such actions as misdemeanors, of course, are remnants of British anti-witchcraft laws. This is not the first time someone has been brought up on these charges. In 2004, a Guatemalan man living in Cayo was arrested for ‘pretending to tell fortunes’. In India, accusing a woman of witchcraft is a common ploy to grab land.  

However, British Imperialism has not only left the commonwealth with laws based in superstition. Recent polls have shown that 41 of the 53 members of the modern Commonwealth of Nations declare homosexuality to be illegal. Belize in particular holds homosexuality to be unconstitutional, something which is being challenged presently. Uganda, with it’s Minister of Ethics and Integrity, Simon Lokodo at the helm is attempting to reinstitute laws that would make homosexuality, the concealment of a known homosexual and the medical aid of those suffering from “homosexual ailments” punishable by imprisonment and death. India, on the other hand, inherited sodomy laws in its criminal code from the British Raj, laws which were not present in its history of codified or customary legal system before. The wording and structure of such laws within the commonwealth are almost universally similar. Section 377 of India’s Penal Code, for example, calls for life in prison as punishment for “carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal (primarily interpreted to be homosexuality, especially sodomy, including between consenting adults),” jargon which is found within the Belizean constitution, among other Commonwealth edicts. The High Court of Delhi, however, has since struck down Section 377 as unconstitutional. India, at present, does not recognise same-sex unions of any type, though no explicit prohibition against same-sex unions currently exists.*

The case currently being addressed by the supreme court of Belize, Claim No. 668 of 2010, is posed to challenge the statute within the nation’s constitution prohibiting “carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any person or animal” under penalty of “imprisonment for ten years”. What is interesting is what is found when reading the case file’s interested parties list; 

THE HUMAN DIGNITY TRUST THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION OF JURISTS AND THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF BELIZE THE BELIZE CHURCH OF ENGLAND CORPORATE BODY THE BELIZE EVANGELICAL ASSOCIATION OF CHURCHES 

Not one, not two, but three churches are listed as interested parties within the legal document responsible for the case in question, something that shines a light on how pervasive religion is in every aspect of legislature. The inclusion of the Church of England’s corporate body drives home my point of the British responsibility for such religious presence, but it is also important to note that without British imperialism, none of these churches would have existed within the sphere of Belize in the first place.

The case itself was brought forth by one Caleb Orozco, and his organization, the United Belize Advocacy Movement or UNIBAM. Their interest is to simply remove two words from the criminal code; “person or” effectively making the statute only prohibit “carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any animal.” UNIBAM has, understandably come under fire for many reasons, but at present, the biggest concern on the parts of it’s opponents (as this has become a nationally divisive and heavily discussed case) is it’s funding at the hands of foreign interest groups, which are, curiously enough, predominantly British. Pastor Stirm, UNIBAM’s most vocal opponent, will, if asked, express that these “foreign powers, with money to throw around” are attempting to “defile the morality of Belize,” a morality that he has been a large part of shaping. What’s curious is that Stirm himself is not Belizean. He is a missionary pastor from Texas with orthodox baptist leanings, railing against foreigners evangelizing their beliefs to the Belizean people. Stirm, just one, in a long line of black coated missionaries sent to spread the good word to the godless heathens near the equator cannot possibly, in his position, understand the undeniable irony of this. Neither, it would seem, can his followers who cheer on his condemnations of homosexuality and championship of “good old fashion Belizean values,” but the irony is there.

In an interview with Stephen Fry, Ugandan morality and ethics minister, Simon Lokodo said of homosexuality: “if you are advocating that, I will treat you as a destructor of Ugandan values.” Lokodo’s words are indicative of the views held by commonwealth dissenters to social change; they believe that their morals are inherently specific to their cultural group, making any foreigner attempting social change to be an invader, when in reality, these “Ugandan” or “Belizean” values were European in origin (something that is starkly obvious when juxtaposing commonwealth laws; they are all worded the same). 

The irony inherent in these circumstances are accurately represented by Pastor Stirm’s qualms with foreign aid to the side of the fence he does not sit on, and by Lokodo’s reliance on antiquated British ideals to maintain the morality of his people. These ideas, this heavy religious presence, these prejudices are dangerous fossils, long cast away by the regime that established them in the first place. The white wigs worn by justices, the pomp and circumstance of trials, these are all archaic institutions that Britain has left behind leaving these commonwealth nations to hold these and other practices to be their own, without regard for their origins, or rather, with high regard for their belief that these customs belong to them and always have. 

Belize Action, the organization of ‘church warriors’ headed by Stirm has been known to organize marches to oppose the constitutional change UNIBAM is fighting for. This is relevant because of the physical aspect it presents; a sea of locals marching down an open road holding effigies and spouting bible verses led by the stereotypical visage of imperialism; the white haired, fair skinned, male bodied, final authority. Stirm, the champion of the concept of Belizean morality not only ignores his personal origin and the origin of the legislature he is fighting to keep, but also his similarity to those imperialists who came before him. Those imperialists who decided, based off of their own personal perceptions of these savages, that their voices where necessary to lead the primitives down the path of the righteous.  

The irony in all this, is of course, lost on those blinded by their internalized Eurocentric concepts of right and wrong, those who refuse to allow their society to move forward, out of the dark shadow of prejudices handed down to them by their former oppressors. They have been left to steep in this culture for too long to understand the need for change. It is for this reason that the responsibility for assistance lies with the country that caused this trickle down aftermath.

Britain has recently enacted a movement to fund and support all organizations that move to abolish the draconian laws left behind by colonialism, and rightfully so. The repercussions of British Imperialism within the commonwealth are insurmountable and, at least within smaller nations, are almost impossible to transcend without assistance, particularly due to the fat wallets of church groups with their own agendas. In short, because it was Britain who made this mess, it is time for them to return and help pick up the pieces.

*On the 10th of December The Supreme Court of New Delhi said gay sex between consenting adults remains a criminal offence, in a major setback for the largely closeted homosexual community in India.