Quality Citizenship Jamaica ............ One Year on

On January 22, 2013 Quality of Citizenship Jamaica was ‘born’, after discussions with J-FLAG to be the fiscal sponsor until the group had a bank account.

The QCJ mission at the start of the year was for ‘the improvement of the lives of young lesbian, bisexual (LB), and other women who have sex with women (WSW), working with LGBT youth and the ageing LB and WSW population’.

Despite being unable to undertake any programming initiatives, QCJ through the support of two organisations (St. Paul's Foundation for International Reconciliation and AIDS Free World) was able to become incorporated as Jamaica’s first and only lesbian and bisexual organisation.

The reputation of QCJ is not limited to LGBT issues, this was a deliberate move for as an organisation we wanted to be part of the whole move for human rights and fight alongside others rather than separately for it is only when we fight together as a team can we truly achieve our fullest potential and goals.

In this short period, we have positioned ourselves as an organisation that represents the lesbian and bisexual community - an under-served community, as well as a partner for the rights of women and girls; we are known locally and internationally and have been called on for insight and information.

Our key achievements for this year were:

 The revival of the local silent stands for LGBT rights with the help of Maurice Tomlinson; organising and/or participating in a total of 10 stands, the organization of the largest silent stand/protest in Jamaica for LGBT rights, following the murder of Dwayne Jones (close to 40 total participants)  The only organisation from the LGBT community to have participated in the Jamaicans for Justice Nelson Mandela stand: “Lift Up NOT Lock Up Our Children”. A QCJ representative was one of three persons chosen to hand deliver a letter to the office of the Minister of Youth and Culture  The only Jamaican organisation (at the time of writing) to have participated in Human Right’s Campaign ‘Love Conquers Hate Campaign’

We built and improved on individual and organisational friendships and relationships, giving us opportunities for which we are grateful. We look forward to strengthening these existing relationships and building new ones with your help and support.

As we write the last few lines in the chapter of our first year, we want to say thank you, a really big hearty THANK YOU! To every individual and organisation that has helped QCJ; from words of advice and encouragement to funding for incorporation and donation of organisational material, we say thank you, for without your support QCJ’s year one would not be what it was. Come, turn the leaf with us and let us begin year two.

The QCJ Team

WWW.QCJM.ORG/YEARONE

Supreme Court throws out LGBT rights activist's case against 3 TV stations

The Jamaican Supreme Court threw out the case brought against television stations CVM TV, TVJ and PBCJ on November 15th on their refusal to air an ad/PSA (paid ad used in the case) recorded with the claimant Maurice Tomlinson and Yvonne Macallah Sobers of Families Against State Terrorism, FAST asking for tolerance. Radio Jamaica's Dionne Jackson Miller on her show Beyond The Headlines discussed the ruling with the attorneys for the parties involved. Bear in mind that radio Jamaica is the sister station to one of the TV stations that was sued by Mr Tomlinson (audio below) please pay particular attention to the lawyer for Public Broadcasting Commission of Jamaica, PBCJ Miss Taverna Chambers comments @ 15:35.....

Attorney for Tomlinson Lord Anthony Gifford says the gay activist is eager to appeal even as the issue of costs is to be determined by the courts. Meanwhile, Tomlinson is also seeking to take legal action against the immigration authorities of Trinidad and Tobago and Belize, saying their laws discriminate against homosexuals seeking entry into those countries. Lord Gifford is representing him in this case as well, see: Caribbean Court of Justice reserves judgement on Maurice Tomlinson case on barred entry due to sexual orientation

here is the video in question:

When I checked for a copy of the judgement online it was not available but I implore you to rely on the reports and the discussion thus far, as soon as it is available it will be shared.

meanwhile Barbara Gayle, Justice Coordinator of the Gleaner also reported

THE RIGHT of freedom of expression does not give anyone the right to use any other person's property to disseminate his views, the Constitutional Court ruled yesterday when it threw out a claim against three television stations.

Gay rights activist attorney-at-law Maurice Tomlinson had brought the claim against them.

"This is a landmark ruling for freedom of expression," said attorney-at-law Georgia Gibson-Henlin who represented Television Jamaica Ltd, one of the three defendants.

Gibson-Henlin said it was one of the first rulings under the Charter of Rights and Freedom as to whether it applied to private rights.

"I believe it is one of the first rulings that affirm the importance of editorial and journalistic discretion," said Gibson-Henlin.

She said the claimant indicated that he was going to appeal the ruling and she added that media would be vigorously contesting any appeal.

