Culture Minister Olivia Grange

Jamaican delegates have arrived in Britain to deliver a landmark petition to King Charles demanding answers over slavery and its enduring economic consequences.

Culture Minister Olivia Grange will hand the petition to the monarch, Jamaica’s head of state, on Monday. The delegation wants Charles to seek legal advice on whether Britain owes Jamaica restitution for the forced enslavement and transportation of Africans.

King Charles faces direct demand for legal answers

The petition asks the monarch to seek the advice of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on three questions: whether the forced transportation of Africans to Jamaica was lawful, whether slavery constituted a crime against humanity, and whether Britain has an obligation to provide restitution.

Grange said a formal response would be critical to advancing Jamaica’s reparations campaign. She argued that the legacy of slavery continues to leave the country economically disadvantaged and less able to confront modern challenges such as the climate crisis.

Jamaica says slavery’s legacy still shapes daily life

More than 12.5 million Africans were kidnapped, forcibly transported to the Americas and sold into slavery between the 15th and 19th centuries.

Grange said Jamaica had established a national reparations mechanism in 2009, but argued that the consequences remain visible across education, healthcare and living standards.

Former St Vincent and the Grenadines prime minister Ralph Gonsalves said European nations were enriched through the enslavement of Africans, while Caribbean countries inherited “legacies of underdevelopment”.

Pressure on Britain is building internationally

The Jamaican delegation’s visit comes amid growing global demands for reparatory justice. A UN resolution backed by 123 countries in March described chattel slavery as the gravest crime against humanity, while a UN committee has said countries have legal obligations to consider reparations.

Britain abstained from the March vote and previously resisted efforts to place slavery reparations on the Commonwealth agenda.

The Palace signals openness — but stops short of reparations

A Palace spokesperson said Charles remained personally committed to promoting greater understanding of slavery and addressing historic wrongs.

The Jamaican delegation will also meet British MPs and visit the British Museum to discuss the repatriation of Jamaican artefacts, adding further pressure to a debate that is rapidly moving beyond historical recognition towards demands for concrete action.

Jamaican delegates arrive in UK to hand slavery reparations petition to King Charles

All you will get from charlie' is can you lot come and clean the mud off my favourite RR tires🤔

39 minutes ago, bannork said:

whether Britain owes Jamaica restitution for the forced enslavement and transportation of Africans.

I want Britain compensated for ending the Afro-Caribbean slave trade.

Though I do hear that it has re surged in Libya after the overthrow of Gaddafi..ooopps.

Whether the forced transportation of Africans to Jamaica was lawful - of course it was. There were no laws for or against it.

Whether slavery constituted a crime against humanity - a modern concept. Crimes against humanity was first officially used on May 24, 1915. By then slavery was over.

Whether Britain has an obligation to provide restitution - as Britain did not break any law and as crimes against humanity didn't exist, I can see no justification for restitution, except if Jamaicans want to be sent back to somewhere in Africa.

You can't grandfather crimes and hold people today responsible for what a distant, dead, relative did.

6 hours ago, Purdey said:

Whether the forced transportation of Africans to Jamaica was lawful - of course it was. There were no laws for or against it.

Whether slavery constituted a crime against humanity - a modern concept. Crimes against humanity was first officially used on May 24, 1915. By then slavery was over.

Whether Britain has an obligation to provide restitution - as Britain did not break any law and as crimes against humanity didn't exist, I can see no justification for restitution, except if Jamaicans want to be sent back to somewhere in Africa.

You can't grandfather crimes and hold people today responsible for what a distant, dead, relative did.

The Jamaican government's case is a bit more nuanced. Their case is that colonial statutes purporting to authorise slavery were themselves void because they were contrary to fundamental principles of English common law. The colonial legislature could not lawfully create a property right in human beings because such a right was fundamentally contrary to common law. Jamaican law from before 1772 explicitly treated enslaved people as a legally recognised category. 1772 is key because that was the Somerset case that ruled slavery could not be legal in England. What's being asked of the Privy Council is the determination whether the colonial legislatures were legally incapable of authorising slavery in the first place.

