Category Archives: Videos and Video Links

Buy no rings, you won’t wed; religious fear-mongering on gay marriage & the buggery law continues

As the rulings in India and Australia makes the rounds worldwide as to their respective losses of gay marriage rights we got some celebratory soundings from the religious right corner on social media as a victory of sorts on supposed wholesome living; as if same gender loving couples outside of exploitive same sex reasons as we know those exist cannot have and enjoy monogamous unions and associated state recognition and rights as privileged heterosexual couples. At not time in Jamaica am I aware of any call by local lobbyists for same sex marriage rights and benefits but the fear-mongering coming from the theocracy one is led to believe that there is some Gestapo at work to suppress free speech although sometimes there is overstep by sections of the lobby and indeed mistakes are made.

JCHS logo

Battle Lines Javed Jaghai versus the state & the Jamaica Buggery Law

Human Rights Day 2013 the anti gay group Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society, JCHS held an outdoor conference at the Emancipation Park in New Kingston where they for the most part planted fear in the minds of the public claiming the gay lobby and its agenda is to in essence silence the church with future laws to silence clergy and force marriage officers to marry gay persons even if they do not agree. Shirley Richards past president of the Lawyers’Christian Fellowship and co-founder of the JCHS said in a radio interview as the session was in progress that the event was to put human rights within their proper context and to develop a proper perspective of same, she said her group is concerned how human rights is being interpreted and applied and there are some things missing. She continued that the autonomy of the individual cannot be the sum total of human rights she likened the thrust to a right to destroy unborn babies, to destroy oneself sexually and values on a whole so she thinks the church needs to intervene and supposedly stop the madness. Dr Wayne West lead voice for the JCHS also spoke in that same interview and echoed Mrs Richards perspective adding a prophetic role and understanding the philosophical perspective by some and imposing same on society so the JCHS’s role is to interpret same for the Christian community (excluding LGBT ones I imagine). See: Miss Richard’s earlier paranoia here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiIjmj9kJds

Guest speaker one Brian Camenker of a US based anti gay pro straight family group Mass Resistance led the fear-mongering of gay marriage imposition and forced legislation to same while also forcing children to cross dress blatantly showing his ignorance to transgenderism. He repeated plugged his book “What same-sex “marriage” has done to Massachusetts” he claimed that the international lobby is about to impose homosexuality on the nation as done in the United States by massaging our Prime Minister and laws that contradict God’s law is the beginning of a slippery slope; he lamented that the gay pride parade was a way to psychologically impose the lifestyle to include open cross dressing, masochists and so called “other profane acts” (in a gay pride!? really!) then he went on to say that the church will be mocked and the subsequent non discrimination laws and that businesses were forced to accept gay business; he sited a case of a catholic couple who refused business of gays in their hotel and were sued. He then complained of gays must not be allowed to adopt children and that schools were having all day events celebrating gay activities. All this without any proper sitting of the information just pure fear-mongering and to think this was coming from a white foreigner the audience just sat there and accepted this simplistic presentation. He also claimed gay marriage was forced on his home state of Boston.

He claimed that gay marriage has had many disturbing side effects “I’ll mention just one, we were working with a Christian woman a single mother  her son is in the fifth grade, the teacher is a lesbian who constantly tells the class about her wife this has traumatised the boy terribly because it’s against the families beliefs; I went with the mother to meet the school principal to talk about it, the principal told us that because gay marriage is legal that the mother doesn’t have a choice  in that matter.” He then went on to conflate transgenderism with homosexuality by saying that the next item on the agenda is the call for state funding to solve problems caused by homosexuality; he claimed the state and federal governments are being asked in his sate to spend enormous amounts on HIV/AIDS caused by homosexual behaviours, he claimed gay on gay violence is an epidemic as it is gays who are killing gays. He claimed the non discrimination laws on transgenderism is a ploy to allow children to wear opposite sex attire and use mixed bathrooms as well and teachers who do not comply are punished; all this Mr Carmenker pronounced loudly on the stage without any backing information or links to access same while the audience agreed with him in rousing chants at each sentence. Then came the conflation with abuse and same gender sex a mixup that even the JCHS has repeatedly done as covered on this blog as well; he claimed that persons are for the most part introduced to homosexual sex through abuse as if no one is born homosexual. He warned that locals must not allow buggery to be decriminalized as free speech will disappear and gay marriage rights is next to force clergy to marry gay persons. He kept referring to the lobbyists as gay profane mobs. He claimed that a meeting such as the one he was speaking is not possible in Boston which sounds on the surface as a lie. During the one hour event there was no outcry for violence towards persons who are gay or different and obvious non Christian passers-by used their way of showing approval with gun gesticulations, boom bye bye and no batty boi sound offs.

apologies for the glitches but the source feed was tacky …. video for non profit purpose and review only

Just days before CVM TV showed a television special entitled Battle Lines: Javed Jaghai versus the State which also featured the JCHS and others who literally fear the simply decriminalization of buggery to allow consent in private while criminalizing abusers and non consensual perpetrators of whatever gender. I will admit that the leading lobbyists locally have been sloppy in certain respects in the push as they only recently changed their position on buggery from a full repeal to decriminalization which took too long to occur given the opposition over the life of the struggle from their 15 years in operation.

So it’s not us at the altar any time soon if they religious right have their way, we must never have a stable family life albeit I am not into relationships but do support those who choose same. Creating fear and panic in those as if homosexuals are here to force everyone else to be so, poisoned aren’t we?

Please these previous posts as well from this and sister blogs:

Betty Ann Blaine & foreign religious zealots continue their paranoia & misrepresentations 

Gay Parenting (a view on the ground) (repost from 09) …….. International Family Day

The unofficial practice by churches in using marriage to cure homosexuality

Sexual Reproduction for Same Sex Couples?

Will same-sex marriages ever be accepted in Jamaica? (2009)

Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society, JCHS continued confusion of paedophilia & consenting homosexuality.

‘Don’t Bow To Gay Pressure’ – Crusaders Urge Jamaicans To Stand By Buggery Law

Dr Wayne West’s continued intellectual dishonesty on fisting felching & chariot racing by homosexuals in Jamaica

also of interest is this discussion on separation of church and state on local TV in November 2013

Peace and tolerance

H

Transgender Day of Rememberance 2013: Gully Queen, Barbie Love & Britney Boudashious gone too soon

Transweek-header-web-l-625x333

tgpic

dh_dwayne2-20130812072828673062-620x349
the venue of the gig where the attack took place
dh_room-20130812073549326126-620x349
empty room of Dwayne/Gully Queen at the captured house where she once lived with her friends

gullyqueen1

Dwayne Jones (Gully Queen) in good times

As news spread of Gully Queen’s death it became apparent to me that another young transwoman had not been allowed the chance to fulfil her female cisgender imperative and was too inexperienced to realise that it was important to choose wisely who one shares certain information with.

Dwayne Jones was relentlessly teased in high school for being effeminate until he dropped out. His father not only kicked him out of the house at the age of 14 but also helped jeering neighbours push the youngster from the rough Jamaican slum where he grew up.

