Ian Boyne on Grow Up On Gay Intolerance!

So Ian Boyne erudite commentator has hit the nail on the head again in what I see as a fair commentary; others in the LGBT circles are up in arms over his criticisms of the arrogance and reverse intolerance. It is not the first time though he had sought to point it out as posted here on Gay Jamaica Watch: The Intolerant View Of Tolerance .............

now comes his latest salvo:

flag at the US Embassy on Hope Road

No Jamaican law was violated or disrespected when the United States displayed the rainbow flag of the LGBT community on its own territory in Kingston. And rather than showing disrespect to Jamaica, the act indicated its acknowledgement of the vibrancy of our civil society and of our democratic 'articulate minority'.

Jamaicans have pointed out that the Americans dared not put up a rainbow flag in a country like Saudi Arabia or other Islamic states with Shari'a law. But that is precisely the point: The Americans know we have a strong democratic tradition and that no violent action would follow, despite the vast majority of Jamaicans' strident and visceral opposition to homosexuality (which, strictly, is not criminalized; only anal sex). They knew the dominant voices in media would push back against any popular dissent and that they could, of course, count on the visa-hungry masses to hold their tongues and violent implements in hope of entering paradise!

the tweet that started it all (not included in the Gleaner excerpt)

They were right. The attorney general has never regretted any action of hers as she has those few words proclaimed on Twitter. She has been clobbered internationally and everywhere in cyberspace. But some brave soldiers of the Gospel have come to her defence, though. I admire their courage but am less impressed with their reasoning. Helene Coley-Nicholson, president of Lawyers' Christian Fellowship (LCF), says the flying of the rainbow flag "sends an overt symbol that the United States Embassy in Jamaica is aligned with those who would break our laws".

First, Helene, embodied in the first principle of diplomacy and international relations - mutual respect - is the notion of tolerance for diversity. States do not only have relations with those whose laws, customs and ideologies are compatible with theirs. Jamaica did not break off relations with the United States when it legalized gay marriage, even though we are not aligned with that at all.

TOLERANCE, RESPECT

America has relations with countries with laws that penalise adultery, alcohol, and pork consumption, homosexuality, and which practise Internet censorship and a host of authoritarian laws. This is what happens every day among states. It is not disrespectful for friends to uphold their beliefs and practices in contradistinction to others. That's what tolerance and respect really mean: That I can freely engage my expression of preferences even when they clash with yours. This is at the heart of the democratic ethos and of respectful relationships.

LCF makes the following statement, which, on the surface, seems benign but which is deeply offensive: Conceding the fact that "the embassy is considered American territory in international law," the Fellowship nevertheless goes on to say in its release that "the LCF asks US Ambassador Luis Moreno to immediately take down the flag and in so doing eliminate potential misunderstanding", and - note this -"barriers to the natural outpouring of sympathy and support for the United States and those who have suffered". This is reprehensible and deplorable. Our people's "natural outpouring of sympathy" would be constrained by the presence of that gay flag? If that is true, we should hang our heads in shame. That is not complimentary and is not something we should broadcast. That is advertising our moral and cultural backwardness.

I submit we have a deeper problem not just in Jamaica but in the world: It is a problem of a deeply illiberal, anti-democratic, anti-pluralistic spirit. It not only afflicts conservative Christians.It afflicts supposed liberals, leftists and gay activists. The issue is not primarily hate. It is an abhorrence of tolerance, a despising of opposing views, a cherishing of bigotry. It is not only among fundamentalists. Some of these gays activists are among the most arrogant, bigoted, and democracy-averse people you can find. I declare a plague on all the houses.

The Christians in Jamaica who rightly recognise that this issue of gay rights is a political one must know how to fight political battles. They must be intellectually and strategically sharper than they have been and not keep playing into the hands of those who are enemies of the Church.

The Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society, like its sister organisation which Coley-Nicholson runs, also concedes that "the US Embassy is considered to be on US soil", but goes on to say in its release that "the embassy is still a guest of the Jamaican Government and is expected to conduct its affairs in a respectful manner".


GROW UP, JAMAICA!

No, it is the Jamaican people who must grow up and start respecting people's civil liberties and right to their own way of life. We don't have to force the Americans to agree with us that homosexuality is an abomination worthy of punishment in an eternal hellfire.

They should be free to proclaim their solidarity with fellow citizens who are gay, some of whom lost their lives in the nation's biggest mass-shooting massacre. They chose to grieve by showing haters that they stand in solidarity with a community they see as oppressed and despised. We can disagree and feel those people should repent of their sinful ways. That is our right to believe that. But we can't impose that on our guests, Dr Wayne West. We must show some respect and regard to our guests.

I am a conservative Christian who follows a Bronze Age book written by nomadic tribes who deemed homosexual practice unethical. But I don't believe we have any right to impose the Kingdom of God on anyone in this age. I believe we must maintain this free, pluralistic society, and we have no right to ban non-Christian expressions.

We should strive to penetrate the society with Christian ethics and to convince people that our views are right. Lucien Jones is doing a valiant job in that regard. But we must resist the temptation to theonomy and theocracy. We must learn from the excesses of the fanatical Muslims who are a threat to civilisation everywhere. (Notice I did not say 'Muslims', but 'fanatical Muslims'.)

Pastor Al Miller, in his response, was equally flawed. He pleads in a letter in theObserver on Thursday that "diplomacy requires respect and the art of understanding the customs and beliefs of those with whom one engages. The diplomat makes every effort not to offend".

So a diplomat must show respect and honour to the custom of female circumcision, Indian caste traditions, child brides, Shari'a law? In earlier times, should respect have been shown to foot binding, duelling, etc? Should apartheid have been respected because it was law? Was Mandela immoral to defy it? Al Miller feels that the flying of the rainbow flag "can only be interpreted as a deliberate act of provocation". Provocation to what? You realise what you are saying, Rev? He says it was a "deliberate slap in the face of the Jamaican community". Well, again, we should be ashamed if that is so.

