Possible for a man to be Raped?

Today’s Gleaner Cartoon
the laughing kid says it all, people just don’t expect in Jamaica to hear of a man being raped by a woman, probably a man though. There is a story of a taxi driver in Central Jamaica now known as “Roundhole” who was attacked at home with his wife present several years ago by gunmen it is said that he was almost sodomised by two of the men who tried but failed. He tried reporting the matter to the police who laughed at him in disbelief as he was crying and shamed by the incident, if there is any truth to it I am not sure but the other taxi drivers teased him mercilessly whenever he came on the streets, it took him a while to restart his taxi service, even today as he traverse the routes he services you can still hear the occasional taunt “Roundhole” hurled at him.

Well some humour for a serious subject which I will follow up on soon, expert opinios welcomed.

H

AJ Still at it

This old cartoon that appeared in the Gleaner on January 19, 2007 still rings true, looks like Senator A. J. Nicholson, former Attorney General of the previous People’s National Party (PNP)Administration is intent on keeping us in the closet (see the post below) in relation to the Sexual Offences Bill 2009 being debated in the Senate.
Let’s watch this one closely folks, after all it’s not about forcing our lifestyle on the nation as some would like to grandstand on but securing our freedom of choice as citizens to private actions without church and state intrusion.
Plain and simple.
H
here is a flashback to a statement he made while he was Attorney General on Same Sex Unions:
There is no intention whatsoever on the part of the Government or the Joint Select Committee of Parliament that any door should be opened by provisions in the proposed Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or otherwise, to decriminalise homosexuality or to pave the way for same-sex marriages to be accepted as lawful in Jamaica.
In seeking to make submissions to the Joint Select Committee at this eleventh hour, the church representatives and the group of lawyers who complain about certain provisions of the Charter, concerning the protection of the right to privacy, need to be reminded of the history and purport of those provisions as they were developed.
First, those provisions are to the same effect as those that are contained in the recommendations of the Constitutional Commission of the early 1990s, under the chairmanship of Dr. Lloyd Barnett, in their draft Bill on the Charter
Second, the Joint Select Committee that sat for a long time to consider the Charter provisions, in the late 1990s, heard presentations from groups who take a completely opposite view to that taken by the church representatives and group of lawyers. Those entities, including J-FLAG, even though approaching the matter from the base of a different provision in the Bill, were of the view that the Charter should move away from the recommendations of the Constitutional Commission on this score and that there should be no discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation.
The Joint Select Committee did not agree that such a recommendation should be made to Parliament since it saw such a measure as opening the door to the legalisation, or at least, the decriminalisation of homosexuality.
Third, the Parliamentary Opposition tabled a Charter of Rights Bill in the name of its former leader, in which the provisions of which the church representatives and group of lawyers now complain are in the same terms as those recommended by the Constitutional Commission that was chaired by Dr. Barnett.
The church representatives and group of lawyers ought to be mindful of the following:
• It is not possible to have a policeman placed in every bedroom in Jamaica. So that, within the confines of a person’s home, this particular mischief cannot be prevented or punished except, of course, someone complains.
• Every provision in a law or a constitution is subject to interpretation by judges. Interpretation of laws, however narrowly or broadly drafted, is always coloured by the experience, culture and prevailing circumstances by which the interpreter is guided in coming to a conclusion. That is one of the reasons why the final interpreter of a country’s laws and constitutional provisions should be exposed to and be keenly aware of the socio-cultural imperatives that must guide his decision.
Senator A.J. Nicholson, Q.C.

Confusing justice with righteousness (Gleaner Letter 29.10.08)

 

wait a minute who does Rev Al Miller thinks he is? In the same breath read this letter to the editor in the Gleaner.

Confusing justice with righteousness
published: Wednesday October 29, 2008

The Editor, Sir:
I write this letter in reaction to the letter submitted by Lucius C. White on Saturday, 25th of October. Mr White asserted that Christianity and the Jamaican legal system should be considered as one. This argument is laughable and needs to be addressed.
The notion of a legal system so heavily based on a religion is ill-thoughtout. Such a system is constantly at risk of confusing justice with religious righteousness. Thus, the legal system suggested by Mr White is radically dangerous to a democratic state such as Jamaica. This is evident as Mr White states: “Christians are instructed to obey the laws of the land; however, if those laws conflict with Christian teachings, they should obey the teachings of Christ.” Mr White’s tone is authoritative and ignorant as well as inducing anarchy. Mr White suggests his obviously devout interpretation of Christianity as a greater law than the one proposed by a democratically elected government. Such ‘interpretation’ of religion is clearly dangerous to the general population of a country. This was shown recently in the Indian state of Orissa where Hindu radicals, who held their interpretation of religion over the state’s law, slaughtered Christian citizens. This crime was committed in a state where the constitution also ‘makes provisions for the accommodation of all other religions’. In this instance, utter devotion to religion has confused justice: the same devotion suggested by Mr White.

Radical devotion
The audacity and radical devotion to his religion is apparent within the wording of his letter. He states: “The Christian teachings encompass several very important doctrines”. The sentence holds within it an intolerance which is exhibited as Mr White attaches the word ‘the’ to Christian teachings. Surely, he has no grounds to state that his interpretation of Christianity is ultimate and absolute, as implied by the ‘the’ he attaches to it.
The perilous attitude apparent in the wording of his letter is once more present in his final paragraph: “We must stand firm in our opposition to the legislation of abortion and homosexuality in our society because both practices are contrary to our Christian teachings and culture.” Not only does this comment seem to legitimise murders carried out by the public due to personal decisions of victims, but it conflicts with the Jamaican Constitution: “Except with his own consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of expression, the said freedom includes the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference, and freedom from interference with his correspondence and other means of commu-nication.” Ironically, Mr White refers to the Jamaican Constitution himself; surely, a contradictory act.

Secular judiciary system
Thus, I call for a secular judiciary system: one devoid of a religious leaning. Otherwise, we risk living within a radical state run by religious extremism. Such a state as this was recently defunct: the Taliban-headed Afghanistan. Should Jamaicans wish to avoid the fate suffered by Afghanistan, then a secular law is necessary.

I am, etc.,
FREDDIE PRAGNELL
Kingston 8