By age 16, the teenager was dead — beaten, stabbed, shot and run over by a car when he showed up at a street party dressed as a woman. His mistake: confiding to a friend that he was attending a “straight” party as a girl for the first time in his life.

“When I saw Dwayne’s body, I started shaking and crying,” said Khloe, one of three friends who shared a derelict house with the teenager in the hills above the north coast city of Montego Bay. Like many transgender and gay people in Jamaica, Khloe wouldn’t give a full name out of fear. Pity as well as homelessness which has been ignored for years in the LGBT advocacy structure featured most prominently in this case and to think after the furore and public cynicism the house where the guys remained was firebombed with very little proactive measures taken by JFLAG and the others handling the case file so more victims ended up being made instead of redress and closure. Thankfully no one was badly hurt after that ordeal but the aforementioned agencies failure over the years to properly provide programs and interventions for LGBT youth is telling and many incidents could have been avoided.

Even though some 300 people were at the dance party in the small riverside community of Irwin, police have yet to make a single arrest in Dwayne’s murder. Police say witnesses have said they couldn’t see the attackers’ faces.

Dwayne was the centre of attraction shortly after arriving in a taxi at 2 am with his two 23-year-old housemates, Khloe and Keke. Dwayne’s expert dance moves, long legs and high cheekbones quickly made him the one that the guys were trying to get next to.

Like many Jamaican homosexuals, Dwayne was careful about confiding in others about his sexual orientation. But when he saw a girl he had known from church, he told her he was attending the party in drag.

Minutes later, according to Khloe and Keke, the girl’s male friends gathered around Dwayne in the dimly-lit street asking: “Are you a woman or a man?” One man waved a lighter’s flame near Dwayne’s sneakers, asking whether a girl could have such big feet.

Then, his friends said, another man grabbed a lantern from an outdoor bar and walked over to Dwayne, shining the bright light over him from head to toe. “It’s a man,” he concluded, while the others hissed “batty boy” and other anti-gay epithets.

Khloe says she tried to steer him away from the crowd, whispering in Dwayne’s ear: “Walk with me, walk with me.” But Dwayne pulled away, loudly insisting to partygoers that he was a girl. When someone behind him snapped his bra strap, the teen panicked and raced down the street.

But he couldn’t run fast enough to escape the mob.

The teenager was viciously assaulted and apparently half-conscious for some two hours before another sustained attack finished him off, according to Khloe, who was also beaten and nearly raped. She hid in a nearby church and then the surrounding woods, unable to call for help because she didn’t have her mobile phone.

Dwayne’s father in the Montego Bay slum of North Gully didn’t want to talk about his son’s life or death. The teen’s family wouldn’t even claim the body, according to Dwayne’s friends.

They remembered him as a spirited boy with a contagious laugh who dreamt of becoming a performer like Lady Gaga. He was also a street-smart hustler who resorted to sleeping in the bushes or on beaches when he became homeless. He won a local dancing competition during his time on the streets and was affectionately nicknamed “Gully Queen.”

“He was the youngest of us but he was a diva,” Khloe said. “He was always very feisty and joking around.”

Inside their squatter house, Khloe and Keke said, they still talk to their dead friend.

“I’ll be cooking in the kitchen and I’ll say, ‘Dwayne, you hungry?’ or something like that,” said Keke while sitting on the old mattress in her bedroom, flinching as neighbourhood dogs barked outside. “We just miss him all the time. Sometimes I think I see him.”

But down the hall, Dwayne’s room is empty except for pink window curtains decorated with roses, his favourite flower

Dwayne Jones (Gully Queen) Last Appearance prior to his murder notice the reporter said he was gay hence the other issue with crisis reporting of LGBT matters and this has always affected the credibility of the lobby’s voice

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IgRDhESyc4

also this month we lost Britney Boudashious the reigning Miss LGBT World who was murdered in November, she was to hand over the crown at this year’s gala event but she did not make it, no clear motive has been established for her demise.

Britney’s Crowning in 2012
her glorious moment after such hard work and practice to get there

rest in peace daaaaahlin’

see more here on Gay Jamaica Watch

Barbie making front page news on the now defunct XNEWS

also see: Disturbed by Xnews Story on Drag Queen and Gay Cop or HERE

also flashback to: International Day of Transgender Remembrance 2011

599878_346580028754243_494953328_n
Good times at Diva Kerry’s Bday bash in 2011
313813_434284306650481_674127054_n
fierceness

then the other shocker in August as the popular socialite Barbie Love passed after a brief illness, you may remember her public appearances that were not so positive but she brought visibility to the cross dressing and transwoman communities in 2009 as photo shows below when the XNews published a sensationalistic article and the on Television where she was arrested after a cruising hookup went bad then public, subsequently she sealed her fame by granting an exclusive interview on Ragashanti live

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6oxzlXxBH4

see: Ragga Shanti Interviews Jamaican Drag Queen Part 1 & 2 !

To all three ladies REST IN PEACE and we will miss you.

Peace and tolerance

H

APA Applauds the Supreme Court Decisions Supporting the Rights of Same-Sex Couples

The American Psychiatric Association applauds two Supreme Court decisions issued today: striking down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA ); and effectively striking down California’s Proposition 8 which banned same sex marriage.

apa

APA President Jeffrey Lieberman, MD, noted that, “The APA has a long history of supporting freedom in sexual orientation and the rights of same sex couples. By withholding benefits or marriage rights from same sex couples the government unfairly stigmatizes an important part of the American population.”
Paul Appelbaum, MD, past president of the APA and member of the APA Council on Psychiatry and Law, stated, “APA has been involved as a friend of the court from the inception of litigation over the rights of same-sex couples.

Today’s decisions by the Supreme Court represent a landmark achievement of these efforts. However, litigation is likely to continue on the state level, since a majority of states still do not recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry.”
The court looked at the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. At issue was whether the federal government can deny benefits to legally married same-sex couples that it extends to other legally married couples. The case was brought by Edie Windsor, an 83-year-old woman from New York who was married to Thea Clara Spyer. After Spyer’s death in 2009, Windsor was denied an exemption of federal estate taxes that she would have received if the marriage had been recognized.
In a second case involving a challenge to California’s Proposition 8, the court looked at whether, or in what circumstances, a state can withhold marriage rights from same-sex couples.
APA joined amicus briefs in both cases in support of legal recognition of same sex marriages. Signed by a coalition of the nation’s top healthcare associations including the American Psychological Association, American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and others, the briefs noted that the scientific evidence strongly supports the conclusion that homosexuality is a normal expression of human sexuality; that most gay, lesbian, and bisexual adults do not experience their sexual orientation as a choice; that gay and lesbian people form stable, committed relationships that are equivalent to heterosexual relationships in essential respects; and that same-sex couples are no less fit than heterosexual parents to raise children and their children are no less psychologically healthy and well-adjusted than children of heterosexual parents.
Over the past several decades, APA has issued a number of position statements on antidiscrimination policies related to the LGBT community. APA’s 2005 position statement on same sex marriage stated that, “APA supports the legal recognition of same-sex marriage with all rights, benefits, and responsibilities conferred by civil marriage, and opposes restrictions to those same rights, benefits, and responsibilities.” Other positions include statements on homosexuality (1992, reaffirmed 2011) and civil rights (1973), adoption and co-parenting by same-sex couples (2002) and same sex unions (2004).
The American Psychiatric Association is a national medical specialty society whose physician members specialize in the diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and research of mental illnesses including substance use disorders.

