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

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 

Jamaicans won't be bullied into accepting homosexual lifestyle (Observer Letter) & More anti-gay positions

 

Dear Editor,

It is not true, as the international gay rights community suggests, that Jamaicans are murderously homophobic and intolerant of homosexuals.

The evidence is that more homosexuals are murdered in Jamaica by members of the gay community, than by anti-homosexual violence.

What is true is that Jamaican men, especially, have co-existed in relative harmony with many prominent or well-known persons whose lifestyles or sexual orientation are either openly or evidently homosexual, but who are otherwise discreet in their attitude and behaviour, rather than up in your face.

It is honest — not hypocritical, as some suggest — for Jamaicans to acknowledge that this is the situation, generally.

What many Jamaicans hate, and will no doubt continue to oppose, is the gay rights movement's barefaced attempts to use threats, bullying and intimidation to impose their deviant, species-endangering lifestyle and sexual practices upon Jamaica, with support from their local and international friends in media and elsewhere.

This is clearly in order to advance their role and agenda, to manifest that the whole "...world is Sodom and Egypt" (Revelation 11:8). Naturally (really, more spiritually), these friends include "...principalities and powers... rulers of spiritual darkness in high (and low) places..." against whom the "children of righteousness" are always "wrestling" (Ephesians 6:12, KJV).

Religious and non-religious persons need not respond to the Bible verses above with the usual "dialogue-of-the-deaf" rhetoric. Just be reminded that it is easy to establish — without the Bible — that practising and promoting homosexuality in mankind is against the natural instinct of self-preservation and multiplication in all species, and ultimately a threat to the survival of mankind, including women.

Nevertheless, the Judeo-Christian Bible also condemns homosexuality, listing the practice as "abominable". The same book(s) clearly indicate(s), however, that it is possible to "hate the sin" and still "love the sinner', being willing to forgive the repentant sinner, allowing him to "go and sin no more".

We are all aware that the Creator alone can "see" a man's "heart". Hence He is the One who ultimately determines which "sin" is "unto death", and which, whose, and when, a "sin" is "not unto death". Our responsibility as human beings, therefore, (especially if we have received "new hearts") is to love even our enemies. To do unto others as we would have them do to us, even as we strive to appropriately conform to laws of the land.

None of this should be interpreted as meaning that Jamaicans in general will be ready anytime soon to agreeing or authorising our parliamentarians to legalise the practice of homosexual intercourse (buggery), leading ultimately to national, social, and cultural acceptance of same-sex marriages, and one-sex families, among other things.

Gay rights supporters should understand and accept that unless (somehow), it is Yahweh's will to allow Jamaica to experience the same fate as did the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, we will draw our line in the sand against the international advance of homosexuality in Jamaica, at a point no further than, possibly, extending the definition of buggery to mean, or to include, inter alia, public or private consensual or non-consensual engagement in homosexual activity with minors, and non-consensual or forced engagement with anyone, publicly or privately.

Prime Minister Holness, Opposition Leader Portia Simpson Miller, the media, and all parliamentarians should take note. And whether we review and/or repeal, according to Yahweh's will, let the discourse continue in the year of Jubilee (2012); but let it be from the above-stated base of factual accuracy.

Let the struggle continue, as it must, but let us do all things decently and in order, with the love and power of our Divine Creator as our motivator, protector and guide.

C Anthony
Kingston 10
carltongor@gmail.com

Read more: 

Reject homosexual agenda, Miller urges Jamaica

FIREBRAND preacher Rev Al Miller yesterday  (27.12.11) urged Jamaicans to reject what he called “the homosexual agenda” when they go to the polls tomorrow.

Miller made public his very strong position in a letter to the editor in which he also called on religious and political leaders to speak out on the issue which has marked the final days of the election campaign.

Rev Miller was among the first church leaders last week to voice opposition to PNP leader Portia Simpson Miller’s announcement that a Government led by her would review the buggery law.

Simpson Miller, in responding to a question in the National Leadership Debate last week Tuesday, said she would initiate a conscience vote on the controversial issue in the Parliament and clearly stated that she was not opposed to having gays in a Cabinet led by her, adding that she would appoint people based on their ability.

Expressing concern about the buggery law review proposal last week, Rev Miller said: “I am disappointed that we are still insisting to go back in that direction, because the matter was dealt with in the amended Bill of Rights earlier this year.”

Yesterday, in his letter, Miller reiterated his opposition to having homosexuals serve in the Cabinet, arguing that to do so “would be to declare homosexual behaviour as normal and right”.

Homosexuality, he said, “challenges human existence and the true family values and culture to which all Jamaicans should aspire. There are also implications for the institution of marriage and the education of our children”.

Miller said that while he rejected any notion to deny the homosexual minority their human and national rights, he rejected the gay agenda of acceptance of homosexual activity as normal and right.

“We therefore call on all Jamaicans islandwide to use the vote to reject the homosexual agenda,” he said. “We also call on Jamaica’s principled church and political leadership to make heard your voices now.”


also see: 

Gays Should 'Tek Weh' Themselves

THE EDITOR, Sir:

THERE IS a difference between knowing that you have done wrong (sinned) and accepting this to be right. If homosexuality is to be accepted, then everything else has to be 'accepted' (accept all sin to be 'right'). This fundamental flies in the face of all things 'Christian' and anybody who knows anything about Jamaica knows how many churches there are in Jamaica.

