Mr. Spong on BZV-judgment

August 21, 2009 6:16 AM

On the occasion of the seventh anniversary of attorney’s office Small Murray Scheper Mr. Gerard Spong gave his point of view on a Court decision in the BZV-case of last June in the lecture ‘Slavery, discrimination and discriminating judges’.

The abolition of slavery and the death penalty are two milestones in the history of human nature. This acknowledgment of equality was made valid in law, and led to international declarations and treaties to protect people against discrimination.

How could the Antillean Court determine in June of this year that someone could not co-insure his (homo) partner with the Bureau Medical Expenses Insurance (BZV)? According to lawyer Gerard Spong, there is a question of immense discrimination within the Kingdom. He expressed himself in well-chosen words over the judgment yesterday afternoon. Minister Omayra Leeflang (who was absent) betrays the anti-discrimination thought, and at the same time she launched the website on freedom fighter Tula this week. And he accused the (Dutch) judges of having possibly dealt from a colonial sense of guilt in order to please the government and of having sold their soul by giving such a homophobe judgment.

Spong explained his point of view in the lecture ‘Slavery, discrimination and discriminating judges’, on the opportunity of the seventh anniversary of law office Small Murray Scheper. Those who know the of origin Surinamese lawyer are familiar with his sharp tongue, his passion when it concerns equal rights, but also his tendency to over-act in relation to giving examples. With this verdict, Curaçao ranges oneself on the side of Lithuania and the Zimbabwe of Mugabe, and is an opportunistic island that wants to take EU-subsidies, but at the same time discriminates to one’s heart content, according to Spong.

In the BZV-judgment, the Court grounded on, amongst others, a judgment from 1986 by the European Court for Human Rights on a treaty from which the conclusion can be drawn that there is no obligation for the Netherlands Antilles to consider the marriage of the insured and the partner equal to that of a male and female.
At the time, the Supreme Court ruled that homo-marriages contracted in the Netherlands should be accepted in the entire Kingdom. Couples are now allowed to register their marriage with the Registry Office on one of the Netherlands Antilles islands, but they cannot derive any rights from it, such as co-insuring.

Meanwhile, European law has developed rigorously and fiercely during the past 23 years. Spong referred to the guideline for the European Community in 2000, with regard to a general framework for equal treatment in employment and profession. In that, it was emphasized that discrimination on the basis of religion or belief, handicap, age, or sexual nature, could undermine the realization of the objectives of the EC-treaty. Consequently, the Antillean Court ignores all judicial developments.

A recent judgment of the Court of Justice of the EC in the Tadao Murako case against the Versorgungsanstalt der Deutschen Bühnen, bears a strong resemblance with the Curaçao case. In 2001, Murako contracted a life companionship with a German theatre costumier who passed away in 2005. Murako’s request for a reversionary pension was denied as the relevant regulation would only provide for a reversionary pensioen of married couples. The Court of Justice EC ruled that there was a question of direct discrimination in this case

That the Antilles are less liberal on homosexuality than Europe does not justify gross discrimination according to Spong. It is stipulated in article 43 of the Statute that each country of the Kingdom has the task to provide for the realization of the fundamental human rights and freedom in the Kingdom countries. This judgment violates that article.

In view of the background of slavery and the discriminatory measures, which have been announced against Antilleans in the Netherlands in the past years, it seems as if history is repeating itself. Only the position has now reversed: it is not the black but the homosexual fellow man who is submitted to discrimination. Finally, Spong referred to the addendum in the Twelfth Protocol of the European Treaty for Human Rights in which the anti-discrimination article of art. 14 has become an independent right. “No one should be discriminated by any public authority on, in particular, one of the grounds mentioned in the first section.” Since the European Treaty for Human Rights is in full extent applicable to the Netherlands Antilles, this also applies for the Twelfth Protocol, according to Spong.

(Source: National Newspaper Amigoe / Antilliaans Dagblad)

August 20, 2009