UK Visa for "kill gays" singer

Home Secretary grants visa and work permit

Inciter of murder allowed into the UK

Black MPs “silent and spineless”

“The Home Secretary has granted a visa and work permit to a Jamaican singer who incites the murder of gay people,” reports human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell of OutRage!.

“Although inciting murder is a serious criminal offence, Jacqui Smith is giving Bounty Killer (Rodney Price) permission to perform at a concert in east London this Sunday,” added Mr Tatchell.

“Bounty Killer was banned from Guyana earlier this year, but the British government says he is welcome to sing in the UK.

“A white racist singer who advocated the killing of black people would be refused entry to Britain. Why the double standards?

“This singer encourages and glorifies gang violence. At a time when so many young people have been murdered in gang-related gun and knife crime, it is reckless and obscene for the Home Secretary to give Bounty Killer a visa and work permit.

“Rewarding maladjusted thugs who incite violence sends the wrong signal.

“Mr Killer helps reinforce and legitimate gang violence by encouraging, glorifying and celebrating the killing of gay people. His negative impact goes way beyond the gay community. He psyches up a whole generation to see hatred and violence as cool and street cred.

“For the sake of parents whose sons have been murdered in gang attacks, it is time we closed the door on Bounty Killer and similar murder music singers,” urged Mr Tatchell.

Watch this video of a Bounty Killer concert, where he openly incites the crowd: “Faggot, I kill every one of them”:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=wTIXAToY3f8

See examples of Bounty Killer’s lyrics urging the murder of queers below.

Mr Tatchell has written to the Home Secretary, setting out six reasons why she should revoke Bounty Killer’s visa and work permit (a copy of the letter follows below).

He has also issued a stinging rebuke to blacks MPs, condemning them as “silent and spineless.”

“Murder music fuels the culture of violence that has claimed the lives of dozens of black teenagers. Instead of speaking out, black MPs sit on their hands and say nothing. They don’t condemn singers like Bounty Killer who encourage straight black men to murder gay black men, and who incite a culture of violence that fuels gang warfare and has resulted in the killing of more than 20 black youths in London this year,” said Mr Tatchell.

Further information:

Peter Tatchell 0207 403 1790

Bounty Killer songs that incite homophobic violence

Another Level
Bun a fire pon a puff and mister fagoty (Uh huh)
Translation: Burn a fire on poofs and faggots (Uh huh)
Poop man fi drown an dat a yawd man philosophy (Uh huh)
Translation: Shit men [queer men] must be drowned and that’s a yardy man [Jamaican] philosophy

Man A Badman
You know we need no promo to rub out dem homo
Translation: You know we don’t need prompting to rub out [kill] a homo

Look Good
Mi ready fi go wipe out this fag wid pure laser beam
Translation: I’m ready to go wipe out this faggot with a pure laser beam

Peter Tatchell’s letter to the Home Secretary
The Home Secretary
Home Office

19 November 2008

Dear Jacqui Smith,

Request to ban Bounty Killer (Rodney Price) from entering and performing in the UK

Name: Rodney Price (stage name, Bounty Killer)
DoB: 12 June 1972
Nationality: Jamaican

Mr Price is scheduled to perform at the Stratford Rex venue in East London this Sunday, 23 November 2008, under his stage name, Bounty Killer.

In view of the unacceptable levels of gang violence and gun and knife crime, which has tragically claimed the lives of so many young people, the LGBT human rights group OutRage! urges you, as Home Secretary, to take prompt, effective action against singers, such as Rodney Price / Bounty Killer, who contribute to the acceptability of gang culture and violence by encouraging, glorifying and celebrating the killing of LGBT human beings.

We respectfully request that you deny Rodney Price / Bounty Killer (BK) a visa and work permit (or revoke his visa and work permit) and prohibit him from performing in the UK on the following grounds:

1) BK has not signed the Reggae Compassionate Act, whereby artists promise to halt inciting hatred and violence – indeed, he was asked to sign the RCA and he refused to do so.

Read a sample of the Reggae Compassionate Act here:
http://www.petertatchell.net/popmusic/reggaecompassionateact-bujubanton.html

2) BK has incited murder, which is a serious criminal offence and a threat to public order.

See examples of his “burn and drown” gays lyrics here:
http://www.petertatchell.net/popmusic/Dancehall-Dossier-FINAL.pdf

Watch this video of a Bounty Killer concert (uploaded to YouTube on 24 August 2008), where he openly boasts and incites the crowd: “Faggot, I kill every one of them”:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=wTIXAToY3f8

All eight singers in this Dancehall Dossier should be prohibited from entering the UK, as they have all incited the murder of LGBT people. Some singers such as Buju Banton have signed the RCA, but have since denounced and violated it. Prohibiting BK would be a good start to tackling these proponents of homophobic murder.

