Dear Editor,

  This topic is for people to think for themselves.

  Social justice is a political and philosophical concept which holds that all people should have equal access to wealth (wealth redistribution, which is communism), health, wellbeing, justice and opportunity.

  In political and social sciences, communism is the philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money and the state.

  Communism includes a variety of schools of thought, which broadly include Marxism and anarchism, as well as the political ideologies grouped around both. The deception is the word equal access to wealth, you have to create wealth and that comes from individual responsibility. You cannot legislate wealth. Wellbeing is for the individual to perform to achieve his or her goal, it is the government task to provide opportunity for all.

  Justice has to do with what is right and fair? It is not right to take from people who achieve more and give it to others who have achieved less. Is it right to take points away from A students and give it to D students to make it equal and so call fair? No, that is wrong.

  Healthcare is a necessity but it comes with a price and a responsibility also. The best way to afford healthcare is to create wealth. That is why government has to be innovative to create opportunity for the masses to become more self-reliant. You cannot tax people to death and expect them to become more self-reliant.

  Free market capitalism opens the door for people to do business and endeavor in business by entrepreneurship. To create wealth is to lower the taxes which creates more jobs in turn produce revenue so health care can become affordable. But social justice (equal access to wealth or wealth redistribution is in fact making every person equally poor. Feel free to disagree with me.

  But notice, Hugo Chavez and Maduro try that in Venezuela, look at the end results, it leads to destruction.

  You have never seen people from a capitalist country run to a socialist or communist country, it is always the other way around that because social justice equals communism.

  Social justice has been practiced for the longest while with the deception for the common good of all. And the end result is always destruction.

  The key to success is for government to provide equal opportunity but to be successful, that is the individual responsibility. Social justice tells people they are victims and that it is the other person’s fault they are poor. That ideology is a recipe for disaster. It creates hatred and jealousy and leads to anarchy.

  No system is perfect, but free-market capitalism is the best, no wonder people from socialist and communist countries will walk 5,000 miles to come to a capitalist country.

The Patriot Miguel Arrindell

Dear Editor,

St. Maarten’s Day is my favorite Holiday. It is a day on which I reflect on what it means to be a St. Maartener and how I can be a better citizen of my amazing country. It is also a day where I am on a singular mission to gorge myself on the food and drink that makes our island unique. But, unfortunately, I can’t do so in good conscience without using my own plate and cup and knife and fork. For St. Maarten, our Pearl in the Caribbean Sea, has a major plastic problem: everything our food is served in is made out of single use plastics.

We have significantly lagged behind in taking concrete steps to ban single use plastics. As an island nation we must go the way other Caribbean countries and territories have, including Jamaica, Dominica, and soon Anguilla, in banning single use plastic products. Whilst I can appreciate the steps taken in the right direction by Parliament, it might already be too little too late. If we don’t act urgently, St. Maarten will again lag behind the region in terms of addressing a sustainability issue, much like we are lagging behind in moving towards renewable energy.

But it is also up to us to force change, which, I’m afraid, is easier said than done. This despite us trying to push our society in that direction with the Reduce Reuse Program. A clear example of this is when I posted on social media my disappointment in the St. Maarten Carnival Development Foundation for them still allowing a balloon jump-up anno 2019. I was met with condemnation and criticism, berating me for not “approaching the SCDF with alternatives instead of criticizing,” as if the SCDF has been living under a rock instead of on top of one, ignorant to the global and regional response to the damages that single use plastics, especially balloons, cause to the ecosystems and wildlife that makes St. Maarten unique.

The balloon industry is the only one that encourages consumers to litter with its product. The Ocean Conservancy, the well-respected global ocean conservation organization, ranks balloons as the third deadliest form of marine litter after ghost-nets and single use plastic bags. However, the SCDF is not the only organization to blame; everywhere on our still beautiful island we clean up balloons that were released during parties or events littering our coasts and wetlands, plastic bags choking wild flora and fauna, and cigarette butts and straws competing with the very sand our beaches are famous for.

