PRESS RELEASE

The Caribbean Men’s Internet Survey is underway

16 January, 2012 - A groundbreaking anonymous online study of the lives of men who have sex with men (MSM) in the English, French, Spanish and Dutch-speaking Caribbean is underway now. CARIMIS, the Caribbean Men’s Internet Survey (available at www.carimis.org) aims to learn more about this group while for the first time testing the potential of the internet to conduct research with key populations in the region. The initiative is led by the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) Caribbean Regional Support Team (RST) and involves several individuals, non-governmental organisations and partner agencies throughout the region.

UNAIDS Caribbean RST Director, Dr. Ernest Massiah, explained that the approach presents exciting possibilities for responding more meaningfully to the realities of MSM.

“Almost everybody’s online,” he said. “That’s where people are and that’s where the survey needs to be. It’s the most modern, effective way to connect with communities to find out more about their experiences and their needs. Good data provides the evidence that allows countries to make good decisions about their HIV response.”

Article 29 of the 2011 Political Declaration on HIV/AIDS notes that many national HIV prevention strategies inadequately focus on populations that evidence shows are at higher risk. In June governments committed to identifying the specific populations that are key to their epidemic and response, “based on the epidemiological and national context”. CARIMIS will contribute to this goal by offering new insight into the realities of Caribbean MSM communities at country-level, including respondents’ behavioural risks and their access to HIV prevention, testing, treatment and care.

Participants in pilot tests done in the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago revealed that they responded to questions about their sexual behaviour during the survey that they would not answer in face to face interviews.  Importantly, the approach will reach across boundaries of class, race, socio-economic status and professed sexual identity as anyone with 15 minutes of internet access can participate anonymously.

“Studies among MSM have been conducted in the larger Caribbean countries using traditional sampling methods. While these methods have been useful they have always excluded sub-groups within the MSM community who cannot be reached through public venues or network systems. The internet holds the potential to reach a wider spectrum of MSM and could in the future be used to connect with other hard-to-reach groups,” explained Research Associate, Sylette Henry-Buckmire.

In the Caribbean HIV prevalence among MSM is estimated to range from 0.71 percent in Cuba to 32 percent in Jamaica. The average adult HIV prevalence for the region as a whole is one percent.

The survey is available on www.carimis.org It is targeted toward people who are 18 years or older, were born male and either are attracted to men, have sex with men or think they might do so in the future. Eligible participants must provide informed consent online before completing the survey. No information will be collected that would identify respondents. The website includes links to local referral services for those who require emotional or medical support. CARIMIS has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM). The website and its supporting technology underwent a rigorous certification and accreditation process to assure security.

Contact

UNAIDS Caribbean| Cedriann Martin | tel. +868 623-7056 ext. 283 | martinc@unaids.org

UNAIDS

UNAIDS, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, is an innovative United Nations partnership that leads and inspires the world in achieving universal access to HIV prevention, treatment, care and support. Learn more at unaids.org.

These encounters are embedded in our cultural history. Thanks to Mark Turner for reminding us of that, it’s a worldwide phenomenon.

So valued are these outdoor spaces and the need for pleasure that the slightest adjustment, aesthetically or otherwise shakes up the mind of the experienced cruiser, imagine my surprise when I got a frantic call from a member of that active community expressing shock, some outrage and near rage that his stomping ground has been bulldozed, the cruising community in 2010 had a tumultuous year with spot after spot being literally changed or totally annihilated right before their eyes with some fallout in the process some of which I dare say look rather psychologically troubling as persons seem to just be lost or in some sort of shock knowing they cannot act out their fetishes or desires in these former active open year concealed to the public spaces. The death of one of their members also sent shock waves for months as many of the men refused from visiting the areas namely in West Kingston and onwards. Multiple near misses by inexperienced newcomers were also a cause for concern for some of the more elder statesmen.

see:  Some cruising challenges ………. and The Cruising community’s dilemma ….. also:  Outdoor sex and the issues to being caught and: Cruising community challenges continue …………

Of course as the previous administration, the JLP were the representatives for that area it was not surprising to see infrastructure development taking place after decades of neglect. It is safe to name the spots now seeing they are now defunct, the old railway station and its environs was one spot for decades used by generations of cruisers young and old alike, thugs and effeminates alike, gay and bi-curious alike including gay for pay or trade members as well. These members are not exposed to the rest of the LGBT community and subsequent advocacies that exist and most are not keen to come forward to present their grouses except to persons they fell won’t humiliate them due to their tastes in sexual contact outdoors preferably.

The frantic caller this morning was a long time friend and he insisted I came to Kingston for him to show me the new look of the wooded area now turned a backhoe and dumper truck parking spot as renovations continue in that part of town by the Kingston and St Andrew Corporation, KSAC and with the former active mayor of Kingston Desmond McKenzie crossing over to representational politics and winning the sure JLP seat in the constituency there is bound to be far more adjustments to the area knowing his style. We met in Kingston early this morning along with another younger thug he introduced me to, he again expressed his frustrations of the missing spot as he did on the phone prior to my arrival. We walked to the section leisurely and as was told to me the spot was indeed gone but the reaction of the gentleman is still puzzling to me, it’s a public space, there is bound to be changes in the long run so why this attachment to it along with the need for cruising in that specific area could affect someone so much? There must be an explanation for this. The other spots across town have also been disappearing fast and with no serious LGBT spots available with dark rooms etc for this kind of intense sexual release what are cruisers both active or secretive ones to do?

When the thug friend of the troubled cruiser suggested renting an overnight room for pleasure he expressed the refusal of many of the cheaper priced motels do not allow same sexed guests so easily these days and the more affluent hotels who do not question guest’s gender before booking are too expensive, typical four star Kingston hotel room is at $8000/night average he also made a very important acknowledgement to the whole world of cruising where he said it takes away from the thrill when one rents a room for sex, there is no excitement knowing you may be caught but get away with it anyway.

