CCJ Reserves Judgement In Maurice Tomlinson Immigration Case ....... No restrictions on Caricom gays, TT officials say

The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has reserved judgement in the application filed by human rights and gay rights advocate, Maurice Tomlinson, who is challenging the immigration laws of Trinidad and Tobago and Belize.

See the latest video of the actual proceedings HERE, HERE and HERE

Tomlinson is contending that the immigration laws of both countries violate his right to freedom of movement and his right not to be discriminated against on the basis of his nationality.

Tomlinson wants the CCJ to grant a declaration that the laws should be amended to remove the barring of homosexuals from entering Trinidad and Belize.

The human rights and gay rights advocate is also seeking damages.

Trinidad and Belize have opposed the application.

PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad (Trinidad Express) — Despite there being legislation in place under local immigration laws to prevent members of the gay community from entering Trinidad and Tobago, acting Chief Immigration Officer Gerry Downes yesterday said there is policy in place to allow those individuals who are members of Caricom nations free movement in and out of this country.

There are no restrictions on those individuals simply because of their sexual orientation, but restrictions are placed on people who are not members of Caricom states and are seeking to enter Trinidad and Tobago, he said.

Downes made the statement yesterday while testifying during a hearing at the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) in Port of Spain, in which Jamaican gay rights activist Maurice Tomlinson is challenging local immigration laws, which he contends are homophobic and inconsistent with Caricom policy on free movement between citizens of member states.

Questioned by Tomlinson’s attorney Douglas Mendes SC on how immigration officials may treat with the matter should his client seek to enter this country, Downes said: “If he were to come back to Trinidad we would treat him as any other Caricom national because he is a Caricom national.”

Tomlinson is challenging Section 8 of the Immigration Act, which allows immigration officials to refuse entry to homosexuals, prostitutes and other people who may benefit from the proceeds of either. He also brought action against the Government of Belize whose immigration legislation is similarly worded.

The action was brought under the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas, which established both the CCJ and the Caribbean Single Market Economy (CSME).

As an activist for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual (LGBT) community, Tomlinson, who is also an attorney, had travelled to both countries previously, but after discovering the existence of the prohibitions he refused invitations from both countries to avoid violating their immigration laws “and he claims to have suffered prejudice thereby”.

The case of openly gay singer Elton John, who was allowed into this country to perform at a concert in Tobago in 2007, was also raised during the hearing.

Downes explained that if John was “a skilled Caricom national” he would have been allowed into this country and “that would not have been a problem”, but given he was not, John had to be granted special permission to do so.

Belize’s acting Director of Immigration, Maria Marin, also testified during the hearing. Like Downes, Marin said no members of Caricom nations are prevented from entering the country based on their sexual orientation.

She said, in 1998, a cruise ship with approximately 700 gays came to Belize and all the individuals were allowed into the country.

Presiding over the matter are CCJ president Sir Dennis Byron, Rolston Nelson, Charles Anderson, Adrian Saunders and Jacob Wit.

Attorney Imran Ali appears alongside Mendes for Tomlinson, while senior counsel Seenath Jairam, Wayne Sturge and Gerald Ramdeen are representing the Government of Trinidad and Tobago.

also see: 

UK Supreme Court dismisses Secretary of State's appeal on designated state status of Jamaica and risk to homosexuals

Mendes: Ban on gays ‘bad for T&T’

Homeless MSM in New Kingston arrested in raid for stolen goods

THIS POST IS SUBJECT TO UPDATES

Here we are again this old familiar place as the homeless MSM in New Kingston makes news again for all the wrong reasons as they continue to be left out in the cold by uncaring agencies and those who choose tokenism over serious interventions to help the men recover to some semblance of regularity in their lives. A day after Homeless Awareness Month come to think of it and now this.

We also see some deceptive crisis reporting by some in advocacy on this as it was shown as a breaking news item some time ago yet it turned out to be a lie.

Some of the men had to be jerked awake by the police team. (PHOTOS: JOSEPH WELLINGTON , the bit about describing the men as gay by the media is small crumbs compared to the egregious hypocrisy we see before us.

The Observer reported:

THE men, exhausted from partying all night, lay on makeshift beds in the gully that cuts beneath Trafalgar Road in New Kingston — dead to the police officers around them.

