SXMElections.com

~ Court rejects demand for rectification, compensation ~

THE HAGUE--The Court in The Hague has qualified the statement of Member of the Second Chamber of the Dutch Parliament André Bosman of the liberal democratic VVD party about Member of the St. Maarten Parliament Cornelius de Weever as "illegitimate." However, Bosman does not have to rectify his statement and does not have to pay damages.

The Court deemed a rectification in the newspapers no longer appropriate considering the time that has passed since Bosman's statement, which initially appeared in the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf on September 29, 2014, and was repeated in The Daily Herald, Today newspaper and Amigoe one day later.

In the De Telegraaf article Bosman was quoted as saying that De Weever had been "simply bought" by United People's (UP) party leader Theo Heyliger to leave the Democratic Party ((DP)) and support the UP. This switch by De Weever resulted in the UP/De Weever coalition having a majority in the St. Maarten Parliament.

Bosman said later that De Telegraaf had taken his words out of context. He said he had told the journalist it was his impression that De Weever "simply had been bought" by Heyliger. The Court did not find it proven that Bosman's statements had been repeated in the press and questioned whether a rectification at this stage still would serve De Weever's interest.

The Court also stated that De Weever had not presented facts or circumstances based on which it should be feared that Bosman again would make statements that could hurt De Weever's reputation. "As such, the generally formulated prohibition regarding future statements by Bosman has to be rejected," the Court ruled.

The Court considered Bosman's statement "that it seems that De Weever was simply bought" illegitimate, because he did not have sufficient proof to say that De Weever and Heyliger were corrupt.

According to the Court, there was "insufficient support" for Bosman's "severe accusation" towards De Weever. The Court did not buy Bosman's motivation that a ruling of the Court in St. Maarten had linked the UP party to the buying of votes and that the PricewaterhouseCoopers integrity report had shown that members of the St. Maarten Government displayed lack of integrity.

The Court stated that the "certainty" with which Bosman had made his statement did not fit with the available facts, considering that there was no proof that there was a link between the concerns about integrity of the St. Maarten Government and De Weever's switch from the (DP) to supporting the UP.

It was further ruled that Bosman's statement to De Telegraaf's journalist did not resort under the immunity provided by the Dutch Constitution. The Court reminded Bosman that immunity was limited to statements of Members of Parliament made during meetings of Parliament. Bosman had not made his statement about De Weever during a meeting.

The Court stated that a certain level of abstention could be expected from Bosman and that he should have made such a serious public accusation only when this justified the severity of the issue and when it was based on facts.

The Court stated that it could not determine in this case whether Bosman's statement, even though it was considered illegitimate, had caused harm to De Weever. The fact that De Weever had to take safety measures because of death threats and that he had travel expenses in relation to the court case were deemed insufficient to allot compensation. De Weever had requested an advance of 11,000 euros from Bosman.

According to the Court, there was also insufficient proof that the changing of public opinion regarding De Weever and the threats against his life were the result of Bosman's statement and not caused by De Weever's high-profile switch. As such, the compensation was rejected. De Weever was ordered to pay the cost of the court injunction.

In a reaction, Bosman said he was "very satisfied" with the "clear" ruling by the Court. On the other hand, he said he believed this ruling somewhat restricted his work as a Member of the Second Chamber. He said it was his task to address issues of abuse and he would continue to do so when he deemed it sufficiently important. He said it was very important for the St. Maarten Parliament to have internal discussions and debates on integrity issues.

In a reaction supplied via his lawyer Jairo Bloem, De Weever said he was happy with the ruling, which he considered a "victory for righteousness and principles."

"The Court established that Bosman acted illegally and committed a tortuous act by making, in short, unfounded and defamatory statements against me," he stated. "Although I did not get the desired direct rectification by Bosman, the mere publicity that this ruling will get sets the record straight that Bosman's allegations were unfounded, tortuous, and that he should have known better."

De Weever said he believed this ruling would help to pave the way to a more civilised, respectful, objective dialogue between the government representatives within the Dutch Kingdom, "based on concrete facts instead of innuendo, rumours and hearsay."

"This is ultimately the only way that we can resolve the many issues that face our communities. Gone should be the days of making unfounded sensational accusations, obviously for local political gain in the homeland, at the expense of the character and integrity of others," he said.

De Weever said Bosman would be granted the opportunity to "voluntarily compensate" the damages he had suffered, "just like I granted him the chance to rectify, instead of having a Court determine that he acted illegally. Further legal procedures to collect the damages will be initiated, if he again fails to do the honourable thing."