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

It's bigotry if church discriminates against homosexuals (Observer Letter) .....

Dear Editor,

As a devout churchman I fail to appreciate the concern that many of my church folk have about the buggery law. The practice of faith, the last time I checked in my church, was based on the teachings of the Bible, not on the legislature. The church does not need the support of the state in order to practise its beliefs. If it does, then we must worry. But what would be the legal implications if the buggery laws were repealed in Jamaica?

It seems to me that it would come down to a question of whether the right to choose one's sexual expression isn't one that can be surrendered to the dictates of a religious body to which one belongs - meaning that one's belief and practice of one's sexual expressions are subjected to the authority of the church. If choosing one's sexuality is an inalienable right, then the church would be practising its belief in violation of the law. But if it is not an inalienable right, then legally the church is within its right to maintain its position that homosexuality is wrong.

I agree with those who are convinced that the issue is not about homosexuality as it is about rights, which is a discussion that must take place well beyond the parameters of one's sexual orientation. God made man with the power of choice, and unless in the exercise - in particular instances - infringes on another's right, then those choices should be between God and the individuals.

Granted, as God's servants whose understanding would place the burden on us to appeal to those who are leading an objectionable lifestyle, we are obliged to publish our beliefs - not in a manner as to condemn, but to persuade those we are concerned about that it would be in their best interest to follow God's recommended way to live. And we do this with the full knowledge that there is an extensive list of unholy practices that would separate us from God. We therefore do not discriminate against homosexuals. That would be bigotry.

I would take exception to any individual or group who would, without the support of scripture, want to redefine the belief system of my church. With the many religious options there are in the world today, among which are sympathisers to the homosexual way of life, coupled with the fact that church membership is not an inalienable right, why would an individual or a group want to take a church to court? If it were me, I would find one where I am accepted, or create my own. You need your space to live as you believe, please allow me mine. But if you won't, the Bible rules.

Charles Evans

charock01@yahoo.com

ENDS

Pity the church was not named which makes the authenticity of the letter questionable but if it is so according to the writer the separation of church and state seems unclear to the writer when in the end the subtle suggestion of the Bible being the end all for LGBT people to follow.

But locally the moral authority and their motives of the religious community comes into serious question when the groups and the Council of Churches find time to aggressively and publicly block the newly instituted Sunday racing yesterday crying fowl and the gambling issue distorting the moral fibre of society, 

also see the Gleaner's: Church Livid

yet hypocritically Saturday racing has had no major opposition all these many years not even from the powerful Seventh Day Adventists who worship on a Saturday or Friday racing where the Sabbath starts for some on that evening. Some critics go as far to say that the complaints from the church are due to the possibly loss of income in tithes and offerings with the prosperity gospel line some denominations take. The head of the Council of Churches Reverend Harriot in a radio interview said the church has always been opposed to gambling as it is poor people's money who are used to enrich rich, when questioned about the right of persons to choose he said that while they are not forced they are subtly made to gamble. He continued that families get destroyed etc but doesn't stigmatising lgbt people and bashing them also damage families when we see displacement, estranged loved ones and churches who openly read out perceived LGBT people? Other leaders in the grouping have said that racing can take place without the gambling component present and the opening of the betting shops. 

Why does the church feel it must impose its will over freedom of choice of the sinner? this seems like a kind of absolute monarchy wanting to rule every aspect of life.

The thousands of missing children as I have referred to in previous posts and the daily Ananda alerts in the newspapers also does not get the attention and coordinated aggressive responses from the church as homosexuality does and this perception that the gay lobby is trying to impose same on the society when all that is asked for is the right for consenting adults to practice a form of sex associated with male homosexuality, not all same gender loving men or men who dabble in anal or male to male play are homosexual either, a fact that has been left out of the discourse from most sides.

Time and money are found for those with information coming to the fore for recent anti gay public education campaigns with multi million dollar full paged print ads but not for rehabilitation of things and societal ills right before our eyes, we have a long way to go it seems. What about the homeless or destitute and aren't there churches and related folks wealthy too?

Do you agree with the letter writer ??

Peace and tolerance

H 

Gleaner's associate editor on no to theocracy

Byron Buckley wrote

Church Picking On Gays

ALAS, PRIME Minister Portia Simpson Miller has named her Cabinet, notwithstanding the fear and hysteria expressed by some clergymen during the recent election campaign, about the possible inclusion of homosexuals in her administration.

