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

Backing Down On Buggery? Some Personal Rights Can Be Sacrificed For General Morality ............

Byron Buckley, 

THE RECENT political leadership debate has given new legs to the national discussion on the repeal or retention of the law against buggery.

Opposition Leader Portia Simpson Miller has proposed a review of the law, with legislators allowed to vote according to conscience, after consultations with constituents. Prime Minister Andrew Holness has indicated his willingness to reflect the views of the people or the status quo on the contentious law.

A review of the buggery law is timely and appropriate in light of the recent pressure from several of Jamaica's bilateral and multilateral partners to relax the provision. Our 50th year of Independence is a good point at which our society should pause and take stock of our cultural norms, values and mores; and, where appropriate, shed, reinforce or improve them.

The issues, from a jurisprudential perspective, include:
PRIVACY: the right of individuals to behave as they choose in the confines of their homes. Added to this is the notion of consensual behaviour.
MORALITY: Should or shouldn't the law be based on morality? And whose morality - private or public?
PRIVATE VS PUBLIC INTEREST: Where do we draw the line? How do we strike a balance?

There is a growing number of Jamaicans across the moral spectrum who are prepared to turn a blind eye to consenting adults - heterosexuals and homosexuals - engaging in consensual anal sex in the privacy of their homes. This view points to nascent support for the decriminalisation of buggery. As we review the buggery law, we must ask ourselves if freedom of consent and the right to privacy are sufficient grounds on which to repeal a law or decriminalise an act.

The Wolfendem Committee on Homosexual Offences and Prostitution in 1957 restated that: "It is not ... the function of the law to intervene into the private lives of citizens, or to seek to enforce any particular pattern of behaviour ... ."

However, the United Kingdom Privy Council denied an appeal by homosexual men who asserted that they had the right to engage in sadomasochist sexual behaviour involving the inflicting of pain. Their argument was based, inter alia, on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states that "everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and correspondence".

But in his ruling in the case (R. v Brown) Lord Templeman pointed out that:

"Society is entitled and bound to protect itself from the cult of violence. Pleasure derived from the infliction of pain is an evil thing." The court found the appellants guilty of acts occasioning bodily harm, although the victim had consented to the acts inflicted on him. The import of the ruling is that the law does have a reach into the bedroom if acts deemed criminal - even if consensual - are being committed. And in this case, bodily harm and pain were being inflicted.

So as our legislators and the society consider reviewing the buggery law, we must determine whether the act of anal sex is injurious to a person and, therefore, should be criminalised or decriminalised.

The weakness of the consent-and-privacy argument is illustrated by the following scenario. While it is legal for a man to have consensual sex with his neighbour's sister, mother and daughter in the privacy of his home, it would be illegal for him to do the same with HIS mother, sister and daughter. Even if they consented, he would be guilty of the crime of incest.

Moral foundation

Why are these behaviours - incest, buggery, sadomasochist sex - considered crimes? Why does the law have to regulate these actions? One view is that laws usually rest on a moral foundation that is shared and agreed to by the society. As Lord Devlin, in his essay on 'Enforcement and Morality', has pointed out, there is a public morality that is critical to keeping society together; and that society may use the criminal law to preserve morality that is considered essential to the society's existence. For example, some persons fear that relaxing the buggery law will promote homosexuality, which they consider inimical to family life and procreation.

Society, Lord Devlin, argued, is "held together by the invisible bonds of common thought. If the bonds were too far relaxed, the members would drift apart. A common morality is part of the bondage. The bondage is part of the price of society; and mankind, which needs society, must pay its price."

So the Jamaican society, I contend, must decide what's the price or trade-off in relaxing or retaining the buggery law.

According to Devlin, society has a prima facie right to legislate against immorality and society may use the law to preserve morality in the same way as it uses it to "safeguard anything else that is essential to its existence".

Some people argue that since the crime of buggery is not being prosecuted in the main, what purpose does the law serve? Why not repeal it along with the anti-marijuana law, especially in the case of the latter where there is constant violation?

It should be noted that even though a law might be frequently violated, it serves the purpose of establishing a standard of behaviour. For example, road traffic laws, despite frequent violation, are still enforced so as to restrain breaches and promote behaviour the society has agreed on.

In addition, the traffic laws remain despite frequent flouting by motorists because they and other laws prescribe behavioural standards as societal ideals.

Devlin argues that there can be no theoretical limits to the power of the state to legislate against what it considers as immorality, as it is believed there is no theoretical limits to the power of the state to legislate against treason and sedition.