This, we believe, would severely fracture the already weakened moral fibre of our society. I do not think many of us want to kill or even prosecute anybody, so that the buggery law is not materially insignificant; but, homosexuality as an issue puts us in a moral dilemma. The Christian concepts and that of homosexuality are mutually exclusive; they do not coexist. They (homosexuals) need to keep their activity to themselves, call their union something else ... not marriage. We know they exist … just like prostitution, we know it is there but 'wrong'. We will resist every and any attempt by those abroad to impose this on us, the majority, in Jamaica. Those who believe in Christian precepts may be a minority elsewhere but not here.

Concerned

Portmore

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.

Perkins scolded for his "tolerance"

A day after the International Day of Tolerance long time talk show host, former Gleaner and Daily News (now defunct) columnist, controversial opinion figurehead, political archiver and outpsoken tolerance to homosexual activist in a sense Wilmot "Mutty" Perkins has been scolded for his long time stance on private consensual same sex activity. His position was clear and he has been consistent on the issue for decades especially during the P. J Patterson years as Prime Minister when his private life and suspected homosexual orientation was brought into question juxtaposed to his leadership qualifications, Mr. Perkins then was resolute that someone's sexual orientation is not of concern so long as they are performing on the job, he still holds that view as echoed recently to callers who challenge his position. He has also said he has homosexual friends with whom he has stimulating conversations on art, theology, anthropology and other subjects. During the Sexual Offences Bill debates as well and the Charter of Rights furor he reiterated his position with regards to tolerance, privacy and evasiveness of the old laws obstructing consent between adults.

He has also expressed repeatedly his support for same sex unions rights to be afforded to LGBT people with more emphasis on the benefits afforded to heterosexual couples from the state equally shared with gay unions as well, such as pension and death/funeral grants.

Here is the letter:

No, Mr Perkins

Dear Editor,

I must respond to a comment made on Perkins Online on October 25 by Wilmot Perkins.

In his conversation with a caller, he happened to utter the unforgivable lines that if two consenting males happen to be in the privacy of their homes engaging in their acts of buggery, he has no problem with that and that in fact it would be none of his business.

He also challenged those who put forward the idea that young boys would be open more to abuse by older men who are homosexuals, if the laws relating to homosexuality in Jamaica should be discontinued. His line of argument was that both young boys and girls are being abused in society in other ways, so in effect buggery would be just another form of abuse. He went as far as to point out that heterosexuals should be glad that they were born with their specific sex tendencies and sympathise with the unfortunate homosexuals being born the way they were.

I am totally disappointed in a man whom I grew up listening to on the radio and for whom I've had deep respect. I can tolerate his open vociferous defence of the JLP, although I think that his position on radio as a talk show host should have tempered his political outpouring so as to preserve the integrity that goes along with his type of job.

It surprises me that such an educated individual seems not to see that we are all connected at some point in our existence and that the action of one individual or two or more for that matter, will have an effect on the rest of society. There is no deviant behaviour by an individual that will not have a repercussion on the rest of society. Hence one should always be mindful of their actions, even in the privacy of their homes.

Consider two men together as partners that will leave two women without a partner for themselves. These women will either have to choose between becoming lesbians, being celibate or sharing someone else's fellow. The latter choice will mean rearing children as single mothers or destabilising somebody else's family. There will be no guarantee of the full influence or presence of a father figure within that family. God forbid those two fellows wanting children in their union. Imagine the scenario that would ensue.

So you see, Mr Perkins, it does matter what other people do when they live in a community or a society. There are only two remedies for this situation in a country like Jamaica. It's either total isolation without any interaction with the rest of society, or total elimination for those considered deviants. That is why some people don't want such people in their environment, because they are bound to have an effect on other people. After all, you catch the fish from the sea and carry it home, but that fish is in the big sea along with others.

So Mr Perkins, every action matters. Think about the biblical Sodom and Gomorrah.

Ras Roger

rastadeacon@facebook.com

ENDS

Clearly what we have here is a mad homophobe but more and more media personalities however seem to be more enlightened such as Elon Parkinson on CVM's Live @ 7, Simon Crosskill one half of the Smile Jamaica crew who was caustic back in the day towards LGBT subject matter and who seems to be in the process of making an about face, Ian Boyne from JIS, TVJ's Profile and Gleaner columnist and Religious Hardtalk has been balanced in his pronouncements on gay/lesbian issues despite his background in theology and his proclivity towards religious arguments. How quick some of us are to judge I wonder if when we turn the magnifying glass on this writer what will be unearthed? why do some persons feel they have greater authority to determine what is right and morally just for someone else?

Who are we to point fingers at each other when it's my private business that is of concern here?

Such is the nature of persons who are not one sided but can judge for themselves they get vilified by ignorant homophobes who refuse to think.