 

Indeed, the overwhelming political mandate, in terms of seat count and geographic spread, given to Mrs Simpson Miller and her party is perhaps a rebuff to those who sought to vilify her position that she would appoint persons to Cabinet positions based on merit rather than sexual orientation.

It is shameful and scandalous for a Christian to support the victimisation (beat the B-man) and discrimination (job denial) of homosexuals and any other groups of persons.

The Christian community in Jamaica is grappling with the dilemma of how to embrace homosexuals while not condoning their sexual orientation and lifestyle.

Why do Christians regard homosexuality as an exceptional or grievous sin?

It is in a Christian's 'DNA' to object to homosexual practices. After all, homosexuality runs counter to the natural principle of procreation established by God. Copulation by Adam and Eve (not Steve) ensures the continuation of the human race. In underscoring this point, God, through Scripture, has regarded homosexuality and bestiality as morally reprehensible.

unnatural, sinful and inimical

Throughout Old and New Testament Scripture, God has expressed displeasure at men and women engaging in unnatural sexual acts with persons of the same sex. The Bible has even come out against men behaving effeminately. Importantly, the Bible forbids other kinds of sexual immorality, including fornication, incest, divorce/adultery and prostitution. Indeed, St Paul told Christians at Corinth that persons who practised homosexuality, adultery and idolatry, among other sins, would not enter God's kingdom.

So, the Church is on message in its opposition to homosexuality. And this article is not a call for the Church to abandon its teaching and stance against homosexuality as unnatural, sinful and inimical to procreation and family life as designed by God.

However, this is a critique of the Church's extreme and selective attitude towards homosexuality and those who practise it - which is contrary to Christians' mission to share the good news with ALL.

New Testament writers refer to homosexuality as part of sexual immorality in general. So to be consistent, the Church should oppose, with equal energy, adultery, fornication, wife-swapping, incest, paedophilia and the high rate of broken marriages. The Church can't cherry-pick its favourite sin to oppose. Homosexuals see straight through this double standard and ask, 'Why discriminate and victimise us?'

What's the real reason Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed? Although Christians often point to the destruction of these cities as caused by rampant homosexuality, there is reason to believe the practice was one of a suite of sinful behaviours that God found offensive. The Hebrew prophet Ezekiel explained the iniquity of Sodom and Gomorrah as pride, fullness of bread (material wealth), abundance of idleness (hedonism), lack of care for the poor and needy, haughtiness and abominable (homosexual) practices.

transformative mission

So, again, Christians have chosen to take their own meaning or emphasis from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. A more apt message to take away is that as a society, we should ensure that material prosperity does not cause us to descend into an orgy of immorality and sensuality. We should also ensure that we take care of the disadvantaged, the poor and needy. This is why Christians should never be found in the position where they are supporting harm being done to anyone - especially with the Church's dismal record during the Crusades and the transatlantic slave trade.

The transformative mission of the Church requires it to display a higher standard of behaviour towards homosexuals. Christians should be leading the way generally in protecting the welfare of homosexuals. Christians can't join the rowdy chorus of 'kill or beat the B-man.' The challenge for the Church is to establish a caring and grace-filled environment that enables it to share the transformative gospel with homosexuals as well. Jesus Christ came to heal the broken-hearted and set the captives free - in short, to transform lives.

The Church cannot be selective about who it ministers to, nor can it place boundaries against groups - such as homosexuals - as if they are beyond God's love.

I believe while there are persons who have accepted their homosexual orientation, others have not. This is where the Church has a mission to offer counsel and healing. But a condemnatory stance by the Church will only drive away such persons who are likely to be befriended by the wrong crowd.

The homophobic (I deliberately choose this word) reaction by some church leaders and Christians is tactically foolish. In the grand culture war and cosmic struggle between good and evil, Christians must secure victory with the weapon of love, which will bring transformation to individual lives.

Maybe Christians have adopted a hard line against homosexuals because, in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, God destroyed, rather than mercifully saving them.

But that's not the full story: Sodom and Gomorrah could have been saved if there were enough righteous people there! In the final analysis, no matter how repulsed Christians are by the haughtiness of some homosexuals, we should leave their fate to God.

