VICTORY - SAME SEX MARRIAGE is now legal in Bermuda.

Yes indeed, our friends in Bermuda have done it. Lord knows this is go news given the closing walls via Trump et al elsewhere a nice victory in law, fair square. 

A gay couple have won their legal challenge against the Registrar-General’s decision to reject their application to marry in Bermuda.

the loving couple

Winston Godwin and his Canadian fiancé, Greg DeRoche, took their case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Human Rights Act took primacy in Bermuda and protected their right to marry.  The Royal Gazette also featured the development.

This morning, Puisne Judge Charles Etta-Simmons delivered her ruling that stated: “On the facts, the applicants were discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation when the Registrar refused to process their notice of intended marriage.”

The judgment continues: “The applicants are entitled to an Order of Mandamus compelling the Registrar to act in accordance with the requirements of the Marriage Act and a declaration that same-sex couples are entitled to be married under the Marriage Act.”

Mr Godwin and Mr DeRoche, represented by lawyer Mark Pettingill, sought an order from the Supreme Court to compel the Registrar to post their marriage banns, in accordance with the Marriage Act. They also want a declaration that same-sex couples are entitled to be married under that law.

When the civil case was heard over three days in January and February, Mr Pettingill urged the court to write the final chapter in the protection of gay rights in Bermuda.

He said the couple’s case encapsulates “the right to happiness, the right of all people to seek love and happiness”. Mr Pettingill added: “The applicants say that religious arguments bear no relevance on civil contractual marriage. This is a matter of statutory interpretation.

“It is time for the courts fully armed with the legal protection of the Human Rights Act to write the final chapter in the protection of the rights of gay people of secular orientation and all the rights that everyone enjoys to be the same.”

But the Government’s lawyer, Deputy Solicitor-General Shakira Dill-Francois, told the court that the Registrar-General could not post marriage banns for gay couples because such unions are null and void under Bermuda’s existing laws

She said that under section 33 of the Marriage Act 1944, it was an offence for the Registrar to authorise a marriage, knowing it was void.

She added the Matrimonial Causes Act 1974, in section 15, clearly set out the grounds on which a marriage was void, including if “the parties are not respectively male and female”.

Adding that the two pieces of legislation had to be read and understood together, Ms Dill-Francois asked: “Why would the Registrar proceed to register a marriage that is, in fact, void?”

Preserve Marriage, which has campaigned to maintain marriage as between a man and a woman, and the Human Rights Commission were allowed to join the proceedings as “interveners”.

Preserve Marriage was represented by lawyer Delroy Duncan, who argued that changing the law on same-sex marriage could open the door for “multiple-partner marriages” on the island.

“We have to ask ourselves whether this legislation is permissive of such marriages or whether or not what you are being asked to do could open the door to multiple-partner marriages,” he said.

Mr Duncan maintained that Parliament must decide on the issue of same-sex marriage “through the ballot box”.

Reacting this morning, Mr Godwin told The Royal Gazette: “I feel a huge sense of relief. It’s been a long road to get to this stage for me and Greg, and for Mark and also for Bermuda.

“It has been a long time coming. This ruling, although it was in our favour ... there is still so much more to do in Bermuda.

“This is a big step in the right direction. I cannot thank my legal team and my supporters enough.”

Lawyer Rod Attride-Stirling, who acted for the Human Rights Commission during the case, said in a prepared statement: “It is a matter of great shame that the legislature did not act in this matter to put the issue beyond doubt.

“It is also a matter of great shame that the Attorney-General fought the case in the manner in which it was fought, ignoring the Bermudian cases on the proper interpretation of the human rights act. This should not have been so.

“I am glad to see that the Bermuda court has followed the courts, first of South Africa, which decided this issue in 2005, and then the United States which followed suit in 2015.

“The message of hate and exclusion has been rejected. Human rights means human rights for all humans. Equally. No one is excluded.

“Gays who want to marry can now do so.

“Bermuda owes a huge debt of gratitude to the two brave young men who brought this action, Winston Godwin and Greg DeRoche. They will always be remembered as heroes of the human rights movement.”

meanwhile more from .....

The Rainbow Alliance has declared today’s landmark gay marriage ruling a victory for all same-gender loving people in Bermuda.

Saluting Winston Godwin and Greg DeRoche for their courage in taking on the Bermuda Government at the risk of being ostracised by the community, the Alliance issued a statement saying “love always wins”.

The organisation also released a comment from Mr Godwin, a Bermudian, and his Canadian fiancé Mr DeRoche, saying they hope the result gives more people courage to speak up or come out.

Earlier today, Puisne Judge Charles Etta-Simmons had delivered a ruling in favour of the couple, who had challenged the Registrar-General’s decision to reject their application to marry in Bermuda.

The Alliance said it was “overwhelmed with joy at the conclusion of today’s historic ruling”.

It continued: “We applaud the landmark decision by Justice Charles Etta-Simmons. Today, history has been made and love has won.

“This ruling is not only a victory for a brave young couple willing to fight for their love, Winston Godwin and his fiance Greg DeRoche, this ruling is a victory for all same-gender loving people in Bermuda.

“In this decision, the courts have affirmed that the love between two consenting adults is worth protecting with law, regardless of gender.

“This outcome ensures that same-gender couples can enjoy the same legal protections as heterosexual spouses do. This outcome preserves the notion that love is the greatest force of all.”

It quoted Mr Godwin and Mr DeRoche as saying: “We appreciate all the positive affirmations and support. This has been a long process, but well worth the fight.

“Hopefully this brings forward hope and courage for those who were/are afraid to speak up or come out. This is a moment we are proud of and will never forget.”

The Alliance release continued: “This outcome could not be possible if it were not for the courageous decision of Winston to take on the government of his home and risk being ostracised by his community for the sake of love.

“We applaud Winston and Greg, the legal team that supported this challenge, and the many campaigners that have over the years fought for increased human rights, dignity, and respect of LGBTQ people.

“There is so much more work to be done, but today, we celebrate that love always wins.”

Bermuda Supreme Court expected to rule on SAME SEX MARRIAGE in April ............