3) BK has specifically incited the murder of LGBT people, which is a threat to community cohesion and good community relations. See the links above.

4) BK has been associated with repeated concert violence and anti-gay hatred and abuse. Caribbean World News reported in April this year that the government of Guyana has banned BK on the grounds of violence, disorder and his torrent of homophobic abuse at his concert that month.

5) The Home Office and the Metropolitan Police ban foreign racists and those who incite racist violence from entering the UK and performing in public, so you should adopt the same policy towards foreign homophobes and those who incite homophobic violence: no entry, no concert. LGBT people are entitled to the same protection from murderous incitements as black people – no more, no less.

6) BK’s incitements of violence are not confined to overseas. His songs advocating the killing of gay people are played on some radio stations and sold be some records stores in the UK. BK is therefore inciting violence and murder within the UK.

We do not accept the Met Police excuse that Bounty Killer will not be permitted to perform songs that incite homophobic violence at his concert on Sunday. This does not make his performance acceptable.

A white racist singer who advocated killing black people would not be allowed to perform in London, even if he agreed to not incite the killing of black people at his concert. The Met Police would argue that any stage performance by a white racist singer would risk public disorder and damage community cohesion. They would ban him, full stop. They have adopted this zero tolerance policy towards white racist bands.

Yet when it comes to straight homophobic singers who urge the murder of gay people, the police take a softer stance. They have agreed to let the Bounty Killer concert go ahead on Sunday, despite the police’s professed commitment to oppose homophobic hate crimes.

As Home Secretary, we believe you should stop Bounty Killer from entering the UK. He has committed the criminal offence of incitement to murder. If a white singer advocated the killing of black people he would not be allowed into the country. You would rightly insist on his exclusion; and deny him a visa and work permit. Why should there be double standards?

It is unacceptable to say that racism is worse than homophobia and that different standards should apply.

Allowing Bounty Killer to enter the UK is particularly difficult to justify, given the exclusion from Britain of the American Black Muslim leader, Louis Farrakhan, of the Nation of Islam. I don’t agree with Mr Farrakhan’s politics or religion, but he has not urged his followers to kill anyone. So, if he is banned from the UK, singers like Bounty Killer who incite the murder of LGBT people should definitely also be banned.

I hope this information will prompt swift action by you to block Bounty Killer’s entry into the UK and his performance this Sunday.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Peter Tatchell
OutRage!
45 Arrol House
Rockingham Street
London SE1 6QL
peter@petertatchell.net

0207 403 1790

“Worse than prison”: Life under the Witness Protection Programme

following up on the post:Glad to be alive and recovering well, we mentioned about the witness protection programme and the fact that many people are simply scared to become witnesses in court cases. Here is a piece from RJR NEWS regarding same.

Concerns have surfaced recently over the administration of the Ministry of National Security’s Witness Protection Programme.

The concerns relate to the level of protection as well as financial and emotional support being given to the participants.

One person, who has been in the programme for some time, took the risk of calling our news centre to share his story, claiming that he is at the breaking point.

The individual’s voice has been distorted to protect his identity.

Worse than prison.

That is how the witness protection programme has been described by the participant, who we will call Ted.

Ted told our news centre that he is now seriously regretting a decision to give information to the police and signing onto the Witness Protection Programme.

He said though he expected some dislocation due to the nature of the programme, the level of support he was promised on signing has not materialized.

“When they take you and ask you some questions, they build up your hopes about what they can do for you and what they will do for you. But as soon as you sign the paper and say you are ready to go on the Witness Protection Programme, they do nothing at all like that for you,” said Ted.

“I am not working and have four children and they have to get support and they are calling me, everyday they want money to go to school,” he continued.

Ted said many times, he has risked his life by going onto the streets without protection to seek medical attention or in a bid to sate his hunger, when what he described as the paltry stipend provided by the administrators of the programme runs out.

“Many days I leave here and go out on the road and walk up and down. Many times I see guys that I know and I have to leave because they [the police] don’t care about you,”

“They don’t want to go to the doctor, they don’t want to go to the supermarket you have to go out there yourself. Sometimes I feel sick and they don’t answer the phone, they just throw you in the house. They don’t even call you to find out how you’re doing,” “Sometimes the money they give me is finished in two weeks time and I have to leave to go to my family’s house to eat. I have to take the bus or taxi to go there to get something to eat. They don’t give me nothing at all, not even a little radio to listen to. They just don’t care about you,” said Ted.

