The dignity of disagreement 

By Fr Stephan Alexander

General Manager, CCSJ and AMMR

When Barbados Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley addressed the United Nations General Assembly on September 24, 2026, she spoke with the confidence and urgency of someone who believes a more just world is possible.

PM Mottley named the suffering caused by slavery, war, poverty, inequality, and climate change. She also challenged those with power to act, as the world has the knowledge and resources to do far more for its people. What is needed is the will to turn principle into practice.

I found that challenge compelling because it goes to the heart of Catholic Social Teaching. We believe that every person is made in the image and likeness of God. That conviction calls us to care for people beyond ourselves, our families, and our borders, especially those whose needs are most easily overlooked. It also asks us to examine whether the institutions we create serve the common good or leave some people struggling to be heard.

PM Mottley illustrated what this means in practice. She spoke of the injustice of countries most vulnerable to climate change paying more to borrow money while needing to build schools, hospitals, and water systems.

This aligns with Pope Francis’ insight in Laudato si’, which describes an “ecological debt” owed particularly by wealthier countries to poorer ones. PM Mottley cautioned that it is unjust to ask vulnerable nations to protect their people while ignoring the financial conditions that make that work harder.

Her call for reparatory justice carried the same concern for truth and human dignity. She recalled the trafficking and enslavement of Africans, and the wounds that remain.

She urged honest engagement and repair, while acknowledging Caribbean societies’ responsibility to continue their own work of healing. PM Mottley noted that honest discussion about the form of repair is necessary. But we cannot begin that discussion by denying the harm caused or dismissing those who continue to bear its consequences.

As I listened to the Prime Minister’s address, I heard more than proposals for international reform. I heard an example of how leadership should approach those whose experience and judgment may differ from its own: take them seriously, speak truthfully about their concerns, and use power with respect for their dignity.

That standard is worth bringing home. Indeed, if applied, it might have inspired a different perspective and commentary from Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar after the Senate vote on September 24, 2026, to pass the Special Operations Bill 2026.

Responding to the Independent Senators’ dissenting votes, PM Persad-Bissessar reportedly called the Senators “satanic” and said that her Government would not accept any future amendments from their bench. Her statement betrays a different vision and exercise of power from that espoused by PM Mottley.

I understand why people want decisive action against crime. Its effects are felt in our homes, schools, and communities. I also understand the Government’s responsibility to protect us and the pressure our leaders may feel to affect change. However, that pressure must not override or hijack the constitutional process developed to protect citizens.

Within our system of governance, Independent Senators have a responsibility to carefully examine the powers that Bills would give the State. Accordingly, they raised concerns about safeguards, oversight, and the reach of those powers in respect of the Special Operations Bill 2026.

We may disagree with their vote, but their questions deserve an answer. They also do not deserve to be bullied, demoralised or vilified because their views differ from those of the Government.

This is why the Prime Minister’s remarks trouble me. Calling Senators names does not address the concerns they raised. It encourages the belief that questioning a crime measure is the same as siding with criminals. And if future amendments are rejected simply because they come from Independent Senators, what happens when one of those amendments could make a law fairer or more effective?

Additionally, the Prime Minister’s name-calling is a direct attack on the dignity of citizens, persons whose said dignity she swore to protect when taking office.

We should expect passionate disagreement in Parliament. Indeed, decisions that affect our safety and freedom require it. But disagreement need not diminish our respect for one another.

Government, Opposition, and Independent Senators each have responsibilities to the people of this country. None should have to surrender the right to question a proposal to prove concern for victims of crime.

Prime Minister Mottley called on powerful nations and institutions to listen, share responsibility, and respect the equal worth of others. Her appeal is persuasive precisely because those principles are needed wherever power is exercised, including here in Trinidad and Tobago.

We need leaders who will protect our communities and listen to difficult questions, who can defend their proposals firmly while still considering a good suggestion from someone who disagrees.

We, too, must practise that respect in how we discuss the people who represent us. Turning principle into practice begins with how we treat one another. Let us hold our leaders and ourselves accountable in this regard.

The CCSJ asks for your support. Please donate:

Catholic Commission for Social Justice

Account #: 290 458 025 501

Bank: Republic Bank Ltd.

or you can contact us at:

[email protected]