Idiot plan that-Many Jamaicans Buggery Law Review Comments [Pictures]

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

The following is an article submitted to the Letters to the Editor in the Jamaica Gleaner. It was written by Yvonne McCalla Sobers (Families Against State Terrorism).


Impressed With Portia
THE EDITOR, Sir:

In the December 20 leadership debate, Portia Simpson Miller impressed me with her courage and her willingness to acknowledge human rights as inclusive of all, regardless of sexual orientation. I also took seriously her commitment to inclusive governance with a team approach and with citizen participation.

Andrew Holness, on the other hand, seemed prepared to deny human rights to some persons, based on their sexual orientation. He seemed keen to distance himself from his team, claiming to be on the periphery when Dudus-Manatt decisions were made, or projecting himself as the one who will deliver change.

In the debate, Andrew seemed the more sophisticated, and Portia seemed the more sincere. Recent experience with politicians has caused me to favour sincerity over eloquence.

At the constituency level, André Hylton, the PNP candidate, has proven accessible and responsive to my concerns and my suggestions for constituency governance. The new JLP candidate has not.

But my vote comes with a price. I expect the party/candidate I vote for to provide in return:

Courage to take hard decisions;

Respect for the human rights of all;

Responsiveness to citizens in and out of election time, even/especially when views are critical; and

Adoption of a team approach.

YVONNE MCCALLA SOBERS

sobersy@yahoo.com

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

I've been trying to decide how to keep my readers up to speed with what is happening following Portia Simpson Miller's [personal] statement that gays can serve in her cabinet (read it here: Simpson Miller Gays can serve in my cabinet (Jamaica Election Debates 2011- Leadership ). I've decided that until I sit and put my thoughts together I'll keep you updated by reposting news articles, other blogs, videos, and comments (Jamaica's Reaction to Statement By Portia Simpson Miller (Gays can serve in my cabinet) Pt I).

So let's get started.

The following was taken from the Jamaica Observer.

‘Idiot plan that!’ - Many Jamaicans against Buggery Law Review

THE pronouncement by Opposition Leader and People’s National Party (PNP) President Portia Simpson Miller during Tuesday night’s national leadership debate that a PNP government led by her would review the buggery law has set off a heated debate with many Jamaicans as well as some churches voicing strong opposition to any such move.

Observer staff reporter Kimmo Matthews yesterday sought the opinions of members of the public on Simpson Miller’s position.

(L-R) ‘Rastaman’, Judith Brown White and Chevan Brown  1/3

‘Rastaman’

It is something that I would have to go think about, as I do not want to jump to any conclusion on what was said.

Judith Brown White: Supermarket Sales Rep

I have a problem with that decision. To carry out such a review is totally wrong. What it is promoting is totally against the teachings of the Bible.

Chevan Brown

I think it was a ploy to get votes.

Delroy Mitchell

It has been happening, not here in Jamaica only, and soon or later we are going to have to take a stance. I believe that the rights of citizens should be recognised.

Devon Campbell: Taxi Operator

Not in my cabinet! If a man a deal with him thing, mek him deal with it one side. So that means sooner or later, with this review of the law, my grandchildren can’t walk in peace.

Hubert Palmer: Security guard

We are to stop trying to put a pretty coating on the issue. That sort of practice should not be tolerated. What sort of message will that send to my little son down the road?

Chairmaine Mundle: Supermarket Sales Rep

That should never be allowed to happen. God has never created people to operate and entertain that sort of practice. Our country has a strong Christian faith and belief and that sort of practice should not be encouraged and that is what such a planned review will do.

‘Businesswoman’

Our source is God. Why are we trying to sell our souls for the almighty dollar? Jamaica is not a country that embraces that sort of practice. She is out of her cotton-picking mind and she should not sell her soul for the dollar.

Ian

It is full time we should try to move away from that sort of primitive approach and allow people to live their lives despite of their sexual orientation.

Richardo Wedderburn: Security Guard

She should have tried to come up with some different approach. I know because she is a woman she a go try balance the thing. But I believe a revision of such laws is going to affect us down the road.

Jonelle Jefferson: Secretary

I do not care what a man or woman wants to do with their life, but the Opposition needs to realise that it is Jamaica we are living in and we are not going to change our views and I think it is going to hurt her chances in the upcoming election.

