Sizzla Cancelled in Belgium

Press release No. TR101NT11E

Paris, Saturday 28 August 2010

SIZZLA was scheduled to appear on 25 August at RIDER’S PARK in Massancy, Belgium. [1] We have learned today that this concert has been cancelled, though it is not possible to say whether this was down to the STOP MURDER MUSIC (SMM) CAMPAIGN, or to one of this Jamaican Reggae Dancehall singer’s customary set-backs.

As in May 2008, when his people had in like manner accused the SMM CAMPAIGN of being responsible for the cancellation of several concerts (the more trite explanation was that he had been refused entry at the frontiers because of a problem with his visa)… As in February 2010, when the Reggae.fr website annouced the cancellation of some more concerts, mentioning «his recent arrest in Jamaica for guns being shot» (while, the following day, Reggaefrance.com said he was at the birthday party of Robert MUGABE, president of Zimbabwe, someone equally notorious for homophobic and racist comments)…

For the record, SIZZLA called in 1998 for people to «burn all white people». In 2001 in particular, he chanted, for example: «Shot battybwoy, my big gun boom» («Shoot queers, my big gun goes boom»). Few weeks after apparently having signed the REGGAE COMPASSIONATE ACT (RCA) in 2007, which was supposed to have put a stop to such statements, he performed the title «Nah Apologize» («No execuses for buggers»).

SIZZLA is still scheduled to appear at FESTI PLAISIR, rue Fontaine-de-la-Banquière at Montpellier (South of France), on Thursday 23 September at 20:00hrs, as well as at the ÉLYSÉE MONTMARTRE, Paris, Friday 24 September 2010 at 19:00hrs (remember, this hall happened to have hosted the Que Fuerte Paris Gaypride Party on Saturday 26 June). TJENBÉ RÈD calls once again for the human rights organisations in Montpellier and Paris to go into action.

For Tjenbé Rèd (Afro-Caribbean association for the struggle against all forms of homophobia, racism and AIDS)

Chair, David AUERBACH CHIFFRIN

+33 6 10 55 63 60 (France) | +596 6 96 05 24 55 (West Indies)

Fax: +33 1 76 50 59 79 | contact@tjenbered.fr

[0] 13 juillet 2010 – Photographies de la manifestation de Tjenbé Rèd lors de la venue de Capleton à l’Élysée Montmartre à Paris

http://www.tjenbered.fr/2010/20100713-99.html

[1] 19 août 2010 – 25/08 Sizzla & Firehouse Crew at Riders Park – Messancy(Reggaefrance.com)

http://forum.reggaefrance.com/sizzla-firehouse-crew-riders-park-messancy-t54852-15.html

http://www.tjenbered.fr/2010/20100819-89.pdf

[2A] 23 August 2010 – Right of reply to «Midi Libre» following its article of 18 august 2010 on Sizzla and the «gay lobbies» – Press release No. TR10INT11B

http://www.tjenbered.fr/2010/20100823-09.pdf [en]

http://www.tjenbered.fr/2010/20100823-00.pdf [fr]

http://www.heterhomo.org/Concert-de-Sizzla-Tjenbe-Red [fr]

http://www.pinkphenix.com/ [fr]

[2B] 15 April 2010 – Stop Murder Music: Tjenbé Rèd welcomes action in Strasburg and Lille in confronting Sizzla. – Press release No. TR10SOC05C

http://www.tjenbered.fr/2010/20100415-05.pdf [en]

http://www.tjenbered.fr/2010/20100415-00.pdf [fr]

[2C] 1 March 2010 – Report on activities undertaken with other associations in February 2010, in the context of the Stop Murder Music campaign, on the subject of Sizzla’s arrival in France – Release n°TR10SOC05B

http://www.tjenbered.fr/2010/20100301-69.pdf [fr|en]

English translation of this French original text. In the event of any differences between the English translation and the French original, the French text shall prevail. Translated by T. E.

