A Word on San Fransican Gays Launch ‘Boycott Jamaica’ Campaign Over Rising Violence

by Howie

Over the weekend, Saturday to be precise a small group of LGBT persons launched a public demonstration against Jamaica’s human rights abuses against its gay citizens. The “Rum Dump” as it also named was successful as outlined on
boycottjamaica’s site and http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com/

While I appreciate the support in the cause for justice and tolerance towards everyone here despite their sexual orientation, groups planning or who have planned these events must be mindful of the repercussions such actions may have on an already marginalized grouping as we are here.

Members of the public and by extension select public opinion shapers will consider this as interference by foreigners and hence push for more hatred and opposition towards gays. Not to mention the increase in violence that occurs when a situation like this becomes public knowledge. As we have seen before during the planned Canadian group EGALE’s boycott early last year many persons including lesbians suffered attacks, we saw a spike in the numbers that was never so for lesbians especially before. The stories told to us by many victims included hints that we (gays) were getting foreigners to force their nasty lifestyle on Jamaica and other derogatory remarks so the attackers felt justified in their actions.

I ask you our friends to be mindful, JFLAG is slowly working on the ground to reach several objectives which include on going dialogue and other strategies which I am not at liberty to reveal now that I am aware of. Also to consider are the limited resources available for any action that may need to be taken in crisis intervention cases.

Let us remember too that it was Red Stripe, one of the targets of this ban campaign that withdrew financial backing for events and artists who promote violence of any sort against Jamaicans some time ago, we wouldn’t want to erode that small gain now, small as it was it was a step in the right direction.

Thanks to the organizers and participants however for showing concern and for taking the steps to bring the matter(s) to public light but let us communicate before any other drastic actions are taken, I know that there are passionate persons out there to our cause and I am grateful personally and by extension I know the JFLAG team and gays here are thankful too.

One Love


Buggery law facilitates corruption in JCF – Observer Letter 25.03.09

Dear Editor,
Prime Minister Bruce Golding seems determined to lead by following. In particular, he seems in tune with public sentiment that favours discrimination based on private acts between consenting adults. Golding has said in Parliament that Jamaica will retain the buggery law, even though there will be no peeping into bedrooms – the prime way of determining whether buggery is taking place.

On the other hand, US President Barack Obama seems determined to lead by leading. Obama’s administration is about to endorse a UN declaration that calls for worldwide decriminalisation of homosexuality.

Corrupt police are the main ones to benefit from a buggery law that cannot be enforced. Here is a scenario based on a recent incident. Two men are travelling on a very quiet road when they have a flat tyre. The tyre is fixed, and the driver and passenger are inside the car while the driver completes a call on his cellphone.

A police car stops, and two policemen get out with guns pointed at the men in the car. The men protest when the police accuse them of being homosexuals, and the police say they are charging them with using “threatening, abusive, and calumnious language”. As the exchange becomes heated, the charges escalate to include “obstructing an officer in the pursuit of his duty” as well as buggery. One man tries to remain calm, but the other panics.

Neither is gay, but their careers, reputations, and family lives could be wrecked if they are brought to court on buggery charges.

Then the tone of the policemen changes with the question, “So what you can do for yourselves?” The two men have just $700 between them. The policemen then instruct them to hand over their cellphones for “safekeeping” while they drive in front of the police car to an ATM. Each man hands over $5,000 and the deal is sealed.

Members of the gay community in Jamaica report numerous incidents like this one. The buggery law enables corrupt policemen to engage in extortion and robbery. Worse still, it causes some fathers to avoid the company of their grown sons, just in case corrupt police or a hate brigade make an issue of their being together in a car, on the beach, on the street, or in a bus.

Prime Minister Bruce Golding might want to think again about his position on buggery as a constitutional issue. He might consider adopting the direction in which President Barack Obama is evidently leading Americans, even the conservative right and the fundamentalist Christians. Golding might find that a buggery law has no place in a world that increasingly considers all – irrespective of sexual orientation – as having rights and freedoms that the state is obliged to protect.

Yvonne McCalla Sobers

House committee seeks advice from solicitor general – Concerns raised over sex definition

A PARLIAMENTARY committee, examining the green paper on national workplace policy on HIV/AIDS, is seeking guidance from the solicitor general on a controversial definition of sexual intercourse, as set out in the document.

The joint select committee reviewing the draft policy agreed that it would also seek advice on the possible implications of the definition of discrimination on the “ground of sexual orientation”.

