Jamaica's Reaction to Statement By Portia Simpson Miller XI

Mullings slams Simpson Miller over buggery law review plan

'No nation that seeks to move away from God's words can succeed'

BY MARK CUMMINGS Editor-at-Large Western Bureau cummingsm@jamaicaobserver.com

MONTEGO BAY, St James — Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) candidate for West Central St James Clive Mullings has blasted Opposition Leader Portia Simpsom Miller for promising to review the country's buggery law, should her party return to power.

Armed with a Bible, a stone-faced Mullings urged scores of Labourites at a mass meeting in Montego Bay's historic Sam Sharpe Square on Thursday night to unite against the repealing of such a law.

Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) candidate for West Central St James Clive Mullings greets party supporters at Thursday’s mass meeting in Sam Sharpe Square, Montego Bay. (Photo: Mark Cummings)  1/1

"We must understand that for a nation to be blessed, for a nation to grow, we cannot depart from God's words. No nation, no nation that seeks to move away from God's words can succeed," he declared.

Quoting scriptures, Mullings pointed the large gathering to Genesis Chapter 19: verse 24, citing the reason why "the Lord poured down sulphur and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah."

Simpson Miller, in responding to a question raised during the final political debate convened by the Jamaica Debates Commission on Tuesday night, said that should the PNP return to power, she would initiate a review of the buggery law.

She also said that her party would not prevent anyone from becoming a member of her Cabinet based on their sexual orientation.

Recently, several countries, including the United Kingdom and the United States, have suggested that they might withhold aid to countries that are not doing enough to protect the rights of homosexuals.

But Mullings, an attorney, urged the horn-blowing supporters on Thursday to take a stance, arguing that the United Kingdom's position is contrary to what we have learnt and know under the word of God.

"We are no longer a colony of Britain, so if that's the way they want to go, let them go, but let us not depart from God's word," he argued.

He told the jubilant supporters that next Thursday's general election should not be viewed only as it relates to the creation of jobs.

"We must understand carefully that the choices we make must not be only as it relates to employment, it should also be regarding the moral direction of your country and the future for your children," the JLP candidate argued.

"So Labourites, Jamaicans, when we go out to vote think seriously about the direction of your country. I implore you to understand that while we are here at this point before general election, don't misunderstand what we are facing. It is not just the economy, it is in regard to the future of the country for our children and you must now decide whether you want a nation that will be overtaken by those who have punitive lifestyles or whether you are serious about building our country."

Earlier this week during a mass meeting in Annotto Bay, St Mary, JLP candidate for West Portland Daryl Vaz also criticised the opposition leader for suggesting that a future PNP government will review the buggery law.

Several other speakers, including JLP deputy leader Desmond McKenzie, also blasted Simpson Miller for her stance on the buggery law during Thursday night's meeting.

Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/No-nation-that-seeks-to-move-away-from-God-s-words-can-succeed_10451336#ixzz1hUFfIJQd


Mullings Rips Into Gleaner For Supporting Portia

Bobby Montague (left), JLP deputy chairman, has the attention of Darly Vaz (centre) and Prime Minister Andrew Holness at a JLP meeting in St Mary on Wednesday night.

1 2 3 >

Janet Silvera, Senior Gleaner Writer

WESTERN BUREAU:The Jamaica Labour Party's (JLP) candidate for West Central St James, Clive Mullings, has blasted The Gleaner for its editorial which congratulated People's National Party (PNP) president Portia Simpson Miller for her announcement that a government led by her would lead a review of the buggery laws.

Addressing a JLP mass meeting in Sam Sharpe Square in Montego Bay on Thursday night, Mullings, with his Bible in hand, tore into The Gleaner.

"I want the editor of The Gleaner to listen to the word of God. For a nation to grow and prosper, it cannot depart from God's word," said Mullings, as he quoted several scriptures and argued that no nation which moves away from God's plan can succeed.

"God brought down fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah," added Mullings.

Criticising the United Kingdom, which he said has taken a position to do something contrary to the word of God, Mullings noted that Jamaica was no longer a colony of Britain.

"So if they (the British) want to go in that direction, let them go."

Grabbing the Bible tightly in his hand, Mullings stressed that it was critical for all Labourites and other Jamaicans to understand carefully the choices they are making regarding the moral direction of the country, and the future of their children.

