Tue | Aug 22, 2017

Prison gift unacceptable

Published:Saturday | October 3, 2015 | 10:00 AM

THE EDITOR, Sir:

On his recent visit to Jamaica, David Cameron dared to tell Jamaicans to forget about slavery for, after all, Britain subsequently led the way to its abolition after they had extracted enough of the Caribbean's wealth coupled with our forefathers' labour to add to their nation's coffers.

Let it be clearly understood that I believe we should move on with our lives, not allowing the shadow of slavery to negatively affect our brilliant future, but it is not the prime minister's role to tell us so to do.

It seemed evident that Britain does not want to pay reparation for slavery, and from where I sit, there are more questions than answers regarding reparations. What would the money be used for? Will they find consensus to determine that, or will it still leave some people dissatisfied? Will it really assuage the black race of its often-overlooked status? Will it remove the sadness one feels when blacks today are still exposed to racism?

The British prime minister's gift to Jamaica of a state-of-the-art prison - not for Jamaican citizens, but, for British 'rejects' [for want of a better word - is unacceptable and is nothing short of a double standard. How so?

problem remains

When a nation issues a visa to a person of another nationality, and if the person violates the law of the land, the host country, in my opinion, can deport him/her back to his country of origin. However, when a nation offers a person citizenship and makes use of his/her gifts and abilities to the benefit of the nation, and the naturalised

citizen afterwards contravenes the laws, the problem remains the responsibility of that country in which the person is a citizen. They should now expose him/her to the full gamut of the law within the said country where he/she has his/her citizenship.

How will Britain determine who will serve their sentences in Jamaica? Does Jamaica have any input in the matter? In the past, the United States repatriated

persons to Jamaica who were born in that nation to Jamaican parents, but having committed an offence the offender was

suddenly not treated as a citizen of that nation, but of Jamaica.

Did our Government ascertain whose fiscal responsibility it would be to maintain the incarcerated? Where will they live after they have served their sentence? Will England accept them again as worthy citizens of their pure country?

Lord, help us! Why are we so eager to accept anything and everything from foreign? Is it too late to say no?

OUIDA WILLIAMS

deanouida@gmail.com