At the committee’s final meeting for the legislative year on Wednesday, government Senator Hyacinth Bennett described the issues as potentially explosive.

Change normal meaning

The proposed policy described sexual intercourse as sexual activity that involves vaginal, anal or oral penetration. However, the Lawyers Christian Fellowship group had raised concern about this definition, arguing that it would change the normal meaning of sexual intercourse. The group, in its earlier submission, had suggested that sexual activity and not “sexual intercourse” should be defined in the document.

Commenting on the Lawyers Christian Fellowship’s recommendation, Senator Bennett said the group wanted to ensure that the concept of sexual intercourse was not degraded.

Opposition Senator Sandrea Falconer suggested that advice be sought from the Government’s chief legal counsel on what were the implications of the broad definition of sexual intercourse in the document.

Charles’ take on policy

Committee chairman Pearnel Charles made it clear that he wanted a policy framed in such a way that no group could argue that certain “types of sex” had been legalised.

He said the final policy should not leave a loophole for exploitation by any group.

The definition of sexual intercourse in the green paper was inconsistent with what was set out in the Offences Against the Person Act and Incest Punishment Act.

Another government senator, Dennis Meadows, said he did not have a problem with the definition. “We must become progressive in our thinking,” he asserted.

Continuing, Meadows argued that the controversial definition of sexual intercourse was accepted by the United Nations. “Therefore if we are a part of the global community, our policy must reflect that of the global community, we are not an isolated country in the world,” Meadows insisted.

Disagreeing with her colleague’s liberal views, Senator Bennett indicated that the country should not be influenced by UN-based values or dictates.

Discrimination debate

The issue of discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation also stirred lively debate among committee members.

It was highlighted that the Charter of Rights bill now before Parliament, did not include discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation since it could be interpreted to permit same-sex marriage.

Charles concluded that it should not form part of the HIV/AIDS workplace policy document.

The green paper was developed out of growing concern about the stigma and discrimination against persons with HIV/AIDS faced at the workplace.


Response to Shirley Richards’ Letter – All’s not well with sexual mores

Original Letter: All’s not well with sexual mores

S. Richards’ letter in the Gleaner of Tuesday, March 24, is a stark reminder of what drives antigay behaviour in Jamaica: the absence of solid, consistent and coherent reflection on the premises upon which all social exclusion rests. In her letter, Ms. Richards defended the maintenance of the legal provisions against buggery since, as she believes, they exist “to keep what is unnatural from becoming accepted”.
This appeal to ‘nature’ to buttress a legal provision that gives the government the right to peep into the bedrooms of consenting adults is very flawed. Taken to its logical conclusion, governments would be required to ban the cutting of fingernails and hair, the wearing of tattoos and of clothes, and the piercing of body parts because these practices are ‘unnatural’ and what is unnatural should be kept from becoming accepted.

Like the argument that justifies the proscription against sexual activities between men because these acts are ostensibly morally reprehensible, the appeal to nature ignores the fact that for an argument to be valid, it must be applicable to every situation that meets the criteria in its premise. So, if we understand S. Richards correctly, her argument is akin to that of those who treat homosexuality as an exceptional sexual sin. She now claims homosexuality (and alas, only homosexuality between men: the laws say nothing about lesbian sexual activities) to be so exceptional an unnatural act that it warrants criminalisation! So, no one is proposing the criminalisation of fornication and adultery, a logical necessity if we maintain that the anti-buggery provisions are moral in nature, but the criminalisation of sex between men is accepted and promoted as a Christian duty to nation and a dead queen. Further, no one is proposing that we ban unnatural acts such as the placing of dyes under the epidermis or the piercing of muscles such as the tongue, but we are to accept that what two consenting adult men do with their body parts in the privacy of their homes or a hotel room is outrageous that is requires interdiction.

It is time that as a people we begin to examine our prejudices and the assumptions on which they are based and name them for what they are: bigotry of the highest order. Government has no duty to criminalise subjectively defined morality or to legislate against ‘unnatural’ acts, whether they be shaving or wearing of jewellery. In a democratic society, that is left to individuals and their conscience and whichever imams, priests, rabbis or shepherds they choose to listen to. It is time that S. Richards and all who believe like her learn to distinguish their Caesars from their Gods. Jamaica is a democracy, not, as they imply, a theocracy.

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 readingPAEDOPHILIA 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)

Alleged ‘gay’ killers charged

Two men charged with the murder of a man whose decomposing body was recently found in Havendale, St.Andrew, are accused of killing the man because it was believed that he was gay, the Corporate Area Resident Magistrate’s Court heard.