"We may argue," notes Devlin, "that if a man's sins affect only himself, it cannot be the concern of society. If he chooses to get drunk every night in the privacy of his own home, is any one except himself the worse for it? But if half of the population gets drunk every night, what sort of society would it be? You cannot set a theoretical limit for drunkenness before society is entitled to legislate against the practice."

Adds Devlin: "Immorality then, for the purpose of the law, is what every right-minded person is presumed to consider to be immoral. Any immorality is capable of affecting society injuriously and, in effect, to a greater or lesser extent it usually does; this is what gives the law its locus standi. It cannot be shut out. But ... the individual has a locus standi too; he cannot be expected to surrender to the judgement of society the whole conduct of his life."

The debate over the repeal/retention of the law against buggery raises the old and familiar question of striking a balance between the rights and interests of society and those of the individual. The rights of each must be restricted to ensure, as far as possible, that the essential needs of each are protected. While the development of criminal law mainly subjugates the rights of the individual to the interests of society, going forward the guiding principle should be the toleration of the maximum individual freedom that is consistent with the integrity of society.

Byron Buckley is an associate editor at The Gleaner. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of this newspaper. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com andbyron.buckley@gleanerjm.com.

Rev Clinton Chisholm on "Consensual Sex Revisited"

Another entry from Reverend, Blogger, Talk show host and columnist Clinton Chisholm touches on homosexual sex and the public discourse surrounding consent. Although aged it was brought to my attention on the strength of an editorial in the Gleaner earlier this year when the debate had commenced in a sense on gay issues. It was also published as a letter in the same paper. The Editorial was entitled: "

End Discrimination Towards Gays Now

(Excerpt)

Entrenched homophobia

We understand why the various commissions, committees and legislators who drafted the charter failed to expressly declare people's rights to freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation.

It has do with the receding, but still-entrenched homophobia in Jamaica that caused Mr Golding to declare, more than three years ago, that gays would not be welcome in his Cabinet. Politicians fear that any perception that they embrace or are soft on homosexuality will cost them votes and open them to discrimination and stigma.

The attitude, we insist, is cowardly, retrogressive, socially dangerous and offensive to human rights.

Serious concerns for all

To be clear, our position is neither an endorsement nor rejection of homosexuality. Frankly, we do not care. How consenting adults choose to live their lives is none of our business. There are, however, a couple of things that concern us and which we believe should be the concern of all Jamaicans.

First, while we note and commend the advances in individuals' rights contained in the charter, we are aware that the possibility of discrimination against any group is a toehold for the erosion of the rights of others, notwithstanding the cover of constitutional protection.

Moreover, the fear of stigma, discrimination and violence pushes many people into the closet. Their talents are often underutilised, to the detriment of the society and economy. There is evidence, too, of the health problems faced by gays, many of whom prefer to live without treatment for their illnesses, including HIV/AIDS, for fear of discrimination. The public-health risks are obvious.

It is nearly 50 years since the promulgation of the Constitution; waiting a few more months to get a better charter won't hurt.

Improving the charter will require that it lie in the legislature for months in accordance with the time stipulation for amending the Constitution. In the meantime, legislators should expunge the buggery law, the main bit of existing legislation that makes homosexuality illegal.

Here is the response from Reverend Chisolm let us juxtapose it to the recent comments, concerns and rhetoric by other religious leaders or fanatics however you want to label them, see the post immediately following this one that has several of those responses or 

Anti Sodomy Decriminalization/Repulsion action intensifies from the Christian Community

Consensual Sex Revisited

“To be clear, our position is neither an endorsement nor rejection of homosexuality. Frankly, we do not care. How consenting adults choose to live their lives is none of our business.” (Jamaica Gleaner editorial, April 1, 2011)

To some the above sentiment of the editorial is progressive, politically correct and defensible. To me it is dangerous and disingenuous. I say the editorial’s posture is disingenuous because it seems to reflect a neutral position about homosexuality but this veneer of neutrality is blown to pieces by the realization that the position of the editorial is not neutrality but indictable moral ambivalence/indifference about homosexuality summed up in the words “…we do not care.” How can a responsible and prestigious media organization (which influences public opinion) claim it is none of its business “how consenting adults choose to live their lives…”?

The editorial’s posture is societally dangerous in that how people live their lives sexually is critical to the society’s health concerns and even continued existence. Mathew Staver is correct when he says “It is a truism frequently forgotten by large complex societies: only societies that reproduce survive.” (Same-Sex Marriage, 2004, p.8) Ponder the societal consequence of universalizing homosexuality as the sexual norm!