Under the programme, witnesses are entitled to safe accommodation, including relocation to other parts of Jamaica or other counties if necessary, medical care, financial assistance, education for children and counselling.

However, another participant we will call her Dee, who has been on the programme for several years, questioned the programme’s stated benefits particularly in relation to medical care.

She has a medical condition which sees her spending up to $5,000 per month for medication.

“I’m basically damaged and the doctor said that I will be having limitations for life. I walk with a limp because most of my tendons are damaged and I am given $20,000 a month and out of the $20,000, $5,000 is for medicine and $15,000 for food. All they give me for medicine cannot cover my medical expenses and I cannot get a job because I have no ID,” Dee said.

She also told our news centre that the new identity she was promised when she signed on to the programme has still not materialised.

As a result she says she has been unable to land a job to support herself and has to exist as a non-person, totally dependent on the stipend provided by the programme’s administrators.

Dee also appealed for the administrators to put systems in place so seasoned members of the programme can provide support to other persons.

“I told them that I read up on the programme on the Internet and I did research. I said to them [the police] let some of us give you ideas of how to do it and I even said to them I know my life is not going to be the same again, take some of us from the programme and put back to work. Some of us need counseling,” Dee said.

“I told the government to pay me to do something else, to help some other people I don’t want to take handouts from them. I am not used to hand outs, just give me something that can help benefit the country and the government,” she continued.

Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of National Security, Gilbert Scott, refused to discuss details of how the programme is administered or the arrangements but insisted that it is performing up to par.

“The programme has a ratio of one to four between primary witnesses and dependents and all their needs are taken care of. The programme as far as we are concerned operates successfully and any particular concern is brought to our attention we make sure that it is dealt with the appropriate vigour,” said Mr. Scott.

Mr. Scott indicated that an investigation would be launched to resolve the issues raised by the participants who spoke with our news team.

Last June, the Ministry boasted of its track record in protecting state witnesses since it assumed responsibility for the Justice Protection Unit (JPU).

The unit was previously managed by the Jamaica Constabulary Force.

At the time, the Security Ministry claimed no witness had been killed or harmed in the ten years since it took over the programme.

It said since the programme’s implementation, nearly 1,500 persons have benefited from the services of the JPU, including both primary witnesses and their dependents.

The Ministry claimed that 182 of the persons who accessed the Programme were successfully released.

The Witness Protection Programme was implemented to deal with the danger witnesses face from criminals who threaten and intimidate them to discourage them from appearing in court.

Once a witness signs on to the programme, they are required to remain in it until after the case is tried and it is deemed safe for them to leave.

(and then we wonder why people turn to the dons and henchmen to “clear up” disputes and porblems)

Suspected lovers chopped, burnt?

According to The Star…………..

Two men who were killed in Airy Hill, Oracabessa, St Mary last Saturday, might have been attacked because they were believed to be gay, THE STAR understands.
The two men, Civian Thomas and the other man known only as ‘Malichi’, were attacked by men at their home. One was burnt to death.
No motive
Police said they had no motive for the men’s death, but confirmed hearing rumours that at least one of the men was involved in homosexual dealings.
“Thomas who is considered the ‘main man’ would carry various men into the community to live with him from time to time. Based on this reason, they were rumoured to be gay,” a police source told THE STAR.
Police also said the men could have been victims of a robbery, and could have been trailed from a party they attended.
Pursued and chopped
Reports are that about 11:30 p.m., the two had just returned home when a group of men entered the premises and attacked them with machetes. They then set fire to the house, trapping Malichi, who it is believed was severely injured. Civian ran to a neighbour’s house, but the men pursued and chopped him several times, killing him on the spot.
Malichi’s burnt body was taken from the burnt building after the fire was put out by one unit from the Port Maria Fire Department. The men also set fire to Thomas’ Toyota Sprinter motor car which was parked in the yard.

London’s Met Police defend decision not to ban homophobic performer

London’s police service has been criticised by gay rights activists for allowing a concert by a notoriously homophobic singer to go ahead in the city this weekend.

It is the second time the Met have been accused of double standards for allowing a concert by Bounty Killer.

At his Easter Sunday concert in Stratford he did not perform any of his songs that call for gay people to be killed.

The Jamaican reggae and dancehall DJ, born Rodney Price, had two concerts cancelled in Bradford and Birmingham in March following protests by the gay human rights group OutRage!

The Met have previously stated that artists would not be allowed to perform unless they sign the Reggae Compassionate Act (RCA), which prohibits the performance of any music that encourages or glorifies any form of violence.

