The psychological strategy of the homosexual lobby BY DR Leahcim Semaj

(a note, the day before he appeared on CVM TV’s Live @ 7 where he postured the long held point on paedophilia becoming the next rights push item he produced this piece via his FACEBOOK pageand website, the supposed strategy by the us the gay lobby is to move to paedophilia after legalizing buggery as he tries to put forward here) 

ALSO SEE:  CVM TV’s Live @ 7 – Gay Brain Drain … on my sister blog which also had as guest from overseas now asylee and former advocate Maurice Tomlinson who left Jamaica under very dubious and cloudy circumstances and married a man in Canada although both do not reside there now.

Now here is Mr Semaj’s piece:

The psychological strategy of the homosexual lobby

BY DR Leahcim Semaj Sunday, Jan

Feburary 8, 2012

I take issue with the recent discussion describing Jamaican people who see homosexuality as dysfunctional or deviant as being sick people. This is what is done when one subscribes to the concept of “homophobia”.

Once persons refuse to accept the agenda that homosexuality is normal and healthy behaviour, they are labelled as sick, they have a phobia. How did we get into this mess?

Psychosexual Disorders can be grouped into two main categories: The first is sexual dysfunction: when physiologically normal functions fail, eg inability to respond to erotic stimulation with arousal, erection or orgasm, or when interest in sex is diminished or absent.

The second is sexual deviance: when a sexual behaviour violates the laws, or social norms of a social group or society. Prior to 1973, Psychosexual Disorders were defined in the following categories:

. Homosexuality, . Paedophilia (children), . Incest, . Voyeurism, . Zoophilia (animals), . Frotteurism (rubbing on strangers), . Necrophilia, . Transvestism (cross-dressing), . Urophilia (urine), . Mysophilia (filthy surroundings), . Coprophilia (filth, brown shower), . Klismaphilia (enema), . Troilism (sharing your partner and watching), . Masochism, . Sadism, and . Various fetishes.

Most of these have been retained in the psychological literature, but in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders.

Two years later, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting the removal. For more than 25 years, both associations have urged all mental health and other professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that many people still associate with homosexual orientation.

Yet all the other psychosexual disorders and perversions have been retained. Why?

Since 1976, the APA has divided homosexuality into two categories, Egosystonic and Egodystonic. This distinction proposes that people who are sexually attracted to their own gender and happy with that situation are normal, while those who are unhappy need help. Why this one disorder? Why not any of the others?

In 1994, the American Psychiatric Association, in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV, removed paedophilia as a sexual perversion. This event was followed in 1999 when the American Psychological Association released an APA Bulletin report, A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples.

In this report, Bruce Rind, et al, claimed child sexual abuse could be harmless and beneficial. This led to a situation in which Illinois State Representative Bob Biggins introduced House Resolution 325 damning the APA Rind study.

Later that year, the US Family Research Council held a press conference in Washington, DC. Here a coalition of members of Congress, child protection advocates, child abuse victims and public policy groups charged the APA to renounce the Rind study. This conference was largely ignored by mainstream media in the USA.

Concern is being expressed that the American psychological and psychiatric establishment are now setting us up to engineer a cultural endorsement of incest in the same way that the endorsement of homosexuality was orchestrated.

On July 28, 2004, the American Psychological Association finally showed its hand and announced its support for legalisation of same-sex civil marriages and opposition of discrimination against homosexual parents.

They concluded that denying same-sex couples legal access to civil marriage is discriminatory and can adversely affect the psychological, physical, social and economic well-being of homosexual individuals.

The report stated that prohibiting civil marriage for same-sex couples is discriminatory and unfairly denies such couples, their children and other members of their families the legal, financial and social advantages of civil marriage.

We now understand the full agenda: It begins with tolerance, then acceptance, then endorsement, then finally that we recognise same-sex marriages. This is inconsistent with my understanding of the order of the universe.

Years ago, Suzanne Dodd proposed that: “The Western World is quickly adopting the concept that homosexuality is a viable alternative lifestyle. If your son decides to marry another man, you are supposed to smile and say, ‘That’s nice’.

Be aware that soon enough we will be expected to see two men get married, and unless we smile and say, ‘That’s nice’ we might lose all our foreign aid.” (Money Index #366; page 46) Are we now there?

Alice in Wonderland approach to sexual behaviour

The use of the word “gay” is an attempt to remove the negative connotation inherent in the concept of homosexuality. The word “homophobia” implies that anyone who does not endorse and ‘big-up’ homosexual acts is sick.

The objective is for us to be on the defensive.

  1. Why is it a “phobia” to not love homosexual acts and other perversions and to resist the pressures to give private perversions the status of public acceptance?
  2. If we accept homosexuality as “normal” behaviour, why not accept all the other perversions and dysfunctions also?
  3. If we believe that persons with the other perversions and dysfunctions are in need of help, why are not the homosexuals?