Charged with murder are Dwayne Gordon, 23, and Andy Williams.

The allegations are that Gordon was being interviewed by the police as a possible witness to the crime. His statement however turned into a confession. He reportedly told the police that on February 23, he and Williams stabbed Dane Harris several times.

Sexual advances

It is alleged that Harris made sexual advances towards Gordon, who told Williams about it. The two reportedly devised a plan where Gordon would agree to meet with Harris, so they both could ‘beat’ him.

The court was told, however, that on February 23, when all three met up, Williams reportedly began stabbing Harris. Gordon reportedly told the police that he took the knife from Williams and also inflicted injuries.

The body of the deceased was found on February 26. Gordon told the court that Williams was just a contractor he had met through a relative. When asked if the statement he gave to the police was false, he told the court that the police told him to sign a document and then he saw them writing.

The matter is to be mentioned again on April 3.

Interesting Piece

Martin Henry

‘Buggery law firm’. But only for the time being. Whether by coincidence or design, on the same day (Wednesday, March 4) that the Page A1 lead headline of The Gleaner shouted ‘Buggery law firm’, the Hospitality Jamaica magazine inside the paper was bellowing even more loudly ‘Pink power’ on its front page. ‘What recession?’, the magazine story asked, ‘gays are spending’.

Describing gay advocates as “perhaps the most organised lobby in the world” the prime minister, as the lead story reported, reiterated his BBC statement “not to yield to pressure to wipe buggery from the books as crime. We are not going to yield to the pressure, whether that pressure comes from individual organisations, individuals, whether that pressure comes from foreign governments or groups of countries, to liberalise the laws as it relates to buggery”.

If Golding lasts long in office, even as long as the duration of this parliamentary term, buggery will stand up to severely test his mettle. Not only is he, and those in the Parliament who are on his side of the issue, up against “the most organised lobby”, they are up against a massive sea change in attitude on the issue. What the Germans call weltanschauung, the world view, the conception of the cosmos and of human life and values, has substantially shifted. The gay lobby didn’t create the shift; they are just riding it to the max. The Zeitgeist, the spirit of the age, the pattern of thought and feeling, is not on the side of Golding’s defiant stance.

moral standards

Quite correctly, the prime minister noted in his contribution to the debate in Parliament on the Sexual Offences Bill that “every society is shaped by and defined by certain moral standards and the laws that evolve in that society are informed by a framework that the society recognises”. But it is precisely those moral standards and that framework for law which have shifted, leaving Golding stuck in a past which is no longer present, except as sentiment.

The prime minister wanted to know, “If we start to yield, if we start to liberalise in the direction that that strong organised lobby would insist that we should, then where do you draw the line?”

But the yielding, or, more correctly, the shifting, has already been long under way. We inherited our common law and statute laws – and even our Constitution – from Britain, a legal code rooted in Protestant Christianity. Britain repealed its buggery law in 1967 and has subsequently extensively ‘liberalised’ same-sex relationships stopping, for the time being, just short of marriage but allowing ‘civil partnerships’. But on a longer time line, running back to at least 150 years, our legal and political mother country has been progressively repudiating the Protestant Christian moral code on which its laws and politics have rested. The whole of the so-called developed West, with the United States lagging well behind Europe, has entered this post-Christian phase.

The Jamaica Constitution, like democratic constitutions everywhere, guarantees a range of fundamental rights and freedoms. The ‘powerful lobby’ has seized upon this opening. But the framers of the Constitution and the hundreds-year-old legal, political, cultural and religious milieu in which they did their framing had substantially different views on the delimitation of rights and freedoms than the powerful lobby and their sympathisers have. No society can hold together with limitless rights and freedoms.

gay honeymoon market

Jamaica is locked into a global economy now doing badly and controlled by powerful players which are far more ‘advanced’ in their legislation of homosexuality. And money talks loudly. The ‘Pink power’ Gleaner story blandly announced that “with some eight Jamaican gay/lesbian-friendly resorts accepting members of that community, these properties have opened themselves to tapping into the estimated US$64.5 billion annual gay market leisure spend. This will be a boost to these properties, especially during a year that is plagued with a global financial crisis. Ideally, all they have to do is concentrate on the gay honeymoon market.”

Buggery, and society in general, is heading for the future back to a pre-Christian past. As a matter of historical fact, only the three great monotheistic faiths, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, have had a problem with homosexuality.

