Heads still in the Sand

The Today had a new editorial today in which they attempt to defend the previous one. No doubt this one will attract a few comments too so we'll put it in a new thread along with the rest of the latest news reports.
The SHTA, Chamber of Commerce and the Tourism Office all express their condemnation of the assault (it only took 8 days) and not one of them acknowledge that the police force of the island has problems that need fixing.

Click here to Read More
____________________________________________________________

Boycott threat - 15th April 2006

CBS Producer returns to get answers- 15th April 2006

Tourist Office applogises - 15th April 2006

Today Editorial - A different point of view - 15th April 2006

SHTA condemns attack - 15th April 2006

Letter - Barbara Cannegieter - The Today should be ashamed - 14th April 2006

Feel free to share your thoughts below. I think you can guess mine.

Flipper

Flipper's blog | add new comment

Submitted by Flipper on Sat, 2006-04-15 20:03.

Unlike many tourist destinations (Jamaica ....) I had always considered St. Maarten friendly and at first was not exceptionally bothered by the gay bashing incident - hoping that it was an isolated incident.

But that editorial was the most hateful that I have seen printed anywhere in decades (other than right wing religious and skinhead papers).

If that is representative of even a minority of the residents, St. Maarten seems to me to be a place that I would prefer not to visit - perhaps that was its goal.

Patrick O
Columbus, GA

reply »

Of the people of the island. In fact, looking at the Today it can be seen that the advertising revenue is very small. The paper must be losing money big time, mind you the Casino articles every otherday may be contributing, who knows.

Most locals probably never even read the editorial and the Today has been sliding down a slope to the sewer for some time now.

Again, NOT representative of the island at all.

Flipper

reply »

I don't need for anyone to call for a boycott of St Maarten/Martin to form my own boycott after the way this incident was handled. Our group left the island happy that we had just enjoyed a wonderful vacation even though, at well over $1000 per person, it was also the most money I have spent on vacation in the Caribbean to date. My boyfriend and I were there on the beach next to the victims just days before the attack, thinking how nice it is to be on a caribbean island which is friendly to gay people, rather than outlawing homosexuality as many islands do. And we even went to Bliss (in the area of Bamboo Bernies) one night right before the attack and furtunately were tired and didn't stay late.

It will probably be a long, long time before I go back at this point. I am left with a bitter taste about the Caribbean when I think about this incident as well as stories like the one in Time about how Jamaica is the just the most anti-homosexual place in the Caribbean, but certainly not alone. It can take a long time for a gay man like myself to quit trying to hide signs of homosexuality when in public, and I don't really want to go back to that.

It is very annoying to think that the people of St Maarten would love to have all my tourist dollars as long as I don't act gay. I am sure that doesn't include everyone there, but it seems to include enough people that the newspaper will express the opinion that the victims were asking for it, and that a gang of people will beat up tourists because they are gay in front of others without worrying about being identified.

I only hope that something good can come out of this, but I am not satisfied that has happened yet...

reply »

The real crime here is how badly the police have handled this situation.
There will always be idiots who are anti gay no matter where you go, you surely know that.
As you stated above your group left the island happy, and had a wonderful vacation. Although you are not happy with how much you spent, that was something totally in your control.
You may have been next to the victim, but you were not the victim. If you choose not to come back to the island then choose it for the right reason. There was no crime commited against you or anyone in your group.

reply »

I think the point is severely missed here. The attack itself was certainly homophobic in nature, and horrible, but there's more to it than that. It could have happened to anyone, since the attackers didn't know Mr. Jefferson was gay too, they just attacked him for trying to stop the beating. Which is an important and often overlooked fact. Again, it could have happened to any one of us, had we been there, gay, straight, black, or white. But what is even more disturbing is the non-response or pure incompetence of the police department. And the local media either chooses to overlook this gross incompetence or are just as incompetent themselves. I tend to think it's the latter.

The police, at the time of the attack, didn't know whether it was a gay-bashing or not. A physical asault was reported to them and they did little or nothing at all. That is a fact of the matter. And an important one too. That the victims were gay should not matter to a professional police force, and is completely secondary. I think the principal culprits in this unfortunate affair are the local media and police department. Both are obviously and painfully unprofessional and stocked with incompetent people who don't really understand what they are supposed to do or how to behave or how the real world works.