It's no slap in my face if someone wants to affirm his homosexuality or show solidarity with the gay community. As long as I am allowed to have my Stone Age belief that homosexuality is wrong and worship my Invisible Friend in the sky, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as the New Atheists would say, that's okay. Fly your gay flag anywhere but my premises and I am okay. Problem is that it is not just the Christian fundamentalists who pose a threat to liberal values. Increasingly, so-called liberal societies are free-speech terrorists.

The June 4-10 issue of The Economist has a cover story, 'Free Speech Under Attack', which makes interesting reading. In its editorial, it notes that "the idea has spread that people and groups have a right not to be offended. That may sound innocuous. But if I have a right not to be offended, that means someone must police what you say about me or about things I hold dear such as my ethnic group, my religion." Gays are principal offenders, wanting to insulate themselves against so-called hate speech and offensive language.

Some gays would just as soon shut down all opposition, citing homophobia and hate to mask their own intolerance. An illiberal, intolerant spirit is growing on all sides. It must be firmly resisted. Let a hundred flowers bloom - along with the weeds. Democracy detractors, go home!

- Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist working with the Jamaica Information Service. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and ianboyne1@yahoo.com.

also see:

Gays' Threat To Free Speech ........... veteran journalist Ian Boyne .. 2012

Ian Boyne: Gay-Friendly Counsellors For Students? ............

In a way I am some agreement with Ian Boyne on this and it reminds me of the unlikely support in the lead up to the decriminalization of sodomy in the UK and the intervention of the Arch Bishop of Cantebury then Michael Ramsey in the 1960s.

Trouble who will listen really?

Have some of us learnt from previous happenings with schools, students and guidance counsellors, firstly here is Mr Boyne's piece:

The National Parent-Teacher Association of Jamaica (NPTAJ) has reacted with alarm to the offer of help by Jamaica's gay lobby group to ease the plight of gay students in schools who are allegedly being shunned by guidance counsellors.

"The NPTAJ rejects totally the offer made by J-FLAG (Jamaica Forum for Lesbians, All-Sexuals and Gays) to conduct counselling in schools," its president, Everton Hannam, said in a release last week. "If J-FLAG is serious about counselling, they can offer those services privately," Hannam counselled. (Of course, Hannam misinterpreted that J-FLAG was itself offering to counsel students; it didn't.) But not in our schools. "Let the guidance counsellors do their job."

But what exactly is their job? What exactly is expected of them vis-·-vis gay students or students struggling with their sexual identity? This has not been clear in all the discussion taking place on the issue. There has been much obfuscation and talking around the issues.

Fellow Gleaner columnist Jaevion Nelson laments, in his column last Thursday, that what is required of guidance counsellors is "simply for them to do their jobs - provide an open, safe space for students to seek support when they need it". But exactly what kind of support? Support to accept their gay identity? For failure to do so can, indeed, cause deep psychological trauma. Is it just "support" to deal with the prejudice and discrimination that gay people in Jamaica face?

WHAT KIND OF GUIDANCE?

Michael Abrahams says in his Monday column that "in counselling gay students, one is not obliged to say that homosexuality is good, right, natural or moral. But these students need help and guidance". But what kind of guidance, if one is to avoid touching what is "good, right, normal natural or moral"?

Abrahams goes on to muddy the water further by saying of these students: "Many suffer from guilt, shame and loneliness ... ." Now, how can the conservative or fundamentalist Christian help that student to overcome his "guilt, shame and loneliness" without that counsellor's abandoning his world view? That guidance counsellor can be professional, "objective", detached, value-neutral and all those fine things, but how does he help that child escape "guilt and shame" when that counsellor's religion sees homosexuality as morally unacceptable? Be realistic.

People have not thought through this issue very carefully. Junior, an online respondent to my column last week, says, "Yes, I expect Christians to leave their beliefs and Christian positions at home or church when they choose to serve in certain positions."

Junior goes on to say the point is not whether homosexuality is illegal or immoral: "It should be the psychological welfare of the child." But I put it to you that what constitutes "the psychological welfare of the child", according to "enlightened, scientific" folk, is precisely what no conservative Christian can fulfil. In the cultured despisers' view, the psychological welfare of the child is synonymous with that child's accepting his homosexuality and abandoning the futile struggle to suppress it. He must "come to terms" with his sexuality, rather than be blinded by a Bronze Age book with thousands of years of knowledge deficit.

Christian guidance counsellors remain Christian. They can't check their beliefs or values at the door of their offices. Their ideology maintains that homosexuality is disordered, unnatural, immoral and psychologically unhealthy. But I still say that there are some things which even conservative, fundamentalist Christian guidance counsellors can and must do in the discharge of their professional duties.

The minimum is that they must never, never ever shun any gay student. If they do so, they must be fired. It's dereliction of duty and gross irresponsibility. Second, they must maintain strict confidentiality. They must not disclose what these students are struggling with or even what they accept and practise. That's fundamental in counselling. A breach in that area should also result in dismissal.

The Christian guidance counsellor must work passionately to inculcate a culture of tolerance for gay people. He must let prejudiced, bigoted heterosexual students know there is no place for bigotry, let alone violence. We must make bigotry shameful and reprehensible. Bullying, teasing and mocking must be absolutely scorned in the school environment. Christian guidance counsellors must regard it as a part of their Christian duty to stand against any discrimination against gay students. Bigots must not feel that they have any allies in Christians - least of all guidance counsellors.

Guidance counsellors must be held to very high standards. They must be models of tolerance, openness, cosmopolitanism and anti-prejudice. If a guidance counsellor hears that a gay student is being persecuted at home; if parents are threatening to put him out of the house, ill-treating him, scandalising him, etc., that counsellor must immediately meet those parents and show - even from the Bible - how utterly wrong those approaches are. That guidance counsellor must use sources these so-called Christian parents believe in to show them the folly of their ways.

The Christian guidance counsellor must do everything to ensure that the gay student is not harassed, victimised, publicly shamed or discriminated against. He must ensure that family members treat that gay student no less than other members of the family. The guidance counsellor must help students, teachers, administrative staff at the school and members of these gay students' communities and families to eschew violence, discrimination and harassment. He must help them to embrace these gay students as full, equal human beings worthy of all love.

