Dear Editor,
I respectfully disagree with the PPB's plan to make Philipsburg a nighttime attraction. It misses the whole nub of the problem here – the cruise ships that provide the bulk of tourists.
Meals are included in the cruise, so everyone goes back to the ship rather than dine out in town. It keeps the town from having world class restaurants, and in general, there is little choice after 4:00pm, as most of them close for lack of tourists.
I have friends who toured half a dozen countries in the Baltic, and never once ate onshore, because everything was included onboard the ship. Needless to add, they were no good to me for recommendations when we stayed in the area ourselves. And so with Philipsburg.
What the PPB needs to do is negotiate with the cruise lines for some sort of voucher system, where passengers can eat in local restaurants at no charge with a voucher that the restaurant can submit for cash. That will also encourage stores to stay open, lights to stay on, and activity to increase.
Planters further reducing the walkability of the sidewalks, a white elephant Ferris wheel, a big ground sign that says Great Bay and a giant LED screen will not turn the tide. Mostly, they are additional annoying light pollution, which no one who lives here needs.
David Wineberg
Philipsburg
Dear Editor,
The United Nations designates February 6 of each year as an “International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation.” This year, in remarks accompanying his Angelus prayer before a crowd at St. Peter’s Square, Pope Francis denounced the practice of involuntary female circumcision, saying that it “demeans the dignity of women and gravely undermines their physical integrity.”
For some reason, though, the UN doesn’t designate an “International Day of Zero Tolerance for Male Genital Mutilation,” nor to my knowledge has the Holy Father ever publicly applied his church’s catechism to the practice of involuntary male circumcision.
According to that catechism, “except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.”
Why is it considered unacceptable to genitally mutilate infant girls, but acceptable – or at least not important enough to vocally oppose – to genitally mutilate infant boys?
There are certainly religious explanations. The Pope’s religion is an offshoot of Judaism, which practices male but not female circumcision, while female circumcision is confined to some sects of Islam and to some animist sects.
But the bigger reason seems to be simple popularity.
More than a third of male infants worldwide are circumcised. In western cultures, pseudo-scientific “medical” claims, ranging from a variant of “balancing the humors” to the notion that it reduced the desire to masturbate (a practice also pseudo-scientifically tied to various ailments), popularized the practice in the late 19th century.
Moving into the 20th century, male infant circumcision became nearly universal in the US. As each pseudo-scientific claim supporting it fell, another rose to replace it, but we invariably eventually find that infant male circumcision is almost never therapeutic, let alone universally so.
Some parents still allow their sons to be circumcised for aesthetic reasons (so junior’s penis looks like senior’s, for example), or because fake health claims continue to circulate, but the big reason seems to be “well, that’s just what people do.”
Fortunately, the popularity of male circumcision seems to be decreasing. That’s a good thing. But it’s disturbing that we continue to entertain it as acceptable at all.
If circumcision was invented from scratch – as religious ritual or “medical” procedure – today, we’d throw its inventors in prison or cart them off to mental hospitals. Hacking off healthy parts of infants’ bodies is a violent and barbaric practice, and we should treat it as one.
Thomas L. Knapp
Dear Editor,
Wow! Inspections by the authorities are needed sometimes. But there should be inspections and fines for some of these bars and those owners that are selling food.
The way they’re keeping the restroom is not right, even though it is locals hanging around these areas.
If you’re selling beers you need a restroom that’s neat and always has water.
Cuthbert Bannis
Dear Editor,
The island of St. Martin is rich in unique nature. It is home to species that live nowhere else in the world, including lizards, insects and plants. If these plants and animals disappear from St. Martin, they are lost to the world.
Over 70 per cent of the biodiversity of Europe is actually in overseas territories like St. Martin. Europe and France have committed to protecting unique habitats and the species that live there. These include the preservation of habitat, the restoration and sustainable management of habitat, preventing the extinction of threatened species, integrating biodiversity values into national and local planning and poverty reduction strategies, and significantly increasing financial resources from all sources to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity and ecosystems. These commitments are all outlined in the UN Sustainable Development Goals.
Over the last 50 years, St. Martin has experienced very rapid development and population growth. Many wild spaces have been lost. There is much less land remaining where St. Martin’s unique nature can be preserved. During this same period, dispute over the land owned by the Beauperthuy family has kept significant parts of this land undeveloped. Although this dispute has been a heavy burden on these local families, it may provide an opportunity to preserve and protect local nature.
