And as for trust, credibility & more on changing hearts & minds

In recent weeks a series of violent attacks to include two LGBT related ones have come to the fore with some unexpected and disturbing outcomes with this ugly business of intimate partner violence, domestic and power differential outcomes have had some major impact, there are at least eight murders of women by men within a three week period with last night’s shooting at the Bahai Principe hotel where a woman was stabbed by a lover (she survived) at a party on property who in turn was shot by a security guard, he died later. The unprecedented amount of domestic disagreement driven murders is strange to say the least as most murder cases are more on male on male side and based on some form of gangsterism often rooted in deep sociological challenges and or as the latest major reason being lotto scamming fallout and gun play; then there are other happenings on the funding front which made the mainstream news cycle, then came that article about the EU’s grant aid in the Gleaner and the supposed non-linking of gay rights and other legal considerations if not imposition of their will in order to qualify for said aid, we however know that said considerations are as real as the air we breathe and are done behind the scenes, pay close attention to how the Justice Minister effectively sang for his supper at the same signing ceremony for the grant aid making grand announcements as preceding ministers when such large support is extended to us.

Comments, if not shouting matches, quarrels online and on air framed as discussion misguidedly have ensued on social media especially since as to how to address this disturbing trend of women being killed for the slightest thing but what is supposed to be a solutions seeking activity seems to have morphed into angry men who call talk shows blasting women’s’ groups and feminists for being too sensitive and that all lives should matter whether they are men or women, some also suggest that some of the women deserve what they get as they should be submissive and are too emboldened and they cause men to supposedly lose it. This is a slight take off from the American ‘all lives matter’ campaign which was to designed to neutralize the ‘black lives matter’ campaign after the series of murders of black men by police and the unfair harassment of African American men more so than other races. But there is something else that has come to the fore which forced me to prepare this post.

A disturbing narrative laced with deep mistrust that has made itself front and center by talk show hosts, public commentators, and print media in letters to the editor and on social media. Some women’s groups and their supporters in particular are the target of the criticisms if not castigation but other human rights groups are also targeted and named as well, this feelings in some circles have always been around which is one of the reasons not much has been achieved on the ‘gay rights’ front in terms of public advocacy and the all important crisis communications; the latter requires so much work and healing it is not funny as if the public or sections of it do not believe that the loudest voices are telling the truth then one can scream from now to the next millennia you won’t change their minds and advocacy will be seen as an imposition on others and that homophobia is justified. Antigay religious fanatics have been the loudest voices leading that charge of hidden hand in the dark seeking to impose some nastiness on the nation and these misguided groups still do have influence on a large group of Jamaicans who seem more servile to the narrative than anything else without analysing what they are being asked to subscribe to or believe.

Subtextual context

Social media has its place and can make reaching larger audiences way easier bearing in mind where we have come from in the days when traditional media refused such as the now ‘friendly’ Gleaner and indeed tabloids as the Star (owned by the new conglomerate of TVJ et al) to publish press releases or carry tolerant and or balanced items on homosexuality but the seeming over reliance on the new media platforms in the present reality often with some appearance of arrogance and barring any real world follow up only further complicates matters; real world action usually via the proverbial ‘workshop’ are done in comfortable settings such as hotels of university campuses well away from the location of the problems or in privilege which feeds the very mistrust that is the obstacle to change and not in the spaces that may require those interventions. As the women’s groups and indeed LGBT ones as well as one new outfit in particular is the main dartboard for the ‘fire’ the subtext says that these newer groups online cannot be trusted as they coin the latest buzzwords, launch hashtags, run online campaigns but have no impact on the ground in the real world. 

They put themselves in line for grant aid funding as they have the foreign grantors in their pockets and attach themselves to causes real or imagined, small or embellished so as to embarrass Jamaica and force us to change our ways and impose foreign values. The latest voice to join the throng in that department was Dennis Broox of Nationwide 90FM as he sat in for Cliff Hughes who was ill on his “Cliff Hughes Online Show” Mr Broox was not so terse as the other commentators such as a certain opposition MP and a man of the cloth who recently returned to radio show hosting on Power 106FM but Mr Broox said that he did not like how some groups are using the whole gender based or intimate partner violence buzzwords to simply get access to grant aid funding which struck me, he never named the groups in question but the usual suspects come to mind such as the 51% Coalition, WE-Change and Jamaicans for Justice (JFJ) to name a few as they have developed a bad reputation in the minds of many while launching all kinds of online campaigns they seem not to have any real effect on the ground so the cynicism comes out every time they do. Problem is that these groups are so busy often time on social media that they miss the mistrust formed about them and one wonders sometimes where they find time for real work with real people.

This business of trust or the lack thereof is something that has concerned me from my very entry into rights work and volunteerism especially in the early days of LGBT work since 1996; the hue and cry has and continue to be that gay groups are lying about homophobia to gain foreign support and that so called homophobic murders or violence are simply crimes of passion or lovers’ quarrels gone bad for the most part. 