In the meantime, we anticipate the PM carrying through her campaign promise to debate and review the law against buggery, allowing legislators to vote according to their conscience and upon their constituents' advice.

No doubt, the voice of the Church and faith-based community will be heard. After all, Jamaica is a pluralistic society as well as a robust democracy. And I prefer this to a theocracy.

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

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.

Gay pressure - US to limit aid (Observer) and more

Countries that criminalise non-heterosexual behaviour to be impacted


A memorandum from US President Barack Obama to heads of US executive departments and agencies on the treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered persons (LGBT) could have wide-ranging impact on Jamaica.

The memorandum, issued Tuesday by the White House, sounds the charge for increased pressure on countries that refuse to end discrimination against non-heterosexuals -- lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered persons.

The memo specifically requires that US agencies target, among other things, countries that criminalise the status or sexual behaviour of these groups.

United States Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Human Rights Day & LGBT rights abroad with US hlelp - December 6, 2011, Geneva 

Obama noted his deep concern about violence and discrimination targeting LGBT persons around the world, "whether it is passing laws that criminalise LGBT status, beating citizens simply for joining peaceful LGBT pride celebrations, or killing men, women, and children for their perceived sexual orientation".

He reiterated his recent stance at the United Nations, where he declared that no country should deny people their rights because of who they love, and that all countries must stand up for the rights of gays and lesbians everywhere.

"Under my Administration, agencies engaged abroad have already begun taking action to promote the fundamental human rights of LGBT persons everywhere. Our deep commitment to advancing the human rights of all people is strengthened when we, as the United States, bring our tools to bear to vigorously advance this goal.

"By this memorandum I am directing all agencies engaged abroad to ensure that US diplomacy and foreign assistance promote and protect the human rights of LGBT persons," wrote the president in his memo.

Among the agencies sent the directive are departments of state, the Treasury, Defence, Justice, Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security, the United States Agency for International Development, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the Export-Import Bank and the United States Trade Representative.

Specifically, Obama directed them to "strengthen existing efforts to effectively combat the criminalisation by foreign governments of LGBT status or conduct and to expand efforts to combat discrimination, homophobia, and intolerance on the basis of LGBT status or conduct".

Secondly, the memo covers persons seeking asylum because of anti-gay violence and persecution.

"In order to improve protection for LGBT refugees and asylum seekers at all stages of displacement, the departments of State and Homeland Security shall enhance their ongoing efforts to ensure that LGBT refugees and asylum seekers have equal access to protection and assistance, particularly in countries of first asylum," he said.

Thirdly, the memo directed that agencies involved with foreign aid, assistance, and development enhance their efforts to ensure regular Federal Government engagement with governments, citizens, civil society, and the private sector in foreign countries in order to build respect for the human rights of LGBT persons.

The remaining directives cover the provision of swift and meaningful US responses to human rights abuses of LGBT persons abroad; engaging international organisations in the fight against LGBT discrimination; and speedy reporting on the progress of the new initiatives.

"All agencies engaged abroad shall prepare a report within 180 days of the date of this memorandum, and annually thereafter, on their progress toward advancing these initiatives," the memo said.

All such agencies are expected to submit their reports to the Department of State, which will compile a report on the Federal Government's progress in advancing these initiatives for dispatch to the president.

Also see: A Statement by Ambassador Susan E. Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, on the President's Memorandum on International Initiatives to Advance the Human Rights of LGBT Persons

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Today, President Obama directed all agencies to protect and promote the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons abroad. At the United Nations, we have strongly supported efforts to codify and enshrine the promise of equality for the LGBT community, and the President’s action adds yet more force to our urgent fight.

Since taking office in 2009, the Obama Administration has worked tirelessly within the UN system to advance the human rights of the world’s LGBT persons. Early on, we signed the UN General Assembly’s Statement on Sexual Orientation on Gender Identity. We joined the LGBT Core Groups in Geneva and New York. We won NGO consultative status for the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. We championed the first UN resolution dedicated to advancing the basic and fundamental rights of LGBT persons. Last December, on Human Rights Day, we pledged to restore language including LGBT individuals in a resolution condemning extrajudicial killings. Within two weeks, we did so.

There is far more work to do before our LGBT friends, neighbors, parents and children live in a world free of discrimination. Through steadfast defense of our universal values, persistent engagement with international partners, and the full force of U.S. efforts under the law, we will get there. I look forward to continuing our work and proudly carrying out the President’s directive.

