Questions For Maurice Tomlinson (Gleaner letter) .........

As the furor in a sense continues over former local advocate and lawyer Maurice Tomlinson controversial departure from Jamaica in the form of asylum in Canada and a marriage which he complained that photos were published of his wedding that originally occured way back in August 2011 yet he supplied them to the Star News Canada while the local newspaper simply republished them. Some persons have been vigorously trying to defend his actions obviously missing the point of ethical professionalism needed and missing in this latest open blunder and is reflective of the self serving nature of our or so self appointed representatives when most of the time they speak on our behalf supposedly without any meaningful consultation for a more balanced points of view from the LGBTQIQ2S body politic.


Was this letter even penned by a member of the community really or a homophobe posing as such? 

As for his students well they are up in knots along with the administration of the University of Technology, here is the letter from a member of the community, pity their name was not placed. Also what is glaring is that other former activists have left Jamaica without any cloudy and controversial circumstances as the reasons for their departure was clear as crystal to everyone. The letter reads as follows:

Questions For Maurice Tomlinson

THE EDITOR, Sir:

IN YOUR editorial on Tuesday, you made mention of the fact that as law students, those who Maurice Tomlinson teach should take into consideration Section 13 (3)(a) of the Charter of Rights in Jamaica's Constitution which speaks about the right to life. As a member of the Lesbian Bisexual Gay and Transgender community, I know all to well the negativity, such as threats and physical attacks, that we as lesbians and gays have to go through at times.

I can also relate to what the students are going through, especially those who have to work while attending school.

I might get a backlash from the community for what I'm about to say, but who gives a damn?

Mr Tomlinson, being a well-known activist, is fully aware of the dangers members of the community face, and as a well-thinking adult, he could have gone about things differently. There's no way his marriage could have remained a secret with him being a well-known activist, and more recently, with him receiving the David Cato award. Mr Tomlinson should have foreseen the current events. It's no business of mine what goes on in Mr Tomlinson's personal life, but he needs to answer a few questions.

1. Why didn't you put a plan in place for your students in the event of incidents like this?

2. Why couldn't you have ended the semester and then take care of your personal life (your wedding)?

3. I'm sure you are capable of using our current technology. Why didn't you plan webinars and make use of various related tools for your students?

It was very rude of Mr Tomlinson to just tell his students to sit in with other lecturer(s).

I'd be very upset too.

Concerned Gay

ENDS

Also see the post below for more as there have been other members of the community including the intelligentsia who have expressed some outrage at the whole matter and the timing of the wedding article, the timing of the departure of Mr Tomlinson from Jamaica (January 10, 2012) and then the subsequent travel to London to collect the David Kato award and cash grant along with it just looks too suspicious and manipulative of the systems for personal gain. The systems seemed to have been worked especially the lobby for the award in London so enough publicity had to be done via TV appearances and a leaked hint to the wedding in Canada which originally took place in August.

This comment when first made/posted was deleted from a Facebook group where JFLAG operatives converge by one of the administrators who work with the organization I have since gathered. Another dangerous precedence for muzzling and or dictatorship and the prescriptive nature to the rest of the community? yet we ask for tolerance elsewhere.

it stated:
Frankly, from reading this article, I don't get a sense of someone who's been forced to "flee". People who "flee" don't have a return date scheduled. If someone is fleeing for their life because of circumstances beyond control, how exactly did he suddenly regain enough control to be able to"schedule" when his safety concerns had been resolved? What I do get a sense of is someone who's taking advantage of the reputation that Jamaica has gained, and using it to his own ends. That is, how convenient that such "safety concerns" emerge as significant right around the same time when he goes to London to go pick up his award?
http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/jamaican-activist-tomlinson-wins-first-david-kato-award

And who told the newspaper that he was away from work? Let me guess....

Suffice it to say, this story reeks of unprofessional and unethical behaviour on Maurice's part. It may well be that faculty members in Jamaica can and do mistreat students however they want - cancel classes, don't show up, don't give the students their grades, etc. - with no repercussions. But to use homophobia as the excuse for not showing up, ad to have the administration in knots over how to deal with this crisis, when I'm sure they sense that things are not as they appear - that is beyond selfish and self-involved.

I am totally sick and tired of lgbt Jamaican individuals manipulating the already hostile situation at home by making themselves into scapegoats and victims, just so they can appropriate resources and attention for themselves. I was wondering where the leaked story of the wedding was going, and I can already see.

In my opinion, there needs to be a total news lockout against Maurice Tomlinson unless what he's talking about or doing DIRECTLY involves broader community, and there's sufficient corroboration of his accounts. He is being very manipulative in his conduct, and is harming the movement in many ways. Others have pulled similar stunts in the past, but Maurice is taking the situation to a whole other level. And he's counting on the silence and gullibility of lgbt Jamaicans as well as the fears of straight people to help him accomplish whatever he's set his mind to, and which won't benefit anyone but himself. Enough already."

Obviously this one is being kept alive as the letter above is published by the Gleaner. While some days ago Mr Tomlinson gave a statement via AIDSFREEWORLD 

Remarks by Maurice Tomlinson, AIDS-Free World’s Legal Advisor on Marginalized Groups, upon receiving the inaugural ‘David Kato Vision and Voice Award’ London, UK, January 29, 2012, 6:00 PM


more on audio



Peace and tolerance


H

PM Should Decry Homophobic Bigotry says Gleaner but some questions & issues present themselves

The story of Maurice Tomlinson, a lecturer at the University of Technology (UTech), reported by this newspaper yesterday, reverberates with the insensitivity of supposed students of the law and at the same time highlights the mediaeval attitude that still largely prevails in Jamaica towards gays.
And having declared her principled position on the rights of gays, Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller should add her voice to the protection of Mr Tomlinson's rights under the Constitution of Jamaica.
Maurice Tomlinson is an attorney. He also teaches law at UTech. He came into public notice more recently when it was reported in Canada that he had married his male partner.

In homophobic Jamaica, where a former prime minister declared that he would have no gays in his Cabinet and his successor waffled, equivocated on and parsed his response to the subject, Mr Tomlinson's action is a potential death sentence.

