The Jamaican Government schizophrenic on human rights ?

Here is an excerpt of what our government refused to support: (CLICK IMAGE TO DOWNLOAD THE PDF)

Sixty-seventh session
Third Committee
Agenda item 69 (b) - Promotion and protection of human rights: human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms

Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Montenegro, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island: draft resolution Extra judicial, summary or arbitrary executions

The General Assembly, Recalling the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

1 which guarantees the right to life, liberty and security of person, the relevant provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

2 and other relevant human rights conventions, Reaffirming the mandate of the Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, as set out in Council resolution 17/5 of 16 June 2011,

3 Welcoming the universal ratification of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August  1949,

4 which alongside human rights law provide an important framework of accountability in relation to extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions during armed conflict, Mindful of all its resolutions on the subject of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the resolutions of the Commission on Human Rights and of the Human Rights Council on the subject,

__________________
1 Resolution 217 A (III).
2 See resolution 2200 A (XXI), annex.
3 See Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-sixth Session, Supplement No. 53 (A/66/53),
chap. III, sect. A.
4 United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 75, Nos. 970-973.

The recent surprise discovery by some human rights groups and activists that the Jamaica government via its foreign affairs ministry voted yes to change a specific resolution that offered protection from discrimination and state sanctioned killings based on said sexual orientation is now gaining some traction and has evoked mostly negative responses depending on how one looks at how the discussions have been framed. This is the same country that led the struggle along with others under the leadership of Prime Minister Hugh Shearer Internationally on Human Rights and we have subsequently ratified treatises, voted positively on other matters including very public international affairs.

The widely held believe of the “promise” for some persons or the proposal made by Prime Minister Simpson Miller to review the buggery law with a conscience vote the mechanism however has not been outlines fully, this garnered international recognition from other leaders and which ultimately led to the Time Magazine awarding her one of the most 100 influential persons in the world award thus making us look progressive but now?

One of her ministers has a set of questions to answer such as why was the vote done so as to avoid offering specific protection from discrimination due to sexual orientation? that Ministry has been mum since the news broke and the Ministry’s representatives declined a radio interview on the matter. They need to be reminded that they are servants of the people, this reminds me so much of the gymnastics during the Sexual Offences Bill debate and the Charter of Rights over its ten plus year period it stayed on the parliament agenda with the subsequent repeated interference by religious right groups such as the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship who used legal manoeuvrings to move words such as “sex” suggesting it would have opened doors for homosexual rights agenda and gay marriage agitation by the gay lobby. We see them now acting up aided and abetted by foreign zealots and well funded too spending thousands on ads and other activity when the poor need help.

reminder of the PNP when A. J Nicholson was the opposition spokesman on justice: Opposition sides with Govt on No to same sex marriage 

The bigger picture is the protection of the least amongst us and ALL persons should have protection under the state, the Jamaica government denied offering protection to such a group being us homosexuals all because the language is specific to the type of discrimination. Isn’t it A. J. Nicholson the Minister now of Foreign Affairs, the same A. J. who was very vocal in the aforementioned Sexual Offences Bill/Charter of Rights slammed the suggested and attempted repeal of buggery, parliamentary submission by JFLAG everytime there was a hint in the language that seems in the eyes of some to offer a perceived loophole to other “rights” that we do not deserve they act most times covertly to trash the clauses or sentences revealing such.

We have a culture we know of extreme homophobia and homo-negativity we also have a culture that would extract a significant political rice were any government were to be seen voting to protect supposed “deviants”  it is either we agree as a nation via our governments that human rights are inalienable to all persons of the citizenry including those who visit on our shores or we say no are not going to extend human rights because of some political issue. To be denied the protection simply because of behaviour patterns while ignoring consent and privacy is just plain wrong, a wrong that has been carried on for generations but the emotions run high and cloud the level headed discourse that is required on this issue for us to get to a pluralistic society. We are the same society that has no problem suggesting taking matters to the international commission on human rights for example or the Privy Council or the suggested Caribbean Court of Justice that of the face of it is about to be foisted on us whether we like it or not. Strange when the death penalty was prescribed by local courts and upheld via the PC our government cries fowl and hold prisoners for over five years on death row all because it wants to look good internationally then the PC rules that those accused cannot be hanged who are held over the five year period (after exhausting the necessary appeals)  the complain that we are being dictated to when it was OUR OWN Jamaican law that are used by the PC to adjudicate matters presented to it by Jamaicans litigants who use that avenue.

We cannot have it both ways, either we are for rights or against, when the political pundits sought the job of leadership is was to do just that, LEAD, it’s not going to be easy and there are some unpopular decisions that maybe taken for the greater good of society, leaders must rise to the occasion  that is their mettle and when it is tested it must be found to have been vigilant, strong and forthright in defending human rights.

Beyond the Headlines host Dionne Jackson Miller had Arlene Harrison Henry of The Independent Jamaica Council for Human Rights on Human Rights Day discussing the the removal of language in the form of sexual orientation on the Summary Executions UN Resolution – On November 21, 2012, Jamaica voted against resolution A/C.3/67/L.36 at the United Nations condemning extra-judicial, summary or arbitrary executions which urges States “to investigate promptly and thoroughly all killings, including… all killings committed for any discriminatory reason, including sexual orientation.” Additionally, recent incidents of vigilante attacks on perceived gay persons continue to undermine the achievements and call into question the national commitment to equality for persons of diverse sexual orientation listen:

What we have here now is that we have failed that test for some of the vulnerable amongst us, myself included as a gay man and others in the society where we have copped out in the matter of sexual orientation. The government  is weak on the things that matter and the things that will last defining how the least amongst us will live onwards with protection specifically set out. Instead some persons want the language to say “any other reasons or groups therein”

When certain key words appear they run and scream that someone is imposing homosexuality or conditioning children as in the HFLE matter or when it comes to tolerance persons like Dr Wayne West equate it to supporting fisting and felching practices that are in the extreme and done overseas but unethical pinned on us to bolster his anti gay agenda.

Here are some more reactions from the talk show circuit giving us some insight as to how the public is seeing this and believe me the views are so skewed out there.:

Nationwide’s Ron Mason with caller on Buggery & the UN sexual orientation res

Nationwide’s Ron Mason – caller suggests clinic for gays

Nationwide Radio’s Ron Mason w/caller on Gay parenting/UN Yes vote ..

Much to ponder on as a nation

Peace and tolerance

H

The abomination of cowardice; The just and the unjust … John Maxwell’s 8y/o piece revisited

Some of you may know by now I have always liked this particular article from the late John Maxwell, in its original form it was one of those pieces that turned me on even more to advocacy and to think it came from a heterosexual at that in Jamaica is even more exceptional. His Maxwell House Blog is still up.

Here is the article in the form of an Observer Column published today:

The abomination of cowardice; The just and the unjust

Today marks the second anniversary of the passing of iconic journalist John Maxwell. In the following excerpts culled by his widow, Dr Marjan deBruin, from two of Maxwell’s columns (December 2004 and February 2007) published in the Sunday Observer, the journalist is at his trenchant best on issues over which the society continues to agonise.

SEVERAL years ago, various media outlets carried a rumour that homosexuals were planning a march on Jamaica House. I don’t remember anyone believing the story, but the media ran with it anyway. On the day appointed, dozens of idiots armed with cutlasses descended on Half-Way-Tree square prepared to teach the homosexuals a lesson. None, of course, appeared.

MAXWELL… if we do not ‘love’ one another, ie respecting the rights of all, if we destroy those who are different, we are sabotaging our own chances of survival by reducing the diversity and complexity of life, which is what enhances the odds that we will survive (Photo courtesy of Leah N Gold)

As I have said in an earlier column, it was a uniquely Jamaican occasion, because I don’t believe that anywhere else in the world would the press have been so willing to spread such a plainly ridiculous and dangerous story, given the homophobic environment; nor would there be, anywhere else in the world, people idle enough to assemble for a sporting massacre, as it were. It was a low point in Jamaican civilisation and none of our leaders said a word.

Unfortunately, on the question of homophobia and homosexuality, the press is at least as backward as the majority of Fundamentalist Jamaica. Reading the advice columns demonstrates just how ignorant and illiterate people — including some counsellors — are about anything concerning sex.