The latest update has come via the petition site supporting this thrust. We understand that Supreme Court Justice Charles Etta-Simmons will rule on the recent court case where a Bermudian male is seeking to marry a Canadian male in Bermuda. The decision is scheduled on or before April 14th we understand.

We are hopeful for a positive outcome and that equality will be the winner.

You may recall in previous posts how the case came to be in 2016. 

The challenge read in part:

Same-sex couples want to marry for all the same reasons as their opposite-sex counterparts.

These reasons include: for legal security, to publicly celebrate their commitment, to provide greater legal protection for their children, or simply because they are in love.

FIRST, we will look at the benefits that flow to same-sex couples who marry. This is followed by the wider social benefits that come from removing discrimination from the Marriage Act and ensuring equality for same-sex couples.

******************************************************************************************

SECOND, married partners have immediate access to all relationship entitlements, protections and responsibilities.

This contrasts to de facto couples who must live together for a certain period before they are deemed to have legal rights.

A marriage certificate also allows married partners to easily prove their legal rights if challenged, for example in emergency situations. The capacity to quickly and easily prove one’s relationship status is particularly important for same-sex partners because prejudice against same-sex relationships can mean legal rights are denied.

******************************************************************************************

THIRD, allowing same-sex couples to be included in such a universal and valued institution as marriage will provide them and their families with real social and cultural benefits.

Landmark research led by Lee Badgett, Professor of Economics at the University of Massachusetts, describes and quantifies some of these benefits in two different places that have allowed same-sex marriages for several years, the Netherlands and Massachusetts.

[ii] Badgett found that same-sex partners overwhelmingly,

• felt marriage had increased their commitment and their sense of responsibility, and had generally strengthened their relationships

• believed their children were better off after their marriage, chiefly through legal protection for those children and enhanced feelings of security, stability and acceptance in the children, and

• felt participation and acceptance in their extended families and communities had increased because of their marriage

Her conclusion was that,

“Overall, the experiences of same-sex couples in two countries, the United States and the Netherlands, suggests that same-sex couples and their families are strengthened by a policy of marriage equality for same-sex couples.”

There is also a growing body of research showing that married partners, including same-sex married partners, are, on average, healthier, happier and longer lived, than their cohabiting peers, or singles. According to the US Centre for Disease Control, even rates of heart disease, drug use and stress are lower among married partners.

References:

[ii] Badgett, M.V., N. Goldberg and C. Ramos, The Effects of Marriage Equality in Massachusetts: A survey of the experiences and impact of marriage on same-sex couples. UCLA School of Law, 2009. Also, When Gay People Get Married: What Happens When Societies Legalize Same-Sex Marriage. New York University Press, 2009.

*******************************************************************************************

FOUR, Bermuda's ban on same-sex marriage doesn’t only disadvantage those same-sex partners who seek to marry.

It disadvantages all same-sex attracted Bermudians, including those who are not in a relationship, or who would not marry, even if they could.

It does this by treating them as legally unequal to their heterosexual counterparts, and by not allowing them the same life choices.

Governments restrictions on who gay and lesbian Bermudians can marry violates their fundamental human rights in the same way the rights of Aboriginal Australians of African Americans were once violated by laws which prevented from marrying who they wished.

The association between the equality in marriage and freedom from second-class status is well understood in the context of the struggle for the civil rights of people of color.

In 1958, in the midst of the struggle for black civil rights in America, Martin Luther King Jr declared,

“When any society says that I cannot marry a certain person, that society has cut off a segment of my freedom.” 

[iii] Consider all the other groups in society, along with people of color and same-sex attracted people, who at one time or another have been denied the right to marry the partner of their choice: women, people from differing faiths, people with disabilities.

What they all have in common is that they have been regarded as too immature or irresponsible to make what is arguably the most important decision any individual can ever make, the choice of a life-long partner.

In the same vein, the gradual acceptance that members of these groups are fully adult, fully citizens and fully human, has been accompanied by an acceptance of their right to marry whomever they wished.

References:

[iii] King (Jr), M. L., Carson, C., Luker, R., and Russell, P. A., (2000) The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr: Symbol of the movement, January 1957, University of California Press, Berkeley. Page 436.

Keeping our fingers crossed

Peace & tolerance

H

OutBermuda Respond To Preserve Marriage

Saying that it is their “mandate to support the wellbeing, health, dignity, security and protection of Bermuda’s LGBTQ community, we issue this statement in response. support the wellbeing, health, dignity, security and protection of Bermuda’s LGBTQ community,” OUTBermuda has responded to an ad placed by Preserve Marriage.

Some content from Bernews

The statement said, “Preserve Marriage Bermuda today published an advertisement complaining that Bermuda’s Supreme Court is being asked to legislate marriage equality.

“Preserve Marriage also argues that when the Human Rights Act was amended in 2013 it was a foregone conclusion that marriage equality would follow, suggesting the amendment was a sinister attempt to introduce marriage equality by indirect means.

“Given OUTBermuda’s mandate to support the wellbeing, health, dignity, security and protection of Bermuda’s LGBTQ community, we issue this statement in response.

“Preserve Marriage’s advertisement ignores the fact that the decision of the European Convention of Human Rights in Oliari v Italy, a decision the organization has spoken much about, was not decided until after the 2013 Human Rights Act amendment.

“Oliari is undeniably a landmark judgment, which marked a significant shift in the European Court’s approach to issues of Lesbian and Gay equality in the sphere of family matters.

“While that judgment is central to any argument today about family life protections afforded to Lesbian and Gay people, there was nothing back in 2013 to foretell this decision.

“OUTBermuda rejects the suggestion that LGBTQ people and allies schemed to amend the Human Rights Act with a view ultimately to marriage equality.

“To suggest this demonstrates a lack of understanding and empathy towards the experience of fellow Bermudians who were given both legal protection and peace of mind in the areas of housing, employment and the provision of goods and services [including governmental services] as a result of the “Two Words and a Comma” amendment.

“Although Preserve Marriage says in its advertisement that it believes all people should be protected regardless of their sexuality, OUTBermuda has not seen or heard any practical suggestions from the organization about how it believes the family lives of LGBTQ people ought to be respected within Bermuda’s current legal environment.

