Do you think the Buggery Law should be?

The Safe House Homeless LGBTQ Project 2009 a detailed look & more

In response to numerous requests for more information on the defunct Safe House Pilot Project that was to address the growing numbers of displaced and homeless LGBTQ youth in Kingston in 2007/8/9, a review of the relevance of the project as a solution, the possible avoidance of present issues with some of its previous residents if it were kept open.
Recorded June 12, 2013; also see from the former Executive Director named in the podcast more background on the project: HERE also see the beginning of the issues from the closure of the project: The Quietus ……… The Safe House Project Closes and The Ultimatum on December 30, 2009

Thursday, May 30, 2013

Tolerance Ad case the Final Day – Tomlinson v TVJ, CVM and PBCJ


On the final day of the historic trial otherwise known as the tolerance ad trial a packed courtroom in downtown Kingston at the Justice Square grounds of the Supreme Court saw arguments from the lawyers representing CVM TV finalizing their submissions, the court indicated that a ruling will not be handed down before the end of this term by the end of July.

All parties accept that the claimant Maurice Tomlinson has a constitutional right to freedom of expression freedom to disseminate information that’s what the charter of rights provides where they differ is on whether that right prevails in this case Mr Tomlinson’s lawyer Lord Anthony Gifford has been arguing that his client should prevail given the power and reach of the free to air television station making them the only viable channel to reach a large chunk of the television audience but the media houses have been maintaining that Mr Tomlinson’s rights cannot trump their rights to control the materials they broadcast.

Solicitor General Nicole Foster Pusey (linked allegedly to the anti gay group Lawyers' Christian Fellowship, LCF) while acknowledging that there are competing rights on both sides said the court would have to carry out a balancing exercise in deciding whose right should prevail this is because the case against TVJ, Television Jamaica and CVM TV involves Mr Tomlinson a private individual suing two private entities that is the so called horizontal application of the charter of rights which the Solicitor General said the charter clearly allows.

PBCJ – Public Broadcasting Corporation of Jamaica is a government entity however its restriction of Mr Tomlninson’s rights by not carrying the ad has to meet the constitutional test of what is “demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society” it is clear the Solicitor General believes that the PBCJ has met that test since by law the station cannot carry paid ads such as that that has been offered by Mr Tomlinson, Mrs Foster Pusey said in light of this it is hard to see how the station could be said to have breached Mr Tomlinson’s rights.

Earlier today Javed Jaghai Education Officer of JFLAG spoke to platforms and constitutional challenges for minority groups on Nationwide radio's George Davis Live:

the ad in question

We wait as the learned judges Leighton Pusey, Brian Sykes go into deliberations to arrive at a decision.

Mr Tomlinson however being able to speak since the case has ended as comments are not allowed during a trial said "I can't say that I am hundred percent confident that the court will rule in my favour because they're such novel rights being contested and deliberated upon, I also think that the presentations were of such high quality on all sides that it would be impossible to say that one side will prevail based on what was presented and how the judges responded was such a well argued case.

Lawyers had argued that the station should not carry the ad as it may be against their editorial policy he responded:

"They have to get a special license that gives you a particular level of control over access to media it isn't granted to everybody those who have it have a particular level of power and as Justice Pusey commented with great power comes great responsibility." 

"They certainly have a right not to have that done to them" in response to anti gay voices opposing the airing of the ad "what is being portrayed if they were to actually see the ad has nothing of that calibre, it's an ad promoting respect and love for a particular Jamaican who just happens to be gay." 

Meanwhile reparative therapy advocate Reverend Al Miller (the driver in the cartoon above) who despite his own court battle of assisting a known criminal that being now imprisoned Christopher "Dudus" Coke and harbouring a fugitive who was found cross dressed in the Reverend's company to evade local authorities to a foreign state that being the US embassy and his dubious missing gun case the appeal of which he lost in February of this year  has jumped on the bashing bandwaggon claiming if the ad was aired then he and other pastors would strongly object. 

Strange that since the awful murders of four children in less than forty eight hours not a sound of remorse has come from these anti gay and homophobic voices but they are loud when it comes to rights and recognition towards same gender loving people. What moral authority does he have?

previous sentiments some months ago:

Rev Al Miller says gay lobby is using the guise of tolerance to get the nation to accept the “gay lifestyle”

Gleaner link: Reverend Al Miller has been found guilty of negligence resulting in the loss or theft of his licensed firearm.

Peace and tolerance

UPDATE JUNE 3, 2013 the lawyer is contemplating taking the another matter originating in Trinidad and their refusal to allow him entry recently to the Caribbean Court of Justice the CCJ:


BONUS: discussion on whether Jamaican media is homophobic

UPDATE June: Another case to watch for June 25, 2013

Tolerance Ad case Day 3 – Tomlinson v TVJ, CVM and PBCJ


In day three of the tolerance ad trial in the Supreme Court lawyers representing CVM TV said they have no obligation or duty to air an ad promoting tolerance towards homosexuals they also maintain that their refusal to air an ad did not breach the constitutional rights of gay rights advocate and lawyer Maurice Tomlinson the claimant in this matter. He is suing Television Jamaica, TVJ, CVM TV and PBCJ Public Broadcasting Commission of Jamaica. 

Hugh Small Queen's Council continued his point on the balancing exercise that of the rights of Mr Tomlinson versus those of his client CVM TV to which CMV has a right to freedom of expression, to editorial control to decide what it does and does not air and in what forms. He also referred to the report from the Joint Select Committee on the constitutional reform process that led to the enactment of the Charter of Rights. He noted that in several cases the Committee had used very clear language in indicating the changes that should be made to the constitution, and said this clear language was not used in the legislation. If so, he said, the arguments now being made (over issues like whether the Charter has horizontal application – that is, can be used by one private citizen to sue another for a breach of constitutional rights) would not be necessary.

