WHAT INSIGHT SHOULD WE EXPECT FROM UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS LECTURES/DEBATES.

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000167 EndHTML:0000029382 StartFragment:0000000457 EndFragment:0000029366

WHAT INSIGHT SHOULD WE EXPECT FROM UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS LECTURES/DEBATES.
The pattern followed in recent years by all our newly created political organizations, undoubtedly as a way of seeking legitimacy in the sight of the public is to recourse to university professors from Guadeloupe, Martinique and even Paris to explain to the public in form of lectures or debates the policies of France affecting St-Martin, in particular related to the option called article 74.

Individualism versus a structured political organization grounded on a continued constant ideology

Obviously, to be elevated to the rank of being flanked by university professors seems to be mission accomplished in a strategy to authenticate personal political standard and to assure the boosting of popularity rating in view of up coming elections. 

These lectures/debates are far beyond the intellectual assimilation of the common St-Martiner so it is like saying to the people: “If you don't understand politics it is your fault, your inaptitude to rise to the level of politics science, you can only blame yourself for your bewilderment and no one else”    

Once this mission accomplished we find not a structured political organization united upon a common ideology but most regretfully, individuals in a group, each concerned only in painting his or her self into a bright but very misleading personality.

We find individuals with the feeling of being discharged, thanks to this university professors supporting strategy, of the obligation to acquire the necessary qualification and pragmatism to master the legal and political science needed to be capable of handling the problems inherent in the function of elective political leadership more crucially demanding in a political context as St-Martin yet within the claws of colonialism.

We find individuals in a group with the only personal concern of rising to the honorable position of president, vice-president of St-Martin as a COM or of rising to the national honorable status of senator, or deputy, or Social and Economic counsellor sitting in Paris.

In our thirst for effective leadership, we may be falsely seduced by theses individuals spirited performance but this only at the price of suppressing deep down within us our instinct that is instilling  us with a sense emptiness in our eager for a true vision at a satisfactory measure to the true realities affecting our entire little island,

The rise to political maturity is in the continuation down generations of a constant worthy ideology

Another reason one may accuse this new generation of politicians for seeking their political legitimacy in the only recourse to university professors to the exclusion of worthy elder natives politicians, is to guarantee the favors of metropolitan State's representatives, prefets, proving that they are free from any common political ideology with previous politicians filed persona non grata because of their frank opposition to the metropolitan State's government policies applied in St-Martin.

I'm talking of the now deceased Dr. Hubert Petit ousted out of leadership in the first half of the 1970's in retaliation of daring boldness to challenge the French minister of the Overseas, Pierre Messmer plan to promote the creation of the necessary infrastructure to accommodate the implantation of a new population in the Overseas territories including St-Martin.

I'm talking of the now deceased Claude Wathey, never personally being one of his fans in matters of his domestics policies, nevertheless I must admit that at the very beginning of the era of talks on constitutional reform of St-Maarten, his position was simple, was clear, was noble, "Two options: Full independence or nothing"

Certainly in retaliation, he was to find himself quickly after  isolated as persona non grata and ended up in public disgrace this after over 40 years of popular reign not limited in the public opinion of the dutch side but covering entire Island public opinion.

His political parti successors betrayed his position and have chosen the road to the most ambiguous non-precedent status within the Netherlands kingdom. In the lights of reality of facts St-Maarten and Curacao are enjoying far less autonomy than when under the status of the former N.A. and even less autonomy than Saba and Statia now under the status of provinces of Holland.

The reason is that if the status of "Province" is constitutionally defined and an integral part of the constitution of the Netherlands when on the contrary St-Maarten and Curacao have chosen to overlook the fundamental principle of having their called  status "Country within the kingdom" constitutionally defined and integrated into the constitution of the Kingdom. As a result of this failure, reality of facts has proven them to be placed under the systematic arbitrary rulings of Holland Executive Power.