Visit the APA at http://www.psychiatry.org.

XXXTRRRAAA:

1004439_158549500997053_1490279082_n

Locally in the meantime Buggery challenge claimant Javed Jaghai gave another interview on CVM TV this time on the magazine program DIRECT hosted by Garfield Burford, prior to his appearance was anti gay activist Shirley Richards and Atheist/Activist Lloyd D’Agular. Javed’s case has been moved to October 4, 2013 as other religious groups have been allowed to join the suit he has filed in the Constitutional court.

also The US Supreme Court DOMA strike down has had many Jamaicans talking and a vox pop was done in Kingston and on Facebook by Nationwide radio as to how persons felt about same sex marriage overall and its possibility in Jamaica

Gays Born, Not Made, response to anti gay Rev Espeut

Following an article in the Gleaner recently a response has come via that medium in a short letter (too short in my view) but to the point to the Reverend and Sociologist Peter Espeut. He has been on a roll with weird remarks about homosexuality some of which amounting to arrant nonsense. Also below was a response by a bioethics professor in Canada on Espeut’s claim that Gays are made and not born so.

Firstly here is the letter from today (Edited newspaper version) (below is the unedited version as contributed by Mr Welsh)

 

Gays Born, Not Made, Mr Espeut

The Editor Sir,
I am now convinced that columnist Peter Espeut has fell off the wagon and bumped his head. This fixation on the affairs of gay men has revealed his not-so-latent prejudices and seeming inability to form a rational series of thoughts and commit them to paper once the subject matter involves homosexuality.
His last attempt at satire titled “Very Public Privacy” published on May 31, 2013 failed miserably as the reader could hear the cogs in his brain creaking and groaning under the pressure of trying to comprehend
the idea that ALL Jamaicans are entitled to fundamental rights, not just the ones he has a doctrinal affinity for.

This is a concept that he has been at pains to come to grips with as evidenced by the litany of articles in which he attempts to remind the uppity homosexuals that they have no right to what is wrong. What Espeut fails to realize is that rights are not dependent on morals. They are innate to human beings by virtue of them being human and no one, and especially not a clergyman, is in any position to prescribe who is human enough to enjoy the right to be treated as such. Human Rights are objective entitlements,
not subjective privileges and they are limited only by the need to balance and harmonize with the rights of others in the human community.
His next painful attempt to rationalize his prejudices came under the unfortunate headline “Gays Made, Not Born” and was published on June 14, 2013. The only question I must ask of Espeut in response to this nonsensical title is: “By whom?” Implicit in this foolish collection of letters is the idea that Gays are manufactured by some sinister production process and thus have no entitlement to their identities. By his logic, it would then follow that
since they are not born, as regular humans are, they have no claim to any human rights since they are a malady, an abomination, and an aberration of nature that ought to be eliminated, or at the very least ignored. This is an argument that must be firmly and resoundingly rejected by all well-thinking people.
This might shock Espeut but gay people are in fact MADE by God and BORN into families such as his and everyone else’s. The difficulty for Espeut and others of his ilk is that their concept of God is a reflection of a value system which they were not born with, but which was made through a process of indoctrination. Evidently it is the Christian Fundamentalists who are made, not born, and therefore ought to have their rights restricted. I’m sure that would not comfort them.

BRIAN-PAUL WELSH

brianpaul.welsh@gmail.com

ENDS

meanwhile

‘Gays Made, Not Born’ – On the Confused State of the Religious Mind

Call it an easy target, blame me for going after the intellectually weak, but what is it about the Catholic pre-occupation with other people’s sex lives and identities. And why are they consistently so confused both about the meaning of facts when it comes to sexual orientation as well as about the normative issues?Jamaican Catholic Deacon Peter Espeut is as good an example as any to show what I am concerned about. Jamaica being a militantly anti-gay country where anti-gay discrimination was recently even enshrined in the country’s constitution, courtesy to a large extent of campaigners like Catholic-Deacon-sociologist-turned-sex-expert Peter Espeut. Espeut writes in today’s edition of the Jamaica Gleaner that gays are made, and that we are not born that way. Do read his contribution to public debate on that island to make sense of what follows below.He takes the current absence of conclusive evidence of a genetic causation of homosexuality as evidence of a non-genetic causation of homosexuality. To give you just one example to illustrate how absurd this view of the nature of scientific inquiry is: According to Espeut’s logic, HIV could not have been the cause of AIDS when it hadn’t been discovered. Now, I am not suggesting that there is a genetic cause of sexual orientation, but to claim, as Espeut does, that it cannot have one because there isn’t conclusive evidence at a certain point in time (ie today), is remarkably stupid. Perhaps that level of critical thinking skills is what predestines one to become a columnist for one of Jamaica’s daily papers. Let’s just note that this view on the causation issue constitutes a basic logic error and move on.

He then makes another logic error, and compounds it with plenty of excited exclamation marks. The exclamation marks have to do with not-blameworthy human characteristics such as the colour of our skin. As Espeut notes, ‘we are born that way.’ Implied is that we didn’t choose to be that way, and that we are what we are in an immutable sense. Well, the thing is, there’s plenty of things we have not chosen, yet they are immutable. Think about our language. Did we consciously choose it? Can we consciously dump it? Not quite. So, immutability is quite unrelated to the ‘born that way’ proposition. I do apologise for not using exclamation marks here, but do feel free to add them for emphasis in your mind.

Not surprisingly, Espeut being a sociologist, he then moves on to the next mistake, namely seeing the cause of sexual orientation in some parental behaviour. After all, having unjustifiably excluded genetic factors (and presumably, even though he doesn’t say it, any number of possible non-social environmental factors), Espeut moves right on to his favourite possible causes of sexual orientation. Being a good sociologist he offers a lot of possible – but entirely speculative! – stuff, just in case.

He writes, ‘But what causes gender-conforming and gender-non-conforming behaviour? Hormone imbalances may be one explanation. Others suggest that domineering mothers and ineffectual fathers may interfere with socialisation; and still others suggest that homosexuality may be triggered by having sexual encounters with members of one’s own sex at an early age that prove to be very satisfying.’

As I noted before, Catholic Church staff and lay people have a perverse fascination with other people’s sex lives. For the fun of it, let me note that ‘hormone imbalances’ invariably would invariably have causative genetic components. But hey, sociologists… – It is also worth noting that the language that is deployed here isn’t exactly descriptive sociology, rather it is Catholic theology dressed up in pseudo-academic language. ‘Domineering mothers’, ‘ineffectual fathers’, plus (we are in Jamaica after all, so this still flies in public discourse) the invariable bullshit about pedophile homosexual grooming. Who, among serious sociologists or psychologists suggests the latter? Nobody that I’m am aware of. What is remarkable about Espeut’s pet causes of homosexuality is that there is no more evidence for any of them then there is for his much-hated genetic causes. But that’s what he believes in, so with all the weight that a degree in sociology and deaconessing in the Catholic Church provides, much credence is given to these baseless claims about the causes of homosexuality.

