Mourra et Siméus détiennent chacun un passeport américain

Post Reply

Mourra et Siméus détiennent chacun un passeport américain

Post by T-dodo » Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:29 pm

[quote]Samir Mourra et Dumarsais Siméus détiennent chacun un passeport américain
Source : Haiti Press Network, 8 novembre 2005

Les candidats à la présidence Dumarsais Siméus et Samir Mourra possèdent chacun un passeport américain. C'est qu'a fait savoir la commission d'état sur la vérification de la nationalité des candidats aux prochaines présidentielles et législatives haitiennes au conseil électoral provisoire. La dite commission a, dans une lettre, demandé au CEP de donner les suites nécessaires à ce dossier.[/quote]


Post by T-dodo » Tue Nov 08, 2005 9:06 pm

Responding to this report, Mourra made some statements that were broadscat on radio stations here in Miami. Among what he said, he declared not recognizing the authority of the commission, who is not constitutional, and that he never expressly renounced his haitian nationality and challenged someone to prove he did. He also pointed out that the commission, and his opponents, are using the constitution to bar him from running. However, according to him, there is no current constitutional order in Haiti. The"Accord du 4 Avril" is the only current order that exists in Haiti. Otherwise, none of those representing the government or the law would be functionning in the country.

His comments go to the heart of the arguments in favor or against the viability of the constitution. Everyone seems to use it when it serves their political ambitions, but ignores its existence whenever it goes against those same ambitions. While it is a worthwhile ob
jective to defend the constitution in a country where it has been useful, that is not the case in Haiti. When will it be? I honestly don't know. Some say you have to start at some point in time. I wholeheartedly agree with that argument, except that it is hard for someone like Aristide to be told that the best time to start is after the constitution did not serve to protect his government. It sounds too self-serving to those who think, now that their political ambitions are free of less obstacles, like Aristide, it is good for the country to start following the constitution.

That constitution is too wounded to be used as the basis of support for the future of a country. It has become an obstacle to progress in Haiti. The framers of that constitution lacked the foresight and integrity that were needed to protect it from smear tactics from ambitious politicians. Because of that, it has become the laughing stock of anyone that finds it in his way, such as reflected in the following statement: " Today,
the constitution of Haiti is working." It is a disservice to the country. It begs to question which one comes first, the constitution or law and order? We do know that the constitution cannot provide law and order, stability and prosperity for that matter. For eighteen years in Haiti it did not. If it cannot, why pretend?


Post by T-dodo » Wed Nov 09, 2005 9:58 pm

[quote]The constitution is the only thing that seems to stand so far. Everything else has failed. Agreed! [/quote]

No way! I did not get the part how did the constitution did not fail and still stand. It failed to protect a constitutionally elected government! In fact, there was a post I read on so many times when the constitution was not respected. If so, how can you say "it stands so far." I wish I could find it and give you the list. The constitution is as good as the people who want to respect it. Without that willingness of a people, it is useless. It is just ink on paper.


Post by T-dodo » Thu Nov 10, 2005 3:41 pm

[quote]A constitution is never an obstacle to progress, except when it is drafted by a megalomaniac dictator like Duvalier for example, or the military in oher countries. [/quote]


I wish I knew between Mourra, Preval, Bazin, Simeus, Baker, K-plim, etc which one might do the country well. I don't have a clue. Now, let's assume that in hindsight Mourra or Simeus was the Messiah who could have been the best president for Haiti and get it out of the hell hole we are now. Unless you can prove to me that a "diaspora" by acquiring the foreign nationality makes it impossible for him/her to serve the best interests of Haiti, it is possible that a haitian of the diaspora just could be the person, among others, able to be Haiti's best president. If so, the constitution would have prevented that Messiah to benefit the country. From that standpoint, the constitution is an obstacle to progress.

uote="Serge"]We should not forget that this Constitution was written at a particular historical moment, at a time when the focus was on preventing certain events from occurring again in Haiti. [/quote]

The U.S. Constitution includes many articles reflecting the times it was written in, least of which are rights to bear arms, quartering soldiers in private homes, and the threat of a return of British rule. Despite the fact that many of the U.S. constituion's framers, including Jefferson who own slaves, they specifically remained mute on the slavery issue because it would have been too self-serving for inclusion in the constitution. Its framers did not do like the haitian ones did by conspiring to include anti-competitive articles that promote only the personal political fortunes of those who wrote it.