“While advocating that Government cobble together a bundle of rights in an unspecified manner for the benefit of Gay and Lesbian people, Preserve Marriage has rejected out of hand options for marriage, civil partnerships and other similar legal arrangements, thereby precluding any viable option for achieving that aim.

“OUTBermuda is committed to creating awareness of the real life issues affecting Bermuda’s LGBTQ people, and to leading dialogue on these issues.

“Accordingly, OUTBermuda will extend an invitation to Preserve Marriage to enter into conversation on how the status quo, as it relates to Lesbian and Gay families, fails to honor and respect the dignity of all people in Bermuda.”

see the petition HERE

Gay Marriage court case in Bermuda begins on December 8th 2016

APPLICATION TO MARRY COURT CHALLENGE 

The court case begins on December 8th 2016 in the Supreme Court of Bermuda. 

Lawyer and OBA MP Mark Pettingill is representing a same sex couple who had their marriage application to wed denied by the Registrar General of Bermuda. 

Please mark you calendars as we would like your support by attending the court proceedings.
LOVE MUST WIN....

The challenge read in part:

Same-sex couples want to marry for all the same reasons as their opposite-sex counterparts.

These reasons include: for legal security, to publicly celebrate their commitment, to provide greater legal protection for their children, or simply because they are in love.

FIRST, we will look at the benefits that flow to same-sex couples who marry. This is followed by the wider social benefits that come from removing discrimination from the Marriage Act and ensuring equality for same-sex couples.

******************************************************************************************

SECOND, married partners have immediate access to all relationship entitlements, protections and responsibilities.

This contrasts to de facto couples who must live together for a certain period before they are deemed to have legal rights.

A marriage certificate also allows married partners to easily prove their legal rights if challenged, for example in emergency situations. The capacity to quickly and easily prove one’s relationship status is particularly important for same-sex partners because prejudice against same-sex relationships can mean legal rights are denied.

******************************************************************************************

THIRD, allowing same-sex couples to be included in such a universal and valued institution as marriage will provide them and their families with real social and cultural benefits.

Landmark research led by Lee Badgett, Professor of Economics at the University of Massachusetts, describes and quantifies some of these benefits in two different places that have allowed same-sex marriages for several years, the Netherlands and Massachusetts.

[ii] Badgett found that same-sex partners overwhelmingly,

• felt marriage had increased their commitment and their sense of responsibility, and had generally strengthened their relationships

• believed their children were better off after their marriage, chiefly through legal protection for those children and enhanced feelings of security, stability and acceptance in the children, and

• felt participation and acceptance in their extended families and communities had increased because of their marriage

Her conclusion was that,

“Overall, the experiences of same-sex couples in two countries, the United States and the Netherlands, suggests that same-sex couples and their families are strengthened by a policy of marriage equality for same-sex couples.”

There is also a growing body of research showing that married partners, including same-sex married partners, are, on average, healthier, happier and longer lived, than their cohabiting peers, or singles. According to the US Centre for Disease Control, even rates of heart disease, drug use and stress are lower among married partners.

References:

[ii] Badgett, M.V., N. Goldberg and C. Ramos, The Effects of Marriage Equality in Massachusetts: A survey of the experiences and impact of marriage on same-sex couples. UCLA School of Law, 2009. Also, When Gay People Get Married: What Happens When Societies Legalize Same-Sex Marriage. New York University Press, 2009.

*******************************************************************************************

FOUR, Bermuda's ban on same-sex marriage doesn’t only disadvantage those same-sex partners who seek to marry.

It disadvantages all same-sex attracted Bermudians, including those who are not in a relationship, or who would not marry, even if they could.

It does this by treating them as legally unequal to their heterosexual counterparts, and by not allowing them the same life choices.

Governments restrictions on who gay and lesbian Bermudians can marry violates their fundamental human rights in the same way the rights of Aboriginal Australians of African Americans were once violated by laws which prevented from marrying who they wished.

The association between the equality in marriage and freedom from second-class status is well understood in the context of the struggle for the civil rights of people of color.

In 1958, in the midst of the struggle for black civil rights in America, Martin Luther King Jr declared,

“When any society says that I cannot marry a certain person, that society has cut off a segment of my freedom.” 

[iii] Consider all the other groups in society, along with people of color and same-sex attracted people, who at one time or another have been denied the right to marry the partner of their choice: women, people from differing faiths, people with disabilities.

What they all have in common is that they have been regarded as too immature or irresponsible to make what is arguably the most important decision any individual can ever make, the choice of a life-long partner.

In the same vein, the gradual acceptance that members of these groups are fully adult, fully citizens and fully human, has been accompanied by an acceptance of their right to marry whomever they wished.

References:

[iii] King (Jr), M. L., Carson, C., Luker, R., and Russell, P. A., (2000) The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr: Symbol of the movement, January 1957, University of California Press, Berkeley. Page 436.

recent fearmongering protests by religious fanatics

Continue HERE for more

Peace and tolerance

H

Protect & Promote Human Rights, Economic and Social Justice for All Jamaicans Petition

sign the petition Here

The Road Towards Sustainable Development: A National Focus on Human Rights, Economic and Social Justice

Equality, justice, and protection are essential to growth and development; Jamaica’s National Development Plan (Vision 2030) was developed on this premise. The Plan recognizes the importance of inclusion given our diversity as a people has been dubbed by said Plan as one of our national strengths. We live in a Jamaica that is affected by economic and social injustices, where there is inadequate protection for the rights of all people without prejudice and discrimination, regardless of economic status, religion, gender identity, place of origin, sex and sexual orientation, ability, age, health or any other status. We also live in a society where there is inadequate protection for the environment on which we depend for sustenance.

