Jamaican Babies in Cayman

I have decided to stray a bit from the issue of press freedom in the Caribbean to draw attention to a tiny British colony in the Caribbean – the Cayman Islands.

I have been following developments in the territory more closely since the advent of Cayman NetNews and its attempt to function as an independent media enterprise in the midst of what appears to be an environment not conducive to such freedoms.

On October 2, 2007, a Jamaican woman called Shellesha Woodstock gave birth to a baby girl on board Cayman Airways Flight #600 en route to Jamaica as Caymanian authorities hustled, frantically, to ensure that the child was not born on Cayman soil.

Details of the attempt to get the woman out of Grand Cayman ought to have alerted human rights advocates to gross violations of the rights of the woman and her unborn child. But there have been few lines in the Jamaican press highlighting the issue and even fewer in the Caymanian media asking serious questions about the circumstances leading to what amounts to the ‘expulsion’ of Ms Woodstock in an advanced state of pregnancy.

Now comes news that yet another Jamaican woman, unidentified by officials, gave birth in the midst of desperate attempts to ensure that her twins were not born on Caymanian soil.

Caymanian health official, Lizzette Yearwood, is quoted in Cayman NetNews as saying the measure was necessary because “the level of expertise needed for the babies’ care is not locally available.”

One would therefore assume there has been a constant flow of Caymanian women to Jamaica seeking such care for their newborn. I would like to see the statistics. Surely, the same level of care sought for the Jamaican woman and her twins should be extended to Caymanian women.

Is it just me? Or is something very, very wrong with this picture?

How far can small-island parochialism go? How uncaring? How deadly can it become?

Those with a little knowledge of the Cayman Islands would know that it is Jamaicans who have helped, more than any other group including indigenous Caymanians, to develop the tiny British colony through their work in a wide range of fields – not the least being those jobs native Caymanians resisted doing in the early years.

Today, Jamaicans need a visa to enter Caymanian territory. In an inspired move, the former P.J. Patterson administration imposed Jamaica’s own visa regime on Caymanians wishing to visit the island.

It was unfortunate that the situation had to come to the stage of tit-for-tat diplomacy, but perfectly understandable that discrimination was met with firm action.

The same has not been true in the case of discriminatory immigration policies in Turks and Caicos, British Virgin Islands and Anguilla, where Jamaicans and Guyanese are not welcome.

How these countries remain evenly remotely associated with CARICOM is beyond me. Discriminatory immigration policies targeting Jamaicans and Guyanese deserve expulsion from the CARICOM circle.

To be fair to the Cayman Islands, they aren’t interested anyway, though they became an Associated CARICOM state in 1991. But what the hell are they all doing as part of the CARICOM process?

In any event, the Cayman Islands are one of the few countries in the world in which place of birth does not automatically signify citizenship or nationality.

The actions of the Caymanian authorities ought to be highlighted at the next CARICOM Inter-Sessional meeting of Heads with a view to securing the abolition of the current visa regime against Jamaicans. Same story for Turks and Caicos, BVI and Anguilla.

While I am on this subject I also want to ask the question: Why do Haitians still require visas to enter most CARICOM countries?

If we did not want Haitians among us, why were they invited to join CARICOM in the first place?

It is high time we get these anomalies out of the way. We are already seeing, courtesy the Cayman Islands, how callous and potentially deadly regional fiddling with an important issue can become.

Let us not let Guy down

New threats against Guy Delva in Haiti reinforce the fact that the situation remains dangerously tense in a country that has recently been through extremely difficult times.

Guy has been one of the most optimistic people about Haiti I have ever met. His work with SOS Journalistes and, before that, AJH, proves his credentials as a proud and committed Haitian journalist.

As a member of the regional journalistic community, through his affiliation with the Association of Caribbean MediaWorkers, he has helped us understand the challenges journalists face in Haiti.

I firmly believe the rest of CARICOM can do much, much more to assert itself as part of the solution in that country. The presence of a CARICOM Office there cannot, by itself, make a difference. The region has been there before and done that … to absolutely no effect. It has been a waste of time and money.

It has been a matter of years now since I wrote the CARICOM Secretary-General offering the services of a cadre of Caribbean journalists, many of them with language competencies, to work with regional officials on a way forward for Haitian journalism.