Myopic law students

Indeed, he has gone into hiding and has told this newspaper that he was advised by the police that it would be unsafe to appear on the UTech campus "because my security has been compromised". Put bluntly, Mr Tomlinson has received death threats.

The university law faculty has been unable, as yet, to find a substitute lecturer for Mr Tomlinson's course, and students were advised - apparently by Mr Tomlinson - to sit in with other lecturers.

What has surprised this newspaper is the response of some part-time students affected by the disruption - an apparent absence of sympathy or concern for a man whose life is reportedly in danger.
They are angry over personal scheduling difficulties caused by Mr Tomlinson's absence, complaining that even with the arrangement he attempted to put in place, "we will still be at a disadvantage".
We would be forgiven if we concluded that this lack of empathy and compassion by the affected law students betrays both deep moral failings and weak appreciation for the course of study on which they have embarked. Put another way, it would seem that the concentration of these UTech students is on certification. The substance of the law is secondary.

Breach to one, breach to all

What even early students of the law, like those taught by Mr Tomlinson, should have already learnt is that their rights as individuals cannot be secure if his can be trampled on with impunity. The ultimate protection of one's rights is a democratic society's adherence to the rule of law. There is no more fundamental right than the right to one's life, which, incidentally, is among the first named rights and freedoms protected in Section 13 (3)(a) of the Charter of Rights in Jamaica's Constitution.

Perhaps, in time, the peeved UTech students will appreciate that the application of the law has to be universal, and universally fair, for it to be worthy. Prime Minister Simpson Miller can help in promoting this understanding.

The prime minister displayed courage in defending people's right to lifestyles of their choice when she declared that sexual orientation would not be a criterion for membership in her Cabinet. She must repeat often that there is no right to impunity against people whose lifestyles the majority does not like. For a real test of a democracy is how it protects the rights of minorities.

The PM should also champion the cause for the repeal of the buggery law.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.

ENDS

How much do we want from the Prime Minister in such a short space of time?, this is almost as dumb as the JFLAG error in stating a timeline within 100 days when the issue MUST be discussed then having to turn around and do damage control so as not to make it look like an ultimatum after the fire-storm from both inside the LGBT community and outside especially with that persistent thinking that the ruling party was funded by gay interests outside so as to push the battyman issue. 

Why should the PM only deal with this because it's Maurice Tomlinson, is he so special over all the others before and with him especially those persons who do their respective work quietly in the community without a song and dance? After all he chose to put himself out there so it comes with the repercussions.

The glaring contempt towards persons who work quietly in the local community is showing its head again as JFLAG operatives themselves have brought to bear when some rude criticisms have been brought to the fore regarding the recent departure of Mr. Tomlinson under questionable circumstances. He complained that the Observer for example published an unauthorised photo of him hence putting his life in danger yet he forgot to mention his very public television appearances long before the shots were seen in print and why did he send the shot of his signing the licence in Canada to a Catherine Porter of the Gay Star News? and the subsequent timing of this to coincide with the David Kato award collection in London with the large purse attached has left some doubt in the minds of many as professional dishonesty is reeking from all these circumstances. All the Observer had to do was republish the story under the creative commons license protection originally carried by Star News Canada written by the aforementioned author in a piece entitled: "Jamaican gay activist, Maurice Tomlinson, married a Torontonian" whils stating the source. The photo clearly showed it was courtesy of Tomlinson, if he did not want this issue out there why allow the overseas article to be put out in the first place?

All these set of circumstances so close to each other and so well timed does not look good. 

Criticisms have been rising about these and other issues and reputations are being re-examined to find out why is it some persons seem to easily benefit from activities in the name of defending the community? I have been on record to say it is all about superstardom and not about looking at the community as a whole, this first pass the post drama to see who will get the recognition is just too glaring these days while the least amongst us continue to struggle. The Gleaner also carried this piece: Threats force gay lecturer to flee which has had some reaction from influentials. This is how strong a comment that came from such a person:

"Frankly, from reading this article, I don't get a sense of someone who's been forced to "flee". People who "flee" don't have a return date scheduled. If someone is fleeing for their life because of circumstances beyond control, how exactly did he suddenly regain enough control to be able to"schedule" when his safety concerns had been resolved? What I do get a sense of is someone who's taking advantage of the reputation that Jamaica has gained, and using it to his own ends. That is, how convenient that such "safety concerns" emerge as significant right around the same time when he goes to London to go pick up his award?
http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/jamaican-activist-tomlinson-wins-first-david-kato-award

And who told the newspaper that he was away from work? Let me guess....

Suffice it to say, this story reeks of unprofessional and unethical behaviour on Maurice's part. It may well be that faculty members in Jamaica can and do mistreat students however they want - cancel classes, don't show up, don't give the students their grades, etc. - with no repercussions. But to use homophobia as the excuse for not showing up, ad to have the administration in knots over how to deal with this crisis, when I'm sure they sense that things are not as they appear - that is beyond selfish and self-involved.

I am totally sick and tired of lgbt Jamaican individuals manipulating the already hostile situation at home by making themselves into scapegoats and victims, just so they can appropriate resources and attention for themselves. I was wondering where the leaked story of the wedding was going, and I can already see.

In my opinion, there needs to be a total news lockout against Maurice Tomlinson unless what he's talking about or doing DIRECTLY involves broader community, and there's sufficient corroboration of his accounts. He is being very manipulative in his conduct, and is harming the movement in many ways. Others have pulled similar stunts in the past, but Maurice is taking the situation to a whole other level. And he's counting on the silence and gullibility of lgbt Jamaicans as well as the fears of straight people to help him accomplish whatever he's set his mind to, and which won't benefit anyone but himself. Enough already."

The comment when first made/posted was deleted from a Facebook group where JFLAG operatives converge by one of the administrators who work with the organization I have since gathered. Another dangerous precedence for muzzling and or dictatorship to the rest of the community? yet we ask for tolerance elsewhere.

also see: A marriage and another activist seeks asylum ............. 