This goes to show that the mindset of our people needs to change; we need to hold ourselves and our actions accountable just as much as we need to hold government and businesses accountable. As the cliché goes, we have to “be the change we want to see in the world.” But that does not mean that our Government and Parliament shouldn’t take the lead, as they should, in enacting the change our country so desperately needs. And after what we have been through and are still going through, not only needs but deserves.

It is curious to see how the use of plastics is so ingrained in our community. When I go for takeout I take my reusable containers with me. The reactions I get range from disbelief, incomprehension, humor and resignation. I am often met with blank, vacant looks when I mention that the same styrofoam container that we discarded is fuel to the continuously blazing fire at the landfill. Plastic is, after all, a petroleum product, much like the gas in your car.

It is also curious, given our societal and cultural norms, that BPA, or Bisphenol A, the dominant chemical in single use plastics such as styrofoam food containers and plastic bottles, can have negative reproductive health effects, especially in men. BPAs are endocrine disruptors that can cause impotency and prostate cancer in men and reproductive hormone issues in

women. This chemical is now being found in the fish we eat, transferred into our bodies through ingested microplastics.

Recycling, unfortunately, is not the solution, especially for a Small Island Developing State such as St. Maarten. A state that is already struggling with solid waste management issues and the way we approach our garbage problem. St. Maarten, per capita, produces nine times more garbage than any other country in the Caribbean. Given our susceptibility to climate change events (read Irma) and our limited land space, given the personal interests often involved in the garbage management industry, and given our track record in managing solid waste, a ban is the only solution to curb the impact of plastics.

Although, in lieu of a ban, recycling can make a small difference, and the work being done by businesses and organizations that encourage recycling should certainly be recognized and highlighted, recycling is just a bandaid. It is the grownup version of squeezing one’s eyes shut and covering one’s ears and screaming lalalalalala so as to ignore reality. It is an “easy cop-out for cowardly governments,” according to an article from the independant.co.uk. Eighty per cent of all plastic can’t be recycled and 100 per cent can’t be recycled indefinitely. Eventually plastic will remain in our environment, causing the human and environmental health effects I mentioned earlier.

Recycling itself depends heavily on global markets and global environmental policy, markets and policies that are susceptible to the volatile nature of global politics and the global market. Politics that go way beyond our Sweet St. Maarten Land’s ability to navigate successfully. That is why governments in fellow Caribbean countries and territories are putting the future of their islands and their people above a temporary convenience. We should not have a St. Maarten’s Day where our crab-backs, chicken-leg and johnny-cakes, pigtail soups and guavaberry punches are served in single use plastic containers; celebrating our sweet country while simultaneously defiling her. We need to ban single use plastics. Now!

Tadzio Bervoets

Dear Editor,

In the paper of November 23 I was elated to read that businesses in the country will no longer be allowed to sell or serve alcohol to minors below the age of 18. I further read that one of the rebuttals was that more police officers will be required to be able to control the adherence to that law. I must admit that my first reaction was “who are these clowns?” But as I read further and, being aware of the situation in the Front and Back Street, I do not know if that was farfetched.

The jewelry stores relatively serve more alcohol to their clients than the restaurants and bars in Philipsburg. I will continue to advocate “out with the old and in with the young,” because this is another case which all those older heads have been knowing this for years.

Many years ago, when I was on patrol during the night shift, there was this youngster staggering across the road as he walked in the direction of St. Peters via the L.B. Scott Road. After stopping him and questioning him we found out that he had been drinking Schlitz beer which he punched out of the soda machine place by the Cul de Sac gasoline station. Not too long after that I noticed that there was no more Schlitz beer available in the soda machines.

I was told between the grapevine that my report in the police log reached the then Lt Governor the deceased Max Pandt who forbid the sale of beer via those machines, because there was no way the police would be able to control the serving of alcohol to minors. Yes, and many of those same older heads who are there today were there then.

