Sexual Offences Bill Debate - Senator Hyacinth Bennett's Summary Remarks 26.06.09

She opened with

" .....steps are being taken to have legislation in place to address sexual offences. Clearly the reason why we are going through this process is to update our laws to make our country safer. Safer for every woman, boy and girl, regardless of age or station in life.

This bill is the people's bill.

It belongs to the Jamaican and we must always remember that.

Background:

Laws that deal with what can be viewed as the sensitive area of sex do not exist in the abstract. Sex ans sexual relations have a social and moral context. One may have to take into account the views and values of groups and sub-cultures within the general population as well as the common good of the people as a whole. However in going forward, it is very important that one adopts a wholistic and not a position that places focus on one segment or segments of the population over another. I think is very important that while we do everything to bring sex offenders to justice that their fundamental rights are protected. Some of these persons did not set out to become criminals. However for reasons that perhaps the psychologists can best explain many of these persons end up using sex as a means to hurt others or to address what they think are their own needs much to the detriment of society as a whole.

Many grown men continue to engage in carnal abuse of under aged girls. These girls should be focusing their attentions on passing their exams, preparing for their careers and starting a family when they are financially, mentally and emotionally capable of doing so.

Values and Philosophy:

Mr. President, my focus today is on certain aspects of this bill that concern morality and natural sexual relations. We know that this is the early 21st century. We know that is has become accepted in certain countries that once had colonies in this part of the world to implement new laws and incorporate new thinking that include a liberal approach to sexual relations. What was once considered unnatural has now been redefined in some places as being natural for a particular group or groups. However we are no longer a colony. We must develop our own thinking on these issues. The liberal values or ideology of one culture should not be imposed on another whether by external influence or even by importation.

The debate on aspects of this bill is more about values and philosophy than it is about the individual provisions. Liberal ideology has no difficulty with laws that for example could lead to to the overturning of our existing anti-buggery laws that criminalize, among other things, anal sex between consenting adults. Other persons with a judeo-christian worldview would however have a difficulty with that.

For many persons that push a radical homosexual agenda it is claimed that homosexual behaviour is natural for them. That particuar group has been quite successful in advancing their cause by using the rights based approach. I am not a psychologist or a psychiatrist but I have not seen where homosexual behaviour has been conclusively shown to be natural.

In fact the dominant scientific opinion has been that no one can conclusively show that homosexuality is natural. Clearly I am not here today to win popularity from certain quarters, but I have to speak the truth. The founder of the United Kingdom's homosexual lobby group outrage, Mr Peter Tatchell admitted that you will not find that anyone is born homosexual. I found this admission very revealing and whilst I am not here to bash anyone I do believe that radical homosexual elements may need to look within themselves before advancing positions that can affect the common good. Advancing causes or including thinking that can implicitly or explicitly include what we call gay rights can eventually lead to several repercussions, some of which we may not have envisaged.

It can have negative effects on raising of children who need to have clear gender roles of males and females modeled before them. It can affect how families are defined such as whether a child can have two daddies or two mommies.

It can also affect how we should conduct our every day social relations as the holding of hands in public and even how invitations to social functions are addressed."

end of part 1

Look for more parts to this what I call a ridiculous presentation in the people's senate.

Homeless MSM in Jamaica

In a forum recently planned for Gay homeless young men organised by a concerned group many of the young men's plights were discussed and possible solutions to begin to address the problem.

In a frank and open discussion the men mostly aged in their early to mid twenties explained in detail their day to day ways of surviving the streets:

1). securing food by begging or shared purchases

2). hiding from would be predators (usually other more powerful homeless males)

3). harassment from police

4). harassment and ridicule from members of the public

5). physical attacks by security guards on nearby premises

6). homophobic attacks from other homeless boys and bikers who roam the streets at night

7). Older, more powerful and experienced bisexual and gay gangstas on the street prey on them for sexual favours, relieving them of money or gifts

Most of the MSMs were displaced because of their sexual preference becoming public knowledge hence they are chased from their homes by family or community members sometimes under threat of death if they should return.

Others lose their jobs for the same reasons and end up struggling to rebuild their lives mostly in fear of being discovered while doing so. The goals and ambitions are laudable with some already possessing skills in the arts and trades (chefs etc).

The men however support each other by way of sharing food and clothing when they receive gifts and money or just emotional kind by talking and making each other aware of their whereabouts.

Emotional development was a factor that was discussed at length which was found to be too heavy at first but it got more simplistic as the exchange continued.

It is hoped that from this first step would be the birth of a continued exercise to rescue these young men and make them into productive and confident human beings.

H

AJ Still at it

This old cartoon that appeared in the Gleaner on January 19, 2007 still rings true, looks like Senator A. J. Nicholson, former Attorney General of the previous People's National Party (PNP)Administration is intent on keeping us in the closet (see the post below) in relation to the Sexual Offences Bill 2009 being debated in the Senate.

Let's watch this one closely folks, after all it's not about forcing our lifestyle on the nation as some would like to grandstand on but securing our freedom of choice as citizens to private actions without church and state intrusion.

Plain and simple.

