WE WANT THE TRUTH OF THE DEATH OF FRENCH MILITARY/CAPORAL-CHEF RODRIGUE HELLIGAR

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000167 EndHTML:0000119645 StartFragment:0000000457 EndFragment:0000119629

La Famille HELLIGAR

c/o: Mme JULES-MARTHE Amélie

12 - Route de Colombier/HELLIGAR Gut

97150 SAINT-Martin Saint-Martin le 14 Décembre 2013

Monsieur Le Premier Ministre

Hôtel de Matignon

57, rue de Varenne

75700 PARIS

Objet: La disparition de Rodrigue HELLIGAR, Caporal-Chef de l'armée française en service au Gabon.

Monsieur Le Premier Ministre,

Nous les soussignés, parents, frères et sœurs de Rodrigue Helligar, caporal-chef du 6ème Bataillon d'infanterie de marine (BIMA) à Libreville et porté disparu au Cap Estérias du Gabon depuis le 1er novembre 2013, à 10 heures du matin,

Ont l'honneur de porter à votre très haute autorité notre insatisfaction sur l'absence ou la qualité des informations sur les circonstances de la disparition de notre fils et frère Rodrigue HELLIGAR.

Les seules informations circonstancielles ont été recueillies essentiellement à travers les différents organes d'information privés du Gabon avec pour source commune un certain correspondant local de l'AGP.

Nous n'avons reçu, à ce jour, aucune communication explicative des circonstances de sa hiérarchie militaire. Si ce n'est le vendredi 1er Novembre 2013, aux environs de 18h 45 à l'heure de Saint-Martin, soit 23h 45 au Gabon, un lieutenant de la gendarmerie de Saint-Martin est venu nous déclarer de voix vive que “Rodrigue est porté disparu au Gabon”.

Et le 21 Novembre 2013 vers 9h 30, le Commandant de la Guadeloupe est venu, disait'il à la demande du Lieutenant-Colonel du Gabon, “nous témoigner de leur soutien”. Mais toujours sans aucune information sur les circonstances de sa disparition.

Aujourd'hui, un mois et demi depuis sa disparition nous sommes condamnés à souffrir au quotidien l'affreuse angoisse causée par l'incertitude des faits exacts devant entrainer sa mort et de savoir si nous devons porter son deuil.

Notre fils et frère Rodrigue HELLIGAR a donné toute sa vie à l'armée française et à la défense de la France, près d'un quart de siècle de carrière au sein de l'Armée française, promu Caporal-chef, et, en récompense, sa disparition et le peu d'égard manifesté par l'Armée française vis à vis de la souffrance réelle de nous le père et la mère en particulier, sans faute de sa part, par lui nous voyons notre fin de vie abrégée par la douleur non seulement de sa mort mais plus douloureusement d'avoir été déni par la France de notre droit légitime de savoir la vérité des faits devant entrainer sa mort.

Chaque jour sans nouvelle de lui ou sur les circonstances exactes de sa disparition nous donne le sentiment de mourir plus vite, jetés dans un insupportable désarroi au quotidien en nos vieux jours par non seulement la perte de notre fils mais de surcroît par le mutisme de l'Armée française, les manoeuvres de certains pour camoufler la vérité y compris de préserver l'anonymat de notre fils pour des raisons que nous ignorons.

Bien des questions restent sans réponse sur la mystérieuse disparition de notre fils et frère Rodrigue.

Nous interpretons le mutisme des autorités comme un manque de respect tant vis à vis de la mémoire de notre fils et frère disparu que vis à vis de nous sa famille, laissée à souffrir sa perte qui reste encore sans une explication rationelle.

En outre une délégation familiale voudrait bien se rendre au Gabon afin de se recueillir en ultime respect, sur les lieux de sa disparition, mais l'accompagnement et le soutien de l'Armée française nous serait indispensable dans cette éventuelle démarche.