28 août 2010 – Campagne Stop Murder Music : Un concert du chanteur homophobe Sizzla annulé en Belgique – Communiqué de presse n°TR10INT11E

http://www.tjenbered.fr/2010/20100828-00.pdf [fr]

http://www.tjenbered.fr/2010/20100828-09.pdf [en]

http://blogs.tetu.com/outre_mers_et_pairs/2010/08/29/sizzla-2/ [fr]

http://www.lepost.fr/ [fr]

Advertisements

‘Gay lover’ sentenced for attacking man

Star News seh…...

A 19-year-old boy who claimed he was gay yesterday told to a resident magistrate that he would kill himself if he was sentenced.

The teen, of no fixed address, pleaded guilty with explanation to charges of assault occasioning bodily harm and robbery with aggravation.

While appearing in the Corporate Area Resident Magistrate’s Court, the accused said that he and the male complainant were friends and lovers.

The 27-year-old complainant from Kingston told the court that on August 7, while he was on his way home, the teen, who he admitted was his friend, was walking behind him and then started throwing stones at him.

A fight later developed between them. The complainant said he sustained several injuries to his hand, right shoulder and left side. He was treated at the Kingston Public Hospital and released. The complainant also reported that his friend stole his Nokia flashlight phone, valued about $2,500, and robbed him of $5,000.

However, the accused took pride in amusing the court, stating that they were lovers and “if you sentence me, mi a go kill miself”.

He explained that if the complainant goes back to his hang-out spot there is a possibility that men who knew about their case would kill him for taking the matter to court.

Resident Magistrate Judith Pusey sentenced him to three months’ imprisonment, suspended for six months

Poor justification to ban same-sex marriage

(a response to Dr. Van Mol’s letter written on August 21 as excerpted in the post Gay marriage is unfair says Californian)

Poor justification to ban same-sex marriage

Dear Editor,

Our socialisation in Jamaica tends to promote intolerance of homosexuals. My own father told me that he would disown me, or worse, if I were to become inclined to that sort of lifestyle. I must also admit that I do have a certain intolerance towards homosexuals. Still, all that I have described is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The letter published in your August 21 edition written by Dr Andre Van Mol does not support well the proposition that gay marriage should be forbidden.

In an attempt to be fair, Dr Van Mol formulated a test for determining whether or not gay marriage can be accepted as being on par with its heterosexual equivalent. This was based on criteria such as “heterosexual complementarity” and “procreative priority”. I am sure that Dr Mol realised that this test would be too broad and would exclude heterosexual couples who are sterile. (I am assuming procreative priority means couples with the intent or the potential to have children.) Dr Van Mol addressed this point by stating that heterosexual complementarity and role modelling would still be present. This is not an acceptable explanation. He seems to want to have his cake and eat it.

If he is willing to be “soft” on his application of procreative priority when it comes to heterosexual couples but requires it stringently when it comes to homosexuals, then it seems he is doing the exact opposite of what he set out to do. He is arbitrarily applying this particular criterion. If he decides to apply it strictly, then he will realise that heterosexual couples who know beforehand that they are sterile would be excluded by his test.

His heterosexual complementarity criterion is no better. First, one would have to accept that men and women have certain character traits specific to each gender: men in general being inclined to promiscuity and women in general inclined to dependency. He goes on to say that in homosexual relationships these tendencies would be further enhanced. It is not clear to me how these tendencies, if we assume for a moment that men and women do generally behave this way, will be allayed by heterosexual marriage. And in the cases of heterosexual marriages where these tendencies are amplified, are we to assume that the male is gay and the female a lesbian? Furthermore, I am not sure why Dr Van Mol would think that these male and female characteristics are inherently linked to gender.

Couldn’t it be that men and women are socialised in different ways and they tend to behave in certain ways because of this socialisation? If we accept these tendencies as a product of socialisation, then a man or woman could have either of these tendencies depending on their socialisation.

Prohibiting gay marriage cannot be justified by the reasons given.

Warren Brown

Daycricket1@yahoo.com

Female Masculinity: Disrupting Standards of Beauty and Redefining Womanhood

BY ARIELLE LOREN of Clutch Magonline

When I declare, “I am a beautiful woman,” what image comes to mind? Am I smoothly brown-skinned with a figure 8 frame? Am I thin with a flat stomach? Am I stunning with some extra curves?

What about if I have arms of Kobe Bryant? Or the legs of Usain Bolt? Can I have the jaw line of Barack Obama?