Betty Ann Blaine, a very nice lady who is also a well-known social worker, delivered herself of the dictum that homosexuality is ‘learned behaviour’… There is no authority anywhere for anyone to say that homosexual behaviour is learned.

On the contrary, controlled experiment with rats under environmental stress produced ‘homosexual’ intercourse which surprised the investigators because that was not what they were looking for. And homosexual pairing is well established among certain birds. There is also some evidence that there may be genetic predispositions which may or may not be reinforced by nurture. The fact is that no one really knows, which, I suppose, is as good a reason as any for murder.

Be fruitful and multiply…

 Diversity is the key to survival with species and among species. If we do not ‘love’ one another, ie respecting the rights of all, if we destroy those who are different, we are sabotaging our own chances of survival by reducing the diversity and complexity of life, which is what enhances the odds that we will survive.

To be fruitful and multiply is not, as some of us imagine, a prescription for uncontrolled breeding; it means that we should provide equal opportunity for the survival of all. Fitness arises from diversity, not the other way round.

The more diverse we are is the more likely that some of us will survive, which is directly opposite to the views of the sectarian bigots who now presume to lay down rules to decide who we should love and who we should allow to survive.

The prophet whose teachings they claim to follow, Jesus of Nazareth, was in fact a supremely practical philosopher whose teachings seem to contradict most of the stuff handed down by the new rule makers. When Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath, it was clear that He was not discarding the Sabbath and what it stood for, but making the point that while ethics and principles and the rules derived from them were prerequisites for a healthy and productive life, they were designed to fulfil human purposes and not to frustrate human happiness.

They needed to be adjusted and fitted to serve human purposes from time to time, to advance the human. Our ethical principles needed to be developed out of experience to serve real needs and not to be accepted simply because they had existed for a very long time or because some old geezer claiming to be a prophet said so.

Our absolutists who want to burn homosexuals and other sinners appear to reject one of the most fundamental arguments advanced by Jesus: that while the law and the prophets were to be taken into account, he was promulgating a new principle in total defiance of Mosaic Law: a new commandment give I unto you, he said, “that ye love one another.”

…The Christian Taliban

 Much of the homophobic plague now disfiguring our society is incited by those I call the Christian Taliban, a gang of prideful know-nothings who come not to call sinners to repentance, but to deliver them into the hands of the vigilantes. Some have acquired their second rate theology for a couple of hundred US dollars from some self-styled Bible college.

What riles me is that, in the heat of their newly bought holiness, they want to crucify the rest of us, or more accurately, to stretch or cut us to fit their own Procrustean beds of sublime ignorance.

They depend on the Old Testament, a collection of some of the oral history of nomadic tribes wandering about the Middle East 4,000 years ago. This accumulated wisdom was life-preserving at that time, surrounded as they were by enemies and eating unreliable food, but as Jesus of Nazareth said, it isn’t what a man consumes that defiles him, but what comes out of him.

Because the Israelite nomads wanted to build up the numerical strength of their tribes they encouraged men to impregnate their sisters-in-law if their brothers died, and buggery — then and now the poorest but surest means of birth control — was an abomination as was, for the same reason, ‘Onanism’ or masturbation.

To their modern-day successors, like the Pharisees and Sadducees with their phylacteries and other tokens of holiness, what is good is not what one does but what one says, forgetting another apothegm from Jesus — that the Devil can quote scripture to his own purpose. As far as they are concerned, the idea that God is Love is nonsense: God is a terrible God, full of wrath, vengefulness and thunderbolts.

These whited sepulchres understand Jesus’ advice that we should be our brother’s keepers to mean that they should be their brother’s jailers. My old friend Peter Walker used to call these hypocrites “God-Botherers” because they seemed to have exclusive hotlines to their divinity.

Now they counsel us based on misinterpretations of 4,000-year-old ‘science’, that abortion is always wrong, that life begins at conception and a host of other nonsense, including the belief that sex education makes children pregnant.

The latest outrage is the idea of raising the age of consent, an idea some would interpret to authorise the jailing of anyone who had sexual intercourse before that age. Just say no, they blather — ignorance is literally bliss. I have news for them: if they really want to protect young people they should promote the raising of the age of consent to 24, because scientists have discovered that the brains of human children do not completely mature until about that age.

As I write this my friend Canute James has shown me a story from The Guardian (London) about a Jamaican who has, for the last 27 years, successfully pretended to be an expert forensic psychologist. This conman even had a motto which must have come straight from Jamaica: ‘Exposing Unrighteousness for the Sake of Righteousness’.

This man, one Gene Morrison, who didn’t even have a ‘genuine mail order’ degree, duped judges, barristers and their clients for almost three decades. He gave “expert evidence” in cases involving armed robbery, rape, death by dangerous driving, unexplained death and drug offences. Police are now having to re-assess about 700 cases looking for miscarriages of justice.

Never underestimate the power of a righteous Jamaican, especially one armed with the Wrath of God.

also see:  John Maxwell’s “The Abomination of Cowardice” from Gay Jamaica Watch

and: Betty Ann Blaine & foreign religious zealots continue to mirespresent male  homosexuality from GLBTQJamaica

 

Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society, JCHS continued confusion of paedophilia & consenting homosexuality.

Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society, JCHS continued confusion of paedophilia & consenting homosexuality.

The previous discussion here:

On a more recent current affairs program on the religious station Love 101FM which was a follow up to a previous one from November 11^th 2012 a representative from the Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society, JCHS one Miss Kacy West, Project Assistant of the group (not sure of her relation to Dr. Wayne West, anti-gay rights and anti-abortionist activist and also aligned to the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship, LCF) she also was one of the main planners of the Love March held in September that was to register their opposition to the buggery law review or being repealed and other so called sexual sins or sexual impurity.

The program’s introduction was laced with innuendo and unproven allegations such as the reference to the recent university of technology alleged gay student abuse where the host one Miss Blossom White juxtaposed buggery being an illegal act as to what was committed by the accused suggesting the men were actually in the act of buggery on the campus at the time while also deliberately overlooking anal sex between man and woman as also illegal under the present buggery law, why the stress for “man and man” they claim to also not agree with the manner in which the students mobbed the accused (the appeasing factor).

Here comes the part that was egregious in my eyes suggesting conditioning or predatory behaviours from homosexuals in general hence my titling the post as is where Miss Blossom White a lecturer of the Jamaica Theological College asked:

“With the report that young men are being introduced to and are engaging in homosexuality, what is another group of young persons doing to show that this activity is unnatural and what can we as a nation do in order to protect those children who are the future of Jamaica who are going to take over from us?”

She went on to the recent Home and Family Life Education, HFLE fiasco and the 6000+ books that were withdrawn from schools when it was in fact the volumous curriculum with just one section dealing with sex and sexuality that was withdrawn while the accompanying student text and activity books are still held in the possession of the students themselves as was evidenced by my neighbour’s grand daughter who attends Alpha Academy and showed me both books as rented by her. I perused the books carefully (while having perused the original 2009 curriculum online and the hard copy of the later 2011 version as withdrawn) and found none of the controversial questions as posed in the teachers’ manual were in the students versions, which makes one wonder the real motive here. Scapegoats for a gay agenda as surmised by some?

Miss Casey West said among other things:

On gay marriage – “I think it is completely dysfunctional and I say so without reservation, gender roles are important, gender is not socially constructed and I think that one of the biggest arguments that the LGBT proponents try to push that gender is just about how you feel like acting, it’s not how you feel like acting we are men and women are physiologically different and it’s important to acknowledge those differences and to appreciate them and to allow children to be raised in a home where their gender differences from their siblings where the gender differences between two parents are appreciated and acknowledged and better understood ………….. I don’t believe in two men raising a child or two women raising a child ……………. speaking as a young woman there are a lot of things about what I expect to learn from men like how I should expect men to treat me based on how I grew up seeing my father treating my mother.”