There has been an ongoing discussion to provide some more sexually charged entertainment to offset some of the wants of some of these brothers whether they will absorb these proposed offerings is another matter seeing that the erotic elements maybe missing and that thrill factor our brother alluded to.

Repeating a section of a previous post - Some sort of intervention is needed I feel but if we can’t even get any honest moves to deal with issues directly infront of our eyes especially with the least amongst us that being the homeless msms then how are we going to deal with a population that is for the most part clandestine even to the rest of the LGBT community’s eyes. My few interactions with these men has also revealed that these aren’t the typically profiled brothers but are men who sometimes are bisexual or have the occasional female partner or that male from the lower economic strata who uses the Kingston proper region to earn a living near the market district but are same gender loving or willing to practice some sort of sexual contact with other men. Stealth is a crucial tool in this game as these brothers are mostly very masculine and it may not be known how they are in their natural state in a few instances.

Keep a cruising carefully brothers.

Peace and tolerance

H

by Peter Espeut

In a letter published in The Gleaner of December 29, 2011, Neville Duncan puts forward the moral justification for homosexuality, promiscuity, sadomasochism, drug addiction, suicide, and much more.

He writes: “Each individual has the basic right to do anything with her/his life that s/he chooses, including damaging oneself by using alcohol and drugs, just as s/he has the right to damage oneself with sugar, tobacco, religion, promiscuous sex, mysticism, suicide, etc., so long as s/he does not initiate threats, force or fraud against any other individual.

“… No sexual act between consenting adults can objectively be illegal, even if the acts are physically or psychologically harmful to the consenting individuals (such as injurious homosexuality, masochism, sadism, etc.).”

In philosophy, someone who supports this position is called a libertarian because s/he believes that the inherent freedom of individuals is to be interpreted in a particular way.

Duncan continues: “Let it be clear that the core battle is not merely for women’s rights, minority rights, rights of the elderly, rights of children, rights of ‘gays’ – the battle is and always has been for individual rights. When individual rights are fully protected, then everyone’s rights are protected.”

Decriminalise them

Libertarians believe that all laws criminalising victimless offences should be removed from the books. Duncan asserts: “Let it be clearly understood that only acts of force, fraud or coercion that violate individual rights of non-consenting people can be objectively illegal. … A review of all our laws, including the law on buggery, using this principle of protecting the rights of individuals is imperative.”

Libertinism, which is gaining popularity in Jamaica, is illogical and self-contradictory. There are many angles from which this may be shown, but with limited space let me begin by looking at the basic principle of libertinism: “Each individual has the basic right to do anything with her/his life that s/he chooses, including damaging oneself.”

Under libertinism, there would be no illegal drugs, since people should be free to use ganja, cocaine, methamphetamines, or whatever they feel to use. Duncan says as much: “The State, in misguided Christian sanctimoniousness, in using force to prohibit drugs … is … morally wrong …”.

Would Duncan deny that the use of many psychotropic drugs leads to physical and mental deterioration? These ‘free’ persons would then clog up the hospitals, at great expense to the State and to the taxpayers, who would be compelled to treat them. Does this not restrict the freedom of others? Doesn’t the rest of society suffer when resources which could be used for the common good are diverted to treat drug addicts?

Would Duncan deny that many drug addicts turn to theft and robbery – often inflicting bodily harm in the process – to get money to buy more drugs? This increases societal insecurity and instability, and requires the State to expend more resources in crime fighting, and in the courts.

Libertarians make an artificial dichotomy between the individual and the group: allowing individuals the freedom to damage themselves does damage everyone in the group if the collective has to pick up the pieces. Duncan’s assertion that “when individual rights are fully protected, then everyone’s rights are protected” is platitudinous and false.

Where do we draw line?

Duncan himself supplies a second critique to libertinism. He writes: “Let it be clearly understood that only acts of force, fraud or coercion that violate individual rights of non-consenting people can be objectively illegal. Non-consenting people always include children, for they are unable to give valid or informed sexual consent because (1) they have gained neither knowledge nor experience to assume responsibilities for the physical and psychological consequences of sexual actions … .”

The principle applied here by libertarians is that persons who have “gained neither knowledge nor experience” cannot assume responsibility for the physical and psychological consequences of their actions; such persons must be prevented from taking actions which may have negative consequences upon themselves.

But why apply this only to children? There are people of all ages who have “gained neither knowledge nor experience” about all sorts of things, and hurt themselves and others in the process. Would libertarians make Ponzi schemes legal because people should be allowed to throw away their money if they wish?

In several parts of the world, libertarians fight against seat-belt and motorcycle-helmet laws because people should be free to take their own risks. Libertarians want people to be free to end their own lives (and presumably to seek help to do so) because it’s their life.

Libertines want the full legalisation of homosexuality, abortion, prostitution, gambling, drugs, public nudity, pornography, bestiality, blasphemy. Is this the kind of Jamaica we want?

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and Roman Catholic deacon. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.

by Garth Rattray

The social network lit up during the excitement generated by the results phase of the recent general election. What caught my interest, however, was that cyberspace was peppered with angry/distraught Jamaicans expressing their wish to run away to some foreign land because the leader of the People’s National Party (PNP) was sober and honest enough to express her willingness to allow parliamentarians – after consultation with their constituents – to engage in a conscience vote on the matter of the law against buggery.

I further understand that an indeterminate number of voters stayed away from the polls because, as preposterous as it is, they harboured unreasonable fears of a society dominated by homosexuals.

