PHILIPSBURG — Member of Parliament Ardwell Irion went too far when he labeled attorney Jairo Bloem as “a desperate man” who was only interested in promoting himself as the ideal candidate for the position of chairman of the supervisory board of the Central Bank of Curacao and St. Maarten (CBCS). Bloem took the National Alliance-parliamentarian to court and obtained a verdict: Irion has to rectify contested statements on the website of The Peoples Tribune and pay close to 1,700 Caribbean Guilders (almost $950) for the cost of the procedure.
Irion’s contested statements appeared on The Peoples Tribune on September 30, 2025. Bloem had been approached for the function of chairman of the supervisory board of the CBCS. His candidacy created some uproar when this became public. Bloem reacted with a radio-interview with Lady Grace and Irion reacted with an interview of his own and an interview with The Peoples Tribune, a new digital news platform on St. Maarten.
The Court in First Instance had to weigh Bloem’s interest in privacy against Irion’s right to freedom of expression. The court’s conclusion was favorable for Bloem, even though Irion stated that Bloem’s candidacy was not the real problem; instead, he pointed to the selection method the government had used.
The court ruled however that Irion’s statements did concern the person of Bloem. “The court regrets the statements made by Irion because publicly attacking people is not a core task of a member of parliament. Irion should have shown more restraint.”
Even if Bloem had presented himself in a (contested) private meeting with Irion as the right man for the position, describing him as “desperate” and “self-promoting” goes too far, the court concluded.
In his interview with The Peoples Tribune, Irion stated that concerns about Bloem’s suitability were not new. He referred to the fact that utilities company Gebe had hired Bloem for legal assistance and that there was internal criticism of his invoices, that were described as excessively high. Bloem countered that these invoices had always been quickly approved by the chairman of Gebe’s supervisory board.
Irion furthermore mentioned a one-on-one meeting with Bloem whereby the attorney allegedly had said that only he could save the CBCS. Irion described this attitude as “desperation,” adding for good measure: “It only deepens the question of what is driving such urgency.”
The rectification Irion was ordered to publish on The Peoples Tribune contains the line: “I wrongly portrayed Mr. Bloem as a desperate man who was only interested in self-promotion for the position of chairman of the board of directors of the CBCS.”
The rectification also states that Irion wrongly stated that Bloem had admitted that he had submitted excessive invoices to Gebe.
###
Free Speech
By Hilbert Haar
I am a staunch supporter of the right to freedom of expression. People must be free to express their opinions and their feelings without fear for prosecution. But free speech is not absolute, everybody with half a brain ought to know that.
Let’s take a simple example. You can call anybody in public a liar, but only if you can back up such an allegation with irrefutable proof. If you do not have that proof then you are damaging someone’s reputation for no reason and you are liable.
Politicians have a special place in the free speech-universe because they can say in meetings of parliament anything they like. They will never be dragged into court for saying that so-and-so is (for instance) a pedophile or a rapist. But once they are outside of the parliament-meeting everything changes: then, they are liable for making such offensive statements just like everybody else.
So politicians who give interviews to a media-outlet have to make sure they have all their ducks in a row when they make inflammatory accusations. Insulting someone in that environment is tricky business.
I read somewhere that the Bloem versus Irion verdict somehow limits freedom of speech. I respectfully disagree because freedom of speech has always been limited by law. In this context it is interesting to see how people throw all kinds of names at the current president of the United States. He has been called a moron, an idiot, a fascist and the worst thing that ever happened to that country.
I totally agree with almost all of these (dis)qualifications but at the same time I wonder whether it is appropriate to call the guy all kinds of names. Even though it is clear that he is a disaster to his own country and to the world at large.
If anyone dared to give the same treatment to our Prime Minister Luc Mercelina, he or she would not stand a chance in court.
It is of course easy to disagree with politicians and that is okay. What matters is how you express your disagreement, or your frustration with certain decisions.
Agree to disagree, as the old saying goes but for heaven’s sake, stick to statements that you can back up with irrefutable facts. And most of all: be careful with the words you use once you have left the parliament-meeting.
###
ADVERTISEMENT