CHRISTIAN LOVE

The curious thing about this is that it is precisely in this area of love, tolerance and forgiveness that Christianity is most rich and resourceful. The Christian guidance counsellor should be the most compassionate and loving of all counsellors. Christian theology is based on love, mercy, forgiveness. At the heart of Christian theology is teaching on brokenness, our proclivity to mess up - and the enormous power of the Gospel to save people from all kinds of sinful conditions. Now it is here that my gay readers will scream condescension.

For I bet you that after I have outlined the most compassionate and tolerant approach to gay students, pro-gay readers will still not be pleased. Nothing less than full acceptance of their "enlightened, scientific, non-Stone Age view" will do. Talk about imposition! But, of course, their view is simply scientific truth - or, better yet, common sense. (I am grateful to Marx for helping me to understand the hubris of what he called 'false consciousness'.")

Gay fundamentalists will accept nothing less than the full acceptance of homosexuality as normal, moral and acceptable. There is no room for disagreement. Saying otherwise is like saying the Earth is flat. There should be no more tolerance for the view that homosexuality is immoral or abnormal than the view that the Earth is flat, gay fundamentalists believe. But conservative Christians will never accept that homosexuality is morally acceptable.

Quite frankly, gays should be happy that some fundamentalist guidance counsellors are shunning students. For what some would tell them if they did not shun them would cause those students far more damage and hurt than shunning them. I am a Popperian and an ardent believer in pluralism and the Open Society. Perhaps J-FLAG needs to organise its own counselling services where its own gay-friendly counsellors can offer a counterview to what is being offered in our schools, many of them Church-based.

Publicise your counselling services. Make use of social media heavily so that gay students have an alternative. For you can't depend on Christian guidance counsellors to go beyond tolerance and compassionate engagement to full acceptance of homosexuality. In a pluralistic society, we have to live together. Some Christians will be annoyed that I would countenance gay counselling services in the society. But this is not a theocracy. It is a democracy.

Some fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist gays will not be pleased with this column, but as Karl Popper would say, they are enemies of the Open Society.

- Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist working with the Jamaica Information Service. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and ianboyne1@yahoo.com.

ENDS

How comes JFLAG with their foot in mouth again with their statement withou checking their own archives

and here is an excerpt of the goodly GAJ President:

but she has changed her tone since.

But what about those previous instances that I hinted to?

Such as:

LESBIANS & LEARNING – SITUTATIONAL HOMOSEXUALITY AT A KGN ALL GIRLS SCHOOL ? 2012 (GLBTQ Wordpress blog)

The Star News also carried a VERY similar story in October 2011 posted HERE on GLBTQ Jamaica a press release from the J 11.03.12 entitled: J-FLAG CONDEMNS SEXUAL COERCION AND CALLS ON SCHOOLS ADMINISTRATORS TO DIALOGUE, this response to me shows the the lack of forward thinking and understanding of initiation, situational homosexuality and experimentation issues. Then again SGL women’s issues were never something they have dealt with effectively. 

Check out this old post as well which includes the late Dr Heather Little Whyte's intervention which aided the incremental strengthening of the GAJ, Ministry of Education and referrals which was being abused by counsellors who are refusing to or uncomfortable in engaging LGBT students:

also see:

URGENT NEED TO DISCUSS SEX & SEXUALITY NATIONALLY PART 2

ALLEGED LESBIAN COERCERS IN SCHOOL – SHOULD GET PROPER HELP – EXPERT ………

Human Rights Protect Us From Each Other

Firstly Happy Independence Day Jamaica and hope we do reflect on our struggle as a nation and not just the usual handing out of Order of Jamaica and Festival or Grand Gala celebrations without some deep thinking on where were are now especially on rights which is timely for discussion given recent events.

The following is a column from a member of Jamaicans for Justice's membership given the recent meltdown and constitution of an interim board.

Also see if you can: Sodomy is an Issue for Teens says Jamaicans for Justice Interim Chairman

Rodje Malcolm, GUEST COLUMNIST

The protection of universal human rights and the separation of Church and State are foundational for a robust democracy. As a normative framework, a human-rights approach to law and governance, by design, protects the rights and freedoms of all groups - including Christians. Contrary to the divisive rhetoric coming from Jamaican religious leaders, the human-rights movement is not a war against the Church.

It has been argued that Jamaica is a majority-Christian country and as such, a Judaeo-Christian world view should dictate law, particularly in the context of Jamaica's buggery law. This is not new. Oftentimes, groups in positions of superiority find it difficult to consider the plight of disadvantaged groups. They either cannot identify with minority causes, have no real reason to care, or have an incentive to perpetuate thestatus quo.

In Jamaica, an archaic, strict majoritarian vision of democracy has been advanced as a solution to resolving social tensions. That is, the interests of minorities are unimportant because of their minority status. This approach is exclusionary.

The dangerous implications become clear when, in alternate cultural contexts, the roles are reversed, and these groups experience widespread discrimination and persecution at the hands of some other majority. They clamour for equality, human rights, and an end to the same discrimination they exhibit when they are in comfortable majority settings.

The pervasiveness of discrimination across societies demonstrates that discrimination, as a phenomenon, does not discriminate. Depending on the context, minorities, of any identity group, face the prospect of prejudice. Political systems should, therefore, be designed to protect against the tyranny of the majority. They should be secular, creating a neutral public sphere in which all people can exist on equal terms. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

This is why Steve Lyston's recent column, 'Religious freedom and global economy' (Gleaner, July 28, 2014), is so bizarre. Lyston was decrying the persecution of minority Christians in Iraq, Syria and Egypt, urging Christians to be vigilant. Lyston, a biblical economist - whatever that means - blasted the media and human-rights groups for remaining silent on the persecution of Christians, claiming, "Their only focus is 'freedom of sexual choice' - so sexual choice has now taken precedence over religious freedom."

He said:

"In light of what is happening, if the Caribbean believes that Christians are safe in this region, think again! ... If the Caribbean and the other Western nations are not vigilant, very shortly we will see our schools being infiltrated and freedom of choice will be taken away! ... Bibles will be banned and only Qur'ans will be in the schools."