The issue of the Buggery Act came up on Tuesday evening during the leadership debate, when Simpson Miller responded to a question on the subject.

She said then that it was time that the act be "reviewed" and all members of the House of Representatives provided with an opportunity to vote on the matter based on their conscience.

Janet.silvera@gleanerjm.com

Church angry, gays happy Comments [Pictures]

Jamaica's Reaction to Statement By Portia Simpson Miller Part VIII

I think I missed the memo that Jamaica had become a theocracy. The following was taken from the Jamaica Observer. 

Church angry, gays happy

PNP on collision course with Christians

THE perennially controversial issue of homosexuality appears to have set the Opposition People’s National Party (PNP) on collision course with some sections of the Christian Church.

PNP Leader Portia Simpson Miller shocked the television audience watching her debate with Prime Minister Andrew Holness Tuesday night, with her suggestion that the buggery law should be reviewed and that she was not opposed to having gays in a Cabinet led by her.

MILLER… it is saying that moral values become secondary to ability to perform  1/4

“That is very concerning for me [reviewing the buggery law] and I am disappointed that we are still insisting to go back in that direction, because the matter was dealt with in the amended Bill of Rights earlier this year,” said Rev Al Miller, pastor of the Fellowship Tabernacle in Kingston.

Miller said he was equally disappointed with the Opposition Leader’s stance that she had no problem admitting anyone to her Cabinet once they were qualified to carry out their duties.

“I am seriously concerned about that, because it is saying that moral values becomes secondary to ability to perform,” the pastor said, adding: “That kind of approach would be difficult for Christians to support because character and integrity takes precedence over ability.”

Associate pastor of the Tower Hill Missionary Church, Rev Mark Dawes also took offence at Simpson Miller’s stance: “If we remove the buggery law, then we might be opening the floodgate for sexual anarchy,” he cautioned.

He said, however, that he understood her belief that no one should be prevented from being apart of a Cabinet once they were qualified to do so, even if they subscribed to the gay lifestyle.

“If the person is not promoting that lifestyle, then I could grow to be comfortable with them in the Cabinet, but if it is somebody who is championing the lifestyle and advocating for it, then I’ll have a problem,” Dawes said.

In the debate, Simpson Miller said: “We should have a look at the buggery law,” distancing herself from Former Prime Minister Bruce Golding who told a British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) interviewer he would not allow a homosexual in his Cabinet.

The Seventh-day Adventists also rejected the call to revisit the buggery law, while saying they had no problem with gays in a Cabinet.

“The issue is with reviewing the law, that’s where the church has an issue. Like any other faith-based organisation, we are concerned because it goes against the biblical side of things,” said SDA director of communication, public affairs and religious liberty, Nigel Coke.

But general secretary of the Jamaica Baptist Union, Rev Karl Johnson commended Simpson Miller for tackling the issue head on when asked by a journalist in the debate. Reviewing the law did not necessarily mean that a change would occur, Johnson argued.

“I think it is a commendable thing to always review our laws to see whether they speak to current realities, whether they are still informed by values and norms that we can sustain both as a country and I would say as a religious community,” he said.

President of the Jamaica Association of Full Gospel Churches, Bishop Rohan Edwards said he believed that a review of the buggery act would not affect the way the church viewed the homosexual lifestyle.

“We don't have a problem with the revisiting buggery law, but we know the law that we have to answer to which is the word of God. So they have the right to revisit anything they want to,” he said.

For its part, the Jamaica Forum for Lesbians, All-Sexuals and Gays (JFLAG) welcomed Simpson Miller’s position. Executive director of the lobby group, Dane Lewis, said: “We are very encouraged by the statement, it was a very bold statement by a political leader knowing the history of statements which our leaders have made and so we look forward to seeing what is to come if they certainly do form the next government.

“It really speaks loudly to a respect for the human rights of all Jamaicans, including those who are gay, lesbian, bi-sexual or transgender,” he noted.

He said he was disappointed with the response given by Holness who was very cautious in his response when he stated that his “sentiment must be the sentiment of the country”.

“We are disappointed that the prime minister, even though he had another opportunity to make certainly a bold statement, he didn’t,” he said. “It is very clear that he is going to pander to the religious community and vaguely step around the issue,” Lewis asserted.