Our colleagues in Haiti, Guy included, have looked on in anticipation for far too long now.

It is utterly frustrating to some of us that the regional secretariat with a stated commitment to facilitating the flow of information amongst Caribbean people is yet to be convinced of the value of such an alliance.

It is true that we sometimes stand against the political stakeholders – as we certainly do at this time against the act of vengeance against Stabroek News in Guyana by the Jagdeo administration and as we have in several other Caribbean countries.

But this is no time for pettiness with regard to Haiti.

I met and spoke at length with Guy recently. His optimism and willingness to make a difference must not be in vain. Let us not let Guy and his people down.

MAKING OUR WAY IN THE WORLD

The Association of Caribbean MediaWorkers (ACM) has been able to keep the Caribbean firmly on the international press freedom agenda over the past six years of its existence.

I believe we have done so by capturing, in our own clumsy way, the vital connections between the work we do and the work left to be done by our societies.

This often means that the sounds of the street, the songs of the farmers, the cries of the higgler and the pain of our youth often enter the studio. Engaging the job as we have, invites dissonance and discomfort. It is both an inherent peril and a benefit of free expression.

The ACM is also, in another regard, singularly important as a Caribbean beacon. The recent meeting of Latin American and Caribbean press freedom agencies and international institutions covering the region, in Austin Texas, was one example of how ‘out of sight’ could so easily mean ‘out of mind’.

It was instructive that many delegates attended the meeting, as in the past, with a version of what comprises Latin America that excludes Caribbean islands states beyond Haiti and Cuba (and to a lesser extent, Puerto Rico).

It took my own intervention in Jordan a year and a half ago, at the first Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD) to impress upon participants, not only from Latin America, that while the Caribbean and its mainland neighbours might be friends and even brothers, but we are not the same person.

The distinction is not meaningful for jingoist purposes (though this is certainly the case in some Caribbean quarters) but as a means of capturing the nuances of a region whose cultural antecedents are so similar, but at the same time decidedly different from the Latin American experience. Indeed, the same would certainly hold between countries of South America. Argentina is not the same as Uruguay and even Colombia is not the same as Venezuela.

The Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas, led by Brazilian journalist and academic, Rosental Calmon Alves and based at the University of Texas at Austin, has made a critical and perhaps unprecedented difference in this matter.

The recent LATAM/Caribbean meeting of press freedom agencies, hosted by the Knight Center with support from the Open Society Institute, provided a meaningful forum for discussions on methods currently employed by the international organizations concerned with monitoring press freedom issues.

The English-speaking Caribbean stood out for the manner in which our experience showed that the silencing of journalists is not only a function of the assassin’s bullet or the kidnapper’s mask.

The Caribbean media are being slowly suffocated by political cultures, economic circumstance, social disabilities and official policies that scavenge on our misfortune as emerging nations that survive without enduring and ancient democratic and cultural habits.

The insidious nature of the assault and the fact that it is not readily recognised even by Caribbean journalists makes the task of the ACM even more difficult.

In the end, we may have to make it in the world on our own, but only if we choose to do so.

Press freedom and its parent, free expression, are absolutely essential for our survival as viable societies. There is no natural reason, inherent in the history of the world why we should exist on our own. That we speak of independence is a wonder. That we dare speak of achieving it is more.

Had we not already had the ACM in 2007, we would have had to invent one. Independence in the field of journalism is to be earned. There is no lottery here.

DEFAMATION LAWS

One encouraging sign from the new administration in Jamaica is the promise by Prime Minister Bruce Golding to reform existing defamation legislation.

Hopefully, the Caribbean journalistic community will monitor very closely the undertaking expressed during Golding's inaugural speech to: "review the libel and slander law to ensure that it cannot be used as a firewall to protect wrongdoers."

This brings some context to current difficulties being experienced by journalists in Grenada and Dominica who are now (if they were not before) acutely aware of the "firewall" impact of such legislation.

In the process of removing this impact of civil defamation, I hope in the future all governments move on to completely eliminate criminal libel.

CARICOM OR NO CARICOM?