ALSO AUDIO: 

Frankly this whole episode has stirred up a hornet's nest and the bigger issue of ethical professionalism is back at the forefront but for how long will it remain as usually when it does make centerstage some other items are quickly found to create a diversion.

Peace and tolerance

H

CVM TV @ Sunrise on the Buggery review & JFLAG's 100 days hope for meeting with PM

CVM @ Sunrise earlier today January 11, 2012 dealt with the supposed JFLAG gauntlet of sorts for a meeting with the new Prime Minister Mrs Portia Simpson Miller on her promise as it were to review the buggery law and a subsequent conscience vote in parliament on repealing it, she had not issued a timeline for the suggested move but JFLAG has been reported as saying they want the matter to be brought up within 100 days of the new government taking office and this is not going down well in certain quarters including the religious community who have arrived at conclusions that the lobby group is demanding action on the strength of some possible donations to the PNP political party during the last election campaign. They have denied such allegations since. 

video: here is a reminder of Mrs. Simpson Miller on the matter during the leadership debate preceding the elections:

In a post on my sister blog GLBTQJA on Wordpress entitled: JFLAG wants PNP to discuss Buggery Law within 100 days of assuming office a CVM TV news item was also included

Dane Lewis Executive Director of the J told CVM TV that he expected the issues to begin to placed on the table within 100 days, "To be realistic we would imagine within the first 100 days the issue could be raised we can look at how to proceed," Mr Lewis said while JFLAG is not expecting a conscience vote to repeal the buggery law within the first 100 days discussions are important as Jamaica has a 2012 deadline to meet according to the international covenant on human rights, “….one of the leading recommendations made in November last year was that Jamaica should report by 2012 on what concrete steps to removal of discriminatory laws,” Mr Lewis said.


According to Mr. Lewis JFLAG is willing to make small steps in acquiring legal recognition for homosexuals he says although gay marriage is legalized overseas JFLAG is not pursuing that as part of its lobby at this time, "gay marriage is certainly not an item on our agenda, we still have a large issue of discrimination …. people are being evicted from their homes, people are being physically abused because of their sexual orientation and we want to begin to address those issues."


He acknowledges that the discussion of gay rights will be met with strong public opposition however he says as was demonstrated by Mrs Simpson Miller we should be strident in dealing with issues impeding human rights, a solution to the issues concerning gay rights will help to deal with HIV/AIDS.

 CVM TV @ Sunrise on JFLAG 100 days meeting/PM & the Buggery Law 11.01.12 by glbtqja7 

Co-host of CVM @ Sunrise Rohan Dailey had the Reverend Dr. Henley Morgan and attorney-at-law Arlene Harrison Henry of the Independent Jamaica Council for Human Rights at first to discuss the JFLAG's position on 100 days for a meeting with the new PM, as you may have gleamed from the audio above Reverend Morgan walked on eggshells trying to make his position between the folds thus leading to the church's position versus his own and some clarification from Ms Henry. He also made it clear he didn't think gay marriage rights are to be extended same gender loving persons. It almost sounded scripted on his part, he struggled with the nature versus nurture matter whether persons were born gay or not while Ms Harrison Henry was on the ball from the get go where she clearly stated the gay community was not asking for gay marriage rights. She also made mention of the fact that the Charter of Rights made it clear that marriage is between a man and a woman obviously infused in anticipation of the issue being raised again by the then joint select committees who finalized the document. She also said a conscience vote could not be had unless there is national debate and education. 

One thing I had an issue with in as far as Mrs Henry's definition of buggery was concerned was where she said "...the legislative scheme sections 76 of the Offences Against The Persons Act treats with Buggery which is intimate relations between man and man or man and woman,it is that which is prohibited but the loving of same sex is not an illegal act...." she was speaking in the context of homosexuality not being illegal in Jamaica. To simply leave it open as intimate relations is vague in my view seeing that the buggery law is specific to anal penetration intimate relations can also mean non penetrative sex or so called compromising positions which may include partnered masturbation, intercrural sex (faking penetration by placing erect penis between legs of a passive partner, practiced by heterosexual couples when the female is seeing her monthly cycle) and or frottage, gross indecency would probably cover those outercoursal activity. She also said with women they cannot commit any act of buggery but I am thinking what about women who employ sex toys as part of their activities and said toy is used in anally penetrating a consenting partner?

Rev Dailey also reminded us of the former Senator Oswald Harding's position in 2004 on the buggery law repeal suggestion.Here is Mrs. Simpson Miller in a subsequent outdoor political campaign meeting defending her comment 


Portia Simpson Miller - SIMPSON MILLER DEFENDS GAY COMMENT 23.12.11 by glbtqja4


We must not forget the presence of some anti gay figures in the PNP who are still in the structure that of former Attorney General A. J Nicholson who supported nearly every anti gay move during his years including the tumultuous years of the Sexual Offences Bill Debates, the Charter of Rights struggles and his open castigation of gay marriage, even Portia Simpson Miller herself sided with Bruce Golding on the no to gay marriage smoke screen after digging my archives I found the presentation by Mrs Simpson Miller in 2009 (poor audio though) where she sided wholeheartedly with the then Prime Minster Bruce Golding (his speech linked) on the banning of gay marriage, gay marriage rights by the way was never asked for by the LGBT advocacy structure but it was dishonestly pushed on the agenda during the Charter of Rights debate then as a smoke screen to deny us recognition in the Charter. The same document that clearly defines marriage between a man and a woman, it also does not protect persons from discrimination due to sexual orientation but only on the grounds of ones biological form.

She said on October 20th 2009 - "Mr Speaker when we accepted the final report from the joint select committee that were looking at the bill we were completely satisfied with their recommendation of a provision to restrict marriage and like relationships to one man and one woman within Jamaica and that the provision should be specifically spelt out so that there could be no ambiguity .......... yes one man one woman (laughter in the house) and if you are Jamaican and go overseas the same applies ..........."

Has her position changed so radically? ........ Interesting times lie ahead people.