“I wouldn’t have learnt that if I had two mothers ……………… “

She referred to Massachusetts as one of the first states to legalize gay marriage and some study she was unable to name and place which claimed to have looked at children who are in same gender parented homes versus heterosexual households and from memory (“if my memory serves me correct) she said girls raised by two mothers were 50 – 70 times more likely to turn out lesbian when they grew up. She claimed children in those same gender loving relation households are naturalised to believing so they act out on this later.

Host Blossom White then asked:

“Why is it so necessary to protect our children young people of this nation from something regarded as being unnatural?”

Miss West replied:

“Children are susceptible and very vulnerable the opinions of adults who are in authority over them especially their parents, you are still being molded when you are a child.” She continued to refer to a book called “Hooked” (no author named) and how a child is affected by sex and a person’s brain up until the age of twenty five. She feared that children will be sexualised not just in terms of touch but also ideology but are those ideologies being skewed as we speak just take a look at the aforementioned HFLE, Home and Family Life Curriculum where because some questions in the teachers manual asked sensitive questions on anal sex, HIV issues and sexual orientation motive was ascribed to persons with a gay agenda while promoting fear, paranoia and hate and pushing heterosexism as the mantra for sex education. It has been the failure of our education systems over the years to address sex and sexuality to include the touchy orientation bit why we have the homophobia and homo-negativity in today’s society so in order to pander to uninformed religious groups such as the JCHS the Minister of Education Ronnie Thwaites a man of the cloth himself found two persons as scapegoats to fire and says he is still “investigating”

This apparent notion that children when remotely exposed to information on homosexuality, anal sex or related matters through media or properly prepared curriculums or living with or close such persons will automatically translate into them becoming so just by virtue of curiosity is utter nonsense if that were so she would have been gay already as homosexuals are everywhere and do not necessarily show the stereotypical signs as this interview would like listeners to believe. Yes there are some same sex experimentation episodes with some persons and sadly with younger victims and the experts tell us that there are others who act out early abuse via paedophile activities with individuals who have psychological issues but what is the percentage of that small group within the MSM community when compared to consented adults involved in gay sex? Why aren’t there equal concerns or even more urgent concern for the hetero-paedophile activity that takes place right under our noses literally? …………. we see the evidence almost every work and school day of the week just by virtue of tinted taxis at the school gates unabashedly with loud music blaring and teachers in some instances dare not reprimand the students or try to slow down the practice as the repercussions maybe grave we also see where students literally wait sometimes hours for these “bashment” cars and or buses at special spots and the accusations of some of the drivers involved in inappropriate sexual contact with minors with police interventions to arrest and prosecute some of the men but the punishment is either not punitive enough or the “victims” do not come forward to prosecute the case along with missing witnesses coupled with the “quack doctor” links known to most Jamaicans where a female teen may get pregnant and money is passed under the table to dispose of the pregnancy, a practice also done by some well to do household and persons who purport themselves to be of clean character, publicly speaking. I do not hear the JCHS worried about the things right before our eyes but they are worried about what we do as gay/bi men in PRIVATE for the most part excluding the outdoor cruiser or cruising activity as done by a minority of same gender loving men as evidenced in the UTECH abuse matter but heterosexuals also have sex in public too just without the possible disastrous consequences.

Yes I have agreed before that the Home and Family Life Education, HFLE matter was directed at the wrong age or age appropriate perhaps but what was not properly explained or deliberately omitted for the public to understand that the controversial guided imagery component of the curriculum is to be done in a controlled environment as a self reporting mechanism where students can opt out as is the opt out option for even attending the class at Alpha as most girls use the session as a free period based on my conversation with the third form student I hinted to before.

She continued “ ……….that they’re not infused with certain bad sexual ideologies and they grow up thinking that it’s OK cause they’ll …… they are not mature enough yet to understand the consequences of condoning certain behaviours accepting them or internalising certain ideas, it is highly important to protect our children.”

I agree it is important to protect our children from undo influence generally speaking and even gay or bisexual parents now need to guide their children about tolerance, sex and sexuality but to suggest that homosexuality is so awful a thing as the JCHS has been actively promoting and that heterosexism, separatism, religious imposition are OK however given how the conversation flowed in the quoted sections, why don’t these same groups cry out against the music in coaster buses that instruct students to do all manner of sex acts while thinking it normative? Our teen girls are poked, prodded, rodded and sucked to include penile and sex toy penetration on these very buses, strange how selective these groups that profess holier than thou virtues tend to overlook these other matters yet the very HFLE curriculum that was to formalise how students are introduce to sensitive subjects is thrown out leaving the informal societal messaging to continue but these groups are too blind to see that.

As for the feared gay agenda Miss West said among other things that we need healthier families not same sexed ones, schools need to put their foot down as to what they teach she whole heartedly support the HFLE withdrawal by the Minister of Education, she feared the dissemination of morally neutral information whilst supposedly conditioning students, she opposed same sex couples being grouped as a family unit and taught in schools, she said both families types are not equally good and medically as well, she rightly said the church has not touched on sex and sexuality which in my view is why we have the paranoia we do today and this fear of a homosexual agenda supposed to change non gay folk to such. She expressed concerns that the mass media is painting LGBT people as victims such as TV shows showing gay characters having a flawless character while Christians as backwards or unsympathetic but judging by just this interview what are persons to believe?

The ignorance of how same sex couples relate was clear as both host and guest confuses the gender roles in heterosexual couples would also apply in same sex unions where someone is to play a dominant position, clearly hetero-normativity should never be applied to a same sex relationship by persons who do not understand the intricacies involved.

She hinted to an upcoming event in Emancipation Park called “Celebrate God the giver of rights” slated for December 10^th on International Human Rights Day and also The Jamaica Forum for Lesbians Allsexuals and Gays, JFLAG 14^th anniversary, the thrust is supposedly to push a message of freedom from sin not freedom to sin but are Christians to stand at all gay persons bedroom door to stop us supposedly from having a dick or some ass when it is the individual’s choice, he who is without sin cast the first stone I say. She claimed homosexuality is a sexually immoral desire then if I had her near me I would have asked then explain why do I feel this way and after trying every known method including prayer (and not I alone by no stretch of the imagination) still find we are who we are? Lest we also forget the so called ex-gay therapy has clearly not worked for the vast majority as is evidenced worldwide while others seem to suppress their SGL feelings with disastrous consequences in the end.

On the matter of sexual rights she said the following:

“ ….. but the thing is you have to also consider the effects of those rights because let’s say the people who rape an eight year old girl could also say if I have this desire I should do it, you can’t grant rights based on desire, you have to grant it on how it will do for the good of the entire society, promoting certain sexual expressions is not good for the entire society, homosexuality has been medically proven to not be healthy ….” she confused homo-paedophile issues with consenting adults by saying that persons are traumatised by early unwarranted initiation by older persons which is true but has anyone looked or checked and realised that most times when same sex paedophilia takes place the sexual orientation of the person is usually heterosexual and often times actual buggery does not take place? I doubt she and others even bother to check. As for rapists promoting their own rights as suggested by Miss West I am wondering the lengths these so called Christians will go to just to prove their point and push this unneeded paranoia and fear after all rape is a grave offence and has far more disastrous consequences for the victim while female frottage, sex toy usage and or buggery via consent are victimless since the parties agreed. Is this the same God that supports outcasts that Miss West serves? Then it is no wonder why atheism and secularism are rising when the interpretation of the word is twisted to suit their puritanical agenda …………… CONSENT is the factor in all this, a point clearly missed by Miss West and her group, so what is persons want to sin let them make up their own minds so long as it does not impede on the rights of others including the JCHS membership but with the clear imposition here via hinted theocracy where are we going as a nation?

Furthermore the precedence set in local courts are that buggery cases of carnal abuse involved same sexes that lead to a conviction while those that involve “consenting adults” tend to languish until they are thrown out via sine die adjournment or the arresting officers stop attending sessions even with repeated subpoenas for them to show up and I am speaking from experience with not just my own case but that of others that I have been close to. The Jamaican society and most well thinking homosexuals however do not take kindly to sexual abuse of children overall but to suggest that we are mere predators looking for some ass no matter how tight is disingenuous.