He referred to a section of the report in which the South African constitution was discussed, as that constitution specifically provides for the role of the courts in developing the common law (law laid down in cases decided by the courts) and noted that the Joint Select Committee expressed the view that it is the prerogative of the legislature to develop the law. This attitude he linked with the outrage from regional governments over the Privy Council’s Pratt and Morgan decision, which held that after five years on death row, death sentences should be commuted to life in prison.

“So in effect we have two constitutional rights brought into competition under the same section of the Charter …if there are competing rights, can this Court make an order that explicitly (abrogates) CVM’s rights?” he asked adding that he could find no precedent for a Court making an order that would infringe the rights of one party.

Mr. Small also submitted that the use of the word “media” in the provision regarding the “right to seek, receive distribute, or disseminate information, opinions or ideas through any media” is not a reference to mass media. The word, he said, is being used as the plural of the word medium meaning any channel which an individual chooses to use, such as the internet.

He continued that the orders Mr Tomlinson is seeking by way of this trial cannot be granted if said orders may infringe on the rights of CVM TV, some concerns pinged to his posture were:

1) The ad could not have been aired as a public service announcement as it did not fit that criteria

2) Concerns about how the public might react based on what the station has since in terms of negative reactions to previously aired materials involving homosexual themes

3) It cannot be said that CVM TV is adverse to or a pre-existing prejudice in airing programs with homosexual themes or discussing similar issues when Mr Tomlinson himself has appeared in some of those programs

4) Ensuring that loss of revenue does not occur due to any backlash from airing materials that may be considered offensive by the public and or airing of content that might impact on said revenue

5) The station satisfies itself that the content to be aired is in keeping with values it holds

6) CVM TV has experiences adverse reactions to previous content aired that had homosexual themes

7) The video could be considered a covert attempt to promote homosexuality and related illegal acts namely buggery

8) The board had a concern that CVM TV maybe viewed as supporting or promoting certain illegal activities which was taken into account in making the decision not to air the video footage

One theme of the day’s proceedings was attorney’s explaining why their respective media houses refuse to carry the controversial ad, Queen Council, QC Donald Smith representing PBCJ said the PBCJ act did not create a right of freedom of expression his junior counsel Daverna Chambers submitted that PBCJ has a duty to disseminate not just ideas and information but ideas and information on matters of general public interest she said the video submitted by Mr Tomlinson is not one of general public interest then she went on to say that a matter of public interest would be a matter in which the public is interested such as the budget debate laughter broke out in the court room.

Justice Pusey suggest she stick with his previous example of boys and girls champs instead, Miss Chambers also pointed out the Public Broadcasting Commission of Jamaica, PBCJ does not have a commercial license, does not take paid advertising and will have no place for a thirty second video earlier CVM TV’s lead counsel Hugh Small had told the court the station was concerned about negative public reaction and also the video could be seen as promoting homosexual practices some of which are illegal in Jamaica. He also noted that CVM TV’s license requires them to operate in the state’s interest and this video could have disturbed the public his junior Jerome Spencer differed from Television Jamaica’s lawyers that the charter of rights does allow private individuals to sue private entities.

“I don’t know how the case for the Claimant proceeds after that, since it is an acknowledgement that PBCJ does not air paid advertisements,” he noted.

His submission was that the PBCJ Act which created the entity did not create any freedom of expression rights.

She referred to the functions of the PBCJ as mandated in the Act, namely that:

4 (2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (I), the Corporation shall provide public broadcasting services designed to promote

(a) the encouragement and propagation of positive values and attitudes within the society;

(b) the development of education and training;

(c) the dissemination of news, information and ideas on matters of general public interest;

(d) the vitality of democratic institutions;

(e) the protection of the environment;

V) the development of literary and artistic expression;

(g) the development of culture, human resources and sports;

(h) respect for fundamental rights and freedoms and the responsibilities of the individual to society;

She said that section 4 (2) (c ) has to be read in its entirety, emphasising the requirement that the material must be of general public interest.

She argued that the video did not fall into this category, which she said should be interpreted to mean matters that would interest the public “such as the budget debate.” Laughter broke out in the courtroom, which intensified when Justice Pusey suggested that she stick with his previous example of Champs as a matter in which the public is interested.

Justice Pusey also suggested to Miss Chambers that she re-phrase her submission, although he was actually suggesting a different position from that which she had taken.

“A better formulation of that might be to say that PBCJ has determined that its role is to deal with non-controversial issues” and that the station was “not the place for advocacy,” he said.

Miss Chambers said the video does not fall within the category of a Public Service Announcement, that it does not fall within any of the types of programmes that PBCJ is mandated to air.

“The Claimant concedes that this is not an ad, but it is 30 seconds (long). We don’t do fillers at PBCJ, so where would it fall?” she asked.

Solicitor General Nicole Foster Pusey started her submission and will continue tomorrow her presence is to assist the court via any research information and the legal positions on various issues, she plays no role in siding with any of the parties involved in the trial.

here is the video:

parts taken from Dionne Jackson Miller's blog report (who is employed to the RJR group, owners of TVJ a party in the suit)

more in a discussion on Nationwide radio on private citizens, platforms and constitutional challenges with Education Officer for JFLAG:

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

Tolerance Ad case - Day 2 - Maurice Tomlinson v TVJ, CVM and PBCJ

Day two in the Supreme Court saw the lawyers representing the stations sought to dismiss the merits of the arguments by the claimant Mr Maurice Tomlinson, the stations have been accused of breaching the constitutional rights of the activist attorney over the refusal to air a commercial promoting tolerance for homosexuals. (see ad below) 

What is being sought:
1) A declaration that in refusing to air the ad the stations had breached Mr Tomlinson's constitutional rights to freedom of speech as well as freedom to disseminate information, opinions or ideas through any media.

2) An order for Television Jamaica TVJ, PBCJ and CVM TV to air the ad in exchange for the standard fee and also damages.