Commanding officer Christopher Murdoch lowered a ladder in the gully and led three of his men in. The stench overpowering.

A high-heeled boot lay at the edge of the gully, inches from a make-up kit and a piece of silver costume jewellery.

Inside the gully, curtains served as a temporary wall on one side. As eyes adjusted to the dark, men clad in women's clothing, blonde wigs, eyelids heavy with false lashes, acrylic fingernails and 'bleached' faces could be seen sprawled, fast asleep.

Murdoch shouted instructions for the men to get up, but they didn't budge and had to be jerked awake.

At the end of the one-hour operation, which started at midday, eight homosexuals believed to be involved in a series of robberies in the New Kingston area were taken into custody and transported to the Half-Way-Tree Police Station.

A number of stolen items were recovered, the police said in a release hours after the raid.

Additionally, the release listed five homosexual men — who the police said frequent New Kingston — as persons of interest in a number of robberies.

The men are known only by the aliases: 'Marlene Malaboo-Forte', 'Michelle', 'Pebbles', 'Goodas', and 'Bat Man'.

The operation was conducted by a police team from the New Kingston Police Post, the St Andrew Central Division, and Delta Special Operations on Antigua and Trafalgar roads — across from the NCB Atrium — and culminated on Dumfries and Ruthven roads.

The raids were met with howls of approval from passing motorists and pedestrians, who said that the men had been a nuisance and should have been long been removed.

"Dem rob people like wow out here a night time," said one onlooker, obviously annoyed.

As the police took the men out of the gully, which runs along Trafalgar Road, a man came asking the police if his brother was among the lot of gay men. He was not.

Another man, who said he was a teacher, queried whether one of his former students was among the alleged offenders.

"I hope you are not in there!" shouted the man, as he called out the boy's name.

"He's a former student who left high school with subjects and come get involved in this," the man explained.

Commandant Murdoch, in turn, asked whether the student was present.

The student, too, was not there.

The men were led, one after the othe,r up the ladder, handcuffed, and placed in the back of a waiting police van.

"Come 'Goodie'," said a female police officer as she helped one of the men out of the gully.

"Weh you a draw mi so fah?" asked the young man as the female officer held him by his filthy-looking shirt.

"You're quicker than me," the policewoman responded.

The men hid their faces as they were taken out of the gully and placed in the van. One warned the police against burning his personal items, which included female clothing.

The pointing of a television camera at the men in the police van sparked a protest. "Turn off the camera now, nuh!" one of the detained men shouted.

Another started wagging his tongue while being recorded. "Why you nuh come closer mek me spit ina de camera?" he taunted the cameraman.

"Why you nuh do it from there?" the cameraman shot back. "Please, mi a beg yuh!"

"The cold (spit) nah go get fi damage it," the remanded man said, before the cameraman walked off.

The men were then whisked away to the police station.

Commandant Murdoch promised that more operations would follow.

"We will continue to carry out these snap operations to find those who are robbing people in the New Kingston area," Murdoch told the Jamaica Observer.

ENDS

TVJ carried the raid:

notice that it is the same Superintendent who has been in fairness trying to also get involved in finding some solution when he appeared in the discussion program All Angles alongside business interests from New Kingston, see below:

here are two other videos from the last eviction from the upscale Millsborough Avenue house earlier in 2013 that repeatedly made news thus leaving some of the men to live in the gully/drain that they were removed from on December 1st, how many more stories like this must we continue to see while big LGBT agencies and advocates do not care? Also the same gully known as "The gulf" is also used by substance abusers.

also see from October in the previous raid: The toss up between MSM homelessness & public order makes news again 

and A claim on How to help homeless LGBT Jamaicans ......

Concerns for HIV prevalence rate in MSM in Jamaica & connected matters

see this other video recently shot by a supposed member of the group who are seeking donations to a church site captioned below:

the details of the project is missing, the target amount(s) as most campaigns ought to have is not there, the essence of the project is not shown so what are persons being asked to donate to and those who do not have a paypal account how do they donate?

