No to buggery! - Young candidates oppose relaxing laws, but want more education on subject

UPDATE 22.11.11 8:12pm please listen before reading below.

 UK/commonwealth Aid Matter & The New Developments, no aid cuts but redirecting, ethical problems on our part - 22.11.11 by glbtqja5 

BY HG HELPS Editor-at-Large helpsh@jamaicaobserver.com

FOUR aspiring politicians have come out against relaxing buggery laws in Jamaica, although they believe, collectively, that there should be national dialogue on the subject.

The four — the Jamaica Labour Party’s Paula Kerr-Jarrett, who will represent the party in Hanover East and Collin Virgo, the candidate in Manchester South, as well as the People’s National Party’s candidate in St Mary West, Jolyan Silvera and his colleague in St Andrew North East, John-Paul White — are all, based upon religious considerations, against the act of buggery. However, they argue that discussions should be held on the subject with the people as a whole, to determine whether or not Jamaica should continue to enforce buggery related laws.

Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) candidate for Manchester South, Collin Virgo (left) states his view on the buggery law while his JLP colleague, Paula Kerr-Jarrret, who will contest the East Hanover seat, as well as People’s National Party candidates Jolyan Silvera (3rd left), who will be running in St Mary West, and John-Paul White (St Andrew North East), listen at yesterday’s Observer Monday Exchange. (Photo: Naphtali Junior)

Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/No-to-buggery-#ixzz1eRXbFI3s


The four were guests at yesterday’s Observer Monday Exchange at the newspaper’s Beechwood Avenue headquarters in St Andrew.

The subject arose from revelations at a conference on HIV/AIDS being held in The Bahamas, which showed that countries without buggery laws had a lower HIV prevalence rate among homosexual men, than countries with such laws.

“I was brought up as a Christian. I am a practising Christian, and I know that there are a lot of things that are in the Bible as well as just generally, morally, the approach to it is not acceptable,” said Kerr-Jarrett.

“We need to educate our people in Jamaica more before laws are changed, because if you remove something, a void is created, and before anything is done there ought to be a blitz of education on the subject,” she added.

Virgo, who will challenge veteran member of parliament Michael Peart, said that the matter of buggery was a delicate one which requires solid discussion.

“The constituency where I am from, that is not something that you would be able to sell to them right now,” Virgo said.

“I come from a very strong Christian constituency, which has one of the largest concentration of Seventh-day Adventists in the country, and that's the church I grew up in.

“I don’t get the feeling that they (constituents) are going to be highly supportive of that one. To be an elected representative of the people is not going to be my responsibility to force my view on them. I will encourage dialogue, but at the end of the day, changing the law will not allow the problems to be solved,” he said.

“Knowledge and some level of exposure will cause it to be changed. If there isn’t acceptance by a significant portion of the people of Jamaica, changing the laws will not solve the problems,” Virgo added.

Both PNP representatives also echoed similar sentiments that buggery was immoral and an effort should be made to clarify issues surrounding the subject.

For Silvera, who is going up against JLP powerhouse Robert Montague, buggery has no place in the society.

“I grew up in a Christian home and I have my morals intact. But this is where we are today and this is reality,” Silvera said.

“We do have to engage, and we have to sit down and talk ,and take certain things into consideration, because at the end of the day, the Bible is ambiguous, there are double meanings every chapter you read.

“We are a civil society, and if buggery has to be brought to the table to be talked about, I don’t think I would have a problem listening. But at the end of the day I know where I stand, because I have Christian beliefs. I think the law should stay, but I am open for discussions. We would be a bit premature as a country to open it up presently,” Silvera said.

As for White, the son of a former preacher, education is the key to handling matters related to buggery.

“I am also from a spiritual and Christian background, but we need to educate the country more,” he said.

“When a person hears about buggery, he associates it with, based on our socialisation, things to do with homosexual activities.

“As representatives, we really need to seek the opinion of those we represent, and based on the majority of those opinions, we take it into the Houses of Parliament.,” he said.

“My biggest concern about the law has more to do with a health point of view and the transmission of diseases associated with such activities, especially in a society where the cost of health care is really expensive,” White said.


also see on my sister blog GLBTQJA on Wordpress new developments on the UK front:

Minister confirms UK will redirect aid, not cut it, for human rights violations

Andrew Mitchell (photo) 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.

Now that we have the smoke cleared several questions come to mind:

1) were we too quick to jump the gun locally?

2) were our advocates using the original report as a tag along to unethically promote decriminalization of buggery on a false footing?