Peace and tolerance

H


UPDATE Jan 13, 2012
Meanwhile JFLAG tries to clear up the ultimatum versus request mess on the 100 day issue with the PM and the buggery review via yet another press release:

J-FLAG DID NOT GIVE ULTIMATUM

Kingston — January 12, 2012
The Jamaica Forum for Lesbians, All-Sexuals and Gays (J-FLAG) wishes to clarify that the organisation has NOTgiven the government an ultimatum.

On January 3, 2012, CVM TV contacted the organisation for a comment on its expectations of the new administration following the Peoples National Party’s (PNP) win in the General Elections. This was in the context of the bold pronouncements the Most Honourable Portia Simpson Miller had made during the leadership debate. NewsWatch reported, J-FLAG’s Executive Director, Dane Lewis as saying “To be realistic, I imagine within the first hundred days at least the issue could be raised, with a look at how to proceed.”

However, many have misinterpreted this statement of expectation as an ultimatum. Mr Lewis also highlighted that Jamaica is required by the end of 2012 to report to the UN Human Rights Committee reviewing Jamaica’s status under the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights “on what concrete steps it’s [Jamaica] making towards removal of discriminatory laws”. It is within this context that the comment was made. J-FLAG wishes to reiterate that it has not issued an ultimatum but offered a comment on what could be done by the Government within the first hundred (100) days to demonstrate its recognition of the broad human rights concerns that affect all Jamaicans. This is a common strategy which has been used by many other organisations in civil society and private sector.

Like all Jamaicans, J-FLAG remains committed to the human social and economic development of Jamaica. In so doing, J-FLAG will continue to defend the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Jamaicans from discrimination, harassment and violence.

ENDS

As I hinted in a previous post on my sister blog GLBTQJA on Wordpress mistakes such as granting a telephone interview (sans any consultations with the community I might add) to the media in a "hot environment" when homosexuality or related matters are in the public domain is a no no, all the J should have done was waited and not mention anything at all to do with any time line in any way, shape or form now for it to be misrepresented as an ultimatum. We have had previous misconceptions before of JFLAG's position by media and one would have thought that as a former media participant himself the Executive Director of JFLAG Mr. Lewis would have known the ins and outs of local media with regards to hot button issues such as this. The San Francisco boycott some years ago and the suggested EGALE tourism boycott as well are prime examples of learning curves for the group and speaking just a little too much but when it's time to speak there is silence. How many mistakes are there to be made before it is perfected? one never knows.

A marriage and another activist seeks asylum .............

According to the 

Jamaican gay activist, Maurice Tomlinson, married a Torontonian

Catherine Porter

The day after Jack Layton’s funeral, eulogist Stephen Lewis and pastor Brent Hawkes congregated again for a different holy ritual: Maurice Tomlinson’s wedding.
Tomlinson is a leading gay activist in Jamaica — the only country in the Western hemisphere where gay sex is still illegal.

In Toronto, he married Tom Decker, a police officer-cum-pastor in the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto.
The UN’s former special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa was the best man. Hawkes married them. Tomlinson wept with joy throughout the ceremony, but he didn’t invite any of his family out of fear.

Talk about a double life.

“In Canada, I have a husband,” he told me from their little red-brick row home in Toronto’s east end. “In Jamaica, I have a good friend.”
In the past year, Tomlinson has received three death threats for speaking out against the country’s virulent homophobia.

He’s stopped going to parties and bars and public beaches, he says.
He’s right to be scared. Vigilante justice against gay men is common in Jamaica, a country where 82 per cent of people self-identified as homophobic in one recent survey. Last year, two men were chopped to death with machetes because they were gay.

Former Prime Minister Bruce Golding was openly homophobic: he said he’d never appoint a gay person to his cabinet. According to the law, consensual sex between two men in Jamaica will get you 10 years of imprisonment and hard labour. Any “act of gross indecency” — like kissing — will get you two years.

The law is rarely enforced. More often, police use it for extortion, Tomlinson says. But its very existence fuels the mobs, machetes in hand, since gays are legally criminals. Even the police officer who recorded his first death-threat report “went on a tirade that he hates gays, who deserve to die,” says Tomlinson.

For two years, Tomlinson has collected victim reports as a legal adviser for Lewis’ international advocacy organization, AIDS-Free World. Now, he’s taking them to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, since the Jamaican charter protects the laws against “sexual offences” from constitutional review.

“There’s an African proverb: you are mopping the floor while the tap is still running,” says Tomlinson, 40. “If you don’t change the law, you’ll never change the attitude.”
The commission is likely to hear his petition this spring. Even though it has no authority over Jamaica’s parliament, it will be a big moment for the island’s underground gay community.

Dirty laundry for all to see.

There is other good news. On Jan. 29, Tomlinson will be in England to receive the inaugural David Kato award for gay human rights activism. Kato, a Ugandan gay activist, was murdered last year. The award comes with a $10,000 grant that Tomlinson plans to use to give Caribbean police officers anti-homophobic training.

And, last week, Jamaicans elected a new prime minister, Portia Simpson Miller, who pledged to put the country’s anti-sodomy law to a vote in parliament.
“Justice will out!” Lewis wrote me in an email. “I genuinely believe this would not have happened had Maurice not spent the last two years on a personal crusade to convert Jamaica to tolerance.”

Tomlinson is less optimistic. He is sure parliament will be swayed again by the powerful evangelical churches and that machete mobs will continue unabated.
Change both seeps and charges. Just think: 11 years ago this month, Hawkes performed the country’s first gay wedding, wearing a bulletproof vest under his clerical vestments.
Looking at the freckles that splash down Tomlinson’s left cheek like sugar grains, I wonder how anyone could hate a man this breathlessly beautiful. He’s worried he’ll be dead by the time gays are no longer criminals in Jamaica. He’s applying for Canadian citizenship, he tells me. We’d be lucky to have him.

But I hope he stays in Jamaica.
That country needs him more.

Catherine Porter’s column usually appears on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. She can be reached at cporter@thestar.ca.