A ce jour, toutes les autorités de l'Etat et de la Collectivité Territoriale ne nous ont que prêté sourde oreille à cette ultime volonté en signe de deuil à la mémoire de notre fils et frère. Chaque jour le silence de tous ne fait que grossir.

C'est pour cette raison, Monsieur Le Premier Ministre, que nous avons décidé de recourir à votre très haute autorité en vous demandant de bien vouloir:

1. Ordonner qu'il soit mis à notre disposition tous les moyens nécessaires pour faciliter le déplacement d'une délégation familiale sur les lieux de disparition de notre fils et frère Rodrigue HELLIGAR en signe de respect et en recueillement en sa mémoire,
   
   
2. Ordonner qu'il nous soit communiqué, parents, frères et soeurs, du soldat français Rodrigue HELLIGAR, mort en service pour la défense de la France, un compte rendu satisfaisant des circonstances exactes à l'origine de sa mort ou qu'il soit donné éclaircissement à toutes les zones d'ombres relevées dans la presse locale du Gabon accusant pour source un certain correspondant de l'Agence Gabonaise de Presse (l'AGP) et que nous analysons ci-après:

Les informations circonstancielles à notre disposition à ce jour:

Aussitôt après avoir été informés le vendredi 1er Novembre 2013 par un lieutenant de la gendarmerie de Saint-Martin que notre fils et frère Rodrigue HELLIGAR était porté disparu au Gabon, nous avons entrepris des recherches dans les organes d'information Gabonais pour tenter d'en apprendre plus.

Ainsi nous découvrons plusieurs communications les unes ayant pour titre “Disparition d'un soldat français au Cap Estérias” les autres “Un militaire français meurt par noyade”, les unes disant “ il a été retrouvé sans vie”. les autres disant “il est porté disparu”

De surcroît nous relevons de nombreuses irrationalités dans les comptes-rendus, qui, ajoutées au mutisme de l'Armée française vis à vis de nous et les manœuvres de certains prenant la défense de l'Armée pour étouffer l'affaire, nous oblige à vous demander, Monsieur Le Premier Ministre. D'ordonner une enquête ou l'ouverture d'une procédure de vérifications des circonstances exactes

devant entrainer la mort de notre fils et frère Rodrigue HELLIGAR.

• Sur la page Pierre Eric Mbog Batassi du site internet AFRIK.COM à la date du 1er NOVEMBRE 2013, nous relevons le compte-rendu suivant:
  
  “Un militaire de l'armée française, affecté au 6ème bataillon d'infanterie de marine (BIMA) a libreville, est porté disparu ce vendredi, à la suite d'un noyade au cours d'une partie de pêche au large des côtes du Cap Estérias, a constaté sur place le correspondant local de l'AGP.
  
  Triste vendredi pour l'armée française à Libreville. L'un de ses vaillants soldats dont le nom n'a pas été communiqué à la presse est porté disparu ce 1er NOVEMBRE 2013, peu avant 10 heures, au large des côtes du Cap Estérias. “L'incident est arrivé suite à une glissade sur un rocher. Il (le militaire francais) est tombé dans la mer et les vagues l'ont emporté. Le courant d'eau était très violent”, a raconté un témoin.
  
  Le disparu s'est rendu au Cap Estérias, à une trentaine de Kilomètres de Libreville ce vendredi matin, accompagné de quelques uns de ses collègues, pour des activités de loisirs, notamment la pêche. Malheureusement, l'excursion lui a été fatale. Deux hélicoptères de l'armée de l'air et deux pirogues à moteurs ont été rapidement déployés sur place pour la recherche du corps de la victime. A libreville, au camp de Gaulle, une cellule de crise a été mise en place pour gérer le triste évènement.
  
• Dans le quotidien “La Nouvelle Tribune” du 02 NOVEMBRE 2013 Nous relevons:
  
  “C'est au cours d'une excursion de groupe que le soldat qui s'y est rendu pour une partie de pêche s'est retrouvé dans la mer après une glissade sur un rocher.
  Emporté par les vagues, il a été retrouvé sans vie. Le soldat appartient au 6ème bataillon d'infanterie de marine (BIMA) basé au camp de Gaulle à Libreville ou une cellule de crise a été constituée pour gérer le tragique évènement survenu ce 1er Novembre.
  