Can one be really socially responsible but ambivalent about consensual homosexual sex, consensual adultery, consensual incest, consensual sadomasochistic sex given the relational implications of such acts beyond even the health costs of dealing with AIDS and other STIs? Has the editor given thought to the social cost of pregnancies deemed ‘unwanted’ by putative parents and especially the impact of absentee father figures on the lives of our young men?

Let us get it clear in our minds, consensuality even along with privacy and age-maturity does not constitute adequate moral justification for sexual behavior, without more, as the lawyers would say. If we hold the view that a certain sexual behavior is morally defensible let’s have the moral courage to be upfront and say so and not hide behind a thin veneer of neutrality. Homosexuality may indeed need to be decriminalized and the buggery law expunged but the reasons for doing so must be more convincing than simply moral ambivalence or apathy about what consenting adults do sexually.

Remove Antiquated,Homophobic Law (Gleaner Editorial)...................

We believe that Prime Minister Andrew Holness missed the point or deliberately obfuscated the issue.

There is not, at this time, any campaign in Jamaica for same-sex marriages or unions and for the law to be amended to accommodate these.

What reasonable people, including this newspaper, have insisted upon isgovernment leadership against the prejudice and discrimination against gays, including the repeal of the most repressive symbol of such bigotry, the law against buggery.

This issue was recently reprised by the warning by Britain's prime minister, Mr David Cameron, that his government might cut off budgetary aid to countries that do not uphold human rights, including the oppression of gays and lesbians.

"Britain is one of the premier givers in the world," Cameron said in an interview in the margins of the recent Commonwealth summit in Australia. "We want to see countries that receive our aid adhering to proper human rights."

Should Mr Cameron hold his ground that British aid "should have more strings attached", Jamaica could be one of those countries affected. Britain is a substantial provider of development assistance to this country, especially in the area of security.

Although he did not muster the muscular not-in-my-Cabinet anti-gay remark of his predecessor, Mr Bruce Golding, Mr Holness catered no less to Jamaica's well-filled homophobic gallery, drawing in, for good measure, the matter of sovereignty. The gay-rights issue, he argued, was a matter that the Jamaican democracy was working through.

"We pay attention, as we are global citizens, to what people have said, including what our own people are saying," Mr Holness told this newspaper. "It is a conversation that is evolving."

We make two points on this score: gays, lesbians and all-sexuals, like heterosexual Jamaicans, are citizens of this country and should enjoy all the rights and privileges of their citizenship; and a test of a democracy is how keenly and effectively it advances and protects the rights and freedoms of the minority. With regard to homosexuals, Jamaica cannot claim to have done a good job.

PRIVATE ACTIONS, PUBLIC EFFECT

Our prime minister also made the point that "people's private actions have public effect", the relevance of which, in the context of this debate, we are not clear. It can't be that he believes that gay couples would engage in intercourse in a public square. Nor would such behaviour be expected of heterosexual couples, which, in any event, makes them liable for charges under the public decency laws.

What we advocate is to end this notion of the State as a legal voyeur monitoring the behaviour of consenting adults in their private spaces, which is a basic and logical starting point for a repeal of the buggery act and a larger move towards eliminating the discrimination and persecution of gays.

By maintaining antiquated laws that reinforce bigotry towards gays, Jamaica works against its economic interest, as can be attested to by the many blacklisted dancehall artistes whose music promotes homophobic hate. They likely represent only the tip of the proverbial iceberg of lost economic activity from a demographic which has significant disposable income, but which feels unwelcome to spend it here.

Mr Holness is new at the job and may be risk averse. But leadership is often just that - leading from the front.

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 them: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.
ENDS


Meanwhile 

our so called advocates are or were going in the opposite direction via:
1) JFLAG Welcomes PM Stance On Anti-Buggery Law

published by the Gleaner as well

The lobby group, Jamaica Forum for Lesbians All-Sexuals and Gays (J-FLAG) has welcomed comments by Prime Minister Andrew Holness for continued discussion on Jamaica’s anti-buggery legislation. Speaking with The Gleaner/ Power 106 News Centre this afternoon, J-FLAG’s executive director, Dane Lewis says Jamaicans will need to decide for themselves how to treat with the issue. Mr Lewis says his organization recognizes that a repeal of the buggery laws will not result in an immediate show of tolerance for the homosexual and transgender community. However, he says it is a beginning towards curbing discrimination.


and


AIDSFREEWORLD consultant and lawyer Maurice Tomlinson in a sense welcoming the PM’s stance ….. Liberate Gays