Adventists say no problem with buggery law review, but Comments [Pictures]

Jamaica's Reaction to Statement By Portia Simpson Miller Part VII

So the Adventists are saying that it's ok to review the bugger law, but there will be a problem if it is repealed? 

I wonder what is their understanding of review the law?

The following was taken from the Jamaica Observer

Adventists say no problem with buggery law review, but...

Director of communication, public affairs and religious liberty for the Jamaica Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Nigel Coke, has clarified a statement made in yesterday's edition of the Observer that the church rejected the promise made by Opposition Leader and People's National Party President Portia Simpson Miller to review the buggery law should her party come to power.

He said the church does not have a problem with a review of the buggery law, since it does not mean there will be a change to the legislation. However, he said the church would voice its concerns if the law is repealed or changed.

Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/Adventists-say-no-problem-with-buggery-law-review--but---_10447231#ixzz1hPRp70DI

Jamaica's Reaction to Statement By Portia Simpson Miller Part VI

The following was posted in the Jamaica Observer.

Where was the church all along?

Dear Editor,

This is an open letter to all the organised groups of churches in Jamaica.

My name is Jevon Minto. I am currently in my second year at Northern Caribbean University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts Degree in religion and theology.

Jamaica is one of those countries where the church still influences the decisions of the State. And while this opportunity exists, no other group of people is more unconcerned about social life than the church. Every other group is speaking out, except the church. I think you all deserve a beating from God for rejecting the prophetic ministry that He has called you to, especially where it concerns politics.

If secularism takes over Jamaica you all should be blamed! If Opposition Leader Portia Simpson Miller did not propose to review the buggery law — if she is re-elected — would Jamaica hear anything from you [the church] at this time?

Imagine, three national political debates and not one of the panellists represented the church. Not one question was asked regarding the church. Why speak now and talk ill of the proposition made by the Opposition?

I am definitely not in support of homosexuality, but if the church did not assume such a passive role in the affairs of the nation, then we would not have a leader even thinking about making such a proposal in public.

It leads me to question your integrity. Are you Christian, or are you Christian excused? Did Jesus, our Lord and Saviour, behave in such a passive manner where the issues of the nation were concerned? Was He hypocritical, or was He a self-aggrandiser?

Did He not care for the entire man instead of just the Spiritual man? Until you care more about Jamaica rather than the church, reserve your comments. They only make people laugh at you and make God disappointed in you!

Jevon Minto

jminto10@stu.nuc.edu.jm

Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/letters/Where-was-the-church-all-along_10447129#ixzz1hOTQslUG

New Position Statement from Jamaica Forum for Lesbians, All-sexuals, and Gays

Below is a copy of the J-FLAG's position statement taken from their website. You can view the original by visiting http://www.jflag.org/about/position-statements/

********************************************************************************************

J-FLAG recognizes that minority groups and other vulnerable communities are the primary victims of acts of discrimination. Discriminatory actions are motivated by ignorance, intolerance and fear, which is used to provide justification for extortion, harassment and acts of verbal, psychological and physical abuse. Other forms of discrimination typically experienced include, but are not limited to, job dismal and denial of access to services in healthcare and housing.

Discrimination on any ground is unjust, inhumane and is a contravention of the inherent rights and dignity of a person. J-FLAG denounces any act of discrimination meted out to an individual known or perceived to be homosexual or bisexual. The Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirm our position, which explicitly describe discrimination as a violation of human rights.

Buggery

According to Section 76 of the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861: “Whosoever shall be convicted of the abominable crime of buggery, committed either with mankind or with any animal, shall be liable to be imprisoned and kept to hard labor for a term not exceeding ten years.”

Members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community are routinely harassed, extorted, beaten and otherwise terrorized on the presumption that homosexuality is illegal or because buggery is illegal all homosexuals are guilty of its practice. It is J-FLAG’s position that the buggery and gross indecency laws are one of the primary instruments of institutional discrimination that provide justification for human rights violations against LGBT persons, especially gay and bisexual men.

One of J-FLAG’s main objectives is to advocate and lobby for the repeal of the laws that criminalize same-sex intimacy or behaviours on the following grounds:

1.     The definition of sexual intercourse, as articulated in the Sexual Offences Act of 2009, should include other forms of sexual intimacy, including anal sex and other non-penetrative sexual contact.