Such conflations are walls that have not been properly surmounted but when the loudest speakers most of whom do not any real world experience to bring to bear and speak truth to their advocacy it literally rings out in the voice and in the narrative as they carry out such advocacy. In a previous post I shared some continued concerns I have on some of this as some seem to believe that just by changing laws such as the ‘buggery’ all will be well afterwards; it is quite the opposite as that is when the real work will begin if that change in law happens and if the groundwork in terms of establishing trust prior to that then the work is doubly harder thereafter.

It is really said that mistrust is still so high when trust is the glue or supposed to be the key ingredient but with a social media which aids but also poisons the goals and objectives then there are those who get carried away by mirroring, complacency and comfort in social media often unfettered and improperly managed with hashtag campaign that some think can make a universal difference; we must remember that the vast majority of Jamaicans are still not on social media and are locked into deeply comforting and justified old feelings driven by phobia and indeed hatred; real work with real people is still the most effective means of making change, face to face is still the best way especially in a world of permitted if not accepted deceit, falsehoods, bettered or altered versions of oneself on social media it is going to be difficult to penetrate some of that with just plain truth and honesty, so some resort to partaking in the farce to gain acceptance and a following. Besides despite social media’s impact on Jamaica figures show us that it is not the panacea as some want us to believe, yes more and more younger cohort of Jamaicans are using the platforms but the vast numbers of us are not even online with a basic Facebook profile let alone the others. Therefore we can conclude a lot of the campaigns really may only target and reach the converted while the campaigns fly over the heads of who are to be the intended targets.

I have said it before and I’ll say it again hashtags/tweets only last as they are allowed to and are mostly forgotten the moment another one replaces them and become short lived often not revisited as the latest hype takes over and a desire to conform drives the said short lived interest, therefore no learning and retention of what has been dispensed can be of any lasting value in order to effect contemplation and real behaviour change; hashtagging also appears to be becoming monotonous so many persons either un-follow some groups, effectively disconnecting or do not value or have long attention spans to the efforts, a point made by a media manager recently at a forum I attended. The campaign can be major turns off so, persons literally turn off on groups by discontinuing notifications to emails or their phones just to avoid the perceived annoyance. Then there is an appearance of arrogance that comes with the persons behind some of the groups due to the frequency of the posts and tweets, the choice of buzzwords & phrases plus the comments thereafter and again the mirroring phenomenon where the proverbial patting on the back ‘good job’ sentiments. Then there is the feeling by audience members of a prescriptive imperative which may be needed in some respects to force thinking towards change but it may sting of the said arrogance so it is resisted and not seen as an invitation to consider suggestions when they are made.

The very launch of that so called peace initiative in western Jamaica in a so called bid to address crimes lotto scam related was laughable in a sense. The actual launch complete with celebrities who lend their names was not done in the actual communities where it really matters where the killings and fear exist but at a five star hotel where the very residents might not be even able to pay for a night let alone a cupcake if they desired it; yet we expect to make change on the outside or in comfortable zones while expecting results. At least the church groups in March Pen alongside the Peace Management Initiatives PMI folks after those awful killings earlier this year they launched an initiative right there in the heart of the conflict in the geography where it matters most as gangs jostle for power and not at some fancy hotel as one has to be in it to win it not outside and then expect penetration afterwards to solve issues. The hotel launch was heavily criticized which also helps to feed into the mistrust that bedevils advocacy of any sort on social media as well and basically dismissed the moment as a grand show and media hype and that not much will emerge after to begin to adequately address the root causes, it made news as some suggest and I agree that location is everything including how the launch is done; that however is one part, the follow up work is next and how much money is left after salaries and administrative costs are tallied and paid out which usually end up ending and starving the efforts/initiatives in the final analysis sometimes well before the priority or scheduled dates.

The church groups in Montego Bay and other parts in western Jamaica also made sure that the marches and initiatives were done in the very geography where it matters albeit they are seen as hypocrites by some including Christians as they reactionary than proactive and while the marches and outdoor services have a psychological effect some are skeptical that as before we have these cycles, there are marches and then the thrust whittles away as the crime drops and persons find themselves in a false sense of security.

It is going to be difficult to shake off some of this belief that some NGOs and outfits are only there to use issues to enrich themselves via grant aid and with little tangible results to show in the eyes of many that only cements the mistrust in the national psyche. The reality in NGO work is that funding is always a challenge and qualifying for same can be challenging as grantors do not just dole out funds like that but how it is done and how the work appears to the public is not reassuring confidence on a larger scale; that lingering mistrust is often thrown most unfairly at others who do similar work. The very homeless MSM/transgender matter was not spared the castigation as persons like Mutabaruka have asked and are still asking why aren’t popular and powerful gay groups who get shed loads of funding seem not wanting to address their own or words to that effect. That PMI and others highly publicized press conference is another such example with the UK high commission in 2015 on MSM/transgender homelessness albeit the very homeless were absent (yet again) and not given voice with the very member of parliament in attendance yet no help can seem to come to the populations yet still after so many years of grief in New Kingston proper for the past twenty plus years of the problem. Perception is everything in the world of behaviour and legislative change; there is no way around it and truth is slowly dying or is in trouble if we believe change can come otherwise; even if it does it will be fleeting and not long lasting.