The poet Haki Madhubuti reminds us

That which is normal for us Will never be normal for us As long as the abnormal defines what normality is

Are there historical precedent and consequences for these actions? I believe that it is time for Jamaican psychologists to be straight with the people of Jamaica as to what our position is.

Are we following the dictates of the American Psychological Association? Or do our experiences, history, culture and heritage tell us otherwise? Mine do. I do not accept that homosexuality or any of the other perversions or psychosexual dysfunctions be endorsed as being part of what we identify as normal and healthy behaviours.

I would like the homosexual lobby to provide me with some answers to the following questions.

  1. As we try to understand order versus disorder, I realize that two central components can guide us. The first is THE MODEL OF PERFECTION. This tells me that in any society there are certain values which are passed on from parent to child. These help us to understand what the ultimate values are. For example, we will hear parents say “I would love for my son to be happily married and have a family” or “I would love for my son to get a good job.” Have you ever heard someone say or will you yourself say “I would love for my son or daughter to grow up to be a homosexual”?

2. The second component we can refer to as THE MODEL OF NATURAL ORDER, i.e. any behaviour which facilitates our collective survival is automatically good. It may be pleasurable for the individuals to engage in behaviours which do not fit this profile but we cannot give the behaviour endorsement or public acceptance because to do so could pose a threat to our collective survival. If everyone started to do so, the consequence would be quite disastrous. Does homosexuality fit within the model of natural order?

3. One a writer raised the issue of homosexuality being about love, “how can we be against love”? Well, why do we not also endorse those who are in love with donkeys, sheep, goats, and dogs? We refer to these behaviours as zoophilia or beastiality. What about those who are in love with dead bodies? Should we also publicly accept these private perversions?

4. The DSM III defines homosexuality into two categories, egosystonic and egodystonic – this says that people who are homosexual and happy with it are normal, while those who are, and are unhappy need help. Can we expand on this? What about those who are into zoophilia (animals), transvestism (cross dressing), pedophilia (children), incest, voyeurism, frotteurism (rubbing on strangers), necrophilia, urophilia (urine), mysophilia (filth), coprophilia (filth), klismaphilia (enema) and various fetishes; As long as they are happy with themselves, should we not consider them normal?


This term I teach the Physiological Psychology at the University of the West Indies. As expected, the North American text has a section dealing with homosexuality and the biological causes. They explore a range of data and a number of findings but interestingly, the conclusion is as follows;

“There remain also the possibility that a person’s lifestyle may affect the structure of parts of his or her brain; thus, the difference as mentioned… could be the result of people’s sexual orientation rather than the cause.” Foundations of Physiological Psychology, page 278

I wonder why we are motivated to look for biological causes of same sex preference. Why don’t we also look for biological causes for fetishes, animal preference, dead body preference, stranger preferences while we are at it? The evidence points in the direction of a group of individuals wishing for public acceptance for their private perversions.

Leahcim Semaj is a consulting Psychologist:

Homo/Effemophobia & Homo-paedophile castigation masked as concerns for rights ????

So it seems.

In an Observer article today Michael Burke gave his take on Rights Responsibilities and Civics as it applies to Jamaica and wherein the articles title sounds all welcoming and opening with the passing of former talk show host and progay journalist Wilmot Mutty Perkins (photo below)also see:  Perkins scolded for his “tolerance”

Imagine my surprise when we go into the body of the article where he goes to the recent promise to review the buggery law and conscience vote by the present PM only to find he expresses this fear that homosexuals as child hunters/molesters, open effeminacy or cross dressing aesthetics are too much and that gay parades is homosexuality being shoved in the public’s face.

One would have thought by now we would have gotten pass this kind of garbage and while I agree freedom of speech is crucial the Observer seems to regress sometimes by accepting these kinds of articles, the offending paragraphs:

“………During the election debates in the lead-up to the general election last December, the question of gay rights was brought up. Portia Simpson Miller said that a People’s National Party government would review the buggery law. Homosexuality is a sin (Catechism of the Catholic Church number 2357), but homosexuals should be treated with dignity like everyone else, despite their sins (number 2358). If the law is changed to allow consenting adults to do what they want sexually in the privacy of their homes (excluding housing schemes where the houses are close), I am prepared to leave that up to Almighty God for judgement.

What should not be condoned is paedophilia, gay parades and cross-dressing in public. And parents and guardians should be liable to penalties if they cross-dress their children. This has been one of my concerns for more than two decades. In 2006, I wrote and sang a song called Man fe look like man. Homosexuality should not be shoved in everyone’s face anymore than prostitution or being forced to endure loud music after certain hours. And adults should have the right to bring up their children without undue influence of practising homosexuals, prostitutes or indecent songs in the media, which includes loud amplifiers. These are rights that should be in the Constitution.”