The parties claimed they are not preaching against gay persons and that all behaviours are not of equal value as if those are supposed to be the appeasing factors but immediately following that came the usual “HIV as a gay disease” link suggesting that if we got rid of homosexuality then HIV/AIDS infection rates would go down. “Men who have sex with men are six times more likely to HIV than a prostitute.” When we do not use that word in a clinical setting when discussing HIV rate matters, the proper term is Commercial Sex Worker as the connotation of the “P” word has been rejected by that community. The usual France’s 1791 legalization of gay consensual sex and not homosexuality as it often confuses was thrown in the exchange as well while trying to put into account the high infection rates there while overlooking the red light districts, the drug usage and other factors contributing to their unique circumstances. “If more and more men engaging in this lifestyle they are going to damage their own bodies.”  Plus she made the link with heterosexual sex, clearly she does not understand that NOT ALL men who have sex with men practice anal sex or buggery in fact, there are also non penetrative or outercourse acts that are less risky such as partnered masturbation and what about persons in the very Passion for Purity group who themselves are struggling with same sex attraction, they participated in the Love March recently. NOT ALL SAME GENDER LOVING MEN find anal sex pleasurable for varying reasons mostly by choice and comfort zones.

I personally have buddies and friends plus my work in MSM gay men’s health has proven this repeatedly that there are men who are satisfied with genital play only especially for safer sex reasons.

Readers you be the judge but this fear, misnomer and misinformation at some points is disturbing to me, to suggest that because a child is in a same sexed parented environment means the child will be automatically gay is wrong and way off base, the child has to be allowed to come into their own. I know personally of same gender loving couples who have children who have matured in their care and are heterosexual and married at that, the children did not turn out “damaged” as Miss West et al would like to plant in the minds of an ignorant religious community, some of these LGBT parents I know were involved in hetero unions or marriage in some cases where a child was the product or same sex couples who have adopted here in Jamaica and the children turned out unscaved, in fact they are far more tolerant than a hetero-unioned household raised child where tolerance is not placed as a family value in the children’s growth and development.

Stop seeing homosexuality as a lifestyle only Miss West et al, IT IS WHO WE ARE. WE ARE NOT FORCING ANYONE TO BE SO INCLINED EITHER. It’s orientation as has been proven, limiting the discussion to same sex activity or attraction as a lifestyle is and of itself is intellectually dishonest and always have an accompanying gymnastics to support the anti gay agenda.

TOLERANCE does not mean ACCEPTANCE.

meanwhile check this out from their website:

here is a recent podcast on some of the other related issues:

Peace and tolerance

H

Urgent need to discuss Sex & sexuality nationally part 2

In part one on sister blog Gay Jamaica Watch I looked at the fiasco that was the Home and family life education manual and the uproar over one page of a volumous curriculum designed among other things to address sex and sexuality education in schools. Noting that all most of us older persons have been taught reproductive education i.e sperms and eggs make babies, puberty and the pubic hair bit and boys having wet dreams while girls see their periods and even that under the guise of “guidance counseling” had a hard time in getting to the openness where it is now given the sanitization that has occurred over and over again.

Many schools have been run and founded by churches with teachers of a certain ilk so the fear of teaching the “real things” is evident over time, in fact the very paranoia now over this curriculum and the screaming from sections of the public is a reflection of the lack of understanding SEX & SEXUALITY.

also hear my latest audio post/podcast:

Now comes this rubbish in my view of two persons being made scape goats for the Minister of Education’s ineptitude in leading the change that is required in the system to revolutionize the levels of understanding of SEX & SEXUALITY.

Have a read of the article in the Gleaner published on October 28 2012, what is the fear and who has an agenda? obviously the minister is conflicted and is pandering to the religious right also being a man of the cloth himself, what about separation of church and state?

Of course the goodly JFLAG is missing in all this discourse, so much for limpwristedness.

Two In Hot Water Over Sex Text

Education minister claims personal agenda led to controversial sections in school book

Edmund Campbell, Senior Staff Reporter

DISCIPLINARY ACTION is now hanging over the head of a public servant who Education Minister Ronald Thwaites claims had an “agenda” in crafting the controversial sex-education text which was recently withdrawn from high schools.

At least 1,368 copies of the 6,000 health and family life education (HFLE) text, deemed by some to be very offensive, were pulled by the ministry after national uproar over the material that was intended for students between grades seven and nine.

One person who allegedly authored “inappropriate” elements of text has parted company with the education ministry.

But that is not the end of the matter.

“It appears that there were two persons, at least, involved in the process who had a particular agenda in respect of this particular subset of the curriculum and they were able to embed it in the curriculum, and there was not sufficient review to extirpate it before publication,” Thwaites said last week in response to questions posed by Opposition spokesperson on education Marisa Dalrymple Philibert.

“As far as those who, investigation so far determined, played an untoward part in the writing of this (HFLE), one such person is no longer in the service of the ministry and the other person will be subject to the appropriate disciplinary action that the public service provides,” the education minister told fellow legislators.

Intense debate played out on the airwaves and in letters to newspaper editors, in September, about a section of the text which posed questions on sexual behaviour and commentary on heterosexuality and homosexuality.

Angry parents at the time demanded to know who approved the text, despite its withdrawal.

Responding to similar concerns from Dalrymple Philibert, who is the member of parliament for South Trelawny and the Opposition spokesperson on education, Thwaites said an investigation conducted by his ministry revealed that the curriculum was introduced into schools when it was given to teachers who were trained to use it in August 2011.

formal process bypassed

He said copies were distributed to schools before they were withdrawn.

Thwaites made it clear that the formal process of the ministry to approve curriculum was bypassed.

He said then Chief Education Officer Grace McLean did not know of the inappropriate curriculum.

“No Minister of Education of whatever political stripe would have knowingly allowed material as obnoxious as that contained in the HFLE curriculum to have been published,” Thwaites declared.

He also informed the House that the ministry had issued warnings when similar material found its way into the schools in the past.

“It was a clear intention of some who have very laudable views in other respects, but also have very clear predispositions regarding sexual conduct and how children are to be introduced to (it) who got away on this one.

“The important thing now is that we make it quite clear to this Parliament, to those who serve as administrators and public officials and to the nation as a whole, that the primary responsibility for introducing young children to sexual knowledge and responsibility lies with the parents,” the education minister stressed.

Setting the record straight in relation to the ministry’s position on sex and family life education, Thwaites added: “The principles that must be at all times respected is that the Ministry of Education promotes sexually responsible behaviour in the context of faithful union between a man and woman while offering respect and compassion to those who adopt a different lifestyle.”

ENDS

In continuing …………………..

Also see: New sex education manual in two months and Defending Family Life Curriculum

The public uproar over the health and family life education (HFLE) curriculum has done a grave disservice to a programme that addresses many of the social ills plaguing Jamaican youth. As an HIV and health educator, this is quite disconcerting to me.

The HFLE curriculum is not a textbook to be used by students, but a curriculum guide for use by teachers. The activities and resources which have been the media’s focus are not mandatory. Teachers have the power to choose which parts to use as they make their lesson plans.

Denigrating the curriculum as a ‘gay book’ or ‘sex text’ misses the fact that it is a holistic life skills programme, covering self and interpersonal relationships; sexuality and sexual health; appropriate eating and fitness, and managing the environment.

Within each theme, the life skills are broken down into major subcategories of social, cognitive and coping life skills, including decision making; problem solving; effective communication; empathy; coping with stress; coping with emotions; healthy self-management and conflict resolution.

BEHAVIOURAL MODIFICATION

Teaching life skills in this way has been shown to delay the onset of drug use; prevent high-risk sexual behaviour; facilitate anger management and conflict resolution; improve academic performance and promote positive social adjustment. In fact, the curriculum already includes behaviour-modification strategies to deal with anger management, which the minister of education now proposes to introduce in schools.

The specific sections which have been highlighted by the media have also been taken out of context. The personal risk assessment that asks questions about sexual behaviour is for private use by students to help them calculate their personal risk. The information is not returned to the teacher. The purpose of the exercise is to build the students’ critical thinking, decision making and healthy self-management and refusal skills.