Would I be “woman” enough for you? Perhaps, you wouldn’t call me a woman at all. You’re not alone and I’m not pointing the finger. Womanhood and femininity remain inextricably intertwined causing female masculinity to be outside the norm. Thus, your visual discomfort is expected.

The truth is that I don’t have the characteristics of Bryant, Bolt, or Obama. I probably look like your stereotypical image of a “beautiful” Black woman (with a crazy afro); however, I know women who look the opposite. The need to redefine beauty standards and womanhood goes beyond “liberal” ideology and discussion. It’s about women’s empowerment, self-confidence, and inclusion. It’s about recognizing that not all women, even if solely a minority, have to look like each other. It’s bigger than the discourse of body image and weight in popular culture. This is the need to confront the taboo of female masculinity and pay homage to all the women who have lived outside the standard of beauty for too long. In fact, we should chuck the standard all together.

Female masculinity remains a touchy issue for many women, mainly because it often intersects with hard conversations about gender and sexuality norms. Yet this conversation is necessary and also represents a reflection of the deepest fears about ourselves.

How many of us have felt our bodies were wrong or not good enough? Our breasts too small? Too large? Donks too fat? Or perhaps too flat? Shoulders too broad? Face too hard?

The list goes on . . . but let’s take it to the next level.

Imagine having your womanhood questioned. Picture having your self-identified gender rejected by society. Could you take being criticized for your lack of femininity? Perhaps you’re masculine by choice, but what if it’s simply by nature. Your muscles bulge in all the wrong “woman” places. Your body simply doesn’t curve like that coke bottle. It may be like a large, long plank of wood. Despite all of this, you still bask in being a woman and wish that other women would accept you into this sacred community.

When we look at Caster Semenya, what do we see? Is she “beautiful” in our eyes? Be honest, did we wince when we saw her picture for the first time? Does her intersexuality make us uncomfortable in defining her as a beautiful woman?

Could Serena Williams possibly tone her muscles down a bit so they wouldn’t measure up to some of her boyfriends’? Will she ever be deemed a “beautiful” woman with some of her more masculine features?

What about in terms of fashion? Do we secretly wish that Janelle Monae would put on a dress sometimes? If she wasn’t “cute” and petite, would we put her into the “beautiful” woman category?

Here’s one that will make your brain stir: are transgender women allowed into the sacred space of womanhood even though the majority retain physically masculine characteristics?

Yup, I’m sure that one went over the head. Before you start throwing e-beer bottles, I promise that I’m going somewhere with this.

“Beautiful” women shouldn’t have to be feminine. From the time we were little, we’ve had Barbie dolls with proportioned breasts and butts thrown at us with matching feminine attire and a few too many pink accessories. Not all of our mothers looked like this, nor our grandmothers or our aunts, so why do we continue to support this messaging? I have aunts that haven’t worn a pair of heels in their lives! I couldn’t pay some of my female friends to wear a dress if Oprah’s inheritance was on the line (okay, maybe that’s a bit drastic). On the natural side, how many women do we know who could rival some men in physical stature? By solely promoting femininity as beautiful, what type of message does that deliver about the inclusiveness of womanhood? What are we teaching some of our current young girls about beauty and sisterhood? How are you shaping the definition of womanhood? Are you forcing a make-up bag and dress into the arms of your friend, sister, or daughter?

Whether we are masculine by choice or natural design, there should be a space for our reflections to be beautiful amongst other women. This is not about male acceptance; this is an intrinsic conversation amongst all of us who share this wonderful, yet challenging, experience of being a woman. While beauty starts from within, self-confidence can be propelled through the strong support of sisterhood. Remember the women who uplifted you when you doubted yourself. It is no different here.

The next time you see a masculine woman, tell her that she is beautiful. She’s not pretending to be something she is not. She simply is expressing herself without barriers, pretenses, or femininity.

Living Up To Our Motto says gay lawyer (Gleaner letter)

The Editor, Sir:

Despite calls for tolerance by Jamaica’s religious, political and human-rights leaders, as well as outright denials by others, attacks against Jamaica’s gay community still continue.