In writing a constitution for a country, the framers must put the country's long term interests ahead of their personal ones. A constitution must be built on principles and
the framers must display a certain altruism. That was not present in that process in arriving at a consensus on it. The articles barring the diaspora were not intended to prevent Jean-Claude Duvalier from running again. Under the current articles, my guess is Jean-Claude still can run after five years in the country if he returns today, keeps himself out of jail or away from assassins or descendants of his enemies' bullets.

The articles were there only to eliminate competition from local politicians, like it is happening now, without regards that an outsider may be the country's only hope. By including those anti-competitive articles, they corrupted anything else good in it. The constitution lost its credibility. The articles 16, 135 and others are like rotten oranges in a basket of healthy oranges.


Post by T-dodo » Thu Nov 10, 2005 4:03 pm

[quote]The constitution didn't fail to protect the elected goverment. "We'' failed to apply the guiding principles . Yes it was not repected but the fact of the matter is that we are still using it. It's been standing for the past 18 years [a revolution by Haiti standards]. No one dares to eliminate it nor replace it by another.[/quote]


Standing for me means it served its purpose. I don't get your vision of it as a museum piece (my choice of words) which is what it becomes when it is no longer the guiding principle of Haitian political life. What is standing now in Haiti is "l'accord du 4 Avril." It is the one that is the guiding principle for who is Prime Minister, etc. I can't see how the constituion and l'accord du 4 Avril be standing together when both of them are mutually exclusive.


Post by T-dodo » Fri Nov 11, 2005 7:27 am

[quote]I profoundly deplore for example the decision of the Cour de Cassation giving Siméus a victory, but in the process, a terrible precedent was created, for it violated the Constitution.[/quote]


This is plain wrong! The decision of the Cour de Cassation did not overrule the constitution. Correct me, if I am wrong. From what I understood, it just said that the CEP did not make its case in proving that Simeus had double nationality and that he renounced his haitian citizenship and have not lived in Haiti for the past five years. That is totally different than the Court saying that you cannot bar him just because he is a US citizen. The CEP still has to prove that he is all the things the constitution prohibits.

To me it is the equivalent of someone committing a crime and the district attorney unable to provide evidence to the Court that he committed it, even though he did. If the gover
nment, in that case of the CEP, cannot prove it, the Cour de Cassation cannot rule he is guilty. It would have had no basis for doing it. You are innocent until proven guilty!

Serge, you have been in the USA for sometime now. You have been at least exposed to how a court system should pretend to work. It is not by rumors, innuendos, outrageous accusions, and pure backstabbing like things are done in Haiti. I am not saying that it is perfect, far from that, witness the death penalty cases, defendants with lots of money, judges succombing to political pressures etc. I thought the Cour de Cassation ruling narrowed only on the Simeus case and the lack of evidence provided by the CEP that he violated the constitution. The CEP has duty and responsibility to prove his case. That is not the duty of the Court. Couldn't the CEP have provided copy of his passport, evidence that he did not pay impot locatif or rent in Haiti in the past five years, or that he did not pay telephone, electricity bills, or something
of that sort which establishes residence, it could have been a different thing to me. I am speculating here since I did not see the court files that the Cour de Cassation pronounced itself on, but it is what I understand. You made a claim that the Court refused to hear the side of the CEP, but you did not provide any proof of it and the press reports did not either.

That is perhaps why one of the CEP member, I think Fequiere, made a distinction yesterday between the Simeus case and the Mourra case, when he criticized the president of the CEP for sending denial letters to Simeus without consulting with the other members. Fequière stated he does not have an objection for the Mourra case because Mourra did not benefit from a decision of the Cour de Cassation. If it was true that the decision established a precedent, like you said, Fequière could not have made that distinction between the Mourra case and the Simeus case. Mourra would have automatically been treated the same way as Simeus.