The guided imagery activity which asks students to imagine they are the only heterosexuals in a world of homosexuals is not intended to ‘make students homosexual’ but to build empathy and self-awareness skills. It is meant to address intolerance and its consequences, including bullying and abuse of students because of sexual orientation.

UNDERSTANDABLE DISCOMFORT

The public’s discomfort with some of these matters is understandable. However, we cannot ignore the reality our children face and refuse to give them tools to handle their sexuality and sexual health.

The reality is that young people are sexually active, but they do not understand their HIV risk. The mean age of sexual initiation in Jamaica is 14 years old (12 for boys, 15 for girls). Seven per cent of all reported AIDS cases in Jamaica have been adolescents and young adults between 15 and 24.

The Knowledge Attitudes Perception Behaviour (KAPB) study of 2008 indicated there was a 100 per cent increase in the rate of sexually transmitted infections among adolescent girls from 2004. Transactional sex and casual sex are also common among adolescent among males and females.

The same KAPB study indicated that males in the 15-24 age group reported having an average of six sexual partners, and females of the same age group, three sexual partners. Additionally, behavioural studies indicate that one in every three gay men was HIV-positive, and a significant number of this cohort was between the ages of 15 and 24. However, only 38 per cent of young adults between 15 and 24 per cent can correctly identify the modes of preventing HIV transmission.

Since the procurement rules have been breached as it were are we to throw out the baby with the bathwater? the Observer also carried a story on the issue: They had a gay agenda

The Process for Approval of Curricula

a) The policy directorate grants approval for the development/revision of a curriculum in response to societal needs and/or new policy direction.

b) The draft curriculum is developed by the process owner along with selected technical experts internally and externally of the Ministry of Education through consultation with stakeholders (civic groups, teachers, principals, students, parents, and others).

c) The curriculum is piloted for feedback and adjustments

d) The first draft of the curriculum is submitted to the Core Curriculum Unit for review.

e) The Core Curriculum Unit reviews the curriculum and makes recommendation for approval of the final draft document to the Chief Education Officer through the Deputy Chief Education Officer, Curriculum and Support Services.

f) The Deputy Chief Education Officer, Curriculum and Support Services recommends the approval of the final draft curriculum to the Chief Education Officer.

g) The Chief Education Officer with support from the technical team representing the process owners presents the final draft document to the Executive Management Meeting, chaired by the Permanent Secretary and the Senior Policy Making Group, chaired by the Honourable Minister of Education.

h) The Minister of Education gives final approval of the draft curriculum and the policy unit documents the approval.

i) The process owners with the responsibility for the draft curriculum receives approval from the Chief Education Officer to implement the new curriculum in schools.

j) The process is documented every step of the way, the record is kept on an official file for future reference.

Meanwhile the

Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society (JCHS) is among a number of faith-based organisations that have expressed grave concern over the controversial Health and Family Life Education (HFLE) curriculum, and has called for a full disclosure of the source of its contents.

The group along with the Jamaica Association of Evangelicals, Faith Temple Gospel Assembly, the Issachar Foundation, Christian Brethren Assemblies, Jamaica Lawyers Christian Fellowship, Christian Life Fellowship, Bethany Fellowship, Swallowfield Chapel, and Mona Heights Chapel have expressed their displeasure with the curriculum. READ MORE HERE

Dr Heather Little-White on “What is Buggery?”

Heather Little-White, PhD,

A 23-year-old woman sitting in a group of her peers discussing the issue of buggery and whether the law making it a criminal act should be repealed seemed a little uncomfortable and could not help asking, “What is buggery?”

Her question was very instructive as it is often assumed that persons know what these sexual acts entail and may unknowingly engage in them in consensual or coerced situations.

Buggery is historically referred to as a ‘crime against nature’. Buggery, also known as sodomy, is defined as anal intercourse between a man and another man, a woman, or an animal (Collins English Dictionary). As a British English term, buggery is close in meaning to the term sodomy and is often commonly used today. The word bugger is still commonly used in modern English as a mild exclamation for disgusting acts.

English law

Buggery is a detestable crime, contrary to the order of nature as a sex act by mankind with mankind or with brute beasts, or by womankind with brute beasts. Buggery is a specific common-law offence, encompassing both sodomy and bestiality.

Originating in English law, buggery was first used in the Buggery Act 1533, while Section 61 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, titled ‘Sodomy and Bestiality’, defined punishments for “the abominable crime of buggery, committed either with mankind or with any animal”. The definition of buggery was not specified in these or any statute, but rather established by judicial precedent. (Halsbury’s Laws of England.)

Unnatural intercourse

Over the years, the courts have defined buggery to include either anal intercourse by a man with a man or woman, or vaginal intercourse by either a man or a woman with an animal. But it does not include any other form of “unnatural intercourse”. Under the law, if one is charged with buggery, neither consent nor the act of marriage can serve as a defence.

In the United Kingdom, the punishment for buggery was reduced from hanging to life imprisonment by the Offences against the Person Act 1861. As with the crime of rape, buggery required that penetration must have occurred, but ejaculation is not necessary. To be charged for buggery, it must be proven that penetration took place, or by having successful tests on blood or semen to show that there was actual intercourse. If this is not successful, there may be a lesser charge of gross indecency.

Anal sex

Over time, laws have changed in keeping with contemporary approaches to sexual intimacy. Anal sex between consenting adults is no longer a crime. In most jurisdictions in England and Wales, homosexual buggery was decriminalised in 1967 and the age of consent was raised. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 fully removed buggery as a concept in British law, introducing an equal age of consent and not differentiating between vaginal and anal sex.

Abolition of the offence of non-consensual buggery between persons was abolished in 1993 in the Republic of Ireland as criminal prosecutions for buggery [anal sex] had not taken place for years. However, the 1993 act created an offence of “buggery with a person under the age of 17 years” to give protection to children, viewing the act as “defilement of a child”, encompassing both “sexual intercourse” and “buggery”. However, the act of buggery by way of bestiality is still unlawful under Section 61 of the Offences against the Person Act of 1861. Earlier this year, a man was prosecuted under this Section after a woman died as a result of an allergic reaction after he had intercourse with his dog. (Reilly and Gavan, 2011)

Buggery of an animal

This offence is not too common today and, when discovered, raises public disgust to the point of violent attacks on the perpetrator. Encouraging tolerance towards bestiality, the public should weigh the act against the following parameters:

Was the act committed in private?

Is it likely to be repeated?

Was injury done to the animal?

Was the animal commercially exploited?

Were children involved in the offence?

Violence against women

Buggery is also considered gross indecency in the act of anal, sexual intercourse without consent, traumatising victims and leaving them in pain. Where anal intercourse takes place without consent, there should be a charge for rape as proposed by women’s organisations. The 1999 UN General Assembly’s designation of November 25 as International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women serves to highlight the fact that acts like sodomy are violent acts against women.

Violence against women and girls is pandemic with at least one out of every three women around the world beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused in her lifetime. The abuser is usually someone she knows.

Buggery and HIV

In his article on ‘Buggery & Health’ in The Sunday Gleaner (November 13, 2011), Byron Buckley wrote extensively on buggery as a public-health issue in the context of “a consistent increase in HIV incidence among homosexual men since the late 1990s”. This increase among homosexual men is attributed to unprotected anal intercourse compromising the advances in the prevention and treatment for HIV/AIDS. Buckley further added that compared with other sexually active adults, men who have sex with men are more likely to be infected with several other sexually transmitted diseases.

At a recent meeting of the UNAIDS Caribbean regional support team, it was announced that HIV prevalence rates were significantly higher among men who engaged in sex with men in countries where buggery laws were not repealed.

Risky sex

Anal sex is risky as the cell walls of the rectum are very thin and are easily torn on penetration. Before inserting foreign objects, they should be checked to see if they are free from sharp and rough edges. It is recommended that lubricated condoms and latex gloves be used for anal sex. Symptoms of injury in anal sex include abdominal pain, sudden change in the number of times for defecation and black and bloody stools.

Abolish buggery laws

There have been calls from several sectors, including the United Nations Human Rights Committee, for Jamaica to abolish its buggery laws. Some persons believe that legitimising homosexuality will reduce the incidence of HIV/AIDS. However, there is no guarantee that this will happen unless safe sex is practised all the time during anal penetration.