2.     Consensual anal sex between adults (or persons at the age of consent) does not harm the society

3.     Although all anal sex is prohibited, the law is used disproportionately to stigmatize homosexual and bisexual men. In addition, many persons misunderstand this law to mean that homosexuality is illegal.

4.     The fact that the majority of people find anal sex morally repulsive is not a sound basis upon which to make laws. J-FLAG contends that the buggery law is exceptional, arbitrary, and prejudicial in its criminalizing anal sex.

5.     The legal interpretation of buggery is overly simplistic and reductionist in its apparent separation of the “act” from the human orientation(s) that inspire(s) it. Sexuality is a complex of conscious and subconscious drives, in addition to psychological and physiological functions that are deeply rooted in one’s identity and humanity. In the case of male homosexuality, anal sex is one of the means of expression of these drives and functions. It is our opinion that the law against anal sex effectively denies adult gay and bisexual men the freedom to express themselves sexually, and in so doing, denies them an important aspect of their personhood.

6.     Owing to the fact that sex acts and sexuality are conflated in the popular imagination, the buggery law provides government sanction for discrimination and violence against lesbian and gay persons.

7.     The maintenance of buggery laws is a violation of international human rights laws in that it violates the right to privacy of Article 2 and Article 17 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). This was confirmed in the case of Toonen v. Australia, 1994, where the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations (under the optional protocol of the ICCPR), decided that offences prohibiting male homosexual sex (similar to our buggery and gross indecency laws) in the Australian province of Tasmania constituted violations of international human rights law. Of note, the panel of the human rights committee of the ICCPR that passed this law included a Jamaican, and the decision was unanimous. Jamaica, as a signatory to the treaty, has an obligation to honour the decision in Toonen v. Australia, and ought, therefore, to change the local buggery and gross indecency laws to be in accordance with its treaty obligations.

J-FLAG abhors the idea of comparing bestiality to buggery. Such a position equates a human consensual activity with an activity with an animal that is often influenced by a psychological disorder in an individual. Furthermore, in some jurisdictions, including Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago, even where buggery and other acts of intimacy between same-sex is illegal, bestiality and buggery are treated as separate offences.

A review of the definitions for the term buggery, cited in Section 76 of the “Offences Against the Person Act,” indicates a lack of consensus as to its meaning. It is most often equated with sodomy, which is also variously defined.

Indeed, enforcement of the law has become biased against homosexual men that the term has come to mean male-to-male anal intercourse in both public and legal usage. Therefore, J-FLAG advocates the complete elimination of Sections 76, 77 and 79 of the Offences Against the Person Act because they violate the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection before the law and the right to privacy. In its place, we would propose expanding the definition of rape in the “Sexual Offences Act” to prohibit any sexual activity between an adult and any non-consenting partner, including animals and persons under the legal age of consent.

Hate Crimes and Violence

J-FLAG condemns all acts motivated by animus and hate, especially acts of physical violence inflicted on a person. Perpetrators of crimes against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons falsely claim a legal, moral and/or religious imperative for their actions.

These justifications, although popular in the court of public opinion, should have no standing in the courts of Jamaica. The only legitimate reason for a citizen to inflict physical harm upon another is in self-defence or defence of others or property, and even then, violence is allowable only to the extent required to overcome the threat. There is no justification for anyone to inflict violence upon an individual, and in particular LGBT persons on the ground of stereotypes such as a particular type of dress, language, or mannerism.

Hate crimes can be defined as any illegal activity that is motivated by a personal dislike for a target group of people. Hate crimes may be directed toward the entire group, individuals who are members of the group, or places and objects associated with the group. Hate crimes may range from simple vandalism or theft to physical assault or homicide. They are typically, though not always, directed at minority groups.

Throughout Jamaica’s history, many groups have been victims of hate crimes because of their religion, ethnic, economic, political, or sexual orientation. Today, sexual and gender minorities such as homosexuals, bisexuals and transgender persons as well as heterosexuals who are (perceived to be LGBT), or who support the causes of sexual and gender minorities, are increasingly subject to hate crimes.