THE CLOAK OF INTEGRATIONIST RHETORIC

Wesley Gibbings

One of the most important aspects of the CARICOM Single Market project is the fact that international convention and domestic legislation are meant to be supported by a philosophical commitment to broader social, economic and even political integration.

Even the protracted hangover produced by the failure of the political union of 1958-1962 was eventually overcome by a sense of overwhelming economic necessity and the slim prospect that survival through critical mass might somehow be achievable. This made believers out of many. The prospect of economic death is one helluva thing.

There is no doubt, there have been both the open and quiet non-believers in the CARICOM platform (though, not necessarily its goals) - Jamaica’s Edward Seaga and Trinidad and Tobago’s Basdeo Panday being the two most notorious over recent years.

“CARICOM,” the former Jamaica Prime Minister wrote in a newspaper column last December, “is likely … to face a slide, not a climb, in the future.”

Panday’s lethargic performances on the CARICOM stage and at wider hemispheric fora always had the potential to portend his eventual, hypocritical about-turn on the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) and his lack of commitment to an interactive, regional paradigm beyond 15,000 voters in the Couva North constituency.

Today, we are witnessing an equally disturbing trend which bears unfortunate witness to the claim that Trinidad and Tobago’s continued engagement in the single market process is entirely a function of enlightened self-interest. In this event, resort to law and convention and not to the philosophy of regional unity seems to suffice. It’s like the ‘work to rule’ strategies of trade unions made public policy.

This indeed is the product of Antigua and Barbuda’s official response to the expulsion of journalists Vernon Khelawan of Trinidad and Tobago and Lennox Linton of Dominica and the pronouncements of this country on the issue.

Continued reference to the ‘letter’ and not the ‘spirit’ of the regulatory provisions to facilitate the free movement of CARICOM nationals through the region is ample proof of a lack of political commitment.

What has been worse, in this particular instance, has been Trinidad and Tobago’s response to the expulsion of a national of this country from another nation whose leaders have time and again sounded the integration trumpet. Foreign Affairs Minister, Arnold Piggott, has responded by reference not to the ‘spirit’ of the free movement arrangements, as has Dominica Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit, but to the ‘letter’ of the law.

The best that Piggott has offered is the view that “there is the right of any immigration authorities in any country to deny entry, if they have good reason or if they grant entry to an individual and later decide otherwise, to revoke that entry.”

Skerrit, in contrasting style, immediately phoned his Antiguan counterpart and went on to publicly declare:

“We are hoping that agreements taken at the heads of government meeting when we head back to our respective countries we can in fact pass the required domestic legislation to give effect to it from a national standpoint, because people are already experiencing difficulties where we have agreed to proceed with the free movement, but there has not been a commitment in terms of our own legislation within the member states with respect to allowing for the free movement of persons.”

The entire scenario, is also, of course, in direct contravention of a 2006 CARICOM decision that where existing facilitative legislation does not exist, countries can exercise a regulatory prerogative to facilitate the entry of CARICOM citizens in the recognised work categories.

That neither Piggott nor CARICOM Ambassador, Jerry Narace, has prima facie given the benefit of considerable doubt to Khelawan might well be more a function of treasonous indifference than a lack of knowledge and commitment to single market aspirations. But their inaction contrasts sharply with Skerrit’s and, subsequently, Bharat Jagdeo’s vigorous defence of their nationals.

It is noteworthy, that at the last CARICOM Heads of Government Meeting in Barbados last week, Antigua and Barbuda was the only country that expressed reservations about a plan to introduce an automatic six-month stay provision for CARICOM nationals and said it would not immediately accept an expansion of the work categories to benefit from free movement.

To invoke the other, not unrelated issue, it is not that Antigua and Barbuda is any less committed to press freedom than the other countries in question. In Guyana, the Jagdeo administration is trying its best to bring the Stabroek News to financial ruin; in Dominica there is a looming broadcast code and in Trinidad and Tobago we have only for now beat back a proposed code that imposes new levels of official censorship.

The Khelawan/Linton issue has provided the entire region with an opportunity to see through the cloak of integrationist rhetoric. It is a phenomenon not unmitigated by the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas whose public service framers sensed, and therefore anticipated hypocrisy and impunity.