The latest such attack occurred at about noon on Tuesday, August 17. On that occasion, a young man was walking along Lady Musgrave Road in St Andrew, when he noticed three males and a female leave the construction site where they were working and started following him. Instinctively, (as this was not the first time his dress and mannerism had got him unwanted attention) he went into a nearby grocery store and used his cellphone to call the police.

Two of the men and the woman came into the shop and pretended to be buying things and then the woman loudly enquired of the young man if he was a man or woman.

He didn’t answer. The woman went outside and returned with five more men demanding that the young man leave the store. The young man remembers talking with the woman and then falling to the ground.

He woke up covered in blood from a gash in his head.

Treatment

The police eventually came and took him to the hospital where he received stitches to his head. The police took his statement and advised him that if he saw his attackers again he was to contact them. Fat chance of that happening. This young man is so traumatised that he will, no doubt, steer clear of that area from now on. But that is exactly what his attackers wanted.

How long will it be before Jamaicans understand that the tolerance spoken of in our motto, ‘Out of Many One People’, doesn’t have to mean acceptance, but it does mean respecting the rights of others, including their right to dress how they want, which harms no one?

I am, etc.,

Maurice Tomlinson

maurice_tomlinson@yahoo.com

Shots fired at homeless gays in Kingston, homeless situation spiraling out of control

Sunday morning August 24th around five was the scene of shots fired from a white Toyota Corolla as the homeless MSMs who were seen walking the streets some dressed as women according an eyewitness. The spot where the men often congregated at nights in New Kingston was blocked off by the new tenants of the defunct popular grocery items store that now houses a gaming lounge and night time spot.

They were hosting an event at the time so no loitering was allowed, the situation indeed is spiraling out of control as the population of homeless men is increasing and so is the uncontrollable behaviour from them as well attracting negative responses from passers-by at the area and elsewhere in general. Lest we forget the police has been cracking down on the men’s activities and only on August 7th as posted on this blog a taxi driver rescued several of them from rowdy men coming from the Independence Day celebratory activities.

According to one of the witnesses they were making their way in a vehicle towards Montrose Road near Vale Royal (The Prime Minister’s Official residence) when he saw two of the men making their way northwards, they were met by others who were approaching, the white Toyota motorcar drove alongside the witnesses vehicle by the stop lights with two men aboard, the men inquired if they men they saw were “battyman” among other rhetoric, the witness said he answered saying he didn’t know while his female passenger commented so what if they were, leave them alone.

The driver of the Toyota proceeded to block the witness’s vehicle supposedly to see the cross dressers as that part of the road is not properly lit, the witness protested by tooting his horns and shouting to the men to move the vehicle so he could pass, the men refused, as the witness proceeded to reverse and make his way around the offending men he saw the driver brandish a gun and pointed it at the men then firing several shots, the men scattered.

The witness said the men shouted to him to move his “bombo*****” away as “battyman fi dead” he tried to reverse and avoid crossing the firing line of the gunman but another vehicle that had stopped behind him temporarily prohibited that from happening, the Corolla’s occupants sped off after the men and as at the preparation of this post no injuries or fatalities were reported or heard of.

Sadly this is what we have left from the controversial closure of the homeless MSMs shelter and the lack of any long-term interventions for this seriously at risk group. The behaviour of the men cannot be excused either reports of men strutting the stretch where they normally congregate allegedly soliciting sexual favours of commercial sexual activity from unsuspecting male passer-by are well talked about and there have been other alleged skirmishes that have not resulted in serious attacks as this.

Where do we begin?

I am afraid that the next time we hear of any incidence with this group it may be worse. By the sound of it the men may have been searching for the cross dressers according to the witness, he feels that is why they questioned him when they drove up on first instance. He surmises that due to the event at the regular spot which by the way is an open secret now to everyone based on the behaviour of the men there, they may have been chased away earlier and then pursued.

Even if this is so the men are clearly in serious danger if they continue to gallivant openly they way they now do. Of course the advocacy folks who didn’t want to engage this group in the first place may be feeling justified by now adopting a “see I told you so” attitude that they are trouble makers so thus no engagement as they fear the repercussions.

So why are they advocates then or who are they advocating for?