Portia Simpson Miller did not brusquely respond, “Not in my Cabinet!” She did not dodge and duck the question, nor did she perform a verbose pirouette. She earned my respect by speaking forthrightly, despite the knowledge that her response was certain to bring her major negative points in the all-important leadership debate. Some people have related to me that they feel certain that the PNP would have picked up more votes were it not for that reply.

Honesty despised?

In my opinion, the voters should be happy that a politician exhibited such bravery and honesty instead of giving a politically correct answer or an answer that would appease the voting public.

Whether we agree with her or not, this is precisely the sort of thing that we need and deserve from our politicians, the truth, no matter what the conse-quences. Yet when some of us see it, instead of encouraging it, we berate it.

The problem, therefore, lies not so much in the fact that Mrs Simpson Miller was upfront; the problem lies in the topic on which she was outspoken. Among many Jamaicans, the topic of sexuality consistently strikes an angry chord harmonised with righteous indignation.

This single biblically labelled ‘abomination’ elicits powerful emotions, while other, far more serious and socio-economically damaging ‘abominations’ only manage to elicit measured and restrained commentary.

Why aren’t we as passionate about ‘people who possess a lying tongue’? What about the ‘hands that shed innocent blood’? How is it that our hundreds of innocently slaughtered citizens every year only get the perfunctory condemnation from politicians, brief, curious/morbid attention and muted whispers throughout society?

Biased righteous indignation

Where is the fierce anger and fiery passion for their lives? Why doesn’t crime and murder elicit rage and holy denunciation from our religious society? Where is the hellfire warning for such acts? Why aren’t we advised to ask our political candidates if they have, or ever had, any direct or indirect interfacing or connections with criminal elements before casting our votes?

Aren’t we, therefore, being very selective in the biblical abominations we rise up against? People remarry former companions all the time and most churches condone it. Many people commit adultery every day, yet there is no moralistic hue and cry from society about that.

Anyone or any group which truly feels that a particular sexual persuasion is abominable certainly has every right to express that displeasure. However, the over-the-top response to that alone is non-productive.

We would do far better to express our chagrin for some of the other abominations (oppression of others, especially the poor and vulnerable; hardness of the heart; violence, and many more too long to list here) that are extremely relevant to our modern-day society and hold people – especially public officials – accountable.

If our citizenry was as outspoken about the other ‘abominations’ that are so pervasive throughout our society, we would receive better governance.

Garth A. Rattray is a medical doctor with a family practice. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and garthrattray@gmail.com.

ENDS

More ……………………

Need I say more?

Peace and tolerance

H

Di role ting deh:

The sticky issue of role play by males in the mainstream seems to be also very pronounced in the  men who have sex with men arena as well but seeing the ever changing tastes in the community one would have thought that the new thinking of versatile postioning in sexual activity and or romantic relations maybe readily welcomed, clearly my thinking was wrong on this end and was proven so by a heated discussion recently on men who play the “top” or strictly dominant roles in same gender affairs. Obviously same gender loving men adopt the relationship role play of the heterosexual community where this is a dominant partner and a passive partner of course stemming from the gender roles so set by society over time.

So strong are these believes that to suggest to some tops that they should perform any sexual or domestic role in their same gender love relationships is a gross insult and an anathema, given the backdrop of our society as well where machismo is so highly valued one dare not even suggest any deviation from those copied gender roles. The discussion came up at a get together recently where several more masculine same gender lovers where present and as it were a clip was shown by someone using a computer of what appeared to be a masculine top and a more smaller in statue “bottom” or passive partner but also masculine none the less. The couple while indulging in foreplay assumed their roles, the passive performing satisfactory gestures to his more dominant mate but when the positions shifted somewhat where the top after performing analingus or rimming on his willing bottom or passive mate also proceeded to lovingly perform oral sex on his well aroused passive partner. This drew some shock and negative responses from the onlookers, the vid was stopped and a discourse ensued with three of the four thug males sharply condemning the oral top while the remaining one who liked the idea said it was a good thing and suggested maybe they were more than just bed buddies. A general perception is also that tops who are very strict about role play may become less demanding with a lover with whom they are romantically involved with and allow or perform acts they would not normally do with just a hookup.

The lone masculine brother’s view was not welcomed at all by his other male counterpart and that’s when the same castigatory lines used in the mainstream to make out men who give in or are too nice to women were thrown in the mix, of course Jamaican men of whatever orientation do not take kindly to when their egos or masculine image are abused or challenged. Words to the effect that the lone supporter “bows” (performs oral sex which is still frowned upon though not so much in the mainstream) or he is a “softy” as one of the other three puts it he is not allowing  no other man to have one over him, as if to suggest the passive partner will also view him as not man enough which is the opposite side to all this as well. The valuing of ones masculine wiehgt is serious business in our world it seems as the men came to near blows before it was quelled by others. It was not ascertained if any of the brothers were bisexual hence putting a link to the strong positions on playing gender roles to the letter in order to remain a credible as a man via societal standards.

Here is a suggested set of sexual roles in the world same gender male lovers I did on my Xrated blog some time ago:

Here is the letter in the Star News:

Jamaica is getting really slack

Dear Pastor,

Something is really bothering me. What do you think about a man lying with another man? My Bible is against it and these people are too upfront with these ungodly acts. Jamaica is getting really slack.

A.

Pastor responds

Dear A.,

I read the same Bible you read. My position on homosexuality has not changed. The Bible condemns it. Therefore, I cannot encourage people to engage in it. However, I do not condemn homosexuals, whether they are males or females.

Most homosexuals who have written to me have declared that they hate what they do and they yearn for deliverance. And often when I quote the Bible in responding to them, some people say that I am condemning them. I have never condemned homosexuals. I only say what the Bible says.

I believe that no one is beyond God’s mercy and power.