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Discrimination against any group is tragic and inexcusable. This holds true for Muslims in Myanmar who face persecution at the hands of a majority Buddhist population; the Roma, a minority ethnic group who face displacement in parts of Europe; Christians and Buddhists, who face criminal sanctions for organising or preaching in North Korea - considered a threat to 'North Korean values'; and the LGBT community in Jamaica who live under discriminatory colonial laws. When there is a clash of values, only a system of universal human rights can limit the capacity for abuse.

PARANOIA

Christian advocates such as Lyston and those who gathered in Kingston to protest a loss of religious rights cannot, in one breath, decry the discrimination against Christians in minority settings and then, in another breath, advocate that Christian majority status gives them the right to call the shots in Jamaica. That is special pleading - having your cake and nyamming it, too.

Also, accepting the ability of differing world views and lifestyles to exist does not equate to support or endorsement for them. It simply recognises that diverse interests can coexist without 'the majority using criminal code to suppress others - even if they find each other absolutely disgusting.

Because such a system, when normalised, poses an inherent risk of injustice, and because no society is perfectly homogeneous across religious, ethnic and sexual lines, a secular, human rights approach to navigating differences is necessary.

The religious lobby is correct; LGBT rights must never stifle freedom of speech of Christians. In the same way, religious freedom cannot infringe upon the sexual rights and the right to privacy of LGBT people. We cannot become so entrenched in our positions that we become polarised.

When the only thing that (usually bickering) Christian denominations can find to unite around is the fight against 'the gay lobby', our priorities are warped. This national paranoia has led to division, when engagement and discourse are needed.

Let's re-evaluate the type of political system we desire - one that will protect, not subordinate, the interests of all.

Rodje Malcolm is a director of Jamaicans for Justice(JFJ. The views above do not necessarily reflect those of JFJ. Email: rodjemalcolm@outlook.com.

ENDS

also see:

Don't Mix Religion With Politics & The Ugandan Antigay Law Overturn

Ian Boyne on "Do Gays Threaten Free Speech?"

Ian Boyne on "Do Gays Threaten Free Speech?"

Another decent article from veteran journalist and theologian Ian Boyne at least some reasoning is coming through despite the hysteria from other religious fanatics. Similar to last week's article he examines the present realities especially the perception of stifling of free speech in relation to those who "oppose homosexuality" as it were.

also see: War Over Buggery Law from Gay Jamaica Watch and antigay voice Shirley Richards' response: Can You Stop The Bolting Horse, Mr Boyne?

Ian Boyne

This debate on homosexuality is so polarised and politicised that there is diminished space for reason. It's largely a dialogue of the deaf. There is hardly any genuine desire for dialogue. It's easier to attack, accuse, malign, distort and rock back on old prejudices and stereotypes.

For those who are still capable of thinking rationally on this issue, perhaps a few points can be made. The first prerequisite for any dialogue is understanding the various points of view. There are some gay people who can't understand why Shirley Richards and Wayne West are constantly talking about the threats of the gay lobby. They see their talk as sheer hysteria-mongering. These persons ask how are gay people any threat to as Christians.

One online writer responded to my piece last week by saying: "While the Bible categorically condemns homosexuality (with many other things), their simple position on the matter should be: Christians are separate from the world, therefore they have no authority to set standards for the world outside the Christian congregation. Just as they benefit from laws set by Government to allow them freedom of worship, they should not interfere with whatever law the Government may grant to others with whom they are scripturally displeased. Their only concern should be to make sure those they accept as members of their churches are not people practising things the Bible condemns (homosexuality being one of them)."

Well, that's the first major misunderstanding. Once the State passes non-discrimination laws, religious institutions can't exempt themselves. There is increasing rejection of any religious exceptionalism. There was, indeed, an earlier period when the US courts, for example, were sympathetic to religious exceptionalism, but that has been coming under increasing pressure. President Obama just signed an executive order last month prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in federal hiring that might have implications for religious institutions.

LIVE AND LET LIVE

This 'live-and-let-live' view that some moderates hold might not apply if some gay-rights activists have their way. There are some who hold that just as religious organisations should not be accorded the right to discriminate on race, they shouldn't have the right to discriminate on sexual orientation.

So just as how it would be abominable for any church to openly declare it would never appoint a black man as a minister or a bishop, so some believe the Church should not have the right to declare that it won't hire an openly gay minister or bishop. When gay rights are framed as human rights, and when discrimination against gays is equated with discrimination against black people, it's hard to maintain any religious exceptionalism.

So my online respondent's view that Christians should just concern themselves with setting standards for their members is naïve.

If some gays have their way with legislation, Christians won't be able to live their lives based on their understanding of Scripture. This is not outrage-mongering. And it is a fact that on many university campuses (of all places) in North America, hate-speech codes are so restrictive that even mild criticism of homosexuality is banned. In Scandinavia, political correctness vis-á-vis homosexuality has reached absurd proportions, and in Britain, there have been scandalous violations of people's free-speech rights as well as their right to practise their religious convictions. Shirley Richards and Wayne West have not been manufacturing these cases.

If you think conservative Christians who fear the squelching of their rights are just fearmongers, note the British House of Lords and House of Commons Human Rights report a few years ago titled Legislative Scrutiny: Sexual Orientation Regulations. It says explicitly that for even private religious schools: "We do not consider that the right to freedom of conscience and religion requires the school curriculum to be exempted from the scope of sexual orientation regulations." It is saying schools should not be free to teach homosexuality is a sin or is abnormal.

"In our view, the regulations prohibiting sexual-orientation discrimination should clearly apply to the curriculum, so homosexual pupils are not subjected to teaching as part of the religious education or other curriculum that their sexual orientation is sinful or morally wrong." Now if this is not an attack on freedom of religion, I don't know what is.

If conservative Christians are not free to teach in their own schools their views on homosexuality - however misguided or wrong-headed the State might think - their free speech is severely compromised.

MINDFUL OF OTHERS

If I were a gay man, I would not, as a free-speech libertarian, care one heck if people want to teach in schools, churches, media and on the streets that my behaviour is abominable and worthy of a lifetime in hellfire. If people want to take out ads and run public campaigns against my lifestyle, I might deplore it, but as someone committed to liberal democracy, I would do nothing to impair the right of those persons.