Price, who was brought up in Kingston, Jamaica, became a household name in Jamaica in the early 90s, and later became known in the USA and Europe after collaborating with the Fugees, Wyclef Jean and No Doubt.

In 2003, he cancelled two of his concerts in the UK, fearing he would be arrested for the homophobic content of his songs.

Price’s lyrics include the lines “You know we need no promo to rub out dem homo” and “Mi ready fi go wipe out this fag”, which encourage the murder of homosexuals.

The Met police told PinkNews.co.uk:

“We are aware of a planned concert by the artist Bounty Killer at Stratford Rex on Sunday November 23rd.

“Conferences have been held between the police, the venue’s management and the artist’s manager in order to consider the most productive way to handle the matter.

“A previous concert at the venue with the artist passed of without incident. The club have given us full access and we will deal robustly with any offences that arise.”

It is understood that Bounty Killer has given an undertaking not to perform any of his homophobic songs.

“The Metropolitan Police is hypocritical on hate crimes,” said Peter Tatchell, co-ordinator of the Stop Murder Music campaign.

“It allows homophobic singers to perform in London, but not racist ones.

“Racist artists are banned on the grounds that they are a threat to public order and good community relations. This is a case of double standards.

“The Met Police have previously said that murder music singers will not be allowed to perform unless they sign the RCA.

“Officers have broken their promise. They are taking the side of a singer who has promoted and celebrated the murder of gay people, and who is defying the RCA.

“The police do, however, stress that Bounty Killer will not be permitted to perform songs that incite homophobic violence. Big deal.

“A white racist singer who advocated killing black people would not be allowed to perform in London, even if he agreed to not incite the killing of black people at his concert. They have adopted this zero tolerance policy towards white racist bands like Skrewdriver.

“Yet when it comes to straight homophobic singers who urge the murder of gay people, the police take a softer stance. They have agreed to let the concert go ahead, despite their professed commitment to oppose homophobic hate crimes. It’s bare-faced hypocrisy.”

Mr Tatchell, who is a parliamentary candidate for the Green party, also accused gay people of apathy.

“Much of our queer community is riddled with internalised homophobia, including gay rights organisations – many of which apparently agree with the police that inciting racist violence is worse than inciting homophobic violence,” he said.

A spokesman for the concert’s organisers Cavalli and Paradise Promotions told the Daily Mail:

“He performed two months ago at the Stratford Rex and we were assured by his agency that he had signed the RCA.

“We wouldn’t have booked him otherwise because we know the consequences of this. We’ve worked with the police, who will be securing the event for us, and they seem satisfied.”

In July 2007 artists Beenie Man, Sizzla and Capleton, who had previously released anti-gay hate songs, including incitements to murder lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, signed up to the Reggae Compassion Act, in a deal brokered with top reggae promoters and Stop Murder Music activists.

The Act reads:

“It must be clear there’s no space in the music community for hatred and prejudice, including no place for racism, violence, sexism or homophobia.

“We do not encourage nor minister to HATE but rather uphold a philosophy of LOVE, RESPECT and UNDERSTANDING towards all human beings as the cornerstone of reggae.

“We agree to not make statements or perform songs that incite hatred or violence against anyone from any community.”

CONGRATULATIONS – Nepal’s highest court confirms full rights for LGBT people

A Nepali MP has said his “eyes were filled with tears” when he read the full written decision of the country’s Supreme Court on a writ petition from four organisations representing lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex people.

A summary decision was issued in December 2007, when the court issued directive orders to the Nepal government to ensure the right to life according to their own identities and introduce laws providing equal rights to LGBTIs and amend all the discriminatory laws.
The final judgement was issued today.
It reiterates that all LGBTIs are defined as a “natural person” and their physical growth as well as sexual orientation, gender identity, expression are all part of natural growing process. Thus equal rights, identity and expression must be ensured regardless of their sex at birth.
The writ petition was filed by Blue Diamond Society and other 3 LGBTI organisations in Nepal demanding the protection and defence of the equal rights of sexual and gender minorities.
“Reading this decision my eyes were filled with tears and I felt we are the most proud LGBTI citizens of Nepal in the world,” said Sunit Pant, Nepal’s only gay MP.