Peace and tolerance

H 

Flawed Logic Of Anti-Gay Lobby (Gleaner Letter)

In response to the November 12th Gleaner piece by Shirley Richards on Jamaica Must Not Surrender Sovereignty new comer to gay Jamaican blogging B. P. Welsh has responded but first check out Miss Shirley's article and the response Flawed Logic Of Anti-Gay Lobby below. Also see on my sister blog GLBTQ Jamaica an interview with Ms Richards on the religious station Love 101Fm on the whole buggery repulsion matter and the supposed threat from UK Prime Minister David Cameron to remove aid.

Shirley Richards & The Jamaican UK Foster Parents (The Johns) on Love 101 FM ............. on buggery

Shirley Richards' piece from the Gleaner

Not being satisfied with the failure of the Commonwealth heads of government to arrive at a consensus on the matter of the repeal of sodomy laws within the Commonwealth, British Prime Minister David Cameron has taken the decision to withhold British aid from non-compliant nations.

Did we hear right, or were we mistaken? Is it true that our former masters are now calling on us to repeal laws that they are not in agreement with, or face the penalty? Is it that somewhere in the 1962 Jamaica (Constitution) Order in Council which facilitated our independence, there remains a hidden, residual power for Britain and its allies to manipulate our legislature as it thinks fit? What did Gandhi, Nkrumah, Manley and others fight for?

The effrontery of David Cameron and his allies is incredulous! (Incidentally, If Eric Williams were around, he surely would have made it clear to members of the Commonwealth that 43 from 54 leaves nought!) Thankfully, however, the very system which the British left us contained within it the right to resistance. That very same philosophy was the driving force of the struggle for the independence of America - government depends on the consent of the governed.

As has been many times said before, the retention of the buggery law provides guidance to us as a country between that which is acceptable and that which is not, in terms of sexual behaviour. It is the legal underpinning of the survival of the tradition of the heterosexual family. It is a guide to parents, children and to our public officials in the matter of sexual affairs. How could the homosexual lifestyle be in the interest of humanity when it leads to nothingness and is fraught with dangers both for the individual and the society?

HIV transmitting out of control

What makes the effrontery worse is that the scientific literature has indicated that in Europe generally "HIV transmission seems to be out of control in the MSM population". If David Cameron was really interested in our welfare, wouldn't he be urging us, with tears in his eyes, not to repeal our laws, as it would appear that by liberalising their laws Britain and its allies have made a grave error?

What is also of grave concern is that in these countries where the laws have been liberalised, there seems to be an emerging tyranny which penalises any expression of dissent of the lifestyle, even where such dissent is expressed privately. Just last month in England, father-of-two, Adrian Smith, 54, was found guilty of misconduct by the Trafford Housing Trust and had his salary slashed by £14,000 after saying on his private Facebook page that same-sex weddings in churches would be "an equality too far".

Neil Addison, an expert in religious discrimination law and a practising barrister in England, commented on this case, saying: "When I was a child, people in England used to say, 'I can say what I like, it's a free country.' That is certainly no longer the case in Britain today."

It's a very similar situation with the abortion issue. On November 15, an employment tribunal in London will begin to hear the case of Margaret Forrester, who was sacked from her job as a mental-health worker because she had shown a pro-life booklet to colleagues that said women suffer from mental-health consequences after abortions.

It is also expected that by December 5, the British Government will lift the ban on same-sex civil-partnership ceremonies in churches. (This was what Adrian Smith was concerned about). Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone is insisting that churches would have the freedom to decide if they want to offer same-sex services. However, the fear is that even if the scheme was initially voluntary, churches that do not agree to offer the services are "likely to be put under huge pressure to change their policy by campaign groups".

Not tolerated

With all due respect to Lord Gifford, QC, the situation seems to be the same in Ireland. At the time sodomy was decriminalised in 1995, it was argued by the homosexual lobby that they simply wanted to be left alone. However, since then, the lobby has grown into 'a rights industry', and now any criticism or even questioning of them and their continuous demands is not tolerated.

On Sunday, October 30, journalist Eamon Delaney, writing in Ireland's leading newspaper, the Irish Independent, referred to the "insatiable demands" of the homosexual advocates "for more and more recognition and identity". Mr Delaney expressed the concern that this will "eventually alienate mainstream opinion." http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/loud-and-proud-gays-want-to-take-over-rest-of-society-2920975.html.

It is just a matter of time before persons who hold contrary views on both the issue of homosexuality and abortion will have to flee Europe and the United States in search of safe haven. (Déjà vu?)

At the same time, however, one wants to make it abundantly clear that use of violence against homosexuals is absolutely wrong and must be denounced. All allegations of violence, including violence against homosexuals, must be thoroughly investigated by our security forces with the aim of bringing perpetrators to justice.

So up, you mighty nation! Have you forgotten who you are? You are Jamaicans, for goodness sake! Within your laws as they currently are is the key for the preservation of the family, the health of nations and the survival of the human race. So do not be ashamed! Do not be intimidated! You are on solid healthy ground!

Email feedback to sprichards@cwjamaica.com. 