Yes, it's stigmatisation, but so what? A liberal democracy has to tolerate such messiness. This desire to sanitise everything is what leads to autocracy.

I believe that too many people on both sides of this propaganda war - gays and Christians - are deeply hostile to liberal democratic values. There are Christians who want to impose their religious dogmas on the whole society, adapting a Christian Shari'a. Left to them, they would ban Sunday racing, carnival, casino gambling and all forms of gambling, drinking and they would close down all exotic clubs. They don't hold that Christians are exiles. Rather they are theonomists who feel Christians must impose the Kingdom on the heathens now. I believe in a pluralistic democracy; people have a right to resist this.

We need a new, fresh discourse on this Christian-gay debate. It's time for rational voices like those of gay-rights advocate Brian-Paul Welsh to emerge. I have corresponded with him and I have found him to be eminently reasonable, charitable, conciliatory, gracious and humble. The arrogance of so many gay people repels me. It's one thing to have contempt for religion and for "silly, Stone Age religious dogmas", as the enlightened gaytheists would put it.

I am not offended if you think I hold preposterous ideas. I can understand if you have contempt for my ideas. But you should not have contempt for me because I am brainwashed.

There is an excellent article on the Christianity Today website (July 16, 2014) titled 'Religious Freedom vs LGBT rights? It's more complicated'. The author calls for a reframing of this dialogue. He tells Christians that, increasingly, people are abandoning the idea of religious exceptionalism. They are also having less regard for religious liberty. They don't see why Christians should have the right to discriminate against women and gays in religious appointments and they don't be believe Christians should be exempt from discrimination laws.

As Christian intellectuals, we have to fight our battles on the ground of pluralism, not religious exceptionalism. "The pluralist argument is not clothed in the language of religious liberty, but extends to religious groups and institutions ... - the idea that in a society that lacks a shared vision of a deeply held common good, we can and must live with deep difference among groups and their beliefs, values and identities."

He goes on to say: "More pointed, every one of us holds beliefs that others find morally reprehensible. Pluralism rests on three interrelated aspirations: Tolerance, humility and patience. Tolerance means a willingness to accept genuine difference, including profound moral difference." Tolerance permits differences to coexist.

Significantly, he says, "Pluralism does not impose the fiction of assuming that all ideas are equally valid or morally benign. It does mean respecting people and allowing for the right to differ among serious matters." And I end by reminding both the Christian and gay-rights Taliban that "patience reminds us that the best means to a better end is through persuasion and dialogue, not coercion and bullying".

Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist working with the Jamaica Information Service. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and ianboyne1@yahoo.com.

ENDS

Also see:

A Response to a Gleaner Commentary: 'CAUSE' Editorials And The Culture War

The False Dichotomy of the religious right on the LGBT advocacy Godlessness

Blakka Ellis on "Jamaica a christian country?"

Don't crucify gay-rights activists, Boyne pleads 2010

Anti Gay Voice & 'Child Rights' Advocate Betty-Ann Blaine Taken to Task on Public Advocacy

Ian Boyne: Bain exercised terribly poor strategic judgement ..

Atheism, Secularism and Buggery . 2012

Church claims future victimization if buggery is decriminalized in Jamaica

It's The Church That Needs Salvation - Attack on Gays 

Perception of Jamaican LGBTQ lobby bullying continues

Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society continues its “HIV is a gay disease” campaign with more deception

Letters & Opinions: Anti-gay Christians threaten free speech ............Christian Ethics And The UTech Beating 2012

Group braces for costly fight against gays ......... Church must be passionate in fight against homosexuality

Lawyers' Christian Fellowship's Shirley Richards says lesbian sex should be criminalized as buggery

Shirley Richards & The Jamaican UK Foster Parents (The Johns) on Love 101 FM ............. on buggery

Ian Boyne on ....... Storm Brewing Over Gay Ad 2011

The elephant is the room (Pt 1) subscription to the Gleaner may be required

Let the dialogue continue.

Peace and tolerance

H

Ian Boyne: Bain exercised terribly poor strategic judgement .....................

I am still carefully going through the materials too numerous on this issue since it broke last Sunday May 18th in the Gleaner and several other issues have arisen since then as previous posts on this blog has brought to bear, the conflict of interest is clear but long time feelings some which were dormant opposing homosexuality overall and the removal of the buggery law have since reawakened.

You may also want to hear these:

and

Ian Boyne takes on the issue as published yesterday in the Gleaner's In Focus:

Ian Boyne

Professor Brendan Bain exercised terribly poor strategic judgement in offering that affidavit which got him fired. The University of the West Indies (UWI) hardly had any option but to boot him. Overwhelming public outrage and disgust with the demagoguery of the gay lobby and its fellow travellers is absolutely justified, and the championing of freedom of speech is refreshingly welcome.

These are seemingly contradictory positions, but represent the kind of nuanced reflections which have been all too often absent from the largely visceral and glandular discussion of this issue. We need to cool our heads (well, more accurately, our emotions) and rationally and dispassionately discuss this issue.

I have warned repeatedly in these columns about the profoundly anti-democratic tendencies in the gay lobby and its threat to freedom of speech. It exploits the word 'homophobia' as a conversation-stopper, labelling every opposition to homosexuality, however mild, as blind prejudice, bigotry and stigmatisation. The gay lobby has succeeded in defining even intellectually honest objections to homosexuality (an oxymoron?) as hate speech and it will pursue and persecute anyone who opposes its agenda of normalising homosexuality. I have no illusions about either the gay lobby's power or agenda.

The gay lobby and its human-rights allies have suffered significant reputational damage over its bullying of Bain out of his job as head of a UWI project dealing with HIV/AIDS. The Jamaica Umbrella Group of Churches puts it well in its release last Thursday: "A decision such as this against such a reputable professional has served to concretise the view that those with a homosexual agenda are prepared to discriminate against, stigmatise and silence those who do not share their world view. Therefore, this is likely to cement the lines of separation and bolster the stridency in opposing the homosexual lifestyle."

Says the church group: "No doubt Professor Bain's casualty will be lifted up as a local example of what happens to those who share a different world view." However, I believe this issue has been mischaracterised as one of the denial of academic freedom and as mere cowering on the part of the UWI administration. I believe we are conflating some issues needlessly.