• Dans le Gabon Review du 04 NOVEMBRE 2013 nous relevons:
  
  “ En mission de longue durée au Gabon, un caporal-Chef du 6ème Bataillon d'infanterie de marine (BIMA) à Libreville, dont le nom est tenu discret pour le moment, est porté disparu le 1er Novembre 2013 dans la matiné. L'homme a été victime d'une noyade au cours d'une partie de pêche avec quatre de ses collègues, au large des côtes du Cap Estérias, à une trentaine de kilomètres au nord de Libreville. Le drame, selon une source qui couvre la zone pour une agence de presse, se serait produit aux environs de 9 heures.
  
  Alors que le petit groupe de cinq soldats pêchait sur les rochers, une vague a fauché le soldat qui, surpris, n'aurait pas réussi a s'agripper à quoi que ce soit et la houle qui était bien forte l'a emporté. “Aussitot alerté la hiérarchie du camp de Gaulle a lancé les recherches avec les moyens nécessaires. Notamment, deux hélicoptères de l'armée de l'air et deux pirogues à moteur, mais sans succès malgré les mécanismes et le temps déployé”, a poursuivi la source, avant de préciser que les recherches devaient continuer le lendemain.

Les irrationalités que nous relevons dans ces comptes-rendus

1. Alors que tous les organes d'information du Gabon sur cette affaire accusent pour source d'information un certain correspondant local de l'Agence Gabonaise de Presse (l'AGP), cette agence qui a sa propre page d'information sur internet n'a fait aucune mention de cette affaire dans ses propres publications
   
   De plus si nous analysons les horaires des faits successifs nous nous retrouvons dans un temps irrationellement insuffisant, soit le temps de moins de deux heures à compter de l'heure présumée de l'accident pour justifier:
   
   De l'accomplissement des opérations de secours, pour se prononcer sur les conclusions des recherches et de la communication au dit correspondant de l'AGP et la rediffusion de ce dernier aux divers organes Gabonais d'information et ces derniers de les communniquer au public.
   
   Le tout en moins de deux heures de temps, dont en l'absence de démenti par l'autorité de l'Armée française, éveil en nous le soupçon d'un compte-rendu préconçu en avancement dans le temps et dans l'espace et ainsi au mépris de la rationalité des faits.
   
   Nous notons également qu'une tragédie aussi grave est qualifiées dans les comptes-rendus “d'incident”
   
   L'annonce du dit “incident” est apparue sur le site Internet AFRIK.COM dans la même matiné du vendredi 1er novembre soit avant midi, fait confirmé par un Tweeter de retransmission de l'article AFRIK.COM et qui accuse un commentaire sur les faits à: 12:13PM – 1 NOV.13
   Par conséquent, il a suffit de moins de deux heures de temps, pour mettre en œuvre et réaliser toutes les manœuvres de secours, se prononcer sur les résultats définitifs des recherches, décider de la cause de la mort, communiquer l'affaire à ce dit correspondant de l'AGP et pour ce dernier à rediffuser aux différents organes d'information locaux du Gabon et pour ces derniers à les communiquer au public.

Deux heures de temps en tout:

- Pour les collègues de la victime de donner l'alerte
- Pour l'intervention de deux hélicoptères et deux pirogues
- Pour se prononcer sur les résultats définitifs des recherches
- Pour se prononcer sur la cause de la mort
- Communiquer toutes ces informations à un correspondant de l'AGP
- Pour ce dit corresponant de l'AGP à rediffuser ces informations aux différents organes
- Pour ces différents organes à communiquer ces informations au public
- Pour la mise en place d'une cellule de crise pour gérer le triste évènement