All crimes have negative consequences for the victim, significant others, the community and society. Furthermore, a special case can be made for hate crimes because they seriously impact on both the individual victim and the larger groups to which s/he belongs’

Capital Punishment

J-FLAG advocates the elimination of the death penalty. New research is showing that even lethal injection, which was thought to be the least painful way to execute an individual results in a slow creeping paralysis which results in the person being aware of their impending death long before it occurs.  The individual is in effect trapped and immobilized in their dying body and their brain experiences an agonizing period.  Hanging, which is practiced in Jamaica, has the potential to result in slow gruesome strangulation. The death penalty therefore constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, which is prohibited by the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights(ICCPR).

Significantly, Jamaica remains a signatory to this important treaty. We further believe that since the legal system is fallible in its deliberations, the potential harm created by the execution of an innocent person far outweighs any crime prevention benefits to be gained. We call for Jamaica to honor its obligations under international law and join other countries that have rejected this antiquated and barbaric form of punishment, which dehumanizes us all.

Rape & Grievous Sexual Assault

Currently, the legal definition and popular conception of rape provides only for the unwanted penetration of a vagina by a penis. The definition of sexual intercourse biases the interpretation of rape (Section 3(1)) of the Sexual Offences Act does not include anal or oral penetration or penetration by objects other than the penis. J-FLAG acknowledges that this is captured in Section 4. However, J-FLAG believes that the terms rape and sexual intercourse must to be broadened and should not be gender biased, use gender-specific language for the victim or the perpetrator or ignore the variations of how men and women have sex.

In an effort to acknowledge the diverse sexual experiences of people, and the various ways that they can be victims of rape or sexual assault, we support revisions to the current definition of rape to include any type of unwanted insertion of an erectile object in not just the vagina, but the anus or mouth.

Additionally, J-FLAG recognizes that various degrees of unwanted sexual contact exist and that the legal punishment for each of these must be appropriate.

Child Sexual Abuse

J-FLAG unequivocally condemns all forms of sexual abuse, including child sexual abuse, regardless of the sexual orientation of the perpetrator. We recognize the rights of children, as articulated in the Child Care and Protection Act 2004 and Convention on the Rights of the Child which includes the right to be free from sexual interference by adults. J-FLAG fully endorses ALL efforts of law enforcers to apprehend and bring perpetrators of child sexual abuse to justice.

We recognise and accept paedophilia as an adult psychosexual disorder that predisposes individuals towards sexual activity with children, which amounts to abuse of power by the adult individual. This exertion of power over the powerless, the use of disproportionate strength to pacify the weak, and the employment of guile to entrap children, should not be compared, associated, or equated with any form of adult consensual sexuality.

The common misperception that child abuse is a central feature of homosexuality, or that homosexuals inevitably, or at least very often, direct their sexual interest towards children, is cause for great concern to us. Homosexuality is an emotional and/or sexual attraction towards members of the same sex and paedophile behavior is in no way characteristic of homosexuality. As much as paedophilia does not characterise heterosexuality, homosexuality should not be treated as a corollary to paedophilia, or vice versa.

Despite the fact that the majority of child sexual abuse cases across the Caribbean involve men who abuse female children, the explanation or blame is never attributed to “heterosexuals” or “heterosexuality” itself. In these cases, the clear distinction between heterosexuality and pedophilia is always maintained, but this very same logic is seldom applied to homosexuality.

The faulty association of homosexuality with child sexual abuse encourages animus towards homosexuals and homosexuality, and is a severe obstacle in the way of our advocacy for the rights of lesbian, gay and bisexual and transgender persons.

Atheist Vs Christian Morality: My Response

 I really can't decided if this is a rant or not so, I've also placed this post on Jamaican GLBTQ Christian.


*****************************************************************************************


I am not surprised to see an atheist (Dr. Elthon Lowe) questioning the society’s firm footing in “Christian morality”. This blog post however is not so much about the letter written, but the comments that followed.

The intolerance of the Christians who responded to his article is not hidden. No I do not agree with atheist thought, what I do believe is that each of us is given free will. An atheist should be free to express his or her thought of how they view Christianity, isn’t that what freedom of speech is about?

Many Christians fear that their right to freedom of speech will be curtailed if ‘certain people’ are allowed to access and exercise their rights, yet they sometimes seem so disrespectful of other opinions and the rights of others to express such, for example mrs. parker commented on Dr. Lowe’s article saying, “I am so sorry that the gleaner took up space that could have been used for other more pressing and important  things, and used it for this insignificant, stupid ideas of these people that don't know them selfI am so sorry that the gleaner took up space that could have been used for other more pressing and important  things, and used it for this insignificant, stupid ideas of these people that don't know them self”.