First, it is not one of academic freedom. Professor Bain is a retired professor. He has not been penalised as a professor with Evangelical views. He held and expressed those views all those years as a professor and was very active in the Christian community for many years in media pushing traditional Christian family values. He was never victimised by the UWI for that.

But if Professor Bain had lost the support and goodwill of major organisations working in HIV/AIDS, how could he effectively carry out his work as head of Caribbean HIV/AIDS Regional Training (CHART)? What practical sense would it make for the UWI to continue to keep him working in a capacity when those whom he would need to work with reject him? Put the blame on the organisations which vociferously voiced their opposition to his continued leadership, not the UWI that was managing the project.

But you say the UWI must not bow for "30 pieces of silver". It must stand up for principles and its values. Well, it turns out, as Vice-chancellor E. Nigel Harris told us clearly in media interviews last week that the UWI's values are in the direction of the decriminalisation of homosexuality - on the wrong side of which Professor Bain found himself in that Belize case. UWI Chancellor Sir George Alleyne was very forthright and even strident in his address to the 2013 UWI graduating class in Barbados. He sees criminalisation of homosexuality as being against human rights. Harris says explicitly that is the UWI's position.

So faced with sharp and trenchant opposition to Bain's continuing to lead CHART and its own values, the UWI, it seems to me, acted consistently and justifiably in firing Professor Bain. It clearly was going to lose that contract. No doubt about that. But in light of its own position on the importance of decriminalisation to non-stigmatisation and non-discrimination, and the practical fact that Bain's constituency rejected him, it would be only cowardice that would make the UWI keep Bain. Quite the opposite of what some simplistically charge.

The UWI made a significant statement in its release which would justify its dismissal of Bain from the project (not the academy, mark you): "The majority of HIV and public-health experts believe that criminalising men having sex with men and discriminating against them violates their human rights, puts them at even higher risk, reduces their access to services, forces the HIV epidemic underground, thereby increasing the HIV risk. These are positions advocated by the UN, UNAIDS, WHO, PAHO, the international human rights communities and PANCAP (the Pan Caribbean partnership Against AIDS)."

I don't accept all those assumptions. But if there is such broad consensus in the field on the importance of decriminalisation to the HIV fight — and Bain must be aware of this — it was foolhardy for Bain to be leading a regional group and to so blatantly go against its accepted norms in that Belizean case. Go and do your thing. Exercise your freedom of conscience to stand upon for your conviction. But you have to be prepared to pay the price.

The funders of the project, the people paying his salary, have a certain view, whether you agree with them or not. They are both paying the piper and calling the tune. If you fundamentally disagree with them and their direction, you resign. Nobody has any absolute right to any job. There are certain convictions that we have which make us ineligible for certain positions. You can't head a feminist agency and you publicly lobby for women to stay at home and teach that men have a divine right to rule.

We can challenge the groups on their view that the HIV struggle must include decriminalisation. I personally feel their arguments are weak. Even if homosexuality is decriminalised, stigma will still remain once cultural attitudes don't change. Stigmatisation does not depend on laws. That's an elementary fallacy. Ask any black American. Read the literature on race, discrimination and stigmatisation and see how enduring stigmatisation is even after the Civil Rights Act.

The Caribbean gay lobby and its human-rights compatriots make unwarranted assumptions. Do you really believe that it is only because gays are threatened with police action why they don't turn up at clinics and health centres to get treatment and why they don't use condoms, etc.? Really? Nevertheless, I can't see any rational reason to support the continued criminalisation of homosexuality. (Note, this is not the same as arguing for legalisation, which I reject in our context for democratic and religious reasons.)

There is nothing in even conservative Evangelical theology which would say homosexuality should be criminalised while adultery and fornication are not. In the Old Testament, adultery, fornication and homosexuality were all capital offences (like Sabbath breaking). Homosexuality was called an abomination, yes, but in terms of biblical law, it had no higher penalty over adultery and fornication. Why should Professor Bain, as an Evangelical Christian, feel that homosexuals should be locked up and not fornicators and adulterers, when his own Bible provides absolutely no justification for such a differentiation?

That HIV/AIDS has a higher prevalence among male homosexuals is an established fact that is not even contested by gay people. In fact, Bain's testimony, which I read carefully, is sound scientifically, but in no way supports continued criminalisation of homosexuality. I am happy about the outrage and deep concern for freedom of speech, but the issue is misperceived as a freedom-of-expression issue. It is not. It is about loss of confidence by a constituency, justified or not, and the decision of a university to keep a lucrative project which is in tune with its own values.

Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist who works with the Jamaica Information Service. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and ianboyne1@yahoo.com.

Atheism, Secularism and Buggery ..............

LGBT History on Tuesday September 18 was made with the above interview on TVJ's Religious Hardtalk when two activists who happen to also be atheists or secularist supporters appeared there. A pre-LGBT history month post of sorts however in days following one of the guests Javed Jaghai posted on his blog that Television Jamaica, TVJ erred and censored his comments on buggery.

See:

TVJ Censors Atheism Episode of Religious Hardtalk

The Jamaican media is not as free and fair as we would like to believe. A few weeks ago, I agreed to speak about atheism on Religions Hardtalk alongside Angeline Jackson. The host, Ian Boyne, had read a letter to the editor of The Gleaner in which I stated that I am gay and he asked whether I’d be comfortable speaking about my sexuality. We agreed that it wouldn’t be a talking point, but that if it became relevant I would not skirt around it.

In response to a question about the buggery law, I stated that as a gay Jamaican it is offensive to my being. Ian exclaimed that I was both an atheist AND gay in Jamaica, and we laughed then moved on.  The next day I emailed him asking for his assurance that our exchange concerning my sexuality would not be cut from the program. He said he did not intend to do so. In fact, he had instructed the editors to make it the promo.

Two hours before the program aired, I received an email from Ian informing me that the program was sanitized of my acknowledgement of my sexuality. I was told the editors were concerned for my safety, as he was initially, and that he did not fight for transparency. I was furious! Silence and invisibility does not protect minority groups from violence. It allows ignorance and prejudice to go unchallenged. How dare they insult me by telling me I’m being silenced for my own good. Tell that to someone with a less sophisticated understanding of social oppression.