Lord Anthony Gifford wrapped up his submissions that he started yesterday which included precedence set elsewhere in similar cases, he also asked the court to recognise that private media houses do not have total editorial freedom, he said the US supreme court made that clear in their context and he is asking the court to make such a finding on behalf of his claimant in this context, that broadcasters have to operate in the public interest and entities do not have absolute rights. Justice Leighton Pusey asked if that application of that principle in the US is coloured by their doctrine whereby they have had freedom of the press as a specific constitutional right and that the broadcasting industry was developed after that, in our context it is not so. Lord Gifford responded that freedom of expression had always been protected. Broadcasting houses are mandated via their licenses to operate in the public interest as they do so in a particular space i. e. the airwaves. It would be useful therefore for the court to issue guidance as to what principles TV stations should use in deciding to air materials submitted to it.

Are stations obliged to give reasons and so on are to be considered? Justice Pusey had a difficulty with PBCJ component in particular as it is a public entity and how someone is able to get a video aired there. He asked if this ad is allowed to be aired will others also be allowed and the screening processes for same, Lord Gifford suggested that one should look at the terms of reference. 

Television Jamaica's, TVJ attorney Georgia Gibson Henlin addressed the court where she spent more time on two main arguments one of which was that the claimant Maurice Tomlinson has no standing in the matter that is he is not entitled to bring this case before the court she also argued that in any event the Charter of Rights does not allow Mr Tomlinson to sue TVJ a private entity the issue of whether or not a law suit can be brought under the charter of rights without any government involvement is one of the important issues in this case. The vertical application of a challenge was mentioned as usual reason for a constitutional challenge such as this however this action by Tomlinson et al is considered a horizontal application (excluding government) suing another private entity. 

She also claimed that previous tolerance typed programs resulted in acts of violence to persons involved so that form of expression would not be justified. She continued that Mr Tomlinson does not have the right to use TVJ's property to carry his message as the charter does not give him the right to say he can use their facilities, she used a freedom of expression example that persons have a right to freedom of speech but that the individual does not have a right to make a speech in someone's front yard. 

Mrs Gibson Henlin says that case law from other countries with similar constitutions support her contention that the charter of rights does not permit a private citizen to sue another private entity as is being done in this case.

She faced intense questions on this issue from Justice Brian Sykes stating that the charter does not compel the conclusion that some kind of government action is needed before one private citizen can sue another. 

On the issue of Mr Tomlinson's standing Mrs Henlin told the court that Mr Tomlinson is known as a "poser" or "tool" as he does not live here and is being used as a tool by his employer the international organization called AIDSFREEWORLD, she says the ad in question was part of the campaign to target homophobic laws since he himself has suffered no harm because of the ad not being played and because AIDSFREEWORLD is not based in Jamaica the case should not go forward. Mrs Gibson Henlin concluded her submission subsequently that in the case of the right to freedom of expression in particular that of a private citizen cannot sue another private entity, there is no general right of one private person to sue another and must seen on a case by case basis and in this particular case involving freedom of expression there is no such right as under the charter.

They day concluded with lead counsel for CVM TV Mr Hugh Small commencing his arguments. His short introduction dealt with Mr Tomlinson's rights but that the court cannot offer Mr Tomlinson relief as if in doing so not also breach CVM TV's rights as well. Mr Tomlinson therefore cannot assert his rights to the extent that it infringes on his client CVM.

there was a small outdoor stand by the Emancipation Park statue yesterday and TVJ carried the story

below is the original video that was aired for a time and discontinued by the agencies who sponsored it:

here is Mr Tomlinson's ad specific to this case:

Tolerance Ad case - Day 1 - Maurice Tomlinson v TVJ, CVM and PBCJ


The case started in Jamaica’s constitutional court yesterday. Mr. Tomlinson is seeking a declaration that refusing to air an ad promoting tolerance for homosexuals breached his constitution rights to freedom of expression and freedom to distribute or disseminate information, opinions, or ideas through any media; order for TVJ and CVM to air the ad in exchange for the standard fees;

Here’s a summary of the major issues and proceedings from the first day courtesy of RJR's Dionne JAckson Miller to whom I am grateful:

The 30-second spot, dubbed the “Love and Respect video” by the claimant, and which can be seen here, was shown to the court at the start of the proceedings.

Lord Anthony Gifford, lead counsel for Mr. Tomlinson, instructed by Anika Gray, submitted that the video was dignified and restrained. He said that only a very intolerant person would take exception to it.

He said the language of the new Charter of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which only came into effect in 2011, indicated that parliament intended for the rights outlined therein to prevail unless there were limits that could be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. NB That issue of what can be "demonstrably justified” is a key element of the Claimant’s arguments, the argument being that the refusal to play the ad was not be demonstrably justified.

Not only were Mr. Tomlinson’s rights limited by the TV stations, Lord Gifford argued, but the limits imposed did not meet the test of that which could be demonstrably justified in a democratic society.

Another important issue is whether the television stations TVJ and CVM, as private entities, are bound by the Charter in this situation. That argument of course does not arise with PBCJ, which is a government entity. This relates to the argument that charter extends horizontally (citizen to citizen) to bind private citizens as well as vertically (government to citizen), that is, binding government.In relation to PBCJ, the claimant is arguing that as a public authority, PBCJ had a duty to uphold the constitution, and that furthermore, the PCJJ Act mandates the agency to broadcast information on matters of general public interest, and to promote respect for human rights.

But it was the status of TVJ and CVM as private entities that attracted a lot of attention from the judges. Here’s a sampling of their questions on the issue.

Justice Sykes: It makes no difference if it is a religious or non-religious broadcaster? Such a broadcaster would be bound to broadcast a message contrary to his principles, that broadcaster can’t object?

Lord Gifford: (He can object) only with good and sufficient reason. The balancing exercise involves balancing of rights, both sides have rights.

Justice Sykes: Are you saying that they (the TV stations) have to contract (with people who want to place ads)?

Lord Gifford: I am saying they may have to contract.

Justice Sykes: Are you saying that private broadcasters have to provide reasons (for their decision not to enter into a contract with someone to place an ad)?

Lord Gifford: This is a constitutional right. If you are going to cut it off, you have to explain why.

Justice Pusey: Then, the right to free speech means that another person doesn't have the right not to speak?