“A legal note of point has been raised for the new constitution of Nepal while ensuring the equal rights to individuals, like the bill of tights from South Africa, and non-discrimination provisions on the grounds of sexual orientations and gender identities must be introduced.”
The Court has also issued a directive order to form a seven-member committee, with a doctor appointed by Health Ministry, one representative from National Human rights commission, the Law Ministry, one socialist appointed by government of Nepal, a representative from the Nepal police, a representative from Ministry of Population and Environment and one advocate as a representative from the LGBTI community, to conduct a study into the other countries’ practice on same-sex marriage.
Based on its recommendation the government will introduce a same-sex marriage bill.
Mr Pant, founder of Blue Diamond Society, was named in May as one of five representatives of the Communist Party of Nepal-United in the 601 member new constituent assembly.
The Maoists are the largest party with 220 seats.
Maoist insurgents, who fought a ten-year guerrilla war against monarchist forces at a cost of over 12,000 lives, finally signed a peace agreement with the new democratic government in November 2006.

LGBT people joined the Maoist rebels and others to protest in a democracy movement against the king, demanding a freely elected, secular government.
King Gyanendra eventually relinquished sovereign power to the civilian government and elections were finally held for a new assembly on 10th April.
Gays and lesbians in the Himalayan kingdom previously suffered persistent persecution from security forces during the absolutist rule of King Gyanendra. The harassment of lesbian, gay and trans people continued at the hands of Maoist rebels.

The assembly will draft a new constitution, decide the fate of the monarchy and govern Nepal for the next two years.
Mr Pant is a hero to many gay activists across the world. On a visit to India last week he said:
“We have moved from being a marginalised and persecuted lot who were thrown out of homes, schools and jobs to people who have human rights and are now protected by the police, the same people who once harassed us.
“In Nepal, the LGBTI communities were part of the campaign for garnering votes for the Communist Party of Nepal.

“They approached me to campaign and I managed to secure 15,500 votes. It makes a statement that LGBTI people are interested in matters of politics and governance and not just sex.
“The campaign not only gave LGBTI issues visibility but a platform to negotiate for rights.
“It is one thing to clean up the city and stop transgenders from begging but one must provide them with alternative means of living.

“India is a very big country and a single strategy may not work. However, I’m sure it won’t be long before a political party will tap the LGBTI vote bank¯there are millions of untapped votes.”
In May 2007 the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission gave its Celebration of Courage award to Mr Pant.

Met Police hypocrisy on homophobia – SMM London

Collusion with murder music
Bounty Killer refuses to sign RCA agreement
But police allow London concert to go ahead

London – 17 November 2008
“The Metropolitan Police are hypocrites. They allow homophobic singers
to perform in London, but not racist ones. Racist artists are banned
on the grounds that they are a threat to public order and good
community relations. It’s double standards,” said Peter Tatchell of
the gay human rights group OutRage!, coordinator of the worldwide Stop
Murder Music campaign.

“Homophobic artists are allowed to perform, even when they are on
record as inciting the murder of lesbian and gay people. Although
inciting murder is a serious criminal offence, the police give their
approval for these singers to hold concerts in London,” added Mr
Tatchell.

“The Met Police are supporting the right of Jamaican ‘murder music’
singer, Bounty Killer, to perform in London this coming weekend –
despite his encouragement and glorification of the killing of lesbian
and gay people.

See samples of his murderous lyrics below.

“Officers have approved his concert at the Stratford Rex venue in East
London on Sunday 23 November – even though Bounty Killer has refused
to sign the Reggae Compassionate Act, whereby singers promise to not
incite homophobic hatred and violence.

“The Met Police have previously said that no murder music singer will
be allowed to perform unless they sign the RCA.

“Officers have broken their promise. They are taking the side of a
singer who has promoted and celebrated the murder of gay people, and
who is defying the RCA.

“In their defence, the police stress that Bounty Killer will not be
permitted to perform songs that incite homophobic violence. Big deal.

“A white racist singer who advocated killing black people would not be
allowed to perform anywhere in London, even if he agreed to not incite
the killing of black people at his concert. The police would argue
that any stage performance by a white racist singer would risk public
disorder and damage community cohesion. They would ban him, full stop.

“Yet when it comes to straight homophobic singers who urge the murder
of gay people, the police adopt a softer stance. They let the concert
go ahead. It’s bare-faced hypocrisy.

“Equivalent racist performers would have their concerts cancelled by
the Metropolitan Police. In contrast, the police are dismissing the
concerns of the LGBT community. It is a complete disgrace.

Examples of Bounty Killer’s homophobic murder music are listed below and here:
http://www.petertatchell.net/popmusic/Dancehall-Dossier-FINAL.pdf

“In March this year, police in Bradford and Birmingham stopped Bounty
Killer’s concerts from going ahead, saying that they would have
undermined good community relations. That same month the Met Police
authorised his London concert to proceed. If other police forces can
take a stand against homophobia, why can’t the Metropolitan Police?