It is interesting to note that Britain scrapped the homosexuality laws in its five Caribbean territories after legislatures refused to do so. The British Privy Council, which acts as the highest court for the territories, decriminalised homosexual activities between adults in private. The order, which is already in effect, applies to Anguilla, the Cayman Islands, the British Virgin Islands, Montserrat and the Turks and Caicos. The British government had for years experienced great difficulty in persuading local politicians to repeal the laws in island legislatures. Anti-gay laws in the islands violate human rights agreements signed by Britain.

Buggery morphed into anal sex today is practised among two consenting adults, so if the act is repealed, then the word ‘buggery’ would no longer be used in everyday language.

UNAIDS Director says the PNP offers hope for the repealing of the buggery law …… but some concerns exist

UNAIDS Regional Director of the support team in the Caribbean Dr Ernest Massiah says the return of the Peoples National Party PNP in Jamaica offers hope that the tide will turn where the repealing of the Buggery Law is concerned this he interprets as a pre-election commitment by the then opposition leader now ruling Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller to review the legislation which I still see as a suggestion by her in answering the question posed by Dionne Jackson Miller in the leadership debate in 2011 in the run up to the general election in December last. He spoke at one of the sessions at the AIDS 2012 conference in the US.

He also said the organization had received encouraging feedback from three unnamed Caribbean Prime Ministers in private discussions and that when the time is right Mrs Simpson may be named as one of the three then.

I and some others in the community are unclear as to Mrs Simpson Miller’s answer and her real position (see audio below) as at the leadership debate and subsequent followup comments by her along with press releases from the PNP itself denying it promised to repeal any buggery laws. Have I missed something?

also see my post on December 30, 2011:
PNP Wins …………….Hope for LGBT People ???

here is one of the press releases hinted to above where the PNP had denied allegations from the ruling party then turned opposition now the Jamaica Labour Party JLP as they lost the election:

NO REPEAL OF BUGGERY ACT, SAYS PNP

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

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

“This arose out of a question and there is no position taken by us of a repeal. We recognize that there are some persons, who for their own partisan political reasons, would wish to distort the Party’s position as it relates to the Buggery Act,” Dr. Phillips said.
He adds that the Party Leader has proposed a review of the Act, and not a repeal of it.
“During the review, every Member of Parliament will be required to bring to bear on the discussions, the views and the opinion of his or her constituents. At the end of the review, if a vote is to be taken, the vote will be a conscience vote, which means each Member of Parliament will vote according to the directive of his/ her constituents,” Dr. Phillips says.

This is in keeping with the position taken by the PNP President, who indicated at the national debate that the people of Jamaica should let their voices be heard on the matter through consultations spearheaded by Members of Parliament, so that a Parliamentary debate and vote on the issue would not be confined to the views of Parliamentarians alone, but rather, would be reflective of the views and will of the people in constituencies across the country.
Responding to questions posed by journalists about accusations leveled on the campaign trail by Daryl Vaz that the PNP had received funding from overseas-based gay rights groups, Phillips said such accusations were not true and a “total fabrication” as the party had in no way supported “any gay agenda”.

“This is a total fabrication of Mr. Vaz and his very active imagination and speaks to the desperation in that (the JLP’s) campaign,” said Phillips.
The PNP will end its election campaign today with a tour of western parishes and culminate with a meeting in the South West St. Andrew constituency of Party Leader, Portia Simpson Miller, followed by a gospel concert at the party’s 89 Old Hope Road headquarters.

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

Here is the other press release that came on December 21st from the PNP denying they made any promises to repeal Buggery.

PNP HAS GIVEN NO COMMITMENT TO REPEALING THE BUGGERY ACT

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

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

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

here is New Nation Coalition Founder Betty Ann Blaine questioning the PM’s on buggery earlier this year among other audio including my response as well:

Bear this in mind as well, after digging my archives I found the presentation by Mrs Simpson Miller in 2009 (poor audio though) where she sided wholeheartedly with the then Prime Minster Bruce Golding (his speech linked) on the banning of gay marriage, gay marriage rights by the way was never asked for by the LGBT advocacy structure at that time but it was dishonestly pushed on the agenda during the Charter of Rights debate then as a smoke screen to deny us recognition in the Charter. The clause that had discrimination as an infraction then was also removed from the draft prior to this speech after successful lobbying by none other than the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship with support from none other than reverend Al Miller.

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

Has Prime Minister Simpson Miller changed her mind or is evolving as President Obama did and is moving towards having the review done and will she get the need support as per conscience vote to make the repeal possible or at best decriminalization from her 59 members of parliament especially folks such as A.J. Nicholson and first time MP Lambert Brown who opposed condoms in prisons saying it was homosexuality being snuck through the back door? Mr. Brown said. “Those who are promoting condoms in prison are using the back door to promote homosexuality which is illegal.”

also see these two posts I had done where another first time MP poured cold water on the buggery review suggestion: PNP’s Damion Crawford on Homosexuality’s legality ………. and
PNP’s Damion Crawford says it’s highly unlikely buggery review will happen …….. it’s not important now he concludes

for your review here is the actual debate video below and her answer to Dionne Jackson Miller also click here to see her blog: http://newsandviewsbydjmillerja.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/jamaica-and-gays-are-we-homophobic-or-not

here is a follow up video from TVJ where Mrs Miller defended her answer in the debate and the JLP’s accusation of the PNP repealing buggery originally aired December 24, 2011:

Who will assist with any backlash that may occur (if any) especially on the ground in terms of violence and frontline activists not to mention persons perceived to be gay who may be targeted?  we must expect anything I say as previous experience has taught us such as the Canadian group EGALE tourism boycott suggestion which led to some resistance and incidents towards LGBT citizens and a spike in the numbers of homo negative episodes, I am not comforted by the revelation by UNAIDS this should have been kept close to their chests and proceed with the talks.

Time Magazine while naming her as one of the 100 most influential for 2011/2 said on their site: “………Portia is promoting full civil rights for gays and lesbians, a courageous move in a country with a violent history of homophobia”

0,32068,1567265756001_0,00.html

Just come clean and done nuh and mek we know what is what Portia. I do not see it as a commitment or a promise as others do but instead just her opinion at the time of being questioned and a good political tool at the time to win the election given the lethargy to politics after the drawn out JLP run with the Manatt Dudus commission of enquiry in particular.

Peace and tolerance

H

Human Rights Watch on Combating Homophobia in Jamaica

The following is a press release from Human Rights Watch

(New York) – The Jamaican government should repeal the anti-buggery law and protect people from discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity, Human Rights Watch said today in a letter to Prime Minister Portia Simpson-Miller of Jamaica.

The Jamaican media reported two homophobic incidents in June 2012 in which violence was threatened or used to injure innocent civilians, simply because they were suspected of being homosexual. On June 21, in Jones Town, Kingston, the police had to intervene  as an angry crowd gathered in front of a house where five homosexuals were staying as reported on CVMTV News (3:15-5:35 of the footage). “Homophobia is so bad that human rights defenders advocating the rights of LGBT people are not safe in Jamaica,” said Boris Dittrich, advocacy director in the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Rights Program at Human Rights Watch. “Jamaica needs to act now on its international obligations to prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.” Jamaican nongovernmental organizations have pressed the Jamaican government for years to repeal the anti-buggery law and to pass anti-discrimination legislation to protect LGBT people.

According to Section 76 of the Jamaican Offences Against the Person Act of 1864, a maximum sentence of 10 years can be issued for the committing the crime of buggery. Simpson-Miller made a courageous stand before she took office in January, speaking out against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity and suggesting a review of Jamaica’s anti-buggery law, Human Rights Watch said. During the leadership debate she also indicated a willingness to review the country’s buggery laws. Homophobic threats, including death threats, caused one of the most outspoken campaigners for the rights of LGBT people, Maurice Tomlinson, to flee Jamaica in January.  He told Human Rights Watch and the Inter American Commission that he had asked police in Montego Bay to protect him, but that the police officer in charge responded by saying,  “I hate gays, they make me sick.” He fled to Canada, where he received two more death threats by email, in February and March.