Read more:–responsibilities-and-civics_10786522#ixzz1mXuldP7y

Why do persons under the guise of intellectual discourse frothed with dishonest motive continue to misconstrue effeminacy or cross dressing with some contagious gay infection in the air that suddenly is going to change children or pubescent persons into flaming queens? Save and except of course the individual who realises his or her own sexuality, gender identity or sexual orientation by such presentations and may gravitate to same presentations via expressing their own feelings or a transgender individual or realises their mixed gender issues and decide to present as the gender they see themselves as which is far different from someone who is coerced into activities they may not necessarily subscribe to at that time. What about that enlightened parent or even not so enlightened ones who realises there are gender identity issues with their child or children and rightly consults a professional and the child/children are deemed as transgender and therefore are encouraged to aesthetically present the child as the gender they see themselves as prior to any reassignment surgery? ……….. it seems Mr Burke would have those parents criminally responsible for some crime in his world, what backward thinking. Is that cross dressing a child Mr. Burke?

And where in Jamaica are children cross dressed? 

This nonsense also of the Catholic church (Catechism of the Catholic Church number 2357) somehow issuing edicts unto and over people’s lives as if they are the be all and end all of all things religious and right when their hands are stained with blood with years of issues and impositions with their brand of religion in the name of God under some absolutist monarchist structure.

We need to stop this intellectual dishonesty in backing the anti homosexual agenda ……. I am getting a bit weary by all this tired trite arguments on this now.

I strongly suggest we bombard his email with RESPECTFUL but factual points on the clear separation between same sex paedophilia (sometimes the perpetrators are heterosexual) versus consenting same sex attracted adults and this business of cross dressing or tranvestitism linked to perceived changing others sexual orientation.

his email is:

also see:

Continued misconceptions of adult homosexuals being paedophiles (click image to buy book)

Ephebophilia vs Paedophilia & Male Homosexuality part 2 …. the need to continue the discourse

Male Sexual Assault Myths …… “Cries of Men”

No Reported cases of Paedophilia say local Catholic Diocese Representative

Ephebophilia vs Paedophilia & Male Homosexuality

Brain scans used to detect paedophilia ……

What also is of concern is the section where he says “If the law is changed to allow consenting adults to do what they want sexually in the privacy of their homes (excluding housing schemes where the houses are close), I am prepared to leave that up to Almighty God for judgement.” this seems to be a swipe at a recent incident in Innswood St. Catherine or other similar exposures in housing schemes in lower middle income or inner city communities where prying eyes are closer and can lead to sometimes disastrous results for same gender loving Jamaicans. Obvioulsy the MSM community in upper St. Andrew and other affluent areas do not encouter this phenomenon save and except for the occasional murder in their own homes as they “import” thug type or hypermasculine types for sexual encounters and something goes wrong which does not mean these thug types were somehow straight and turned gay overnight just for money or material gains.

In the Innswood matter there were complaints of loud music, multiple visits from male thugs to some cross dressing sisters and the neighbours upset of the so called shenanigans which made mainstream news, yes I will agree we sometimes are our own worst enemy as it relates to our behaviour but that is in the  minority and is not a reflection of the vast majority of Jamaica’s same gender loving community.

see more here:  That Innswood matter ……

The line by Mr Burke also suggest a class demarcation where is it perceived that more affluent men try to force other males from the lower socio economic strata into same sex activity as if those men are not innately homosexual or bisexual outside of the gay for pay phenomenon which is real but not as pronounced as made out in terms of non gay men getting involved.

also see:  “Nuh boi cyaan” (No Boy can’t) song reinforces stigma of same gender loving men as rich predators

The music also reflects this thinking that masculine men are getting down for money in order to keep up appearances as these days the “swagg” is the order of the day in the metrosexual revolution we are seeing while declaring an effemophobic line and anti cross dressing stance.

“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.” – Nicholas Groth – 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.

Peace and tolerance


Club Heavens “The Rebirth”

Like a phoenix rising from the ashes she emerged on the night of February 11, 2012 LGBT history was made under new management, with new interior designs, new and some old staff members returning and certainly a new lease on life after closure for some time now due to a rapid decline in interest as other spots within Kingston and neighbouring parishes took center stage, other mitigating circumstances and a much younger and discriminating audience who also have an aptitude for mainstream entertainment offerings that also seem to appeal to LGBT senses but it was good if not refreshing to see the old haunt revived and kicking once again.

The north western Jamaica spot is up and running again and it’s hoped that it will remain open with steady loyal patronage for years to come.

The name supposedly came about as at that time the issues with stop murder music, the repetitive homophobic incidents and the missing entertainment spots around the conceptualizers wanted to find and run an outlet for release so the term Heaven(s) was used to bring a kind of relief and happiness as was thought implied in the term as it related to a religious perspective to the spot.

(due to the limited photo policy I cannot show you more than the basics)

The simple yet effective decor was a fierce start upon entering, new acoustics, lighting, security arrangements, fogging, VIP section and the free admission for opening night were part of the clever marketing ploy to re-introduce persons to the spot and open up another offerings to first timers, in fact it is to open on Sunday night as well with a $500 admission. Club Heavens which officially is now the longest running LGBT entertainment spot/club in local terms if one is counting we could assume some 7 years or more between the closings and reopenings.