“Why don’t the government and police stop Bounty Killer from entering
the UK? He has committed the criminal offence of incitement to murder.
If a white singer advocated the killing of black people he would not
be allowed into the country. The Police Commissioner would demand his
exclusion. The Home Secretary would deny him a visa. Why the double
standards?

“The police apparently take the view that racism is worse than
homophobia and that different standards should apply. This is
completely outrageous.

“Why does the gay community let the Met Police walk all over us? The
black community would riot if the Met was colluding with racist
performers. But most gay people seem to hold up the white flag of
surrender. They think we don’t deserve the same protection as black
people.

“Our community is riddled with internalised homophobia, including many
gay rights organisations who apparently agree with the police that
inciting racist violence is worse than inciting homophobic violence.

“There must be zero tolerance of singers like Bounty Killer who
advocate the murder of other human beings.

“I am fed up with the phoney diversity and equality claims from the
Met Police. When the chips are down, their commitment to oppose
homophobia means little or nothing.

“Police claims that they are cracking down on homophobic hate crimes
now look like a public relations stunt at the expense of the lesbian
and gay community.

“The campaign to cancel Bounty Killer’s concert is supported by the
Jamaican gay rights movement, J-Flag, and the Caribbean-wide C-Flag
coalition of black gay and straight human rights organisations. They
are demanding an end to murder music in the Caribbean and worldwide.

“We have no problem with reggae or dancehall music – only with singers
who abuse the genre to incite violence against lesbian and gay people.

“There are many great reggae and dancehall stars who do not stoop to
murder music. We salute them.

“There is no need for singers to spout violent anti-gay hatred. They
choose to do so. It is wilful and malicious homophobia and therefore
they must expect to suffer a backlash.

“Our campaign is in solidarity with black lesbian and gay people in
Jamaica and the Caribbean who suffer nightmarish levels of homophobic
violence. We are acting at their request and in support of their right
to live their lives free of the threat of violence,” said Mr Tatchell.

Further information:
Peter Tatchell – OutRage! – 0207 403 1790

Bounty Killer songs that incite homophobic violence
Another Level
Bun a fire pon a puff and mister fagoty (Uh huh)
Translation: Burn a fire on poofs and faggots (Uh huh)
Poop man fi drown an dat a yawd man philosophy (Uh huh)
Translation: Shit men [queer men] must be drowned and that’s a yardy
man [Jamaican] philosophy

Man A Badman
You know we need no promo to rub out dem homo
Translation: You know we don’t need prompting to rub out [kill] a homo

Look Good
Mi ready fi go wipe out this fag wid pure laser beam
Translation: I’m ready to go wipe out this faggot with a pure laser beam

Examples of “kill gays” murder music by Bounty Killer and seven other
Jamaican reggae/dancehall singers can be found here:
http://www.petertatchell.net/popmusic/Dancehall-Dossier-FINAL.pdf

(thanks Peter)

Ephebophilia vs Paedophilia & Male Homosexuality (Repost)

In light of the increase in cases of child molestation and alleged buggery of young boys here in Jamaica it begs the question of what is it are we faced with really? Is it predatory actions by adult gay males to boys or is it ephebophilia? which is separate from paedophilia and male homosexuality.

Ephebophilia or hebephilia refers to the sexual preference for adolescents around 15-19 years of age. Experts use specific terms for age preferences: ephebophilia to refer to the sexual preference for late adolescents, hebephilia to refer the sexual preference for pubescent persons, and pedophilia to refer to the sexual preference for prepubescent persons. The term pedophilia, however, has also been used colloquially to refer broadly to sexual interest in minors, regardless of their level of physical development.

Ephebophilia is not listed as a paraphilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR), unlike pedophilia, which is categorized as a disorder in the manual.

Pedophilia or paedophilia has a range of definitions as found in psychology, law enforcement, and the popular vernacular. As a medical diagnosis, it is defined as a psychological disorder in which an adult experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children.According to the DSM, pedophilia is specified as a form of paraphilia in which a person either has acted on intense sexual urges towards children, or experiences recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about children that cause distress or interpersonal difficulty. The disorder is frequently a feature of persons who commit child sexual abuse.

Nicholas Groth is a pioneer in the scientific study of sexual offenders against women and children, who has treated over 3000 child molesters over the course of two decades. A former director of the Sex Offender Program at the Connecticut Department of Corrections, Groth is the author of Men Who Rape: Psychology of the Offender, a work widely regarded as a classic textbook on the psychology of sexual violence.