Upon the request of the former assistant police commissioner, he returned briefly to Kingston for the investigation, but the police have not followed up with him. “It is a shame that such a prominent LGBT human rights defender has been compelled to seek safety elsewhere,” Dittrich said. “The government’s failure to comply with international human rights standards while public officials like the police officer in Montego Bay look the other way when hate crimes are committed leaves LGBT people vulnerable and unprotected in their daily lives.” In 2004 Human Rights Watch published a report about the treatment of people living with HIV/AIDS and the situation for LGBT people in Jamaica, “Hated to Death: Homophobia, Violence, and Jamaica’s HIV/AIDS Epidemic.” The report, which documented a grim landscape of human rights abuses against LGBT people, was undertaken at the behest of local Jamaican advocacy organizations.

Since the Human Rights Watch report, attacks on homosexual people or people perceived as being homosexual or transgender appear to have remained commonplace, Human Rights Watch said. Jamaica is a party to a number of international human rights treaties, but does not live up to those standards, Human Rights Watch said. The Organization of American States (OAS), of which Jamaica is a member,  adopted five resolutions between 2008 and 2012 condemning “acts of violence and human rights violations perpetrated against individuals because of their sexual orientation and gender identity,” and urging states “to adopt the necessary measures to prevent, punish, and eradicate” discrimination. The protection of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people is part of Jamaica’s binding obligations under international law and standards, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Jamaica ratified without reservations in 1975, affirms the equality of all people in articles 2 and 26.

Likewise, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, the international body of experts that monitors compliance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), to which Jamaica acceded without reservation in 1991, has affirmed that all children are entitled to protection against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. “We call upon Prime Minister Simpson-Miller to act swiftly and to bring Jamaica’s laws and policies in line with international human rights standards, in particular as they relate to the rights of LGBT people,” Dittrich said. “We encourage the prime minister to publicly and unequivocally affirm that all Jamaicans, including LGBT people, will be equally protected by the law, the state, and all its institutions and that no discrimination will be tolerated.”

more audio

TVJ on the 25/07/12 carried the story in their Prime Time News feature

Thankfully HRW did not make the same mistake as the IACHR did by including the June 13th murders of the homeless men in the New Kingston area and also that of ‘Ronica who was also killed on the same day. Those murders were not homophobia related but more to do with inter/intra community issues and homelessness coupled with hypermasculine power differentials.

see the Jamaica Observer Vox pop on crimes towards homosexuals where some persons still do not believe there are homophobic murders.

also see: IACHR Condemns Murder of Two Gay Men in Jamaica …….. an open response

and listen more

also see:  Murder, Homelessness and fallouts ……………………………. which looks at the Trafalgar matter and the previous homeless MSM murder that took place sometime between May 23 and 24 this year as well, his mutilated body was found but this story did not get the coverage as the others except in the Star News on May 25 and is considered a homophobic murder for now.

Peace and tolerance

H

The Club Matter – Unprofessional Police Behaviour Must Stop

The following appeared in the Gleaner recently and I am not comfortable with the editor’s decision to call the writer a disappointed scammer as if to suggest the persons held at the recent raid in St Ann at a birthday event were all scammers in attendance. This has the looks of a certain Superintendent last year who castigated the gay community as scammers hence leading to an apology that came from the police high command.

Aren’t persons innocent until proven guilty?

Why did an entire event had to be shut down just to find supposed scammers?

Do the cops have a clear idea of who they are actually looking for? it doesnt seem so to me

I feel that the community is being used as scapegoats as well in a vieled homophobic move, yes there maybe guilty parties amongst the LGBT community but why broad brush an entire set of patrons at an event?

Here is the letter to the paper non the less, see what you make of it.

The Editor Sir:

I FEEL moved to give a detainee’s response to your article of Sunday, July 8, 2012 titled ‘Scammers party in drag’. It certainly appeared to have been an intelligence-driven operation as the raid was conducted with the support of the army. Further, Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Leon Clunis came and hand-picked the persons who, in my view, he came for in the first place. For the record, this numbered fewer than 10 and all other persons were released. If this was in fact intelligence-driven, why then were all the 100-plus persons detained and transported to the station for “processing”? Was it a ‘name-and-shame’ moment? SSP Clunis did instruct persons not to hide from the cameras.

I find that rather interesting as the senior superintendent was the one insisting that persons should not hide and, in fact, instructed persons to stand up and remove the covering from their heads. I recall him saying, “Why unu a hide, unu fi proud a weh unu be.” Ok, so he is not interested; for what purpose then was he facilitating the photographing and videotaping of the individuals to the extent that he was using/abusing his authority to instruct persons not to hide from the camera? Why then were the officers asking individuals questions like, what role do you play? Do your parents know that you are gay?

Operational protocol

Mr Commissioner, does operational protocol allow for aspects of operations to be videotaped by police personnel? I ask this because, according to SSP Clunis, the police is not interested in one’s sexuality or sexual preference, yet an officer armed with a camcorder and flashlight took video footage of the persons lying on the ground in the building.

I must commend the few officers (from both the JDF and the JCF) who acted in a professional manner throughout the operation. I recall seeing the disgust on one officer’s face at the manner in which another officer was behaving. It would appear, though, that the senior superintendent and his team need to better review operational procedures and ensure that all members of the team understand what these are, as well as what their individual roles are in the process.

Our police force needs to move away from media hypes and focus on real crime fighting.

DISAPPOINTED SCAMMER

Jaysean97@hotmail.com

Editor’s Note: The pen name, “Disappointed Scammer” was inserted by the editor because the letter writer requested anonymity.

Meanwhile

A proprietor of a nightclub in St Ann who was hauled before the Corporate Area Resident Magistrate’s Court on Friday for fraud was granted $150,000 bail.

He is Lorindo Powell from Kingston 13, who has been charged with conspiracy to defraud, obtaining money by means of false defence, conspiracy to defraud, possession of criminal property and involving in transaction that includes criminal property.

Powell is to return to court on September 6, when the matter will be mentioned for plea and case management hearing.

Allegations are that the accused conspired with other persons and defrauded a 75-year-old woman in the United States of several thousand dollars.

The court heard that the accused told the victim that she won US$5 million and she was to send money to him to process her winnings.

Sexual orientation

In applying for bail, Powell’s attorney told the court that his client desperately needs bail as he was beaten by other inmates while being detained because of his sexual orientation.

“Your Honour, I went to look for the accused while he was detained and the amount of “blanks” that were fired at me, if those were live rounds I would have been a dead man today,” the attorney told the court jokingly.

As a condition of Powell’s bail, he is to surrender his travel documents and report to the Hunts Bay Police Station on Mondays and Thursdays between the hours of 6 a.m. and 6 p.m.

CARICOM heads of government urged to strengthen sexual rights

CARICOM heads of government urged to strengthen sexual rights

Regional civil society organizations have called on the Caribbean Community heads of government at their July 4-6 summit in St Lucia to implement an Organization of American States (OAS) General Assembly resolution on sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) that every state supported last month.

They were also urged to fully join the Inter-American human rights system, according to a press release from the Caribbean Vulnerable Communities Coalition (CVC) yesterday.

CAFRA (Caribbean Association for Feminist Research and Action), CariFLAGS (Caribbean Forum for Liberation and Acceptance of Genders and Sexualities) and the CVC were joined by NGOs, Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination (SASOD) in Guyana, and United and Strong in St. Lucia, where the meeting is being held.

The annual OAS SOGI resolution has been supported by every Caribbean state for the past five years, the release stated.

Among several other actions, this year’s text calls on member states to “consider, within the parameters of the legal institutions of their domestic systems, adopting public policies against discrimination by reason of sexual orientation and gender identity” and to “consider signing, ratifying, or acceding to, as the case may be, the inter-American human rights instruments”. “Other citizens in the Americas have all these human rights protections guaranteed by Inter-American regional instruments and mechanisms that millions of CARICOM citizens simply do not enjoy,” SASOD’s Joel Simpson noted.

The release said further that SASOD helped to pressure the Guyana government through the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review process to undertake a national consultation on whether the state should continue to criminalize cross-dressing, and same-sex intimacy between consulting adult men in private.