In terms of the second question, the UK government has specifically relied upon the principle of intertemporality: an act is normally judged according to the international law applicable when it occurred, rather than by subsequently developed law; "the applicable law is the law of the relevant time".

As for the compensation; Jamaica isn't asking for money from you or I. The defendant is the British State. International law does recognise circumstances in which a present state can be responsible for conduct carried out by an earlier government or regime. The State, as an institution, is enduring.

I suspect the Jamaicans might win on the first point; English Common Law applied to the Caribbean colonies. £20m was paid out to slave owners following the Slavery Abolition Act; the argument would be they weren't entitled to such compensation, on account that their actions (owning human chattel) were unlawful. The problem was that the compensation was paid out through an Act of Parliament. It wasn't a mistake to pay the compensation by a civil servant of the time, but a conscious act by the Parliamentarians.

We have two contradictions:

The colonial legislature could not lawfully establish slavery, because slavery was contrary to fundamental English law.

The Westminster Parliament could nevertheless lawfully compensate slave owners when it abolished the institution.

So the discussion would move to whether Parliament knew what it was doing.

This will take years, but its an important discussion, and neither side should be afraid of having it. Any resolution would be long after the King has passed away. His Majesty should listen to the petition from his subjects, and treat it seriously. Its not for him to determine any legal outcome and ramifications for His government. Just because Humanity has never had these discussions, it doesn't mean they should not happen. Personally, I think it will eventually enshrine into law a continuance of British overseas aid aimed at ex-slave countries. I think such arrangements strengthens the British Commonwealth; there are those malign individuals who seek to denounce the Commonwealth and every international institution that the UK is associated with, whether that was EU, or next, NATO, and even the UN.

Wilberforce was not popular in Parliament, but he was principled, and we are rightfully proud of his legacy.

Its not a series of questions that can ever be solved on a Thai discussion forum. Hence the King should let someone consider those questions.

europe owes reparations to the world

Spain brought the first African slaves to the island. What about that ? Spain should be held accountable as well.

All of Europe should contribute a percentage of its GDP each year to the countries it colonized. Colonization is a crime against humanity, and it is time for Europeans to confront their past. Colonization established deeply extractive systems in many parts of Latin America, Africa, and Asia.

It is time for Europe to take responsibility for its historical injustices.

Jamaica is a failed state. It's lawlessness and backward condition is a reflection of the people. A demand for reparations is merely an excuse to avoid dealing with the collective failure of Jamaicans. Other societies which have far worse environmental conditions and a more dire financial state have managed to avoid engaging in the tribal violence and corruption that plagues Jamaica.

The reality is that Jamaica was not the property of the African slaves, nor did they have any legal claim to the island. The claim of lost assets, isn't theirs to make since the sugar cane, rum, spices were not theirs. They were labour. If a claim is to be made it would be for unpaid wages.

Since the abolition of Slavery Act was passed in 1807, Great Britain has given Jamaica hundreds of millions of pounds in direct aid. It has provided preferred trade arrangements and other benefits such as educational access and healthcare support. No mention of this aid has been made by Jamaica. Nor does Jamaica acknowledge how the slaves came to Jamaica, that they were sold into slavery primarily by Africans. If the UK is pursued, then the Jamaicans must also go after the Africans who sold the slaves. Yes, slavery is wrong and tremendous damage was done, but the UK has already compensated Jamaica for the wrongdoing.

2 hours ago, Yagoda said:

europe owes reparations to the world

Not your problem Ruskie.

1 hour ago, Mr Awesome said:

All of Europe should contribute a percentage of its GDP each year to the countries it colonized. Colonization is a crime against humanity, and it is time for Europeans to confront their past. Colonization established deeply extractive systems in many parts of Latin America, Africa, and Asia.