It’s original conceptualizer the late Kirk Lester who was murdered in 2007 whose funeral made international news after the stoning incident that took place marring the final rights in Mandeville opened the spot in early 2000 and at that time there were few permanent spots for fun and socializing with peers. Individual party promoters were offering their own brand of private shingdigs while the defunct Entourage Nightclub was no more as we recall after its closure due to pressure from the surrounding business district and a series of sensationalized articles in the tabloids of the day on supposed happenings there then the awful murder of its proprietor and co founder of  a noted LGBT entity Brian Williamson in June 2004 a small attempt was made to revive the brand but was reprised for safety reasons and for memory of him.

At or around the original opening of Club Heavens as well we had lost two major disc jockeys on the circuit due to that infamous party DVD that made its way to the mainstream and was sold on the streets with the outcome being the jocks identified by their voices as they worked in the mainstream as well, then came the backlash which compromised their safety also resulting in a lull in offerings for some time out of fear of exposure hence the no cameras policies or limited photo/video capture that are instituted with some events to this day. So the market responded by attending this new spot in droves weekly which also catered to a wide cross section of the LGBTQIQ2S communities as well thought out themes were offered and well received at the time.

Club Heavens also had come to represent the tradition of drag entertainment and has hosted some noted internationally recognised divas including Harmonica Sunbeam and the legendary Michelle Ross and also our version of the Miss World pageant and Oscar typed award shows recognizing persons in LGBT entertainment locally. This was not lost at the Rebirth and old and new divas strutted their stuff on the stage with appropriate short sets this time around, Diva Nastacia Waugh legendary performances was welcomed as she lip synced to Whitney Houston’s “I Look To You” in the tribute segment and the fab one BeBe from western Jamaica proved that 6 inch pumps are a breeze for a tall lady. It was Nage Trendsett that dominated the performances however proving yet again the calibre of shows she has been serving since last year, she delivered a three song set including two tracks from Beyonce where she lip synced flawlessly with only a chair in the centre of the stage as a prop. Her ability to have her audience transfixed during multiple songs was proven yet again, no one moved and no one gawked and there was no heckling as often follow some other queens, her use of space to enhance her performance had not gone unnoticed and her eye contact with her loyal subjects was commendable, all the above are traits some performers need to tighten up on and hold patrons’ attention. Four major DJs served the beatz including yours truly and Dr B from western Jamaica was a toast for the kidz and of course DJ David with hot Peppa.

A packed house rocked as persons from just by the look of it all walks of life were present and the mingling was good to see, also what was evident were the rural faces some of whom have not been seen in ages proving that the club has the pull to cover the tiles. Influentials could be seen darting about and other party promoters were present too to show their support, I know the late Kirk Lester would have liked that real unity as some persons from that era reminisced on his impact on the club’s development. Persons recalled his own antics darting about the floor seeing to the smooth running of the activities especially the bar sales and his own brand of drag often taking the stage himself with that infamous Tina Turner wig and gesticulating to his favourite Diana Ross song “The Best Years of my Life”

Also not to be outdone in as far as reminiscing goes was Mr. Gareth Henry who took over management after Kirk’s departure from us and carried it until he moved to that infamous villa on the north coast where the old party DVD was shot of a previous private LGBT event, scenes of which are still on Youtube and the subsequent threats on his life from a public incident he was involved in at a pharmacy that caused him to seek asylum elsewhere among other things. I will not mention too much of the ugly history of the club during the tumultuous period of its immediate past manager but it is water under the bridge as she too was in attendance to shake a leg.

The brand also changed hands with the likes of former Crisis Interventions Officer from the J, Miss Artis who now resides elsewhere, the property’s owner at one point, a former promoter from western Jamaica and of course legendary Macey Antibellum Grey before its rebirth in 2012.

The shenanigans of the hypermasculine brothers (thugs/heaviots) are not to be left out of this summary as they too made their presence felt at the spot which has usually attracted them in better numbers than elsewhere. International vogue queens were also present a few of which made the trip to Jamaica just for the reopening/reunion as described by the masters of ceremonies during the drag show presentation.

here is more in audio:

Club Heavens The Rebirth 12.02.12

There were just two dark spots in the scheme of things, the alcohol inventory had ran out and there was a small skirmish after the proceedings ended on the outside with minor injuries but overall the rebirth was flawless. I guess some things won’t change so easily eh?

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

It has indeed fulfilled its mandate in a sense and so appropriately named as the spot for some time also doubled as a spot for church services for the Sunshine Cathedral Jamaica services in some instances, offering an LGBT version of heaven on earth through Jesus Christ, literally after a busy club night sections are cordoned off, janitorial staff go into action, chairs are erected a podium placed and covered with the banner and other paraphernalia, a large Bible is laid, a chalice brought out, tambourines, wine and communion wafers are placed when needed, candle sticks and the collection plate. As one lead pastor from the mother church in Florida puts it “it was church from a box.” From LGBT entertainment including raunchy teasing strip shows to spirit filled services attracting two different audiences, talk about functionality.