I further read that “it is so that to date only the second initiative law by a Member of Parliament to be passed in Parliament since its existence” and I asked myself with what intention was that added to the article? Is this something to celebrate? Since 10-10-’10, only two initiative laws but seven toppling of government and with another one on the horizon. I also read the article on line and asked myself, what does the Lions have to do with the amendment of a law? So I am still confused.

When I worked on Curaçao on two occasions I was nominated for a citation for exceptional duty, but I refused to accept it because I was aware that every day there is some policeman who performs exceptional duties. Everyone in their own way. Beside that, that is what I was paid to do .Police people are called upon to do that which the everyday man is not called upon to do. Similarly the fireman.

So, in reading that article I told myself if I was part of this government I would be ashamed to let people know that only two initiative laws have been passed since 10-10-’10. What have the others been doing for their overblown salaries?

Work on the public transportation. Place bus stop signs in the right places. Do not permit any kind of bus association to dictate for government, and get rid of those bus stop huts which are placed strategically and used to sell commercial ads, only to disrupt traffic a little more than it already is. Change the entrances to tire repair centers which are on the main roads so that the flow of the traffic on the main roads is not constantly impeded by vehicles driving in and out of those tire repair places. Why does the already distraught public continuously have to be hampered in their movement by those who have it?

There is enough very useful work for members of Parliament to do. All they have to do is look up the articles in the Algemene Politie Verordening, drive around the country and there are many laws that could be amended to suit St. Maarten. The MPs asked the people for their vote so that they could do good things for the people, not solely for themselves.

To be ambitious is commendable, just do not be too ambitious.

Russell A. Simmons

Dear Editor,

  Let’s get one thing straight first: everything has already been said and written about Zwarte Piet. It should require no explanation anymore that there are people who say that they are pained and insulted at the sight of this black-faced character that accompanies Sinterklaas. And that in any normal society, any normal person would cease whatever they are doing that causes pain and insult.

  Zwarte Piet is a character in the annual festivities headlined by Sinterklaas, a bearded do-gooder who brings children toys and candy in early December. While many people insist that the black-faced character is an innocent part of Dutch folklore, opponents decry him as a painful racist stereotype; he is portrayed with thick black curly hair, thick accentuated red lips and hoop earrings, much like enslaved Africans would supposedly look a few centuries back. That he is often played by white people with their faces blackened, his speech is heavily accentuated and almost unintelligible, while he does funny caprioles to entertain his master and his guests, is clearly a prejudiced stereotype of black people, the opponents say.

  The arrival of the Sint has for years now been preluded by heated debate about whether Zwarte Piet should be made less racist and even relegated to the past. While fighting over the issue had a particularly nasty tone where even the country’s top politicians were forced to comment, anti-Zwarte Piet activists have endured this behaviour for years. This year it came to clashes between protestors and counter-protestors, on Saturday November 17.

  NLTimes reported of a weekend that saw anti-Zwarte Piet demonstrators attacked by threats, racist epithets, and with eggs and beer cans hurled at them, during the Sinterklaas arrival events in the cities of Eindhoven, Groningen, and Leeuwarden, while threats of violence forced the cancellation of a protest in Nijmegen. Dozens were arrested, among them people who police referred to as “a group of football hooligans that sought out confrontation with demonstrators from activist group Kick Out Zwarte Piet.” Some openly chanted “sieg-heil” and were photographed performing the Nazi salute, extending the right arm from the neck into the air with a straightened hand.

  The fact that neo-Nazi’s had joined counter-protestors to “welcome” activists to their cities during last weekend’s Sinterklaas parades and pelt eggs and hurl insults at them, is also worrisome. That there has been no outcry of disgust over this, speaks volumes.

It shows that the issue of Zwarte Piet goes beyond racism and preservation of Dutch folklore; it is about power. About a marginalized group complaining about being marginalized and a dominant group not willing to budge.

  That is the story a self-respecting journalist would tell.

  That there is still debate about this, after so many years of complaints, demonstrations, petitions and court cases, is certainly cause for concern. But this piece is not about that; after all, all has already been said and written about Zwarte Piet.

