Wired868 Wired868 for smart sport news and opinion
“[…] We should ask ourselves, ‘what would compel a mother to embark on a treacherous and uncertain seven-mile journey with her young child?’ They are human, not faceless migrants/refugees. This simple fact seemed to have been forgotten and disregarded by the authorities…”
The following Letter to the Editor on Trinidad and Tobago’s treatment of Venezuelan migrants was submitted to Wired868 by UK-based international criminal lawyer Ula Nathai-Lutchman and attorney Davina Inalsingh:
The deportation of 27 Venezuelans is one of many ‘heart-breaking’ migrant cases. It was a tremendous risk for the women and children to make the risky crossing illegally into Trinidad.
We should ask ourselves, ‘what would compel a mother to embark on a treacherous and uncertain seven-mile journey with her young child?’
They are human, not faceless migrants/refugees. This simple fact seemed to have been forgotten and disregarded by the authorities. They were subjected to ‘dehumanised’ treatment. For a four-month old baby to be treated in that manner could be seen as inhumane and unduly harsh.
It is regrettable that the authorities chose to ignore the state’s obligations, in a way that is incompatible with International Human Rights standards. The state must change its policies by humanising migrants/refugees. If not, the bleak reality is the appalling tragedy that will unfold in future crossings of the seven-mile stretch of dangerous waters into Trinidad.
The state should take no comfort that first world countries have adopted a similar stance towards desperate people fleeing human rights atrocities. Venezuela falls within one of the worst migration/refugee crises the world has faced; around 4.3 million in August 2019 (UNHCR).
As a host country, Trinidad and Tobago has made some commendable efforts to give protection and assistance to refugees and migrants in the past. That said, the saga of these 27 women and young children being deported put our country on a shameful list to the crisis in Venezuela.
Trinidad and Tobago is party to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol, which was acceded to in November 2000. The consequence being, that we, as a nation, are obliged to fully protect the rights of those in need of International Protection. To do otherwise, implies a Breach of International Law.
Despite not yet adopting national legislation to guide its treatment of migrants/refugees in need of international protection, it is a rule of customary international law, that a state may not invoke the provisions of its internal law (Immigration Act of 1976 for illegal entry), or lack thereof, to justify its failure to uphold the terms of a treaty.
It has been said, ‘you can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him’. So too, you can judge a nation in the same way.
“[…] The 1990 coup demonstrated that unchecked religious freedom and extreme religious ideologies can pose a direct threat to democracy Read more
“[…] Let us be clear: the perpetrators of July 1990 were not patriots. The true patriots defended the Constitution and Read more
“[…] Almost daily, the discourse has been filled with opinions on Cepep and Cepep workers: UNC/PNM supporters, radio commentators and Read more
“[…] Social capital trumps educational capital every time. In Trinidad and Tobago’s business and politics, social capital—your surname, your old boys’ Read more
“[…] Perhaps everyone, with the exception of members of the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS), recognises that declaring a Read more
“[…] The officers (in the Belmont incident) wore no uniforms, bore no visible badges, and allegedly seem to give no Read more
Want to share your thoughts with Wired868? Email us at editor@wired868.com.
Please keep your letter between 300 to 600 words and be sure to read it over first for typos and punctuation.
We don’t publish anonymously unless there is a good reason, such as an obvious threat of harassment or job loss.
It is so interesting how we see situations so differently depending on where we sit or the hats we wear.
In this case of these 2 UK-based Attorneys, it appears that they are focusing on the trees and not the forest.