Hypocrisy of developed states
THIS IS TRULY an amazing world.
For many years Barbados has been unable to hang even the most vicious murderers because developed countries and organisations overseas say that these men have “human rights” which we must respect.
We could not send Raoul Garcia back to Cuba, the land of his birth, nor to the United States of America, his adopted homeland, neither of which wanted to accept him. The Government and people of Barbados were saddled with him because he had “human rights”.
I am sure that the majority of Barbadians would like to see us hang some of these miscreants and would have wanted to send Mr Garcia back whence he came, but we have to abide these things because Amnesty International and the developed countries, including England, say that these folk have “human rights”.
Lo and behold – or as my Latin master used to say, “Mehercule” – there was a Barbadian living in England for over 34 years who had spent that time tormenting the goodly people in that land.
He had racked up a magnificent 75 convictions for everything short of murder and treason and the English wanted to send him back to Bim. However, the British courts said that could not happen because Mr Lee Corbin (that’s his name) had “human rights”.
To quote Paul Keens-Douglas, “Who tell them say dat?”
Theresa May, the then home secretary, said that the courts failed to apply new rules which she had set out; that they failed to take into account “the high risk of reoffending”.
Priti Patel, a Conservative MP, said: “This is a scandalous example of how human rights legislation is being used and abused by criminals who have no regard for conventional family life. This is a very clear example of why we need the Home Office and the British Parliament to have the final say in these cases.”
Derek Davies, another MP, said: “This man is a walking example of what is wrong with human rights in this country. It is outrageous that a load of human rights judges give more credibility to his right to stay in Britain committing more acts of violence and robbery than the rights of his innocent victims.”
Another Home Office spokeswoman said: “This kind of case is precisely why we are looking to change the law in the new Immigration Bill which will be introduced later this year. We want to ensure the courts properly reflect Parliament’s view that serious criminals should be deported unless there are very exceptional circumstances.”
I have no brief for Mr Corbin, whose main claim to fame apart from his outstanding criminal record is that he is a magnificent father to his seven children from three separate unions, but he is an example of what happens when the shoe is on the other foot.
The system works fine once someone else is affected but it is a load of rubbish when it hits home.
Our courts and parliamentarians should take note and not plunge headlong to disaster like the Gadarene swine because we must follow the dictates of these foreign agencies.
We must do what is right for us as Barbadians in the same way that they must do what is right for them. If the two paths coincide, all’s well and fine; if they do not, then we must follow our own.
– ROLLINS HOWARD