  It gets truly worrisome however when journalists and entire media-outlets openly choose a side and lend themselves to exacerbate any pain and insult. Last week we saw Telegraaf newspaper dedicate a two-page spread in its Tuesday, November 13, edition, to paint anti Zwarte Piet activists Mitchell Esajas and Jerry Afriyie as sinister radical leftist terrorists who are out to destroy Dutch culture.

  A few weeks ago, popular current events TV show “RTL Late Night” placed Afriyie in the audience, because counter-protester Jenny Douwes refused to sit with him at the host’s table; Afriyie and Douwes were at the time at opposing ends of a criminal trial in which she was the accused (and subsequent convict) and he was one of the victims of a violent highway blockade and attack that she orchestrated in November 2017. Both had been invited to share their views in the talk show, but when Douwes said at the 11^th hour that she would not join Afriyie at the table, the talk show host relegated him to “the back of the bus.” This created a situation of inequality, in which the accused was granted more time to state her case to the TV programme’s audience than the activist whose right to demonstrate she had violated.

  We have witnessed this type of prejudicial treatment of Zwarte Piet protesters by the media on many occasions. There have been journalists, talk show hosts, radio and TV presenters and entire media-outlets that have shrugged at, laughed off and ridiculed their views, with total disregard of the fact that this only served to convince their audiences that minorities do not have the right to come at Dutch traditions, no matter how offensive they consider these traditions. That the opinions of a relatively small part of Dutch society do not count.

  That they are “zeurpieten”, a play of words that combines the Dutch phrases “zeurpiet” (nagging person) and Zwarte Piet. A page in major newspaper Volkskrant in November 2017 celebrated the highway blockade that Jenny Douwes had erected, to prevent Zwarte Piet activists from reaching the Frisian city of Dokkum. The headline loosely translated to “Dokkum remains free of nagging Zwarte Piet activists.”

  By extension, this breeds marginalization, hatred, intolerance and discord. And discrimination – in this case on the basis of skin colour, race and assumed inferiority.

  The news media should never serve that purpose. It is disconcerting to witness media still becoming weapons of intolerance.

  Journalists must be aware that ignorance and a lack of appreciation of different cultures, traditions and beliefs within media may lead to stereotypes that can incite racist attitudes. They must also be conscious of the impact of their words and images, given the deeply-rooted fears and anxieties of different communities that exist within society. Media executives must eliminate discrimination within journalism and ensure that their platforms do not carry populist or dangerous ideas purely for commercial gain.

  After all, the Code of Principles of the International Federation of Journalists states: “The journalist shall be aware of the danger of discrimination being furthered by the media and shall do the utmost to avoid facilitating such discrimination based on, among other things, race, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other opinions, and national or social origins.”

  We should therefore take a stand against these appalling practices.

  The NUJ’s Black Members Council (BMC) was instrumental in implementing the following NUJ Race Reporting Guidelines:

* Racist attitudes pose a threat to democracy, the rights of trade union organisations, a free media and racial equality.

* Its members have a responsibility to stop racism being expressed in the media.

* That media freedom must be underpinned by ethical reporting.

* Publications and media organisations should not originate material which encourages discrimination on the grounds of race or colour, as expressed in the NUJ’s rule book and code of conduct.

* Members should have the right to withhold their labour on grounds of conscience where employers are providing a platform for racist propaganda.

* Editors must ensure that coverage of stories relating to race are placed in a balanced social and ethical context.

* Journalists do not have to report on racist organisations.

  It is disheartening to have to point out these basic principles in 2018, but now more than ever, in this era where ethical practice in journalism is frequently attacked, we must continue to defend these basic principles of news reporting. It is now more than ever imperative that we maintain the most important principle of journalism – objectivity – and resist the commercially driven draw to subjectivity.

  To our brothers and sisters in the Dutch media fraternity: we are better than this.

Marvin Hokstam

(Marvin Hokstam is a journalist and teacher, editor/owner of AFRO Magazine, Member of the NUJ Black Members Council and Association of Caribbean Mediaworkers, which have both approved for their names be affixed to this article.)