Rappelons que suivant le dit correspondant de l”AGP, source d'information dont se réferrent les divers organes locaux d'information du Gabon sur cette affaire: Les 5 militaires seraient arrivés sur les lieux de la pêche le vendredi 1er Novembre vers 9 heures du matin et que “l'incident” aurait eu lieu peu avant 10 heures du matin, laissant donc deux heures de temps pour toutes les réalisations énumérées ci-dessus,

Alors que l'affaire figurait dans la presse Gabonaise avant midi du vendredi 1 er Novembre, nous la famille à St-Martin, nous avons été informés par le lieutenant de la gendarmerie de St-Martin qu'aux environs de 18 heures 45 à l'heure de St-Martin soit 23 heures 45 à l'heure du Gabon,
Ce qui est contraire au principe jusqu'alors observé par l'Armée francaise qui veut que la famille du militaire tombé en service soit informée au préalable à toute communication à la presse

2. Comment conclure à la mort par noyade tout en affirmant que le corps n'aurait pas été retrouvé donc en l'absence d'un résultat d'autopsie du corps? Une cause de mort d'autant plus invraissemblable que la victime Rodrigue HELLIGAR était un grand et expérimenté nageur,
   
   
3. La photo qui illustre le compte-rendu de cette affaire sur la page AFRIK.COM est délibérément fallacieuse, empruntée d'un autre évènement en un autre lieu que le Gabon, mais donnant l'illusion d'une manœuvre de recherche en pleine mer, un corollaire a l'affirmation du compte rendu qu'il s'agissait: “ d'un noyade au cours d'une partie de pêche au large des côtes du Cap Estérias” alors qu'en réalité il s'agissait d'une pêche à pieds sur les récifs de la plage,
   
   
4. Les lieux indiqués de l'accident serait “sur un rocher au large du Cap Estérias”: Cela voudrait dire sur un rocher en pleine mer des côtes du Cap Estérias.
   
   Or, d'une part il n'existe aucun rocher en pleine mer des côtes du Cap Estérias et si c'était le cas pour s'y rendre, cela aurait nécessité au moins une pirogue.
   
   Au vu des photos des lieux exacts de la pêche, il s'agissait au contraire d'une pêche à pieds sur une plage où le rivage qui se prolonge dans une mer peu profonde de récifs coralliens permettant aux pêcheurs à pieds de s'aventurer pour lancer leur ligne de pêche sans risque d'être surpris par les vagues ou les houles.
   
   
5. Selon “La Nouvelle Tribune” du 2 Novembre 2013, “le corps a été retrouvé sans vie”. Il est difficile pour nous de croire au contraire, lorsque au vu de tous les débris jonchant la plage des lieux présumés de l'accident, qui prouve que le courant ramène tout vers la terre,
   
   
6. Alors qu'ils étaient à 5 selon les comptes-rendus, il n'est fait référence qu'à un seul témoin “a raconté un témoin”
   
   
7. Si il est vrai que: “Le courant d'eau était très violent” , nous savons par expérience qu'en temps de mer houleuse, il est impossibe de faire la pêche à la ligne et à pieds sur les rivages de la mer, surtout à récifs rocheux et coralliens.
   
   Et en l'occurrence, une mer aussi houleuse de la force à pouvoir emporter et faire disparaître un grand et expérimenté nageur, connaisant bien la pêche à la ligne autour des côtes pour l'avoir pratiqué ici aux Antilles, qui comparativement, sont beaucoup plus périlleuses, et de plus ayant grade de caporal-chef, âgé de 39 ans et près d'un quart de siècle de carrière militaire dans le Bataillon d'infanterie de marine de l'Armée française,
   
   
8. Comment expliquer qu'alors qu'ils étaient au nombre de 5 soldats à pêcher au même endroit, qu'il soit le seul à être surpris par cette dite forte houle ou vague?
   