Are they missing something that the rest of us clearly see?


check out: 


Prime Minister Andrew Holness on the UK AID Withdrawal threat on Profile


also audio 

On The UK Aid Removal and Holness's Reponse ........ 06.11.11 by glbtqja6

Peace and tolerance


H

Why the British PM can wield a big 'homosexuality' stick (Observer) ...... smoke in the room buggery vs homosexuality confusion

The threat by British Prime Minister David Cameron to withhold aid from governments that fail to reform legislation banning homosexuality highlights the importance of a position we advanced in this space exactly a week ago.The point we made was that Caribbean countries need to get our economies to the point where we will need little or no borrowing.We had put forward the argument against the background of a vicious strategy being employed by the Taiwanese Government to collect a US$28-million judgement against Grenada for non-payment of loans received from Taiwan's Export-Import Bank in the 1990s.Essentially, what the Taiwanese have done is to have their lawyers file papers in the United States compelling cruise lines and airlines to hand over any money they owe Grenada in fees or other payments. 


It's not that Grenada is unwilling to honour its obligation. 


The Caricom nation has made a proposal to renegotiate the loan as its economy is still feeling the effects of the devastation brought on by Hurricane Ivan in 2004 and a drop in tourism after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States.The Taiwanese, however, are not prepared to enter into any debt rescheduling arrangement because the Grenadians made the 'error' of severing diplomatic ties with Taiwan in favour of rival China. 


 So, now, Grenada faces the indignity of having its port fees seized -- a move that would further depress its economy — simply because it upset a benefactor.In the case of the threat issued by Prime Minister Cameron over the weekend, the British are in no way being as iniquitous as the Taiwanese. After all, the aid they are pledging to slash is their own money and they are at liberty to do with it as they please."Britain," Mr Cameron is reported as saying, "is one of the premier aid givers in the world. We want to see countries that receive our aid adhering to proper human rights." 


But while the British leader's statement is directed more at African states that have strong anti-gay legislation, his policy essentially applies to all Commonwealth countries, including Jamaica, where, due to religious and/or cultural beliefs, homosexuality is not accepted.Of course, he conceded that the countries targeted could not change immediately. That, we hold, should be the general position of the international community and the homosexual lobby. For it is unreasonable to expect that societies with prejudices rooted in a culture that, in most instances is a legacy of British Empire laws, will, overnight, accept a lifestyle that runs counter to those laws.Where the homosexual lobby and their supporters have erred is in trying to force their lifestyle on societies that regard it as wrong and ungodly. 


 And while we do not support laws that persecute people because of their sexual preferences, we hold firmly to the belief that threats, like that issued by Prime Minister Cameron, would not have seen the light of day had those countries that now gleefully accept monetary aid put their economies in order. 

ENDS

Smoke is in the room and it is choking us and everyone else so much so that we all are saying and believing foolishness and the hype or wrench thrown in the mix whenever this debate comes up. HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT ILLEGAL IN JAMAICA, sorry but I had to scream it and that is precisely why the debate is clouded, the beginning of this article/editorial just turns me as I have heard everywhere else including supposedly knowledgeable journalists and lawyers saying it is. What is illegal is the act of buggery or sodomy and even that is debatable as well as sodomy infers a kind of predatory tinge to it or forced sexual advances from a same sexed perpetrator as was deemed in the 1500s when this law came to be under Henry VIII.  As for the supposed imposition I was made to understand the  veiled threat from the UK PM was directed towards more caustic states in Africa to which some have responded in kind claiming being dictated to. I had hinted to the issue of imposition by foreign bodies in a previous post when the story first broke on GLBTQJA Wordpress seen below:


.........But what will that do though in the long run if most states and including Jamaica outside of the region mentioned in the article have a strong beliefs or perception that homosexuality is an import and that actions such as this are forcing the hand of countries with “christian principles” and “high moral values” to capitulate to the powerful gay lobby from first world nations yet The Prime Minister David Cameron is not gay but could be viewed as a puppet in the scheme of this with the pressure coming and positions from the European Union side of things and other bodies such as the United Nations on sexual orientation.Is forcing countries to comply the way to go?Or hitting them economically?I don’t think so, certainly other diplomatic methods can be employed but what about the notion that anti gay forces in the United States are in effect exporting homophobia and funding anti gay and religious fanaticism especially in parts of Africa in recent times. What does Mr. Cameron et al have to say or do about that?, these powerful backers behind such moves are said to be numerous and are some of the biggest companies and individuals allegedly. 