What is it with many Christians? If you are speaking something that they don’t agree with they tell you to keep it to yourself because ‘the rest of us don’t want to hear it’, for example a commenter Machowan  says, “I would hope the good doctor is not insinuating that we as christians are forcing our belief or values on him. We are fortunate enough to live in a country where we are free to believe or not to believe in any God at all. I will bet my bottom dollar you did not feel this way before you enter certain educational institution. Some of us tend to be cocky when we think we are a notch or two above the rest. You don't believe in the Father of creation, then keep that to your self, because you have no gospel to preach. Unless you are trying to convince yourself.” How does that stimulate conversation, how does that allow evangelism, how does that speak of the spirit of Christ in the Christian? It doesn’t.

No I’m not saying do not respond to his assertions, I am not saying do not contradict him, neither am I saying do not speak about your beliefs. I am saying encourage dialogue, have a conversation. I have met atheists, and agnostics some have rejected Christianity because it doesn’t make logical sense, some have rejected it because they have been beaten over the head with a stick to accept Christianity and some have seen the injustice and ruthlessness that Christianity can create. What happened to Love? No, not turning a blind eye and allowing that person to destroy themselves; rather, lovingly minister to such persons, reach out to them with compassion, sometimes if you listened to why they believe what they do, you overly righteous Christians would possibly learn something new, and learn a different way of evangelizing.

No I am not on the side of Dr. Lowe, I do not believe that we should, “Return morality to the human world into the hands of humans who can create and sustain it”; my gosh if morality were solely dependent on humanity’s thought’s there would still be injustice and in my opinion even chaos, for who’s version of morality would we follow? Morality can be influenced by religious (not only Christian) thought; it should be guided by our desire to protect those who may be harmed because of their inability to choose. My morality based on my religious belief should not be pushed down your throat, neither should someone else’s.

An interesting and almost borderline intolerant conversation rages on the website of the article and can be read here: http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20110904/letters/letters2.html


You can also read this post on: Jamaican GLBTQ Christian

Our Christian Nation and Human Rights

Jamaicans have recently gone into a flurry over the values and morals we hold as a Christian nation. It is unfortunate however, that though many of us proclaim to be Christians we participate in or refuse to condemn and fight against issues in our society that obviously goes against our Christian values. We must protest all forms of immorality, not just the issue of homosexuality. We must refuse to sell out Our Christian Heritage (http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20110709/letters/letters7.html) on all issues.

There are a few issues that jump to mind, that we as a Christian nation should be protesting against.

1. Sexual immorality. Fornication, adultery, lusting and rape are against Biblical principles. Since they are against our values as Christians these should be listed as crimes and placed upon our laws.  We should prohibit all forms of activity and advertisements that may cause persons to commit these forms of sin and crimes.
2. Gambling. Gambling is against Biblical principles, for this reason it should also be prohibited. All forms of gambling should be outlawed. Horse racing that takes place on a Sunday (if you believe Sundays are for worshiping) or a Saturday, should be made illegal. As a Christian nation we should not condone these activities.
3. Consumption of alcohol and smoking. Since our bodies are the temple of the living God, we should ensure that, persons do not destroy this temple, through destructive activity including smoking, illicit substances, and consuming alcohol to the point of drunkenness.
4. As a Christian nation with Christian principles we should up hold the worship of the One True God. The God of the Christians, Yahweh. All other religions should not be allowed to practice their beliefs, as they are not worshiping the one true God. Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Rastafarianism, other forms of Spirituality, should be outlawed.

These are just four of a range of issues plaguing our society today. As true Christians we must tackle all, and not become selective in the issues we speak out about.

Of course I am not against human rights for GLBT folks (I’d be against myself), this just goes to show that there are multiple issues that should be tackled and not just the issue of homosexuality. It highlights the hypocrisy that exists.

Now the more serious discussion lies in the human rights issues we as GLBT Jamaicans are fighting for.