Let us hope they grow from strength to strength and continue this long held tradition of offering a wide array of entertainment for us.

Peace and tolerance


Human sexuality and the buggery law

NUMEROUS viewpoints have been expressed on the matter of homosexuality and the Jamaican buggery law since it was first mentioned in the political leadership debate leading up to the December 2011 general election.

Supporting and opposing viewpoints have included the notion that the church is picking on gays, that some personal rights can be sacrificed for general public morality, that we are irrational and selective in how we deal with minority groups in our society, and that we should tackle homosexuality through moral suasion rather than through the criminal law.

These approaches generally coalesce around the concepts of religious morality, human rights and justice as fairness. However, there are more fundamental issues to be considered before we form our opinions or make decisions based on morality or legal grounds.

The matter of human sexuality

Human sexuality speaks to how people experience the erotic and express themselves as sexual beings; how they express love and their connections to other human beings. Sexuality is fundamental to being human, and it includes at least five different elements: sex, gender, affective/emotional relationships, eroticism, and reproduction.

It is expressed and experienced through thoughts, fantasies, desires, beliefs, values, attitudes, activities, practices, roles and relationships (PAHO/WHO, 2000). As human beings we are assigned a ‘sex’ at birth based on the physical appearance of our external genital organs. We are defined as either ‘male’ or ‘female’, although one in every 2,000 infants is born with genitalia that is ‘in-between’ or ‘intersex’ (the word that has replaced the old term hermaphrodite).

No determination is made at birth of the chromosomal sex (genetic sex) of the newborn — whether XX (female) or XY (male) genotype in the somatic cells, or any other chromosomal expression. No determination is made of the gonadal sex (tissue present in the gonads — ovaries or testicles), and the assignment of a baby’s sex is based only on the external appearance of the phenotypic sex (the manifestations of sex as determined by endocrine influences).

‘Sex’ and ‘gender’ are similar but not the same. Sex refers to the anatomical organs as they appear to us at birth. Gender is a social construct that varies from one society to another, and is about various societies’ expectations of us based on our biological sexual characteristics (World Health Organisation – WHO).

Gender socialisation begins the moment we are born, based on the appearance of our external genitalia, and specific expectations about how we should behave and what we should or should not do begin at that time. What is expected of us as a boy or girl (no ‘in-between’ is allowed) — whether we cry too much or not, how big we are or how small, how pretty we are or not, or how aggressive we are, and so on.

This social construction and expectation is very powerful, and people treat gender roles as if they are inevitable and a product of ‘nature’. Is it inevitable that women cook meals while men sit and wait to be fed, or women mop and wash clothes while men watch TV? As men or women, specific behaviours are expected and society does not expect a man to behave like a woman or a woman to behave like a man! Worse — no ‘in-between’ is tolerated!

And so gender and gender roles are learnt, and these vary from one society to another. In contrast, however, is the matter of gender identity. This is the degree to which, in growing up, each person identifies as male, female, or ‘in-between’. It is an internal subjective framework that is constructed over time, and subjected to many influences — internal and external — which enables each person to organise a concept of ‘self’ and to perform socially in regards to his or her perceived sex and gender.

It is during this phase of development that persons psychologically perceive themselves to be male, female, bi-gender, or trans-gender. Trans-gender is a ‘continuum’ term for persons whose gender identity and expression does not conform to the norms and expectations traditionally associated with the sex assigned to them at birth.

Persons may also have masculine features, feminine features, androgynous (male and female) features, and a complex interaction of sexual attractions. And so as a society, we need to understand the background to our development and socialisation as human beings, in order to comprehend how a person born with anatomical organs that we judged at birth to be male could grow up with female gender identity, or vice versa, or ‘in-between’. Hence ‘tolerance’ of difference must be the order of the day!

The current law against buggery

When we view these issues against the current law on our books against buggery (and similar laws), we can understand why many persons are arguing that our laws be updated to include our current understandings of our social and physical development as human beings.

Let us now look at some of the implications of the current Jamaican law against buggery. To enforce it, we have to peer into people’s bedrooms and, if this is done, it has the potential of incarcerating a large portion of our adult population (both men and women) — prison space we can ill afford at this time.

Why is this possible? Because the buggery law prohibits anal intercourse. Full stop! It says nothing about sex between two men. So if a husband decides to have anal sex with his wife in the course of their love-making, or any man with his partner — they can be thrown in jail!

Now, would it be only the husband that would go to jail (he did the penetrating), or would the consenting wife be also incarcerated? It takes two to do the buggery act. What would be the welfare of their young children left at home when their parents are carted off to jail? What about the ensuing embarrassment?

These are just some of the possible implications of the current buggery law ‘on our books’. Are members of our society aware of all these implications? Shouldn’t we be talking about them? Why shouldn’t we review our buggery law at this time? Should we maintain the current level of injustice, simply because some persons fear a slippery slope?

