The Tribune

By Malcolm Strachan

IT HAS BEEN a strange couple of weeks in politics.

The fevered reaction to the Smuggling of Migrants bill erupts at the same time of year as when we honour a travelling family who could find no room at the inn. Unfortunately, much of the response to the migrant bill seemed to be rooted in stoking up fears rather than debating the facts.

The national chairman of the Coalition of Independents even went so far as to declare on Facebook that, for Bahamians, “this is our last election, and after 2026 General Election, you will truly see what majority rule looks like.”

She typed the last part in all capital letters, often a sign of a point without merit.

It would be helpful if we debated the actual law and the wider reasons for bringing it in, rather than react in a knee-jerk fashion.

Smuggling migrants is an international crime because, by its very nature, it crosses borders. Therefore, it should be unsurprising to note that we are signing up to international treaties to tackle crimes that cross borders.

As long ago as the turn of the century, the United Nations General Assembly created a convention called the UN Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime. One hundred and ninety three countries have signed on to it, including 187 UN member states. We are one of those states. Only four UN members did not sign up – Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu, and the Republic of the Congo, which signed but did not ratify the convention.

The goal of that international agreement was to tackle organised crime across nations, human trafficking, and terrorism.

One of the supplementary protocols of that convention is specifically to tackle the smuggling of migrants by land, sea and air. So, internationally, we have gone out, discussed these matters, and said, yes, absolutely, we are signing up to tackle that. The convention came into force in 2003, so it should be no surprise to anyone.

What is often not a part of the conversation here in The Bahamas is the international dimension of our existence as a nation.

Take another example, back in 2022: Attorney General Ryan Pinder announced that his ministry had compiled what he called a “suite of legislation” to meet the country’s international human rights obligations. This included laws on gender-based violence and marital rape. At the time, he told reporters that some of the recommendations fell in line with international commitments made by the previous administration that were not fulfilled.

Equally, we have seen legislation crafted to make sure we stay clear of international blacklists, particularly in the realm of finance.

So the next time representatives of any administration go off to report to the UN on progress of legislation in certain areas, tune in. You’ll see Bahamian officials saying that we have implemented this, we have done that. Some of it comes across as having checked a box, particularly when you contrast what we say we have done internationally with what we have actually accomplished at home.

But it highlights the fact that we have made commitments, and with commitment comes a requirement to follow through.

The tick-the-box nature of some of those commitments can cause frustration because, for all the commitments we have made internationally on issues such as marital rape, for example, there is zero progress here at home.

So, does the Smuggling of Migrants Bill come about because of international obligations? Let me ask you this: have you read it? Never mind the talk back and forth into microphones, on cameras, and on social media.

Have you read the bill? Because right there in the bill, it talks about a raft of international commitments.

It talks about the 1957 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. It talks about the 1987 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It talks about the 2010 International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. It talks about the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air as part of that UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime.

Now all of that doesn’t fit the narrative of those who would wish to whip up fear of foreigners. (But then again, you can’t ask small minds to consider the big picture.)

One point upon which everyone seems to agree is that this kind of smuggling is absolutely taking place. We know that people pay to escape from countries--such as Haiti, the country most cited by those whipping up xenophobia. For some, that payment is all up front, for others it’s an ongoing payment to the gang masters who smuggled them. This we know.

Knowing that, you have to try to find ways to tackle it, or you just accept criminality as a commonplace.

The particulars of the bill, though, are absolutely up for debate. The crucial question that the discussion zeroed in on was whether or not there should be some form of immunity for those being smuggled in order to get them to testify against those doing the smuggling.

There is certainly reason to feel uncomfortable about this. Those who are paying to be taken across borders illegally know they are not doing things the right way. They too are committing a crime.

Accordingly, while passing the bill, the government removed that clause after the reaction to it.

That’s a far cry from some of the rhetoric being circulated, however, that this was somehow a ploy to flood the nation with migrants to make Bahamians a minority. That kind of nonsense deserves to be treated with contempt.

Prime Minister Philip Davis pointed to the difficulty of getting prosecutions as part of the reasoning behind the bill’s wording. “The issue with the migrant and the smuggler is that if you charge both of them under the Act, could you tell me how we could get a conviction if they’re both charged under the Act? You need them to be your witness to establish your case,” he said.

That feels slightly disingenuous. I doubt that it’s the fear of prosecution for testifying against smugglers that’s stopping illegal migrants from coming forward.

But Mr Davis did go on to point out the other areas that need tackling, matters closer to home: those who rent property to those here illegally; those who provide boats or other vehicles; those who are part of the infrastructure that supports smuggling.

That’s part of our own bigger picture. Smuggling would not exist if it was not tolerated throughout every step of the chain by enough people to give it an opening. And yet we seldom see a shanty town landlord in court. We seldom see the employer of workers without permits prosecuted.

In all of our dealings, but particularly those that cross borders, keep asking the question “what is the big picture?”

Where we have agreed to international commitments, don’t be surprised when that is followed by local action.

Indeed, rather ask this: where is the action to follow up on things we have said we would do internationally and have not yet done?