He concurred in a recent debate on homosexuality vs paedophilia that Homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia are not synonymous. In fact, it may be that these two orientations are mutually exclusive, the reason being that the homosexual male is sexually attracted to masculine qualities whereas the heterosexual male is sexually attracted to feminine characteristics, and the sexually immature child’s qualities are more feminine than masculine. . . . The child offender who is attracted to and engaged in adult sexual relationships is heterosexual. It appears, therefore, that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater sexual risk to underage children than does the adult homosexual male.

The general belief in the stereotype that “Homosexuals are dangerous as teachers or youth leaders because they try to get sexually involved with children” or that “Homosexuals try to play sexually with children if they cannot get an adult partner.” is very real in our scenario.
Let’s hear your views.

Please follow up on this on Homosexuality versus Pedophilia article.

More reading
PAEDOPHILIA AND HOMOSEXUALITY,
Child Molestation by homosexuals and heterosexuals HOMILETIC & PASTORAL REVIEW
The Debate Link’s Blog

(some excerpts taken from Andrew Sullivan’s post on The Debate Link)

When is rape a “sexual depravity” and not just “an unfortunate and tragic event”? by LONGBENCH

Visit LONGBENCH’S BLOG for more

Well, I didn’t like the answers I found in yesterday and today’s Gleaner, so I wrote the following letter:

To the Editor:

It is deeply problematic that the violence against Christopher Sukra in Westmoreland would provoke a need for Gleaner editors to call for “draw[ing] the line against sexual depravity”, despite the numbers of women’s and girls’ who have been similarly brutalized and used as fodder for newspaper and tv reportage over the past several months.

Similarly, the sexism and deep-seated and destructive hatred of homosexuality that pervades this society, and which drove many in 2006 to argue against changing the definition of rape in order to prevent the recognition of homosexual sex between men, are the same social prejudices that Orville Taylor invokes in his column, telling us to see the crime against this and other boy children as different from and more serious than rape because it was “capped by the awful act of sodomy.” Even after that 2006 debate, we have people pandering to the notion that some kinds of sexual violence are more important than others, based on which sexual acts were deemed acceptable. Apparently, rape is about sex after all.

I am left wonder how many dead and dismembered girls and women will it take for that symbolic line in the sand to be crossed, where what is done to them is not registered as normal and acceptable, but rather a form of violence as well? Both Taylor’s column and the editorial tell us, albeit not in so many words. When the crime is committed against girls and women, the problem is too “complex” to sort out. On the other hand, the rape and murder of a boy is as an issue of “sexual propriety”, the violence being that a man was the perpetrator and a boy the victim. Furthermore, the problem is not related to diffuse social types called “monsters” but have nameable perpetrators and actionable behaviours. We can now focus on “big men, middle-aged and elderly” who commit sexual violence against children. Isn’t it amazing what it takes to get beyond the emotionality, moral outrage and speechifying about “our children”, and directly to issues of public policy?

Contrary to the editors’ backhanded defense of their claim, it is absolutely true that there is carte blanche permission for men to violate women and girls in Jamaican society. The evidence is in how girls and women move in this society. We know this violence and experience this everyday, to the extent that many of us don’t interpret what is done to us as violence; it is jus’ an everyday ting, as ordinary as buying a Mother’s patty.

And yet, for many of us, it is not entirely surprising that denial of the real motivations and consequences of violence against women and girls would rears its head in how opinion-makers choose to interpret similar victimization of boys as somehow worse and therefore cause for action. These stances confirm what Jamaican women and girls know intuitively: that we are not [ever?] going to get justice through the courts; and that the men who violate the little-known rules know that they will almost always get away with rape and murder; and that our silence will not protect us from being victimized all over again. Just look at the history of rape trials in this society, and even in the past few months, for amazingly powerful evidence that shows how the sexism regularly enables and endorse rape and violence against women and girls.

The deep-seated sexism and hatred of homosexuality are closely related, and we should not take comfort in one or the other; both do us a disservice, from how we make sense of these cases, to how we act to protect our children. Perhaps if our political leaders had demonstrated the moral leadership and courage necessary to draw the lines against those social prejudices, Keturah Bennett, Nordia Campbell and many would still have their children.

Friends and Lovers – Relationships

by Larry James, personal relationship coach.

I am learning to see my love partner without distortion; to value her as highly as I value myself; to give without expecting anything in return; to commit myself fully to her welfare. Only then can love move freely between us without apparent effort. It’s unconditional love between best friends.

When we are able to love in this selfless manner, we experience a release of energy. We cease to be consumed by the details of our relationship, or the need to operate within the artificial structure of exercises; we spontaneously treat each other with love and respect. Love becomes automatic.