Espeut concludes thus, ‘Let us not fall into line with ‘gay-rights’ propaganda by speaking as if LGBT behaviour is normal and natural. Unless you want to say that improper socialisation and dysfunctionality are normal and acceptable.’ I have alerted you already to the Deacon’s favourite rhetorical tool of using pejorative language (‘improper’, ‘dysfunctional’ etc) where argument would be required. Let me address the issue of homosexuality being abnormal and unnatural issue by copying here content from a Hastings Center Report article I published back in 1997. It’s still true and shows us how little progress has been made on this subject matter. The fundamentalist religious in the world will turn around and continue their little flat-earth tirades as if nothing had happened at all. And mass media still give them outlets to vent their rage instead of asking them to seek professional help.

‘Why is there a dispute as to whether homosexuality is natural or normal? We suggest it is because many people seem to think that nature has a prescriptive normative force such that what is deemed natural or normal is necessarily good and therefore ought to be. Everything that falls outside these terms is constructed as unnatural and abnormal, and it has been argued that this constitutes sufficient reason to consider homosexuality worth avoiding.[16] Arguments that appeal to ‘normality’ to provide us with moral guidelines also risk committing the naturalistic fallacy. The naturalistic fallacy is committed when one mistakenly deduces from the way things are to the way they ought to be. For instance, Dean Hamer and colleagues commit this error in their Science article when they state that “it would be fundamentally unethical to use such information to try to assess or alter a person’s current or future sexual orientation, either heterosexual or homosexual, or other normal attributes of human behavior.”[17] Hamer and colleagues believe that there is a major genetic factor contributing to sexual orientation. From this they think it follows that homosexuality is normal, and thus worthy of preservation. Thus they believe that genetics can tell us what is normal, and that the content of what is normal tells us what ought to be. This is a typical example of a naturalistic fallacy. Normality can be defined in a number of ways, but none of them direct us in the making of moral judgments. First, normality can be reasonably defined in a descriptive sense as a statistical average. Appeals to what is usual, regular, and/or conforming to existing standards ultimately collapse into statistical statements. For an ethical evaluation of homosexuality, it is irrelevant whether homosexuality is normal or abnormal in this sense. All sorts of human traits and behaviors are abnormal in a statistical sense, but this is not a sufficient justification for a negative ethical judgment about them. Second, ‘normality’ might be defined in a functional sense, where what is normal is something that has served an adaptive function from an evolutionary perspective. This definition of normality can be found in sociobiology, which seeks biological explanations for social behavior. There are a number of serious problems with the sociobiological project.[18] For the purposes of this argument, however, suffice it to say that even if sociobiology could establish that certain behavioral traits were the direct result of biological evolution, no moral assessment of these traits would follow. To illustrate our point, suppose any trait that can be reasonably believed to have served an adaptive function at some evolutionary stage is normal. Some questions arise that exemplify the problems with deriving normative conclusions from descriptive science. Are traits that are perpetuated simply through linkage to selectively advantageous loci less ‘normal’ than those for which selection was direct? Given that social contexts now exert ‘selective pressure’ in a way that nature once did, how are we to decide which traits are to be intentionally fostered? Positions holding the view that homosexuality is unnatural, and therefore wrong also inevitably develop incoherencies. They often fail to explicate the basis upon which the line between natural and unnatural is drawn. More importantly, they fail to explain why we should consider all human-made or artificial things as immoral or wrong. These views are usually firmly based in a non-empirical, prescriptive interpretation of nature rather than a scientific descriptive approach. They define arbitrarily what is natural and have to import other normative assumptions and premises to build a basis for their conclusions. For instance, they often claim that an entity called “God” has declared homosexuality to be unnatural and sinful.[19] Unfortunately, these analyses have real-world consequences. In Singapore, unnatural acts are considered a criminal offence, and “natural intercourse” is arbitrarily defined as “the coitus of the male and female organs.” A recent High Court decision there declared oral sex “unnatural,” and therefore a criminal offence, unless it leads to subsequent reproductive intercourse.

In the United States, several scholars and lesbian and gay activists have argued that establishing a genetic basis for sexual orientation will help make the case for lesbian and gay rights. The idea is that scientific research will show that people do not choose their sexual orientations and therefore they should not be punished or discriminated against in virtue of them. This general argument is flawed in several ways.[23] First, we do not need to show that a trait is genetically determined to argue that it is not amenable to change at will. This is clearly shown by the failure rates of conversion therapies.[24] These failures establish that sexual orientation is resistant to change, but they do not say anything about its ontogeny or etiology. Sexual orientation can be unchangeable without being genetically determined. There is strong observational evidence to support the claim that sexual orientation is difficult to change, but this evidence is perfectly compatible with non-genetic accounts of the origins of sexual orientations. More importantly, we should not embrace arguments that seek to legitimate homosexuality by denying that there is any choice in sexual preference because the implicit premise of such arguments is that if there was a choice, then homosexuals would be blameworthy.

ENDS
Let me add this video

Church Stands Resolute Against Buggery Backers says Al Miller ………… Love March Movement Lacks Moral Compass says LGBT voice

I don’t like where the debate in Jamaica is heading at all and where powerful religious voices more egregiously than ever in the name of God are stirring strife unnecessarily, just days before we saw some other pastor saying he would die to stop buggery from becoming legal and implying some sort of violence as if the gay lobby presented any such stance in the agitation, The Gleaner published a letter from homophobe, restorative therapy advocate and hypocritical pastor Al Miller who I have covered extensively for a while on my blogs showing his flaw. Let us NEVER forget this is the same man who aided and abetted or attempted to and was caught a known fugitive to escape the law that being Christopher Dudus Coke while he was cross dressed at that (an aesthetic feature of male homosexuality) yet he had no problem participating in deception to help a criminal escape to a foreign power, thankfully he is being tried in court for doing so yet he claims to speak in behalf of other pastors on his favourite rhetoric (I guess to regain lost support as his TV show was off air for some time and to fill the collection plates as well while members defected to other churches)

He has come out strongly since the tolerance ad case ended days ago in the Supreme Court and the judges deliberate. Let us also not forget: Reverend Al Miller has been found guilty of negligence resulting in the loss or theft of his licensed firearm. He has no moral authority as far as I am concerned having acted in such a manner likened to a traitor to his country, why also would a pastor need a gun? In that mystery case of his firearm that just disappeared as he turned his back.