In fact, William Naphy, who has extensively researched the story, notes that a striking feature of the ancient Near East was “how few cultures seem to have any significant ‘moral’ concern about same-sex activities. Most cultures seemed to accept that males might have sexual relations with other males”.

The pantheons of gods freely copulated with whomever and whatever. It was a golden age of moral relativism where everyone’s god and lifestyle could find a place, much like today.

The admired Greeks had their pederasty, the social institution of an older man having a pubescent boy as lover under his protection and whom he would educate. There is now a political party in The Netherlands, one of the first places to legalise homosexual marriage, devoted to the legalisation of child sex. Many of the ancient legal codes which legitimated homosexuality did the same for bestiality. Hence the importance of the prime minister’s question, “Where do you draw the line?” But it is also very relevant to ask, where did this start?

In the pro-homosexual milieu of the ancient world, Old Testament law thundered: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.” And, on account of the abominations, the land is defiled and will vomit out its inhabitants (Leviticus 18).

Paul, who, after Jesus Christ himself, was the most influential definer of Christianity, railed against the ‘vile passions’ that led men “to (leave) the natural use of the woman and burn in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving the penalty of their error which was due” (Romans 1:27).


A part of the shifting weltanschauung and Zeitgeist is a grand theological reinterpretation of these and other nakedly plain anti-homosexual passages.

Barring another major Christian revival, and there have been many which have changed the course of history, there is a massive inevitability to the adjusting of the legal code to accommodate resurgent paganism and its proclivity for homosexuality with all the attendant consequences.

Martin Henry is a communications consultant who may be reached at medhen@gmail.com

Manslaughter conviction in Peter King death

TEN of 12 jurors yesterday Tuesday March 16, 2009 voted to convict 25-year-old Sheldon Pusey of manslaughter in the death of former trade ambassador Peter King, following three hours of what the foreman later described as “very intense” deliberations.
Pusey. to be sentenced April 1

Pusey was originally indicted on the offence of murder for the March 19, 2006 stabbing death of King, but the majority of jurors opted to convict on the lesser charge of manslaughter.
The other two jurors wanted to free Pusey, a carpenter by trade.

Pusey, who sat motionless in the prisoners’ dock at the Home Circuit Court while the verdict was being announced, will be sentenced on April 1.

Following the adjournment, defence attorney Berriston ‘Berry’ Bryan told reporters that he will be appealing the verdict and that grounds for appeal should be filed by this Thursday.

“I’m going to the Court of Appeal. I don’t accept that verdict,” Bryan said. “The prosecution has suppressed evidence critical to the defence.”

The suppressed evidence to which Bryan referred is the prosecution’s decision not to tender into evidence two knives that were taken from King’s Waterloo Road, Kingston 10 home on March 20, 2006, a day after
the killing.

The prosecution, led by Senior Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Caroline Hay, had said during the trial that the knives were not relevant to the case, as no blood or prints belonging to King or the accused were found on them.

Pusey, a resident of Gordon Town in St Andrew, had been on trial since January 19 for the murder of the 64-year-old King, whose nude, mutilated body was found in his bedroom covered by a comforter.

King’s body, with the throat slashed, had a total of 30 wounds, including four stabs and four chops, any of which could have caused his death, according to Government pathologist Dr Ere Seshiah, who gave evidence during the trial.

The defence had contended that Pusey had stabbed King but only after King drugged and attempted to sodomise him. Pusey testified that he had gone to King’s house in search of a job, when King attacked him.

But prosecution witnesses testified that on the night of the killing Pusey and King were seen coming out of King’s bedroom sporting nothing but underpants and socks and that both men went back to the room after having a meal.

Pusey was held a year after the incident and confessed to the police that he had killed King.

Yesterday, jury foreman Rudyard Williams explained that the jurors were not of the view that Pusey had gone to King’s house with the intention to kill.

In arriving at the manslaughter verdict, Williams said the 10 jurors took into consideration Pusey’s evidence that he had stabbed King.

Williams said also that the defence’s argument that King drugged Pusey would be stronger if the bottle from which Pusey had been drinking an alcoholic beverage was examined for drug residue.

He said also that the jurors felt that a third party was involved in the killing as blood found on the scene could not be identified, plus there was no match for a toe print found in the pool of blood at King’s bedside.

“Originally we had eight saying manslaughter and three saying not guilty with one saying murder. The debate was very, very intense. At one point they were even arguing,” said Williams, who noted that neither King’s nor Pusey’s sexuality was a factor in arriving at a verdict