Mr. Welsh's response:

Flawed Logic Of Anti-Gay Lobby

THE EDITOR, Sir:

The argument posited by certain members of the religious right and thenouveau intelligentsia that it would be illogical to repeal the buggery law in light of the disproportionate rates of HIV infection recorded among men who have sex with men (MSM) in epidemiological data is flawed.

The claim is that retention of the buggery law in light of the rates of infection is in fact prohibitive towards new infections and is ergo a societal good. This analysis is fallacious.

The buggery law is but one of many variables which exacerbate the systemic vulnerabilities of MSM to HIV infection. I would never propose that repealing the law would serve as a panacea; in fact, it is merely the first step in the right direction for government in the creation of a supportive social environment.

A fatal (though intentional) flaw of Marc Ramsay's and Shirley Richards' diatribes in The Gleaner on November 12 was the failure to recognise how the buggery law legitimises hostile attitudes toward sexual minorities and how its retention is a symbol of the complicity of government in the abuse suffered at the hand of misguided homophobes.

MSM are not disease vectors any more than another societal demo-graphic, but the vulnerabilities faced by this population can only be addressed through open dialogue .

BRIAN-PAUL N. WELSH

Brianpaul.welsh@gmail.com

St Andrew

Meet Gays Halfway But ... (Gleaner Letter) ........ what!, homosexuality is learnt behaviour? PART II

In part 1 we saw the original letter and the trope she the Boulevard Baptist Church member postured to the Gleaner. She went on to stress that homosexuality is learnt behaviour. A member of my Facebook group GLBTQ Jamaica Chat sought to reply in as respectfully as possible given the undertones of the original letter.


The initial response from the group member was:


"Dear Elvena,I just read your letter published in the Gleaner and as it's a public forum I feel free to comment. You are entitled to your hypothesis but interviewing 50 people doesn't make a study where you can make any real scientific conclusions. Why not leave it to the experts who have sampled thousands? I, as a homosexual, can tell you that I believe that I was born this way. I always knew as long as I could remember that I was different and later on realized what this meant.You are not in a position to define scientifically that homosexuality is an "abnormal behaviour" as you stated.


Homosexuality was removed from the DSM in the 1970's and I tend to get my information from credible sources, though my bias is self-serving, but at least it doesn't demonize people and support perpetuated violence to an entire group of people. You went on to suggest that accepting homosexuality is the same as accepting bestiality, "If we do, we may as well accept bestiality, or plainly put, man and dog.". That's just plain stupid, for want of a better word. As a University graduate you should know better. At least you didn't mention the school you went to, which I presume would be embarrassed that you are an reflection of the quality of their education. I hope it's not UWI.You went on to write, "We can only meet them halfway".


You are not even on the bridge, not even close. To have a meaningful dialogue between groups with opposing views you have to at least recognise that they are both human (bestiality references don't help) and that they are cognizant and coherent ( you wrote "Like any abnormal behaviour, such as bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, etc., homosexuality falls in a group of deviant behaviours"). When you get to that point, then we can have a conversation based on mutual respect, if not agreement."


 S. Macleish
St. Vincent and the Grenadines


But the letter writer answered and Sean rebutted:


"Hi Sean,

If you are comfortable with what you are doing, then so be it. It is beyond me to know why you always felt that you were homosexual. So you think that you are a born homo. Well well. How abour therapy? Most of the people in the world are heterosexuals so clearly you are different and logically there is therapy for every deviant behaviour. Do you have faily antecedents who are homos?

It is said that the vagina for the most part is very clean. Cleaner than the mouth so it is difficult for me to accept why a man should leave the vagine to insert his penis (which is a part of the sacred gift from God) into the exhaust system of the body that carries all the bacteria and will smell on your penis and hands."
EMAIL ENDS

SEAN'S REPLY

"Elvena,

Your feelings are not fact. I am not going to belabour your feelings about homosexuality because you can't argue with someone who does not deal with facts. Your analogy is erroneous. So to follow your skewed logic, Asia holds 60% of the World's population, so clearly the rest of us non-asians are "different", so what is the therapy for this? Maybe surgery to make us look more Asian?

You did get one thing right about vaginas being clean, so you must have paid attention in your Biology classes at University. Kudos to you. I respect vaginas and some of my closest friends happen to have one. However, you are misguided and misinformed. Homosexuals don't hold the patent on anal sex; heterosexuals partake as well. Also not all homosexuals participate in anal sex. Yes, vaginas are cleaner than a mouth, but what about oral sex? Is it acceptable to insert the sacred penis into a "dirty" mouth or the "dirty" mouth to a vagina? I didn't interview 50 heterosexual people like you did, but from what I have heard, oral sex is quite common.

It sounds like you may have had some experience with anal sex, you wrote,"...a man should leave the vagine to insert his penis (which is a part of the sacred gift from God) into the exhaust system of the body that carries all the bacteria and will smell on your penis and hands". I can offer you some tips here. Your anally receptive partner can douche prior to penetration to wash away all that bacteria, and you should wear a condom on your penis which will protect it from any unwanted smells. As for your hands, well if you don't like the smell then don't insert your fingers into the anus, or simply use soap and water."


Let me know how it works out.
Sean

Where will it end?