J-FLAG is therefore calling on the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) and People’s National Party (PNP) to consider the following human rights, economic and social justice issues as critical matters that must be addressed by the next government as part of efforts to achieve Vision 2030.
Empower People with Disability (PWD) to Achieve Their Fullest Potential and Fully Contribute to and Benefit from Jamaica’s Development in accordance with Vision 2030 Goal 1, Outcome 2 and Social Development Goals 1, 3, 4, & 8
Enhance the Lives of Retired Persons, the Elderly and their Families in accordance with Vision 2030 Goal 1, Outcomes 1 & 3 and Social Development Goals 1 & 3

Reduce Stigma and Discrimination and Protect and Promote the Rights of the Most Vulnerable and Marginalized within the Jamaican Society in accordance with Vision 2030 Goal 2, Outcomes 5 & 6 and Social Development Goals 5, 8, 10 & 11

Reduce the Number of Children and Youth Living and Working on the Streets by Half in accordance with Vision 2030 Goal 1, Outcome 3 and Goal 2, Outcome 5 and Social Development Goals 1 & 3

Reduce Income Inequality and Secure Economic Justice for All Jamaicans in accordance with Vision 2030 Goal 1, Outcome 3 and Social Development Goals 1, 5, 8 & 10
Protect the Rights of Children, Youth and Adults who Come in Conflict with the Law in accordance with Vision 2030 Goal 2, Outcome 5 and Social Development Goal 16
Address Homelessness and Protect the Rights and Well-Being of People who are Displaced and Homeless in accordance with Vision 2030 Goal 1, Outcome 3 and Goal 2, Outcome 5 and Social Development Goals 1 & 3
Protect the Human and Civil Rights of LGBT Jamaicans in accordance with Vision 2030 Goal 1, Outcome 2 and Goal 2, Outcome 5 and Social Development Goals 3, 4 &16
Create and Strengthen National Mechanisms to Facilitate the Enjoyment of Rights in accordance with Vision 2030 Goal 2, Outcomes 5 & 6 and Social Development Goal 16
Promote Environmental Protection as a National Priority in accordance with Vision 2030 Goal 4, Outcomes 13, 14 & 15 and Social Development Goals 2, 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15

J-FLAG is calling on the next administration to commit to economic and social justice for all Jamaicans guided by a human rights framework toward achieving sustainable development. We cannot achieve Vision 2030 if the state, the Opposition, civil society, and our people do not work cooperatively and collectively to reduce and eliminate all forms of inequalities. Vision 2030 will only be achievable when there is adequate protection, consideration, coverage, access and empowerment for our people to achieve their full potential. 

We cannot continue to marginalize parts of the society, and we cannot continue to engage in business and personal activities that contribute to the degradation of the natural environment. We are aware that this cannot only be the responsibility of the next administration, but will require partnerships. We are calling on both the Jamaica Labour Party and the People’s National Party to declare their unwavering and actionable commitment to equality for all and for environmental protection. If we action this commitment, we will improve lives, families and businesses, and preserve the environment for future generations.

The organisation is willing to work with the next administration and all stakeholders and partners to action these recommendations.

You may read the full call to action here: https://goo.gl/9HUfTS 

also see from Gay Jamaica Watch:

The Line in the sand for the PNP part 16: Pre-election debate dodging

Buggery law referendum baiting by JLP in #Javote2016 campaign

The line in the sand part 15: More shenanigans & exploiting buggery ....

Nicholson says JLP 'crazy' for wanting referendum on buggery law .... oh boi

Tufton on Same Sex Marriages & Growing Up ..... Charles panders to antigay position

Bisexual asylum seeker has deportation flight cancelled .... appeal for June 17

As we continue to track this story from the UK some good news at least for now has come forth regarding Orashia, Jamaican Orashia Edwards is appealing rejected claim for asylum after tribunal alleged he was ‘experimenting’ and had been dishonest about his sexuality, this has been a concern for many years when I handled some cases at my time at JFLAG and other private ones. I wonder though since bisexuality is not as widely discussed as homosexuality why this challenge presents itself in this case?

The business of credibility is so crucial in asylum matters but one hopes Orashia is truthful or at least he seems so for now.

Orashia has a point on the part of the high publicity this matter has received and he maybe marked if after he is sent back here and local media picks up on it.

Going back to Jamaica would have meant death (Gay Times UK)
Orashia was released from Morton Hall detention centre where he was taken over a month ago. Inside detention he allegedly received death threats because of his sexuality.

He was being held there because an asylum tribunal refused to accept that he was bisexual.
Speaking to the Guardian from dentition, Orashia accused the Home Office of handling his case unjustly. The tribunal rejected his claim that he had been in a relationship with a man in Antigua.

“They said I was lying about my sexuality because I couldn’t remember details of the relationship.”

“I couldn’t tell them his date of birth, all I could remember was his star sign. He wrote a letter confirming that we had been in a relationship, but they refused to believe that we had been more than friends.”

Orashia said he is “relieved to be back home with friends and family and hopes his asylum claim will be granted soon”

The believability factor usually raises its head and non effeminate behaviours are sadly used to profile applicants allegedly by the Home Office as an old case comes to mind where a judge literally told a man he was not 'camp' enough to convince him. Added to that are the dishonest folks who make it bad for persons with genuine appeals as they work the system sometimes aided or urged by dubious solicitors to gain stay in the UK.

The UK's Guardian reported:

Immigration authorities have cancelled the deportation flight of a Jamaican asylum seeker who faced removal from the UK after the Home Office refused to accept he was bisexual.

Orashia Edwards, 34, had been held at Morton Hall immigration removal centre in Lincolnshire after being detained during a scheduled meeting with immigration officials. His family were told he could be deported at any time from 5 May, but Edwards was instead detained for nearly a month before being released pending a further appeal against his rejected claim for refugee status – the latest in a series of prolonged periods in detention.

He has been involved in a protracted battle with the Home Office after an asylum tribunal rejected his application, saying that he had been dishonest about his sexuality. But Edwards criticised the decision, claiming he had been the victim of institutional bias because of his sexuality.

“I think they are prejudiced against bisexual people,” Edwards said. “They say I have choices, that I could choose to be with a woman. Maybe if I had lied and said that I was gay things would have been different, but I’m just being honest. For years I was in denial about my sexuality, it took me so long to be honest with myself – I like men and I like women.”

Edwards’s asylum tribunal also alleged that while he had been sexually active with men, he had been “experimenting” with his orientation and was in fact heterosexual – an argument dismissed by bisexual activists as a common discriminatory trope.