Will the UK also criticize those backers and demand they stop this kind of clandestine support or be made to stop? Can or will the UK Prime Minister stand up to the police man of the world and call it for what it is? Are we going to solve the issue of tolerance this way folks? I don’t think so, the hitting of the economic prosperity of these non compliant states as it were may only serve to bring more harm to the voices and populations on the ground who are made to pay the price as involuntary martyrs for this kind of pressure.While I can understand the need for rights and recognition to be extended to the common man this incessant push to seemingly impose it on the rest of the problematic states is unjustified for now, I say more dialogue bearing in mind also other countries who may have similar anti gay positions and laws with dire societal consequences are watching this and may feel justified in tacitly supporting homophobic acts even more so whilst becoming hardlined on budging from their no ease on buggery positions. We saw the recent comments but the Antiguan and Barbudan Attorney General on the law there on the strength of a legal challenge mounted by a group in Belize named UNIBAMThis debate has no end soon so let us see. 


The particular tranche of aid that maybe affected is a bilateral one known as general support,the aid was vital as it was used to rehabilitation programs for deportees who are helped to rejoin society, training and support. National Security Minister Dwight Nelson said on a radio interview that if aid was cut Jamaica could not afford to run such a program at this time.

Why is Jamaica Forum for Lesbians Allsexuals and Gays, JFLAG so silent?


In response to that an answer from one of the Programs personnel dismissed the question as if it is not important, the exact words in a forum were:


"Truth is, if you read what Cameron said you realise it has no bearing on us. Do we even get budgetary support from Britain? Cutting aid is standard practice, it is nothing new. Why are we getting so fussed up about it? If my memory serves me correct, US withdrew money to an organ of the UN last week because of its work in China. The person who has the power of the purse use it to their benefit and it is a very old practice. There really isn't that much of a story in this. Activists are using the opportunity to respond to requests from the media to speak on the issue"



Aloofness as per usual, so much for that, I guess the negative perceptions that we are trying to homosexualize Jamaica, bugger our children and white foreigners imposing their beliefs on us are of no importance to the J coupled with the fallouts in the form of homophobic and lesbophobic violence that usually comes with when homosexuality hits the mainstream news?


Peace and tolerance 


H


also see more comments on these posts from other rights activists:


Jamaica should refuse British aid – Families Against State Terrorism convener ………………

CVM TV's Live @ 7 on the UK AID Withdrawal threat & responses .......

We must not sell our values for money says letter writer

Issue: Jamaica's Anti-Buggery Law

THE EDITOR, Sir:

I take issue with many of the arguments the writer of The Gleaner editorial titled 'Discrimination against gays: a folly' (July 7, 2011) used to support his or her points.

In the editorial, one paragraph was devoted to showing the increasing popularity of legislation supporting gay unions in the United States. In citing a trend in the US, the writers of the editorial are employing bandwagon appeal to try to convince Jamaicans that it is okay to legalise homosexual unions and tolerate homosexual lifestyles. Such careless writing belongs in vacuous fashion magazines, not in a national newspaper, and certainly not on the editorial page.

Economic gain

The editorial's next argument is an economic one: being tolerant of gays and having gay-friendly laws would make Jamaica a more attractive tourist destination, thereby generating more revenue for the island. The formidable purchasing power of homosexuals is mentioned, and a feeble argument about childless gay couples having greater inclination and more means to contribute to the tourism industry is thrown in for good measure.

To show you that this argument does not work, I invite you to consider the set of all Americans with net worth in excess of US$1 billion. These people are wealthy beyond words, and travel a lot, so they are perhaps more likely tourists than the average American.

Suppose for some strange reason that these affluent Americans will only consider visiting Jamaica (note the gap between consideration and action) if the Jamaican flag were blue. Should we change our flag in hopes of appeasing this set of rich Americans? Obviously not. This set is relatively small (as is the set of gay Americans who refuse to visit Jamaica) and there is no guarantee that if we changed our flag (policy) they would come rushing to our shores (gap between consideration and action).

What troubles me the most about the argument above, however, is the sinister invitation to become mercenaries, pledging our allegiance to the highest bidder. Financial gain as our sole objective is not the way forward for Jamaica. In fact, it is this very principle, individually applied in our politics, that has authored our failure as an indepen-dent nation thus far.

Whatever decision we as a nation arrive at on this issue must arise from deep introspection and stock-taking, not the lecherous gaze of a money-hungry harlot.

D.N.G.