I'm talking of militants like myself who in the second haft of the 1970's at the sacrifice of my personal professional career as 'Expert Comptable” had dared to challenge the educational system enforced in St-Martin by creating at my sole expense the first private vocational school in St-Martin preparing the youth to sit to State's organized exams and to get involved in the electoral process with for ideology the preparation of St-Martin's natives in particular to constitute a counter-force to the negative effects that was to undoubtedly result from the implementation of the Pierre Messmer plan.

As today as a result, reduced to a native's minority of less than 20% of our homeland total population, my awareness to this new generation of politicians seeking leadership by all means in the electoral process of the island is that growth to political maturity is only guaranteed through a precise ideology continued down through generations.

Breaking away from the worthy ideology of predecessors is but a suicidal attitude.

No non-native university professor better than an experienced elder-native will open-heartedly deliver to you the accurate and pragmatic advice needed to run St-Martin in the right direction.

Time has practically expired to see the rise of a native political parti grounded upon a common patriotic ideology capable of creating a sense of connection and the necessary unity between St-Martiners.

Time for the elaboration of a structured organization composed essentially of trusted natives united upon a patriotic ideology beyond immediate circumstances or events, has expired,

St-Martin from a population around 7000 inhabitants in 1972, natives in a large majority has grown today to a population over the 40 000 inhabitants of which the natives represent less than 20%. It is the only Island in the Caribbean this has happen to.

Yet this very month november 15^th, 2013 we behold the Préfet Philippe Chopin holding grand naturalization ceremony with international media coverage for over 20 foreigners and welcoming speech claiming “France is a welcoming country, beautiful and noble, a land of hope, strong on the values of liberty, equalityand fraternity. I wish you a good life in our country”

Unfortunately in spite of our minority condition in our homeland, up to this day we have proving as natives our incapacity to rise the politics of our homeland beyond immediate personal electoral ambitions and this exactly at a period of our history when our little island is suffering the detrimental effects of the metropolitan government plan set in place since 1971 to implant a new population in our little Island and needs trust worthy and qualified men and women to lead the minority group we are reduced too, through this survival tragedy.

Our failure to have a country-level vision built upon a continued constant patriotic ideology within an accurately structured organization has systematically opened a free high way to the metropolitan government who on the contrary have an ideology, a that it has demonstrated with persistency during the years not missing one occasion to humiliate the natives of the land.

In political science, the implementation of the policy decided in 1971 consisting in the implantation of a new population in our Island, is termed: Genocide by substitution.

Today as natives reduced to less than 20% of the total population, let us make no mistake in our electoral ambitions, It is nothing we can do to reestablish a healthy demographic equilibrium and have control over the political orientation of our once belonged homeland.

St-Martin is the only Island in the entire Caribbean with a native population reduce to less than 20% and this in a period of 4 decades.

Why all the lectures/debates or advices received from university professors apparently had not contributed to elevate our politicians and elected leaders to better insight in the deal with Paris for this called COM status?

Should we assess the enormity of our set back in matters of political status, in matters of colonial link with France and the E.U., in matters of economic development, in matters of fiscal justice, in matters of human resource, in matters of jobs and entrepreneurial achievements, social benefits, in matters of living standard, even after five years of administration as a territorial Collectivity within the French Republic and as a RUP within the E. U., the honest attitude should be to question our attitude and actions.

We have seen the Municipality contracting the most famous of Paris university professors in search for guidance in the process of St-Martin statutory transformation from a Commune of Guadeloupe to a Territorial Collectivity within the French Republic,

We have seen political parties, elected leaders, Senator, Deputy... inviting university professors from Guadeloupe and Martinique to give lectures to the public on the called “ article 74” or on the called “Loi organique”, or on the statutory options (RUP or PTOM) within the E.U. Etc....

In spite of all the lectures/debates and advices received, the people are today left to suffer the complaints of these same politicians and elected leaders, advocators in favour of this statutary reform with as option the called "article 74" as they are all today deceived in their expectations as confronted with the reality of where the called “article 74” and the called “Loi Organique” have taken St-Martin and the people today.