It is time for Europe to take responsibility for its historical injustices.

Plus the United States.

Anyway you are thread jacking to suit your own prejudices. This is about slavery, not colonisation. Go start your own thread, troll.

58 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

Jamaica is a failed state. It's lawlessness and backward condition is a reflection of the people. A demand for reparations is merely an excuse to avoid dealing with the collective failure of Jamaicans. Other societies which have far worse environmental conditions and a more dire financial state have managed to avoid engaging in the tribal violence and corruption that plagues Jamaica.

The reality is that Jamaica was not the property of the African slaves, nor did they have any legal claim to the island. The claim of lost assets, isn't theirs to make since the sugar cane, rum, spices were not theirs. They were labour. If a claim is to be made it would be for unpaid wages.

Since the abolition of Slavery Act was passed in 1807, Great Britain has given Jamaica hundreds of millions of pounds in direct aid. It has provided preferred trade arrangements and other benefits such as educational access and healthcare support. No mention of this aid has been made by Jamaica. Nor does Jamaica acknowledge how the slaves came to Jamaica, that they were sold into slavery primarily by Africans. If the UK is pursued, then the Jamaicans must also go after the Africans who sold the slaves. Yes, slavery is wrong and tremendous damage was done, but the UK has already compensated Jamaica for the wrongdoing.

Well, then, if all of that is the case, there is no issue about a judicial review. Or do you think if King Charles says no this is the end of the matter?

I think you are another one of those knobs who have gotten the wrong end of the stick, as usual.

2 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

Plus the United States.

Anyway you are thread jacking to suit your own prejudices. This is about slavery, not colonisation. Go start your own thread, troll.

Prepare to write a check.

1 hour ago, blaze master said:

Spain brought the first African slaves to the island. What about that ? Spain should be held accountable as well.

Whataboutery is a tactic created by Stalin to stifle debate. Stick to the topic at hand, which is about English Common Law. Keep the Papists out of this. Start a separate thread if you want to debate the liabilities of Portugal, Spain, and others.

The first slaves were not from Africa; they were what you would call "seasoned slaves", born in Spain of African parents.

https://jamaicatimeline.com/people/africans-tl.html

12 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

Not your problem Ruskie.

russia owes too, its europe

38 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

Stick to the topic at hand,

Thought i was being quite clear and on topic. No money. Slaves have been common since fhe dawn of time.

Pay one group and you have to pay all.

Just now, blaze master said:

Thought i was being quite clear and on topic. No money. Slaves have been common since fhe dawn of time.

Pay one group and you have to pay all.

The topic is about Jamaica asking its Head of State to raise the issue with the Privy Council.

The fact that slavery was widespread, from ancient Rome and Greece, through the Islamic slave trades, to African kingdoms and the Atlantic system, doesn't mean that any modern claim for restitution must encompass every enslaved person in human history. Nobody is seriously proposing a global compensation scheme for the descendants of the millions enslaved by the Romans, the Vikings, the Ottoman Empire, African states, or the various Islamic empires. A restitution claim concerns a particular historical wrong, the institutions and states responsible for it, and the victims and consequences of that particular system. Saying "but slavery was common" is therefore not a refutation; it's essentially an attempt to turn a specific historical argument into an absurd universal proposition and then declare victory over the absurdity. If you want to argue that a particular reparations claim is unjustified, you actually have to engage with the historical and legal basis of that claim, which requires rather more understanding of the subject than simply pointing out that slavery existed in lots of other places.

Go away and have another think about this.

43 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

russia owes too, its europe

So you owe money to yourself. You're Slavic, so literally a descendant of a slave peoples.

I know you're Russian because you've chosen a user name after a fairly obscure Stalin appointee to the NKVD.

52 minutes ago, Mr Awesome said:

Prepare to write a check.

Ah "check". In Americanese, you're asking me to write the bill. So you're paying, right?