“I’ve been in relationships with men and women since 2003,” Edwards said. “If I had been experimenting then maybe I would have slept with a man once and never gone back, but I’m bisexual, it’s who I am.”

He added that he believed his life would be at risk if he returned to Jamaica, where violence against gay, lesbian and bisexual people is widespread and sexual activity between men remains illegal under the country’s anti-sodomy laws.
Advertisement

“I won’t survive if I go back,” Edwards said. “The media coverage of my case means that my picture and my story are all over the Jamaican media. Once you are perceived as homosexual or bisexual you are branded for the rest of your life.

“Even while I was in detention, the other Jamaicans there were saying that they could go back, but I couldn’t. It just wouldn’t be possible for me. I think that the Home Office staff are trained to reject anything they’re told. I’ve given them all the proof I can of my sexuality and they still refuse to believe me. I don’t know what more I could do.”

Edwards had submitted intimate pictures of himself with another man to support his case for refugee status, a practice that campaign groups have criticised as an example of endemic mistreatment of LGBT people in the asylum system.

Edwards’s partner, Michael Mardel, echoed his allegation of prejudice on the part of the Home Office and insisted he had not been dishonest about his sexuality. He said: “I’ve known Orashia for over two years, and to put it bluntly there is absolutely a sexual element to our relationship.

“Orashia has stayed the night at my house. He is absolutely not lying about his attraction to men. Our families have also become close, we have a genuine relationship. I think that the Home Office doesn’t understand the concept of bisexuality. They seem to think that you have to be one thing or the other, they don’t seem to accept that you can be attracted to both genders and that it’s not an either/or thing for everybody.”

Edwards’s mother, Vienna Brown, said she was overjoyed at her son’s release, but added that she remained nervous about the eventual outcome of his case. “I got an email from Orashia’s solicitor saying that he was going to be released, but it wasn’t until I heard the knock at the door and opened it and saw him there that I really believed it,” she said.

“I just fell to the ground and thanked God, because I’ve prayed so hard to have my son back with me. I’ve hardly slept since he was detained. I just hope that this will lead to more good news and that he’ll be allowed to stay in this country with his family and his friends.”

Edwards will bring an appeal against the rejection of his asylum claim, on 17 June. The Home Office has previously stated that it does not normally comment on individual asylum cases.

ENDS

1. Sign his petition

2. Watch & share the campaign film

3.  visit Defend Orashia Facebook

Petition: Don't Deport Orashia

You can sign HERE

UPDATE - Orashia is currently in Morton Hall detention centre, this is the 4th time he has been detained! This is putting a huge strain on his mental & physical health.

His fantastic legal team are working around the clock but the Home Office might try & issue yet more removal directions soon so please be ready to once again call the airline. 

Keep an eye on Defend Orashia FB page for updates :)

Thank you so much for all the support so far.

If he is forcibly removed by the Home Office, his life is in severe danger in Jamaica. All is family are settled in the UK and he would be completely isolated and in hiding. His case has gained mass media attention and support in the past months and he has become well known both here in the UK and in Jamaica.

In 2013 a Home Office spokesman said: ”We have changed our guidance to ensure that we do not remove individuals who have demonstrated a proven risk of persecution on grounds of sexual orientation.'' (PinkNews.co.uk). Why is this then happening to people like Orashia?

Orashia is an amazing person who has the ability to shine so much more than he has been given a chance to here in Britain. He is a faithful friend and does what he can to help and support others going through similar issues to him. He has a close family, many friends and is involved in various groups and organisations around Leeds. His situation has meant that life is a daily unknown battle for himself, his family, especially his mother who works overtime on order to support him, and those closest to him. Please sign this petition and demand Orashia be given a fair chance at a real life now and not be punished for his sexuality.

You can watch a short documentary about Orashia's story called State of Limbo here: http://youtu.be/Wy3R2QtqONM

Another documentary called Judgement Day about Orashia's court hearing on 30th June can be watched here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVib2Hh6Oog

Here is a Channel 4 documentary - Unreported World, Jamaica's Underground Gays. http://www.channel4.com/programmes/unreported-world/4od#3705272 

Also the Guardian newspaper carried a piece on the issue:

Bisexual asylum seeker facing imminent deportation from UK to Jamaica

An asylum seeker who says he will be killed if he is returned to Jamaica because he is bisexual could be deported from Britain imminently, his family has said.

Thirty-four-year-old Orashia Edwards, who is currently being held at Morton Hall immigration removal centre in Lincolnshire, was refused refugee status in December 2013 when an asylum tribunal refused to accept that he was bisexual. He has since been embroiled in a long-running appeals process to have the decision overturned.

His supporters insist that he has had relationships with men as well as women, including his current same-sex partner, with whom he has been in a relationship with for around two years.

Speaking from detention, Edwards accused the Home Office of handling his case unjustly. He said that an asylum tribunal had rejected his claim that he had been in a relationship with a man in Antigua, where he lived for a time before coming to the UK.

“They said I was lying about my sexuality because I couldn’t remember details of the relationship,” said Edwards, who has agreed to be identified to highlight his case.

“I couldn’t tell them his date of birth, all I could remember was his star sign. He wrote a letter confirming that we had been in a relationship, but they refused to believe that we had been more than friends.”

The Home Office also pointed to the fact that Edwards was unsure of whether his partner had had any brothers or sisters, although LGBT immigration campaigners say that in countries such as Antigua – where male same-sex activity is punished by up to 15 years in prison – it is not unusual for gay, lesbian and bisexual people to withhold personal information even from intimate partners.

Edwards said he feared for his life if forced to leave the UK. “In Jamaica there is a huge amount of homophobia,” he said.

“If you go into the dancehalls and the clubs they play music saying: ‘If you are a batty man [a derogatory term for a gay or bisexual man] you get a bullet in the head, if you are a batty man you are condemned.’

“If I go back I will be tortured, I will be killed for sure. Because my case has been covered in Jamaican media there will be no way for me to hide. I’ve already received death threats on social media, people say I’m making the country look bad.”