The other defendants in the case were CVM Television Ltd and the Public Broadcasting Corporation of Jamaica. The issue of legal costs will be decided by the court at a later date.

Tomlinson, a Jamaican national and an advocate for changing laws and attitudes in favour of homosexuals, had asked the three defendants to broadcast a 30-second video for a fee, speaking to the issue of accepting homosexual men for who they are.

The defendants did not respond and Tomlinson filed a claim in which he contended that the refusal amounted to a breach of fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by Chapter Three of the Jamaican Constitution. He asked the court to declare that his rights were breached and also make an order compelling the defendants to broadcast the video.

In its unanimous decision, the court comprising Justice Paulette Williams, Justice Bryan Sykes and Justice Leighton Pusey, held that Tomlinson had sufficient interest in bringing the claim because he was a Jamaican national and the alleged breach took place in Jamaica.

The court pointed out that the Charter was enforceable against the State and by one private citizen against another. It said that Section 13 of the Charter made it possible for one private citizen to enforce the charter rights against another private citizen. The court said the right to freedom of expression was more than just a speech. It included the freedom to express and communicate ideas whether orally or in print or by other means of communication.

Tomlinson, the court said, was obliged under Section 13 of the Charter to respect and uphold the rights of others, including TVJ and CVM, and their right included the right not to speak out, and so could not be compelled to speak Tomlinson's message.

ENDS

RJR Communications group Manager Gary Allen also said he he was pleased with the ruling and welcomed the judgement as he said media houses reject ads almost on a daily basis, he noted that if the media houses had lost it would have opened a huge chasm in as far as accepting the ad is concerned. "From our perspective the critical issue here was whether or not as an entity that has a license that we are held accountable for and the content that we publish we are solely held accountable for it; whether or not someone could force us to publish something and if we disagreed then we would still be held accountable and the person could publish what they will."

here is how TVJ carried the story:

a question to provoke our minds, how does one strike a balance in this case?

76crimes reported that Mr Tomlinson commented:

So, the TV stations, who operate under a public trust in the form of a broadcast license, have the court-sanctioned right to ignore the lived reality of an entire segment of the population (vulnerable gays) in order to patronize the group campaigning against them! If us gays want equal airtime to counter the hateful falsehoods being spread about us, we should just set up our own TV station! Simple, enough right? Well, not quite. You see, there is the HUGE matter of acquiring a license!

Please note that at no time did we say the stations HAD to air the tolerance ad. We simply said that, in the public interest, the stations should ensure that they acted REASONABLY in making their decision whether or not to air. Was it reasonable for the stations (especially the public broadcaster who has a statutory obligation to promote respect for the rights of citizens, such as gays) to simply refuse to air the ad because they did not want to anger the powerful fundamentalist churches? Is there ANY concept of separation of church and state in Jamaica?

I hope my Jamaican LGBT family and our allies realize just how much work we have to do in order to achieve full equality. I hope this decision makes you MAD enough to actually DO something for the cause of LGBT liberation. All the powerful organs of the state appear to be working against us and in cahoots with the homophobic factions of the church. We need to be LOUD AND PROUD to claim our RIGHTS as no one is going to hand them to us on a silver-platter (or on the silver-screen).

meanwhile here is CVM's report which seemed very balanced

This test case certainly brings a lot it seems forward but was Mr Tomlinson too demanding or are the stations free to refuse any ad as they claimed they do almost daily especially when the ad though of less production value in my eyes has not intimated any untoward act or language that would affect the public. One thing that has been clear to me for some time is that in asking for such a virtuous ideal it must be already demonstrably clear in the requester's camp and how the homeless MSM issue has played out in the last four plus years the lack of interest and the dismissive nature of an ever cynical public must not be over looked.

Let us see where this one goes folks as the appeal looks set in coming from the Tomlinson camp. 

UPDATE Nov 18, Press release on the planned appeal

AIDS-Free World to Appeal Supreme Court Decision in TV Challenge 

Kingston, Jamaica — AIDS-Free World is shocked and disappointed by today’s ruling by Jamaica’s Constitutional Court in favor of three Jamaican television stations that refused to air a paid television ad promoting respect for LGBT people. We fully intend to appeal this judgement, as we feel the decision is wrong in law and wrong in principle. 

The challenge—the first constitutional challenge under Jamaica’s new Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms—resulted from the stations’ refusal to air AIDS-Free World’s 30-second spot promoting dignity and respect for LGBT persons in Jamaica. The stations persisted even after the Broadcasting Commission of Jamaica confirmed that the ad did not breach any broadcasting rules. Regrettably, the Court decided that the rights of powerful television broadcasters supercede the rights of citizens to free speech and respect.