You decide readers if we are seeing a genuine concern or another farce parading as concern when the persons behind the thrust such as Maurice Tomlinson say they have been around in advocacy for over twelve years yet they never saw homelessness in the MSM community until now? especially owing to the fact that they sat on the Board of the very agency that insisted on the closure of the safe house pilot project and chose not to intervene then but what for now to do so! .............. how opportunistic. It is deception like this over the years that has ate into the credibility of the lobby and we wonder why no campaigns seem to resonate with the ever cynical public or they simply do not accept the constant hue and cry of "homophobia" with alarmist crisis reporting instead of balanced objective analysis and advocacy. It is becoming a little sickening now as to note that the relevant changes to our laws could have been well closer to fruition or even happened (decriminalization) if it weren't for some serious mistakes and individuals with big egos in the way.

UPDATE from 76crimes site more deceptive crisis reporting but some members of the public have caught on to the trick, case in point this comment:

see the article here: Jamaican police seize, burn donations to LGBT youths

My comment I added which I doubt would be published was as follows:

More deceptive crisis reporting to get attention on a matter that has been around for so many years when these same opportunists were consulted they turned their backs yet it is now some activists who turned up their noses at the very group see them? 

what a convenient distraction from the tolerance ad case and the fact that it was thrown out of the supreme court revealing some issues that some do not want the scrutiny searchlight to be turned on to, case in point the amendment of the plead in the middle of the trial knowing fully well that the PBCJ in particular does not take paid ads by virtue of section 4 of the act that brought it into being and also the fact that the lawyers for all three stations intend to apply for costs to be awarded to them and paid by the claimant photographed above.


Not all of us can be fooled or diverted.

Check out this flashback podcast/commentary to 2012 where a television interview with persons from the NGO claiming to help homeless MSM was poorly executed:

Peace and tolerance

H

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

Calling for a Tourism Boycott on Jamaica is a dumb idea at this time

Some young advocates as it were with full support from some older ones who seem more interested in attention seeking than seriously thinking what can happen when such poorly thought out agitations are launched. Lest we forget the LGBT population is still reeling from the black eye from the Queen Ifrica fiasco and the fumbling by all parties involved namely JFLAG and JAGLA (Jamaica Association of Gays and Lesbians Abroad) like wherein the hardened positions by the anti gay voices and persons has gotten more so. Now we see the Lovemarch folks planning another march from Hope Gardens to Half Way Tree on September 14th in opposition to the upcoming court cases challenging the buggery law etc.

Lest we also forget for those who were around before in 2008 and for newcomers we have gone down this road before with calls for boycotts by over exuberant foreign activists out of touch with our realities and who in a supposed bid to assist us in the struggle instead we ended up with a near diplomatic nightmare and a major spike in homophobic incident reports that these same voices were not prepared to assist us (I was a JFLAG at the time) to mitigate or engage. The choppings, profilings, beatings and so on were numerous and the narrative that rang out in some of those documented cases was that they were done in retaliation for making our country suffer in the eyes of the attackers.

EGALE - EQUALITY FOR GAYS AND LESBIANS EVERYWHERE Canada for example comes to mind in 2008 where they fervently called for a tourism boycott and the nation turned red with the call those days we did not have a more supportive media as now and it was a public relations nightmare the call ended up causing more problems than they solved, SMMS Stop Murder Music Canada also joined the call but called it off after some persuasion from local advocates on the ground and a response from the then government of Jamaica, also involved was the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto who had demanded that the Jamaican government immediately denounce homophobic violence in the country and begin work on repealing laws criminalizing homosexuality, including sexual orientation in the Charter of Rights and developing education campaigns for the country and for the police. A similar call has been hinted to by JAGLA, individual advocates and supported by Maurice Tomlinson. The supposed call is stop the rising numbers of violence meted out to members of the LGBT populations in recent times, my fear based on experience is that such calls only seek to increase the very abuses that the calls are intended to decrease, boycotts are counter productive, besides travel agents said that a tourist boycott was not likely to have a major impact anyway then and I doubt it would have now, also we must bear in mind that Air Canada recently commenced flights to Kingston again with renewed interest in the destination and given our economic situation, austerity and the mood of the nation on many fronts this is not the time for a boycott. Jobs are scarce, persons are tense we do not need a spark to set the place on fire.