My forever lover is my very best friend!

I believe that friendship among lovers is essential to unconditional love and is the primary ingredient for a deep and lasting love relationship. I trust her with the deepest murmurings of my soul. She knows the best and the worst of me and yet loves me through and through — a friend as well as a lover.

In order to experience the kind of relationship I want, I accept the fact that, in order to understand each other, my love partner and I must have clearly developed channels of communication. I cultivate transparency of myself by being a master in the art of self-disclosure. I know that when the inclination to reveal myself to the one I love is blocked, I close myself to her and experience emotional difficulties. I promise to never hide behind a facade.

I will forever practice telling my love partner exactly what pleases me, decreasing her reliance on mental telepathy. I express preferences instead of demands. I believe that I can never know myself except as an outcome of disclosing myself to her.

In ways I may not fully understand, self-disclosure helps me to see things, feel things, imagine things, hope for things that I could never have thought possible. The invitation to transparency, then, is really an invitation to authenticity. It is also an invitation to allow myself to be vulnerable.

When I allow my love partner to see me for who I really am right now, I am less afraid I will be rejected in the future. When my love partner accepts and loves me unconditionally, I know I will never have to hide in the relationship in the future.

To have inner peace it is necessary to be consistently loving in what I think, in what I say and in what I do. I think thoughts of love. I speak words of love. I demonstrate unconditional love for my love partner in all that I do.

Openness means being willing to communicate my deepest feelings. There can be no intimacy without conversation. The only way my love partner and I can truly communicate is to tell the truth. Truthful communication moves love partners and creates a condition of unity, love and satisfaction.

For intimacy to grow in a healthy love relationship there can be no withholding; feelings – both positive and negative – must be shared equally between love partners. The act of withholding the truth is always potentially a lie.

The energy required for the self-discipline of honesty is far less than the energy required for withholding. My love partner and I are dedicated to the truth and live in the open, and through the exercise of our courage to live in the open, we become free from fear. Fear cannot exist whenever insight is valued above feeling frightened.

I listen when my lover shares without making judgment. My heart is always open to hear what my love partner has to say.

Someone said that it is possible to be together so much that we suffocate each other. Perhaps. I do not allow this to happen in my love relationship. I believe that love includes letting go when my partner needs freedom; holding her close when she needs care. I am committed to creating space in my relationship when needed.

At the heart of love, there is a simple secret: the lover lets the beloved be free. My love partner and I require different mixes of independence and mutuality, and the mix is freely discussed and renegotiated from time to time when necessary.

When two people in a love relationship are complete within themselves they do not experience the love they have for others as diminishing, detracting, or threatening to the love they share. They are secure within the relationship.

Insecurities bring forth jealousy, which, in effect, is a cry for more love. It is within your rights to ask for more affection when self-doubts surface, however, the indirect way that jealousy asks for it is counterproductive. Excessive possessiveness is inappropriate. Jealousy is the surest way to drive away the very person you may fear losing.

It is an irony that the more possessive I am, the more love I demand, the less I receive; while the more freedom I give, the less I demand, the more love I receive. I take great pleasure in watching my love partner be fully free and fully alive!

We encourage each other to widen our circle of friends. We each seek to ever expand our horizons. We enjoy celebrating life together and with friends!

I know that if I expect to be the only person who matters to my love partner I am setting myself up for disappointment. As wonderful as true love can be, no one person can meet all your needs. My love partner is, and will always be my very best friend, and she is not my only friend.

I fully expect my love partner to have other passionate interests other than me. To extend the freedom to develop her own interests in other people and hobbies can only empower our relationship. Freedom can never confine. It can never be detrimental to the relationship. It can only open up many exciting and previously undiscovered opportunities to enjoy life.

When my lover is pursuing areas in which she excels, she is happy. I enjoy her most when she is happy. People are easier to love when they are happy.

Trust is forever present in our love relationship; trust and deep commitment to each other, and loyalty and devotion. This allows us the freedom to care about people of the opposite sex and to enjoy friendships with them, and when we sit down together in the evening to share the events of the day, we do not have to ask if our love partner has been faithful.

The stronger and more secure we become, the more we are willing to be ourselves while encouraging our love partner to do the same.

Genuine unconditional love not only respects the individuality of the other but actually seeks to cultivate it, even at the risk of separation or loss. The ultimate goal remains the spiritual growth of my love partner, the solitary journey to peaks that can be climbed only alone.

I believe that no matter how committed my forever love relationship, I will always be “single” as well as a part of a couple. Unconditional love is a special, intense connection, and it is not an answer to all or even most individual problems. No one can make me happy but me.