Since the passage of the New York bill on gay marriage, there has been an increase in letters both pro-gay and anti-gay. One of the letters spoke of the economic gain of legalising gay marriage; I respect that view, I however prefer to tackle this issue from the human rights perspective, particularly as we will start hearing the 'selling out' arguments, as above and in this letter to the editor- No interest in gay tourism. 

Jamaicans have gone into a flurry of Biblical quotes and drawing upon the Bible for why Jamaica will never allow gay marriage. For many, Jamaica is a ‘Christian nation’ having ‘Christian principles’. This post is not to argue the Bible, and what it says or does not, it is to state a few simple facts.

Jamaica is a democratic society. A definition of a democratic society is one where adults hold other individuals, and those in these organizations who are responsible for making decisions and taking actions, fully accountable if their decisions or actions violate fundamental human rights, or are dishonest, unethical, unfair, secretive, inefficient, unrepresentative, unresponsive or irresponsible. For gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) persons in Jamaica, this definition of democratic society is evidently not played out. There are daily violations of the human rights of GLBT persons, and the bodies that should ‘serve, protect, reassure with courtesy, integrity and proper respect for the rights of all’ including the police force and the government are unresponsive, inefficient, and unfair.

Jamaica is a society in which the church and state are separate. Though the major religion in our country is Christianity not all persons in Jamaica are Christians, and the rights of those persons should be respected. Requiring that all persons adhere to the Christian standard and Christian principles go against the right to freedom of conscience and thought given to all under the Jamaican constitution.

The rights which GLBT Jamaicans are advocating for are basic human rights (based on us being citizens of the world), and the rights given to us under the Jamaican constitution (based on our nationality as Jamaicans); including but not limited to the right to life, liberty, security of the person, the enjoyment of property and the protection of the law; the right to freedom of conscience, of expression and of peaceful assembly and association; the right to the respect for private life and privacy of home.

The Charter of Rights says that the enjoyment of our rights granted under its Charter should not ‘prejudice the rights and freedoms of others’. Imposing Christian beliefs upon all persons prejudices these rights and freedoms.

Of Rights Violations

I wrote the below letter in response to the column in The Sunday Gleaner of May 22, 2011, Rights Violations and Other Matters. It was submitted to the Gleaner a few minutes before this blog post. If it is published then I'll post the link for you.

Martin Henry’s column, in The Sunday Gleaner of May 22, 2011, Rights Violations and Other Matters, touched on the issues of rights of Jamaican Muslims and HIV pre-employment testing. I would like to expand the issue of rights violations from Jamaican Muslims to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered (GLBT) Jamaicans.

Though many use the religiosity (particularly Christianity), and pseudo-religiosity of Jamaicans as the shield for maintaining the buggery laws, and for the refusal of implementing statutory protection for GLBT Jamaicans, it must not be forgotten that Jamaica is, ‘constitutionally a secular democracy’ (Rights Violations and Other Matters).

As a secular democracy it is constitutionally unlawful and should be against the conscience of Christians, to impose upon the society, laws that reflect the religious views of the majority (in this instance-Christianity). It is good that we (as a nation) feel that we have a moral obligation to lead people in the right way, however dictating what persons can or cannot do is not the way to do it.

Christians want their religious views to be protected and respected, but Christians shouldn’t be taken out as a group by themselves only because they are in the majority. If we are going to talk about respect and protection, then that must be extended to ALL JAMAICANS.

Maintaining the buggery law, encourages, and sanctions discrimination against gay and bisexual men. The perceived illegality of homosexuality, inferred from the buggery law, results also in discrimination against lesbian and bisexual women and transgendered persons. The discrimination faced includes instances of housing, employment, and privacy among others.

We boast daily that Jamaica is a melting pot of cultures (Out of Many One People), and a place of love, but where is the love? Does this love only extend to persons we perceive to be like us, who believe the same things we do? Does our love extend to just Christians, and its many denominations, and do we tolerate the other religions because they too denounce homosexuality and other variants to heterosexuality?

It is time that we respect that there are persons within our country who are not Christians, who are not heterosexuals, and who do not subscribe to the traditional views and understandings of Christianity. 