Last night August 22nd the hang out spot was clearly empty up until 11pm when I passed by in a car. I spoke to one of the homeless youths in another part of town they said they heard what had happened as he wasn’t with this group but no one was hurt to his knowledge.

As at the preparation of this post there were no police reports filed on this incident.

Any new developments on this story will be added.

Peace and tolerance.

H

Gay marriage is unfair says Californian (Observer letter)

When the homophobes can’t find space in their own jurisdiction to spew their garbage they look for and use spaces where homophobia is rife to encourage it even further with unsubstantiated crap like this letter excerpted below.

Have a read and determine the reasoning for yourself.

Dear Editor,

Marriage predates the church and government, being a creation of neither, yet legislatures and judiciaries – such as US District Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling against California’s Proposition 8 – presume to redefine it with ideology presented as rights, fairness, privacy, or the equivalent of harmless miscegenation.

Dr James Q Wilson

Same-sex union is not a rights issue, as marriage is not a right, but something with requirements – I cannot marry my sons, nephews, or parents, yet. Governments recognise that marriage is not due to rights of coupling or presence of equivalent feelings but because, whatever its shortfalls, heterosexual marriage is the best environment in which to produce and raise children, the fullest expression of sexual role modelling, and a union and sacrifice which improves both sexes through the complementarity the one brings to the other. It is therefore in the public interest.

Is forbidding gay marriage unfair? University of Texas Professor J Budziszewski asserts that fairness is two-sided: it must neither arbitrarily exclude nor arbitrarily include. Same-sex marriage fails to meet the just and fair qualifications for matrimony, which requires heterosexual complementarity and the procreative priority. Former Harvard professor James Q Wilson said, “The vast majority of people do better if men marry women. The sexes complement each other.” Same-sex marriage is incongruous, tending to amplify the tendencies of a gender, namely male promiscuity or female dependency, and is inherently sterile. When a gay marriage involves children, they are denied a mother and father, and enter a family structure that decades of studies show to have the worst outcomes for them. Heterosexual marriages are sometimes infertile, but even then, sexual complementarity and role modelling is present. Thus, it is gay marriage that is unfair.

The claim that one’s private marriage arrangement affects no one else is myopic. Anthropologist Stanley Kurtz’s report, “The End of Marriage in Scandinavia”, documents how, despite supportive and subsidising governments, affirming (and evaporating) liberal churches, and a public legally coerced into compliance and silence by one-sided hate-speech codes, few gays marry and the rest of society follows suit. Impressive data demonstrate that same-sex marriage weakens marriage for all and fosters illegitimacy by separating in the public mind the concepts of matrimony and procreation.

The comparison to interracial marriage is groundless. Races differ in virtually nothing, while the sexes differ greatly. Marriage between man and woman – interracial or not – is ancient, extends life, improves health, and benefits society. Same-sex marriage is recent revisionism; shortens life through sexual practices rarely divulged in the argument; and has higher rates of domestic violence.

Non-heterosexual marriage concerns gaining social approval for same-sex lifestyles and politics and masquerades as the gay norm it will never be. Aside from being bad for the same sex attracted due to its brevity and higher rates of violence, it is neither pro-marriage, pro-monogamy, nor pro-children. Marriage has been and should remain between one man and one woman.

Dr Andre Van Mol

California

andrev@charter.net

Beware Phone Scams warns letter writer

With the growing number of gay men allegedly involved in lotto phone scam fraud increasing and making hundreds of thousands of US dollar amounts a year this letter seems timely, he who have ears let him hear.

Several gay men are also said to have been either attacked by each other over rivalry for “clients” and or jealousy as to who can make the most money over others.

The Jamaican letter writer who lives overseas complained in writing below:

The Editor, Sir:

I am a Jamaican student living in the USA pursuing a master’s degree. I have recently been targeted by several phone calls from Jamaicainforming me that I have won a large sum of money and I should send money to them to cover the cost of sending me the said money and to cover taxes. Of course I am not silly enough to believe them, but I am concerned for others who may have believed these men and may have fallen prey to this scam.