They don't understand that everything is connected now to the global economy, and everyone working on St. Maarten, whether in the public or private sector, owes their job and welfare to the tourism industry, from the police officer holed up in a drabby office doing paperwork to the machinists handling the printing presses in the newspaper houses. That's just a brute fact of the world. It may not be fair, but that's how it is.

reply »

Much has been made of the homophobic anti-gay aspect of this assault, when in fact it IS actually the first of it's kind that I know of, after over 20 years living here. This is not to say there are not people who dislike it and rail against it, most noticebly so called 'Christians' and macho meatheads. But to say St. Maarten is anti-gay in any way like Jamaica is stretching this instance past the truth.

Yes, homophobia, ignorant intolerance and plain stupid attitudes and editorials like those published in the Today paper must be countered, but the gay community is poorly informed to think this is prevalent on the island.

What is far more important, to me and other residents, as well as visitors, is that the Police force gets a major makeover. It is possible that they didn't pay much attention to this crime at the time, but the same goes for dozens of other crimes on the island that have nothing to do with gays.

I want to see a recorded and managed 911 system put in place, proper supervision and better trained and equipped police so that when there is a crime, the victim can count on support and help, not indifference and a run around.

That really is the issue here and to make this attack into a generalisation of the attitude of people on the island is a great injustice, too. Focus on the lack of a reliable and effective police force please. It serves us ALL, gays too, far better than making this whole business a "gay " thing.

reply »

Everyone seems to be making statements of apology, except the police. As a matter of fact they aren't saying anything. I don't think they have a clue.
Now I'm wondering ... there was a car involved in the altercation. I believe one statement said they tried to run them down and another said it actually hit Mr. Smith. Did anyone see the make, model, color, license plate number? This might be a good lead.

reply »

Today newspaper is trying to wiggle its way out of something they belong in.

Tons of people on the island were pissed about the first editorial. And your telling me only ONE person wrote a letter to the Today? And none to the daily herald? Give me a break, I smell the stench of censorship.

And the second editorial is an even bigger slap in the face. Do they think we're really that stupid to believe their excuse???

For the 'today' : APOLOGISE or SHUT UP ! ! ! ! !

Our island has it hard enough with the impotence of the police, we don't need the TODAY newspaper making it worse with ignorance! ! ! ! !

reply »

Perhaps the most astonishing thing about the absurd, backtracking, sophomoric editorial in today’s Today (Saturday, April 15, 2006) is that while it was obviously written by the same homophobic editor who produced last Tuesday’s egregious, foaming-at-the-mouth screed, he apparently neglected to consult what he’d written previously. One will recall that this concerned the cowardly assault on two tourists in Beacon Hill, an attack that could have easily led to the death of both men. The writer demonstrated his empathy and understanding of the situation by blaming the victims. In today’s paper he begins his confusing, erratic column with these words: “Our editorial of Tuesday, April 11, in which we stated that it was unfair to St. Maarten that one of the victims of the unfortunate beating in Beacon Hill has called for a boycott of the island, has generated quite a bit of angry response.”

Say what? Where did last week’s editorial mention a possible boycott of the island? Nowhere, unless there were two different versions of the paper published on that Tuesday. The writer goes on to say, “This newspaper simply put forward on opinion suggesting that the island was being unfairly maligned because of an isolated incident.” Is this a reference to last Tuesday’s editorial’s final paragraph? It states, “This is a sorry case, and we hope the police find the attackers. But it is made much worse when silly homosexuals use their power in the New York media to trash a friendly island for a one of a kind incident. The homosexual community should be ashamed.”

Today paper, why can’t you get it through your head that while the main point is of course about the savage, unacceptable, outrageous assault on two tourists, the real problem you should be shouting to the skies in your pages is that the police and government response was initially zero. Now many days have passed, and there are still no arrests. This is what needs strong, repeated mention.

The Today newspaper is continuing to stir up trouble for our island with its homophobic, inhumane rhetoric. Local politicians as well as ordinary citizens should firmly point this out to Today’s management. In the meantime, it’s very clear that the newspaper and its staff just don’t get it!

reply »

absolutely true
the most absurd fact here is that the police did not respond.

unfortunately we have to face the facts that we have little protection from attackers and bullies on this Island, some discriminating attitudes are condoned and even approved.

the police force should apologise and get its act toghether , the Island is moving forward ,mega projects every where, but goverment is stil in slow motion including the uderstaffed and poorly trained police force.

the news papers ( cowards!)are afraid to criticise the police , simple as that .
we are not yet in a democratic society where constructive criticism is as healthy as the Country itself, we have still a long way to go!!!

reply »

Why Can't I Own a Canadian?

October 2002

(Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by an East Coast resident which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:)

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and >female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

>My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

>I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

St. Maarten Private Eye

Heads still in the Sand

User login

Navigation

Poll

Recent blog posts

Recent comments

Main Threads

SXM PE Links

Island Links

Browse archives

Syndicate