Clearly the conflation of homosexuality and supposed unprotected and unprepared anal sex is what drives this homophobic christian elder to produce such putrid hate when God says judge not and you shall not be judged, why are ignorant persons hung up on just homosexuals and the way we have sex? why can't we broaden our minds to the wider tolerance or acceptance of people as people and stop poking through our keyholes or using over active imagination about our sexual activities? As Sean rightly puts it not all gay or bisexual men practice penetrative sex.

We have a long way to go here folks as this letter writer is a symptomatic representation of others like her who are just plain dumb.

Peace and tolerance

H

Meet Gays Halfway But ... (Gleaner Letter) ........ what!, homosexuality is learnt behaviour?

Before we read this letter I have been consistent in critiquing our advocates that we have not done a good job of rebutting the widely held perception in our intelligencia and by extension the general anti gay populace that homosexuality is learnt behaviour, as these obstacles are placed in the way of an obviously intensified campaign for the decriminalization of buggery or its full repulsion we could have averted letters like this during the "slow years' so persons opposed to the perceived negatives of homosexuality would be at a different place of knowledge in the public discourse.

Have a read of this letter where the letter writer implies that homosexuality is learnt behaviour among other anti gay points yet tries to disguise her hate through this supposed tolerance.
The writer by the way is a Justice of the Peace, and a senior member of Boulevard Baptist Church

Meet Gays Halfway But ...

THE EDITOR, Sir:

Some years ago, I had the opportunity of interviewing some 50 homosexuals, of which only about five were female. Unfortunately, most, if not all, were white-collar persons aged 25-45. This research project was part of my university study, captioned 'Profile of the Jamaican homosexual'.

My hypothesis was that homosexuality was a learned behaviour, and so I set out to prove same, which I did.

Long after I completed my study, I revisited the raw data and, interestingly, I found that a fair percentage of my sample had homosexuals in their antecedent family. I hasten to say that I am not alluding that homosexuality is hereditary. It could have been picked up from the social package within the family. Like any abnormal behaviour, such as bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, etc., homosexuality falls in a group of deviant behaviours.

Be that as it may, Jamaican society, for the most part, uses the Bible as its benchmark for social behaviour, and we also set our values and standards on the three Ns: normal, natural and nice.

Additionally, and ironically, we were given the buggery law by the British, and today it is the same British who are demanding that the law be repealed. David Cameron is talking tough.

I am cognisant of human rights and I would suggest that homosexuality behind closed doors, between consenting partners of legal age, should be decriminalised, and we can let God be their judge. However, we should still criminalise the flaunting of this lifestyle in public spaces. This would ban any outdoor activities, like drag parties, etc.

By extension, homosexuals should be barred from adopting children or getting married, and these strictures could be added to a revised buggery law.

We can only meet them halfway. While powerful homosexuals have successfully removed their behaviour from contemporary abnormal psychology manuals, thus promoting themselves as normal, we cannot allow the few to tear down the many and for society to embrace their behaviour.

If we do, we may as well accept bestiality, or plainly put, man and dog.
I trust that our PM will see the logic in a revised buggery law - half in favour of homosexuals and half in favour of heterosexuals.

ELVENA WILLIAMS REITTIE
elvena@cwjamaica.com

LETTER ENDS

Continued from above

This letter writer is either confused, plainly disingenuous or just thinking we will settle for bread crumbs as it relates to this matter of decriminalization of buggery, the two mouthing or flip flopping here wreaks of a kind of piecemeal tolerance or I guess we should acquiesce to this garbage. Her stupidity is even more glaring not understanding the nuances with bisexuality and that of many double gender lovers presently involved in gay relationships had children as a product of previous heterosexual unions one would have thought she would had gleaned that from her so called study. To link same gender loving rights agitation to a graduatory move to demand rights for beastiality is plain dishonest and shows a hidden agenda here in a sick minded individual.

If she has a problem with effeminate behaviour and seeks to co-relate effeminacy with homosexuality then she is an idiot plain and simple if truth be told not all effeminate males are homosexual and not all homosexual males are effeminate, in fact effemopbohia is a major LGBT community issue as well as it is.

To suggest the decriminalization of buggery while ignoring the obvious reflection of that possibly seismic change in the aesthetic of homosexual life in this country to become more pronounced and public also is an idiotic position to take in my view. As we are living in this country we are in the middle of a metrosexual and public effeminacy revolution, also to be included in the mix are transgender individuals who are presented as their desired gender i.e male to female for purposes of this response. Literally how we dress is an expression of who we are.

I may further add to this my facebook comment where I expressed in more local parlance:

"Overall this letter is plain hatred disguised but she step on my foot right harder here when she says : 


"I am cognizant of human rights and I would suggest that homosexuality behind closed doors, between consenting partners of legal age, should be decriminalised, and we can let God be their judge. However, we should still criminalise the flaunting of this lifestyle in public spaces. This would ban any outdoor activities, like drag parties, etc." 


We need some fierce drag queens to find this letter writer, dance infront of her or subject her to a cratches mawnin party and give her a heart attack ..... bright n out a order a talk bout ban my queen dem........... no sah!!!!!!!!!