The ethical answer to slippery-slope possibilities is not the denial of basic human rights, but rather moving to a just position and holding firm at that position.

Dr Derrick Aarons JP, MD, MSc (Bioethics), PhD is a Consultant Bioethicist, Palliative Care and Family Physician providing specialist advice in ethical issues in Jamaica and the Caribbean, and is a member of the Executive Council of RedBioetica UNESCO.


Read more:

Stick To Winning Souls, Church! ………………

Well a letter writer to the Gleaner has echoed a sentiment I have been expressing for years literally via my blogs as I feel the church as a movement (not a money making machine via psyche) has lost its way and is too busy not doing its core function, case in point lately the hypocritical call for the stopping of Sunday racing and of course the uproar from the promise by current Prime Minister to review the buggery law and a conscience vote.

Interestingly this business of horse racing on Sundays has been coming since 2009, here is another old post I had done on the matter with reference to a letter from the Jamaica Observer:

here is the letter from the Gleaner today:

Stick To Winning Souls, Church!


The Jamaica Council of Churches and other religious groups are exercising their right in opposing horse racing on Sundays.

The churches are fully entitled to demand action and inaction from the Government. However, the Government has a responsibility to maintain the separation of Church and State. Jamaica is a secular state.

That being the case, the Government should allow various groups to conduct their affairs as they see fit, provided their activities are in compliance with the laws of Jamaica.

Over the years, operators of small bars and clubs have been forced by law to close their businesses on Sundays.

At the same time, the large supermarkets are allowed to open their doors on Sundays and sell every type of liquor from Sunday morning until Sunday night. This is a form of discrimination.

If the operators of the Caymanas Track Ltd desire to have horse racing on Sunday, they should be permitted to do so.

The Council of Churches should follow the lead of the Seventh-day Adventists who have got the approach right. The position of the Seventh-day Adventists is that their core function is to win over believers to Christ. They are, therefore, not relying on Government to force people away from sinful activities and into their church.

The Church should stick to its core function of winning souls. I believe that the religious leaders who oppose gambling should take it as a challenge to convince the members of the public to come to their church on Sundays instead of going to the Caymanas Park.

The Church and the State should be kept apart, as their functions are different, and any merger will not only be inconsistent with our constitutional arrangements but will constitute a grave danger to those of us who are not members of the denomination with which the State has merged.


Ocho Rios, St Ann


In June 2009 among other things I had posted on Gay Jamaica Watch:

“I thought the church was about winning souls for Christ no matter who that soul is, including gays and lesbians, wasn’t Jesus for inclusion instead some of the “intellectuals” within the church exercise their bigoted thoughts openly setting all these preconditions before the “sinner” can even see the church door.

What about come as you are and God loves you?

Most churches dismiss persons once they are found to be gay or lesbian with little or any care, isn’t that defeating the purpose of what Christ decreed we as saved persons should do…..”go ye into the world and preach the gospel……” not condemn people because they don’t fit your Utopian view of the world.

Sad that this is what we have become, one wonders if the church by it’s actions of some of who say they are saved are giving more power to the enemy notable atheists and the anti Christ supporters when we behave with some harsh discrimination, during the conversation by the way the young man said that the pastor some Sundays ago of a church he attended said he wanted no offerings from gays. So we can now decide who want offerings from, wow.

Makes me wonder if the church and biblical doctrine is used by some to forward homophobic as well as other discriminatory views maybe that explains the attrition from it’s halls and corridors as most young people aren’t even interested in going to church these days.

As for using the bible as a beating stick over the heads of “sinners” is just plain wrong to me. Famous among the quotes is Leviticus 20: 13

“If a man has sexual relations with another man they have done a disgusting thing and both shall be out to death, They are responsible for their own death”

The book also speaks of incest, having sex with a woman while she is seeing her period or sleeping with animals etc.
I understood these rules to be of the old covenant and they were intended for the ceremonies of ancient Israel as issued to Moses, The main theme of the book is to emphasis holiness of God and the ways in which the people were to worship and live to maintain holiness with God of Israel. I haven’t seen anything on lesbianism in it.
I stand corrected though if you know more help me out, I am just adding my two cents but I would have thought we are now under grace not law.

Most of these books of the Bible that do speak to homosexuality never mentioned it as if God himself said it but then again he said love thy neighbour as thyself, judge not and ye shall not be judged. Romans for example was Paul’s way of introducing himself to the Romans in Rome his plan was to work among them there and then gather support then move on to Spain. He wrote to explain his understanding of the christian faith and it’s practical implications for the lives of Christians. While he covers the rules, conscience and holy living an underlying theme that seems to run through the book is not judging each other, something that the church these days seem to forget.