We recommend an immediate pause in the sale and development of these properties in order to assess the ecological value of this land. The secondary forests on these hillsides may harbor unique species found only on St. Martin or new species unknown to science. This habitat could also be important to threatened species. Biodiversity surveys should be funded to better understand the value of these habitats. It is possible that such a pause might also create an opportunity to come to a more just solution to the underlying land dispute.
In the long term, much more land should be preserved on St. Martin. This should be done to preserve biodiversity. It should be done fairly, so the interests of landowners are respected. All levels of government, the Collectivity and the Prefecture, will need to work together to make this a reality for the benefit of the planet and the local population. It is an obligation that has already been accepted by the EU and France. It should be honored.
The preservation of wild spaces has many benefits to the people of this island. It preserves natural beauty and provides natural protection against hurricanes. It can create jobs in science, conservation and eco-tourism. Wild spaces often include sites of historical and cultural value that should be preserved. Funding is available from Europe that can support preservation on St. Martin while also boosting the local economy. Time spent in nature improves individual health and mental health. The natural heritage of St. Martin is a priceless legacy that belongs to all St. Martiners.
Along with hundreds of other people, we have been working as volunteers to develop a free museum, Amuseum Naturalis at The Old House. We have no financial stake in this project, but we have a deep love for this irreplaceable heritage site and the lands that surround it. We have hosted scores of school visits for thousands of local students there. We have seen their reaction to spending time in nature there. We have hosted biologists there as they work to better understand the unique nature of St. Martin. We don’t own this site, but we know it, and we know St. Martin can’t afford to lose it.
Mark Yokoyama
Jenn Yerkes
Dear Sir/Madam,
We would like to bring to your attention a problem that has a huge impact on the future of our children. Our children, who were students at Saba Comprehensive School academic year 2020-2021 completed Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate (CSEC) exams in June-July 2021, and Cambridge B1 level Dutch in 2020 and 2021. To our best knowledge, this CSEC and the B1 were the requirements to receive a diploma. In the last half year our children were patiently waiting to receive their diploma, which would give them an entrance to their next step in their education.
On Thursday, January 27, at 9:38am, via email these students and their parents were informed that the students would receive a high school certificate and not a diploma because they do not have a B2 level of Dutch. This email was sent by Anton Hermans, the principal. This was the first time that this information was shared with students and parents that the students were not eligible for a high school diploma. We feel it is negligent to have not imparted this information to the students and parents in an appropriate timeline.
We would like to address and have answers for the following:
1. Why were neither the students nor the parents ever informed that B2 level Dutch was a requirement for a diploma, as this information has an undeniable impact on the students’ future? We would like to see where this is stated in the law and exactly when this change took place.
2. What was the purpose of withholding the knowledge for more than a year that the class of 2021 would be receiving certificates and not diplomas? Graduation plans were made by Saba Comprehensive School and still transparency was not forthcoming.
3. Why did Saba Comprehensive School register the class of 2021 for Cambridge B1 level and not B2 level Dutch even though Anton Hermans had this information?
4. How does this affect the opportunities for our children who are taking the Caribbean Advanced Proficiency Examination (CAPE)?
5. Three students are currently in universities with the potential for expulsion if diplomas are not provided, and other students cannot complete their applications without their diplomas. How are you going to solve this problem for these children?
6. Why was no alternative plan designed and executed to ensure that class of 2021 met the B2 level Dutch? Certainly, a discussion with the parents and students would have been welcomed.
7. Via telephone conversation, on Thursday, January 27, at 2:55pm Anton Hermans informed Shenella Livestone and Lisette Riley that he knew from 2020 that B2 level Dutch was a requirement for a diploma. He stated that the law went into effect in August 2021 and was retroactive. Why did the school or the board not act nor communicate this knowledge in any way?
8. How will the school repair this gross error and the negative impact this has on our children?
It is unconscionable, disrespectful, negligent, unprofessional, unethical and unacceptable for the principal to have not acted upon this information for two years. Anton Hermans stated via telephone that he forgot that he had not told the students and parents about the B2 level Dutch requirement for a diploma. This is a vote of No Confidence for the principal and the supervisory board. For such gross negligence, they must be held accountable.
We kindly request a meeting with you to discuss this issue that immediately impacts the class of 2021. We must come to a quick and satisfactory solution. We expect a response before Friday, February 4.
Shenella Livestone
On behalf of the parents and Class of 2021
