‘Van Gent-motion is political opportunism’

KRALENDIJK — The Van Gent-motion for an inquiry into the homo-emancipation in the Antilles and on Aruba, which a large majority of the Lower Chamber had adopted last week, is only ‘political opportunism’.

online casino

Jeffrey Levenstone (UPB) writes this in a reaction. "As none other, Ineke van Gent (GroenLinks) is aware that the ‘homo-issue’ is a particularly sensitive matter in the Netherlands now and that few would vote against the motion. Of course, she also knows that the feeling of the average Dutch citizen in relation to the Antillean in general, also through the agency of a small group of nuisance provokers and unilateral media policy, is currently not positive, and she set about it cleverly. Van Gent tries to draw the attention of the general public in the Netherlands and does such by trampling on the residents of the BES-Islands in particular" according to Levenstone. He had expected such an action from more populist, right winged politicians, but not from a party such as GroenLinks. "I therefore wonder why the number 19 on the list, Nadya van Putten –Aruban by birth– is not interfering in this discussion." Furthermore, Levenstone provides Van Gent with a ‘crash course on BES’: the times when people were excluded purely based on their sexual nature, have also changed on the islands. For example, that appears from the fact that many homosexuals hold high positions and transsexuals simply serve your drinks on any terrace in Bonaire, Levenstone writes. The phenomenon known in the Netherlands as ‘gay-bashers’, does not exist on the islands. "The fierce reactions from the West on the Van Gent-amendment are roused due to the hardly charming manner in which it was shoved down our throat and not because we have something against homo’s. I’m sure there are homosexuals that have not revealed themselves yet, but in my opinion, this rather regards the small-scaled situation coupled with the social control, than anything else."