.......... can u imagine, it is a line that has been coming from certain corners of our intellegencia where if gays gets rights then other deviant rights seekers are gonna turn up clearly not knowing the differences ... this two mouthing/tolerance flip flop is so typical of some of these haters under disguise .... the other day I heard Leachim Semaj echo a similar sentiment."

The public's non acceptance of displays of outward same sex affection has been an issue for decades now based on the negative perceptions of male homosexuality which supposed challenges our devoted machismo and male egos conveniently stoked by the tabloid media and with no serious rebuttal from our advocacy structure until recently but as a nation one will naturally follow the other as in a positive change in the law will mean a change in attitude and expression of the persons the positive impact the law will have. One leading blogger commented: "What concerns me is that an editor decided that this should be letter of the day. Given the editorial that was published yesterday, is the Gleaner striving for "balance"?
Now she did a study in university. Great for her. In what discipline? What was the methodology? (That's a stupid research question by the way. Is homosexuality learnt? Yes. She went about answering a question that she already had a(n) (mis)informed opinion about)

By suggeting she is a scholar she is validating an opinion that is still very much an opinion."


Another response came from an ally in St. Vincent


"Dear Elvena,
I just read your letter published in the Gleaner and as it's a public forum I feel free to comment. You are entitled to your hypothesis but interviewing 50 people doesn't make a study where you can make any real scientific conclusions. Why not leave it to the experts who have sampled thousands? I, as a homosexual, can tell you that I believe that I was born this way. I always knew as long as I could remember that I was different and later on realized what this meant.

You are not in a position to define scientifically that homosexuality is an "abnormal behaviour" as you stated. Homosexuality was removed from the DSM in the 1970's and I tend to get my information from credible sources, though my bias is self-serving, but at least it doesn't demonize people and support perpetuated violence to an entire group of people. You went on to suggest that accepting homosexuality is the same as accepting bestiality, "If we do, we may as well accept bestiality, or plainly put, man and dog.". That's just plain stupid, for want of a better word. As a University graduate you should know better. At least you didn't mention the school you went to, which I presume would be embarrassed that you are an reflection of the quality of their education. I hope it's not UWI.

You went on to write, "We can only meet them halfway". You are not even on the bridge, not even close. To have a meaningful dialogue between groups with opposing views you have to at least recognise that they are both human (bestiality references don't help) and that they are cognizant and coherent ( you wrote "Like any abnormal behaviour, such as bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, etc., homosexuality falls in a group of deviant behaviours"). When you get to that point, then we can have a conversation based on mutual respect, if not agreement."

S. Macleish
St. Vincent and the Grenadines

Some people are gay ELVENA WILLIAMS REITTIE get over it.

Peace and tolerance

H

Reactions continue to come in on the UK's stance on AID to anti gay laws hosting nations

Continuing from the post previous to this reactions have been coming in from all quarters regarding the so called threat by Prime Minister David Cameron of the United Kingdom on aid removal from countries who continue to host anti gay laws on their books. The particular tranche of aid that maybe affected is a bilateral one known as general support. When the story first broke by UK newspapers it was suggested that it was African countries but somehow while Ghana has responded to it our local politicians are also joining the throng. The supposed feeling that we are being dictated to on this issues has struck again and may not auger well with regards to the timing of this given the legal challenge to the buggery law by a coalition of activists to the ICHR

The so-called “anti-sodomy law” in Jamaica has cast a destructive pall over the lives of gay Jamaicans. It has fed a homophobic society in which gays and lesbians are harassed, mocked, vilified, beaten and killed simply because of their sexual orientation. Driven underground, many fear that seeking an HIV test will brand them as homosexual, and therefore criminal. The national prevalence of HIV is over 30 percent among men who have sex with men, compared to a rate of 1.6 percent in the general population. The petition establishes clear ties between the country’s active promotion of discrimination and its AIDS epidemic.Tragically and unconscionably, the Government of Jamaica is determined to sustain its discriminatory legislation. The petition brought by AIDS-Free World makes clear that this law tramples on the American Convention on Human Rights, to which Jamaica is a party, and violates numerous guarantees contained in other international treaties that the country has signed and ratified. Jamaica’s law legitimizes abuses against homosexuals by state actors, including the police. It also encourages vigilante justice by private citizens, most of whom believe that the “anti-sodomy” law grants them permission to commit acts of violence against sexual minorities. Because the Government and its highest officials support and enable homophobia, the only possible way to end the persistent violation of the human rights of gay Jamaicans is to strike down the law as soon as possible and usher in an era of tolerance.

Minister of National Security Hon, Dwight Nelson explained on Nationwide Radio November 2, 2011 that he and his ministry were not going to bow to any pressure especially when it never came from or through formal diplomatic channels so he won't respond or fear but those same diplomatic channels will be used to in essence mitigate any suggestion of removal of well needed aid, he also pointed put that the aid was vital as it was used to rehabilitation programs for deportees who are helped to rejoin society, training and support. He said if that aid was cut Jamaica could not afford to run such a program at this time.