Wasn’t the book of Leviticus supposed to be a set of guidelines for the Hebrews after they left the hard hands of the Egyptians under slavery? being nation-less as it were seeking to form some sense of order via this set of laws also known as the holiness codes.”
Bishop Everton Thomas from the Emmanuel Apostolic Church also weighed in on the matter but said the Jamaica Observer misquoted him on a radio program that some of what he said were not his words but he was presenting other views, this is instructive however as a major voice of the clergy has come out critiquing the very clergy:

Bishop says church’s stance on gambling hypocritical

Their lack of understanding the issues is also glaring from religious voices opposing supposed homosexuality as was evidenced in another letter this time from the Jamaica Observer:

Save us from the ravages of buggery

Dear Editor,

What in the name of God and His Son Jesus Christ is the urgency to change a law that has offered our boys a little protection from the male predators who have carted them to their apartments and for a few dollars have often damaged them physically?

What is it that makes it a priority for the perverted preference of a minority in this nation to have their way while thousands of these little boys are going to their beds hungry and because of that hunger are easy prey?

A high-ranking clergyman is quoted as saying that the buggery law will be changed this year. Is this a political favour for funds received? Is this the price of political power? What is it?

Have we, as a nation, gone so mad with greed and lust that we would sacrifice our bodies and souls on the altar of perversity? Can we endure the wrath of God almighty?

My dear Sister P, is this what you offer to God who brought you to where you are?

I appeal to you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, while you give us jobs to save us from poverty, save us also from the ravages of buggery and the related agenda of the buggers.

Suzette Douglas

Read more:

The fear and paranoia that is caused when these matters are commented on by persons opposed to homosexuality in general just chokes whatever discourse that ought to take place, with supposed cures or reparative therapy for stopping persons from being gay when such therapies as proven over and over only slow down behaviour while instilling shame in the individual but does not change ones orientation.

also see:  The hypocritical and opportunist religous right

Peace and tolerance


Judicial Solution For The Buggery Law (Gleaner)

Recently on Twitter, one of my followers, in despair and frustration at his malfunctioning Internet connection, wrote: “My Internet moving like a b-yman [gay].” This offhand comment equated homosexuality to an unsettling distortion in the natural order of things. It is a deeply embedded sentiment which is shared by a majority of the Jamaican society.

Not only is it the favourite topic of dancehall artistes who exhort their listeners to ‘shoot di b-ybwoy, shot dem dead’, but former Prime Minister Bruce Golding, when asked on BBC’s ‘Hardtalk’ if he would permit homosexuals to serve in his Government, emphatically declared, “Not in my Cabinet!”

It is not surprising, therefore, that silence is the only appropriate and safest way to wear your homosexuality in Jamaica. But the silence ‘about who you are’ and, in some cases, the resultant guilt at ‘being who you are’ leads to what I will call the Dimmesdale malady. For the real tragedy in ‘The Scarlet Letter’ was not Hester being branded with the ignominious scarlet A, but Dimmesdale’s heart-wrenching struggle at playing the hypocrite.

interpreting the law

But do they have any choice but to remain silent and disappear quietly into the night? Is it possible for homosexuals to attain, if not social, at least legal, recognition for their lifestyle? The answer to the latter question – and consequently the former – lies in judicial interpretation of sections 13(12) and 18 of the Jamaican Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which in 2011 repealed and replaced the Bill of Rights chapter of the Jamaican Constitution.

The Jamaican State’s complicity in perpetuating homophobia goes much deeper than the former PM’s statement. The great bastions of state bigotry are sections 13(12) and 18 of the charter. These two sections immunise from constitutional challenge existing laws that (1) criminalise sexual relations between men and (2) preclude legal recognition of homosexual unions, respectively.

They are referred to in the Commonwealth Caribbean as ‘savings law’ clauses. In Jamaica’s case, existing laws are laws which were in existence before the charter came into force. For other Commonwealth Caribbean countries, existing laws are those which existed before the constitution of the particular country came into being.

It would appear that the presence of the savings law clause in the charter is intended to prevent local courts from following in the footsteps of their counterparts in other parts of the world. For example, national courts in both the United States and South Africa have made great strides in protecting the human rights of homosexuals. The US Supreme Court, in 2003, declared a Texas sodomy law a violation of the individual’s fundamental right to liberty and privacy.

More recently, the South African Constitutional Court, in 2006, found that excluding homosexual couples from the definition of marriage was a violation of the South African Constitution.

It is ironic that the charter which was meant to expand the scope of fundamental rights for Jamaican citizens has also been used to deny homosexuals legal protection for their lifestyle choices.

It is, however, my contention that the findings of the Privy Council (PC) inRoodal v the State [2003] UKPC 78, and the dissenting judgment inBoyce and Joseph v R (2004) WIR 37, can be used to circumvent the debilitating effect of the savings law clause on a judicial review of Jamaica’s buggery law.

Challenging institution

Savings law clauses, as far as they preclude judicial review of existing laws that are inconsistent with the Constitution, challenge the principle of constitutional supremacy and rob the individual from enjoying the full benefits of the fundamental rights provisions. Thus, they have been a source of frustration for courts wishing to give a generous interpretation to the fundamental rights provisions of Commonwealth Caribbean constitutions.