H

here is a flashback to a statement he made while he was Attorney General on Same Sex Unions:

There is no intention whatsoever on the part of the Government or the Joint Select Committee of Parliament that any door should be opened by provisions in the proposed Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or otherwise, to decriminalise homosexuality or to pave the way for same-sex marriages to be accepted as lawful in Jamaica.

In seeking to make submissions to the Joint Select Committee at this eleventh hour, the church representatives and the group of lawyers who complain about certain provisions of the Charter, concerning the protection of the right to privacy, need to be reminded of the history and purport of those provisions as they were developed.
First, those provisions are to the same effect as those that are contained in the recommendations of the Constitutional Commission of the early 1990s, under the chairmanship of Dr. Lloyd Barnett, in their draft Bill on the Charter

Second, the Joint Select Committee that sat for a long time to consider the Charter provisions, in the late 1990s, heard presentations from groups who take a completely opposite view to that taken by the church representatives and group of lawyers. Those entities, including J-FLAG, even though approaching the matter from the base of a different provision in the Bill, were of the view that the Charter should move away from the recommendations of the Constitutional Commission on this score and that there should be no discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation.

The Joint Select Committee did not agree that such a recommendation should be made to Parliament since it saw such a measure as opening the door to the legalisation, or at least, the decriminalisation of homosexuality.

Third, the Parliamentary Opposition tabled a Charter of Rights Bill in the name of its former leader, in which the provisions of which the church representatives and group of lawyers now complain are in the same terms as those recommended by the Constitutional Commission that was chaired by Dr. Barnett.

The church representatives and group of lawyers ought to be mindful of the following:
• It is not possible to have a policeman placed in every bedroom in Jamaica. So that, within the confines of a person’s home, this particular mischief cannot be prevented or punished except, of course, someone complains.

• Every provision in a law or a constitution is subject to interpretation by judges. Interpretation of laws, however narrowly or broadly drafted, is always coloured by the experience, culture and prevailing circumstances by which the interpreter is guided in coming to a conclusion. That is one of the reasons why the final interpreter of a country’s laws and constitutional provisions should be exposed to and be keenly aware of the socio-cultural imperatives that must guide his decision.

Senator A.J. Nicholson, Q.C.

Legalising buggery provision in the Sexual Offences bill – Opposition

Source: RJR

The Opposition on Friday warned that the Government might end up legalising buggery through the back door because of a provision in the new Sexual Offences Bill.


Opposition Senator Navel Clarke who was making his contribution to debate on the bill in the Senate Friday morning, pointed to a clause in the bill which introduces into law a new crime called grievous sexual assault.


The bill sets out specific circumstances in which grievous sexual assault can be committed to include the penetration of the anus and vagina without consent.


However Senator Clarke argued that the inclusion of the phrase 'without consent' implies that buggery would be perfectly legal where there is consent.

"In my opinion, this has been a slight of hand (where) somebody seemed to have slipped in the matter which abolishes the (offence of buggery) as we know it," he said.


The Opposition Senator was backed by Leader of Opposition Business in the Senate, AJ Nicholson who argued that the bill was littered with unresolved issues because the Government had failed to follow proper procedure and had rushed the process.


"The route that has been taken has caused avoidable delays, a meandering and a troubled journey through the houses ... different days be appointed for the start of different provisions. Even after our deliberations here in the Senate, there will requirements for the House of Representatives to consider future amendments recommended in this chamber," said Senator Nicholson.


The controversial bill, which was also subject to extensive and heated debate in the Lower House, is likely to continue to stir up a firestorm of reactions among several Senators yet to make their contribution.


Charging women for raping men

In the meantime, Government Senator Dennis Meadows wants the Sexual Offences Bill to be amended to allow women to be charged for raping men.


Senator Meadows elicited giggles from some Government and Opposition Members of the Senate as he argued for the section of the bill which recognises marital rape, to be made gender neutral.


Previously, the law did not recognize that a man could rape his wife.


But the Sexual Offences Bill sets out five circumstances in which a husband can be charged for raping his spouse.


The bill now says that marital rape can only be committed where the spouses have separated under law, are seeking a divorce or trying to annul their marriage, where there is an injunction ousting the husband from the marital home or if the husband knows himself to be infected with a sexually transmitted illness.


However making his contribution to debate on the bill in the Senate Friday afternoon, Senator Meadows argued that that section of the bill should not only address husbands raping their wives but wives raping their husbands.


According to him, the change would also address date rape.


"I'm man to say that I can be raped by a woman ... I may not cry rape but it is possible. A woman who drugs a man with a date rape drug for example and has sex with him without his consent has committed rape or in this case grievous sexual assault," said Mr. Meadows.

Married women left out in the cold - Mark Golding (right)


He was not the only Senator who took issue with the section of the bill dealing with marital rape.


Opposition Senator Mark Golding argued that by restricting marital rape to only five specific circumstances, the new bill would unwittingly end up offering less protection to married women than the law now offers to unwed women.


"The unmarried woman who lives with her man in long term relation will actually now enjoy superior rights than a lawfully married wife since if her man has sex with her without her consent he would have committed rape but that is not so in the case of a lawfully wedded wife unless one of the five circumstances is also present," said Senator Golding.


The Senate will continue to debate the Sexual Offences bill next Friday.