A most unfair designation

Jun 17, 2010 Editorial

The issue of human trafficking has reached a level that places this country in a most invidious position. It has the United States contending that Guyana is a haven for human traffickers given the huge presence of the Brazilians and the Venezuelans and the people from the hinterland in the city.
The suggestion is that the presence of these people in the city is due to human trafficking. Indeed many of these people leave where they reside in search of a better opportunity. They come to a perceived land of plenty, find that there is nothing that would immediately change their fortunes and so resort to any option that would provide them with a living.
Poverty is also a factor that influences certain behaviour. It is one of the things that force people to behave in a certain manner; it has been credited with leading some people into prostitution since they find that commercial sex is one of the easy ways to make money. This has been the case in this country for a number of years.
There is also the social side. In every country there are women who opt to cater to the tastes of some men. These are highly intelligent women who offer themselves as escorts and are prepared to take whatever relationship there is to another level.
Some women following hinterland mining camps and this has been the tradition for decades. These women, perhaps with some encouragement from friends and acquaintances at the outset, may opt to venture into the hinterland. No woman would advertise that she is going to sell her body so there is always the suspicion that the friend or acquaintance has trafficked this individual.
Surely, any investigator into the incidence of human trafficking must take these factors into consideration. No visiting American can conclude that every prostitute is a victim of human trafficking. Similarly, none can conclude that every person from hinterland Guyana is being trafficked. We do not make bold to speak for the Brazilians and the Venezuelans.
It is amazing that some countries with undue haste, try to label others. Guyana has not escaped the label. Indeed, every Guyanese was shocked, if not stunned, when the United States first placed Guyana on Tier Three of the Human trafficking Watch List. Indeed there were no laws to cater for human trafficking because it was not one of the features of national life.
Guyana, amidst criticisms of dancing to the American tune, hastened to pass laws. This country then qualified for ranking on Tier Two and there were smiles. It turns out that the Americans should never have focused on Guyana. But such is the fate of small countries that they must suffer at the whims and fancies of the big powers.
None of us can forget the Americans invading tiny Grenada because the Cubans had gone there to build an airstrip; Guyana still remembers the withholding because it dared question the Americans about the return of some criminal deportees. It is a case of Guyana having to accept what is hurled its way.
Children helping parents in the field, something, as Dr Roger Luncheon said, has been a cultural norm. The Americans who now threaten to penalize Guyana by withholding aid in certain areas are criticizing this. The very Americans, however, promote such behaviour on the grounds that children ought to be responsible.
The most horrendous reason for dubbing this country a haven for human trafficking is rooted in the small number of prosecutions. The laws are premised on the innocence of the suspect. For there to be a prosecution there must be hard evidence. Obviously, there is no hard evidence so there can be no prosecution unless the state wants to subvert the rights of the individual.
Should the government dictate to the courts and impose sentences under less than transparent means then the very United States would castigate Guyana. This must be a case of damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News