I used to work with a psychiatrist and I have referred homosexuals to him for professional help and he claimed that the last young man I sent to him, has received deliverance and is now a Christian and has a wonderful wife. So, I say, give God thanks for what he has done for this young man.

And I am sure that He can do the same for others.

Pastor 

ENDS

Clearly the restorative therapy cue is once again being infused and isn’t the strong castigation sometimes from pulpits and from even the goodly pastor himself in previous letters similar to this are kinds of condemnation given how heated the and vitriolic the responses can get at times? I have not yet met anyone even after accepting Christ as saviour and while initially denying or saying they have diminished same sex feelings in their new found faith and life who remain so for long, they tend to usually return to having those feelings even while wanting to please and serve God sometimes even more pronounced than before the conversion. I can attest to that as well, in trying to find purge and relieve as so I thought in younger years of my so called “nastiness” I too sought the altar, found it, thought I was “cured” and only to meet other men struggling in the very church I was attending and believe me we couldn’t take our hands off each other after realizing we were all the same thing. Is the matter therefore of abstinence more than changing ones attitude to same sex feelings or suppressing those feelings by allowing guilt and shame from religious teachings to block who one really is inside? Can one by gay and Christian? Maybe yes I say.

Have they become so consumed by the flesh that they simply sink into gay life once again as since most religious anti gay pundits seem to think homosexuality is all about lust and desire more so than ones makeup/identity, so in essence we are oversexed more than the average heterosexual and are so determined to convert others to our ways? What madness? as far as I am concerned one is either gay, straight, bisexual and the other orientations that exists and that can be properly explained outside of psychological disorders such as paedophilia. Sex and sexuality are issues the church as a whole need to look into.

We have been told by other psychologists that to suppress homosexuality can have disastrous effects as sexual orientation cannot be changed. Bearing in mind that Pastor Aaron Dumas (Tell Me Pastor) is also a psychologist and the guide for all practicing psychologists, the Diagnostic Statistical Manual, DSM clearly does not list homosexuality as a disorder since 1973 so why is he not following the guide while pushing reparative therapy?

In response to the repeated Leviticusal battering here is an excerpt of a previous post on my sister blog Gay Jamaica Watch on the abominations:

When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus

Think on these things, homosexuality is not the only supposed abomination the Bible speaks to yet religious figures prefer selective readings.

Peace and tolerance.

H

Again the advocates Jamaica Forum for Lesbians Allsexuals and Gays JFLAG sans consulting the community’s views on the Prime Minister designate to review the Buggery Law and heading to a conscience vote has caused some upset in sections of the community who are saying the J should keep quiet and wait, let Sista P as Mrs Simpson is affectionately called deal with other serious issues first such as the economy and jobs then on the other rights for gays etc. When the group is to speak it is silent, just in December the brutal murders of two lesbians and up until today not an official word or recognition of the lives lost on the backdrop of same gender loving women’s issues and the increasing abuses against them, a trend we have been seeing since 2007 with corrective rapes, attempted abductions, forced evictions and beatings of butch identified women.

please see: 2 SGL Women lost, corrective rape & virtual silence from the male dominated advocacy structure on those circumstances

Reports are already out there of an attempted beating of four men in the Half Way Tree area since the Peoples National Party PNP win as persons out there follow a strong rumour that the party was funded by gays and that gays voted the party back into power based on the buggery law review suggestion by Sista P.

Three of the men allegedly escaped but one was cornered and sustained minor cuts from his assailants which numbered some four, some of whom were sellers of pirated DVDs in the vicinity. Another report has come of a butch identified lesbian who has been asked to take cover from her rented flat in St. Catherine, it is reported that she got the warning from other men in the area who said to her to just be proactive and leave the house to avoid any serious attack on her person or her son who resides with her sometimes of his father who lives elsewhere.

Earlier today the Gleaner had carried a story highlighting the demand of sorts to the incoming government almost ignoring the objections from the religious right and the slow groundswell it seems on the face of it of opposition to the suggestion by Mrs Miller, many persons while agreeing with the voting out of the Jamaica Labour Party, JLP they are stating that they are not comfortable with the homosexual matter, persons misconstrue the call for the review of the Buggery Law as a repeal or freeing up of homosexuality in Jamaica. Others such as some religious leaders think the homosexual agenda is being foisted on the country as previous posts and newspaper articles have brought to bear.

Go Jamaica carried this:

J-FLAG wants PNP to prioritise buggery law review

The Jamaica Forum for Lesbians All-Sexuals and Gays (JFLAG), says it is expecting the new Government to prioritize human rights issues.

In the December 20 leadership debate, PNP President, Portia Simpson Miller said her administration was committed to the protection of human rights.

Simpson Miller also said it was time for a review of the buggery law, saying she believed the issue should be put to a conscience vote in the parliament.

The executive director of J-FLAG, Dane Lewis, said the group expects the new government to stick to its commitments.

Some churches have rejected Simpson Miller’s suggestion for a review of the buggery law describing the proposal as the promotion of a homosexual agenda.

this clip also was apart of that report:

J-FLAG wants PNP to prioritise buggery law review

Dane Lewis Executive Director of the J told CVM TV that he expected the issues to begin to placed on the table within 100 days, “To be realistic we would imagine within the first 100 days the issue could be raised we can look at how to proceed,” Mr Lewis said while JFLAG is not expecting a conscience vote to repeal the buggery law within the first 100 days discussions are important as Jamaica has a 2012 deadline to meet according to the international covenant on human rights, “….one of the leading recommendations made in November last year was that Jamaica should report by 2012 on what concrete steps to removal of discriminatory laws,” Mr Lewis said.

