77.8 F
Cruz Bay
Thursday, March 28, 2024
HomeNewsArchivesCitizenship Denied

Citizenship Denied

Dear Source:
The Committee on Citizenship, Virgin Islands Rights, Environment, Culture and History met to "hear" from the citizens of St John on June 13. The Chairman of the Committee allowed each Committee member to "ask" questions of the testifiers. That's where the hearing went sour.
The subject was entirely about native rights, rather than the environment which I was also hoping to discuss. Each delegate gave their own personal views on why native rights should or should not be in the Constitution. At no point were the testifiers asked any questions although they were allowed to make opening statements. I had felt by attending this hearing, I would get my ideas presented as a concerned citizen. Not so! Nine delegates spoke and except for two, all had already made up their minds that native rights language would, in fact be included in the Constitution. End of discussion!
Adelbert Bryan spoke last. He reminded me that I had no right to give any opinion at all about what the Constitution should contain. He admonished me for being present at the hearing and that my opinions were utterly useless! He described my written testimony as being worthless and what right did I have to contribute to the process!
I was not completely surprised as I have seen Mr. Bryan in action before. The finger pointing the belittling references to my obvious complexion and national origin were expected. In short, he is a bully! He further explained that his regard for the American system meant little to him and even announced that when he passed away, he had asked his family not to place an American flag on his coffin!
I stood, turned my back on the delegation and faced the audience as a sign of protest.
How dare Adelbert Bryan indicate that he had no respect for our Flag! The very flag that I and many other Virgin Islanders fought for and continue to fight for as a veteran was being trampled! The very nation that allowed the Constitutional process to exist was literally spit upon by Mr Bryan's remarks! To say the least, I was disgusted, dismayed and outraged!
I was there to testify and not to be talked down to; I was there to give my opinions and not to take derision from the delegates. I was there to make my opinions known. I was denied that right.
It is very clear that there are elements within the delegation which would intentionally attempt to make this fifth try at a Constitution a failure. And, it's working.
The Constitution is about laws. It is about providing a basis under which future laws will be written and perhaps existing law may be scrutinized. Instead, the entire process has been relegated to native rights.
Clear and concise language regarding a host of more important issues is virtually ignored.
I am not against nativity language, quite the contrary. I am for specific language in the preamble, I am for an historical reference in the preface to the Constitution but I am against any language which would give any segment of the society greater rights and privileges than any other segment. The delegates claim that the language is nothing more than recognition of natives. It is a certainty that future legislation will cite the Constitutional definition and it will exclude a segment of our society.
Will Constitutional native rights language be the cure-all that natives want? Nativity language would allow a certain level of satisfaction to some of the population but will it disenfranchise a majority of the non-native population?
Native rights language is an attempt to point out the historic disparities of the people who can trace their roots back to the days of slavery. It is an attempt to point out historical facts in modern-day legal language. Will this somehow correct the sins of slavery? Does it belong in a Constitution? Will it allow our government to function better?
If we give special privilege to a certain class of people, what will come next? Should reparations be contained in the basis of our laws? That is not what writing a Constitution was intended to do. It was supposed to change our government for the better.
I cannot support a document which overtly discriminates even under the guise of legitimate historical concerns. I cannot support a document which is weak on government reform. I cannot support a Constitution which disregards basic rights for every citizen.
I would suggest to all who are concerned about this Constitution to look at what is happening within the delegation and speak out–if you're allowed.
Paul Devine
St. John

Editor's note: We welcome and encourage readers to keep the dialogue going by responding to Source commentary. Letters should be e-mailed with name and place of residence to source@viaccess.net.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Keeping our community informed is our top priority.
If you have a news tip to share, please call or text us at 340-228-8784.

Support local + independent journalism in the U.S. Virgin Islands

Unlike many news organizations, we haven't put up a paywall – we want to keep our journalism as accessible as we can. Our independent journalism costs time, money and hard work to keep you informed, but we do it because we believe that it matters. We know that informed communities are empowered ones. If you appreciate our reporting and want to help make our future more secure, please consider donating.