Lord Gifford: Yes, they do.

Justice Pusey: You are using the right as a sword, so an individual becomes an advocate for whatever someone else wants to say.

Lord Gifford: This is a paid advertisement. You are not adopting what they want to say.

Justice Pusey: If I have a radio station to play reggae music, and you have an ad contrary to that, I don’t have the right to say I don’t want your country and western ad?

Gifford: You might have the right to refuse, the balancing exercise might come out differently.

Justice Williams: So freedom to disseminate is also freedom to disseminate it to as many people as possible, for example in prime time (television)?

Lord Gifford: Yes, television is a powerful medium, dissemination in the constitution has a meaning, it turns what might have been a passive right into a positive right.

Lord Gifford argues that CVM and TVJ do have a duty under the Charter of Rights to air the ad. He maintains that in this case the position of TVJ and CVM is virtually indistinguishable from that of state entities, as they command the majority of the free-to-air TV audience, they are operating under a government licenses, and they have been given control over what is a public resource, that is the airwaves.

He argues that in the case of mainstream media, they wield significant power, and raised concerns about them excluding certain areas of public debate.

Justice Pusey: In an open market, the market will punish them.

Lord Gifford.: Not necessarily. Minority views, unpopular views also have to be heard.

Justice Sykes: You are proposing that every refusal (to air an ad) is a restriction (on constitutional rights) and then you have to go through the steps to see if the restriction is permissible?

Lord Gifford: That’s what the constitution says.

There was also quite a bit of discussion about whether the size of the media houses involved mattered or whether the principle as elucidated by Lord Gifford would bind all media houses. He began by arguing that size was important but later conceded that it was not.

One other area of Lord Gifford’s submissions was directed at countering the reasons given by the stations for not airing the ad. (NB - reasons were given at a later date, after discussions with the stations about airing the ad had ceased. The reasons were given in affidavit evidence to the court).

For example, in relation to CVM’s position that the station was concerned that airing the ad would be viewed as an attempt to promote homosexuality, he stated that the ad did not promote homosexuality.

In response to the concern that the ad could be seen as promoting a criminal act (buggery), Lord Gifford submitted that it is not illegal to be a homosexual and also stated that the ad showed an auntie showing love for her nephew, and could not be seen as promoting a criminal act.

He also said that it was “hard to swallow” the argument that the video would cause so much offence that advertising revenue would be affected, especially since the station had aired other programmes about homosexuals.

Today: Lord Gifford will have another half an hour to wrap up his submissions and then the defendants will begin to make their submissions.

Dominican govt says no to changes to buggery laws .......... local homophobes reject "Homophobia"


The Dominica government says it has no intention of changing the present buggery laws even as the advocacy group, Minority Rights Dominica (MiriDom) said it was seeking talks with the authorities on the matter of equal rights.

Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit, speaking on the state-owned DBS radio Monday, said his administration’s position on the matter is stated in law “and this matter is still on our books and will remain there for the foreseeable future.”

He added: “I respect the views of this new group. I understand from persons they intend to write to the government. We welcome their writing to government. We welcome meeting them as as a matter of fact. They are citizens of this country and they would like to express their views.

“But one has to look at the broader context of this request and it will be dangerous for the country to move in the direction of repealing laws against buggery,” Skerrit said.

He said that “as it is now anybody who wants to engage in whatever activities can do so in the privacy of his home. But one should not believe that the government is prepared or thinking of wanting to make this a public affair.”

Skerrit said he has not heard “any compelling arguments for it to be repealed and I don’t think any compelling arguments can be made for it to be repealed.”

Spokesman for the group, Daryl Phillip told radio listeners that Dominica’s laws making homosexual acts a criminal offence have fuelled negative perceptions about people engaged in the practice.

“Over the last 20 years, there began to be .... a developing hatred and some physical abuses targeted towards those people and that’s our concern,” Phillip said.

“It is targeting homosexuals,” he said. “It is not about telling people it is okay to go in public and make out. All we want is for that law to be removed and then we can go on an educational drive.”

Earlier this month the group, in a statement, said it was also calling on the Roman Catholic Church to make its position clear on the issue, saying that the buggery laws fuel homophobia in countries where they are still on the law books.

“MiriDom believes that homophobia in Dominica and the rest of the Anglophone Caribbean is fuelled by the existence of laws that make gay sex between consenting adults a criminal act,” it said. It noted that in 2008, the Holy See urged a repeal of anti-buggery laws throughout the world and the position has been ignored by the church in Dominica.


Meanwhile in Jamaica the anti gay HOMOPHOBIC group the Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society continues to use the trope of the word "Homophobia" in describing their rhetoric as meaning mentally ill when we know the word has long left its clinical origin to come to mean an irrational fear or loathing of homosexual(ity)s, yet if we are to follow the JCHS head Dr Wayne with his intellectual dishonesties with support from soiciologist crack pot Peter Espeut the word originally meant a fear of sameness as they use the etymological ambit to justify their fear and hence hardened positions on homosexuality.

The word has since come to mean the following:

WIKIPEDIA: Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, and may be based on irrational fear.

Although sexual attitudes tracing back to Ancient Greece (8th to 6th centuries BC to the end of antiquity (ca. 600 AD)) have been termed homophobia by scholars, the term itself is relatively new.Coined by George Weinberg, a psychologist, in the 1960s, the term homophobia is a blend of (1) the word homosexual, itself a mix of neo-classical morphemes, and (2) phobia from the Greek φόβος, Phóbos, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear". Weinberg is credited as the first person to have used the term in speech.The word homophobia first appeared in print in an article written for the May 23, 1969, edition of the American tabloid Screw, in which the word was used to refer to heterosexual men's fear that others might think they are gay.