TVJ has no qualms about inviting so-called “ex-gays” to speak about their turn from homosexuality through prayer and counseling. They eagerly obscure your face and distort your voice when you are speaking about molestation by (predatory) homosexuals and about your constant struggle to reject perverse sexuality.

You are to remain faceless! Furthermore, the station recklessly sensationalizes news stories dealing with homosexuals and homosexuality (HFLE anyone?).
Last summer, TVJ refused to air a PSA aimed at promoting tolerance for LGBT people. Kay Osbourne, the general manager at the time, justified the decision of the station by explaining their responsibility to respect the views and wishes of the majority. Editors there have NO understanding of how (by commission and by omission) they promote discourse that marginalizes homosexuals and makes violence against us permissible.

But I am to believe they are genuinely concerned about my safety. Because a yessideh mi bawn outa fimi madda woom.

The next day I received a tweet from a friend who lamented that he woke up to see the rebroadcast of the program at 10am but it did not air. I immediately emailed Ian, because I imagined my friend must have tuned in at the wrong time. Ian told me TVJ decided they would not show a repeat of the program. Since the most offensive bit of the interview was expunged by the editors, one can only assume the rest of the segment was also deemed objectionable.

On a program that seeks to explore diverse perspectives on religion, some views are obviously not welcome. TVJ allows you to use their platform if they can make a spectacle of your beliefs while affirming the supremacy of Christian theology. How dare someone not show reverence to God while unambiguously advocating for the subversion of Christian hegemony! What I find stunning about TVJ’s decision is that it illustrates a point I made during the show that the voices of atheists and secularists are actively suppressed in Jamaica.
I am now convinced TVJ is more interested in further institutionalizing Christianity than facilitating progressive dialogue about secularism, diversity and inclusion.

That said, I am surprised the station posted the episode on their website and I would not be surprised if it was pulled abruptly.

Here is my two cents some days before via another post

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

Ian Boyne on ....... Storm Brewing Over Gay Ad

Ian Boyne, Contributor

It's an indication of our backwardness, appalling intolerance and bigotry that an ad calling for "unconditional love" of our homosexual family members and friends is unlikely to be shown on local television because the stations are just too scared to show leadership in this area.

The decision-makers there know better, but they also know Jamaica, and they know the backlash and outrage that would overwhelm them if they dare transgress in this area. It's profit over any principle of pluralism, and concern for ratings over reason. I understand their dilemma. I am taking daredevil risks with my own popularity and 'ratings' for writing this column. It takes courage to write any such lead in a Jamaican newspaper, for it is bound to generate rumours that I myself am gay, bisexual or at least uncertain about my own sexuality.

For in the thinking (I need a better word!) of large numbers of Jamaicans, for me to even dare to suggest that an ad 'soft' on homosexuals should come on television in this Christian, God-blessed country must be an indication of a perverted, sin-sick and debased mind. Homosexuality, I have always maintained, is not a subject that can be rationally discussed in Jamaica, for even among well-schooled people, emotions completely drown any semblance of reason.

Palpable fear

The one time I could ever interview some gay people on 'Religious Hardtalk', they had to be from overseas, and I had to say several times during the show, "Don't bother to come down here at TVJ, for this show is taped and the guests are already back home!" For it would be life-threatening for them to stay in the island for the luxury of watching the show here, as I could not guarantee their safety to the airport. (After all, doomsday preacher Michael Lewis had to wear disguises on the streets of Jamaica before he left for the United States (US), and his sin was just proclaiming passionately that Jesus would return on May 21!)

Last Sunday, the Observer, in a page-one story, 'Gay TV advert angers clerics', reported the difficulty gays and non-gay civil libertarians had been having in getting a public service announcement carried even after a public launch involving US Ambassador Pamela Bridgewater and others from the international community.

It is to our shame that Jamaican gay people cannot come on television, show their faces, debate their homosexuality with heterosexuals, go back home in peace and to their jobs and live normal lives the next day. If we lay claim to being a pluralistic, democratic society and not an autocracy like Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Burma, Pakistan, Nepal, Afghanistan, gay people should be free to express their views without fear of violence, harassment or victimisation.

But what about the view that homosexuality is against Jamaican law and, therefore, it would be improper to show such blatant disrespect for Jamaican law by parading gay people on air, or showing an ad effectively calling for a softening of attitudes to these persons engaging in lawbreaking? First, it is not homosexuality that is illegal, but buggery or anal sex. Lesbians cannot be punished under our buggery laws.

Hypocrisy regarding lesbians

So, from a Christian point of view, Jamaican law does not really reflect, absolutely, the biblical prohibition of same-sex intimacy. It leaves out lesbians, and my information is that lesbianism is growing by leaps and bounds in Jamaica and is reportedly prominent in our high schools - unfortunately, in my view.

And why, I ask our passionate anti-gay men, are they generally so soft on lesbians and don't treat them and despise them the same way they despise gay men? If you are talking about morality - and especially biblical morality - you have to be consistent. If it's a cultural matter now - and there are some interesting sociological theories on how male homosexuality offends our notion of masculinity - well, stop citing morality and the Bible. (Ever notice how these fornicating, adulterous 'old dawg' men like to rush for their King James Version of the Bible in condemning homosexuality? Why don't they apply that same Bible to themselves?)

So the argument about 'not promoting something which is illegal' does not hold water. A homosexual man can avoid buggery but is still, in the biblical and scientific definition, gay. (Those who know their Bible know it condemns sexual lust, not just physical penetration outside of man-woman marriage.) So then, would you be okay with homosexual men who are not engaging in buggery coming on television to be interviewed? No, you would not, and it has nothing to do with law - it just has to do with prejudice and emotion.

Besides, isn't ganja smoking against our law? Do we, as journalists, interview people on television who openly admit to smoking ganja and hence to breaking the law? Do the decision-makers at our television stations not carry artistes who smoke ganja? Some are even carried smoking weed and puffing the smoke in Babylon's face!

