"He Hath Founded It Upon The Seas." That is the motto of the Cayman Islands. Biblical and maritime. What could be more British than that?

Therefore, I profoundly regret the latest refusal of the Cayman Islands to disavow the status of a tax haven. The Cayman Islands, to which 60 per cent of nearby Jamaicans look and long for a return to British sovereignty 50 years on, while Britain without any self-consciousness claims one of Her Majesty's Caribbean, specifically Jamaican subjects as one of our own while he himself is visibly as comfortable with being so claimed as he is with expressing his faith in public.

In return for the stamping out of all provision for the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories to function as tax havens (which not that all of them are – my native Saint Helena, for example, is not), students from those Dependencies and Territories must be recognised as home students. As part of a particular advocacy on behalf of their British people, the airport must be built on Saint Helena, there must be justice for Ascension Island and for the Chagos Islands, and there must be no concession whatever, whether on the sovereignty of Gibraltar, or on either the sovereignty or the oil revenue of the Falkland Islands.

Nothing less than the rights of entry, abode and work enjoyed by EU citizens must be extended to citizens of those states having the same monarch as the United Kingdom, or having the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as the final Court of Appeal, or both. Serving and honourably discharged members of the Armed Forces must enjoy at least the same rights of entry, abode and work as are enjoyed by the most privileged category of non-British nationals, and they and their dependants must be classified as home students.

In October 2009, some cross-party body of MPs vetoed the new Constitution of the Cayman Islands because it said that that British Overseas Territory was a "God-fearing country based on traditional Christian values, tolerant of other religions and beliefs", and spoke of "a country in which religion finds its expression in moral living and social justice". Likewise, the new Constitution of Saint Helena, Ascension Island and Tristan da Cunha was forbidden to express that British Overseas Territory's desire "to continue as communities of tolerance, with respect for government and the law, Christian and family values and protection of the environment".

So how, according to that body of MPs, could the Coronation Service continue to contain the words, spoken by the Archbishop of Canterbury as he hands the Sword of State to the monarch, "With this sword do justice, stop the growth of iniquity, protect the holy Church of God, help and defend widows and orphans, restore the things that are gone to decay, maintain the things that are restored, punish and reform what is amiss and confirm what is in good order"? Of course, it could not. That is the whole point. If being a British Overseas Territory precludes having a specifically Christian basis for the State, then it could not be more obvious what that says about the United Kingdom herself.

Hence a series of recent judgements, culminating, at least so far, in last year's jaw-dropping ruling that Christianity formed no part of the basis of the law. Much has been made by the militant secularist and homosexualist lobbies of the fact that the couple in that case was of West Indian origin, as those against whom there have been a number of such pronouncements from the Bench have been of either Afro-Caribbean or African background. Christianity in Britain is being defined as a black thing, and thus a product of post-War immigration, in the way that Islam in Britain is being defined (not entirely accurately) as a brown thing, and thus a product of post-War immigration.

This may be utterly absurd, although African and Afro-Caribbean observance is the reason why churchgoing is more prevalent in London than in the country at large. But it is also potentially useful. The ferocious anti-Christianity of the senior judiciary, of David Cameron's attempt to redefine marriage as not necessarily the union of one man and one woman (as the Attlee Government's landmark legislation regulating marriage simply presupposed because it was so obvious), of Jo Johnson's campaign to end prayers in the chamber of the House of Commons, and so on, is an attack on Black British culture as the attackers themselves have defined it. It is, in a word, racist. Let's see them get out of that one.

But they must not be assisted by the apparent inability of certain corners of the Commonwealth Caribbean to choose between serving God and serving Mammon.