Jamaica has repeatedly come under fire from human rights organisations over its treatment of LGBT people. The country’s anti-sodomy law carries a prison sentence of up to 10 years. LGBT rights activists have been murdered and one campaign group has documented hundreds of homophobic attacks. A video posted on a Jamaican blog in March 2015 purported to show a mob stoning to death a young man they suspected of being gay.

Edwards said he believed the Home Office had unfairly weighted the fact that he had been married to a woman and has a young daughter against his claim.

He added that he had submitted intimate pictures of himself and another man to the Home Office in an attempt to prove his sexuality, but that they had been discounted because he was not in a relationship with the man in the photographs.

“I told him about my situation and he suggested making the pictures,” Edwards said.

“It was extremely degrading for me to have to do, and still they didn’t believe me. I’m not a liar, it has taken years for me to be honest with myself about my sexuality and I’m not trying to lie to anyone else.”

Edwards’ mother, Vienna Brown, who is a resident of the UK, said her son would be left without any form of support in Jamaica.

“He has no one there,” she said. “His friends, his partner Michael, his entire life is here in the UK. If they send him back everyone will know who he is. He couldn’t hide his sexuality, even if he wanted to. They are sending my son to die.”

Migration and LGBT campaign groups have long been critical of Britain’s treatment of people claiming asylum on the basis of their sexuality. Paul Dillane, from the UK Lesbian and Gay Immigration Group, argued that procedures used to determine an applicant’s sexual orientation were inappropriate.

“One of the main problems that our clients face is having to ‘prove’ their sexuality to the Home Office,” he said.

“Many LGBT people are refused asylum as the Home Office simply refuses to accept their stated sexual or gender identity or the evidence they adduce: for example, their own testimony or supporting statements from family, friends and partners.

“For too long civil servants have resorted to relying on false stereotypes and humiliating questions to probe a claimant’s sexuality. These practices are degrading and need to stop.”

He added that bisexual claimants like Edwards faced particular difficulties in dealing with the Home Office.

“Civil servants and judges often wrongly label bisexual men and women as gay or lesbian, failing to appreciate it is a unique identity, or impose their narrow understanding of bisexuality on an asylum claimant,” he said.

“For instance, bisexual men or women with children are frequently dismissed as liars. There have also been cases where bisexual claimants have been asked why they simply cannot limit themselves to the opposite sex.

“These stereotypes and misconceptions corrupt the asylum system. Given the persecution LGBT people face around the world these asylum claims are often matters of life and death.”

A Home Office spokesman said: “We do not routinely comment on individual cases.”

Also see previous entries here:

Defend Orashia Campaign Launched to Stop Removal from the UK by Home Office

Bisexual man facing deportation to Jamaica

Petition: Actively safeguard the interests, rights and freedoms of all Jamaicans.

The following was sent to me by a concerned emailer to share with my readers as a request for you to sign the related petition.

This statement comes from a group of concerned Caribbean people across partisan, social, religious, racial and spatial locations in Jamaica, the wider Caribbean and beyond.

Many of us in Jamaica, in the Caribbean region and in diaspora have been watching the developments concerning sex education and the buggery law in Jamaica. By Sunday 29th June when an estimated 25,000 marched across Kingston against the repeal of the colonial buggery laws, it became obvious that the atmosphere had become so emotionally charged and so polarized that it was impossible for any respectful discussion or actions across differences to take place.In some cases, irresponsible media reporting has also contributed to this polarization by circulating misleading and biased reports.

Rhetorical statements are not without deadly consequences. Indeed the atmosphere has become so volatile that many are not just afraid to speak, but are also afraid for their very lives, afraid of being attacked for their views or merely being thought to be gender non-conforming. Many others are afraid for family and friends.

The issue and how it is discussed in Jamaica is precedent setting for the entire region and has dire implications for the lives of many across the region and in the diaspora. A recent indication of this is the backing away from the “Justice For All’ deliberations by CARICOM Heads of Government at their meeting in July in St. Kitts and Nevis. At that meeting, because of objections of several church groups, CARICOM governments deferred approving a report by the Pan-Caribbean Partnership against HIV and AIDS (PANCAP) and a declaration entitled: Getting to Zero Discrimination Through Justice For All as part of efforts for the elimination of HIV-related stigma and discrimination.

This debate then, is about life and death, health or ill-health. It is about the responsibility of governments to citizens, about the Caribbean we want to live in and about the way we want to live as Caribbean people wherever we reside.

We therefore welcome the voices of moderation from among the church leadership and note the recent articles of Bishop Howard Gregory, Bishop of the Anglican Church in Jamaica and the Cayman Islands and the Rev. Dr Paul Gardner, Head of the Moravian Church in Jamaica and Cayman. These church leaders have made a significant contribution to opening up space for respectful discussions across difference. We add our voices to this cause and hope to contribute similarly by clarifying and separating some of the issues that have been confused in the discussion of sex education, sexual and gender identity and the law.

1. We took note of the leadership of some several churches in the march on Sunday June 29th and want to point to a need for separating questions of faith and spirituality from questions of moral judgment of others. St Paul famously said “ For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Galations 3: 27-28.

Most of the prescriptions against homosexuality are in the Old Testament in Leviticuswhich also speaks in support of slavery, stoning, extreme discrimination against women, domestic sacrifice and burning of bulls as an act of reparation in conflict and so on. Would the church leaders of the march speak in favour of any these today?

The most important ethic of Christianity is its message of and its injunction not to judge – ‘Judge not that ye be not judged’ is being ignored when it comes to matters of sexual and gender identity differences.

2. Education is not the same as conversion. When schools teach children about different religions they are not being ‘converted’. Similarly, educating children on issues of sex and sexuality is not to be equated with converting them to a particular view. Making such an equation is disingenuous.

Children need to be sensitively taught information about the range of sex issues they are confronting in society. The fact is that many children are sexually active at an early age and many are, unfortunately, survivors of horrific sexual violence and sexual abuse of all kinds including heterosexual abuse. Teaching children about sex of all kinds is a responsible strategy for helping them to protect themselves and prepare for meaningful relationships. It helps them be safe and healthy, prepares them for dealing in a non-sensational way with realities that they will unavoidably confront in the media and society. It helps them understand and deal sensibly and from an informed position with the sexual feelings they inevitably develop one way or another. It will encourage respect for diverse views and in so doing contribute to undermining the tendency to violence within the society.