   
9. Sauf erreur de notre part, au vu des photos de la plage de la dite noyade, les rochers ou récifs coralliens sont immergés et semi-immergés sur une vaste étendue, ce qui rend absurde la thèse “d'une glissade sur un rocher” simultanément à la victime à être “ surpris, fauché et emporté par une vague”

S'agissant d'irrationalités relevées dans les organes d'infomation locaux du Gabon, nous aimerions au moins que l'Armée française se manifeste en y apportant la contrevérité.

C'est avec un grand espoir, Monsieur Le Premier Ministre, que vous comprendriez la profondeur de notre souffrance causée par l'annonce de la disparition de notre fils et frère, Rodrigue HELLIGAR, sans à ce jour, une explication officielle des circonstances, et que vous donneriez une suite à notre demande, de nature à calmer les affreuses angoisses que nous souffrons au quotidien depuis un mois et demi.

Nous implorons votre intervention pour que toute la lumière soit faite sur les circonstances exactes de sa mort et ceci dans un devoir de respect que nous devons tous à la mémoire de nos soldats morts au service de la défense de la France. Notre fils et frère Rodrigue a sacrifié un quart de sa vie et jusqu'à sa mort pour la défense de la France,

Nous vous remercions d'avance, Monsieur Le Premier Ministre, de votre attention toute particulière à notre condition de souffrance ici à Saint-Martin, et nous renouvellons notre confiance en votre bienveillance attention à notre cause et vous prions de nous tenir informés de la suite que vous y donneriez.

Veuillez croire,, Monsieur Le Premier Ministre, en l'assurance de notre très haute considération

Le père: HELLIGAR Robert

La mère: JULES-MARTHE Amelie

Les frères: - HELLIGAR Francis

- HELLIGAR FRANCOIS

- HELLIGAR GUY

- HELLIGAR Leonel

- LAKE Leon

Les sœurs: - HELLIGAR Rosalie

- HELLIGAR Marie-Alice

- LAKE Silvia

La Famille HELLIGAR

c/o: Mme JULES-MARTHE Amélie

12 - Route de Colombier/HELLIGAR Gut

97150 SAINT-Martin Saint-Martin le 14 Décembre 2013

Monsieur Le Préfet de St-Martin & St-Barthelemy

Préfecture de Marigot

97150 Marigot St-Martin

Objet: Ampliation lettre à M. Le Premier Ministre et relative à la disparition de M. Rodrigue

HELLIGAR, Caporal-chef de la BIMA au Gabon

Monsieur le préfet,

Nous les parents,frères et sœurs du Caporal-Chef, Rodrigue HELLIGAR, porté disparu au Gabon depuis le vendredi 1er Novembre 2013, avons l'honneur de vous faire parvenir une ampliation de la lettre que nous adressons ce jour à Monsieur Le Premier Ministre dans une démarche d'obtenir un compte-rendu officiel des faits exacts devant entrainer sa mort avec disparition de son corps.

Nous vous en souhaitons une bonne réception et vous remercions d'avance de votre attention toute particulière à la souffrance de la famille de Rodrigue HELLIGAR, non seulement par sa mort mais plus douloureusement par le déni manifeste de l'Armée française a reconnaître le droit légitime de ses parents à être officiellent informés des circonstances exactes dans lesquelles sa mort se serait intervenue

Veuillez croire,, Monsieur le Préfet, en l'assurance de notre très haute considération

La mère: JULES-MARTHE Amelie

Le père: ELLIGAR Eugène Robert

Les frères: - HELLIGAR Francis

- HELLIGAR FRANCOIS

- HELLIGAR GUY

- HELLIGAR Leonel

- LAKE Leon

Les sœurs: - HELLIGAR Rosalie

- HELLIGAR Marie-Alice

- LAKE Silvia

La Famille HELLIGAR

c/o: Mme JULES-MARTHE Amélie

12 - Route de Colombier/HELLIGAR Gut

97150 SAINT-Martin Saint-Martin le 14 Décembre 2013

Monsieur Le Ministre de la Défense

37, rue de Bellechasse

75700 PARIS Cédex 07 SP

Objet: Ampliation lettre à M. Le Premier Ministre et relative à la disparition de M. Rodrigue

HELLIGAR, Caporal-chef de la BIMA au Gabon

Monsieur Le Ministre,

Nous les parents,frères et sœurs du Caporal-Chef, Rodrigue HELLIGAR, porté disparu au Gabon depuis le vendredi 1er Novembre 2013, avons l'honneur de vous faire parvenir une ampliation de la lettre que nous adressons ce jour à Monsieur Le Premier Ministre dans une démarche d'obtenir un compte-rendu officiel des faits exacts devant entrainer sa mort avec disparition de son corps.

