IT WOULD BE iniquitous if a law restricting marriages of convenience ostensibly to control immigration into Barbados were to be passed before integrity legislation intended to keep politicians and public officials honest.

The caution is that special cases make bad law.

Marriages of convenience are historical (if not traditional) and have different motives, the least of which is to assume a foreign nationality. They occur for larger economic, social, and religious reasons as well as enhancement of ethnic status.

Adherence to a particular political party without full conviction of its dogma (if any) is as much a marriage of convenience as marrying the boss' daughter for more obvious reasons than passion.

Immigration should be regulated in the same manner as tourism in a continuum of fundamental human rights with tourists at one end and citizens at the other. Between the extremes of visitor or stranger and domicile there would be visas of varying duration and privilege.

The essential control is a matter of accommodation. There must be some regulation of population size in proportion to space and availability of resources to ensure progressive development and maintenance of the amenity of the place.

In the exercise of such control, discrimination on grounds of race, place of origin, political opinions, colour, creed or sex in any form of legislation would be a violation of the Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the Individual guaranteed by the Barbados Independence Order 1966 qua, "Constitution of Barbados".

Marriage involves an expression of the freedom of conscience and association which cannot morally or "constitutionally" be prohibited.

- LEONARD ST HILL