According to Mr. Lewis JFLAG is willing to make small steps in acquiring legal recognition for homosexuals he says although gay marriage is legalized overseas JFLAG is not pursuing that as part of its lobby at this time, ” …gay marriage is certainly not an item on our agenda, we still have a large issue of discrimination …. people are being evicted from their homes, people are being physically abused because of their sexual orientation and we want to begin to address those issues.”

He acknowledges that the discussion of gay rights will be met with strong public opposition however he says as was demonstrated by Mrs Simpson Miller  we should be strident in dealing with issues impeding human rights, a solution to the issues concerning gay rights will help to deal with HIV/AIDS.

also see: Did the talk of buggery turn persons off from the polls?

Certainly this is not the end of the matter now that the goodly J has thrown down the gauntlet here to the incoming government but which I also agree with other persons in the community we need to lay low for a while and let the tempers ease nationally and the post-election euphoria, also let the party bring it on the agenda while talks proceed quietly behind closed doors. There is bound to be fallout of which there maybe not enough net systems to deal with the victims or involuntary martyrs who may have not subscribed to JFLAG’s agenda. The lack of proper consultation with the LGBT body politic before speaking to the media supposedly on our behalf cannot be the modus operandi anymore, there are serious repercussions we need to be cognizant of in these times. This top down approach needs to go!

We have a saying in Jamaica: ” ….. yuh hand inna lion mouth u tek time draw it out,” (your hand is in a lion’s mouth you take your time and pull it out) the J needs to shut up for now and keep in touch with the realities on the ground as suggested by persons who saw the news clip on TV and the Go Jamaica’s report.

Peace and tolerance

H

UPDATE JAN 12, 2012 – THE J RESPONDED 

J-FLAG DID NOT GIVE ULTIMATUM

Kingston — January 12, 2012

The Jamaica Forum for Lesbians, All-Sexuals and Gays (J-FLAG) wishes to clarify that the organisation has NOTgiven the government an ultimatum.

On January 3, 2012, CVM TV contacted the organisation for a comment on its expectations of the new administration following the Peoples National Party’s (PNP) win in the General Elections. This was in the context of the bold pronouncements the Most Honourable Portia Simpson Miller had made during the leadership debate. NewsWatch reported, J-FLAG’s Executive Director, Dane Lewis as saying “To be realistic, I imagine within the first hundred days at least the issue could be raised, with a look at how to proceed.”

However, many have misinterpreted this statement of expectation as an ultimatum. Mr Lewis also highlighted that Jamaica is required by the end of 2012 to report to the UN Human Rights Committee reviewing Jamaica’s status under the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights “on what concrete steps it’s [Jamaica] making towards removal of discriminatory laws”. It is within this context that the comment was made.  J-FLAG wishes to reiterate that it has not issued an ultimatum but offered a comment on what could be done by the Government within the first hundred (100) days to demonstrate its recognition of the broad human rights concerns that affect all Jamaicans. This is a common strategy which has been used by many other organisations in civil society and private sector.

Like all Jamaicans, J-FLAG remains committed to the human social and economic development of Jamaica. In so doing, J-FLAG will continue to defend the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Jamaicans from discrimination, harassment and violence.

ENDS

………… mistakes such as granting a telephone interview (sans any consultations with the community I might add) to the media in a “hot environment” when homosexuality or related matters are in the public domain is a no no, all the J should have done was waited and not mention anything at all to do with any time line in any way, shape or form now for it to be misrepresented as an ultimatum. We have had previous misconceptions before of JFLAG’s position by media and one would have thought that as a former media participant himself the Executive Director of JFLAG Mr. Lewis would have known the ins and outs of local media with regards to hot button issues such as this. The San Francisco boycott some years ago and the suggested EGALE tourism boycott as well are prime examples of learning curves for the group and speaking just a little too much but when it’s time to speak there is silence. How many mistakes are there to be made before it is perfected? one never knows.

The simple definition is that internalized homophobia refers to negative feelings that we have towards ourselves because of our homosexuality. The forms it may take can vary from outright shame, denial, or self-injury, to hating on other gay people and more unconscious behaviors as well.

Internalized homophobia happens for some of the same reasons that straight people are homophobic – namely ignorance, often because of religion and then of course, because of negative stereotypes and misinformation that we hear about in our families, schools, and society.

However, with gays, negative attitudes become “internalized” because we are the subject of these prejudices! Whether we realize it or not, we are affected and hurt by hate and discrimination. It’s never a conscious choice to have internalized homophobia, but it must be a conscious choice to change it.

Here is a general overview of the spectrum of behaviors that exhibit internalized homophobia. Everyone has a unique life history, personality, and set of circumstances that inform their place either on or totally off of this list!  :

1. Aggressive Denial. Some people feel so strongly that they should not be gay that they will repress their feelings and desires and speak out with some of the most hateful and homophobic language you will ever hear. You often see this happen with fundamentalist religious figures, like Ted Haggard. This never ends well. (Usually it ends with a gay sex scandal, talk show appearances and a lot more denial.) This is the worst kind of internalized homophobia because the hateful rhetoric and actions that these “aggressive deniers” exhibit really hurt other gay people and the movement.

2. Denial. Some people simply deny that they are gay, try to lead a straight life, may even get married and have a family. Many of these gay people in denial lead secret gay lives, or possibly worse, spend their lives feeling unfulfilled, lonely and unknown to everyone they love.

3. Closeted. A closeted person is someone who has gay relationships, but hides that fact from everyone that they know and love. In Beyond the Closet; The Transformation of Gay and Lesbian Life, being in the closet is described as a “life-shaping pattern of concealment.” Being closeted is linked with high-anxiety, low self-esteem, increased risk for suicide and general lack of fulfillment (though closeted people rarely admit to not being fulfilled while they’re in there, though they always remark about it when they finally come out!)