The fear mongering on male homosexuality to get popular support was a ploy also used by the political directorate while enthralling support and the constant conflation of same gender sex and abuse especially paedophilia is an old ploy to suggest all we are as gay men are deviants going after prepubescent persons when it is clear to all honest right thinking persons that paedophilia is a deviant diagnosable disorder despite the gender of the alleged perpetrator while homosexuality is NOT. He had long dismissed the call for tolerance way before the recent trial as a guise to slide in homosexuality as normative (but isn’t it really as it appears in 450 species of animals)

This is the same man who also was right beside the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship during the Charter of Rights debate where the definition of sex was twisted and the discrimination via sex and gender where removed at their insistence fearing some door would be opened to decriminalize homosexuality/buggery. Funny that in three days we lost four children due to murder and an elderly woman yet the same zeal as seen below is nowhere to be found via loss of life or even the thousands of missing children to date or even the others in homes and on the streets but pastors and their apologists want to raise to the level of law the use of my anatomy in a private space strangely in the face of a rhetoric of theirs too to “keep it to ourselves”

see previous posts here:

Rev Al Miller on the Abnormality of Homosexuality & the invented gay marriage rights ploy

Rev Al Miller says gay lobby is using the guise of tolerance to get the nation to accept the “gay lifestyle” on September 11, 2011

also see Anti gay pastor and restorative therapy advocate in trouble with the law again from sister blog GLBTQJA on blogger

and A word to the reverend (anti gay Al Miller) …….. and

Al Miller Guilty – Judge Rejects Pastor’s Unsworn Statement

Here is his letter published today:

THE EDITOR, Sir:Our nation continues to experience a grave and deepening social and economic crisis rooted in the erosion of moral and spiritual values.

As Christian leaders and the large contingent of believers that we serve directly, numbering more than 500,000 (not including all denominations) and the general sentiment of the majority of the rest of the citizens of our nation, we register our full support of the position taken by the media houses – TVJ, CVM and others – not to have carried the advertisement being proposed by Mr Maurice Tomlinson.

It was indicated to the stations by some of us that had those advertisements been carried, we would have registered our strongest objections. We had registered our objections then and remain resolute in upholding the fundamental values and moral principles of our faith and that of the founding fathers of our nation.

We declare that we will mobilise and resist any attempt to tamper with the Constitution as it relates to buggery. Our present Charter of Rights sufficiently covers and protects the rights of all citizens.

We will not support any politician or political party that seeks to promote and foist on our nation, in any shape or form, the gay-rights agenda, which is alien to our culture as a people.

We respect the right of privacy and freedom of personal choices. We believe and demand that Government and the courts bear in mind and uphold the Constitution of our nation and the will of the majority of our citizens.

TROUBLING NEW TRENDS

The recent information shared by the children’s advocate indicates that there has been a 74 per cent increase in reported buggery acts against children. Could this be as a result of increased awareness and promotion of this unacceptable alternative lifestyle?

We will not sit by and allow the thinking of less than one per cent or any weak-willed Government to lead us into simply following other nations along a path that is not in our best interest.

We are a nation with a proud history of leading on points of principle and values. We want all to be aware that on this issue and the deteriorating conditions of the poor, and justice, the majority of us, church leaders, stand united.

AL MILLER

pastormilleroffice@gmail.com,Pastor, Fellowship Tabernacle (On behalf of scores of pastors and leaders)

meanwhile another religious group has been taken to task by a local advocate:

Love March Movement Lacks Moral Compass

THE EDITOR, Sir:

Dr Wayne West of the Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society has become the Pied Piper for a group of young Christians calling themselves The Love March Movement, whose purpose is evidently quite the opposite of marching in the name of love.

The ditty that West is singing while his children march is anything but conducive to the creation of a healthy society. In fact, it would appear that their utopian society can only come to fruition if they dance for Lucifer so that he will come to collect his progeny – the gays – in a devilish rapture.

That is the only way I can rationalise the lies that this coalition of church people is so eager to share with anyone that is willing to listen.

Their latest campaign to typify male homosexuals as vectors for infectious disease by relying on Lancet data is so illogical in its apprehension of clearly articulated epidemiological research that it is scary.

Yet when one considers that these are sensible people who deliberately misrepresent data in order to advance an agenda of institutionalised prejudice, it becomes clear that this is a morally bankrupt group of Christians. In their minds, the end justifies the means, and so a campaign built on half-truths and deliberate obfuscation of facts is perfectly appropriate when the final objective is to exclude gays from their idyllic healthy society.

Since West and his colleagues are so fixated with conducting in-depth research on the types of sex they claim not to be having while prescribing the types of sex the State ought to prevent the rest of us from enjoying, they are blind to the ingredients of a healthy society that they could pool their immense resources to bring together.

Instead of spending money to print full-page fallacious advertisements to demonise gay men, they could invest in feeding programmes for inner-city infants who are on a staple diet of bag juice and Cheez Trix. They could also invest in remedial literacy programmes for the significant number of young people who leave school functionally illiterate.

Perhaps they could use their skills for proselytism to combat the corruption and ineptitude that have stagnated the development of our nation; and maybe if they really put their minds to it, they could march for love in our homes and peace in our communities as a way to counter the crime and violence that have become commonplace in Jamaica.

If they are not interested in addressing any of the above and would rather obsess over the sexual proclivities of strangers, it is obvious that they are far from being the bastions of moral virtue that they proclaim themselves to be and, therefore, cannot be taken seriously by anyone with a functioning moral compass.

BRIAN-PAUL WELSH

brianpaul.welsh@

gmail.com

More: Following the Jamaica Society for a Healthy Society’s recent public relations campaign with an HIV is a gay disease tinge is discussed on Nationwide Radio hosted by the not so tolerant George Davis, the illogical posturings by Mr West and his team is exposed by Mrs Carol Narcisse public commentator.

Marauding homosexuals and J-FLAG (Observer Editorial) ……………………

The Jamaica Observer made their position clear on the issue of the displaced and homeless MSM in the New Kingston area who have been getting themselves embroiled in all kinds of activities where the good now suffers for the bad. Originally published February 21, 2013 the piece is quite poignant on the abandonment of the men by the relevant agencies, the population’s behaviour and more, it is a pity that after four years of the closure of the Safe House Pilot project this very month to be precise we are still reaping the worldwind for not addressing homelessness when matters were less problematic and persons like myself at the local level after thousands of hours of work, consultations and brainstorming suggested the shelter idea to the then  powers that be which led to the pilot project then.

Here are the original posts I did on the ultimatum and the closure of the then residential facility in 2009/10:

Homeless MSM to feel the pinch as JASL issues ultimatum

The Homeless Project, the meeting and more

The Quietus ……… The Safe House Project Closes

Now This from the Observer………………………

THE Jamaican nation continues to struggle with the delicate issue of how to treat those of our citizens who are homosexuals.

In fact, the problem has been seriously exacerbated by the emergence of a growing band of homosexual men, largely operating in New Kingston, who have demonstrated a willingness to attack other citizens and to carry out criminal acts.

With the situation getting out of hand, the lobby group, Jamaican Forum for Lesbians, All-sexuals and Gays, (J-FLAG) has been forced to distance itself from the homosexuals they are calling “homeless gays”, declaring: “We want to make it absolutely clear that, while J-FLAG advocates for the rights of all Jamaicans, and, in particular, members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community, J-FLAG does not condone any form of misconduct, violent or criminal behaviour.

“In addition, while these individuals may be members of the LGBT community, J-FLAG cannot be held culpable for their actions and behaviour,” the lobby group said in a January 2013 press statement.

In its infancy, J-FLAG became known for its public statements condemning ‘homophobic’ Jamaicans and its tendency to blame every killing of a homosexual on ‘homophobia’, no matter how clear it was that the incident was a domestic one involving gay lovers. Our police force and our national image overseas suffered terribly because of this practice.

