Reader’s Letter: Is the lawyer Le Poole an honest man?

POSTED: 07/19/11 11:51 AM

Dear Editor,

Mr. Le Poole said in response to the SNBF that his firm believes that making a distinction in a constitution between (groups of) people based on origin, ancestry or ethnicity is unconstitutional in itself and in any case cannot serve any legitimate purpose.

A lawyer is someone that represents people on matters of law. It is a profession, just like being a teacher or an engineer. I will not judge Mr. Le Poole’s intentions, however as a lawyer he was quite hurried to respond on a matter that is so important about native people of St. Maarten. It is not a matter of discrimination it is a matter or rights. Let me explain.

If a creature is endangered of being extinct and the only manner of protecting the future is to give it special privilege for it survival, does that mean you are discriminating against other creatures? Absolutely not! If a student needs more help on a particular subject and he or she is given more attention for he or she to improve does that mean we are discriminating against the other students? In countries like the Netherlands, USA and France it is a fact that there are laws protecting certain species and animals. The question to Mr. Le Poole is “Does that mean those countries is practicing discrimination?” In society governments protect and help the weakest groups of people in society. Does that means government is discriminating?

I am not a lawyer, but I thought the whole purpose of law was to see points of view from all sides, evaluate them on the facts and make decisions on the evidence that is presented. In the U.S.A all minority groups was awarded affirmative actions to help them elevate their unfortunate situation which was done by slavery. So I must assume that Mr. Le Poole if he was an American will not be in favor of affirmative action for the poor African Americans and Cherokee Indians and Hispanic Americans. I must come to the conclusion he will call it discriminating against the Caucasian Americans who in fact had enslaved all these minority groups of people.

Let’s focus on the native people of St. Maarten Heritage, who help people of all cultures and race and sex and religion and practice human rights to the highest extent. In doing this good act of human rights don’t Mr. le Poole thinks that our native St. Maarten people deserve to be recognized in the constitution. This leads me to one conclusion that Mr. Le Poole does not care about the native St. Maarten people.

What I am interested to know is what does the lawyers of St. Maarten heritage thinks. Lawyers like Gibson Senior and Junior, and lawyers like Bell, Bryson, and Groeneveldt. It will be interesting to see if they will use law or constitution to terminate their very existence as a people. This will prove if they have real education or only school education. I am not surprised by Mr. Le Poole’s reaction. In fact I expect that sort of answer of him. If he was in our position I wonder if he would interpret the law in that manner. Mr. Le Poole answers give our quest to be recognized even more validity. He is helping us prove our point that St. Maarten people are thrown under the bus.

Mr. Le Poole, in St. Maarten, we have a way of expressing our selves. It goes like this “today for me, tomorrow for you”.  You are a smart man figure it out. My conclusion is you are a man that I cannot trust. But I respect you for one thing; at least you show me what kind of man you are. In short I understand exactly what you mean: everybody in St. Maarten is welcome no matter if they are legal or not. But native St. Maarten people are allowed to die without protection. Keep up your good works in fighting for the helpless. That’s why I only trust Jesus Christ.

Yours truly,

Miguel Arrindell

The Patriot

 

Did you like this? Share it:
Reader's Letter: Is the lawyer Le Poole an honest man? by

Comments are closed.