The Tribune

“It remains to be said that the Bahamas government does not beat those in its custody. All detainees are treated with respect and in accordance with all applicable conventions and with human dignity and courtesy.”

– Minister of Immigration Fred Mitchell, responding to a video purporting to show Bahamian officers abusing Cuban immigrants.

By PACO NUNEZ

Tribune News Editor

pnunez@tribunemedia.net

HERE we go again. Another claim of beatings, torture, sub-human conditions at the Carmichael Road Immigration Detention Centre.

Another official denial by yet another administration. Another high profile anti-Bahamas protest on the streets of Miami.

This will undoubtedly be followed by more complaints from Human Rights Watch, another negative review by Amnesty International, angry letters from activists all over the world.

Not good for a country that survives by peddling an official image of a friendly island paradise to the outside world.

Nor does it matter that in this latest case, the outrage was sparked by what seems to be a sham video.

The Cuban-American community will not be inclined to give us the benefit of the doubt, particularly over what is just one in a long series of complaints about the Detention Centre.

Over the years, many of us have actually come to believe the myth that what the Bahamas offers as a destination is irresistible to the concrete-weary city dweller, but this simply isn’t the case.

And while economic constraints may be the number one deterrent to potential visitors, it is also true – maybe now more than ever before – that a destination’s reputation matters.

The trend used to be that Americans and Europeans travelled to see remote places, come into contact with exotic things.

Backward, even barbaric locales held a certain charm for the would-be adventurer.

But now, with the us-versus-them effect of the War on Terror, and the emergence of a internet-informed generation that militates against corruption, cronyism and human rights abuses both at home and abroad, the emphasis is much more on choosing destinations that are “Our kinda place”.

There is even an emerging social media culture pressing for the formal boycott of certain countries according to their official stance on particular issues – gay rights, gender equality, et cetera.

Instead of adapting in the face of these changes and working to prevent claims that the Bahamas mistreats the most vulnerable – economic refugees whose only crime was to leave home in search of a better life – our leaders have allowed the destructive cycle of accusation and denial to continue demeaning our name in the eyes of the world.

By adapting, I don’t mean organising another official tour of the Detention Centre, followed by another self-righteous speech about how nice we are to detainees, each other, and mankind in general.

I mean real action. I’m talking about mandatory staff rotations at the Detention Centre, compulsory sensitivity training for officers, CCTV throughout the facility, monitored by an outside agency.

I’m talking about an immigration oversight committee chaired by a member of the opposition, undercover officers tasked with collecting evidence of wrongdoing by their colleagues.

I’m talking about the ability to produce not just words, but real proof that our denials of abuse hold water.

Considering the proportion of Bahamian voters who depend on tourism for their living, you might imagine that taking decisive action on this issue, before the people stop coming, would be high on the list of priorities for any politician who wants to stay in power.

But this would be misreading the situation.

The hesitation by successive governments actually makes perfect sense if you understand one essential if uncomfortable fact.

It is that our official image, that welcoming smile we work so hard to sell to the world, is nothing more than a necessary illusion; a convenient but flagrant lie.

The truth behind the mask is that deep down, Bahamians just don’t like foreigners.

Most of us experience unease in the presence North Americans and Europeans, responding to them with a mixture of contempt and indifference, or else as if confronted by something strange, alien – almost unclean.

This attitude is typically embodied in a certain distrustful sideways glance, a defensive body language and tone of voice that can be seen on display every day on Bay Street, in the hotels, anywhere Bahamians are forced to interact with tourists – particularly in front of other Bahamians.

And to our Caribbean brothers and sisters – usually Haitians and to a lesser extent Jamaicans and Cubans – the posture is typically one of arrogant superiority if not outright hostility.

Of course this is a stereotype and doesn’t apply to all of us, or even any of us at all times. But the foreign-hater is one of the most prominent stock characters in the theatre of Bahamian society.

And yet, it’s not as if we’re some lost rainforest tribe or huddle of primitive desert nomads.

We live in the modern world, right in the middle of it, on the doorstep of a mighty and populous superpower, and in any given year more foreign than Bahamian feet touch our soil.

True, this fact alone can tend to cause a certain level of anger and resentment, particularly when the encounter highlights comparative economic disparities and divergent moral standards.

But dislike is one thing, disgust is something entirely different.

And it is especially strange considering that our private lives are completely saturated with American, Canadian, British culture in the form of music, television, fashion and food.

Meanwhile, we live cheek by jowl with tens of thousands of Haitians, and all of us know several Haitian people well enough to be aware of their individuality and humanity, to know they aren’t “all like” anything.

But the anti-foreign attitude persists, because it isn’t a rational response to experience but rather a political construct, an ideology.

Born out of a politically useful emphasis on certain truths about the Colonial Bahamas, this attitude has taken on a life of its own over the years and has developed consequences far past what its inventors foresaw or intended.

No longer is it a tool in the hands of the savvy politician; it has become a monster he must serve. A carnivorous beast he must feed or become its next victim.

So nowadays, even as he smiles for the tourist brochures and allocates millions to marketing the Bahamas as a friendly destination, no politician is willing to jail a Bahamian for harming invasive, inferior Caribbean people; or to be caught catering to the whims of so treacherous and unfamiliar an organisation as Amnesty International. That would be political suicide around here.

But it is impossible to continue serving both these masters, and the difference between our private and public image is slowly being found out.

Somebody has to break the cycle, and it seems to me that our current Minister of Immigration, Fred Mitchell, has been presented with a golden opportunity.

This is because under the former government, a comprehensive report on conditions inside the Detention Centre was commissioned and produced, but then never released.

Of course, the then minister, Branville McCartney, assured the public that the study turned up no evidence of beatings, physical or sexual abuse.

But there was something in that report, something that made Mr McCartney and his colleagues uncomfortable – so much so that they repeatedly refused to release it despite persistent calls from pressure groups and members of the public.

As the man in charge now, Mr Mitchell undoubtedly has access to the report.

Were he to reveal its contents, he could begin a process that leads to real and lasting change at the Detention Centre and throughout our culture of immigration enforcement in general – a process that, who knows, might even prompt us to ask some probing questions about ourselves as a people and make this a better society for it.

Best of all from his perspective, because the report covers a period when his party was not in office, Mr Mitchell would be able to shine a light on the truth without any of the mud sticking to him: “Look how the FNM managed the Detention Centre. Look at the international ridicule they exposed us to,” et cetera,

Then, on the politically-useful pretext of cleaning up the FNM’s mess, the government could have the necessary changes made to turn the Detention Centre into a properly run, humane and transparent operation.

And the next time someone makes a claim about how we treat illegal immigrants, we won’t have to just hope they believe our unsubstantiated denials.

But information is a funny thing. The trajectory of its impact often depends on who presents it and how.

If any of the ministry staff who currently have access to the report, or any of the researchers who helped compile it – or, for that matter, any of the secretaries, research assistants, et cetera who helped produce the final draft – were to beat Mr Mitchell to the chase, it may end up being the minister who finds himself holding the bag.

What do you think?

Email questions or comments to pnunez@tribunemedia.net, or join the conversation at http://www.tribune242.com/news/opinion/insight/