Jamaicans who were incensed by these false accusations would have found the January statement a welcome departure, in that it acknowledged that not everyone who shunned a gay man, was doing so because of his homosexuality.

Said the group: “J-FLAG, as communicated to the police on many occasions, is fully supportive of their efforts to resolve the issues created by homeless gay men. J-FLAG agrees it is necessary to apprehend and incarcerate persons who commit crimes, and understands the necessity of mitigating the impact of lawlessness on business people, residents, employees, and commuters. J-FLAG does not in any way consider the police undertaking their duties as homophobic or being anti-gay…”

We suspect that a statement of this nature could only have come after much angst and desperation on the part of J-FLAG which admitted that it had made several attempts to intervene, but had been unsuccessful in its bid to rein in the culprits, some of whom are involved in frequent internal fights as well as criminal offences such as robbery.

“J-FLAG has met and collaborated with a broad range of stakeholders, including the police, the member of parliament for the constituency, the mayor, the Ministry of Health, the councillor, the Child Development Agency, church leaders, and representatives of the business community, but the outcomes have not been significant enough to address the behavioural issues from which these issues stem,” the organisation said.

J-FLAG, we believe, cannot like Pontius Pilate, wash its hands of the problem and must continue its efforts at intervention on behalf of that section of its constituency.

We hasten to say, however, that this is not just a problem for J-FLAG. These are Jamaican citizens who must be treated as all other Jamaicans. They are entitled to protection under law. Many of them have been cast out of their homes and communities and are living on the streets of Kingston. They are in urgent need of rehabilitative care, education and medical attention.

The society ignores them at its own peril.

Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/editorial/Marauding-homosexuals-and-J-FLAG_13683576#ixzz2LwB9fcUW

Safe house logo

My response comes via an edited podcast from a blog talk radio entry I did on February 23, 2012 sad the men continue to struggle after so many years of the dubious closure of the Safe House Project in 2009 originally designed to handle the problem when the men were much more docile than now. The previous post entered on December 21, 2012 dealt with the impatience of some of the men who were awaiting the promise of a shelter from JFLAG announced early as October 2012 yet no shelter is yet to come. See previous entries from Gay Jamaica Watch and GLBTQJA below:

Stoning Incident at Jamaica AIDS Support for Life’s Offices

The Continued wordwind from not addressing homelessness (when the men were more docile)

Homeless Men make news again (for all the wrong reasons part 1)

Interfaith group treated homeless MSM in St Catherine

also see newcasts/video on the issue

Some of us are still hopeful despite the foolishness that has obtained over the years and are also investigating what other solutions we can do without these so called responsible organizations who clearly by their foot dragging and negligence are not directly interested in doing the social justice work required for this marginalized group of persons. Simple community assisted living though laudable is not enough and can in no way address the ever increasing challenges and anti-social chaos that require serious psycho-social interventions that we alone can give and the financial situations for many private individuals cannot sustain such shelter assistance for any extended periods.

Peace and tolerance

H

What are Human Rights

In light of the recent physical attack of the University of Technology male student who was alleged caught in a compromising position with another male who escaped his attackers and the subsequent security punches I thought I’d post this article by Atty-at-law Nicholas Manley for our review on Human Rights. See the video compilation below of the mobbing and abuse by the security guards after, take note that these are students.

What are Human Rights?

By definition human rights are our inalienable fundamental rights. Inalienable means that which cannot be taken away. So our human rights are bestowed upon us from the moment we are born and, thus we are all entitled to these rights. Because we are entitled to our human rights and they cannot and should not be taken away from us, we as a people must strive to protect them, government should protect them and breaches of our rights should be highlighted and addressed appropriately.

Human rights are the same for everyone irrespective of colour, class or creed, and are applicable at both the national and international level. In Jamaica, our human rights are enshrined in and protected by our Constitution. Internationally, there have been numerous laws and treaties enacted specifically for the protection of human rights.

Milestone document

Most notably of these is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This declaration is seen as a milestone document in the history of human rights. It was proclaimed by the United Nations, in 1948, as a common standard of achievements for all nations, and sets out the fundamental human rights to be universally recognised and protected.

The Declaration sets out the following rights:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Equality before the law

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Everyone has the right to freedom of movement

Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government;

Everyone has the right to education.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

ENDS

Additional materials

Earl Moxam’s RJR discussion on the issue recently:

My two cents as the dust settles (part one)

and a clip from Jerry Small show on NEWSTALK 93FM as the airwaves continue to heat up with the issue.

Urgent need to discuss Sex & sexuality nationally part 2

In part one on sister blog Gay Jamaica Watch I looked at the fiasco that was the Home and family life education manual and the uproar over one page of a volumous curriculum designed among other things to address sex and sexuality education in schools. Noting that all most of us older persons have been taught reproductive education i.e sperms and eggs make babies, puberty and the pubic hair bit and boys having wet dreams while girls see their periods and even that under the guise of “guidance counseling” had a hard time in getting to the openness where it is now given the sanitization that has occurred over and over again.

Many schools have been run and founded by churches with teachers of a certain ilk so the fear of teaching the “real things” is evident over time, in fact the very paranoia now over this curriculum and the screaming from sections of the public is a reflection of the lack of understanding SEX & SEXUALITY.

also hear my latest audio post/podcast:

Now comes this rubbish in my view of two persons being made scape goats for the Minister of Education’s ineptitude in leading the change that is required in the system to revolutionize the levels of understanding of SEX & SEXUALITY.

Have a read of the article in the Gleaner published on October 28 2012, what is the fear and who has an agenda? obviously the minister is conflicted and is pandering to the religious right also being a man of the cloth himself, what about separation of church and state?

Of course the goodly JFLAG is missing in all this discourse, so much for limpwristedness.

Two In Hot Water Over Sex Text

Thwaites

Education minister claims personal agenda led to controversial sections in school book

Edmund Campbell, Senior Staff Reporter

DISCIPLINARY ACTION is now hanging over the head of a public servant who Education Minister Ronald Thwaites claims had an “agenda” in crafting the controversial sex-education text which was recently withdrawn from high schools.

At least 1,368 copies of the 6,000 health and family life education (HFLE) text, deemed by some to be very offensive, were pulled by the ministry after national uproar over the material that was intended for students between grades seven and nine.

One person who allegedly authored “inappropriate” elements of text has parted company with the education ministry.

But that is not the end of the matter.

“It appears that there were two persons, at least, involved in the process who had a particular agenda in respect of this particular subset of the curriculum and they were able to embed it in the curriculum, and there was not sufficient review to extirpate it before publication,” Thwaites said last week in response to questions posed by Opposition spokesperson on education Marisa Dalrymple Philibert.

“As far as those who, investigation so far determined, played an untoward part in the writing of this (HFLE), one such person is no longer in the service of the ministry and the other person will be subject to the appropriate disciplinary action that the public service provides,” the education minister told fellow legislators.

Intense debate played out on the airwaves and in letters to newspaper editors, in September, about a section of the text which posed questions on sexual behaviour and commentary on heterosexuality and homosexuality.