It is to our discredit that none of the countries party to this situation has at least subscribed to the role of the CCJ as a court of original jurisdiction on matters related to the Treaty. This way, Khelawan would have had the option of a binding response much more effective than the lame and disgraceful reactions we have witnessed from Knowsley up to now.

Thou Shalt Not Be A Hypocrite!

Now, read this editorial from the state-owned Guyana Chronicle. Good going, President Jagdeo (though you need to keep your word on the Stabroek News state advertising boycott). As for you, Prime Minister, Baldwin Spencer, your underwear is showing.

GUYANA, HOME of the CARICOM Secretariat, is clearly on the offensive to give more practical meaning to what is a most vital people-oriented issue---free intra-regional movement of nationals of our Community.


Having made quite an impressive impact at last week's 28th CARICOM Summit in Barbados with his criticisms against the continuing hassle and prejudices being experienced by Guyanese at some airports, such as Barbados and, to a lesser extent, Trinidad and Tobago, President Bharrat Jagdeo played an influential role in the significant decision for Community nationals to stay as long as six months on arrival in any member state.


While discussions were taking place over the recent expulsion of two regional journalists from Antigua and Barbuda, one of them armed with a valid CARICOM Skilled Nationals Certificate, and on wider concerns for expansion of categories for such certificates and more effective monitoring, President Jagdeo went public with his call for removal of existing discretionary powers of immigration officers in determining length of stay for nationals with valid passports.


Subsequently, on the final day of the Heads of Government Conference, the Communique released by the Community Secretariat was to announce the "agreement" reached--except for a "reservation" entered by Antigua and Barbuda--for all Community nationals to be "allowed an automatic six-month stay on arrival in another CARICOM member state".


This should prove quite a relief to Community nationals, and particularly Guyanese, Vincentians and Jamaicans, who have had harrowing experiences at some ports of entry for holiday or business, when confronted by unfriendly and even hostile immigration officers.


Anxious as he evidently is for this new six-month stay policy to be implemented, President Jagdeo has lost no time in announcing that Guyana would take the lead by making a reality of this significant development in intra-regional movement of nationals effective from this week.


The intention is for reciprocity for Guyanese by other CARICOM partners, consistent with the collective decision taken at the summit.


In the absence of details on the framework arrangement for enforcement of the six-month stay agreement, it is assumed that the Guyana Government would have in place the necessary regulations empowering immigration officers to automatically stamp "six months" in the passport of an arriving national from another CARICOM state.


The example given for this new policy is that of the United States of America where a common stamp is used to indicate a six-month stay, even if those arriving would be gone, in a matter of days, or weeks, back to their respective countries.


However, those on a "watch list" for security purposes, or who violate the laws of a CARICOM state by any criminal act, should not expect to benefit from this new umbrella arrangement for an automatic six-month stay on arrival.

MISLEADING LEADERS

CARICOM leaders clearly have a problem keeping their word, especially on matters related to the integration movement. Take the recent expulsion of Trinidad journalist, Vernon Khelawan and Dominican broadcaster, Lennox Linton from Antigua and Barbuda where they, without doubt, helped to add value to the media landscape there.

It is particularly irksome that at the time of these painful events, Prime Minister Baldwin Spencer was making preparations to put on the best regional face for George Dubya in Washington DC.

Had there not been a regional platform ie. CARICOM for him to make his grand stand, Antigua and Barbuda would not have enjoyed its few seconds in the American sun and the photo-op lapped up by the Antigua press would not have been possible.

I shall be following the upcoming CARICOM Summit very closely to hear what praises to the regional movement Mr Spencer makes.

I am also gravely disappointed that Trinidad and Tobago has abandoned Vernon Khelawan as a citizen against whom a great wrong has been inflicted. Nowhere has there been the urgency or pain as expressed by Dominican Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerritt following the expulsion of Lennox Linton.

Once again, Trinidad and Tobago has failed an overseas citizen.

I have not forgotten the manner in which appeals from my cousin, Richard, to Foreign Affairs Minister, Arnold Piggott, were absolutely ignored when my family thought the murder of Richard's son, Robert, was being covered up by Bermudian authorities last year.

A letter written by Richard to the Minister was neither privately nor publicly acknowledged. No political points at stake, I suppose.

Eternal vigilance remains the key.