ENDS

My two cents

It seems the writer here DNG is missing that the same way he or she is complaining that the reasons for getting the pink dollar is not right is the same way casino gambling has been quietly snuck through the back door ironically under a so called Christian conservative government with close ties to the all power and financially viable Seventh Day Adventists, he or she didn't see that is right? we always have a problem with anything remotely leaning to "gay" look at how our tourism interests market the nation to the world by selling sun sea and sand and other attributes to reach varying demographics.

Do people like DNG think that somehow making all things "gay" will unleash some raunchy and decadent madness on the island and that somehow we are going to infect or poison the minds of others?

what unfounded fear these persons have?

The gay community is just another one of those demographics although I doubt we will see an influx of persons coming to Jamaica if the law were changed tomorrow as the rest of the world is still years behind our reality in a sense in terms of perceptions and think persons will be hacked to death literally if they are pointed out or at leasts suspected to be gay.

That "blue flag" analogy by DNG was so off course and simplistic, is this writer trying to insult our intelligence or something?

Get over it DNG some people are gay!, why are we afraid to embrace that fact and move on? We all can live together, aren't we already doing so until your fear and that of others cloud your judgement?

We already as a nation reasonably accept gay characheteur on stage readily and gay themed entertainment with a revolutionised dancehall culture now openly reflecting homo-thug identities and aesthetics or maybe the writer feels claustrophobic with the seeming implosion on Jamaican society of such themes and actions?

There are other opposing views as well to the Gleaner Editiorial and I also expressed a different take on the piece juxtaposing it to the political happenings recently.

Also See:

No Interest In Gay Tourism

THE EDITOR, Sir:

The Gleaner editorial on Thursday was frightening, to say the least. Exactly what is the editor saying? That we should now change all the laws to ensure that gays are protected and free to do what they want to do in Jamaica?

Tourism is good for where, and the tourist dollar goes where? Certainly not in my household. I would not be surprised in future editorials Jamaicans are asked to fix up their children and parade them for gay tourists as in the days of slavery when they paraded our foreparents.

The editor should keep his personal opinion to himself/herself because I certainly am not interested. The Gleaner can suck up to politicians and gays as much as they like, but guess what, I am not compelled to read your paper.

CAROL CAMPBELL

carcam99@hotmail.com

Kingston 19

and My two cents on

Gleaner EDITORIAL – Discrimination Against Gays: A Great Folly

Peace and tolerance

H

Time for hate-crime law

Byron Buckley wrote:

Byron Buckley is associate editor - special projects. Send comments to columns@gleanerjm.com and byron.buckley@gleanerjm.com.

Based on the American Convention on Human Rights, deejays or singers who call for the killing of informers and homosexuals, inter alia, should be punished by law.
The issue was raised during a recent forum at the Norman Manley Law School, where law students participated in an oral competition on Article 13 - Freedom of Thought and Expression - of the American Convention on Human Rights. Discussion of Section 5 of Article 13 indicated that it expressly prohibits "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitements to lawless violence or to any other similar action against any person or group of persons on any grounds including those of race, colour, religion, language or national origin".

The Jamaican society has been grappling with the issue of violence in music. While the Broadcasting Commission has imposed regulations against the airing and timing of lewd content, it has been less effective in reducing violent content.

The commission's hand would be strengthened if - as stated in Section 5 of Article 13 - Parliament introduced hate-crime laws to punish offenders. With the legislature now drafting legislation to reform the defamation laws, this might be an opportune time to enact hate-crime laws.
Protection

This could, perhaps, be an additional tool for the Broadcasting Commission, which recently has come under criticism as ineffective in policing the airwaves. Of course, foul-mouthed artistes could present a defence based on Section 1 of Article 13 that guarantees the right to freedom of thought and expression. "This right includes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art or through any other medium of one's choice."

But, as the law students argued last week, each of the five sections in Article 13 has to be interpreted along with the others. It is Section 2 that permits the dilution of Section 1 on the grounds of the protection of national security, public order, or public health or moral.
The law students acquitted themselves well, demonstrating a fair grasp of press freedom legal cases in the Americas and Europe. The staging of the law school's oral presentation competition coincided with the visit to the island last week of Catalina Botero Marino, special rapporteur on freedom of expression to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

She was among the panel of judges for the competition, which included Norman Manley Law School principal, Professor Stephen Vasciannie; The Gleaner's Senior Counsel, Shena Stubbs-Gibson; Bianca Collins, United States Embassy human rights officer; and your writer.
Byron Buckley is associate editor - special projects. Send comments to columns@gleanerjm.com and byron.buckley@gleanerjm.com.


Article 13 - American Convention on Human Rights

Freedom of Thought and Expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right includes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art, or through any other medium of one's choice.