4. In the closet with the door open. Many people are only partially closeted. They have gay relationships, and don’t completely hide their sexuality, but they make a point to not talk about it with family, friends, co-workers or, if they are public figures, the media. Sometimes gay people do this for their own safety, for example, if they know they could face possible violence at work or lose their home if they are living with homophobic family members.

There can be a practical side to being careful with your disclosure. However, many gays have gay friends, gay friendly (or at least loving) parents and still they remain silent. Often they say things like “it’s not anybody’s business,” or “we don’t talk about those kinds of things,” when questioned. The root of this avoidance and secrecy is shame, fear to disappoint, fear to face actual homophobia from people or to not be accepted. This kind of internalized homophobia really encourages subtle and systemic discrimination in our society.

It makes a statement that even gay people believe that gays should be marginalized and gives straight people permission to ignore us. When we do not advocate for ourselves and others who need support, we are weak as a movement. Additionally, the people found in this part of the spectrum are often the most avid deniers of the existence of ‘internalized homophobia.’

5. Out, and generally fine with other gays, but really dislikes ‘dykes’ and ‘flamers’. Many gay people are out and open and educated and “perfectly wonderful” gays, except for the fact that they vocally dislike flamboyant gay people. If you are this person, there are a few things you should consider.

• These outspoken, visible minorities (a.k.a. someone who does not or cannot pass as straight) have been on the forefront of the gay rights movement from the very beginning. They take the brunt of the homophobia, face the most violence, and through their differences have created greater visibility for LGBTQ people in the world. After all, if no one could see us, how could they know we existed?
• Every group of people has extreme examples and stereotypes. We encounter straight people all the time who are so ridiculous, they could be cartoons. And yet, we accept these differences to be within the acceptable range of human weirdness and expression.
• It is important to distinguish between a flamboyant person and an annoying person. The reason you dislike someone may have everything to do with the fact that they are irritating, and not as much to do with the fact that they are queer.
• Some of the hate directed at extremely masculine lesbians or extremely feminine gay men, is actually a form of gender discrimination. We need to take into account that gender expression is something that happens in conjunction with sexuality. Many people with non-traditional expressions, are experiencing the brunt of internalized homophobia and transphobia, even if they’re not trans. Lots of straight people want to put sexuality in a box, but lots of straight and gay people want to put gender in a box. Gender, like sexuality, is a spectrum of expression.

Since the elections and the strong feelings on the issues especially since the wrench that was thrown in the mix of the review of the buggery law by the opposition People’s National Party, PNP in the leadership debate who have since won the poll on December 29th, the JLP who since the mention of the suggested buggery law review by the PNP leader and Prime Minister designate Portia Simpson Miller have employed  devious homophobic methods on the campaign trail to capture the Jamaican audience’s attention which seemed to have led to voter non interest and a low voter turn out with core party supporters returning the PNP to power while the undecided basically stayed home.

For purposes of this post let us exclude the outness of persons but zoom on on the community conflicts pre and post the election results, LGBT persons who openly supported the Jamaica Labour Party before the buggery law review suggestion have found themselves the object of serious scaving bordering on homophobic slurs and innuendos some with very threatening tones as if to suggest if those who support the JLP must be crazy and they can stay and be killed in the process by the systems. The social network spaces especially Facebook have become ablaze with persons trading insults and long argumentative threads with the very words used against LGBT people by homophobes also being employed to psychologically intimidate persons. The cynicism to those persons has remained high since the results and smacks on a kind of elitism that seemed to have been hidden but making its way to the fore as the opportune time presents itself.

The contemptuous tones are worrying to myself and a few others and speaks to the overall struggling health of our LGBT community, how can we ask the rest of the nation for tolerance when we can’t even tolerate each other with differing views? I firmly believe we have to get our act together and express opinions and thoughts without descending into the very bowels of nasty homophobia that we are all wanting to escape I hope from the religious right and sections of the mainstream. It is shocking this kind of intolerance so much so that persons find the time to carefully prepare several well worded posts and blackberry messages/broadcasts two or three times a day cursing swearing and aiming venomous putrid hate at other LGBT people just because they supported the JLP, I too have come in for some slight criticism which I welcomed but my critics and I argued the issues based on my open view of the situations in this election and then agreed to disagree but others have not been so lucky, trouble is the posts as mentioned are sometimes open and directed at unnamed persons but it is clear who the intended targets are, to even be so vaguely loose and contemptuous is also troubling and smacks on a kind of psychological manipulation to influence thoughts and professional hypocrisy. The IH does not only come from individual profiles but also several LGBT Facebook groups as well including several where members of the advocacy structure are a part of, these vitriolic exchanges go unchecked with these members obviously seeing them and no reprimand or call to a check on how we are treating each other.

Are we ready then to embrace rights and or privileges when we are at this stage of our community lacking moral fibre, scruples or just basic respect for each other? seeing that we can’t be out relatively speaking and the perils of homophobia is this the release mechanisms we resort to by castigating each other in anger?

Is it insecurity within oneself here that causes these outbursts even from persons who wouldn’t normally be involved in such activity? after all Jamaica politics usually brings out the animal in some persons.

Time will have to tell.

Peace and tolerance

H

Dear Editor,

Mrs Simpson Miller’s recent comments on the matter of homosexuality and sexual orientation have caused many of us to be seriously concerned. One wonders if Mrs Simpson Miller is aware of the following:

* In Europe, Canada and the USA pastors and others are punished for expressing disagreement with the homosexual lifestyle.

* Harry Hammond, the 69-year-old street preacher in England who was beaten by a group of homosexuals, was charged with inciting violence against himself.

* A middle-age Jamaican couple living in England, who had fostered children many times before, were recently denied the opportunity to foster because they could not tell a young child that it’s okay to be a homosexual.