Educating children about sex and sexuality is not the same as using power to draw children into a particular sexual acts or into a sense of shame and confusion about feelings that they are experiencing. It is preparing them to confront in a non-biased way the issues regarding sexuality that they will face whether adults like it or not.

3. Pedophilia and violent coercive sex is not the same as homosexuality. The blending of these issues has been a repeated strategy in the campaign against reform. This strategy misleads the public and spreads inflamatory and harmful rhetoric.

Homosexuality is a sexual attraction or act between consenting adults of the same sex or gender.Homosexuals are by no means the same as pedophiles as the current discussion suggests.

A pedophile is an adult or older adolescent who acts on sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger. Infantophilia specifically refers to sex with infants (ages 0–3 or those under age 5).Pedophiles and infantofiles are to be found among both heterosexuals and homosexuals. In the current media spectacle around sexuality, the frequent participation of heterosexuals in acts of sexual violence seems to have disappeared.

Sexual violence is any sexual act or attempt to obtain a sexual act by violence or coercion. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals can carry out acts of sexual violence. Obviously all heterosexuals are not pedophiles and neither are all homosexuals.

Acts of sexual violence, including sex with children on the part of adults, whether heterosexual or homosexual are to be condemned as they are harmful.

4. We call on the activist churches working in favour of the colonial laws on sexuality to disclose the sources of their own support in the campaign being waged. Many of the activist church groups speak of protecting Jamaica from ‘outside influences’. Much of the content of material circulated prior to the march of the 25000 and videos being shown in some churches can be traced to American organizations which consider Barack Obama dangerously radical and oppose any government intervention in a wide range of issues. They also oppose education about sexuality, abortion and gay rights. The role of these organisations in the Jamaican and wider Caribbean debates and indeed in influencing the decisions of our governments should be made transparent.

5. We remind our Governments of their responsibility to serve the needs of all citizens. Abandoning the health and human rights needs of any group of citizens is not an acceptable response by the State. Contrary to what is being said by many church leaders, Jamaica is a secular state even as some of its Laws derive from Judeo-Christian principles, which principles are to be found in many other Faith and ethical traditions. This is not the same as making and imposing Bible Law as national Law.

The present Jamaican government must stand by its election promise to give leadership on questions of sexuality and the Law, a position which we support. We noted with deep concern the Leader of the Opposition’s appearance at the recent march that promoted unequal treatment of some of the country's citizens. The Opposition Leader’s seeming endorsement by virtue of his appearance is to be placed in a context in which violence against gender non conforming groups has been all too common in Jamaica.

We remind our leaders that all Jamaicans are equal before the law and their interests and freedoms must be actively safeguarded. One way to do this is to promote a respectful discussion across sexual difference and to provide education on the issues which is both accurate and socially just.

ENDS

Frankly Mrs Simpson Miller made no promise to do anything more than saying the right words to get the votes at the time in 2011 as voter apathy was high elsewhere and we must remember they are a minority government so to speak.

With this news item from last evening from a local PNP meeting it shows the issue is loaded at the local level despite two members of parliament basically declaring their hand on the subject of the buggery law:

also see:

Member of Parliament Lloyd B Smith on Of Buggery & Rationality

Promised (I mean suggested) Conscience vote on Buggery law not a priority right now (yet again) says Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller

Justice Minister reiterates his personal position on the Buggery Law, Anal Intercourse, Consent & Privacy, government position is not the same at this time

Jamaican Opposition Leader says he would allow homosexuals in his cabinet ..... departing from his predecessor

Non Governmental Organization Consultant says JLP suggested Referendum on Buggery is not a good idea

Opposition Leader sides with antigay groups on Referendum on The Buggery Law

Promised Conscience Vote on Buggery in Jamaica was a fluke, Sexual Offences Bill to be updated 2014 says justice minister

Buggery could dominate review of sex laws (Observer)

PNP's Damion Crawford on Homosexuality's legality .

Milk River PNP Councillor says no to buggery repeal .............

Petitioning Mrs Portia Simpson Miller REPEAL DISCRIMINATORY LAWS AND CONSTITUTIONAL CLAUSES AGAINST JAMAICAN WOMEN

A local Women's Group named Caribbean Dawn launched this petition some months ago .................. Take a stand! Jamaican Women Deserve more! For further information: cbn.dawn@gmail.com or 876 407 0300

Jamaican women’s health and rights are compromised or denied because of restrictive legislation and prohibitive costs. This includes stigma, and the personal pain borne by women across class, ethnicity and religious affiliation coming terms with their exercise of choice to terminate a pregnancy.

To:
Mrs Portia Simpson Miller, Most Honourable Prime Minister, Office of the Prime Minister
Mr Mark Golding, Honourable Minister of Justice, Ministry of Justice
Dr Fenton Ferguson, Honourable Minister of Health
Ms Lisa Hanna, Honourable Minister of Youth, Culture & Sports
Ms Sandrea Falconer, Senator, the Honourable Minister, Information and Gender Affairs

• The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that over 22,000 abortions are performed in Jamaica each year.
• Complications arising from unsafe abortion are among the top 10 causes of maternal death in the island, especially among teenagers.
• Review of legislation governing abortion has been 30 years in the making. Efforts by various governments to address these concerns have been halted by conservative religious groups not sensitive to the reproductive rights and realities of women, girls, their families and partners.

In Jamaica, Sections 72 and 73 of the Offences Against the Persons Act (1864):
- Criminalise women who chose to terminate a pregnancy, who, if convicted “shall be liable to be imprisoned for life with or without hard labour.”
- Criminalise medical professionals who facilitate a woman’s exercise of choice to have her pregnancy terminated, and the parents and guardians who facilitate termination of pregnancies of girls under the age of 18. If convicted they “shall be liable to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding 3 years with or without hard labour.” 

The Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (2011) states in Section 12 ( c ) that Laws predating the Charter which relate to, among other things, “offenses regarding the life of the unborn” are not in contravention of the Charter. This provision entrenches discrimination against women by making it extraordinarily difficult to challenge the Offences Against the Person Act (1864). The criminalisation of abortion creates a clandestine environment in which women risk their lives to pursue a private decision. One option is availed by a vibrant but dangerous trade in unregulated abortifacients. 

We call on the Government of Jamaica to:
• repeal the sections 72 and 73 of the Offences Against the Persons Act (1864) and Section 12 (c ) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (2011) which contravenes the human rights of many Jamaican citizens, including women and which are not as described in the Charter, “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”
• complete the review process started by the Parliamentary Sub Committee on the draft Termination of Pregnancy Bill in 2009, to enact this vital piece of legislation.
All Jamaican women, particularly women and girls who are highly vulnerable (the poor, rural women, adolescents, and victims of sexual violence) deserve access to legal, safe and affordable abortion services.

Sincerely,
[Your name]

SIGN HERE

Protect Transgender people in Latin America

Between January and June 2010 alone, 93 transgender killings were reported by the media across the world. Eight out of ten of these murders (74 cases) took place in the region.

On 7 June the General Assembly of the Organization of American States adopted a resolution on Human Rights, Sexual Orientation, and Gender Identity that reaffirms the commitments of member states made in three previous resolutions on the issue.

Now that OAS have reaffirmed their commitments to human rights based on sexual orientation and gender identity it is imperative that member states keep their promises and ensure that the rights of sexual minorities are respected, protected and promoted and that gender based hate crimes are properly investigated and perpetrators taken to justice.

How transphobia is impeding the HIV response
There are an estimated 1.4 million people living with HIV in Latin America. For the last 30 years the transgender community in Latin America has been almost invisible. HIV monitoring focused solely on men who have sex with men, so the exact number of transgender people living with HIV was not known.However, recent studies have shown that where most Latin American countries have a HIV prevalence rate of 0.5 – 1%, among transgender people prevalence rates are estimated to be 35%.
Current laws and law enforcement practices do not support people living with HIV and
most-at-risk populations to access essential HIV services. In addition in Latin America, a culture of machismo and religious conservatism has nurtured a growing pattern of violence and hate crimes against the transgender community.

Without laws and law enforcement practices which protect human rights, people living with HIV and the communities most at risk of HIV are unable to access HIV services and participate in prevention, treatment, care and support programmes without fear of arrest or prosecution.
There have been some moves to legally protect most-at-risk populations from
discrimination (new and proposed legislation passed in Argentina, Bolivia and Ecuador for instance). However, the reality is that prejudice and stigma is still deeply rooted in public services, particularly among health care workers, and unequal access to justice remain.

INCREASED VULNERABILITY TO HIV FOR TRANSGENDER PEOPLE

In addition to the violence and intimidation experienced by the transgender community, what puts them at particular risk to HIV?
Minimal to non-existent access to adequate healthcare. When transgenders access health services, the care provided is often stigmatising. They are treated as men and discriminated against for looking like women. The situation is worse for transgender people living with HIV;
few are able to access ARV treatment, even in countries where the state has committed to universal access to treatment.

Sex work is one of the few options available to transgender people in order to earn
money. Minimal educational background and strong discrimination on the part of employers result in few employment opportunities for transgender people. Studies suggest that about 90% of transgender people engage in sex work. Condom use is inconsistent – clients will often request unprotected anal sex and this will increase the risk of HIV.
Auto-prescription of hormones and self-administered body implants are very common
among transgender people. This very often involves the use of needles. Hormones and
silicone may be bought on the street. Unsafe body implant substances (like cooking and baby oil) are used and self-administered with minimal hygiene conditions and their use is not monitored by healthcare professionals. This is very risky and lead to severe health repercussions and a shorter life

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

TAKE ACTION HERE

TvT-TMM-Tables2008-2010-en

Petition: Remove Transgender from the DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)

Deadline: April 15th 2013

Petition site:
http://www.change.org/petitions/view/remove_transgender_from_the_dsm-5

The DSM Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is regarded as the medical and social definition of mental disorder throughout North America and strongly influences international psychiatric nomenclature.

On January 10th, 2010, the American Psychiatric Association released proposed draft revisions for the Fifth Edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) to be published May 2013.

Transgender people's civil rights advancement has been severely limited by our diagnosis in DSM because we are considered mentally ill by the American Psychiatric Association.

Although the propose changes for the DSM-5 has substituted "Incongruent" a less offensive word for "Dysphoria", the ramifications from this diagnosis still exists as illustrated recently by our exclusion from the DADT repeal.

Anti transgender organizations cornerstone evidence for our dehumanization is the DSM which links our identities with with autogynephilia and pedophilia.

Our diverse gender identities are a natural gift, not a psychiatric disorder.

Petition site:
http://www.change.org/petitions/view/remove_transgender_from_the_dsm-5

What we propose as a Standard Of Care (SOC).

This is proposed SOC from Spain's trans advocacy group STP2012. If adapted insurers would have to cover all transitional issues without our being labeled mentally ill.
http://www.stp2012.info/guia/STP_guide_health.pdf

Register HERE with The APA to comment:
http://www.dsm5.org/Pages/Registration.aspx

# # # # # # # # #

Back Ground Information

APA's DSM-5 Development Page
http://www.dsm5.org/Pages/Default.aspx

DSM-V 302.85 Proposed revisions

Gender Identity Disorder in Adolescents or Adults
http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=482#

DSM: Diagnosing for Money and Power
Summary of the Critique of the DSM
http://www.zurinstitute.com/dsmcritique.html

GID Reform.org
http://www.gidreform.org/index.html

GID Reform WordPress
10 reasons why the transvestic fetishism diagnosis in the DSM-5 has got to go


A.E.Brain, Australia
TS, IS, and the US Military
http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2010/12/ts-is-and-us-military.html

As at this post 754 signatures are already in go now to the site if you feel so moved and act now. The Goal is 1000 signatures.

Petition site:
http://www.change.org/petitions/view/remove_transgender_from_the_dsm-5

Peace and tolerance

H