[quote]First of all, I think that your emphasis on a "diaspo" acquiring a foreign nationality or not is not necessary, for the simple reason that a Haitian having acquired a foreign nationality is not automatically excluded from helping the country. In fact, very often, he or she can be more effective by being outside of the political arena, being subjected to less bureaucracy and sensitivities which might otherwise hinder his or her actions.[/quote]


That is your opinion as to how Serge should act in life. You cannot make that same decision for Simeus or Mourra or me for that matter. I don't know Simeus or Mourra. I can't seat in front of my computer and decide that here are their talents and this is how they can better use them. This is their personal opinion, and it may be pretentious to want to dictate to them how they should conduct their lives, unless they are breaking the laws. If they are, let the experts like the Cour de Cassation and the lower Courts dec
ide that based on the documents and evidence presented to them under juridical procedures, and based on their formal education and experience as jurists, which we are not.

[quote]I repeat it, I do not have anything against Siméus, but whether we like it or not, the law is the law.[/quote]

You said the law is the law at the same time you are advocating violating it yourself by not respecting the decision of the Cour de Cassation. Correct if I am wrong, the law says that the Cour de cassation should be the final arbiter on the interpretation of the constitution. Why can't you follow that? That is the problem with Haiti. The same people who accuse others of violating the laws violate another law when it serves his purpose.

The beauty of the laws is when you have a case like the 2000 elections in the USA and you are a Gore supporter. The Supreme Court decided that Bush won. Even though you don't like the decision since your candidate did not win, but you abide
by the decision of the Supreme Court because of the respect of the law. The laws are not there only when they serve your purposes. They are working fine also when the decision is not the one you wanted. The reason is because they serve the higher purpose of benefiting the whole society in the aggregate. You would say to me that you stated in that same post that you would respect the Cour de Cassation decision. But your contempt for it is contradictory.

[quote]Siméus may have won the battle, but he will lose the war and all of us in the diaspora have been hurt because of him, for, this situation is contributing to pitting Haitians "lòt bò dlo" versus Haitians "lakay", another stupid division which we do not need, given the enormous weight, importance and potential of the Haitian diaspora for Haiti's development. [/quote]

You are wrong again there. First of all, including the last denial letter and threat of criminal prosecution sent by the president of the CEP t
o Simeus this week, there is nothing that says he will be among the candidates on elections day. Even if he is there, he is so wounded and out of focus with this sordid affair, it is virtually impossible to conduct a successful campaign with that kind of distraction. Those who practice competition by destruction are the only winners here, with Haiti the usual and perennial loser. Second, "diaspo" was a pejorative word in Haiti long before Simeus got into this campaign. It goes to explain why our country is where it is today. The people cannot make the difference between what is good and bad for them. Their emotions always overwhelm the better of them. While they know how important the "diaspo" is to them personally and the country, they continue to bite the hands that feed them. Even infants understand that concept by developing a trust for their parents.

[quote]May I remind you again that a draft amendment to the Constitution had been submitted by the last Lavalas Parliament for acc
eptance of dual nationality and it would have been approved by the nex Parliament. Now who knows?[/quote]

From reports, I read before, there were criticisms that Aristide did not fight hard enough to enact them. Having written a draft in politics does not mean willingness to implement.

Serge, I am still your friend and have a lot of respect for you. But, I disagree with you on these issues and their interpretations.


Post by T-dodo » Fri Nov 11, 2005 7:35 am

[quote]I think you got it all wrong. There is no comparison whatsoever between the haitian constitution greatly approved by the people of Haiti and the " April 4th accord' which is simply an agreement between a few politicians. They can't be equated.[/quote]


I was not comparing the merits of one versus the other. I was just telling you the reality of Haiti today. Haiti is not ruled by the constitution today, it is ruled by the Accord du 4 Avril. There is no constitutional government in Haiti today. You don't want me to go and try to inform you that the constitutional government is in a forced exile. Its Prime Minister is in jail, etc..., do you? What you have is a country being governed by a group of people with no official popular mandate, but the strong armed force of foreign powers. You misunderstood my point.

Post Reply