Nonetheless, the judiciary – more specifically, the Privy Council – has employed various methods of constitutional interpretation to avoid the limitations presented by savings law clauses. The most ingenious and, perhaps, controversial method was that employed by the PC in Roodal. In Roodal, the PC held that the savings law clause in the 1972 Trinidad and Tobago Constitution only applies where an existing law could not be brought into conformity with the Constitution through the use of the Constitution’s modification clause.

From this starting point, the PC went on to find that Section 4 of the Trinidad and Tobago Offences Against the Person Act (TTOAPA), which authorised the mandatory death penalty, could be brought into conformity with the Constitution by making the death penalty discretionary. Thus, the savings law clause could not serve to hide Section 4 of the TTOAPA from judicial scrutiny.

Additionally, the dissenters in Boyce, when answering a similar question about the mandatory death penalty in Barbados, found that the wording of the savings law clause – and in particular the phrase ‘nothing shall be held inconsistent with’ – allowed the courts to exercise the power to modify the existing law. But only to the extent that the modification did not emasculate, void or render nugatory the existing law.

Sanitising the buggery law

Currently, Section 76 of the Jamaican Offences Against the Person Act criminalises acts of buggery committed in both public and private, regardless of whether the participants are consenting adults. Courts in other jurisdictions and international human rights tribunal have found statutes of similar ilk to be in contravention of the right to privacy.

For example, the European Court of Human Rights in Dudgeon v the United Kingdom – 7525/76 [1981] ECHR 5 held that an Irish statute similar to Section 76 was in violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to private life. In light of this jurisprudence, there can be no doubt that Section 76 is a violation of the right to privacy that is protected under Section 13(2) (j) (ii) of the Charter of Rights.

Notwithstanding, Section 13(12) of the charter prevents the court from declaring Section 76 as unconstitutional. The finding in Roodal and the dissenting judgment in Boyce help us to overcome this formidable legal obstacle. How is it to be done?

The modification clause in the Jamaican Constitution should be used to narrow the ambit of Section 76 to cover only acts of buggery committed in public. By restricting the illegality to the public sphere, Section 76 is neither emasculated nor rendered void. It is instead ‘constitutionalised’. The Constitution allows restriction on rights to protect public morals, but only to the extent that the limitation achieves a legitimate objective and does not excessively infringe the individual’s rights.

As such, buggery, which is considered immoral, can be criminalised in order to protect the morality of the majority. Nonetheless, the suggested limitation is not excessive – as is the case with the present Section 76 – since homosexuals are allowed to practise their sexual activities in the privacy of their homes.

Advantages of Sanitisation

This approach has three distinct advantages. First, the views of the majority of Jamaicans, who find the act reprehensible, are respected; but not at the expense of the individual’s right to privacy and liberty to engage in intimate, adult and consensual sexual activities. Second, it signals that the State will refrain from using the law to interfere with private consensual sexual activities between adults. This is especially where the sexual activity does not cause unlawful harm to the parties involved (see R v Brown [1993] 2 All ER 75). Finally, it demonstrates that the rights of minority groups can be protected, even in a constitutional democracy based on majoritarian rule.

At this juncture, it is important to point out that the ruling in Roodal was overruled by the PC in Matthews v the State [2004] UKPC 33. In Matthews, the PC rejected the argument that the modification clause could be used to sidestep the clear intentions of the savings law, i.e. to protect all existing laws from any type of constitutional challenge including modification. They further held that any difficulty presented by the savings law clause must be addressed by the legislature, not the judiciary. Thus, the principle from Roodal, as well as the position of the dissenters in Boyce, is not binding on Jamaican courts.

However, the decision in Matthews flies in the face of well-established principles which demand that: (1) the Bill of Rights provisions be treated as living instruments capable of growth and development over time; and (2) any restriction on fundamental rights, such as the savings law clause, must be given both a narrow and strict construction.

Moreover, I agree whole-heartedly with Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead when he said that the Matthews decision leads to the court abdicating “its responsibility to ensure that the people of a country, including those least able to protect themselves, have the full measure of protection against the executive which a constitution exists to provide”.

It is suggested that for these reasons, the PC should relinquish its position in Matthews and reaffirm the principles outlined in Roodal. Even if the PC cannot be prevailed upon to change its position, there is no obstacle to the Caribbean Court of Justice (soon to become our final appellate court, I hope) adopting the Roodal principle.


Dealing effectively with the disadvantaged position of homosexuals might require a legislative, rather than judicial, solution. But this is only if you want to wait another 10 to 15 years. Moreover, the constitutional issues arising from the buggery law are intimately tied to the presence of the savings law clauses in the Charter of Rights. To get rid of these will demand constitutional changes. This is another long and, might I add, sensitive process. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the Christian lobby groups will ever allow Parliament to repeal the buggery law.

In this case, the judicial solution offered by Roodal is not only more expedient but also opens the door for other unjust laws (such as those on abortion and marital rape exemption) to be successfully challenged.

Anika Gray is an attorney-at-law and tutor in the Faculty of Law, UWI, Mona. Email feedback to and