Check please.

Again, sod off and troll on another thread.

5 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

doesn't mean that any modern claim for restitution must encompass every enslaved person in human history

Yes it does. Otherwise you're just cherry picking.

44 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

So you owe money to yourself. You're Slavic, so literally a descendant of a slave peoples.

I know you're Russian because you've chosen a user name after a fairly obscure Stalin appointee to the NKVD.

got it. not very original, should have done a search

as a descendant of czechs, i await my check. all of us borderland folks have been exploited by the western european/russian exploitive colonialist scum

1 hour ago, Yagoda said:

got it. not very original, should have done a search

as a descendant of czechs, i await my check. all of us borderland folks have been exploited by the western european/russian exploitive colonialist scum

Ah now you claim to be a Czech, and not only that, on the dole waiting for welfare cheques.

You are calling me scum, correct? Because, you know you are not allowed to.

2 hours ago, blaze master said:

Yes it does. Otherwise you're just cherry picking.

You have deliberately misquoted me by cutting out most of my reply. That's a forum rule transgression. You have altered the meaning of my post. I demand restitution. Which means an apology.

Of course, you cut out my reasoning, in order to mislead others into thinking I am "cherry picking".

3 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

You have deliberately misquoted me by cutting out most of my reply. That's a forum rule transgression. You have altered the meaning of my post. I demand restitution. Which means an apology.

Of course, you cut out my reasoning, in order to mislead others into thinking I am "cherry picking".

You are. Everyone deserves restitution or no one does.

3 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

Ah "check". In Americanese, you're asking me to write the bill. So you're paying, right?

Check please.

Again, sod off and troll on another thread.

Absolutely, it's American. Now, it's time to settle the payment.

1 hour ago, Roadsternut said:

Ah now you claim to be a Czech, and not only that, on the dole waiting for welfare cheques.

You are calling me scum, correct? Because, you know you are not allowed to.

got it. you have nothing

Here's my proposal...

Do a DNA test to figure out where they were kidnapped from and offer them 2 choices:

1) A ticket back home, with a box lunch and a few bucks to get back on their feet.

2) Pay them the difference between what the average African in that country makes and what they made last year.

Option 2 may be a toss-up for Jamaica. But I guaranty you that it wouldn't be in MYC or London or Chicago.

2 minutes ago, impulse said:

Here's my proposal...

Do a DNA test to figure out where they were kidnapped from...yada yada yada.

I think DNA will reveal your King was "kidnapped" from Germany

Send him back with a box lunch?

You limeys are pathetic plonkers. 😄

7 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

Well, then, if all of that is the case, there is no issue about a judicial review. Or do you think if King Charles says no this is the end of the matter?

I think you are another one of those knobs who have gotten the wrong end of the stick, as usual.

Do you understand what a judicial review is? Its basis is to determine if a public institution or an authorized decision maker acted in a manner that was fair, reasonable and lawful in respect to existing applicable national laws. It is an activity undertaken within a jurisdiction and is not intended for international disputes. If Jamaica believes it has a case, it has to bring a legal action.

It is rather obnoxious that you instantly offer up a childish insult and assume someone "has the wrong end of the stick" because you are unable to offer a basis to support the claim for reparations. If the Jamaicans had more stick, they would not be such a lawless mismanaged society. Blaming Great Britain for actions 200+ years ago is ridiculous.

Charles has no say in this matter. He is the titular head of state. He may offer his advice when asked, otherwise, it is not his place to interfere in the affairs of the duly elected government. He has no real power and he is compelled to remain politically neutral. Jamaica has acted to end its relationship with the King. It is therefore rather arrogant (and stupid) to then demand that the King should take on an advocacy role for the incompetent Jamaican government.

Edited 9 hours ago9 hr by Patong2021

Yet again, what started as a reasoned debate, with @Roadsternut making some interesting points, the children have jumped in with personal attacks.

So sad.