Meanwhile a more nervous sounding State Minister of Foreign Affairs Marlene Marlene Malahoo-Forte cautiously tackled the issue when asked by a television interviewer on October 31 she said among other things that the move by Britain is nothing new and changing laws by themselves is not the way to go. "We are sovereign nations and each country has to be allowed room to work out issues understandably countries with an interest on an issue will bring pressure to bear on others  but we are a sovereign nation and we are committed to protect our people need to work out the issues, There are a number of ways that the matter can be addressed if it is a matter that can be dealt with bilaterally then we can begin through the diplomatic channels but the issue has to be addressed from many angles there are issues on the ground that would require the input of the Jamaican people .................. it doesn't matter how many laws we legislate we cannot legislate how people think, I think its time to invest more in educating our people I think that is the more appropriate starting point but it is also important for a discussion to b started in an earnest way to deal with the real problems that arise out of this issue."


Sadly the same mistake is made even by the learned that homosexuality is illegal and the reporter who did the interview with the minster also erred hence in my view whether consciously or not reinforce the very stigma we are trying to move away from.


Reactions in print have also been coming too with a tersely worded letter in today's Gleaner with the usual Leviticusal bashing:

'To Hell With The United Kingdom!'

THE EDITOR, Sir:


 THE UNITED Kingdom stated that if we fail to change our buggery laws, then it will withdraw its financial aid. In a time of scarcity, we certainly need financial aid in order to ease the burden of the hard times faced by our people.However, being a Christian country, we will follow the principles of the Bible, in that righteousness exalts a nation and sin is a reproach to every man. Leviticus 18 vs 22 states, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable". According to the principles of the Bible, buggery is detestable in the eyes of God. How can we ask Him in our anthem to bless our land and yet allow what is an abomination to be practised in our country?In the Bible, we see how Sodom was destroyed by God's mighty hand because of this detestable practice. In present time, we see how the mighty America is crawling on its knees because many of their practices are contrary to the word of God.We thank God for the role of the Church in our country.


 I must say if it wasn't for the prayers of the saints, our country would have suffered the same fate as Sodom.We say 'to hell with United Kingdom'! We will not bow to their ungodly demands. Their financial aid will lead to people having AIDS.In our country, God comes first and in His holy scriptures it is clear that the righteous will never be forsaken, nor his seed begging bread.Jamaica. WE ARE ALREADY BLESSED.Andrew James
Seaforth, St Thomas

Justice Minister Delroy Chuck said that any such legislative change must be driven by the public interest, “It is a matter that parliament should have the opportunity to debate, looking at the pros and cons just like the capital punishment individual parliamentarians can take a position as to whether or not it should be changed that is it should be repealed or modified as the case maybe,” he continued ” I am not too sure that the homophobia is caused from the laws, these laws have been in existence from time in memorial I think it is fear to say that um Jamaicans do not consider homosexual behaviour to be acceptable the question is whether these views can be changed over a period of time.”


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

Miss Sobers among other things said:“It might have been possible that some of those monies may have been earned by people who are gay, who to tell? perhaps we really ought not to take it if we are so concerned, on the other hand do we really need to be so involved with what happens in the bedrooms of consenting adults that it interferes with our ability to help our budget along?The people of this country can make that choice if they care so much about a law that cannot be enforced therefore is really useless.”She was speaking recently at a press briefing along side Lord Anthony Gifford to launch an action to challenge the law overseas via the Inter American Commission for Human Rights. Can it be that they have deliberately decided not to send anyone since the issue of homosexuality will be discussed? If so that’s very cowardly.


Of Commonwealth, Buggery Law And Ditching The Queen (Gleaner 02.11.11)


There is no doubt that the debate has just begun on this as the country reacts one hopes that we do not see a fallout in the community via reaction from anti gay persons resulting in homophobic violence as we have seen in recent years.


Peace and tolerance


H

Homophobic Killings or what?

It seems every time we walk away for a little peace and seemingly a lull comes over the community in as afar as incidents are concerned there comes something and very gruesome at that. RIP my brothers/sisters as the case maybe.
Late on the weekend of October 18, 2011 reports were published on various media regarding three incidents in a short space of time and of course whenever one hears of these incidents the natural inclination is to get angry and cry homophobia but as it turns out new information that has been corroborated has come forth. First let us look at the outlets and what was said.


CVM TV October 18 news item (srcoll to 10:00 or so to see the Oshane story)

New bloggers at the Pink Report reported that:

Home Eviction Turns Deadly! Gay Man Kills attacker forces another to Flee!

Montego Bay, St. James - Reports reaching the Pink Report are that a community member is nursing severe chop wounds at a St. James Hospital after successfully fending off two attackers who had visited his rented premises to enforce an illegal eviction order. The attackers were lead by the female landlord who wanted the man off the premises because of his alleged homosexuality. Up to the time of publication there is no indication that any monies are outstanding in respect of rent, maintenance or public utilities.
The report notes that on the afternoon of Wednesday the 19th October, 2 men lead by a female landlord attempted to evict the man who was living at a premises in the parish of St. James with another man. A struggle ensued in which knives/machetes were brought into play. The man being attacked was, however, successfully able to defend himself killing one attacker in the process and forcing the other to flee.


The St. James Police are currently investigating the circumstances but have preliminarily ruled it a case of self-defense.

