LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Visa for Caymanians, neither principle nor reason

Friday,  December 2, 2005

Dear Sir,    

The recent announcement by the Jamaican Government that Caymanians will require Visas to visit Jamaica represents a major deterioration in Jamaican/Caymanian relations that I warned against in my letter (published in your newspaper some three weeks ago) if the emotional frenzy was not checked.

Clearly, that frenzy has now affected the thinking of the Jamaican Government which has succumbed to pressure from the baying mob. If the original intention of the Jamaican Prime Minister was to improve the situation of Jamaicans in Cayman, there can be very little doubt that this latest action will achieve the exact opposite. I say this, not with any satisfaction, but with sadness and dismay as my wife is Jamaican.

Our local press must share in the responsibility for this deterioration as the manner in which the Cayman Visa requirement was portrayed was unduly negative and it apparently encouraged letter writers with extreme views.

My own letter (mentioned above) which acknowledged the genuine crime prevention need for the Visa, spoke to appreciation of the great majority of Jamaicans, our common interest in filtering out the criminal element whatever the country of origin and speaking kind rather than harsh words was refused publication by the Caymanian Compass without explanation.

It is ironic that that newspaper is now decrying “censorship” in relation to films to be shown at the cinema. Apparently, the thinking is that you should be free to express your opinion so long as it serves their agenda, but not otherwise.

At least the Cayman Net News, notwithstanding its own views, allowed both sides to be heard.

What has been missing from any media commentary is the fact that Jamaica itself has recently imposed Visa restrictions for citizens of Colombia and Haiti on the basis that these are “high-risk countries”.

Of course no one has shouted “discrimination!” in those cases, or queried what percentage of the prison population in Jamaica is from each of those countries, or enquired whether there was negotiation with the governments of these countries. It has simply been assumed that Jamaica has a legitimate interest to protect its borders in whatever manner it sees fit.

The Visa restriction against Caymanians obviously has neither principle nor reason to support it. It can hardly be suggested that there is a genuine interest in protecting the Jamaican borders against Caymanians.

There is no evidence that Caymanians have contributed to Jamaica’s staggering violent crime rate – about 1,500 murders for 2005 so far, or that they overstay their leave to remain within that Island. It is now evident that it was correct to have interpreted the comments of the Jamaican Prime Minister to the Cayman Chamber of Commerce as a threat, and one which has now been carried out.

Contrary to the suggestion by the Honorary Jamaican Consul, it manifestly has nothing to do with a Visa Abolition Act as Visas have not been imposed for other countries and territories which have Visa restrictions in respect of Jamaicans e.g. the United Kingdom, Canada, Bermuda, Anguilla (all parts of the British Commonwealth) or the United States on the basis of reciprocity. Indeed an editorial in the Jamaica Gleaner on 1 November mocked the threat of the Jamaican Prime Minister as a bluff on the basis that would be practically impossible to apply Visa restrictions against all countries which have imposed Visas for Jamaicans.

Imposition of the Jamaican Visa also belies the suggestion that the real concern was impairment of the close relationship between sister countries; rather, the Cayman Visa requirement was taken as an offence to the national pride of a country which had related to Cayman merely as a former dependency and therefore seeks to put “this tiny dot” back into its ‘proper place’ regardless of the consequences to Jamaican/ Caymanian relations.

It is families like mine with a Jamaican and a Caymanian spouse that will be most affected by what appears to be a vindictive reaction.

It also comes at a time when the Cayman Government had offered to send a team to Jamaica to discuss the working of the Cayman Visa and other concerns. The members of such a team would themselves now require Jamaican Visas for the purpose of such a meeting. This may well be interpreted as a rebuff to the Cayman Government.

What adds to the difficulty of this situation for the Jamaican Government is that all Caymanians are British Citizens and entitled to British Passports.

Jamaica has not imposed Visa restrictions against British Citizens and to do so only for those British Citizens which were born in a certain country outside the United Kingdom would be insupportable in International Law and in fact racist.

It will be instructive to see whether the letter writers who have been wailing “discrimination!” will now, with equal passion, correctly apply that term, or whether the close affinity they say they have felt for Cayman was a mere subterfuge to cover feelings of entitlement to free access.

To the Cayman Government, I say “Stay the course and do not capitulate to bullying tactics. Principle and right are on your side. It is time to pursue the possibility of regular visits to Cayman by the U.S. Consul”.

To my fellow Caymanians, “Do not yield to the temptation to repay evil with evil, but instead speak peace and live it”.

To the Jamaican Government, I echo the advice offered in the editorial of the Jamaica Gleaner: “(your) interest would be better served if the Prime Minister devoted his time and energy to fixing those problems which are triggering more and more visa restrictions against Jamaicans than [pursuing] reciprocation”. 

Yours for a better Cayman, 

Olivaire Watler
Attorney-at-Law.

   Back...