Dear Editor,
Up to this day the existing constitutional and political dilemma between the island of St. Eustatius (“Statia”) and the country of The Netherlands (“Holland”) has been approached as an “or/or” issue, as a choice between two premises which many among us believe to oppose each other: democracy and practicality as incompatible end goals (quod non). The reality of the chances for success in this matter, however, may earlier and better be found in answering the question how to properly balance these two premises in a way which is most beneficial to the Statia people.
In order to soonest accomplish that it will be necessary for the two sides, being not just their political representatives but also the individuals and groups backing them, to stop with only looking at the beam in the other side’s eye, and to honestly and critically start looking at what the other side has been considering as the beam in the eye of their other. And at the same time also to not just look at the mote in one own’s eye but also at the one in the other side as such effort may end up with the two sides finding each other in a surprisingly more positive and productive way.
Such may also not just be more beneficial to the working and general relationship between the two sides but also for that with the other islands of our former Netherlands Antillean constitutional constellation and even also regarding the relationship between our said islands, separately and together, with our mother country, Holland, in the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
And as the dilemma has been brought to everybody’s attention in such a public and confrontational manner, the best way to mend the risen heated feelings in most sections of particularly the Statia community would be for the leaders of the two sides to agree to meet, first behind closed doors and thereby also to agree on the manner by which to bring the two sides closer together and to move on and do what is best for the Statia people.
The components of the beam in the eye of the other side are well known to both of them as well as the public as such has been well publicized by the local and outside media. And both parties know that part of what the other one has criticized about it is true or more or less so and part also understandable considering their past mutual history.
In one (or, if necessary, more) properly organized and moderated meeting(s) each of the parties should be giving proper attention to what the other side has brought forward regarding the elements of what it considers as the beam in the other’s eye. They then can explain and defend themselves but should also acknowledge the parts where they have not acted to the best of their ability and conscience and they therefore can do better, regardless of how difficult such acknowledgement may be and sometimes indeed is.
The simple acknowledgement of “our sides have made mistakes” will not be enough. The mistakes should be called and discussed by name, particularly as some of these mistakes (on both sides) may have a long history and be running deep and touching (rightly or wrongly held) feelings, not only among the leaders involved but also under substantial segments of their respective communities.
For every now and then it is good and cleansing to remember the wounds which at times have been caused by one to another in our Kingdom of the Netherlands, symptoms of which still can arise and cause new wounds at most unexpected moments and having serious consequences, of which even I personally can speak about, although, perhaps not with as much deep bitterness as such may be the case with others.
And those meetings should be followed by the two sides coming together to the public in the most respectable manner in order to move on.
Properly executed such procedure should and hopefully will lead to better mutual understanding, less drama and more cooperation between the two sides in the best interest of the Statia people and with that of our Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Elco Rosario
Dear Editor,
I read with interest the article regarding the incident of the abuse of a security dog on Front Street.
I, like many others, was horrified when I saw the beating of the dog in a video on Facebook.
This should never have happened.
In the article of Wednesday’s paper, the owner of First Response responds to the issues. I am pleased that the handler will no longer be working in the K9 unit and I hope he is never allowed to handle animals again.
I do, however, have some questions.
I am not a professional but I have done some research, and I question how well-trained these dogs and handlers are.
For instance, it was stated the dog detected the smell of gunpowder on the police officers and began barking at the police and then got loose from the handler.
I thought that trained security dogs are usually taught a more passive response, which most often is sitting and staring intently at the location or scent found. I do not understand why a well-trained dog would be aggressive as described, just to find a scent. I also do not understand why a well-trained handler could not better "handle" his dog.
So, therefore, I question the level of training of this dog. Was this dog actually trained to be a security dog? That training is different, I believe, from the training certificate mentioned in the article. It is my understanding that to work with a security dog both the dog and the handler have to go through an obedience exam and aggression control and do it together. Did this occur? Can K9 training records be produced verifying this?
And then I question the level of training of the handlers. Are the handlers certified? Who certified them? Did they certify with a certain dog and are there records to show this?
What qualifications must the handlers have?
Don't forget, a security dog and a handler must be partners and have a special trust with each other. It is supposed to be a team effort built by bonding.
It just doesn't feel like this is the case here.
Unfortunately the article and the response leave me with more questions than answers.
I think these issues should be further investigated and evaluated. If these K9 programs are not up to professional standards, it can only create more possible incidents.
I would not want to see another case of animal abuse happening on this island.
Barbara Cannegieter
Dear Editor,
I was glad to hear that government would no longer tolerate store barkers, annoying beach vendors, and intolerable taxi drivers. The government should have “put the brakes on them” a long time ago. Comrades, we have to protect our tourism product now before it is late. There is another issue that is equivalent to treason. I have heard about it from taxi drivers on the northern side of the island as well.
A number of non-native, Dutch citizen taxi drivers have been advertising and promoting their native islands during tours or excursions. They must be stopped. Any taxi driver, car rental agent or tour-guide who gets caught committing this ungrateful act should be punished severely. And he or she should be stripped of his or her licence and passport, and deported. These kinds of people we do not need.