Conceptualizing anti-LGBT prejudice as a social problem worthy of scholarly attention was not new. In 1971, Kenneth Smith was the first person to use homophobia as a personality profile to describe the psychological aversion to homosexuality.Weinberg also used it this way in his 1972 book Society and the Healthy Homosexual, published one year before the American Psychiatric Association voted to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders.Weinberg's term became an important tool for gay and lesbian activists, advocates, and their allies. He describes the concept as a medical phobia:
[A] phobia about homosexuals.... It was a fear of homosexuals which seemed to be associated with a fear of contagion, a fear of reducing the things one fought for — home and family. It was a religious fear and it had led to great brutality as fear always does.

In 1982, homophobia was used for the first time in The New York Times to report that the General Synod of the Church of England voted to refuse to condemn homosexuality.

the latest JCHS campaign where the HIV is a gay disease ploy is used to justify their HOMOPHOBIA with foreign studies usually with oversease evangelical support.

Homophobia manifests in different forms, and a number of different types have been postulated, among which are internalized homophobia, social homophobia, emotional homophobia, rationalized homophobia, and others. There were also ideas to classify homophobia, racism, and sexism as an intolerant personality disorder.

Homophobia has never been listed as part of a clinical taxonomy of phobias, neither in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD); homophobia is usually used in a non-clinical sense.

In 1992, the American Psychiatric Association, recognizing the power of the stigma against homosexuality, issued the following statement, reaffirmed by the Board of Trustees, July 2011: "Whereas homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgement  stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) calls on all international health organizations, psychiatric organizations, and individual psychiatrists in other countries to urge the repeal in their own countries of legislation that penalizes homosexual acts by consenting adults in private. Further, APA calls on these organizations and individuals to do all that is possible to decrease the stigma related to homosexuality wherever and whenever it may occur."

Others in criticizing the etymological issue surrounding the word suggest homosexophobia but it is clear the that modern Pharisees and Sadducees are at work and are getting large financial support from somewhere yet children are hungry, missing and in lock ups with adults and these same voices are silent in that department. Who were Jesus' opponents I ask?

More HERE from Gay Jamaica Watch

Here is a discussion (edited) with Dr Wayne West and Carol Narcisse (public commentator) on the issue


Monday, May 27, 2013

Kenyan Lawsuit Filed Over Intersex Legal Recognition and Protection from Cosmetic "Treatment"

Kenya's second-ever lawsuit concerning intersex issues has been filed. An intersex individual referred to as Baby A is suing Kenyan authorities for 

1) legal recognition of intersex individuals, and 

2) the right of intersex children to not have cosmetic, "corrective" surgery unless it is court-ordered.

Because Baby A is intersex, this individual doesn't have one of the most basic forms of legal recognition: a birth certificate. At the Kenya National Hospital where Baby A was born, records denote the child's sex with a question mark, instead of an M or an F. As a result of authorities not recording M or F, a birth certificate was never created for Baby A.

Baby A's lawyer, John Chigli notes the damage of never being issued a birth certificate: “The birth certificate is of great legal importance to the life and development of a child given that it is ticket to school admission, issuance of passport, national identity card and employment."

Baby A will be legally denied these opportunities until KNH hospital administrators issue A a birth certificate.

The lawsuit is also seeking to prevent "corrective" surgeries on intersex children unless it is court-ordered. The wording of this portion of the lawsuit is worrisome, in that not all non-consensual "treatments" for intersex children are surgical. Some procedures, like vaginal dilation, are not surgical, but are still cosmetic in nature, and can serve to physically and psychoemotionally harm children that undergo them. I also hope that the lawsuit denotes that corrective surgeries do not just include altering the external genitals, but also the removal of internal sex organs. I think that intersex surgery is still largely equated with external genitals only in popular understanding, but protections against removal of internal sex organs should not be done without the intersex persons's consent, either.

Finally, I am wondering about the phrase "unless it is court-ordered." It seems like this could be a convenient legal loophole, where it could become common practice to just court-order surgery/"treatment" for every intersex person born in Kenya, or actually create new legislation making it legal to perform these treatments, and side-stepping the need to court-order treatment for each individual case. By what standards would one determine whether surgery/"treatment" should be court-ordered? What cases should be court-ordered, and which shouldn't?

I think that more legislation fighting for intersex rights and protection is necessary. I would encourage those filing this lawsuit, however, to consider whether allowing for the possibility of governing bodies to court-order intersex surgery will really be solving the problem, or simply creating more legislation and legal ways to actively change the bodies of intersex individuals without our consent.

I don't want a court system to have any say in what is done to my body. I applaud Baby A's efforts in filing a lawsuit, but hope that in court, what is fought for is intersex individuals' right alone in deciding which of our own body parts we are allowed to keep, and not other authorities who can legally court-order our body parts away without our consent.

We deserve better than that.

Thanks to Full Frontal Activism and Georgiann Davis for alerting me to this case!

The baby was born at KNH on May 3, 2009 with both male and female genitalia.

The hospital officials could not record the sex of the child in question as female or male and ended up putting a question mark as Baby A’s sex.

This entry on the child’s medical record offends the right to legal recognition and erodes dignity and the child’s rights, the court was told.

Baby A has never been issued with a birth certificate, a document that gives legal recognition to an individual.

“The birth certificate is of great legal importance to the life and development of a child given that it is ticket to school admission, issuance of passport, national identity card and employment,” the suit papers filed through lawyer John Chigiti read in part.

And as a result of lack of legal recognition intersexual children live in fear of assault, abuse, inequality, exclusion and without dignity in a legal regime that has nothing for them making it impossible to collate data around them.

Baby A also says intersex children are unable to enjoy all the rights accruing to them as citizens.

Baby A says for intersex children to enjoy rights guaranteed under the constitution to all Kenyans there is need to come up with code or regulations that directly or indirectly govern corrective surgery for intersex children.

The court was told that corrective surgery is intrusive in nature and hence the need for the child’s meaningful participation in decision on what sex should be assigned.

“This calls for child’s meaningful participation in the decision making process and the child’s consent whenever the surgery is not informed by a medical emergency.”

The baby wants the court to allow use of pseudo name in the case and hear it in camera.