Although the debate is on in earnest the advocates should never have in effect mislead the nation and should have sought to clarify the position before diving head on with coalition teams at that participating knowing or unknowingly. How can we have any moral authority to ask the nation for any dialogue or present our arguments on the strength of a farce in a sense to bolster our call for the buggery law to be removed?

True representation for any group must be above board and must be untestable ethically speaking and have some moral soundness, after all our detractors will judge us on that as they do already condemn us because of our “nastiness” we cannot go making demands and calls for acceptance on shaky ground.

Too many double standards? or are the British now backpedaling too seeing the furor the whole thing has caused?

Suffice it to say some with say cutting aid versus redirecting it is the same but let us remember aid comes in many forms and tranches.


also see posts and hear previous audio commentary: 

Not Ready For Gays ……. Gay Marriage smoke screen reintroduced ……………. political dodging

and

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

Peace and tolerance

H

British government reportedly set to introduce full gay marriage equality

The government is expected to announce full marriage equality for gays and lesbians under reforms to marriage laws to be announced later this week. The reported move will end the final major legal discrimination against gays and lesbians in Britain.

Rev Sharon Ferguson and Franka Strietzel are among the couples challenging the ban on gay marriage (Photo: Chris Houston)

According to the Sunday Times, a proposal to end the ban on same sex marriage will be announced by the Liberal Democrat equality minister Lynne Featherstone at the same time as the government announces the time table for civil partnerships to be held in religious buildings.

Civil partnerships were introduced in 2005 and offer gays and lesbian couples similar legal rights to straight married couples. Differences include the grounds for dissolution, some insurance and pension rights and they are not recognised as having the same status as marriage abroad. A consequence of the ban on gay marriage means that a married transgendered person must divorce their partner before being recognised in their new gender. In addition, couples are barred from having any religious elements in the civil partnership ceremony. An amendment the Equality Act by Labour peer Lord Waheed Alli was passed just prior to the election, but the new government delayed the implementation of the changes. Religious insitituions are not forced to host ceremonies if they do not wish to.

Prior to the general election, deputy prime minister and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg wrote on PinkNews.co.uk: “I support gay marriage. Love is the same, straight or gay, so the civil institution should be the same, too. All couples should be able to make that commitment to one another.” In October, the party adopted full marriage equality including allowing straight couples to have civil partnerships as official party policy. The move was controversially not supported by the gay lobbying organisation Stonewall.

In April, the chancellor George Osborne told gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell that the Conservative party would “consider” full gay marriage.

Labour party leader Ed Miliband announced his support of full gay marriage in a column for PinkNews.co.uk during the leadership election. He wrote: “‘Separate but equal’ is not good enough and PinkNews.co.uk’s own recent poll demonstrated the huge support in the LGBT community for a right to marry. The cruel consequence of the current compromise is trans people forced to divorce their partners before they could be legally recognised in their new gender. I want to see heterosexual and same-sex partnerships put on an equal basis and a Labour Party that I lead will campaign to make gay marriage happen.”

The proposals which will then be put out to consultation by the equality minister will give religious faith groups the option of conducting and officiating at gay marriages. The Quakers and Liberal Judaism have already stated that they wish to conduct same sex marriages.

Although the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, gave the reports a guarded welcome telling the BBC that he “believes in a liberal democracy, and actually wants equality with everybody,” the Church of England does not support the introduction of gay marriages or civil partnerships being held in churches. A spokesman said: “Given the Church’s view on the nature of marriage, the House of Bishops has consistently been clear that the Church of England should not provide services of blessing for those who register civil partnerships.”

The spokesman said the change will “lead to inconsistencies with civil marriage, have unexplored impacts, and lead to confusion, with a number of difficult and unintended consequences for churches and faiths”.

“Any change could therefore only be brought after proper and careful consideration of all the issues involved, to ensure that the intended freedom for all denominations over these matters is genuinely secured.”

The Catholic Church and those representing the Muslim faith are also opposed to gay marriage and holding religious civil partnerships.

The Equal Love Campaign, led by Mr Tatchell lodged a case at the European Court of Human Rights challenging the twin ban on gay marriage and straight couples having civil partnerships. Four gay couples applied to hold marriages and were rejected, as were four straight couples who applied to hold a civil partnership. It is understood that the Liberal Democrats were uneasy at the prospect of the coalition government fighting against gay marriage in such a public way given that introducing gay marriage is official party policy.