Remember the last of my interview on Billy Di "Talking Point" program over “Radio St-Martin”. My answer to a caller claiming that the “article 74” option was about nation building was that if we want to talk about nation building we ought to demand a politic reform (réforme politique) because article 74 of the French constitution exclusively referring to a question of administrative reshuffle.

The following day I was blast over the same Billy Di program by Louis Mussington in terms of being arrogant and against progress. He and his parti had organized multiple university professors lectures/debates here in St-Martin to convinced the public on the windfall this  “article 74” option represents for St-Martin.

From that day that turned out to be my last aired interview, all the parties involved in the negotiation process of this “Article 74” and “loi Organique” strengthen by their university professors, some from Guadeloupe/Martinique others from Paris started to advocate the statutory change in terms of “Political and administrative reform”

Don't get me wrong! The question here is not to throw any doubt over the competence or authenticity of university professors in the science they profess, but rather to set awareness on the nature of the insight we should expect from university professors or what enlighten we should never expect them to deliver on.

It is a well known fact by all experienced politicians that as a rule whether out of a tradition or out of professional ethics, university professors in general within their mission as lecturers, debaters, advisors, would never demonstrate open controversy against the State's government policies but rather will always give proof of ingenuity in finding within their university scientific theories grounds to interpret and even justify governmental policies and decisions.

This attitude may be different when they perform as simple citizens within their affiliated political movement or parti but never when they are contracted to perform under their professional title out of their intimate context, before a general public.

Politicians aware of this fact, and want to be sincere in their political mission, know what level of cohesion they can count upon and where to draw the line between receiving a critique analysis of governmental policies, needed to exercise pragmatic politics and theories of political science displayed by university professors. 

Others whose only aim is to gain legitimacy in the sight of the public by all means, simply see and use the company and theories of university professors as a convenient boost to their misleading rhetorics.

Again I repeat, from a scientific point of view we can benefit from university professors lectures, debates, advice,.... but we must have the capacity to sort out the information received, of course when our serious objective is simply seeking the necessary scientific contribution in our endeavor to produce in terms of our own common ideology an accurate critique analysis of the State's government policies enforced upon us.

University professors may deliver to us an eloquent painting of the general map of the State's government policies, laws or decisions but they will never deliver to us the precise road map defining the true reality origin from where come our problems or guidance leading to pragmatic solutions, because this will call for a controversial interference in the State's government policy that, as a rule, they forbid themselves.

We must have the capacity to elaborate our own precise road map in a spirit of patriotic continuity down generations and also have the ability to establish cohesion between the informations received from university professors and our pragmatic knowledge of the human condition, the constitutional, the political, the social and economic, realities affecting our daily life and to wisely translate the all into pragmatic ideological orientations.

Evidently this is impossible if politics for us is to only focus on the political personality of this individual and that individual instead of putting all our potentials upon a continued constant political ideology for our Island.

The public unaware, attend these lectures/debates with the hope to receive practical answers to practical questions related to the daily realities they are confronted to in St-Martin, but unfortunately the answers received are formulated on a scientific level, at times very ambiguous, that only place them in a state of more bewilderment at the end.

Article 74 of the French constitution is no more than the splashdown in the French Overseas of a six for a nine

As example, no university professor would have ever revealed to our public that the called “article 74” that was advocated as an exceptional opportunity for St-Martin to accede to autonomy generating a windfall of benefits, constituted in the terms of its stipulated proceedings, a constitutional closed door preventing French Overseas Territories, Departments/Regions, COM... to accede to any form of constitutional reform but simply allowing administrative reshuffle at the level of the executive power in Paris and this within the only context of articles 73 and 74.

An organic law by nature has no constitutional value and in its role can only compete with "décrets d'application" of certain ordinary Parliamentary laws

In article 72-4 of the constitution we read that any change of regime leading to or from article 73 or 74 is decide by an organic law (Ce changement de régime est décidé par une loi organique)
In article 74 of the constitution we read that the status of Overseas Collectivities opting for this article will be defined by an organic law (Ce statut est défini par une loi organique....)

Here is where we learnt what Moliere meant when he lamented: “ Et par un six de cœur, je me suis vu capot”.