* In Canada, kindergarten children in the public school system are exposed to homosexual teaching as if it were normal behaviour and their parents have no power to do anything about it.

* Catholic adoptions agencies in England have closed because they rightly refused to place children in homosexual households.

* Gary McFarlane, a solicitor of Jamaican descent living in England, who is also a professional counsellor, was sacked from his counselling job for refusing in principle to offer sex therapy to homosexuals.

* Buggery is the most efficient way to spread HIV/AIDS. Over the last two years the Government has spent over $590 million to fight the disease.

Shouldn’t Jamaica be doing everything in its power to discourage the disease? Why then review the buggery law?

Who are Mrs Simpson Miller’s advisors?

Jamaica is accustomed to standing on its own to defend principles. We are little, but we tallawah. Our success cannot be based on economics alone. Whilst we say no to physical violence against all persons, we also say no to reviewing laws and policies which currently block the acceptability of the homosexual lifestyle.

People of Jamaica, be warned!

Shirley Richards

St Andrew

meanwhile: Portia Simpson Miller – SIMPSON MILLER DEFENDS GAY COMMENT 23.12.11

also see previous Observer Letters linked below

Where was the church all along?

Dear Editor,

This is an open letter to all the organised groups of churches in Jamaica.

My name is Jevon Minto. I am currently in my second year at Northern Caribbean University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts Degree in religion and theology.

Jamaica is one of those countries where the church still influences the decisions of the State. And while this opportunity exists, no other group of people is more unconcerned about social life than the church. Every other group is speaking out, except the church. I think you all deserve a beating from God for rejecting the prophetic ministry that He has called you to, especially where it concerns politics.

If secularism takes over Jamaica you all should be blamed! If Opposition Leader Portia Simpson Miller did not propose to review the buggery law — if she is re-elected — would Jamaica hear anything from you [the church] at this time?

Imagine, three national political debates and not one of the panellists represented the church. Not one question was asked regarding the church. Why speak now and talk ill of the proposition made by the Opposition?

I am definitely not in support of homosexuality, but if the church did not assume such a passive role in the affairs of the nation, then we would not have a leader even thinking about making such a proposal in public.

It leads me to question your integrity. Are you Christian, or are you Christian excused? Did Jesus, our Lord and Saviour, behave in such a passive manner where the issues of the nation were concerned? Was He hypocritical, or was He a self-aggrandiser?

Did He not care for the entire man instead of just the Spiritual man? Until you care more about Jamaica rather than the church, reserve your comments. They only make people laugh at you and make God disappointed in you!

Jevon Minto

jminto10@stu.nuc.edu.jm

Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/letters/Where-was-the-church-all-along_10447129#ixzz1hpPpGe5a

and

Jesus hates the sin, not the sinner

Dear Editor,

Mrs Simpson Miller’s statement regarding the buggery law was a brave and commendable act. I openly applaud her for exercising her right as a Jamaican citizen to speak freely about her views on the topical issue of homosexuality.

I believe that every Jamaican has the right to decide for himself or herself what sexual orientation he or she is comfortable with and wishes to pursue. This is why I believe that the uproar from the Council of Churches is just ridiculous. Firstly, she did not say she was about to legalise homosexuality, and secondly, how can the Christian bodies in this country advocate the continued marginalisation of a small fraction of our society?

Correct me if I am wrong. Wasn’t Jesus Christ the one who said that He came to save the lost and isn’t it also the belief and hope of every Christian to be like Jesus? So if they feel so strongly about the homosexual minority being ‘lost’ why not try to ‘save’ them by showing them the same love and compassion Jesus would?

Is it that those who choose to enter into same-sex relationships are less human than Jamaicans who are heterosexual? Homosexuals are people too. This I-am-better-than-you-and-so-have-the-moral-authority-to-bash-you mentality was the driving force for the enslavement of our beautiful black race for over 400 years, and it is definitely not Christian-like.

Jesus urged us to love our neighbours as we love ourselves. As much as the Council of Churches dislikes it, homosexuals are our neighbours. Jesus hates the sin, not the sinner. It is full time for Jamaica to move away from homophobia. That sort of thinking is more crippling to our society than homosexuality is because it engenders abject disgust, hate and intolerance to our fellow Jamaican brothers and sisters who are exercising their freedom of choice.

Claudelle Maitland

 UWI Mona

Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/letters/Jesus-hates-the-sin–not-the-sinner_10448020#ixzz1hpQH3bBy

also

Why a conscience vote on sodomy, Mrs Simpson Miller?

Dear Editor,

Baggaley et al of the Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, MRC Centre for Outbreak Analysis and Modelling, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, Paddington, London, UK, reporting in the International Journal of Epidemiology of August 2010 in the article: “HIV transmission risk through anal intercourse: systematic review, meta-analysis and implications for HIV prevention”, stated that among both heterosexuals and homosexuals, “Unprotected anal intercourse is a high-risk practice for HIV transmission”.

Also, local media reported that the Jamaican Government found it necessary to set aside a total of some J$594 million for HIV prevention during the 2009 to 2010 and 2010 to 2011 fiscal years.

In light of this data, why would Mrs Simpson Miller consider bringing the decriminalisation of sodomy to a conscience vote ?

Wayne West

 Kgn 6

 wayne_west@hotmail.com

]]> http://glbtqja.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/shirley-richards-no-to-reviewing-the-buggery-law/feed/ 0 glbtqja portia-28 AIDSforumE20061116WS portia-28 http://glbtqja.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/buggery-law-backlash-blair-the-church-has-been-sleeping-blair-warns-review-could-lead-to-same-sex-marriages/ http://glbtqja.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/buggery-law-backlash-blair-the-church-has-been-sleeping-blair-warns-review-could-lead-to-same-sex-marriages/#comments Tue, 27 Dec 2011 23:48:18 +0000 glbtqja http://glbtqja.wordpress.com/?p=2637 ]]> NADINE WILSON of the Observer reported:

BISHOP Hero Blair has warned that Opposition Leader Portia Simpson Miller’s pledge to review the buggery law if her party is elected to office on Thursday could lead to the legalisation of same-sex marriages in Jamaica.