“One has to wonder how committed our leaders are when the region is so underdeveloped in terms of human rights. Human rights protections are part of citizen security. We live in countries in the hemisphere where the state’s local protective mechanisms are the weakest and indicators of inequality, like access to justice and HIV rates, are the worst. And our citizens don’t enjoy recourse to regional bodies when our local protections fail,” Simpson stated.

Meanwhile, the advocates also protested CARICOM’s marginalization of civil society participation in regional governance and demanded a greater voice in contributing to the future of the Caribbean.

“CARICOM doesn’t yet have the simplest structures for routine civil society participation, unlike most other regional institutions,” said Trinidad-based Colin Robinson, who is leading the private-public partnership to develop a region-wide human rights advocacy network CariFLAGS.

CariFLAGS leaders include NGOs in Antigua, Belize, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, St. Lucia, Suriname, and Trinidad and Tobago.

The advocates noted, however, that PANCAP (the Pan Caribbean Partnership against HIV and AIDS), is one of the few regional mechanisms that has genuinely sought to include civil society in its governance.

CARICOM’s Head for Human Resources, Health and HIV/AIDS, St. Kitts-Nevis Prime Minister Denzil Douglas just last week “endorsed a new complementarity in mission between the new Caribbean Public Health Agency and PANCAP, with the latter sharpening its focus on human rights, vulnerability and social justice, the release added.

“If we’re serious about PANCAP’s commitment to human rights, what we are asking are these two concrete steps by Heads of Government to express that,” said St. Flavia Cherry of the St. Lucia-based CAFRA, which is also campaigning to strengthen protection of sexual and reproductive rights regionally.

See more Here:

COALITION OF LGBTTTI ORGANIZATIONS WORKING IN THE OAS CELEBRATE THE APPROVAL OF THE FIFTH RESOLUTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY

The Coalition of LGBTTTI Latin American and Caribbean organizations, formed by groups belonging to more than 23 countries expresses in this communiqué its assessment of the activities of the 42nd General Assembly of the Organization of American States, which took place in Cochabamba, Bolivia on June 3^rd-5^th, 2012.

Dionne Jackson Miller on …………. Jamaica and Gays: Are We Homophobic or Not?

Seasoned Radio Jamaica talk show host of Beyond The Headlines tackles homophobia in her latest blog post.

It’s an old argument. Jamaica is homophobic. No! goes up the cry. Jamaicans are very tolerant of gays! So which is it?

homophobia (Photo credit: the|G|™)

In 2004, international human rights group Human Rights Watch put out a report titledHated to Death:  Homophobia, Violence and Jamaica’s HIV/AIDS Epidemic.

http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/jamaica1104.pdf

The report’s summary began thus:

“On June 9, 2004, Brian Williamson, Jamaica’s leading gay rights activist, was murdered in his home, his body mutilated by multiple knife wounds.  Within an hour after his body was discovered, a Human Rights Watch researcher witnessed a crowd gathered outside the crime scene.  A smiling man called out, “Battyman [homosexual] he get killed!”

Many others celebrated Williamson’s murder, laughing and calling out, “let’s get them one at a time,” “that’s what you get for sin,” “let’s kill all of them.”  Some sang “boom bye bye,” a line from a popular Jamaican song about killing and burning gay men.

The report went on:

English: Human Rights Watch logo Русский: Логотип Хьюман Райтс Вотч (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“Violent acts against men who have sex with men are commonplace in Jamaica.  Verbal and physical violence, ranging from beatings to brutal armed attacks to murder, are widespread.  For many, there is no sanctuary from such abuse.  Men who have sex with men and women who have sex with women reported being driven from their homes and their towns by neighbors who threatened to kill them if they remained, forcing them to abandon their possessions and leaving many homeless.

The testimony of Vincent G., twenty-two, is typical of the accounts documented by Human Rights Watch: “I don’t live anywhere now. . . . Some guys in the area threatened me.  ‘Battyman, you have to leave.  If you don’t leave, we’ll kill you.’”

Claims that members of the gay community are either at risk or have been victims of violence are often greeted with derision. The reports are often disbelieved. Activists are accused of lying. After all, the argument goes, we all know gays who live among us and nobody troubles them.

The trouble is, we Jamaicans don’t make it easy for ourselves. The condemnatory statements from human rights bodies are not pulled out of thin air. In 2007, Amnesty International, in condemning violence against gays in Jamaica referenced their statement as follows:

“On Sunday 8 April 2007, a crowd allegedly surrounded a church in Mandeville and hurled different objects through a window at the back of the church. The attacks were directed at persons in attendance of the funeral being held there, who the crowd believed to be homosexual.

On 2 April 2007, another crowd reportedly threw stones and bottles at a group of costumed men who were dancing in the carnival procession along Gloucester Avenue in Montego Bay. According to reports, the crowd was angered because the men were supposedly gyrating in a sexually suggestive manner and demanded that they leave the stage. According to eye-witnesses, the men were attacked, chased and beaten by the mob of around 30 or 40 people. At least one of them had to be hospitalized due to injuries.

These two incidents occurred only two months after a group of men were targeted in a similar manner in a pharmacy in Tropical Plaza, Half-Way Tree, in Kingston. A human rights defender told Amnesty International that a mob of at least 200 people had gathered outside the store, calling for the men to be beaten to death because they were homosexual.”

http://www.amnesty-caribbean.org/de/jm/news/AMR300042007.html

Jamaicans argue that these incidents are isolated.  But while the incidents of reported mob violence are not frequent, we need to understand how brutish and vicious we appear when images are broadcast of crowds baying for blood outside a building in which gays are holed up.

Just last week, CVM TV broadcast a story in which community members in Jones Town burst into a private dwelling because the occupants were suspected of being homosexuals. The suspicions allegedly confirmed, the crowd started to beat the men, and police had to rescue the occupants, incurring the wrath of the crowd. One man wanted to know why taxpayers’ money was being used to rescue gays.

I cannot find words to describe how backward this story makes us look. Go and try to convince a sceptic now that we are not homophobic!

So let’s acknowledge that violence against gays is real. We are not as uniformly tolerant as we would have the outside world believe. But neither have the gay activists done their cause any good by overstating the extent of the problem.  Gay-on-gay violence is also real.

Recently, the Jamaica Forum for Lesians Allsexuals and Gays (JFLAG) publicly condemned the killing of gay men. In a statement (re-tweeted by Amnesty Caribbean), they said:

“Members of the LGBT community have reported to J-FLAG that eight gay men have been murdered within the last three months bringing to the fore the reality that despite progress towards greater tolerance, the LGBT community continues to be at great risk of violence. Among the most recent attacks against the gay community was the savage killing of two young men.

“The men were apparently brutally murdered with blunt instruments in the vicinity of the intersection of Trafalgar Road and Lady Musgrave Road. Persons who are homeless frequented this area; among them are young gay men who have been made homeless because of the continued intolerance of homosexuality in Jamaica.”

In an interview with me on my radio programme Beyond the Headlines a few days later, JFLAG spokesman Dane Lewis admitted that the organisation had jumped the gun, and that his later information was that the two men in question had been killed by members of the gay community. He said he withdrew that part of the statement and promised a corrected version. I haven’t seen that yet.

So which is it? Are we homophobic or are we tolerant of the gay lifestyle?

I submit that we are both. However, the incidents of violence and public hatred against gays are so embarrassing and so horrifying that nothing else matters. There is no room for any other depiction of our attitudes when the images seared into people’s minds are those of police having to be deployed to protect men from a bloodthirsty crowd. Given those graphic realities, our reputation as an extremely homophobic country will continue to dog us, protest as we might.

So when Prime Minister Simpson Miller courageously declared that sexual orientation would not affect how she chose her Cabinet, and that she would initiate a review of the buggery law, she should understand that outside Jamaica, gay activists saw her statement as a beacon of hope in a country of darkness, or near darkness. That was one of the reasons for her inclusion on that Time 100 List, misrepresented as her position was. 

The outside world sees us as homophobic and violent. We don’t see ourselves that way.

As always, the truth lies obscured, somewhere in the middle.

Source