A Whitehall source told the Sunday Times: “This is not just about gay rights but about religious freedom. Quakers and liberal Judaism want to do this. Attitudes have changed to gay marriage. We are going to look at what legislative steps we could begin to make gay marriage possible.”

Last year, a poll for PinkNews.co.uk found that 98% of the LGBT population support full gay equality and that civil partnerships are not good enough. It is one of the few official standpoints ofPinkNews.co.uk that it believes in marriage equality.

It took a high profile campaign last autumn for the gay lobbying organisation Stonewall to say that it would campaign for gay marriage. The charity was criticised for by its founders Michael Cashman and Sir Ian McKellen on PinkNews.co.uk for not at that point campaigning for gay marriage. Despite the change in policy, the organisation does not support marriage equality because it will lead to the introduction of straight civil partnerships, something it believes could cost £5bn in lost tax revenue.

Should full gay marriage be introduced, the only other significant legal discrimination against gay men will be the ban on donating blood, although the government have signaled in the past that they will look to end this practice.

ENDS

meanwhile ......

Under current rules, ceremonies must be secular and cannot contain religious elements, such as hymn singing and Bible readings.

The Sunday Telegraph said equalities minister Lynne Featherstone was expected to outline shortly plans to lift the ban.

The weekly broadsheet warned that the new move could open a "legal minefield", with gay couples possibly taking action against faith groups if they were barred from tying the knot in their chosen place of worship.

The Office of National Statistics said that at May 2010 more than 26,000 civil partnerships had been formed in Britain.

Cameroon & Iranian Gay asylum seekers win challenge in UK's Supreme court, implications for others

The historic ruling was handed down today as was watched by human rights groups, lgbt advocates, immigration and asylum proponents. There is almost a collective sigh of relief worldwide as the news became apparent.

The men had met a roadblock in their legal attempts in the Appeals court where the ruling that was handed down then suggested the men return to their respective homelands and become discreet in order to hide thier homosexuality.

They were told by the Home Office they could safely return home if they were "discreet" about their sexual orientation. The idea had been supported in principle by the previous UK government.

The Cameroonian man, HT, argued he was told he could be sent home despite being attacked after he was seen kissing his partner.

The Iranian man, HJ, was told by a tribunal that he must expect persecution for his homosexuality and could avoid it by being discreet.

The case was brought on behalf of the men by the London office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

The men's lawyer, Iona Harding, of Baker & McKenzie, said: "This is an excellent result which will ensure that lesbian, gay and bisexual people receive the protection they are entitled to as refugees in the UK and are not expected to hide their identity in order to escape execution, long prison sentences or other forms of persecution."

Gay asylum campaigner Paul Canning told PinkNews.co.uk that the decision had "extremely broad implications" for gay asylum seekers in other countries due to the EU trying to bring standardise asylum policy.

He added: "This is a clear victory. It is one in the eye for the last government."

The court's judgment said that the term "concealment" was preferred to discretion, as this recognises that gay people in homophobic countries may need to be dishonest about their sexuality and that the average person would find it intolerable to have to conceal their sexuality for fear of persecution.

It added that UK authorities must consider whether asylum applicants have to conceal their sexuality at home for fear of persecution and if so, they should be given refugee status regardless of whether they can successfully keep their sexuality secret.

The new coalition government has said it will introduce new rules to prevent the deportation of any gay asylum seeker who faces "imprisonment, torture or execution" if sent home.

Lord Hope, who read out the judgment, said: "To compel a homosexual person to pretend that his sexuality does not exist or suppress the behaviour by which to manifest itself is to deny him the fundamental right to be who he is."

Home secretary Theresa May said: "I welcome the ruling of the Supreme Court, which vindicates the position of the coalition government.

"We have already promised to stop the removal of asylum seekers who have had to leave particular countries because their sexual orientation or gender identification puts them at proven risk of imprisonment, torture or execution.

"I do not believe it is acceptable to send people home and expect them to hide their sexuality to avoid persecution."

"From today, asylum decisions will be considered under the new rules and the judgment gives an immediate legal basis for us to reframe our guidance for assessing claims based on sexuality, taking into account relevant country guidance and the merits of each individual case."

"We will, of course, take any decisions on a case-by-case basis looking at the situation in the country of origin and the merits of individual cases in line with our commitment."

With many LGBT Jamaicans still processing their cases in the United Kingdom this is welcomed news and by extension those from other countries where homophobia is expressed far more violently in torture, harsh laws (flogging in Iran) or death penalty under sharia law in some parts of the world.