2. The exercise of the right provided for in the foregoing paragraph shall not be subject to prior censorship but shall be subject to subsequent imposition of liability, which shall be expressly established by law to the extent necessary to ensure: a. respect for the rights or reputations of others; or b. the protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals.

3. The right of expression may not be restricted by indirect methods or means, such as the abuse of government or private controls over newsprint, radio broadcasting frequencies, or equipment used in the dissemi-nation of information, or by any other means tending to impede the communication and circu-lation of ideas and opinions.

4. Notwithstanding the pro-visions of paragraph two above, public entertainments may be subject by law to prior censor-ship for the sole purpose of regulating access to them for the moral protection of childhood and adolescence.

5. Any propaganda for war and any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitements to lawless violence or to any other similar action against any person or group of persons on any grounds, including those of race, colour, religion, language, or national origin shall be considered as offences punishable by law.

Our passive attitude to violence (Observer Editorial)

FRENCH polymath philosopher Michel Foucault explains that what is abnormal, including what is considered madness, is defined in each society in each particular set of social and historical circumstances.

The definition of normal and abnormal is specific to each society at each conjuncture. What is abnormal at a particular time may be accepted as normal at another time. This approach may help in understanding the acceptance by most Jamaicans of the present scale of violence as normal for Jamaica. At any other time in Jamaica or in other societies, violence on the scale and brutality experienced in Jamaica would be regarded as abnormal, indeed as madness.

The appalling number of murders committed in Jamaica places the country at or near the top of the most violent societies in the world. However, it is not just the number of murders that is troubling, but the gruesome brutality of them and the fact that they include children, the elderly and the handicapped. The violence, however, goes much further and deeper in Jamaica if we objectively recognise that social interaction in our society is violent.

There are numerous reports of men raping pubescent girls and beating women; women flogging children; and children extorting money from other students at school. We also hear of incidents of the ruinous torture of incest by fathers and “boyfriends” and sexual predators on young boys.

And just as worrying are the reports of the viciousness with which our society treats those who suffer from mental illness or handicaps and those afflicted by HIV/AIDS.

It is shocking and enigmatic that our society is now inured to violence. The majority of Jamaicans accept that violence on the present scale and viciousness is just how we are. Our brutality is explained away by attributing it to poverty, drug-trafficking, politics, deportees and the reservoir of trauma imprinted in our collective subconsciousness by slavery. All are part of the explanation, but after the animated discussion most resign themselves to the belief that these are realities over which we have no control.

Reports of murder and other violent acts elicit expressions of concern if the person is known to us or the incident happened in close proximity to our home or where we were at the time. A murder in our neighbourhood galvanises the community for a fleeting moment when outrage is vented and plans for action vociferously voiced. But by the next day, apathy and self-centredness settle in once more. The community, many of whom had never met before, do not meet again and do not follow through on their lofty proposals.

The gruesome facts do not seem to impact on our consciousness anymore than another loss by the West Indies cricket team or a plane crash in some distant land. Many avoid news reports, concentrating on protecting themselves as best as possible, and others pray that it does not happen to them or their loved ones. Reactions of this type may be a coping mechanism to shield our minds and morale from the brunt of the depressing and disturbing assault of the daily reports of violence.

The widespread passive acceptance of violence as the normal state of affairs in Jamaica is a perverse and counterproductive attitude and is the first barrier to doing something constructive and efficacious about violence.

Jamaica: Commonwealth of Hate says South Florida Gay News

In November 2004, the international watchdog group Human Rights Watch issued a devastating report that cited Jamaica as the most virulently anti-gay bigoted nation in the Western Hemisphere.



The report, aptly and grimly titled “Hated to Death,” exposed the pervasive homophobia that both drives and permeates the former British crown colony – including the country’s popular culture, law enforcement apparatus, and much of its health care system.



That bias has for generations put at further risk some of the nation’s most vulnerable citizens; setting up barriers both external and internal to seeking medical care, and in the process making it extremely difficult to acquire condoms and other items that would help LGBT persons combat the spread of STDs.



The island’s prevailing attitudes have made their mark across the region. “As Jamaica goes, so goes the Caribbean,” says The Reverend Robert Griffin, Director of Religious Education and Christian Social Action at MCC Sunshine Cathedral in Fort Lauderdale.



Griffin says, too, that the local pop culture only fans the flames of bigotry, homophobia and violence.



“When it comes to gays and lesbians, ‘if you see one, kill one’ is the conventional wisdom you hear coming from the ‘dancehall’ crowd,” Griffin says, referring to the Jamaican genre of popular music.