-###-

meanwhile

David Cameron urged to back Obama in global campaign for gay rights.

UPDATE 09/12/11

The cartoonists Clovis and Lasmay from both major newspapers are either seeing something we as advocates are suspecting will happen soon given the strong feelings by locals of the imposition of gay rights agendas by foreign states on us or they are simply expressing their own sentiments, it is interesting however that the reaction towards the United States' decision to attach aid to rights based issues is far lower than that of the UK's position when it was first postured in November. Sadly the feeling expressed in the latter cartoon is that sodomy is what is being pushed and not LGBTQ rights equity in society.

Is it the election fever that has wore the nation down to not respond to the US announcement or is it the colonial perception attached to the Brits that has led to them being scolded more by the homophobes, even after they retracted the aid cut move and redirected it instead?

Who knows.

Peace and tolerance

H

World AIDS Day 2011

'Getting to Zero', the world commemorates World AIDS Day. An event that was inaugurated 23 years ago today by the World Health Organisation, World AIDS Day focuses on raising money, increasing awareness, fighting prejudice, and improving education on the issue of the AIDS pandemic caused by the HIV infection.

Observed on December 1st each year, the World AIDS Campaign is the leading international organisation which plans and implements the observance of the day and provides governments, national AIDS programmes, faith organisations, community organisations, and individuals with an opportunity to raise awareness and focus attention on the AIDS pandemic worldwide.

The red ribbon used is the global symbol for solidarity with HIV-positive people and those living with AIDS.

This year's theme marks the commitment of the global community to focus on the achievement of the following three targets: zero new HIV infections, zero discrimination and zero AIDS-related deaths. World AIDS Day is important for reminding people that HIV has not gone away, and that there are many things still to be done. It also provides all of us with the opportunity — on an individual, community and political level — to take on the challenge of getting to zero.

According to UNAIDS estimates, there are now 34 million people living with HIV, including approximately 2.5 million children. During 2010, some 2.7 million people became newly infected with the virus, including an estimated 390,000 children.

Despite a significant decline in the estimated number of AIDS-related deaths over the last five years due to improved access to antiretroviral treatment and care in many regions of the world, the AIDS epidemic still claimed an estimated 1.8 million lives in 2010.

The vast majority of people with HIV and AIDS live in lower- and middle-income countries. But HIV today is a threat to men, women and children around the world. In low- and middle-income countries, less than half of those in need of antiretroviral therapy are receiving it, and too many do not have access to adequate care services.

The Caribbean, one of the regions of the world that is most affected by the HIV/AIDS pandemic, reduced the number of new HIV infections by a third from 2001 levels and by more than 25 per cent in Dominican Republic and Jamaica.

However, we are still ranked amongst the highest in the world with an estimated 240,000 people living with HIV and AIDS in the Caribbean at the end of 2009 and an estimated 17,000 newly affected and 12,000 new deaths.

In two countries in this region — The Bahamas and Haiti — more than two per cent of the adult population is living with HIV. These statistics are only rivalled by those of sub-Saharan Africa, making the Caribbean the second most affected region in the world.

Overall, the main route of HIV transmission in the Caribbean is through sexual intercourse. Much of this transmission is associated with commercial sex, but the virus is also spreading in the general population. Cultural and behavioural patterns (such as early initiation of sexual acts and taboos related to sex and sexuality), gender inequalities, lack of confidentiality, stigmatisation, and economic need are some of the factors influencing vulnerability to HIV and AIDS in the Caribbean. As a result, AIDS is now one of the leading causes of death in some of these countries, with Haiti being the worst affected. An estimated 7,500 lives are lost each year to AIDS in Haiti, and thousands of children have been orphaned by the epidemic.

This year, we are asking you to Be Aware. Being aware means finding out the facts about HIV and using this knowledge to protect yourself and others. Promote awareness amongst friends, family members and loved ones; take part in AIDS awareness initiatives and ensure that the message is passed on to all, so that we may be one step closer to reaching zero.