Peace and tolerance

H

Vatican says cover-up accusations due to Pope's opposition to gay rights

Vatican officials have refuted claims that the Pope was involved in a cover-up of the child abuse scandal, saying that the allegations are part of a "hate campaign" against him.

Two senior cardinals suggested on Tuesday that the claims were revenge for Pope Benedict's opposition to gay marriage and abortion, AP reports.

Spanish Cardinal Julian Herranz, head of the disciplinary commission for Holy See officials, said on Vatican Radio: "The pope defends life and the family, based on marriage between a man and a woman, in a world in which powerful lobbies would like to impose a completely different [agenda]."

Meanwhile, dean of the College of Cardinals, Angelo Sodano, told Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romana: "The pope embodies moral truths that aren't accepted, and so, the shortcomings and errors of priests are used as weapons against the church."

The Pope recently launched an unprecedented attack on UK equality legislation, saying it went against natural law. He also said in 2008 that gay and trans people were a threat to humanity and has criticised gay marriage laws in countries such as Portugal.

He has refused to comment on the paedophile priests scandal, despite the numerous allegations aired in the last month in Ireland, Austria, the United States and Germany, the Pope's home country.

There have been allegations that he was aware of paedophiles continuing to work as priests and allowed them to do so.

He was Archbishop of Munich and Freising from 1977 to 1982 and it was alleged earlier this month that he sent one paedophile priest to therapy in 1980. The priest reoffended and was convicted, although he continues to work as a priest to this day.

Abuse victims have spoken of being made to sign confidentially agreements about their experiences under the threat of excommunication.

They say they want an apology from the Pope and compensation.

http://gay.pinknews.co.uk/2010/04/08/vatican-says-cover-up-accusations-due-to-popes-opposition-to-gay-rights/

London, Equality Bill passes through parliament

London, Equality Bill passes through parliament
The Equality Bill has passed through its final stages in parliament and will now become law after receiving royal assent.

The bill, which gives new protections to gay people, was sent for royal assent last night.

It is designed to consolidate and simplify existing equality laws, encompassing characteristics such as race, gender and sexual orientation.

A flagship feature of the bill is equality duty on all public bodies, which will require institutions such as schools, councils and the NHS to actively promote equality.

Employers will be permitted to use positive action to select candidates from under-represented groups when two people applying for a job have the same qualifications.

The bill will also prohibit private members’ clubs from discriminating against members or guests based on their sexual orientation or gender reassignment and introduce the concept of “dual discrimination”, where people can show they were discriminated because, for example, they are both gay and of an ethnic minority.

An amendment added last month will allow gay couples to have their civil partnerships in church.

However, the bill has been criticised by gay groups, opposition politicians and secular groups for a number of "grey areas".

One contentious issue is harassment protection for gay people, which critics say does not exist in the bill. The government has said gay people are already protected from harassment due to direct discrimination laws and that there was a duty for schools to continue the existing ban on discrimination.

Trans campaigners argue that there is not enough protection for the many people who live as the opposite gender but have chosen not to seek medical treatment.

The government said last month it would not continue to fight the House of Lords over an amendment clarifying who churches can refuse employment to.

Provisions in the bill would have clarified the law requiring churches only to discriminate in terms of sexual orientation when hiring those who will teach doctrine or lead worship.

But after the Pope publicly criticised the bill, equality minister Harriet Harman backed down. She is thought to have made the climbdown to avoid a continuing dispute with church leaders.

The new laws will begin to take effect in the autumn. The public sector equality duty will be introduced in April 2011, while provisions to ban age discrimination and force companies to reveal pay packets will come into force in 2012 and 2013 respectively.

http://gay.pinknews.co.uk/2010/04/07/equality-bill-passes-through-parliament/

Dutch protest after gays are denied communion

Gay rights activists in the Netherlands staged a protest yesterday over a Catholic church’s policy of denying gay people communion.

Several hundred people went to Mass at a church in ’s-Hertogenbosch and left shouting and singing when it was announced that the priest, who had been warned about the demonstration, had decided not to give communion.

Some protestors, wearing pink robes and wigs, handed out pink wafers and kissed.

The issue began several weeks ago when a nearby church barred an openly gay man from taking communion. The unnamed man had won a competition to be carnival prince in a nearby town.

According to the BBC, he said that he would accept being denied from taking communion if all other sinners were also barred.

The Netherlands legalised civil partnerships for both straight and gay couples in 1998. In 2001, it became the first country in the world to legalise gay marriage.