Orlando Gayle: Security Guard

That is totally unacceptable. Such practice and support of such practice cannot be right at all. We burn that sort of practice. Her move or plans to review the law will certainly help to promote such practice.

Toney Bromwell: Taxi Operator

Idiot plan that. Jamaica no deal with that. A vote me feel she a look.

Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/Many-Jamaicans-against-Buggery-Law-review_10447168#ixzz1hNcbo3dI

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. 

Published Response to Peter Espeut

Hey readers as promised, here is the version that was published in the Gleaner.

It's reposted in it's entirety, and can be found at the main webpage which will also have the comments, you can find that by clicking on the name of the article.


Lesbians Do Have Morals!
Published: Saturday | April 16, 2011                17 Comments


THE EDITOR, Sir:

Peter Espeut, in his column 'The right to discriminate' (April 8), began his defence against the non-inclusion of a non-discrimination clause against the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Jamaican population by drawing upon the fear of Jamaicans.

A church that does not condone homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexuality, transgenderism cannot, by any account, be forced to admit these persons into its clergy, as that would be an infringement on their rights. The church is a private body governed by its own rules; the same goes for schools employing openly LGBT persons.

Mr Espeut says that by including a clause of non-discrimination, it may cause "young people ... [to believe] that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equally acceptable 'alternative lifestyles'." Why, Mr Espeut, would anyone choose to live a life that they have heard over and over will lead them to hell, a life that would endanger their life?

anything goes

I do not know, Mr Espeut, if you are saying that "anything goes" is the characteristic of LGBT persons, or if such persons are amoral. If that is what you are saying, may I ask you how many LGBT persons have you met outside the stereotypical profile many have of LGBT people? Let me introduce you to a lesbian who has a moral compass: me. I am a lesbian, a Christian, an overcomer of a sexual crime. I am not amoral, I have values, I have a concept of right and wrong, I have moral principles.

Get it right, Mr Espeut, all heterosexuals aren't party animals and promiscuous beings, neither are all lesbians, bisexuals, gays, and transgenders.

I am, etc.,

ALEXIS JARVIS
Lesbian Christian and Human
Rights Activist

Jarvis@p2102442.pubip.peer1.net

Too Many Deaths for the First Part of the Month

I am currently at a loss for word, I am very much distraught one of these guys was a friend of mine. This is the exact reason we need protection under the charter of rights, and the repeal of Sections 76, 77 and 79 of the Offences Against the Person Act.

Visit my fellow blogger brother's post on the three deaths this week.

The Tragic Loss Of Three Icons In Less Than A Month ……..

This Buju Banton Thing

Popular reggae artiste Mark Myrie better known as Buju Banton, was found guilty in a Florida court, on three charges on Tuesday, February 22. The artiste was found guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five or more kilogrammes of cocaine, attempted possession with the intent to distribute cocaine, and using the wires to facilitate a drug-trafficking offence. He was found not guilty of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking offence.(On the Ground News Reports).

This conviction brought to the fore the ignorance of many Jamaicans. The discriminatory slurs and comments uttered by Jamaicans can be found all over the internet. In particular On the Ground News Reports on Facebook, below is a sample of the comments on their page:

How people believe that Buju Banton was set up by gays and that his conviction was coloured by the 'all powerful' gay lobby is beyond me. My opinion is that if someone is guilty and found so by a jury, then they are guilty. Many Jamaicans in blaming gays, refuse to see the logic in the fact that no one but Buju Banton is to be blamed for his own predicament. If you're not inclined to do something then you will not be caught doing it, a simple example (my comment posted on On the Ground News Reports):

"...If you're not inclined to certain things you won't be lured into the trap. If a man nuh gay nor have the inclination him nah go find himself in "compromising position(s)" with other males. Therefore boasting or not, entrapped or not HE placed himself in the cross hairs. Stop playing the blame game."

There are some other Jamaicans who share the same sentiment:

Dear readers, do you believe that Buju Banton was unfaily convicted based on 'Boom Bye Bye' and the 'Gay Agenda' or by his own actions?