Name is on ‘a list’

The calls began a few months ago, and although on one occasion I cursed out these men in my native Jamaican dialect, they have persisted. To date, I have received more than a dozen calls from these men and all local numbers. When I asked one of the men about it, I was informed that my name was on ‘a list’ along with my telephone number here in the US.

The only time my telephone number has been online along with my name is when I purchased credit from one of the mobile phone service providers for a relative I still have on the island. I was informed that they operate out of Montego Bay.

I am asking you to publish my letter so that persons locally and overseas will know what is taking place, and will not fall prey to these men. Furthermore, I have to contact numbers of the callers as their numbers were not blocked. I am willing to pass on these numbers to local law enforcement, as I am sure that GPS technology could be used to nab these men, or at least set up some form of sting operation.

I am, etc.,

JOHNNY B. GOODE

ledaraburto@yahoo.com

Florida

That won’t stop AIDS, Betty Ann says gay lawyer

Dear Editor,

In the August 15 edition of the Sunday Observer, Betty Ann Blaine laid out the plans of her New Nation Coalition to tackle Jamaica’s AIDS epidemic. Her simple solution is to focus on family life and abstinence education for the young.

However well intentioned she is, Betty Ann has displayed a supreme ignorance about a complex epidemic which is sadly not “new”. Such ignorance is common among many who hold or aspire to political office in Jamaica. The fact is that reverting to simplistic arguments of “morality” will do little to stem the epidemic, as seen from the failed morality campaigns of the past PNP and current JLP administrations. Similarly, millions of lives – mostly women – were needlessly lost to AIDS in South Africa and Botswana when those governments initially ignored condom distribution and human rights recognition in favour of morality and abstinence rhetoric as the major planks of their AIDS response.

In contrast, New Zealand (the only country in the world in which all the highest offices in the land have been occupied simultaneously by women) recorded only 19 new cases of new HIV infections last year. This feat was accomplished through a focus on human rights recognition for all, including homosexuals. The decriminalisation of buggery therefore paved the way for unrestricted access to effective HIV and AIDS prevention, treatment, care and support interventions for homosexuals.

The connection between human sexuality and AIDS is complex and requires a sophisticated and intelligent response; not old, uninformed reactionary positions, as stated by Betty Ann. Human beings enjoy sex and simply telling them to stop will not work.

Further, making it more difficult for them to protect themselves from HIV is not only irresponsible, it’s a sure recipe for national disaster. Human rights recognition works to fight HIV and also creates the peace and stability needed for national development. As Jamaicans we need new visionary leaders who can see beyond their narrow (religious) biases and uphold the constitutional rights of all. Betty Ann has much to learn.

Maurice Tomlinson Montego Bay,

St James

maurice_tomlinson@yahoo.com

Gay lawyer demands conflict resolution skills for same sex couples

In a Gleaner letter he wrote:

We need conflict-resolution skills

The Editor, Sir:

Recently the media reported two incidents of vicious domestic murders in which females were killed by their male partners (one’s throat was slit and the other was stabbed to death with an ice pick).
The prevalence of such vicious acts of domestic violence is proof that we as Jamaicans have poorly developed conflict-resolution skills.

Sadly, such incidents are not uncommon, despite the presence of the Domestic Violence Act. This Act was intended to protect (heterosexual) partners from spousal abuse through provisions for, among other things, protection orders (which prohibit a dangerous spouse from entering the space of a threatened spouse) and occupation orders (which allow a threatened spouse to continue occupying disputed premises).

Yet, even with the failings of the Act to curb domestic violence in Jamaica, same-sex couples are left out of even the minimal protections it provides. The Act does not extend to homosexual couples and, yet, we are surprised why violence in these relationships ends up making front-page news.

Endangered partners in same-sex relationships simply can’t get protection from the law and the result is often fatally tragic.

Same-sex couples are no more violence-prone than their straight counterparts. The difference is that the law offers protection to heterosexuals caught in dangerous domestic situations while ignoring same-sex couples.

This constitutes, inter alia, a breach of the right of homosexuals to equal protection of the law. It is high time the Government put an end to such deadly discrimination by amending the Domestic Violence Act to include same-sex couples.

I am etc.,

Maurice Tomlinson

maurice_tomlinson@yahoo.com

Montego Bay