ENDS

two cents

One would have thought that in the middle of the struggle and the gift for some by the new administration to review the buggery law and seeing how Mr Tomlinson has thrown himself in the public eye as the face for LGBT advocacy at his own re-cognisance even appearing on local television only last evening on CVM TV (I missed it) this would be the last thing we would see, what a perfect gift for the homophobes to latch on to now? oh see they (gays) don't need to be here, they can go abroad and marry, let them get asylum and leave here as we don't want no battyman here in Jamaica are some of the thoughts I presume they must be saying after seeing this, thoughts and sentiments by the way that have been said before. Perfect too this showcase of the wide class divisions in the community as the more affluent can always escape direct homophobia but FIRE!!! or hell for a gay man who is found or even suspected to be such in the lower socio economic strata of Jamaican society even though there is a perception that homophobia is lesser today that years gone by and as is typical with many such as Maurice they seek asylum afterwards running away leaving the rest of us to face the music, another activist flies the coup, why am I not surprised? yet another activist runs off. 

Local papers have also caught on to the news as well. 

Some of us realised very early in the day that the buggery review tag was a nice election trick and a great way for any politician to escape scrutiny when tackled about buggery as knowing that it may not get a positive vote in the proposed conscience vote by Mrs Simpson Miller. If and when it happens as well, as many suspect in won't for a while to come however the results may come with negative majority, then any PM or representative can say well the vote was run and the people through their representatives have spoken and that is the end of the matter.

To finally having to see the true feelings from Tomlinson on the possible outcome of a conscience vote on the buggery law review from a FOREIGN publication also again raises the importance or lack thereof of the regard to the local LGBT community on the ground and relevant forumatic discourse needed. 

Knowing the invented gay marriage ploy used to castigate the so called homosexual lifestyle especially by the politicians including the newly elected Prime Minister Mrs Simpson Miller in 2009 when during the Charter of Rights Debate October 20th she said ""Mr Speaker when we accepted the final report from the joint select committee that were looking at the bill we were completely satisfied with their recommendation of a provision to restrict marriage and like relationships to one man and one woman within Jamaica and that the provision should be specifically spelt out so that there could be no ambiguity .......... yes one man one woman (laughter in the house) and if you are Jamaican and go overseas the same applies ..........."

We also saw restorative therapy advocate and raging anti gay pastor Rev Al Miller who also talks about marriage and family life being threatened by the homosexual lifestyle what a way to rile up the opposition now when our hands are still in the lions mouth, it's like the mistakes keep a coming only days before we saw the goodly JFLAG laying down an expectation as it is called by them for the buggery matter to be discussed within 100 days of the new administration of the PNP. Yes, I see the timing of this public marriage as a mistake at this important juncture which may greatly affect our position in the struggle on the ground. Strategy here anyone?

As representatives what and how we do or conduct ourselves is subjected to public scrutiny and it also leaves a strange feeling for some persons on the ground as in a conversation I was privy to on this news where persons questioned the legitimacy of the persons who put themselves forward as advocates on behalf of the rest of us supposedly. More and more cynicism is raising its head and motive is being looked for when all there is or seems to be is self aggrandisement and attention seeking in the eyes of some.

We may never know the truth as to the representation as is being put forward supposedly on our behalf sans any real honest consultations with the LGBT body politic. Again as I said in a previous post ” ….. yuh hand inna lion mouth u tek time draw it out,” (your hand is in a lion’s mouth you take your time and pull it out)

Peace and tolerance

H


UPDATE 30.01.12

Remarks by Maurice Tomlinson, AIDS-Free World’s Legal Advisor on Marginalized Groups, upon receiving the inaugural

‘David Kato Vision and Voice Award’

London, UK, January 29, 2012, 6:00 PM


more on audio (Feb 1, 2012)

 Ethical Professionlism & LGBT Advocates 01.02.12 by glbtqja4 

PNP Wins ................Hope for LGBT People ???

Congratulations to the PNP

As for the question/title many say yes, Pollster Mr. Don Anderson had predicted and gave the People's National Party a lead of over 4%. This is in keeping with the trend which they said they had picked up and experienced on the ground.

Don Anderson had called – 51 seats

PNP – 28 seats

JLP – 23 seats

Unable to call – 12 seats

The PNP, according to Don Anderson, is leading in the 12 constituencies which he is unable to call but the results last night were called at around 9pm PNP 41 - JLP 22 and as jubilation set in mixed with awful comments from the LGBT community about other LGBT people who apparently supported the losing Jamaica Labour Party which suggests we have a long way to go in terms of our own so called unity that is so artificial flooded the social networking sites and blackberry services. The Jamaica Labour Party's main office at Belmont Road was described as a graveyard as the news spread. 

The victory added to general election success secured by the PNP in 1955, 1959, 1972, 1976, 1989, 1993, 1997 and 2002.


The JLP won the elections in 1944, 1949, 1962, 1967, 1980, 1983 and 2007.

The hint to the People's National Party leader's conscience vote on buggery albeit not a party position still as was suggested by leader and Prime Minister in waiting Portia Simpson Miller that the Buggery Law should be reviewed came some days before by way of Peter Phillips at a press conference on December 24 and a follow up from Mrs Miller that her administration will not get into people's bedrooms at a meeting in a rural area. The campaign had been scarred since that answer to a question of her agreement or not with former Prime Minister Bruce Golding's Not in My Cabinet rant. She of course disagreed and then proceeded to suggest the conscience vote in parliament similar to the death penalty vote some years ago. then came:

Portia Simpson Miller - SIMPSON MILLER DEFENDS GAY COMMENT 23.12.11 by glbtqja4 (audio)

on December 27th came a second press release from the PNP on the issue:

NO REPEAL OF BUGGERY ACT, SAYS PNP

December 27, 2011: The People's National Party (PNP) has labeled as deliberate mischief making by the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP), suggestions that it supports a repealing of the Buggery Act. The PNP says that is not its position.
The PNP says the JLP has been circulating the false assertion about the Party's position on the matter in a desperate bid to make the matter an issue of contention to gain political advantage.

PNP Campaign Director, Dr. Peter Phillips said at a press conference to wrap up the party's campaign today that the PNP has no position to repeal the Buggery Act, and that the issue arose out of a question posed to party leader Portia Simpson Miller during the recent national debate with prime minister and JLP leader, Andrew Holness.