The innocuous ad promoting tolerance was created as part of AIDS-Free World’s broader HIV advocacy strategy in the Caribbean, which includes impact litigation, human rights trainings, and communications campaigns. Those efforts address discriminatory anti-gay laws and attitudes that fuel the spread of HIV by driving LGBT underground, away from effective HIV prevention, care and treatment services.

The banned ad starred two Jamaicans, including claimant Maurice Tomlinson, AIDS-Free World’s Legal Advisor, Marginalized Groups. The television stations had argued, illogically, that by allowing an ad that promotes respect for all Jamaicans, regardless of sexual orientation, they would be supporting an illegal activity.

Today’s 100-page decision underscores the critical importance of AIDS-Free World’s upcoming constitutional challenge to Jamaica’s anti-sodomy law. Jamaica’s discriminatory laws are perpetuating a destructive and divisive culture of homophobia and are complicit in sustaining a public health crisis.

###

View the release on our website.

AIDS-Free World is an international advocacy organization working for more urgent and effective global responses to HIV and AIDS. www.aidsfreeworld.org

ENDS

also see:
Settle the Score on CVM TV's Live @ 7 (26.08.11)...the JFLAG ad campaign

Jamaicans weigh in on rejection of gay ad ......(2011)

TVJ Wimpy On Gay Ad Furore (Gleaner Letter)

recall this also from 2011?: 

Blow to gay ad - TVJ rejects J-FLAG’s PSA ....... J-FLAG says rejection of PSA unfortunate that ad/psa (not sure why they were used inter-changeably) was a second ad to a first which also had Mr Tomlinson therein, question is why was that ad discontinued when it was aired for some time?

Here is that very first ad in the tolerance ad thrust via Jamaica AIDS Support et al which I liked and which should have been worked to the core before ramping up the campaign which led to rejection

here was my two cents on the second video at the time with Christine Straw and her brother (see that video/ad below)

The Straws ad that was rejected in 2011

Was it bad timing or overkill in the various campaigns by Tomlinson who seems to want to have his own way versus JFLAG that seems to prefer a sluggish or slower pace for advocacy?

UPDATE November 19 letter to the Gleaner:

Gay Ad Ruling A Travesty

THE EDITOR, Sir:

The court rejection of Maurice Tomlinson's suit against three TV stations for not airing his public service announcement calling for tolerance of gay rights is not a "hallmark ruling for freedom of expression", as the attorney representing one of the defendant TV stations has said, but another hallmark ruling for property rights, and a sad reflection on the deep homophobia which afflicts not only the Jamaican people, but more so the Jamaican State.

No one has been under any illusion that corporate media represent the interests of the rich and powerful (the capitalist class, to be more precise) but now the court, by its ruling against the LGBT community, demonstrates that private property is the yoke of slavery around the necks of ordinary Jamaicans, not just LGBT.

So while PBCJ is supposedly public property, the managers also believe, like private media, that gays be damned because this is the position of private property.

Nearly two years after being elected prime minister, Portia Simpson Miller has done zero to advance the human rights and civil liberties of LGBT Jamaicans. She must be condemned as a coward.

This homophobic culture, which even so-called Justice Minister Mark Golding pays homage to on every occasion that he is called upon to act against it, is an indictment against a backward and ignorant ruling class.

No wonder the society is in the mess it finds itself.

LLOYD D'AGUILAR
Campaign for Social and
Economic Justice

I wonder if Mr D'Aguilar read the judgement and why has the original challenge in 2011 by AIDSFREEWORLD that Mr Tomlinson is employed stopped? see: The First-Ever Legal Challenge to Jamaica's Anti-Gay Laws

The judgement is now available

download HERE

UPDATE March 18.03.14 No costs Awarded to parties

The overall take on this is that the court will check to see the enrichment of the constitution as per case and awarding costs, what was disturbing though in a radio interview on RJR is that Mr Tomlinson denied when asked whether the expected appeal decision has been made to appeal the original decision yet the press release from AIDSFREEWORLD excerpted above is clear as to the action they and Mr Tomlinson had intended to take which once again speaks to clear honesty or lack thereof, his exact words were "The decision has not been made to appeal or to not appeal, no decision has been made on that point yet," although time is also passing as there is a 6 to 8 week limit following the ruling to file an appeal. Also bearing in mind his attorney Lord Anthony Gifford had indicated as well that an appeal was coming, who are we to trust in such sensitive matters?

