Sovereignty, laws and respect for Guyanese

Oct 18, 2013 Editorial

---

 
The Barbados Nation reported yesterday that the island’s Prime Minister, Freundel Stuart, met with Immigration officers at Grantley Adams International Airport on Wednesday, in the wake of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ)’s ruling in favour of Jamaican Shanique Myrie.
The publication noted that although no details were released, it was understood that the three-hour meeting dealt with a number of immigration matters, while a variety of questions were fielded by the Prime Minister.
The article concluded with mention of the fact that “it was only last week that Stuart, at a constituency meeting at Hilda Skeene Primary School, St Philip, told Immigration officers not to allow the ruling to prevent them from protecting the national security of Barbados”.
That statement should induce some measure of serious reflection among Guyanese, since despite the fact that it was a Jamaican who succeeded in proving her case of being ill-treated, discriminated against and physically intimidated and humiliated, the hammer is likely to fall on the droves of our citizens who, despite stories of abhorrent treatment by the authorities in Barbados, continue to flock the 166-square mile island.
It should be noted that on Monday night last (October 14) in voicing concern about the implications of the recent ruling, Stuart asserted that “an automatic six-month stay for Caribbean Community (Caricom) nationals visiting Barbados would attract the unemployed and criminals”.
In a message to Customs, Immigration and Police officers, Stuart said they should not interpret the Court’s reference to “hassle-free” travel in Caricom so loosely “…that people can walk through the airport without anybody asking them anything for fear of being sued.”
Given the documented history of confrontation between Guyanese visitors and the Barbadian immigration authorities, these utterances, though admittedly coming from the mouth of the leader of a sovereign nation, may very well be a precursor to an imminent period of increased entry refusals and a possible crackdown, similar to 2009, when relations between Barbados and Guyana were not necessarily cordial, as a result of blatant disregard shown for Guyanese.
The immigration policy then, which saw the enforced deportation of Guyanese from the island under a David Thompson-led administration, obviously left a bad taste in the mouths of those among us who went to Barbados on vacation, to study, or in some cases conduct business, and were treated with disdain.
Thompson had stated then that, “There is a growing problem of undocumented, illegal and unchecked migration in Barbados and this government will effect policies to contain, manage and curtail this trend before it gets out of control and does irreparable harm to the social, cultural and economic fabric of Barbados”.
He had insisted, after a region-wide outcry, that the related legislation wasn’t aimed at Guyanese in particular, but that this country’s citizens were more likely to be affected by it, because of their large numbers in comparison to those from other territories who were illegal.
It was obvious that the intense external pressure had, if not embarrassed the PM, led to a seemingly uncomfortable state of contrition for the apparent mistreatment of citizens of a sister Caricom Member State that unreservedly opens its arms to receive visitors.
When Thompson died in October 2010, his successor (Stuart) promised that, “Upon my shoulders have now devolved the responsibility of leading the struggle in pursuit of those ideals, for which he (Thompson) stood”.
This was an unequivocal endorsement by Stuart, and pledge to continue his predecessor’s pursuits and/or policies.
We must be pellucid in stating that while it is currently only an assumption that the fallout from the Myrie ruling could significantly impact on our citizens when travelling to Barbados, we believe it is incumbent upon our administration to use diplomatic channels to have their Bajan counterparts provide a complete and unambiguous understanding of that which is now permissible in terms of entry requirements. That information must then be promptly passed on to our citizens.
In short, Guyanese travelling to Barbados should have a fair degree of confidence that they are adequately informed and well-equipped when presenting themselves at that port of entry. Over the years there have been Guyanese, particularly females, who may possibly have been subjected to treatment similar to that experienced by Shanique Myrie, but the level of support they received was either negligible or not encouraging enough to pursue legal action.
Without question Barbados’ sovereignty and laws must be respected, but so too our citizens. Let us not be caught napping.

 

 

---

---