Angry parents at the time demanded to know who approved the text, despite its withdrawal.

Responding to similar concerns from Dalrymple Philibert, who is the member of parliament for South Trelawny and the Opposition spokesperson on education, Thwaites said an investigation conducted by his ministry revealed that the curriculum was introduced into schools when it was given to teachers who were trained to use it in August 2011.

formal process bypassed

He said copies were distributed to schools before they were withdrawn.

Thwaites made it clear that the formal process of the ministry to approve curriculum was bypassed.

He said then Chief Education Officer Grace McLean did not know of the inappropriate curriculum.

“No Minister of Education of whatever political stripe would have knowingly allowed material as obnoxious as that contained in the HFLE curriculum to have been published,” Thwaites declared.

He also informed the House that the ministry had issued warnings when similar material found its way into the schools in the past.

“It was a clear intention of some who have very laudable views in other respects, but also have very clear predispositions regarding sexual conduct and how children are to be introduced to (it) who got away on this one.

“The important thing now is that we make it quite clear to this Parliament, to those who serve as administrators and public officials and to the nation as a whole, that the primary responsibility for introducing young children to sexual knowledge and responsibility lies with the parents,” the education minister stressed.

Setting the record straight in relation to the ministry’s position on sex and family life education, Thwaites added: “The principles that must be at all times respected is that the Ministry of Education promotes sexually responsible behaviour in the context of faithful union between a man and woman while offering respect and compassion to those who adopt a different lifestyle.”

ENDS

In continuing …………………..

Also see: New sex education manual in two months and Defending Family Life Curriculum

The public uproar over the health and family life education (HFLE) curriculum has done a grave disservice to a programme that addresses many of the social ills plaguing Jamaican youth. As an HIV and health educator, this is quite disconcerting to me.

The HFLE curriculum is not a textbook to be used by students, but a curriculum guide for use by teachers. The activities and resources which have been the media’s focus are not mandatory. Teachers have the power to choose which parts to use as they make their lesson plans.

Denigrating the curriculum as a ‘gay book’ or ‘sex text’ misses the fact that it is a holistic life skills programme, covering self and interpersonal relationships; sexuality and sexual health; appropriate eating and fitness, and managing the environment.

Within each theme, the life skills are broken down into major subcategories of social, cognitive and coping life skills, including decision making; problem solving; effective communication; empathy; coping with stress; coping with emotions; healthy self-management and conflict resolution.

BEHAVIOURAL MODIFICATION

Teaching life skills in this way has been shown to delay the onset of drug use; prevent high-risk sexual behaviour; facilitate anger management and conflict resolution; improve academic performance and promote positive social adjustment. In fact, the curriculum already includes behaviour-modification strategies to deal with anger management, which the minister of education now proposes to introduce in schools.

The specific sections which have been highlighted by the media have also been taken out of context. The personal risk assessment that asks questions about sexual behaviour is for private use by students to help them calculate their personal risk. The information is not returned to the teacher. The purpose of the exercise is to build the students’ critical thinking, decision making and healthy self-management and refusal skills.

The guided imagery activity which asks students to imagine they are the only heterosexuals in a world of homosexuals is not intended to ‘make students homosexual’ but to build empathy and self-awareness skills. It is meant to address intolerance and its consequences, including bullying and abuse of students because of sexual orientation.

UNDERSTANDABLE DISCOMFORT

The public’s discomfort with some of these matters is understandable. However, we cannot ignore the reality our children face and refuse to give them tools to handle their sexuality and sexual health.

The reality is that young people are sexually active, but they do not understand their HIV risk. The mean age of sexual initiation in Jamaica is 14 years old (12 for boys, 15 for girls). Seven per cent of all reported AIDS cases in Jamaica have been adolescents and young adults between 15 and 24.

The Knowledge Attitudes Perception Behaviour (KAPB) study of 2008 indicated there was a 100 per cent increase in the rate of sexually transmitted infections among adolescent girls from 2004. Transactional sex and casual sex are also common among adolescent among males and females.

The same KAPB study indicated that males in the 15-24 age group reported having an average of six sexual partners, and females of the same age group, three sexual partners. Additionally, behavioural studies indicate that one in every three gay men was HIV-positive, and a significant number of this cohort was between the ages of 15 and 24. However, only 38 per cent of young adults between 15 and 24 per cent can correctly identify the modes of preventing HIV transmission.

Since the procurement rules have been breached as it were are we to throw out the baby with the bathwater? the Observer also carried a story on the issue: They had a gay agenda

The Process for Approval of Curricula

a) The policy directorate grants approval for the development/revision of a curriculum in response to societal needs and/or new policy direction.

b) The draft curriculum is developed by the process owner along with selected technical experts internally and externally of the Ministry of Education through consultation with stakeholders (civic groups, teachers, principals, students, parents, and others).

c) The curriculum is piloted for feedback and adjustments

d) The first draft of the curriculum is submitted to the Core Curriculum Unit for review.

e) The Core Curriculum Unit reviews the curriculum and makes recommendation for approval of the final draft document to the Chief Education Officer through the Deputy Chief Education Officer, Curriculum and Support Services.

f) The Deputy Chief Education Officer, Curriculum and Support Services recommends the approval of the final draft curriculum to the Chief Education Officer.

g) The Chief Education Officer with support from the technical team representing the process owners presents the final draft document to the Executive Management Meeting, chaired by the Permanent Secretary and the Senior Policy Making Group, chaired by the Honourable Minister of Education.

h) The Minister of Education gives final approval of the draft curriculum and the policy unit documents the approval.

i) The process owners with the responsibility for the draft curriculum receives approval from the Chief Education Officer to implement the new curriculum in schools.

j) The process is documented every step of the way, the record is kept on an official file for future reference.

Meanwhile the

Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society (JCHS) is among a number of faith-based organisations that have expressed grave concern over the controversial Health and Family Life Education (HFLE) curriculum, and has called for a full disclosure of the source of its contents.

The group along with the Jamaica Association of Evangelicals, Faith Temple Gospel Assembly, the Issachar Foundation, Christian Brethren Assemblies, Jamaica Lawyers Christian Fellowship, Christian Life Fellowship, Bethany Fellowship, Swallowfield Chapel, and Mona Heights Chapel have expressed their displeasure with the curriculum. READ MORE HERE

Shirley Richards support Uganda “Kill Gays Bill?”

Popular anti-gay activist Shirley Richards decides to appear in a documentary made by a coalition called “Stand for Families Worldwide” which claims it exists to “expose the cultural imperialism pushed by the United Nations and by Western countries—especially the United States—and stop them from pushing a destructive sexual rights agenda on families and children worldwide“.

On their website they claim that criminalising homosexuality is a tool to help to control the spread of HIV/AIDS.

Consider the fact that once a behavior is legalized and destigmatized, whether sexual or otherwise, that behavior is likely to increase, not decrease. Therefore, destigmatizing homosexual sex and prostitution will likely increase these behaviors, and if these high-risk behaviors increase, there will likely be more sexually transmitted infections.

http://www.standforfamiliesworldwide.org/sffww/aids-lies/

We are not sure what proof they have that this works as Jamaica has had a buggery law since the 19th century and Jamaican MSM have one of the highest HIV prevalence rates in the world at 32%, which is also higher than every other country without a buggery law. Contrary to their uncited facts there is a study published in the Lancet which disproves that logic. It said:

Disparities in the prevalence of HIV infection are greater in African and Caribbean countries that criminalise homosexual activity than in those that do not criminalise such behaviour.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(12)60722-3/abstract

Why ruin a good story with facts though?