"This arose out of a question and there is no position taken by us of a repeal. We recognize that there are some persons, who for their own partisan political reasons, would wish to distort the Party's position as it relates to the Buggery Act," Dr. Phillips said.

He adds that the Party Leader has proposed a review of the Act, and not a repeal of it.

"During the review, every Member of Parliament will be required to bring to bear on the discussions, the views and the opinion of his or her constituents. At the end of the review, if a vote is to be taken, the vote will be a conscience vote, which means each Member of Parliament will vote according to the directive of his/ her constituents," Dr. Phillips says.

This is in keeping with the position taken by the PNP President, who indicated at the national debate that the people of Jamaica should let their voices be heard on the matter through consultations spearheaded by Members of Parliament, so that a Parliamentary debate and vote on the issue would not be confined to the views of Parliamentarians alone, but rather, would be reflective of the views and will of the people in constituencies across the country.

Responding to questions posed by journalists about accusations leveled on the campaign trail by Daryl Vaz that the PNP had received funding from overseas-based gay rights groups, Phillips said such accusations were not true and a "total fabrication" as the party had in no way supported "any gay agenda".

"This is a total fabrication of Mr. Vaz and his very active imagination and speaks to the desperation in that (the JLP's) campaign," said Phillips.

The PNP will end its election campaign today with a tour of western parishes and culminate with a meeting in the South West St. Andrew constituency of Party Leader, Portia Simpson Miller, followed by a gospel concert at the party's 89 Old Hope Road headquarters.



Since then some LGBT persons have reposed all faith that the PNP will in essence "free up" the buggery law and gay people can be free but in my view it is not so easy as saw the very morning after the leadership debate and the suggestion by Mrs. Simpson Miller on the Buggery review that Christian right movement coming out on the issue while worrying about gay marriage demands following that and even the Ombudsman who is supposed to be an impartial arbiter found himself making what seemed disparaging remarks from his church pulpit in a supposed attempt to influence voting against the People's National Party just days before the polls were opened, Human rights group Jamaicans for Justice came out swinging and had called for his resignation but he replied firstly that he was misquoted by the group this coming some thirty six hours after he was quoted and reported on in news media while he made no attempts to challenge the outlets and to correct the reports but suggested the JFJ was disingenuous and that they should get the tapes of his sermon, he then responded afterwards that he can separate his role as a Bishop from that of Ombudsman and still be an impartial judge when the time came. 

The Jamaica Labour Party's humiliating defeat raises several questions:

Is the Dudus matter still fresh in persons minds that West Kingston although reclaimed by the JLP has lost serious support?


Is this a majority of available votes but still a minority government in terms of national percentages?


Does the LGBT community have to wait till it reaches a conscience vote before action?

What else can be done to encourage discussions on the decriminalization of buggery or its full repeal?

Why was the voter turn out so low despite an aggressive campaign on both fronts?

Did the pink vote have alot to do with it and how so?

Will Mrs Simpson Miller be able to call the conscience vote she hinted to, if ever?

Are the other 40 members of her upcoming cabinet prepared to come out if and when this debate begins, be it in parliament or in the public domain?


Was the feeling that there was not a major crisis the undecided made a decision to stay away from the process?  ... since major crisis pulls out or forces voters to the polls on the day

Were the crowds we saw on the campaign trails travelling muses to present and create an illusion of support (just from core)?

Will the JLP take this humiliating defeat lying down or will there be awful revenge actions?


Has civil society won here in terms of pressure to parties on corruption?


Did the negative ads turn off persons?

Will the JLP brass and followers blame homosexuals for this and launch covert attacks on gays?

What has caused the majority of registered voters to be so aloof and not participate?


Did the technical issues on the day cause voters to turn away as well, including die hards?

Did the previous aid controversies force Mrs Simpson Miller's hand to suggest the buggery law review?


Was the timing of the "gay question" in the leadership debate planted to introduce the matter as a platform issue to get the pink vote?

Will there be violence from the PNP towards JLP strong winners despite their poll victory? as some reports suggest a JLP MP had to seek protection in his own home following threats

Certainly the new administration has its work cut out for it and celebrations will have to be short but some of us in the LGBT community and those on the ground are concerned about any possible perception that homosexuals are responsible for giving the PNP the landslide victory while not taking into account the non interest by the eligible voters and the undecided. Just by scanning the radio stations yesterday callers to phone in shows persons are not happy with the Buggery Law review suggestion but it was not reflected in the vote for the PNP or is it the just the pure satisfaction of seeing the back of the Jamaica Labour Party while in the Christmas and new year's celebrations that have softened that usually strong anti gay anything response? There is also a suggestion that the campaign ads by the Jamaica Labour Party which attempted to paint the People's National Party and the leader Mrs Simpson Miller as incompetent while not presenting any meaningful alternatives of what the JLP intended to do was blamed too for their shocking demise as persons may have arrived at a conclusion of revenge voting to send a message. A message has also been sent I feel to the new administration in waiting that the populace is not prepared to remain supportive if they fail to deliver one term or not as it is the first time any political party has ever been in office for only one term, usually sympathy votes or continuity interests keep a party in power for a second term. The loss of certain key seats too is of major concern, did the Bruce factor as I call it cause that as persons described his successor Andrew Holness as "baby Bruce" hinting to a continuation of the previous agenda but under a new leader.

A conscience vote on buggery should not have even been mentioned I think by Mrs Miller during that leadership debate as at that time of the campaign as we were not sure where the vote would have went, we most certainly never expected a landslide but with a 22 seat majority how many of them are on her side or even actually support the suggestion made by Mrs Miller which to me gave the JLP the ammunition they needed to launch the openly homophobic campaign presentations (she should have kept that in her pocket), but even after strategic interventions and talks to get support for the review and subsequent good reasons for repeal or decriminalization of the act the nation is left to convince and create an air of real tolerance. How much of the other 40 members of parliament on her side will support this? despite the fact that the PNP has voting majority to change deeply entrenched legislation. 