The court said that cost awarded in these matters (one private citizen suing another in a constitutional matters) will be governed by the overarching principle of not discouraging the pursuit of constitutional claim irrespective of the number of private parties who oppose or seeking to support the state's posture in the litigation this is the first case in the new charter of which the enforcement of the bill of rights was attempted in horizontal litigation meaning that citizen to citizen; there is no doubt that a significant step has been taken in Jamaican constitutional law by this decision they also said this case could not be said that the claim was frivolous or had little chance of success and they concluded the claimant had not acted unreasonably and that the case raised important issues of law and how the constitutional law relates to individuals.   

Peace and tolerance

H

On Being a "Good Gay"

ON BEING A "GOOD GAY."

Maurice Tomlinson gay lawyer shared this recently:

 

Last night after a screening of "The Abominable Crime" at Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale, an older Jamaican gentleman declared that the recent attacks against Jamaican LGBT are a result of the new generation of gays "flaunting" their sexuality. Basically, he intimated that we should be more like (in his words) the 4 current gay Ministers of government in Portia's cabinet, as well as the former Vice-Chancellor of the University of the West Indies, Rex Nettelford whom he claims to have known personally and whose homosexuality was universally known. If homosexual Jamaicans were "good gays" like these people, we would be fine! This naive statement ignores the anti-gay hostility being whipped up by the churches in response to the legal challenges to the anti-sodomy law. This year we have seen island-wide anti-gay religious marches, church petitions calling for the retention of the anti-buggery law, and a pastor used a public platform to trumpet that religious leaders are willing to die rather than "allow" human rights for gays being recognized in the country.

Perhaps the most troubling statement this man made was that because Jamaica is a hyper-masculine society which celebrates "cocksmen" or male heterosexual prowess, gays who transgress this cultural norm should not be surprised at the backlash.

I tried to explain that gay Jamaicans have the SAME CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS to freedom of expression as all citizens and therefore it is unreasonable to demand that we should be invisible, just to make heterosexuals comfortable. Certainly 16 -ear-old Dwayne Jones did not deserve the horrible mob-execution simply for wearing a dress to a street-dance. I also asked this gentleman if he would attack gays in Florida who "flaunted" (whatever that means) their homosexuality, to which he declared that he certainly would not, solely because he has been in the US for 46 years. I guess its ok to demand gay invisibility in Jamaica but not overseas.

This senior gentleman also fails to realize that many gays are attacked IN THE PRIVACY OF THEIR HOMES, where they are certainly NOT visible. And many gays who think they are not "flaunting" are attacked. This was my reality.

Finally, this individual declared that I was like our former Prime Minister, the Most Honourable Michael Manley, who tried to SHOCK Jamaicans into going leftist too quickly, hence his policies were rejected. I hardly think that advocating for a 1864 British colonially imposed law to be "read-down" to simply allow for private acts of intimacy between consenting adults is being particularly radical! At least, not when all over the world gays are getting the right to marry!

Although I doubt I made much of an impact on this gentleman, I was happy he came to the event.

An question from the audience was whether a boycott would be useful to force the Jamaican government to take gay rights seriously. There were some strong opinions on either side. One gentleman reminded the audience that Florida had the tragic Trayvon Martin situation which could also warrant a boycott of that state. While I hear his point, I disagree that Florida and Jamaica are similar. At least in Florida there is the possibility of justice (though sometimes delayed/denied) for marginalized groups. On the other hand, homeless Jamaican MSM are having a very difficult time getting justice as police refuse to investigate their attacks unless they can provide the NAMES and ADDRESSES of their attackers!

I am still wrestling with the idea of a boycott, but I did remind persons that if they find it unethical to spend their tourist dollars in Jamaica because of the recent upsurge in homophobic assaults, then they should LET THE GOVERNMENT KNOW. They should look online for the official email addresses of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Tourism and the Minister of Justice and send them a message! It is far more helpful to SPEAK UP and condemn the abuse rather than to reman silent and simply go elsewhere for a vacation.

Congratulations to the Faculty of Law at Nova Southeastern University, Sunshine Cathedral MCC, and all the other sponsors and supporters who facilitated this screening. It was yet another invaluable teaching opportunity.