Removal of Sexual Orientation from UN Resolution Condemning Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions

Governments Remove Sexual Orientation from UN Resolution Condemning Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions

11/17/2010




For Immediate Release





Contact:


John Fisher

Co-Director

ARC International

ph: +41-79-508-3968

john@arc-international.net

www.arc-international.net


Sara Perle

Ric Weiland Research & Policy Associate

IGLHRC

ph: 212-430-6015

sperle@iglhrc.org



The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) and ARC International are deeply disappointed with yesterday’s vote in the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly to remove a reference to sexual orientation from a resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. The resolution urges States to protect the right to life of all people, including by calling on states to investigate killings based on discriminatory grounds. For the past 10 years, the resolution has included sexual orientation in the list of discriminatory grounds on which killings are often based.


The removed reference was originally contained in a non-exhaustive list in the resolution highlighting the many groups of people that are particularly targeted by killings - including persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, persons acting as human rights defenders (such as lawyers, journalists or demonstrators) as well as street children and members of indigenous communities. Mentioning sexual orientation as a basis on which people are targeted for killing highlights a situation in which particular vigilance is required in order for all people to be afforded equal protection.


The amendment removing the reference to sexual orientation was sponsored by Benin on behalf of the African Group in the UN General Assembly and was adopted with 79 votes in favor, 70 against, 17 abstentions and 26 absent.


“This vote is a dangerous and disturbing development,” said Cary Alan Johnson, Executive Director of IGLHRC. “It essentially removes the important recognition of the particular vulnerability faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people - a recognition that is crucial at a time when 76 countries around the world criminalize homosexuality, five consider it a capital crime, and countries like Uganda are considering adding the death penalty to their laws criminalizing homosexuality.”


This decision in the General Assembly flies in the face of the overwhelming evidence that people are routinely killed around the world because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation, and renders these killings invisible or unimportant. The Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions has highlighted documented cases of extrajudicial killings on the grounds of sexual orientation including individuals facing the death penalty for consensual same-sex conduct; individuals tortured to death by State actors because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation; paramilitary groups killing individuals because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation as part of “social cleansing” campaigns; individuals murdered by police officers with impunity because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation; and States failing to investigate hate crimes and killings of persons because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation.


"It is a matter of great shame that the responsible Committee of the United Nations General Assembly failed in its responsibility to explicitly condemn well-documented killings based on sexual orientation," said John Fisher, Co-Director of ARC international. "The credibility of the United Nations requires protection of all persons from violations of their fundamental human rights, including on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. We thank those States which supported the inclusion of sexual orientation in the text, and will redouble our collective efforts to ensure that Member States of the United Nations maintain the standards they have sworn to uphold."


The amendment runs counter to other positive developments in UN and regional human rights systems where there is increased recognition of the need for protection from discrimination regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity. At a September 2010 panel held in conjunction with a session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon unequivocally recognized “the particular vulnerability of individuals who face criminal sanctions, including imprisonment and in some cases the death penalty, on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity.”


Sixty-eight countries have also signed a joint statement in the UN General Assembly on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity which calls for an end to “human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity … in particular the use of the death penalty on this ground [and] extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.”


IGLHRC and ARC International urge all States, regardless of their vote on this amendment, to sign the UNGA joint statement affirming support of the human rights of all people, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity and to continue in efforts to decriminalize same-sex conduct and to end other discrimination, including violence, on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.


The votes to amend the resolution were as follows:


In favor of the amendment to remove sexual orientation from the resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (79):


Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Brunei Dar-Sala, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, China, Comoros, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe


Opposed to the amendment to remove sexual orientation from the resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (70):


Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bhutan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Micronesia (FS), Monaco, Montenegro, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela


Abstain (17):


Antigua-Barbuda, Barbados, Belarus, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Colombia, Fiji, Mauritius, Mongolia, Papau New Guinea, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Vanuatu


Absent (26):


Albania, Bolivia, Central African Republic, Chad, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Marshall Island, Mauritania, Nauru, Nicaragua, Palau, Sao Tome Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Togo, Tonga, Turkey, Turkmenistan










------------------------------------------------------------------

My two cents

Backward, backward, backward. We take one step forward and then a whole lot of steps backward. We can't lose heart and give up though, must continue pushing and working. The problem in Jamaica is that many people view the basic human rights of lgbti people as special rights, and for that reason they resist. But how are they special rights? Because the individuals demanding the recognition of them fall in the lgbti category? Since when is right to life a special right?