We must not forget the presence some anti gay figures in the PNP who are still in the structure that of former Attorney General A. J Nicholson who supported nearly every anti gay move during his years including the tumultuous years of the Sexual Offences Bill Debates, the Charter of Rights struggles and his open castigation of gay marriage, even Portia Simpson Miller herself sided with Bruce Golding on the no to gay marriage smoke screen after digging my archives I found the presentation by Mrs Simpson Miller in 2009 (poor audio though) where she sided wholeheartedly with the then Prime Minster Bruce Golding (his speech linked) on the banning of gay marriage, gay marriage rights by the way was never asked for by the LGBT advocacy structure but it was dishonestly pushed on the agenda during the Charter of Rights debate then as a smoke screen to deny us recognition in the Charter.


She said on October 20th 2009 - "Mr Speaker when we accepted the final report from the joint select committee that were looking at the bill we were completely satisfied with their recommendation of a provision to restrict marriage and like relationships to one man and one woman within Jamaica and that the provision should be specifically spelt out so that there could be no ambiguity .......... yes one man one woman (laughter in the house) and if you are Jamaican and go overseas the same applies ..........."

Her predecessor former PM and party leader Percival James Patterson, PJ also made it clear that he was not going to legalize buggery in his tenure despite the strong perceptions of his own sexuality, Miss Simpson echoed nicely in the right time as well a sentiment previously expressed by one of PJ's greatest critics radio talk show host Wilmot Perkins who has been constant by saying persons should be hired due to their competence and qualifications than sexual orientation, he even went as far as to call for the repeal of the buggery law, a call he has had to defend vigorously, only this year after the International Day of Tolerance he was scolded for his stance by way of a letter to a newspaper along with several phone calls to his talkshow. 

The JLP early in the game showed their hand via several anti gay slurs some to the unease and disgust of their own supporters who are LGBT though supposedly small in numbers after the leadership debate clearly playing on the national feeling on homosexuality to gain momentum in their campaign but with the putrid, contemptuous and bitter hatred of the Labour party and any other LGBT community members who openly supported them prior to the homophobic moves they undertook it shows there are deep seated feelings that have been stoked by this election and are coming out loudly that seems to be resting on a shaky hope but hope none the less that buggery between consenting adults may be reviewed if not decriminalized. The confusion for some however that the law is going to be lifted by the PNP still exists and seems to be growing while not understanding it was a review with a possible vote in parliament that will follow that was the suggestion. With an already ineffective Jamaica Forum for Lesbians Allsexuals and Gays, JFLAG and other advocates in as far as poor communications and public relations on gay issues both to the community and general society over the years we may find ourselves in a quandry on this sticky matter we would have been in a better position to merge efforts in this seemingly new found enlightenment by the then opposition leader now turned Prime Minister in waiting. Progress? but with some fallout I fear that we never bargained for as we know well whenever this matter reaches the mainstream the more visible stereotyped gay and gender non conformists suffer at the hands of homophobic violence. We should have been better prepared for this, other eventualities and other opportunities so we can move on them when they arise instead of having to worry about strategies, arguing and bucking.

We just have to wait and see as there are other major issues to do with the economy and jobs more so with the outside shocks from the worldwide recession. The cultural dynamic also presents itself as persons tend to prefer bitter medicine from mothers than fathers, matriarchal elements?


The PNP in my view has to be mindful that while it won the majority due to core support it has not gotten a majority mandate from the numbers of persons who were eligible to vote numbered just over 1.6 million with only just over 50% voter turnout, it therefore does not fully represent the majority of the nation and may have some issues later in its tenure despite the numbers in the house to make changes to items that are entrenched in the constitution. Interestingly Guyana is still struggling to get their election results settled while we maturing as we are have settled this so well.
We should learn the lesson of the fragility of hope here as well and how easily people can be turned on or off.


Peace and tolerance


H 

On Buggery and gays in cabinets with politics ............ some responses ............

Video - pre-election Leadership Debate December 20.12.11

President of the People’s National Party (PNP) and Opposition Leader Portia Simpson Miller is promising to review the country’s buggery law if she is returned as prime minister of Jamaica.

The pronouncement came last night as she faced Prime Minister and leader of the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) Andrew Holness in the third and final political debate convened by the Jamaica Debates Commission.It also comes amidst the intensification of discussions on the matter.
“We should have a look at the buggery law,” said Simpson Miller in response to a question on gay rights.

She also challenged a previous pronouncement by former prime minister Bruce Golding who told a BBC TV interviewer some years ago that no gays could serve in his Cabinet.Simpson Miller said she was not in favour of such a position and suggested that persons should be selected for Cabinet duties on the basis of their capacity to deliver.

Responding to the same question, Holness articulated the need for Jamaica to achieve minimum standards governing human rights and suggested that such steps were being taken through measures such as the passage of the Bill of Rights.He added that any change to the existing legislation should be made on the basis of due consideration to the views of the people.

“We are an open society and the issues that are difficult and uncomfortable to discuss, as the society progresses, these issues are being discussed. People are entitled to their opinions but as leader of the country I have to respect everybody’s opinion (and) make sure that the institutions of freedom are well in place so that the debate can continue,” said Holness.

Let us also remember importantly that this is her personal position and not of the rest of the party and it doesn't appear under the justice theme of the PNP's manifesto.

Executive Director of JFLAG Dane Lewis said the Prime Minister missed an opportunity to make a bold declaration on securing rights for all Jamaicans, he continued on a telephone interview that "We're very encouraged by the bold statement from a Jamaican politician the opposition leader Miss Portia Simpson Miller, I am very disappointed that the Prime Minister with an opportunity to make as bold a statement chose the lower road. It is going to take a conscience vote it's gonna take the leaders of this country to make some bold steps to recognise the rights of all Jamaicans." He also said he trusts the sincerity of the opposition leader, he doesn't think it's a ploy to win the votes of the gay community days before an election.  He said too that it was not about threats on withholding aid by UK and US governments who have now tied aid to LGBT rights.       