ENDS

The class issues in Jamaica even affects the way advocacy is done and my criticisms of some spoke persons over the years including that of Tomlinson is quite open however it is refreshing to see some redemption taking place, it is left to be seen whether it is genuine or just for show. 

also see: The toss up between MSM homelessness & public order makes news again

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:

H

BONUS: discussion on whether Jamaican media is homophobic

UPDATE June 5, 2013
Gleaner EDITORIAL - PBCJ In The Debate For Tolerance

and

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

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

See more click here

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

also see more details on GLBTQJA as well

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:

Gay Jamaican activist to sue Trinidad & Tobago entry ban on gays sans consulting local LGBT groups there .............

As per usual Mr. Maurice Tomlinson has landed himself in some hot water (yet again) with LGBT activists in carrying out an action without consulting the relevant persons or at least getting their knowledge of the intended actions known. This is a typical problem for us here locally for years by not only him but also local rights group Jamaica Forum for Lesbians Allsexuals and Gays, JFLAG and others. The last time he irked many locals and community influentials was that infamous comment he made on CVM TV's Live @ 7 in September after the eviction of the homeless men from Cargill Avenue where he used an old programmatic addage that gay men do not have access to condoms while professing knowledge of the plight of the men when in fact in the very newsclip in August had the movers holding the very condoms the men received from the NON LGBT agencies of all places who saw the men more frequently than the responsible ones should via street based interventions. Narcissism? he has been accused before of infusing himself in things while benefiting from the silence from a gullible LGBT community. 

To effect change I think you must be able to seek common ground and honest, frank and thoughtful dialogue with those on the ground not a high horse mentality. 

Mr Tomlinson has repeatedly taken on issues that he is not familiar with and "ran with them" as a self appointed spokesperson without the full facts at hand, the homeless msm issue is one such matter despite his claim of not residing here as he says he had to controversially leave Jamaica via asylum (at first) due to death threats against his life yet he has been here since live on television granting interviews, a marriage to a Canadian man and other matters which has had several questions beings asked about his actual motives. He has been getting a lot of "friendly" coverage from an online publication named GayStarNews who have repeatedly used unconventional tactics to sensationalise and embellish stories on Jamaican LGBT matters. The series of meetings for example of local stakeholders that led up to the involvement of the police with homeless msms in New Kingston was reported by the GayStarNews as - 

Anti-gay hate forces closure of Jamaica gay homeless center

Jamaica's only drop-in center for homeless LGBT youth was closed due to anti-gay sentiments by local authorities and media

when in fact that was NOT the case as the comments below the article shows as persons involved in the defunct Safe House Pilot project spoke out but the article remains the same as the publications administrators/editors see it fit to continue their intellectual deception and Mr Tomlinson was a board member of the agency responsible at the time Jamaica AIDS Support for Life(JASL). Yet when he was challenged by myself, other readers and the very founder of the previous Jamaica AIDS Support safe house pilot shelter he did not find it fit and or ethically responsible to have the article edited or pulled as he was quoted in it instead he referred us to the editor whom we have contacted but yet no change in the piece which clearly suggests an agenda to all concerned that is less than ethically sound. He brushed off our concerns as cynicism and that he knows all that is best for LGBT advocacy, this self absorbed way of doing business is problematic for all involved. There have been other instances of this "pressing ahead no matter what others think" by Mr Tomlinson without clear the proper consultation with the relevant constituents.

Now the local group in Trinidad THE Coalition Advocating for Inclusion of Sexual Orientation, CAISO has come out expressing some concerns post Mr Tomlinson's action with support from AIDSFREEWORLD of which he is the Legal Advisor, an official of the group expressed the following (READ CAREFULLY):

After we learned by e-mail, along with others, about AIDS Free World's plans to challenge our immigration law, when they invited us to join in a media announcement, CAISO's board issued the following communiqué on 1 November. We learned of their media release today elsewhere.

Further to initial engagements by our Executive Director, Colin Robinson, which took place in light of the sudden urgency imposed by AIDS Free World's notification, there has been an opportunity for the Board of CAISO to consult more broadly and come to some agreement on this matter.

CAISO wishes to communicate the following in response to the indication by AIDS Free World that Maurice Tomlinson intends to challenge the immigration law before the Caribbean Court of Justice, CCJ and to launch an attendant media campaign.