ENDS

The Ricardo Morgan murder story 

Then gay lawyer and AIDSFREEWORLD Consultant Maurice Tomlinson wrote a letter to the Gleaner regarding a news item carried on CVM TV on October 21, 2011 about the murder of a 16 year old youth in Western Jamaica. It read:


Are Jamaican Gays Dispensable?

THE EDITOR, Sir:
 During its evening newscast on Tuesday, October 18, CVM TV reported on the gruesome early-morning home invasion and murder of 16-year-old Oshane Gordon in the district of New England in Lilliput, St Elizabeth. According to the news report, the youngster, who had previously been threatened, was killed because of 'questionable relations with another man'.


As he tried to escape through a window, Oshane was first chopped on his foot to prevent him from going far. When Oshane's attackers caught up with their prey, they finished him off with several more chops.
His mother, who was at home with him, also received several chops and is now nursing serious injuries.
This is the second homophobic murder that CVM has reported in three months. The other occurred in Torrington Park, Kingston, on August 2.
Despite these vicious attacks and many more like them, there are still those who argue that Jamaica's deadly homophobia is a figment of the global North's gay hysteria and an agenda to smear our country's good name.


Thanks, CVM, for daring to report the truth. In the face of this carnage, the silence of our politicians on the need for tolerance towards homosexuals is both cowardly and deadly. Where is the leadership?
Or are gay Jamaicans simply dispensable? 
MAURICE TOMLINSON
 maurice_tomlinson@yahoo.com

ENDS

Sad that this is what befell both gentlemen and it is interesting how politically correct CVM TV was in saying young Oshane Gordon was in an inappropriate relationship. I am really sorry for this loss for his mother and especially his father who expressed grief at the scene on camera given the suspicious circumstances. The Torrington Park matter is puzzling to me as you may have noticed I held my comments from August on this matter as it puzzles me that even though the deceased Ricardo Morgan resided in an inner city community he survived for so long with little interference if the truth be told, the community knew that he was a hair stylist, a profession not practiced openly by many males from the lower socio economic quarters, also what was more puzzling was why didn't the traditional "born and grow" culture or protection chips in and protected him, this however is a fragile shield and can shatter if any proof presents itself as confirmation for them to act on the accused with sometimes harsher violence, MSMs and WSWs have been shielded in a sense by this community phenomenon where if one was born in a depressed area, or has family residing there for extended periods or generations then even if one was suspected or being gay or lesbian that knowledge of your roots would act as a reason not to attack and in some areas outsiders cannot enter communities and point out suspected individuals. Clearly even with his sister supposedly in the altercation as an intermediary it didn't stopped his attackers from killing him. New information which has been corroborated suggests the killing was made to look homophobic because of a fear by a particular gangster in the area who Mr. Morgan had a secret relationship with had gone sour and he reacted publicly to the presence of a "new babymother" whom the man moved into his house.

Ricardo in happier times


The man learned of the upset or Mr. Morgan and warned him to keep it quiet however like in most small communities the news travelled and in a bid to protect his identity and secret the thug arranged the attack so as to avoid any future issues and finger pointing. The community to this day is still tense according to my source and his sister who spoke on camera is said to know more than she revealed on camera. What is also curious is that she resides in the community with no threat to her person. This matter or downlow relations in inner city communities going haywire is not new, we lost several other persons in years gone by due to this phenomenon. Kitty in early 2000 from Fletcher's Land, Kelly formerly of Rollington Town is another who was shot in broad daylight in downtown Kingston as he prepared his vendor's stall to do business. Another gruesome killing was a popular figure named "Carry on" or Opal who hailed from Tivoli Gardens and who was the worse case as his body was stabbed all over, multiple gunshot wounds and was dumped on the infamous Matches Lane wrapped in barbed wire, then there was the killing of a young man in upper St. Andrew under the guise that he made the moves on one of his attackers. Gay Panic Defense? When these types of killings are done the ones who often commit them or accused of such are empowered in the community and praised as well so they have nothing to loose in killing a suspected person when things go wrong. Many deceased may have felt aggrieved due to possible competition as in this case a woman who is the main partner while they have to settle for second fiddle. So Mr. Morgan's murder cannot be deemed homophobic if we are to go by the new information that has come to light, this downlow issue has to be properly ventilated and brought to public as previous experience has brought to bear. The public's cynicism has always been there and the proverbial crime of passion description, here is an old star news piece from 2006 that spoke to the predictability of cases where a male is found naked with multiple stab wounds: 'Brotherhood of Knives'


Let us also not forget the supposed area leader who was to take Dudus' place in Tivoli Gardens despite his womanizing public persona rumours festered of his alleged hebephelic nature with male teens. Read More here: 


WANNABE TIVOLI DON KILLED - Was warned to reconsider his desires


Sad that in history this time of years seems to be a most violent one for LGBT people especially MSMs it was in November 30, 2005 that we lost Steve Harvey to a brutal murder after a home invasion. 
RIP my brothers/sisters as the case maybe


Peace and tolerance


H


additional thoughts from teens on gays in Jamaica and homosexuality as a gay for pay thing and the violence is more gay on gay.