Nous vous en souhaitons une bonne réception et vous remercions d'avance de votre attention toute particulière à la souffrance de la famille de Rodrigue HELLIGAR, non seulement par sa mort mais plus douloureusement par le déni manifeste de l'Armée française a reconnaître le droit légitime de ses parents à être officiellent informés des circonstances exactes dans lesquelles sa mort se serait intervenue

Veuillez croire,, Monsieur Le Ministre, en l'assurance de notre très haute considération

La mère: JULES-MARTHE Amelie

Le père: ELLIGAR Eugène Robert

Les frères: - HELLIGAR Francis

- HELLIGAR FRANCOIS

- HELLIGAR GUY

- HELLIGAR Leonel

- LAKE Leon

Les sœurs: - HELLIGAR Rosalie

- HELLIGAR Marie-Alice

- LAKE Silvia

"GOOD AFTERNOON" SHOULD START FROM 3PM - "NOON" IS 3 PM and not 12 O'CLOCK

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000167 EndHTML:0000021311 StartFragment:0000000709 EndFragment:0000021295

THE PREFIX "AFTER" IN  "AFTERNOON” QUALIFIES "NOON" NO MORE THAN THE PREFIX "EVE" QUALIFIES "EVENING"

From about a decade ago, the switch on the tick of the clock from greeting in terms of "Good morning" to greeting in terms of  "Good afternoon" has become a real obsession.

This is by far in contradiction to our St-Martin ancestral language culture. For us, "Good Afternoon" started after the "SUN" has taken its definitive westward course.

Furthermore, by our biblical knowledge if there should be a transition hour from “Morning to “Afternoon” it should likely be from 3.PM and not from 12 o’clock on the dot. (Read:Matthew 20- 1- 8 Parable of the workers in the vineyard)

By etymology  “noon” which is the Latin word “Nona”, meaning ninth. (Nona hora meant ninth hour). In the Bible the ninth hour is 3pm. 

Therefore, it may not be by simple coincidence that 3.PM coincide with the usual time from which traditionally our St-Martin Elders would begin to greet in terms of “Good Afternoon”, 

If our language has a place in our culture, we must not be too quick in disregarding our cultural, ancestral or current conversational use of words to embrace outer world influences we often consider to be the bright and best manner. 

Our Elders knowledge is often grounded on profound ancestry doctrine, often rooted in the Holy Scriptures.

Check how ridiculously straying away from our culture leads:

I have in memory this young man, in my former St-James/Marigot neighborhood, Rastafarian, very intelligent and very polite guy, that will always greet me in terms of “Good morning Mr. BALY or Good afternoon Mr. BALY”, at times he will question me, “Mr. BALY what do you think of this or of that?”

I will spend some time explaining to him my point of view.

Such was his politeness for over the fifteen years I had been living in that area, then to my great surprise, one day  before greeting me as usual, he questioned me: “Mr. BALY what time is it? Because I do not know if it is before or after 12 0’clock, and whether I should say "Good morning" or good Afternoon”

In my long lifetime, this was not only first news to me but also was to put me into a critical situation, due to the fact that I personally do not wear a watch or carry the time on me by any other means.

Since that day and for the last six to seven years, my attention have been awaken to the fact that this was a new obsessional style: One consulting his watch before saying: “Good afternoon”.

