BY ERIC KING
David Cameron’s visit to Jamaica ended up leaving sour tastes for Parliamentarians than anything else. Dismissing calls for reparations, he admitted slavery was abhorrent in all its forms, but called for the two countries to move forward, and basically forge the past. ”As friends we have gone through so much together since those darkest of times and we can move on from this painful legacy and continue to build the future”, he told lawmakers in Jamaica. His rhetoric was received with disappointment, especially with the knowledge that following the emancipation of Jamaican slaves in 1833, slave owners were apparently paid the modern day equivalence of $3m each, amounting to billions of dollars overall.
His dismissal was all the more frowned upon because the main purpose of his visit was to inject $37m in building prisons for Jamaican prisoners in the UK who can’t be sent back because of the inhumane conditions in many of Jamaica’s prisons that breach the Human Rights of many of Jamaican criminals in the UK. With modern prisons in the pipeline with this money, Jamaicans without a a permanent residence in the UK who break the law can be sent back to serve time there instead of doing so in Britain and going back to the streets with the potential of re-offending. Camerons plans in that respect is well thought out, but the one worrying thing is how he justifies his forefathers benefiting from the cruel hands of slavery and even being compensated in the wake of the emancipation of Jamaican slaves. He clearly doesn’t attempt to justify it, but simply wants a forward looking approach to relations between the two countries, yet does nothing in his visit to facilitate that approach.
Injecting money into the country to help build prisons addresses a problematic issue- that of containing criminals who use Human Rights Laws to stay in the country and subject the public to the continued risk of them being a menace to society. Britain has its own share of criminals, and does not want to add more to disrupt society. By the same token it is arguable that the sad state in which the country was left after the slave trade, was so bad that many Jamaicans never fully recovered from its debilitating effects over the centuries. Proponents of such arguments would argue that many Jamaicans were left without the basic tools to develop and adapt to the changing demands of a fast moving global economy. Working against such arguments is the fact that criminal acts have multiple causes and even criminal Brits born in this country may have had sad and unfortunate backgrounds that has influenced their propensity to commit crimes. However, it is only fair for Cameron to acknowledge that compensation is logically the right thing and that the precedent for such compensation has been already been set, and his cousin 6 generations removed from him benefited from such compensation when in fact victims should have been the beneficiaries of any compensation in relation to slavery.
I couldn’t concur any less with writer Ben Kerrigan who highlights the practical difficulties that would naturally accompany move to make compensation since it would spark similar demands from every country that benefited or actively took part in the slave trade. Whilst the reasoning is sound, it misses out the reasonable view that the Prime Minister would be expected to address any practical difficulties that make the demands of the Jamaican government none viable, and not just sweep it under the carpet by talking about looking to the future whilst serious issues from the past remain. Incidentally, the idea of looking forward instead of dwelling on the past is one that seats well with the majority of the public, who are fed up of issues of war and conflict in our troubled world. That comfort however does not mean the Prime Minister should not thoroughly address the issue of compensation for the historical atrocities committed by colonial chiefs that shamed the western continent. Though one fair point is that already made in the article of yesterday, that most countries were guilty of slave trade, so the issue of reparation would then need to apply to everyone. Though, this is a point that was made by Mr. Kerrigan, not Mr. Cameroon. The Prime Minister needs to face the music of history.