At the same time, Blair, the political ombudsman and founder of the Deliverance Evangelistic Association Inc, advised his congregation on Sunday to get their candidates’ views on moral issues before voting in the general election.

BLAIR… we have to stop it in its bud

“My concern is not with reviewing a law, my concern is that next year this time, if you as Christians don’t go out and listen to the voice of God — not Herro Blair now — to direct you, because we don’t know who is who… my concern is that next year this time, the next thing that is going to happen in this country is an approach to same-sex marriage,” Blair said during his Christmas Day message to about 2,000 members at his church on Waltham Park Road in Kingston.

“Unnu build a prison for me, because I’m not doing it,” the bishop said, echoing the sentiments of some pastors who told the Observer last week that they would never accept the lifestyle of the gay, transgendered and lesbian community.

Last Tuesday night during the national leadership debate between Simpson Miller and Prime Minister Andrew Holness, Simpson Miller said her People’s National Party (PNP), if elected to form the Government, would review the buggery law and ask for a conscience vote on the issue in Parliament.

Her pledge has reignited what has traditionally been a hot-button issue in Jamaica where homosexuality is frowned upon by the majority of the population.

For years, local and international gay lobbyists have been trying to get Jamaica to repeal the buggery law, but have so far been unsuccessful in their bid.

Recently, the United Kingdom said it would cut aid to countries that uphold laws against homosexuality, while the United States indicated that it would ensure that US diplomacy and foreign assistance promote and protect the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered persons.

Bishop Blair, in his message on Sunday, pointed to that kind of international pressure, saying: “God not dead, God not asleep, God will look out for his own and Jamaica don’t want no English man, and we don’t want no Spanish man, and we don’t want nobody from Europe or China to tell us how to live; and what they are doing is that they are putting pressure on our politicians to yield.”

He urged his congregants to call the candidates seeking their votes and ascertain their individual views on homosexuality, ahead of Thursday’s general election.

“You are going to vote on Thursday [but] before you vote, don’t call Portia and don’t call Andrew, call your candidate and ask your candidate what are their moral beliefs, what they defend,” he cautioned during the service, which was attended by the PNP candidate for St Andrew East Central Dr Peter Phillips and his JLP contender Beverly Prince.

“My problem is not with reviewing the law, I am going to review it tomorrow (Monday), I have it in my office. I am going to look at it, that’s a review,” Blair said. “But when you get a government — any government out of the two elected — and one have three here and the other may have six or seven over there, that is 10 out of 63. We have to stop it in its bud, you are going to have to kill it in its bud,” he said.

“I will go back to country and I will plant yellow yam and cocoa and dasheen and I will start a dasheen factory or a cocoa factory; I will sell tamarind ball, but this country is God’s country,” he said.

The pastor, who reminded the churchgoers that God had destroyed two cities before because of immorality, was equally vocal about what he believes was the silence of the church community on the issue.

“The church has been sleeping in this nation. The whole church has been sleeping in this nation because the church of the living God has given up its responsibility and that’s why they cuss us off whenever they want to,” said the pastor.

In an obvious attempt to demonstrate his point that the church has a responsibility to preach the word of God, Blair asked for a lighter or a match to burn his Bible. The request was met with silence.

“Then if I can’t burn it, why I can’t preach what in it?” he asked.

Last week, several pastors made it clear that they could not endorse the homosexual lifestyle as it goes against the teachings of the Bible.

Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/Buggery-law-backlash_10460197#ixzz1hmXT8kpz

also see the Gleaner:

Repealing Buggery Laws A Return To Moral Depravity

A response came from a blogger:

Which Hat Is Blair Wearing?

THE EDITOR, Sir:

THE FAITH-BASED community seemingly takes pride in demonstrating an aversion to objectivity and inclusiveness. This position is apparently supported by Bishop Herro Blair’s recent pronouncements from the pulpit that parishioners should quiz their political candidates about their moral beliefs and “what they defend”.

Implicit within the context of this instruction is a prejudice towards a Judeo-Christian moral code and an exclusion of those whom Christians misguidedly claim God burnt down two cities to eradicate. I wasn’t aware that political representatives had an obligation to their constituents to espouse the value system of evangelical Christianity, but as evidenced by the frenzied applause and ‘amens’ such diatribes usually receive, I am apparently in the minority.

clarify stance

I urge Bishop Blair to clarify what exactly he means by “we have to stop it in its bud, you are going to have to kill it in its bud”. This to me sounds like a thinly veiled incitement to some sort of violence in order to protect this ‘good Christian nation’ from the infiltration of the iniquitous. Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war?

In response to these views, I expect to hear that criticism of what comes from the pulpit is the first sign of the end of times and that next “they” will want to stop prayer in schools, marry their goats, and walk naked in the streets. Clerics such as Blair are, of course, the most entitled to freedom of speech because they are conduits for the infallible word of God and as such any opposition to whatever nonsense they may spew is opposition to God and is, therefore, anti-christian.

I wonder which skin the good Bishop was in when he made these recommendations to his parishioners in the presence of the incumbent member of parliament and his rival. Was he bishop first and political ombudsman second?

Bishop Blair ought to be responsible with what he says, where he says it, and must be aware of the conflicts of interest his pronouncements as bishop may bring about with his position as political ombudsman. If there is incompatibility with the two then he should do the honourable thing and resign from the latter.

Brian-Paul N. Welsh

brianpaul.welsh@gmail.com