A recent survey in the men who have sex with men population by the Ministry of Health already however suggests we have cause for some serious concerns as preliminary estimates suggest the infection rate will pass the 2007 31% figure despite the presence of a national program that was expected to impact behaviour change overall but what seems to be very little targeted work on the ground by the advocacy structure that being Jamaica AIDS Support and its offspring Jamaica Forum for Lesbians Allsexuals and Gays with very little presence in the community in terms of front line and beat foot patrols then it is no wonder we may see these high figures and to think both organizations are headed by gay men, what does that say about interest and reasons for existence? Is it possible to get to zero or let alone just reduced rates with this kind of aloofness? I think not, we need to get real.

 World AIDS Day 2011 Concerns by glbtqja4 

Meanwhile a full paged ad appeared in the Gleaner (partially scanned seen below) today from an organization I presume named The Isaachar Foundation of whom we know very little about so far except it is chaired by Dr Wayne West who is aligned to the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship and The Coalition for the Defence of Life, Isaachar with their motto "Confronting The Culture ... one mind at a time" of course here seems to be sizing up the high infection rates in the men who have sex with men populations as their fault, they also made reference to France having no sodomy laws since 1791 while having staggering rates of infection.

If one is to be honest and so righteous as these religious pundits claim to be then why not contextualize the points, there must be some cultural as well as other specific factors that contribute to such rises, not just a broad brush of msms simply because they want to impose a theocratic way of doing business and dictating how others should live. This surprise ad had no contact information provided or any logo or reference as to who they really are. Clearly as we have been seeing with the posturings of the leading voices of the religious right they now have new allies coming to their aid or are they consolidating? then what about freedom of choice? Nuff tings lie ahead people.


also see: 

More effective HIV/AIDS prevention message needed

Peace and tolerance

H 

(pamphlet photos from the MOH National Program)

New Shepherd, Same Old Sankey, Carolyn Cooper on Buggery & such ..........

Carolyn Cooper, 

Unlike Bruce Golding who strayed from the fold of the JLP looking for greener pastures, Andrew Holness has been a faithful sheep. Groomed by the shepherd of all shepherds, Eddie Seaga, Andrew unquestioningly stayed in line in the flock. Perhaps he was always too young to pluck up the courage to challenge the authority of the shepherd. As Holness pointedly observed in his inaugural address, he was a mere babe in arms when Golding became a member of parliament in 1972.

Incidentally, Golding remains the youngest person ever elected to Parliament - at the age of 24. But, as the final years of his political career have proven, an early start is no guarantee of a glorious end. Andrew Holness had better learn that lesson. Prematurely elevated to the rank of chief shepherd, Holness has become Jamaica's youngest prime minister.

I'm sure that some of the older heads in the JLP are quite vexed that 'di bwoy bruck di line, fly pass im nest an dust dem out. But dem ha fi bow. A young people time now, an hair dye naa no swag. If dem waan try win election, dem better simmer down an follow backa im'.

Antiquated ideas

For a relatively young man, our new prime minister has some rather antiquated ideas about sex, gender and politics. In his inaugural speech, he made a particularly pompous statement that struck me forcefully: "The ancients saw politics as the highest calling of man. It is what men do in the interest of the public good without thought for their personal benefit or threat of sanction; it is what we do because it is right, not because it is expedient. In this regard, our leaders must lead."

Who are these ancients that Prime Minister Holness cites so authoritatively? I suppose he means the Greeks. Not the modern ones who haven't been able to balance their national Budget and whose bailout is threatening the stability of the Eurozone. Mr Holness' 'ancients' are long dead and their grand rhetoric has little value these days. You can't take ancient Greek political philosophy to the bank. Certainly not to the European Central Bank.

Modern Greek politicians like George Papandreou are no different from our own leaders who like to spout platitudes. 'Personal benefit' often appears to take precedence over 'public good'. Papandreou threatened to call a referendum over the rescue package cobbled together for the Greek economy. It was a gamble to gain support for the austerity measures and so protect his own political interests. Then he flip-flopped and backed down. After all the fancy footwork, Papandreou was forced to resign. The ancients must be turning in their collective grave.

Politics - a man's game?

Quite apart from the emptiness of Mr Holness' holier-than-thou political moralising is the troubling issue of gender. If politics really is 'the highest calling of man', where does that leave women? Out in the cold? Or do women have a higher calling than mere politics? Who is the 'we' to whom the prime minister appeals in his inaugural address? Men? And what is the gender of the leaders who must lead? Masculine?