Looking at one’s watch before wishing: “Good afternoon” has even infiltrated our Churches, it has become customary to see speakers front the pulpit of the Church not only consulting their watch before they greet, but even more absurd, for one speaker to the next to be switching within the same Service from “Good morning” to “Good afternoon” from 12 o’clock on the dot.

Point of view on this new style:

Born and grown-up in St-martin with parents, grand parents, uncles, aunts, Sunday school’s teachers, public school’s teachers, I was always taught to be polite and respectful to every one I meet by saying “good morning” or “good afternoon” or “good evening” or “good night” etc…

Never I was told that I needed a chronometer to be accurate in using any of theses good manners greeting. ‘Afternoon’ was never distinguished from ‘Morning’ by 12 o’clock on the dot.

The switch from ‘Morning’ to ‘Afternoon’ was after lunch break interval, usually about 2.30 PM or 3.00 PM. the time we take back up our second haft of day school or work

At school or at work during the entire morning working hours even if extended after 12 o’clock, we say “Good morning”

Back to school or back to work after lunch break and during the entire second haft of the day working hours even if extended a little after sunset we say “good afternoon”

After sunset up to bedtime we say “good evening” when meeting another and “good night” when leaving another.

As a matter of fact, in the days of my youth, having a watch was a luxury, not much people could have afford, today, watches, pocket electronics and cellular phones giving the time are very common,

Today before embracing this new culture we should not neglect the true fact that there is still a certain unprivileged social class in our society, in particular youth suffering from society exclusion, to whom having a watch yet remains an unaffordable luxury and the illeterates that cannot read the time.

Suddenly deciding to subordinate customary good manners greetings to the lecture of a chronometer is making politeness an affair of the only wealthy and literates, this to the exclusion of children and the unfortunate that cannot afford to be equipped with luxurious items giving the time of the day or simply cannot read the time of the day. 

DO WE HAVE THE RIGHTS TO BE SMART WITH WORDS TO THE DETRIMENT OF OUR CULTURE?

Most words origin (etymology) is either Latin or Greek. Some words are simple while others can be a combination of other words.

Definitions of words are giving in dictionaries, at times we may also have to refer to the common conversational using of the word. But given full sense to a word base on its only prefix and noun composition can be misleading.

Afternoon is not written in two words but in one word, to define this word by its grammatical composition (prefix “after” and noun “noon”) may look smart, but only from a grammatical point of view.

Take as example the word “Evening”, in our language “evening” begins from sunset and ends at bedtime, yet it is compose of the prefix: “Eve,” meaning the day before?

The obsession turn this newly practice has taken is more absurd when considering our French education, greeting the time of the day has no link with the exact hour of the day.

Can we in the French language greetings word “Bonjour”  dare to change the prefix “Bon” to “sale or mauvais” depending on the “Good” or “bad” condition of the weather, the event or circumstance?

In French “Bonjour” is use to greet from morning to sunset, after sunset and “Bonsoir” is use when meeting others and “bonne nuit” when retiring from others.

The French word for “afternoon” is “après-midi”. The word “Après-midi” is simply used to differentiate AM hours from PM hours starting from 1PM to the end of fifth PM hour ( Ex: Une heure trente de l’après-midi – Cinq heures quarante cinq de l’après-midi).

In step with our elders greetings language:

Today whether meeting at someone wake, at a funeral, at a party, at a wedding, at church, we often use the same greeting words: “Good Morning, Good Afternoon, Good evening, Good night..”

We were forewarned by our great Elders “never to say “Good night” when leaving a wake for the spirit of the dead will follow you to your home.”

This warning is all forgotten, we all say “Good night” on leaving a wake. Today no one ever testifies on encountering with spirits. But our Elders had many testimonies to give.

What our Elders really meant is that wishing a ‘Good’ time of the day or night at a death ceremony in particular was not appropriate to the circumstance.

In an event as meeting at a wake in memory of a deceased, sincere greetings to the bereaved family, parents, friends, should be in words that reflect the real feelings of bereavement in our hearts.

 

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!