By its nature, organic laws represent to constitutional laws what “décrets d'application” represent for certain ordinary parliamentary laws. 

The logic question here is: Is the organic law regulating the St-Martin - St-Barthelemy COM is the one stipulated in article 72-4 deciding on the change of “régime” or the one of article 74 defining the “statut”?

 Whatsoever may be the answer, to be handed down an organic law completed by a "Décret d'application” is to my knowledge without precedent in France's legislative history

An organic law by its nature cannot constitutionally create therefore define a public authority if defining the status means defining the legal or constitutional establishment of the public authority within the constitution of the Republic. Only a constitutional law has that power

On the other hand, no one knowledgeable in matters of constitutional proceedings would mix up the terms “Régime” and “Statut” and therefore confound articles 72-4 and 74 of the constitution in their application in changing St-Martin - St-Barthelemy from Communes of Guadeloupe to Territorial Collectivities.

 A literal interpretation should have required the voting of two organic laws: One deciding of the changing of the regime and another defining the status, but such an enormity would have uncovered the hidden deceitfulness of this article 74 and bring to light the truncated nature of this statutory change.

The serious infringe to constitutional fundamental principle here in that an organic law (Loi Organique) does not have the nature of a constitutional law, can never substitute a constitutional law in short has no constitutional value therefore is but a legal tool in the hands of the only Paris Executive Power.

Only a constitutional law can modify the constitution and create new public authorities.

Therefore the State's government though article 74 has closed the front door to true constitutional reform only leaving opened a domestic back-door allowing administrative reshuffles within the frame of articles 73 and 74 of the constitution. Reshuffles exclusively in matters of organization and functioning modalities.

Placing under organic laws the proceedings of all inter-changes from or to articles 73 and 74 of the French constitution has implicitly sealed off all possibility for the Overseas Territories to accede to a real and true constitutional.

Contrary to stipulations of article 74, if a change of “régime” means a change in the organization and functioning modalities and defining of the status means defining the legal and constitutional form of existence of the new public authority then the former call fall under an organic law but the latter legally can only be proceeded through a constitutional law (Loi constitutionnelle).

By definition a constitutional law decides on the creation, organization and functioning principles of public authorities and is complete by an organic law fixing in details the organization and functioning modalities.

The former is integrated into the texts that constitute the constitution of the Republic, the latter as an organic law by its nature has no constitutional value therefore can never be integrated into the constitution.

It is fair to say that the present status of St-Martin and St-Barthelemy has no constitutional value and therefore in its legal form can only compete with the famous ordinary law called “Loi d'orientation” initiated in the year 2000 in the benefit of Guadeloupe, Martinique and French guyana.

As a consequence, considering the actual state of the French constitution, St-Martin and St-Barthelemy  have no constitutional existence within the French constitution if not yet counted as communes of Guadeloupe.

Today all the fervent advocators of St-Martin option for article 74 of the constitution voice sadly their state of frustration claiming that :”We were not given the real article 74”

The truth is that they are lost constitutionally-wise in their such for landmarks distinguishing the fundamental statutory principles from the organization and functioning modalities, both handed down in a melting pot under the strict and arrogant supervision of the state's representative to the COM, the préfet.

The now sitting minister of the Overseas DOM-TOM on his recent visit to St-Martin had accused the failings of the said “Loi organique” to be the cause of St-Martin COM crisis and promised to work on an amendment of the law

A truncated amendment doomed to failure

Seemingly the executive body of the COM is working exclusively on there side on amendments proposals and the other political parties are working each separately on their own proposals.

But none is asking the fundamental questions: is the crisis a result of the application of article 74? or of the “loi Organique”? Or of the “décret d'application” or of the “Loi des finances” related to the compensation of the transfer of competence cost? Or of all of these together as a whole?

The answers to these questions are the condition sine qua non to avoid fallen a second time into a demagogic enterprise domed to failure.