The Jamaica Women's Political Caucus must be quite alarmed by the prime minister's gendered politics. Established in 1992, the caucus vigorously challenges the stereotype that politics is 'what men do'. Its mission is to increase the number of women in politics at the highest levels. Putting its money where its mouth is, the caucus pays the nomination fees for all female candidates.

UNESCO's Inter-Parliamentary Union ranks Jamaica at No. 86 of 188 countries in the world, based on the percentage of women in Parliament. Only eight of the 60 members of our Parliament are female. This is not a good ratio. We are way below Cuba (No. 6), Guyana (No. 25), Trinidad and Tobago (No. 28) and the Dominican Republic (No. 53). But we're doing much better than Barbados (No. 103), Brazil (No. 110), Haiti (No. 125) and Belize (No. 136).

Why is it that more women don't enter representational politics in Jamaica? Is it because we ourselves believe that it's a man's game? Or have we been deliberately excluded from the men's club? If our youthful prime minister can speak as if representational politics is still a male preserve, what hope is there to transform the patriarchal culture and create opportunities for a fresh crop of women leaders?

Taking the bull by the horns

On matters of sexual politics, new Andrew Holness sounds a lot like old Bruce Golding. Holness hasn't come out and said, "Not in my Cabinet." But it's clear that he's not prepared to take the bull by the horns and initiate the repeal of Jamaica's outdated buggery law. It was the 'ancients' who conceived the Buggery Act of 1533. Not the Greeks, this time, for whom homosexuality was an accepted practice.

Almost 500 years ago, the English parliament passed a law that criminalised 'unnatural' sex acts. These included anal penetration and bestiality. The punishment for buggery was death by hanging. This act takes us right back to the primitive Old Testament theology of the Book of Leviticus.

The buggery law was repealed in the UK in 1967 but remains on the books in many of Britain's former colonies, including Jamaica. A recentSunday Gleaner article, 'Not ready for gays', reports the following: 'Despite renewed pressure from Britain for Jamaica to repeal its anti-buggery law, Prime Minister Andrew Holness says it will be up to Jamaicans to signal such desire.'

So why not call a referendum on the repeal of the buggery law? Perhaps Jamaicans are ready for change. Politics is not about expediency. It's what we do because it is right. Our prime minister needs to practise what he preaches. Otherwise, all of this talk about youth and change is nothing but the same old Sankey.

Carolyn Cooper is a professor of literary and cultural studies at the University of the West Indies, Mona. Visit her bilingual blog at http://carolynjoycooper.wordpress.com/. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and karokupa@gmail.com.

Should Jamaica repeal its buggery law to maintain British aid? .......

The Gleaner's Have Your Say Blog has posed a question (see below) on the David Cameron statement matter and the withdrawal of aid to countries who host anti gay laws. On this International Day of Tolerance this question should rest in our minds I suggest as we try to make sense of the furor after the statement by UK Prime Minister David Cameron's supposed threat to withdraw aid from commonwealth countries who have anti sodomy laws on their books. Here is the question and some answers including my response:  

Should Jamaica repeal its buggery law to maintain British aid?

Since the British prime minister, David Cameron recently stated that Britain would begin withholding aid from governments that do not reform legislation banning homosexuality; it seems that the question of whether or not Jamaica should repeal its buggery law has become an even greater source of contention.

Mr. Cameron made it clear that countries being given British aid should either “adhere to proper human rights” or face the consequences.

This has not gone down well with scores of Jamaicans who believe that this is a blatant attempt by Britain to force sovereign states to conform to a British perspective. However, others believe that it is Britain’s right to give or withhold their aid for whatever reason they deem significant.


What is your opinion? Do you think Jamaica should repeal its buggery law in order to maintain British aid? Have your say…

My answer I hope they approve and publish was:

Yes it should be repealed or at least decriminalized but with CAREFUL and INTERACTIVE unemotional discussions between all or most of the contending parties and the public, the misconceptions about male homosexual life in particular are just the tip of the iceberg that clouds the issues whilst driving homophobia that need resolving, if not the opposing sides will always be at each other without any middle ground.

Issues such as:

The CLEAR demarcation between consenting male gay/bi men versus perceived predatory behaviors towards children

The fact that most same sex pedophiles are in fact not homosexual after psychiatric evaluation but very much hetero with deep issues troubling them.