The Irrationality of the Existence of the Buggery Law

In 2009 with the sexual offences bill being debated, Ernest Smith, South West St Ann Member of Parliament, made a few comments regarding the characteristics of homosexuals and the severity of punishment for buggery. Smith further called for J-FLAG to be investigated for conspiracy to corrupt public morals. Bruce Golding (Prime Minister) in distancing himself from Smiths’ comments said, "I disagree with the comments he (Smith) made about the rights of persons who advocate for liberation of laws relating to sexual offences, to facilitate, to allow persons the right of choice in their sexual practices" . With this do I start.

If persons have the right of choice in their sexual practices then why does the buggery law exist? The buggery law (sections 76, 77 and 79) of the Offences against the Person Act goes against the very notion of the right of someone to choose what sexual activity or practice they will engage in.

There are two points that are advanced for the validation, of keeping this law on the books. There are:

1. To protect our children. Nonsense. Removal of the buggery law will not increase the possibility of our children being sexual targets. In a sexual offence case recently a JLP minister was charged with buggery. That man should have been charged with rape! Rape is forced sexual activity against someone’s will. The protection of children, women and men should not rest on the continuance of this law. It in fact reduces the sentence of the perpetrator.

2. It is against Christian moral. Now for the people (of which there are many) who seem to have forgotten that Jamaica is not a church state, the reason the buggery law is kept on the books cannot rest on Christian or any other religious argument. The Charter of Rights (section 21) guarantees each person the right to freedom of conscience (which includes freedom of religion); to bind anyone to a law because it is your religious view - that they are wrong and in this case immoral - is a travesty and a violation of that person’s constitutional right.

"If we start to yield; if we start to liberalize in the direction that strong organized lobby would insist that we should, then where do you draw the line?" the prime minister said. Again Mr. Golding like many opponents of human rights for gays, you seem to want to create a link between the human rights and the sexual rights of homosexuals and those in the GLBT(Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered) community, with bestiality and pedophilia. Bestiality and homosexuality are two different things Mr. Golding. I do not condone bestiality. Homosexuality concerns a same-sex, human to human relationship, not human-animal relationship; the same goes for pedophilia; pedophilia “is a psychological disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children” (World Health Organization, Section F65.4). There are pedophiles who are attracted to young girls and pedophiles who are attracted to young boys. Those are different from adults who are attracted to adults of the same sex.

Again the Prime Minister says, "We have a duty to protect people in the country, and therefore, we will never support or condone either the acts of violence or threats of violence or intimidation in any shape or form against persons because of their sexual preferences or lifestyle,” yet it is known that persons are harassed, abused, and been recipients of violence due to their sexual orientations; and the Charter of Rights was recently passed without protection from discrimination for persons of the GLBT community. You have failed Mr. Golding, you and your government have failed at your “duty to protect the people in the country”, including the GLBT community. You need to be held accountable, and don’t laugh it off like you did with Mr. K.D Knight recently (Mannatt/Dudus Inquiry).

Mr. Golding has said that as part of a menu of sexual legislation in the new bill being considered; provision was being made to sentence those persons who engage in buggery carried out in circumstances similar to rape or grievous assault to life. May I advise you Mr. Brilliant Prime Minister, that to be able to effectively bring about that legislation, it means you will need to acknowledge that there are instances where buggery is not committed in circumstances similar to rape or grievous assaults.

"We will never start peeping in anybody's bedroom to see what they are doing within their own privacy. We will never start hounding down people because they may have lifestyles that we would prefer did not exist." As much as many would prefer that other sexual orientations did not exist, Mr. Golding, you do not have any authority to dictate who a person is, what sexual preference they may chose, or what orientation they may be born as. Regarding the ‘peeing..in bedroom[s]’, let me make you aware that per section 19(2)(b),(c) and contrary to what you, and many others purport, police and any other such person acting under the authority of the law can kick down your door, or break through your window, for the purpose of defending (as Mr. Smith said) the public morality, or from preventing a crime from taking place (buggery).

One question I will ask to finish off my article is for Mr. Golding, a member of the security forces, and/or an attorney at law. If two persons (male and male, or male and female, or female and female) are engaging in anal sex, and the neighbours break in on them and begin to inflict injury; when that is reported to the police:

1. Will the persons engaging in anal sex be charged for buggery?

2. Will the police only charge the neighbours who broke in and inflicted harm?

3. Will the police charge both sets?

If the answer to the above is #3 then, it means the law is ineffective, discriminatory, and a stumbling block to the access of protection.

What say you?