Baby A’s case is the second to be filed in the country seeking legal recognition for intersex. The first one was filed by Richard Muasya, whose case was dismissed by a constitutional court.
Related Posts with Thumbnails


Podcasts You may have missed or want to re-listen

A look at the fear of the feminine (Effemophobia) by Jamaican standards & how it drives the homo-negative perceptions/homophobia in Jamaican culture/national psyche.


After catching midway a radio discussion on the subject of Jamaica being labelled as homophobic I did a quick look at the long held belief in Jamaica by anti gay advocates, sections of media and homophobes that several murders of alleged gay victims are in fact 'crimes of passion' or have jealousy as their motives but it is not as simple or generalized as that.

Listen without prejudice to this and other podcasts on one of my Soundcloud channels

More uploads

Aphrodite’s PRIDE JA tackles gender identity, transgender misconceptions .....

Nationwide New Network, NNN devoted some forty five minutes of prime time yesterday evening to discuss the issue and help listeners to at least begin to process some of the information coming from the most public declaration exercise as done by Jenner. Guests on the show were Dr Karen Carpenter Board Certified Clinical Sexologist and Psychologist, ‘Satiba’ from Aphrodite’s P.R.I.D.E Jamaica of which I am affiliated and Lecturer (Sociologist) and host of Every Woman on the station Georgette Crawford Williams (sister of PNP member of parliament Damian Crawford); one of the first questions thrown at Satiba by host Cliff Hughes was why has Jenna waited so long at 65 years old to make such a life changing decision?

Satiba responded that many transwomen have to hide their true identity in life .... given her life when she was younger she was a star athlete she would have been under tremendous precious to stay in from the expectations by the public and her team etc, also owing to the fact that she had a family as a man with children one may not want to upset the flow at that time until the kids are old enough. There is a lot of burden of guilt that some persons carry in weighing the decisions of coming out or transitioning so suppression of one’s true self is the modus operandi.

Dr Carpenter cautioned after a heated exchange:

“We really must remember as professionals we must stay in our lane I will never pronounce as a Sociologist cause I am not a Sociologist ............When we have an opportunity to speak publicly we must be careful of what we say unless it is extremely well informed......”

Aphrodite's P.R.I.D.E Jamaica, APJ launched their website

Aphrodite's P.R.I.D.E Jamaica, APJ launched their website on December 1 2015 on World AIDS Day where they hosted a docu-film and after discussions on the film Human Vol 1

audience members interacting during a break in the event

film in progress

visit the new APJ website HERE

See posts on APJ's work: HERE (newer entries will appear first so scroll to see older ones)

Dr Shelly Ann Weeks on Homophobia - What are we afraid of?

Former host of Dr Sexy Live on Nationwide radio and Sexologist tackles in a simplistic but to the point style homophobia and asks the poignant question of the age, What really are we as a nation afraid of?

It seems like homosexuality is on everyone's tongue. From articles in the newspapers to countless news stories and commentaries, it seems like everyone is talking about the gays. Since Jamaica identifies as a Christian nation, the obvious thought about homosexuality is that it is wrong but only male homosexuality seems to influence the more passionate responses. It seems we are more open to accepting lesbianism but gay men are greeted with much disapproval.

Dancehall has certainly been very clear where it stands when it comes to this issue with various songs voicing clear condemnation of this lifestyle. Currently, quite a few artistes are facing continuous protests because of their anti-gay lyrics. Even the law makers are involved in the gayness as there have been several calls for the repeal of the buggery law. Recently Parliament announced plans to review the Sexual Offences Act which, I am sure, will no doubt address homosexuality.

Jamaica has been described as a homophobic nation. The question I want to ask is: What are we afraid of? There are usually many reasons why homosexuality is such a pain in the a@. Here are some of the more popular arguments MORE HERE

also see:
Dr Shelly Ann Weeks on Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation

Sexuality - What is yours?

Promised conscience vote was a fluke from the PNP ........

SO WE WERE DUPED EH? - the suggestion of a conscience vote on the buggery law as espoused by Prime Minister (then opposition leader) in the 2011 leadership debate preceding the last national elections was a dangling carrot for a dumb donkey to follow.

Many advocates and individuals interpreted Mrs Simpson Miller's pronouncements as a promise or a commitment to repeal or at least look at the archaic buggery law but I and a few others who spoke openly dismissed it all from day one as nothing more than hot air especially soon after in February member of parliament Damian Crawford poured cold water on the suggestion/promise and said it was not a priority as that time. and who seems to always open his mouth these days and revealing his thoughts that sometimes go against the administration's path.

I knew from then that as existed before even under the previous PM P. J. Patterson (often thought to be gay by the public) also danced around the issue as this could mean votes and loss of political power. Mrs Simpson Miller in the meantime was awarded a political consultants' democracy medal as their conference concludes in Antigua.

War of words between pro & anti gay activists on HIV matters .......... what hypocrisy is this?

War of words between pro & anti gay activists on HIV matters .......... what hypocrisy is this?

A war of words has ensued between gay lawyer (AIDSFREEWORLD) Maurice Tomlinson and anti gay activist Dr Wayne West (supposed in-laws of sorts) as both accuse each other of lying or being dishonest, when deception has been neatly employed every now and again by all concerned, here is the post from Dr West's blog

This is laughable to me in a sense as both gentleman have broken the ethical lines of advocacy respectively repeatedly especially on HIV/AIDS and on legal matters concerning LGBTQ issues

The evidence is overwhelming readers/listeners, you decide.

Fast forward 2015 and the exchanges continue in a post from Dr Wayne West: Maurice Tomlinson misrepresents my position on his face book page and Blog 76Crimes

Tomlinson's post originally was:

Urgent Need to discuss sex & sexuality II

Following a cowardly decision by the Minister(try) of Education to withdraw an all important Health Family Life, HFLE Manual on sex and sexuality

I examine the possible reasons why we have the homo-negative challenges on the backdrop of a missing multi-generational understanding of sexuality and the focus on sexual reproductive activity in the curriculum.

also see:


Calls for Tourism Boycotts are Nonsensical at This Time

(2014 protests New York)

Calling for boycotts by overseas based Jamaican advocates who for the most part are not in touch with our present realities in a real way and do not understand the implications of such calls can only seek to make matters worse than assisting in the struggle, we must learn from, the present economic climate of austerity & tense calm makes it even more sensible that persons be cautious, will these groups assist when there is fallout?, previous experiences from such calls made in 2008 and 2009 and the near diplomatic nightmare that missed us; especially owing to the fact that many of the victims used in the public advocacy of violence were not actual homophobic cases which just makes the ethics of advocacy far less credible than it ought to be.