As long as the legal status of the Territorial Collectivities of St-Martin and St-Barthelemy is not integrated, in form of a rightful constitutional text, into the constitution of the French Republic, these two Territorial Collectivities remain at the arbitrary mercy of Paris Executive Power and the arrogant attitude of its delegated representatives, the préfets.

In our actual state as a COM within the French Republic, we can only compete with the constitution of December 13th, 1799 stipulating that the regime of the colonies are determined by special laws or the law of April 24th, 1833 called "La charte coloniale" granting a semblance of local autonomy under the supervision of the king and his representatives in the colonies.

DID THE PREFET HAD THE RIGHTS TO IMPOSE HIS TIME TABLE ON THE "10 000 man MARCH"?

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000167 EndHTML:0000007456 StartFragment:0000000457 EndFragment:0000007440

The president of the Grass-Root movement, in an interview by Jeantou over MSR TV declared that one of his differences with the organizers of the called “10 000 man march” was the fact that the Prefet rejected the time table decided by the organizers of the march and imposed his own time table.

Rey, president of the grass-root movement claimed that from his point of view that behavior of the prefet was unacceptable.

The question that I'm sure is hunting many is to know if president Rey has a point? Is he right? Is he wrong? Is he an outlaw?

Because it will be sending the wrong message if proving that the very manifestation in protest of injustice to be itself a victim of injustice and this with the complicity of its very organizers

In search for answers let us analyze the law regulating manifestations involving occupation of public property or public highway:

First point: It is important to make the difference between an association deciding to organize a manifestation involving the temporary occupation of public property or public road from a manifestation of protest on public highway.

The former that is not a manifestation of opinion, is requested by the law to demand an authorization from the competent authority: Prefecture, Sous-Prefecture, Mairie or COM.

The latter on the contrary, manifestation in protest, manifestation of opinion, comes under the “LA DECLARATION DES DROITS DE L'HOMME ET DU CITOYEN (1789).

The rights to protest (Manifestation revendicative) on public highway is a fundamental rights of all democratic countries and is also guaranteed by the French Constitution.

IN FRANCE THE RIGHTS TO PROTEST ON PUBLIC PROPERTY OR ON HIGHWAY FALLS UNDER THE LIBERAL SYSTEM:

Manifestations in protest in france are not subject to any prior authorization, all the law demand is a “DECLARATION” 3 days by the latest and 15 days of most before the date predicted for the manifestation.
The authority receiving the declaration is under the obligation to deliver immediately a receipt. This is all that is needed to proceed with the manifestation.

By law it is imperative to state in the declaration the aim of the manifestation in protest.

The competent authority informed has no power to forbid the manifestation unless it is for serious and precise threats to public order.

Any decision to forbid the manifestation in protest must be subject to an official decree and notified to every organizing member signatory of the declaration. And can be appealed before the court of justice.

Note that the organization of manifestation on public highway in conformity to local traditions are not subject to prior declaration.

By law the organizers that neglect to make the legal declaration or found guilty of false declaration are liable to condemnation, meanly a penalty to the maximum of 7 500,00 Euros.

But in reality of facts this law obliging prior declaration can be said to be only respected in Paris, in all the provinces of France, to very rare exceptions, manifestations in protest are carried out in complete disregard of the legal norms and no one pays any attention to this fact.

In all the provinces of France, the people simply exercise their freedom to manifestation on public property or public highway in complete disregard of the law demanding prior declaration.

Laws can be one thing and the reality of facts can be a far different thing and this often in the complete indifference of the competent authorities

BUT NO ONE SHOULD IGNORE THAT IN THE SPITE OF THE REALITY OF FACTS THAT THE LAW STILL EXIST 

THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION: WAS REY THE PRESIDENT OF GRASS-ROOT RIGHT OR WRONG?

HE IS RIGHT: The power of the competent authority, Prefet, Sousprefet, President of COM.... to forbid or intervene in the organization of a manifestation in protest is strictly limited to the case of serious and precise threat to public order and can never be grounded on a question of timeliness.

It's a question of principle! When we demand JUSTICE we must be capable of recognizing INJUSTICE!