At 4pm on October 30, AIDS Free World (AFW) Legal Adviser, Maurice Tomlinson, emailed our Executive Director and a number of Caribbean stakeholders a similar letter from the co-directors of his employer, Stephen Lewis and Paula Donovan. The letter indicated that the North American organization would be supporting a legal challenge by its employee Tomlinson, a Jamaican citizen and gay man, who had already written to the Jamaican Government with a view to initiating a challenge under the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas of the provision in Trinidad and Tobago's Immigration law that allows, amongst other people, the exclusion of homosexuals. Further, it indicated that he intended to pursue the matter to the Caribbean Court of Justice. CAISO like others, was invited to join AFW in a public statement on the action to be released to the media two days later.

We have always been concerned with and done advocacy around the Immigration Act, as with all discriminatory laws, policies and attitudes. The archaic provisions of the Act that have caught AFW's attention regarding people with disabilities, gays and lesbians and others are reprehensible and ought to have no place in modern law. We wish to make it clear that we do not intend to oppose Maurice taking advantage of the legal recourse to which he is entitled as a CARICOM citizen.

Presuming, based on Caribbean Governments' track records on these issues and Maurice's intimations, that this does end up being a legal challenge, we would like to have a very clear idea of what the role of AFW will be both in the challenge and any proposed press campaign. We are concerned about the negative effects we have already experienced in the region as a result of international organizations publicly and deliberately or otherwise appearing to be leading challenges to domestic legislation.

Furthermore, a letter from AIDS Free World dated October 30th informing us that a course of action has been chosen and that a press release is intended to be issued 2 days later is unsatisfactory, appears high handed and stands in stark contrast to notions of Caribbean collegiality which Maurice has drawn on in further communication by him to suggest that this plan of action should enjoy our wholehearted support . Expressions of an interest in "building consensus" do not ring true in the face of that timeframe and those conditions.

The social and political effects (particularly the negative ones) of this challenge will be felt most strongly in Trinidad and Tobago and it would seem that as such, local stakeholders should have been consulted in a meaningful way.

Consultation would have allowed us to consider the strategy with other legal minds and make suggestions; consider how this can fit into the strategy we have been implementing domestically over the past few years; consider with local groups how we manage and move forward; participate in the mobilization of regional stakeholders; and mobilize the local community so that they can understand the implications of Maurice's actions and strategize around how we can support.

We also have difficulty understanding the necessity for a press campaign at such an early stage and are concerned that it may do more harm than good. The mere prospect of this challenge can suddenly and significantly change the context in which Trinbagonian GLBT persons find themselves living.

In all the circumstances we are suggesting that the strategy with respect to a number of matters, but particularly around media, be discussed if it is planned to move forward. We trust that while claiming his own rights, Maurice is ultimately concerned with improving the lives of LGBT citizens in the region and that that objective will not be sacrificed at the altar of personal or institutional imperatives with respect to publicity. Indeed, some of Maurice's own experiences demonstrate both the unpredictability and potential force of media backlash.

Along those lines, we also wish to encourage Maurice and his employers to be very mindful that while Maurice may be the litigant, the outcomes, foreseeable and unforeseeable, do not only affect him but rather affect an entire community and to be guided accordingly.

We do hope that moving forward, engagements can be more in a spirit of collaboration.

ENDS

The CAISO official also expressed the following:

AFW's respectful and flexible engagement beforehand with local stakeholders would have been the right way to address mitigation and to be true to their words in GayStarNews about "uniting, indigenous groups and international groups". 

CAISO hasn't seen Maurice's letter, nor has AFW included us and our lawyers in strategy. And they've ignored our request to re-examine the value of going to the media. It's what I was referencing earlier about one-man, know-what's-best activism. It's a profound lesson for us about how groups like AFW operate in the region and about our own work at regional collaboration and movement building. There's no winning on the principles at this point. But it does call for a hard examination of our geopolitics in the region.

To be fair, though, it is an immigration law, so it affects non-nationals, and probably only they have standing to sue. So Maurice is suing for his own rights. We'd have preferred that domestic folks have a critical role in decisions about the best strategy for litigating LGBT issues here since this suit will affect other political and legal opportunities for T&T citizens that AFW hasn't considered. The lawsuit doesn't offend us so much as the process, in particular the rush to media, and none of the questions we raised on Nov. 1 AFW has taken care to respond to. The sovereignty of T&T as a state isn't the issue; respect for and collaboration with local LGBT communities is. Citing the "well established best practice of 'nothing for us without us'", AFW wrote us and other local groups to tell us that Maurice had already initiated the challenge.

Those here in Jamaica who are used to Mr Tomlinson's style are not surprised by this latest saga but what is troubling to me is that the very folks who defended him from criticisms before of this ongoing concern are now the ones feeling the pinch of his actions, hope they learn from all this.