According to King Beau Beau, “They spoiling the name of the people here. They ripping the millionaires, and blaming we. That ain’t fair. Stand up for your rights and fight for this soil is sweet. Get rid of them blasted thieves, St. Martin too clean and sweet.”
Even though the environmental effects of the landfill billowing smoke is affecting me, I love my country. God bless St. Martin and her wonderful people.
Julien F. Petty
Dear Minister,
You call on the people of Bonaire (and St. Eustatius) to vote for a 1st consultative referendum on the Law on the intelligence and security services 2017 on Wednesday, March 21st.
First of all, I would like to kindly ask you, as a new Minister of Kingdom Relations, to take note of my various previous letters in which I am informing your Chamber and Government that your dictatorial course of unilaterally annexing and embedding in your Constitution of the illegal status of the Public Bodies of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius infringe against your own agreed treaties and the international legislation.
Your state-secretary of Kingdom Relations Mr. Knops recently publicly proclaimed to me during his visit to Bonaire that he don't know nothing about our collective colonial past and treaties and human rights. This illegality does not seem to interest him either, given his recent international blunder in St. Eustatius, officialized by your Cabinet and parliament, your seemingly-legal undemocratic-colonial intervention, and imposed colonial government. Hypocrisy at the highest, where the Netherlands as a co-founder of the UN Charter, internationally prominent profiling as a philanthropic country, and even, has worked himself in the UN Security Council, and on the other hand, violating his own co-kingdom-partners human rights.
On 18 December 2015 on Bonaire and 17 December 2014 on St. Eustatius, the peoples rejected this illegal status by referendum and our own legitimate democratically elected representatives have ratified the results as legal democratic decisions in our island councils. Your government ignore our referendum, the voice of our people and are forcing and governing our people into a status that they formally and legally have rejected, imposed by your economic, military and police power. This is undemocratic and adverse to the inherent fundamental freedoms of our peoples to govern themselves.
Now you are planning as a new minister to build on this illegality, in this malignant marsh of crime against our peoples and humanity, by further violating another foundation of democracy and the rule of law; the inalienable human right; the right to respect have respect for private and family life, his home and correspondence. You should know that this law expressly forbids your government to interfere with any public authority, us the citizens, from exercising our rights. Your question and referendum is then in advance unlawful because dominant human rights are inviolable and even with consent (your wrongful referendum) remains a violation of our human right.
Now we understand better and feeling again the pain and suffering of our ancestors, how your parliament conspired and conjured inhuman laws against them, your legal “kapersbrief”, your legal military permission and actions against our ancestors, declared as non-human, according to your law, as commercial good , your pernicious human trafficking. It seems so simple for your government, all according to your laws, to your honor and conscience, the inhuman.
Finally, I object to your unlawful attempt, your illegal referendum to legalize illegality, with or without permission from me and all other residents of Bonaire and St. Eustatius, who these rights belongs to , that these rights remain inviolable human rights.
James Finies
Citizen of Bonaire
Dear Editor,
We, a group of concerned legal Dutch-side Taxi Drivers, would hereby like to present you with the following information as it relates directly to our daily bread here on St. Maarten.
We recently received information that there are two business ventures in development. These are as follows:
To start an Uber operation on Dutch St. Maarten and to construct a new pier right across from the Princess Juliana Airport that will ferry passengers to and from Anguilla and the other neighboring islands.
There are presently 500 taxi drivers registered on Dutch St. Maarten who earn their income and pay taxes to government to operate here.
Since the hurricanes in 2017, the taxi drivers are barely able to make ends meet as most of the hotel resorts and other smaller properties sustained damages and are closed. The harbor, the damaged airport and downtown Philipsburg are the only areas where taxi drivers could operate and try to earn a living. There is simply not sufficient space and business available to accommodate 500 taxi drivers on St. Maarten.
We are already challenged with the "illegal Gypsies" operations and these two new proposed business ventures in development, will have definitely have a negative impact on the taxi industry on St. Maarten.
Our island is too small to accommodate an Uber operation while there are so many taxi drivers trying to make an honest living. Presently there are taxi drivers who are available around the clock and with social media, contact with drivers is possible 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
By constructing the pier directly across from the Airport will make it possible for the passengers to exit the departure hall and walk straight over to take the ferries. This in turn will have a negative impact on the earnings of the taxi drivers, as they will lose the small fees they made in the past for transporting the passengers to and from the airport to the pier in the former location across from the Winair office.
We are hereby calling on our Government and in particular the honorable Minister of TEATT [Tourism, Economic Affairs, Transportation and Telecommunication – Ed.] , Mr. Cornelius de Weever, to look into this serious matter and try to circumvent these unjust and unfair Business ventures.
We look forward to the full support of Government on St. Maarten and the General Public with our plight to protect the Taxi drivers industry on Dutch St. Maarten.
Name withheld upon request.