A version of reggae, dancehall also includes sometimes vicious lyrics that sound off on politics and religion.



Dancehall music has been criticized by international groups for its violent and often homophobic lyrics.



Among the more outspoken anti-gay dancehall artists is Buju Banton, a Kingston-born musician arrested in Tamarac last December by the DEA on charges he tried to sell five kilos of cocaine to undercover agents.



Banton, whose trial in Tampa is scheduled to begin June 21, came under fire from human rights groups because of the lyrics to his song “Boom Bye Bye,” released in 1988 when he was 15 years old.



They include references of distaste towards same-sex intimacy and the threat of violence. (“Two man hitch up on an rub up on, an lay down inna bed; Hug up on another anna feel up [the] leg: [instead] fi[nd] an [auto]matic an[d] [an] Uzi instead.”)



Although a teenager when he recorded the song, Banton has never renounced it and has pointedly refused to sign the Reggae Compassionate Act, a musicians’ pledge to refrain from performing homophobic songs or making homophobic statements.



Under Jamaican law, homosexuality is a crime punishable by ten years of hard labor. Victims of gay-bashing cannot go to the police for fear of official abuse, assault and arrest.



Gays and lesbians who are taken to the hospital following a hate crime often face the added ordeal of openly-hostile hospital staff: badly hurt victims of gay-bashing have been insulted by doctors and nurses and made to wait as much as 24 hours for treatment.



Amnesty International reports that LGBT persons have been “beaten, cut, burned, raped and shot on account of their sexuality.” The organization further confirms that Jamaican authorities, instead of assisting victims, are often themselves guilty of homophobic “violence and torture.”



Since 1997, Amnesty International has documented the murders of 35 LGBT Jamaicans, and since 2008 it has catalogued more than 30 incidents of anti-gay mob violence.



Sadly, much has failed to change in the more than five years since the release of “Hated to Death.” In the Spring of 2010, the data still suggests that the AIDS epidemic may be deepening in Jamaica and that unprotected sex is far more common than hoped.



On April 7, leaders from the international movement of the Metropolitan Community Churches (MCC) participated in the first public HIV/AIDS march in Montego Bay, Jamaica.



The Walk for Tolerance was sponsored by Jamaica AIDS Support for Life, the largest and oldest Jamaican non-profit organization providing support services to persons with HIV and AIDS.



The Caribbean, including Jamaica, has the second-highest HIV infection rate in the world, behind sub-Saharan Africa.



The United Nations estimates that 25,000 Jamaicans are infected with HIV; a significant number do not know that they have the virus.



The goal of the public walk was to engender goodwill, support and tolerance for persons living with HIV and AIDS. The march drew 150 participants, and was hailed as a historic first for the Montego Bay community.



Among the participants were Rev. Nancy Wilson, Presiding Elder and Moderator of MCC, along with Rev. Pat. Bumgardner, who chairs the church’s Global Justice Team, and Fort Lauderdale-based Griffin, who serves additionally as Staff Pastor for Sunshine Cathedral Jamaica and MCC Liaison to Jamaica.



Wilson landed in Jamaica fresh off the White House Easter Prayer Breakfast chat-and-chew with President Barack Obama. Having spoken privately with the American chief executive prior to her departure, Wilson arrived in the British Commonwealth nation with the afterglow of the Presidential Presence.



“The members and adherents of Metropolitan Community Churches stand in solidarity with all persons with HIV and AIDS,” said Wilson.



“Jesus stood with those who were marginalized and rejected by their societies. Jesus loved those who had been made to feel like outcasts; Jesus welcomed such, embraced them, loved them and cared for them. Those who would be Jesus’ followers today must show God’s same extravagant love,” she added.



Griffin notes the importance of gaining the support of members of government and media, and of identifying straight allies, of all political persuasions.



“We want to influence the culture in a positive way without threatening all the good that Jamaica has to offer,” Griffin adds.

-ENDS-



my two cents:

Old news, old facts as covered so many other publications, places, this blog and on GLBTQ Jamaica or is it just another attempt at damage control for JASL following the image problem they have now acquired following the Walk for Tolerance or gay march whatever you want to call it?

Where are the real advocacy issues in this piece when two homeless MSMs are in the hospital suffering from an attack late last month where they were chopped for allegedly soliciting sexual favours from men in public or the lesbian sister who was raped in April as well.

We need more than just old alarms raised overseas now while one can appreciate the need to highlight the issues.

Peace & Tolerance

H