The subsequent interview on November 28th on RJR's Beyond The Headlines with host Dionne Jackson Miller revealed to me that something was off as Mr. Tomlinson seemed to struggle at points to answer the questions asked of him, he used UNAIDS regional location in Trinidad and his access to the regional AIDS response activities there but at carnival time year in year out several LGBT Jamaicans make the trip without problems, makes one wonder what it really going on here? As for the suit against the very sister station (TVJ) to RJR 94FM where he was being interviewed and whether he has an agenda to challenge every law that seem hostile to homosexuals? he said "The fact is these challenges coincidentally occurred within short order of each other the objective is clear on the part of AIDSFREEWORLD we exist as an organization to remove any structural barriers which impede the response to HIV and AIDS within the region, the TV challenge happened because the television stations would not allow us to air a tolerance ad which we had submitted to them some time in March (an action by the way the local LGBT community was not aware of until the news of the suit came via a press release and GSN story, evidence yet again of the "run with it" attitude) this challenge arose because I got the invitation to attend meetings in December, so the timing is coincidental we certainly wish to remove not only laws but any policies which will restrict the HIV response within the region........" ironically he continued with the driving underground bit and persons not getting HIV treatment this is despite the recent report suggesting more persons are getting such ARVs and the infections rates nationally are going down with the free meds now available, then came this " ...... there are many countries in the region that have had discriminatory laws and policies and working with groups on the ground we will identify which ones we should challenge either legislatively .........." but this very expression by CAISO of the lack of consultation by himself and AFW indicates otherwise, so the interview was a dress up or damage control method then we can conclude.

Let us be mindful and we also here need to follow CAISO's lead, pity it took a foreign ally to show our lack of vigilance up on those who ought to be vigilant for rights and fairness and to reign in these seeming out of control and drunk with power advocates we MUST demand that no action be taken supposedly on our behalf before full consultation as are the two buggery law challenges that now lay before us and word has it that both parties did not consult each other and that the previous litigant (AFW et al) through IACHR found out about the second challenge by Gareth Henry (former JFLAG head) in the media. Everyone's doing there own thing it seems in a first past the post race. 

The debate continues as Mr Tomlinson had responded by saying that "This is a blatant and deliberate misrepresentation and that CAISO has been aware of the filing of this matter for at least 2 weeks before we went to press. We have also received indication that other LGBT groups in Trinidad support this action, even though CAISO does not. Finally, this is properly an AIDS-Free World matter that I suggested to the organization. This does not only concern my access to Trinidad, but also the location of a UN agency in a country where its major constituents have no legal right to enter. AFW did not know about this law until I researched and brought it to their attention. As an international NGO they were concerned about seeming to be interfering in a regional issue, and only agreed that this was necessary after a phone call with UNAIDS. I would have preferred local support (and that was the nature of the first press release which CAISO rejected in early November). However, I decided to proceed with the challenge in this form because of the international implications of the Immigration Law. I will close by pointing out that only an aggrieved party can bring a legal action of this sort. I became such a party after UNFPA issued the invitation to me. I therefore initiated the action (as I had expressed to Colin earlier this year that I was planning to do) but did not issue a press release before seeking local support. When I received another invitation (this time from CARICOM) I again advised regional partners of the action and then issued my press release. I would hope that those regional partners who have privately expressed support for this action will now be bold enough to issue their own supportive press statements."

You decide readers.

Peace and tolerance

H

Shirley Richards on Truth On Sodomy And Sex Diseases

After another hiatus Miss Richards of the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship strikes again of course following on the recent news and ari time the Gay community has been getting in the challenge launched by a coalition of rights activists and AIDSFREEWORLD, The LCF were the ones who basically got the Buggery Law kept on the books in the late nineties when a more active Jamaica Forum for Lesbians Allsexuals and Gays JFLAG made a parliamentary submission. 

Here is her letter to the Gleaner published today:

Truth On Sodomy And Sex Diseases

THE EDITOR, Sir:


 At the recently held Common-wealth Heads of Government Meeting in Australia, among the issues was a call for all member states to repeal sodomy laws. The laws being referred to are found in 41 of the 54 member states. While the report calls for the repeal of these laws, it frames the issue as one of disease control, stating that such laws "impede the effective response of Commonwealth countries to the HIV/AIDS epidemic". The Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group is reported to have "blamed the British influence on the former colonies for high rates of HIV/AIDS.


