THE SENTIMENTS THAT will be expressed in this article are not new and it is quite sad that I am forced to return to this issue on account of yet another scandal which has been perpetrated by our authorities in pursuit of their mandate to keep Barbados secure.
The issue to which I refer has been pronounced upon by the authorities and unsurprisingly they believe that everything was done correctly. These comments are, however, directed to the human side of things and will also be critical of the regulatory infrastructure within which CARICOM Immigration officials operate.
Some weeks ago, I shared a forum with CARICOM Ambassador Robert Morris who argued that the objectives of “hassle free” travel are met on most occasions when our brothers and sisters come to visit us and suggested that the “data” would support his contention. I have subsequently seen some of his data and I am comfortable with the argument that the vast majority of travellers do have pleasant experiences here. I, however, reject the suggestion that one can quantify “hassle” statistically since we all have different ideas about what constitutes “hassle”.
In this regard, my mind is taken back to the discussion around the Myrie incident when our Prime Minister spent considerable time explaining his conception of “hassle” which amounted to his being forced to remove his shoes in the United States on one occasion. As is often the case, he missed the more salient point that Myrie was hassled and indeed assaulted if we are to take the opinion of the CCJ.
In fairness, these issues arise because our authorities are given instructions which would lead them to categorise Myrie and this more recent traveller as unwanted persons. In opposition to this view, I will continue to contend that free movement is a fundamental cornerstone of the Single Market and Economy.
As such, travellers from CARICOM countries who are not obvious threats to national security based on their past actions should not attract the interest of our authorities beyond the length of time it takes them to verify the authenticity of their travel documents. This more enlightened approach is not one that any single immigration officer can adopt on their own but must come from their superiors who at this time are entirely too suspicious of these types of visitors.
Notwithstanding the foregoing difference of opinion, there is also another aspect of this issue that is more troubling and it relates to the manner in which the child is said to have been treated. Certainly, one can argue that the mother might have “sinned” with regard to her lack of status in the country from which she arrived. There is; however, no good reason why the sins of the mother needed to be visited upon her infant.
If the reports of the manner in which the child was forced to remain for several hours are true, the officer and indeed his superior should perhaps reflect long and hard on their conception of the obligations that humanity ought to impose. As a Barbadian, I am disturbed (yet again) that this supposedly Christian society is so quick to abandon human values in pursuit of a warped conception of who is an unwanted person and as I have said in a previous article on this subject we need to reflect Hebrews 13:1-2.
As was the case with Myrie, this Jamaican woman said she intends to sue and regardless of whether this comes to fruition the incident happens in the wake of mass deportations (returns) from Trinidad some months ago which raised concern in Jamaica and prompted an apparent boycott.
On this occasion, there is little fear of a boycott since Jamaica buys precious little from us; however, these incidents once more highlight the need for a CARICOM Ombudsman who can investigate and respond to these issues.
Peter W. Wickham is a political consultant and a director of Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES). Email: [email protected]