See more explained HERE from a previous post following the Queen Ifrica matter and how it was mishandled

Newstalk 93FM's Issues On Fire: Polygamy Should Be Legalized In Jamaica 08.04.14

debate by hosts and UWI students on the weekly program Issues on Fire on legalizing polygamy with Jamaica's multiple partner cultural norms this debate is timely.

Also with recent public discourse on polyamorous relationships, threesomes (FAME FM Uncensored) and on social.

Some Popular Posts

Are you ready to fight for gay rights and freedoms?? (multiple answers are allowed)

Did U Find This Blog Informative???

Blog Roll

What do you think is the most important area of HIV treatment research today?

Do you think Lesbians could use their tolerance advantage to help push for gay rights in Jamaica??

Violence & venom force gay Jamaicans to hide

a 2009 Word focus report where the history of the major explosion of homeless MSM occurred and references to the party DVD that was leaked to the bootleg market which exposed many unsuspecting patrons to the public (3:59), also the caustic remarks made by former member of Parliament in the then JLP administration.

The agencies at the time were also highlighted and the homo negative and homophobic violence met by ordinary Jamaican same gender loving men.

The late founder of the CVC, former ED of JASL and JFLAG Dr. Robert Carr was also interviewed.

At 4:42 that MSM was still homeless to 2012 but has managed to eek out a living but being ever so cautious as his face is recognizable from the exposed party DVD, he has been slowly making his way to recovery despite the very slow pace.

Thanks for your Donations

Hello readers,

Thank you for your donations via Paypal in helping to keep this blog going, my limited frontline community work, temporary shelter assistance at my home and related costs. Please continue to support me and my allies in this venture that has now become a full time activity. When I first started blogging in late 2007 it was just as a pass time to highlight GLBTQ issues in Jamaica under then JFLAG's blogspot page but now clearly there is a need for more forumatic activity which I want to continue to play my part while raising more real life issues pertinent to us.

Donations presently are accepted via Paypal where buttons are placed at points on this blog(immediately below, GLBTQJA (Blogspot), GLBTQJA (Wordpress) and the Gay Jamaica Watch's blog as well. If you wish to send donations otherwise please contact: or

Activities & Plans: ongoing and future
  • Work with other Non Governmental organizations old and new towards similar focus and objectives

  • To find common ground on issues affecting GLBTQ and straight friendly persons in Jamaica towards tolerance and harmony

  • Exposing homophobic activities and suggesting corrective solutions

  • Continuing discussion on issues affecting GLBTQ people in Jamaica and elsewhere

  • Welcoming, examining and implementing suggestions and ideas from you the viewing public

  • Present issues on HIV/AIDS related matters in a timely and accurate manner

  • Assist where possible victims of homophobic violence and abuse financially, temporary shelter(my home) and otherwise

  • Track human rights issues in general with a view to support for ALL
Thanks again for your support.

Tel: 1-876-841-2923


Information & Disclaimer

Individuals who are mentioned or whose photographs appear on this site are not necessarily Homosexual, HIV positive or have AIDS.

This blog contains pictures that may be disturbing. We have taken the liberty to present these images as evidence of the numerous accounts of homophobic violence meted out to alleged gays in Jamaica.

Faces and names withheld for the victims' protection.

This blog not only watches and covers LGBTQ issues in Jamaica and elsewhere but also general human rights and current affairs where applicable.

This blog contains HIV prevention messages that may not be appropriate for all audiences.

If you are not seeking such information or may be offended by such materials, please view labels, post list or exit.

Since HIV infection is spread primarily through sexual practices or by sharing needles, prevention messages and programs may address these topics.

This blog is not designed to provide medical care, if you are ill, please seek medical advice from a licensed practitioner

Thanks so much for your kind donations and thoughts.

As for some posts, they contain enclosure links to articles, blogs and or sites for your perusal, use the snapshot feature to preview by pointing the cursor at the item(s) of interest. Such item(s) have a small white dialogue box icon appearing to their top right hand side.

Recent Homophobic Cases

CLICK HERE for related posts/labels and HERE from the gayjamaicawatch's BLOG containing information I am aware of. If you know of any such reports or incidents please contact or call 1-876-841-2923

Peace to you and be safe out there.


What to do if you are attacked (News You Can Use)

First, be calm: Do not panic; it may be very difficult to maintain composure if attacked but this is important.

Try to reason with the attacker: Establish communication with the person. This takes a lot of courage. However, a conversation may change the intention of an attacker.

Do not try anything foolish: If you know outmaneuvering the attacker is impossible, do not try it.

Do not appear to be afraid: Look the attacker in the eye and demonstrate that you are not fearful.

This may have a psychological effect on the individual.