There's another point. There have been many laws which have been and are unjust and immoral. Apartheid was law in South Africa. It was unjust and immoral. Slavery was legal in many societies. So was discrimination against women. (This continues in some societies today.) It was once illegal to sell liquor, to criticise the king and other public officials (the sedition law). Interracial marriage was illegal in some places, and so was divorce.

Free speech

The fact that something is illegal should not prevent lobbyists in a democratic society from speaking out for change. I am a free-speech libertarian, and here I am going to part company with perhaps most gay people who, if they had their way, would become the new oppressors and opponents of free speech. There are gay people who believe religious people should not have the right to call homosexuality an abomination and an evil which will be punished with everlasting hellfire. Though I don't believe in everlasting hellfire, I believe preachers must have the right to say that homosexuals will burn in hell forever if they don't repent of their sin of homosexuality.

Homosexuals and other opponents of free speech will call that 'hate language' and would seek to ban it, calling attention to the 'emotional hurt' and 'pain' such language causes to people. And lest you think I am inconsistent, I also believe racists should have the right to publicise their racist views too. The Ku Klux Klan should have the right to promulgate their racism, and the Aryan Brotherhood and racist Christian Identity movement should be free to publish and broadcast their sick racist views to whomever would listen. To quote that memorable phrase representative of free-speech philosophy, the answer to hate speech is 'more, better speech', not censorship and repression.

I detest how the gay lobby has manipulated language to classify any opposition to homosexuality as 'homophobia'. That's absolute nonsense. There are rational, sophisticated people who believe homosexuality is morally wrong and philosophically and theologically unjustifiable. (As much as arrogant gays find that hard to believe). I, personally, believe that if the Bible is read as authoritative, and if any plenary inspiration is ascribed to it, you cannot come away with any justification whatsoever for homosexual conduct.

In my considered opinion, the Bible condemns homosexuality and homosexual practice. I believe it is a fruitless attempt to try to use the Bible to show that God has no problem with homosexuality. I have read the finest exponents of pro-homosexual biblical exegesis and hermeneutics and I find them utterly unconvincing. For anyone who wants a thorough and comprehensive refutation of any attempt to harmonise the Bible with homosexuality, I recommend Robert Gagnon's masterpiece, The Bible and Homosexual Practice', as well as his indescribably devastating anti-gay hermeneutics website.

Tolerance isn't endorsement

Gay people need to learn that tolerance does not mean endorsement. Many of them seem to believe that those of us who are free-speech and civil-rights libertarians are still 'victims of prejudice' because we still see homosexual practice as sinful and against the will of God. I am prepared to debate with any homosexual on philosophical and theological grounds to show why I reject homosexual practice. I find most of their arguments justifying homosexual behaviour as gnawingly simplistic and a violation of a cardinal principle in philosophy: You can't derive 'ought from is'. The fact that you have these desires, impulses and drives doesn't mean that they should be satisfied. In other words, because something is natural does not mean it is necessarily moral.

I recommend to my gay friends evolutionary psychologist and atheist, Professor Steve Stewart-Williams', Darwin, God and the Meaning of Life: How Evolutionary Theory Undermines Everything You Thought You Knew. It's priceless. See, especially, the chapter 'Remaking Morality', which notes: "Several of the alleged ethical implications we've considered so far rest on a hidden assumption: The idea that if something is natural, it must be good."

We need to embed in this society what the philosopher John Locke called "toleration". We need a pluralistic democracy, not just an electoral democracy such as we have. I would describe what we have as an illiberal democracy. Our tribalism affects our politics, our sociology, our religion - everything. (I mean, we had one man calling for the resignation of our governor general because, as a conscientious Seventh-day Adventist, he felt bound, or so we surmise, to be absent from Independence ceremonies. In this bigoted, intolerant and illiberal society, diversity and difference must be punished and banished).

Some of us will have to step out of that cocoon and show some leadership at some point. The Gleaner has already called for the decriminalisation of homosexuality. We might not agree with the paper, but we must concede it is showing guts in this intolerant society, and a courage that elude its counterparts in electronic media. But then the masses watch far more than they would care to read.

We must reach a point in this country where we can discuss homosexuality rationally; though perhaps not in my lifetime. Gay people, though, must understand that "unconditional love" does not mean unconditional acceptance of their sexuality. That's another form of bigotry.

Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and ianboyne1@yahoo.com.

ENDS

TVJ RESPONDS:

UPDATE 18.08.11

Here is a response to the piece

Disgrace And Travesty

THE EDITOR, Sir:

IAN BOYNE in his column, 'Storm brewing over gay ad', on August 14 stated the following: "Some of us will have to step out of that cocoon and show some leadership at some point. The Gleaner has already called for the decriminalisation of homosexuality. We might not agree with the paper, but we must concede it is showing guts in this intolerant society, and a courage that elude its counterparts in electronic media. But then, the masses watch far more than they would care to read."

It seems that Mr Boyne may be suggesting that some in the electronic media (CVM and/or TVJ) are shying away from airing the gay-friendly ad because of the public opprobrium that may be directed at the various television or radio channels. I wasn't aware that there was some brouhaha within media boardrooms regarding sanctioning the airing of the ad.

It is a disgrace to, and travesty of, the notion of a free press for CVM or TVJ to stonewall the efforts of the gay lobby. To the point, when did the electronic media become a repository for the collective prejudice of Jamaican society? The ad in question is entirely innocuous. It is one that every reasoned Jamaican, especially Christians, should advocate. The ad only asks that family members show love to their gay relatives. Isn't this consistent with the Christian ethic of love - the same love shown by Jesus to the woman at the well? The ad, as I've seen it, is not asking Jamaicans to accept homosexuality. Contrarily, it begs for unconditional love, in spite of human vices.

The Church is gravely mistaken that the ad is a duplicitous tactic to normalise homosexual behaviour. And, for the Church to lend its voice to its opposition ironically obstructs, rather than aid, the principle at the heart of the Judeo-Christian message. For the church to sound such a false alarm is nothing but a transparent attempt to stir a tempest in a teapot.

I sincerely hope the electronic media - radio and television - find the ethical and political willpower to stand on journalistic principles and give the people equal opportunity to have their voices heard, no matter how unpopular those voices may be.

J.D. Lewis

Kingston

also see

Shame On Boyne For Giving Mixed Signals