We believe homosexuality is illegal in Jamaica when it is not but in fact it is BUGGERY/ANAL sex that is which also practiced by some heterosexual couples although in the minority.

Not all same gender loving men practice anal penetration, there are some who find it unpleasureable believe it or not but these days anal sex is not as untidy as years decades gone by, some pharmacies locally have become enlightened and sell cleansing agents quite openly in some locations that assist persons who practice anal sex in cleanliness and safer sex. Please do not judge homosexuals by simply the way we have sex, there is more to us than that.

All of the above (and more but too long to list) need proper ventilating in simple language so that the ordinary man understands it then he can determine how he feels about the issues afterwards
The big stick approach however by the UK is NOT the way to go as that will only infuriate Jamaicans and we don’t like to be dictated to

Finally if we are to burrow the Irish model as is proposed by the advocacy structure then we can also include the child defilement provision so as to ease any concerns by child rights advocates and the public have have that freeing up buggery will cause increased child abuse, so as in order to protect children as well as they are of the least resistance for abusers. Homosexual acts were illegal in Ireland up until the summer of 1993 and further amendments in 2006. The Offences against the Person Act lifted the ban, and declared the age of consent to be 17, the same as that for acts between heterosexuals. I suggest we look at this example and probably tweak it to our liking.

The Irish child defilement clause is clear in the ages of consent and the punishment(s).

3.— (1) Any person who engages in a sexual act with a child who is under the age of 17 years shall be guilty of an offence and shall, subject to subsection (3), be liable on conviction on indictment—

(a) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, or

(b) if he or she is a person in authority, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.

(2) Any person who attempts to engage in a sexual act with a child who is under the age of 17 years shall be guilty of an offence and shall, subject to subsection (4) be liable on conviction on indictment—

(a) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, or

(b) if he or she is a person in authority, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 4 years.

Peace and tolerance

Mr. H

Other answers of course were as expected not in support of the issue of repealing the buggery law. For example:

Go to the site and add your voice: HAVE YOUR SAY

also hear my audio commentary concerns about how we have skewed the tolerance calls, do we really have any credibility to ask the nation for such at this time?

International Day for Tolerance 16.11.11 my concerns of our state by glbtqja3

UPDATE: November 25 I added this comment:

1. GayTimesWatcher says:

   Your comment is awaiting moderation. 
   

   November 25, 2011 at 2:25 am

   New developments, well the Brits have now said aid won’t be cut but redirected and apparently Jamaica was not included but the idea was more so for African countries seeing that they have been very active such as Uganda with the anti gay bill there and Ghana with similar actions towards LGBT people, so I guess we can stop panicking ………… Andrew Mitchell a UK Minister said the policy had been wrongly reported as a threat to cut aid.

   The government has confirmed plans to redirect aid away from overseas governments who fail to recognise human rights, but has said it will still ensure aid reaches those in need.

   Some African states reacted angrily to Secretary of State for International Development Andrew Mitchell’s comments that aid would be redirected away from governments to other bodies, believing that overall aid would be cut unless anti-gay laws were repealed.

   In October, he (Mitchell) said: “Taking money away from Governments does not mean you do not support that country. You find other mechanisms for trying to help the poorest with food, education and health care as well as building up business structures.”

   Several Commonwealth governments condemned the action as an attempt to influence domestic policy and introduce gay rights against countries’ wishes.

   Mitchell made the statement to a meeting at which Peter Tatchell, the Kaleidoscope Trust, Stonewall, Justice for Gay Africans and the International HIV/AIDS Alliance were present. Mr Mitchell also said: “We have been very clear on this – where we think Governments do not have respect for human rights, it will have a big effect on the way we carry out this funding. Taking money away from Governments does not mean you do not support that country. You find other mechanisms for trying to help the poorest with food, education and health care as well as building up business structures..

   It is not about taking money away from countries but finding other mechanisms to help them. We take a very clear line. In a number of countries in Africa that discrimination against homosexuality has concerned us. In Malawi when they kicked out the British High Commissioner we looked at the whole nature of that relationship.

   We were aware there had been some expenditure by the President. We were aware there had been some lack of human rights – the intention to criminalize lesbianism – all took a part in my decision to stop funding the government centrally.”

   Source: Pink News UK and glbtqja.wordpress.com

Peace and tolerance

H