Most of these countries outlaw homosexual practices, which the rival French empire legalised in 1791". The reference to France in this context is interesting, for if what I have been told is correct, in France, there is full access to all the antiretroviral drugs. Moreover, such drugs are free. One would expect to find that HIV/AIDS is a non-issue among homosexuals there. Spread among msm Instead, French researchers reported in the Lancet Infect Dis (October 2010): "HIV transmission seems to be out of control in the MSM population." Reports in medical journals indicate that this is generally the situation in Europe as well as Australia.


 In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports: "The sexual health of gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men in the United States is not getting better despite considerable social, political and human rights advances. Instead of improving, HIV and STIs remain disproportionately high among MSM and have been increasing for almost two decades." In light of the foregoing, it is inexplicable that leaders of countries which are experiencing these challenges would be trying to foist them upon other members of the Commonwealth. Should it not be the reverse?


 S. RICHARDS
 Kingston 10

ENDS

- Miss Shirley Richards 


Why are you still linking HIV/AIDS to be a gay disease?


Antiretroviral therapy does not cure or definitively control the viral loads of infected persons even when they have found the comfortable cocktail mix or HAART (highly active antiretroviral therapies) that work for each person, strict adherence is also a KEY requirement. ARVs are not like diabetic or high pertension drugs where the three or four standards ones available for e.g Metformin can apply to almost everyone while it's just a matter of dosage levels and timing or where someone can miss some doses, it is far more complex than that with HIV. To simply suggest as you have that ARVS should fix the infection problem in MSMs is disingenuous. Access to ARV or HAART alone in your argument is after the fact where someone is positive already if you want to argue about ARVs as a prevention method which coincidentally is a debate raging in the certain parts of the research community about using ARVS for HIV negative persons to take prior to sex so as to mitigate a person contracting the virus then properly do so and get the facts before you pen these letters pleaase. 


 Men who have sex with men not only practice anal sex as you would like to believe but there are outercoursal practices as well though possibly lesser done in our highly sexualised society such as mutual masturbation and intercrural sex aka gay missionary which the penis is NOT inserted in the excretory orifice but placed between the legs as is commonly known on the streets as "leggins" which is also practiced by HETEROSEXUAL couples when the female is seeing her "monthly" but her male partner wants some sort of sexual play, this is then used as an alternative. 


 Yes the infection rates are high in the MSM populations locally and are expected to climb this year after a recent study but there are many interventions that are tackling that and also literally over the counter items and cleansing agents that can help to mitigate that which may include in the near future microbicidal technology that like some spermicides on condoms can kill viruses before during and after the sex act despite sexual orientation. Vaginal microbicides for example are already being tested and proven to a certain extent in the US and Africa which include elements of some of ARVs you alluded to (tenofovir). 


The prevention messages and interventions on the ground are impeded by the law presently on the books simply because of the act of buggery the outreach officers, social workers and agencies cannot directly handle some of the advocacy issues that attend to these populations coupled with the stigma associated with the law and the Leviticusal rhetoric the religious fanatics throw at the same gender loving community, the difficulties encountered by individuals to access care and treatment despite some enlightenment .... theocracy has no place here Miss Richards. If we are out of many one people as a nation then let's live it instead of trying to cock block me or any other man (including non gay men who practice anal sex with men and other women) who wants to practice or live as a homosexual providing he is not interfering with others rights and privileges. What are you afraid of, do you think gay men in particular are somehow going to penetrate every butt they see or go after children especially boys when you know fully well that paedophilia is NOT the same as consenting same sex adults attracted to each other.? 


 Some people are gay ............. Get over it .............. 


 When last I checked however Jamaica was not named as one of those possible states to loose this funding avenue that the UK Prime Minister Mr. Cameron has proposed or threatened to remove. It seemed more targeted at African states and while it may seem as an imposition take a look at it seriously, the umpteen asylum seekers from that continent due to persecution because of stigma and homophobia, the violence in some instances far more pronounced and graphic than ours and to talk about imposition the use of powerful religious figures there funded by American conservatives to push the anti gay messages while reinforcing hate and then they like you say you are Christians, your purpose as far as I see it when one publicly accepts Christ is to win souls for the kingdom not pry through my keyhole or cockblocking, the particular "Sin" of the temperal body for that soul is not your concern, leave all judgement to God. I also suggest you do some proper research and analysis of the difference between a paedophile and hebephile and an adult male homosexual disinterested in boys or pre-pubescent persons or hire a non partisan expert in the social sciences or psychological fields to guide you and your team at the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship. 


 Peace and tolerance 


 H