The church community in the form of their representative today Dr. Lentworth Anglin, Convenor of the Umbrella Croup of Churches said on CVM News "We consider homosexuality, lesbianism, same sex marriage to be anti scripture and therefore we oppose that kind of behaviour, we are not necessarily dictating to individuals how they should live, we're just stating a position, we are not trying to necessarily trying to deprive persons of opportunity for service to the nation but we are just simply presenting our position."

Meanwhile Desmond Mckenzie of the Jamaica Labour Party JLP on the campaign trail said "I think the debate on this is not for now but it is a debate that should go on but there are moral issues here that as a country that has more church per capita than anywhere else in the world that is something that should not escape our minds right now."

Could this be a trap? if we enter all the way to a conscience vote on the proposed path by the opposition leader that the members of parliament vote and leads to an echoing of the majority sentiment then it would be a done deal in my view. Then we as a nation could rebutt to the nations who are redirecting aid that is now pinned to the rights condition of the LGBT community that the matter was voted on and the decision made. Then there maybe no room for agitations for any other rights based issues for LGBT people including gay marriage although we never asked for such prior to now. I disagree with the JFLAG folks I think this has a lot to do with the pressure from the UK and the US also she maybe wants to sure up a lead in this tight race by appealing to her large LGBT following that has always been a feature since the seventies. I am still skeptical about this announcement by the opposition leader, there is method to madness and politicians do not make blanket statements like that without some reason ahead, although as indicated above it is her personal opinion outside of the rest of the PNP which still has in its midst former Attorney General A. J Nicholson who penned the No Plans to Legalise Gay Marriage document in 2006 and vigorously debated on the opposing side to buggery etc in the Sexual Offences Bill.  Let us also not forget the PNP sided with the JLP on the invented gay marriage ploy so executed in parliament to deny us rights in the Charter of Rights Bill in 2009.


audio commentary:

 On Buggery & Gays in Cabinets ......... 21.12.11 by glbtqja4 

also see: PNP 2006, No plans to Legalise Same Sex Union (FLASHBACK)

MUST SEE previous post from here!: click below

The Line in the Sand for the JLP Part 14 ...... but vote ☐ PNP ☐ JLP ☑ Legalize Buggery/Anal Sex in private ........



here is one of the disparaging videos bashing PNP operatives 
could this also be a reason for Portia's response??

UPDATE Dec 22 - In an afternoon Press release from the PNP website came the following:

PNP Has Given No Commitment To Repealing The Buggery Act

Kingston, December 22, 2011: The People’s National Party notes that following Tuesday’s leadership debate, some persons have been suggesting that PNP President Portia Simpson Miller, has given a commitment to “repealing” the Buggery Act. The PNP uses this opportunity to state clearly that Mrs. Simpson Miller gave no such commitment.

The PNP President said it was time that the Act be “reviewed” and all members of the House of Representatives provided with an opportunity to vote on the matter based on their conscience.

It would be expected that in such a vote, Members of Parliament on both sides of the House, would take into consideration the views of their constituents.The PNP President remains committed to her pledge to make appointments to a Cabinet led by her on the basis of competence.

UPDATE Dec 23, 2011


Vaz Says Constituents Stand Firm Against Homosexuality

Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) candidate for West Portland, Daryl Vaz, on Wednesday night told a party mass rally in St Mary that his constituents have already told him to say no to the repealing of the buggery law.

Addressing thousands of Labourites in the seaside town of Annotto Bay, Vaz poured scorn on comments by People's National Party (PNP) President Portia Simpson Miller during the national leadership debate with JLP Leader Andrew Holness on Tuesday.

Simpson Miller, in her rebuttal to a question of whether homosexuals would be excluded from the Cabinet, said the issue was one of human rights, and her party would not reject anyone based on their sexual orientation. She said should the PNP be returned to power, Parliament would initiate discussion on the buggery law in Jamaica with a conscience vote on whether it should be repealed.

But Vaz claimed the people of his West Portland constituency had already spoken on the matter.

"We don't buy number two inna Cash Pot," said Vaz, in a reference to thepopular game of chance in which the number two is used by some persons to refer to homosexuals.

According to Vaz, while he was willing to participate in any debate on gay rights, his response is a foregone conclusion.

"God made Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve," Vaz said as Labourites cheered and shouted anti-gay slurs.

The issue of homosexuality has been on the JLP election platform even before it was raised as a question in the debate Tuesday night.

In Gordon Town, St Andrew, last Sunday, JLP deputy leader and the party's candidate for Western Kingston, Desmond McKenzie, declared "fire bun", following strains from the popular dancehall song which has a line "dem a par inna chi chi man car".

Also, at a recent meeting in St Elizabeth, persons on the JLP platform made reference to their love for "boonoonoonus" women, a claim that sparked a backlash from women's groups.

Former JLP leader and then Prime Minister Bruce Golding had declared an in interview on the BBC that no gay men would be allowed to serve in his Cabinet.

On Tuesday, Holness, did not articulate a clear position when questioned on the issue but implied that he would not fly in the face of popular opinion opposed to gay rights.

In recent months, several countries, which are aid donors to Jamaica, have suggested that they might change their position if more was not done to protect the rights of homosexuals.

also see the GLEANER EDITORIAL - Courageous Stance Worthy Of Replication and ‘Idiot plan that!’ - Many Jamaicans against Buggery Law review

What say you? as we watch the developments unfold. Bear this in mind as well, after digging my archives I found the presentation by Mrs Simpson Miller in 2009 (poor audio though) where she sided wholeheartedly with the then Prime Minster Bruce Golding (his speech linked) on the banning of gay marriage, gay marriage rights by the way was never asked for by the LGBT advocacy structure but it was dishonestly pushed on the agenda during the Charter of Rights debate then as a smoke screen to deny us recognition in the Charter. 


She said on October 20th 2009 - "Mr Speaker when we accepted the final report from the joint select committee that were looking at the bill we were completely satisfied with their recommendation of a provision to restrict marriage and like relationships to one man and one woman within Jamaica and that the provision should be specifically spelt out so that there could be no ambiguity .......... yes one man one woman (laughter in the house) and if you are Jamaican and go overseas the same applies ..........." 

Peace and tolerance

H