In the video below Mrs. Shirley Richards and some other selected African orphans speak about what they call ‘cultural imperialism” because their dear anti-sodomy laws are threatened. Despite the fact that these laws were implemented by former European colonial powers and had Christianity forced on their societies they claim that removing laws against homosexuality is “imperialism” and a threat to their religious and cultural values as a way to lure viewers into feeling sorry for religious extremists and those with pro-criminalisation agendas.

Watch documentary: https://vimeo.com/49435981

49435981

In the video she claims that the US embassy in Pakistan holding a “gay party” for “local homosexuals” was “insensitive” and a “total disregard for the culture of a people”.

Lets look at how the Pakistani culture that Shirley defends is sensitive towards homosexuals. Under Pakistani Sharia laws, which were introduced in 1990, homosexual acts can draw punishments of whipping, imprisonment or even death.(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-14010106).

Mrs. Shirley Richards doesn’t realise also that she would be stoned to death in Pakistan for converting someone to Christianity as this would violate the country’s apostacy laws(http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=9218). This is what is involved in the “culture of a people”. She claims that human behaviours cannot be a human right which means the right to engage in Christian practices is not a human right. According to Shirley’s logic, she would support her own execution.

Shirley Richards claims that anal sex must be illegal because it is “unnatural”. How many things can you spot in her portrait that would land her in prison if we were to outlaw everything considered “unnatural”?

Towards the end of the video an Ugandan woman defends the anti-gay laws and policies of Uganda by claiming that seeing people dying from AIDS gave them the duty to put the “right policies in place” because homosexuality erodes the very fabric of their society.

The Jamaica Observer gives a report of the “right policies” Uganda intends to put in place:

The Ugandan parliamentarian who first introduced an anti-gay bill that carried the death penalty for some homosexual acts reintroduced the bill yesterday, raising concerns among rights activists who have been fighting the legislation.

Homosexuality, already illegal under Uganda’s penal code, is highly stigmatised in Uganda. Opinion polls frequently show the bill’s wide support among Ugandans. Lawmakers other than Bahati have sometimes spoken passionately about the need for such a law, and none have condemned it.

Anyone who “aids, abets, counsels or procures another to engage [in] acts of homosexuality” would face seven years in prison. Landlords who rent rooms or homes to gays also could get seven years.

Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/Uganda-s-anti-gay-bill-reintroduced-in-parliament_10727280#ixzz29OwuZrZ0

Shirley Richards claims that opposing laws against homosexuality is “deception” and “a total disregard for the culture of a people”.

Is she tacitly supporting the policies to execute homosexuals in Uganda?

Thoughts on “coming out” as Transgender to family

As coming out day approaches on October 11th here are some suggestions for coming out specifically for transgender issues, these are NOT hard and fast rules but just some tips, the FINAL decision is left up to the individual

Here is a leading transgender expert who shared this is me some time ago and was posted on sister blog GLBTQJA on blogger some time ago.

A. B. Kaplan (Transgender Health)

Before you come out:I think it’s important to start with thinking about the purpose of your communication, and that is just to come out to them, to come out of hiding and let them know who you are and what you’ve been struggling with. I’m making the assumption that you also wish to remain as close as possible to your family, and be accepted and hopefully supported by them in the future.

There’s also the question of if you should come out at all. If you are dependent on your parents/family (under 18, or if they are paying for college, etc…) then you need to think of the very real possibility of their cutting you out or off. The last thing you want to be is a homeless transgendered youth. If this is the case, then it may be wiser to spend some time finding and getting support before proceeding.

If you decide that the time is right and it’s safe to come out to them then…

The Vehicle:

My experience has been with Transgendered clients, that a letter works best. The letter has several advantages over face to face communications.

You get to take your time and think about what to say and word it perfectly.

You can have a friend, therapist or supportive person read it over first and give you feedback.

You can’t be interrupted.

The recipient can go back and read it again and take their time with it.

Why a letter and not an email? Well, it’s more personal, email can be a little cold.

What to say:

I’m of the school of thought that you should just say it in your own words as clearly and plainly as possible. I think it can be good to also include the following:

Reassurance that you love them and want to remain connected and hope that they will be supportive.

Reassurance that this is not their “fault”.

A little bit about your struggle with gender over the years, your experience, coping, isolation, etc… (be specific! It will help them empathize with you)

A few recommendations of books, articles or support groups in their area

and I recommend to ask them specifically not to respond right away, but to take some time (a week) before they respond. Let them sit with it. This will weed out any immediate bad response and let them cool down.

Just as you would tailor a cover letter for a job you may need to tailor your coming out letter for different family members. Your parents are two (or maybe more than two) separate people, invite them to respond individually.

What not to say:

No need to talk about specific long term plans/timetables or surgeries in your coming-out letter. Remember, the purpose of the letter is to let your family know that you are transgendered. Period. Future plans are better left for future communications. Why? Because just digesting the fact that one has a trans son/daughter/brother/sister is enough to begin with. Remember, you’ve had a lot of time to think about this and are ready to move ahead. They are just learning of this for the first time and need to absorb it. I think its ok to gently allude to the fact that changes might be coming in the future, but I wouldn’t go father than that in your first communication on this topic.

There is no need to go into the etiology of transsexualism here. There are too many conflicting theories biological and otherwise, and even if you knew the origin of your being transgendered, it wouldn’t change it.

Afterwards:

If you get a positive response that’s great! Otherwise stay calm, even if you get a negative first response. Give them time.

Don’t be reactive to a negative response. Be the adult (or if you don’t feel it, just pretend). Remember the long term goal is to have them be connected to you and supportive. Keep the long term goal in mind in all your communications with them.

It does happen sometimes that parents have a very negative response and even reject you outright. This can be very hurtful and disappointing. When this happens, again, don’t be reactive no matter how you feel. Keep the long term goal in mind. It’s easy to “write them off”, but ultimately unsatisfying if you want to have your family.

A few things to do with a negative reaction:

Communicate that you are open and ready to talk when they are,

Be empathic with their difficulty in accepting/understanding/assimilating this information. Understand that they need time and may have a religious/cultural basis of understanding that can’t be overcome quickly.

Express your wish and hope that it will change over time.

Ask what you can do to help them accept this?

Other Approaches:

You know your family best, so keep that in mind when crafting your coming out communication.

Here are some other perspectives on how to come out to your family:

coming out, hormone, surgery, and other letters

http://www.videojug.com/interview/how-to-come-out-to-your-family-and-friends-as-transgender video ‘How To Come Out To Your Family And Friends As Transgender’

http://www.hrc.org/issues/3455.htm

Article ‘Coming Out to Family as Transgender’ from The Human Rights Campaign

http://www.tsroadmap.com/family/index.html

Transsexual Road Map – Family issues