Then came the Red Stripe boycott as well which had us in a frenzy for some time although Red Stripe bounced back easily and capitalized on the unexpected exposure that they could not pay for, their forward thinking however averted trouble when they vowed not to support shows with artists professing violent lyrics overall. Back then I had posted in a response to our friends in San Francisco; "While I appreciate the support in the cause for justice and tolerance towards everyone here despite their sexual orientation, groups planning or who have planned these events must be mindful of the repercussions such actions may have on an already marginalized grouping as we are here.

Members of the public and by extension select public opinion shapers will consider this as interference by foreigners and hence push for more hatred and opposition towards gays. Not to mention the increase in violence that occurs when a situation like this becomes public knowledge. As we have seen before during the planned Canadian group EGALE’s boycott early last year many persons including lesbians suffered attacks, we saw a spike in the numbers that was never so for lesbians especially before. The stories told to us by many victims included hints that we (gays) were getting foreigners to force their nasty lifestyle on Jamaica and other derogatory remarks so the attackers felt justified in their actions.

I ask you our friends to be mindful, JFLAG is slowly working on the ground to reach several objectives which include on going dialogue and other strategies which I am not at liberty to reveal now that I am aware of. Also to consider are the limited resources available for any action that may need to be taken in crisis intervention cases.

Let us remember too that it was Red Stripe, one of the targets of this ban campaign that withdrew financial backing for events and artists who promote violence of any sort against Jamaicans some time ago, we wouldn’t want to erode that small gain now, small as it was it was a step in the right direction.

Thanks to the organizers and participants however for showing concern and for taking the steps to bring the matter(s) to public light but let us communicate before any other drastic actions are taken, I know that there are passionate persons out there to our cause and I am grateful personally and by extension I know the JFLAG team and gays here are thankful too.

One Love

H"

Cordially relations are enjoyed since and in fact it was the members of the same team in essence that met with Buju Banton, Michael Petrelis seated to Buju's left was involved in the Red Stripe boycott call. Boycott calls tend to make the hotel market jittery and with the public still angry at the feeling that the lobby has moved from being the oppressed to the oppressor. 

alarmist LGBT crisis reporting?

One wonders if the calls are genuine when the same persons making such calls do not reside here and seem oblivious to the real conditions on the ground such as the long standing issue of homelessness which none of these fly by night groups have once spoken to fully yet but are loud on limelight placing demonstrations and homophobic or transphobic violence reactions, case in point the Dwayne Jones murder in July, Jones was indeed homeless and resided illegally in a captured house in western Jamaica while alive he got very little assistance but in death became wonderful public relations material for some persons to project themselves yet they do not directly get involved in frontline work, one wonders. 

The fundamental concern for me is when the boycott is launched as persons seem head strong to do impervious of the opinions of influentials and previous Programs Managers of JFLAG will these groups and individuals provide assistance in whatever forms (outside of asylum seeking avenues) for local folks who may fall as involuntary martyrs for a cause they may not necessarily subscribe to? Such persons are in the comfort of other lands and can say anything what about the least amongst us especially who are far more exposed to the likelihood of being attacked or killed?

Knee jerk reactions to an obvious spike in homo-negative incidents is not the way to go about it, careful thought has to be done and strategizing but with recent outcomes in the lobby as well as outside of it leaves me wondering and indeed concerned on many fronts.

also see: Murder Music Campaign needs local leadership and Gov’t Hush Hush On Gay Pressure …As Promoters Forced To Pull Queen Ifrica From Canada Show 

Rev Al Miller’s late response to Dwayne Jones’ Murder & Respect heterosexuals demand

Sizzla bats for Queen Ifrica as expected 

Queen Ifrica's "Freedom of Speech" & advocacy found wanting  

'I SPOKE FOR WHAT I BELIEVED IN' - Queen Ifrica defends Grand Gala performance after JFLAG backlash

We muss tek sleep and mark death and learn from previous mistakes instead of going headstrong inna more mess creating more unneeded obstacles.

Peace and tolerance

H

  

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 3 – Tomlinson v TVJ, CVM and PBCJ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(b) the development of education and training;

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

(d) the vitality of democratic institutions;

(e) the protection of the environment;

V) the development of literary and artistic expression;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

here is the video:

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

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