Emergency numbers

The police 119

Kingfish 811

Crime Stop 311

Steps to Take When Contronted or Arrested by Police

a) Ask to see a lawyer or Duty Council

b) Only give name and address and no other information until a lawyer is present to assist

c) Try to be polite even if the scenario is tensed) Don’t do anything to aggravate the situation

e) Every complaint lodged at a police station should be filed and a receipt produced, this is not a legal requirement but an administrative one for the police to track reports

f) Never sign to a statement other than the one produced by you in the presence of the officer(s)

g) Try to capture a recording of the exchange or incident or call someone so they can hear what occurs, place on speed dial important numbers or text someone as soon as possible

h) File a civil suit if you feel your rights have been violated. When making a statement to the police have all or most of the facts and details together for e.g. "a car" vs. "the car" represents two different descriptions

j) Avoid having the police writing the statement on your behalf except incases of injuries, make sure what you want to say is recorded carefully, ask for a copy if it means that you have to return for it

What to do

a. Make a phone call: to a lawyer or relative or anyone

b. Ask to see a lawyer immediately: if you don’t have the money ask for a Duty Council

c. A Duty Council is a lawyer provided by the state

d. Talk to a lawyer before you talk to the police

e. Tell your lawyer if anyone hits you and identify who did so by name and number

f. Give no explanations excuses or stories: you can make your defense later in court based on what you and your lawyer decided

g. Ask the sub officer in charge of the station to grant bail once you are charged with an offence

h. Ask to be taken before a justice of The Peace immediately if the sub officer refuses you bail

i. Demand to be brought before a Resident Magistrate and have your lawyer ask the judge for bail

j. Ask that any property taken from you be listed and sealed in your presence

Cases of Assault:An assault is an apprehension that someone is about to hit you

The following may apply:

1) Call 119 or go to the station or the police arrives depending on the severity of the injuries

2) The report must be about the incident as it happened, once the report is admitted as evidence it becomes the basis for the trial

3) Critical evidence must be gathered as to the injuries received which may include a Doctor’s report of the injuries.

4) The description must be clearly stated; describing injuries directly and identifying them clearly, show the doctor the injuries clearly upon the visit it must be able to stand up under cross examination in court.

5) Misguided evidence threatens the credibility of the witness during a trial; avoid the questioning of the witnesses credibility, the tribunal of fact must be able to rely on the witness’s word in presenting evidence

6) The court is guided by credible evidence on which it will make it’s finding of facts

7) Bolster the credibility of a case by a report from an independent disinterested party.

Sexual Health / STDs News From Medical News Today


CVM TV carried a raid and subsequent temporary blockade exercise of the Shoemaker Gully in the New Kingston district as the authorities respond to the bad eggs in the group of homeless/displaced or idling MSM/Trans persons who loiter there for years.

Question is what will happen to the population now as they struggle for a roof over their heads and food etc. The Superintendent who proposed a shelter idea (that seemingly has been ignored by JFLAG et al) was the one who led the raid/eviction.

Also see:
the CVM NEWS Story HERE on the eviction/raid taken by the police

also see a flashback to some of the troubling issues with the populations and the descending relationships between JASL, JFLAG and the displaced/homeless GBT youth in New Kingston: Rowdy Gays Strike - J-FLAG Abandons Raucous Homosexuals Misbehaving In New Kingston

also see all the posts in chronological order by date from Gay Jamaica Watch HERE and GLBTQ Jamaica HERE


see previous entries on LGBT Homelessness from the Wordpress Blog HERE

May 22, 2015 update, see: MP Seeks Solutions For Homeless Gay Youth In New Kingston

THE BEST OF & Recommended Audioposts/Podcasts

THE BEST OF & Recommended Audioposts/Podcasts 

The Prime Minister (Golding) on Same Sex Marriages and the Charter of Rights Debate (2009)

Other sides to the msm homeless saga (2012)

Rowdy Gays Matter 21.08.11 more HERE

Ethical Professionlism & LGBT Advocates 01.02.12 more HERE

Portia Simpson Miller - SIMPSON MILLER DEFENDS GAY COMMENT 23.12.11

2 SGL Women lost, corrective rape and virtual silence from the male dominated advocacy structure

Al Miller on UK Aid & The Abnormality of Homosexuality 19.11.11

Homosexuality is Not Illegal in Jamaica .... Buggery is despite the persons gender 12.11.11 MORE HERE 

MSM Homelessness 2011 two cents

Black Friday for Gays in Jamaica More HERE

Bi-phobia by default from supposed LGBT advocate structures?

Homeless MSMs Saga Timeline 28.08.11 (HOT!!!) see more HERE

A Response to Al Miller's Abnormality of Homosexuality statement 19.11.11

UK/commonwealth Aid Matter & The New Developments, no aid cuts but redirecting, ethical problems on our part - 22.11.11

Homophobic Killings versus Non Homophobic Killings 12.07.12

Big Lies, Crisis Archiving & More MSM Homlessness Issues 12.07.12

More MSM Challenges July 2012 more sounds HERE

GLBTQ Jamaica 2011 Summary 02.01.12 more HERE

Homosexuality Destroying the Family? .............. I Think Not!

Lesbian issues left out of the Jamaican advocacy thrust until now?

Club Heavens The Rebirth 12.02.12 and more HERE

Should gov't provide shelter for homeless msm?

National attitudes to gays survey shows 78% of J'cans say NO to buggery repeal

1st Anniversary of Homeless MSM civil disobedience (Aug 23/4) 2012 more HERE

JFLAG's rejection of rowdy homeless msms & the Sept 21st standoff .........

Atheism & Secularism may cloud the struggle for lgbt rights in Jamaica more HERE

Urgent Need to discuss sex & sexuality II and more HERE

MSM Community Displacement Concerns October 2012

The UTECH abuse & related issues

Beenieman's hypocrisy & his fake apology in his own words and more HERE

Guarded about JFLAG's Homeless shelter

Homophobia & homelessness matters for November 2012 ................

Cabinet delays buggery review, says it's not a priority & more ...........................(November 2012) prior to the announcement of the review in parliament in June 2013 More sounds HERE

"Dutty Mind" used in Patois Bible to describe homosexuals

Homeless impatient with agencies over slow progress for promised shelter 2012 More HERE

George Davis Live - Dr Wayne West & Carole Narcisse on JCHS' illogical fear

Homeless MSM Issues in New Kgn Jan 2013 .......

Homeless MSM challenges in Jamaica February 2013 more HERE

JFLAG Excludes Homeless MSM from IDAHOT Symposium on Homelessness 2013

Poor leadership & dithering are reasons for JFLAG & Jamaica AIDS Support’s temporary homelessness May 2013 more HERE

Response To Flagging a Dead Horse Free Speech & Gay Rights 10.06.13