Think on these things

Peace & tolerance

H


also see:
Oh to change hearts and minds

Human Rights Protect Us From Each Other

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

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

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

Rodje Malcolm, GUEST COLUMNIST

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

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

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

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

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

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

He said:

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

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

PARANOIA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ENDS

also see:

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

Ian Boyne on "Do Gays Threaten Free Speech?"

'UWI had no choice but to dismiss Prof Bain' says Professor Rosemarie Bell Antoine (OAS Rapporteur)

As sections of the LGBTQI community express some weariness on the Bain train matter as since May 18th when the story came to light from behind the scenes exchanges from as early as September 2013 the public debate continues. The real issue nearly got lost at one point in the noise since especially from religious voices albeit ignoring other societal atrocities smacking on a kind of selective hypocrisy. Now comes some reasoned pointers from someone in the know of it all.

Professor Antoine wrote:

"THE issue of the University of the West Indies' (UWI's) termination of the short-term contract of Professor Brendan Bain is not at all about academic freedom. Those who say that it is are misinformed, with perhaps a few who are simply being opportunistic.

It is not even about whether or not the statement in Bain's court testimony was true or untrue. At the core, it is about a programme leader publicly undermining the very programme and principles he was mandated to support. By his words and action, he voluntarily aligned himself with, and gave endorsement to, a diametrically opposed, unacceptable message on

an issue of grave import for the UWI.

The essence of the harm, therefore, more so than the content of the words that Professor Bain spoke, is the fact that an authoritative leader of the UWI spoke with one voice with a litigant party whose purpose and objectives are in direct conflict with

the policies of Caribbean HIV/AIDS Regional Training (CHART) Network and the UWI.

This litigant clearly advocates the retention of a discriminatory regime that excludes persons from enjoying rights of equality on the basis of their sexual orientation. Consequently, the testimony instantly became associated with the UWI in deeply negative and enduring ways, placing deep question marks on the UWI's integrity and on its public commitment, not only to progressive notions of

public health and HIV programming, but more fundamentally, to non-discrimination, equal opportunity, justice, and human rights.

It is a fact that the elimination of discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation is a key ingredient of the UWI's HIV programming, which Professor Bain had the honour to lead for many years and about which he testified. Anti-discrimination training is a vital part of CHART's own programme, as conceded in the expert testimony.

Significantly, too, the mandate of PEPFAR and the Global Fund for AIDS, which funds CHART, is "to develop programmes aimed at reducing HIV-related stigma". The mission of UWI's HIV programming, HARP, as well as CHART, from the very beginning, has co-existed with a human rights agenda, a central plank of which is the need to abolish discriminatory laws on sexual orientation.

This is incontestable and no one associated with it can ever claim to have been unaware of this. I can speak authoritatively to this as one who has been intimately involved with the work of the programme from its inception. Further, as an HIV and Law consultant who has been actively engaged for over 20 years in policy development across the region for governments, international organisations and NGOs, including on important issues of human rights and justice, I understand why this must be so.

Having participated in several seminars, workshops and sessions on HIV with Professor Bain, I have witnessed first-hand that in each and every one, an important aspect of the discussions and recommendations has been the need to eliminate discrimination and stigma as a result of sexual identity, which co-exist with HIV concerns, making treatment more difficult.

This enlightened position has certainly become part of the UWI's core values. It is demonstrable, therefore, that UWI's HIV programming itself is closely aligned to and even dependent on, an egalitarian world view which rejects discrimination on grounds of sexual difference.

Professor Bain's long-standing and excellent work on HIV and public health is without question. Ironically, it is precisely because of his high profile that his remarks and chosen association are so damaging to UWI's reputation and credibility.

The retention of Professor Bain in such circumstances threatened to destroy much of the hard-fought gains and trust that UWI has won in the fight against the scourge of HIV and discrimination in general and seriously undermined its own institutional interests. In this context, such testimony cannot be viewed as a mere personal viewpoint, isolated and insulated from CHART and the UWI's policy position.

Indeed, typically, the very reason authorities like Professor Bain are called upon to speak is because of their professional capacity, which is inextricably linked with the institution, the UWI. Thus, Professor Bain cannot separate his personal views from these comments that have come to represent the institution that is the UWI, which is why they are viewed as harmful and irresponsible.

There is indeed room within an academic institution for individual intellectuals to pontificate about what they view as acceptable inequalities in our societies based on sexual identity, or even race, or religion, or any such thing and supposed scientific bases that support those views. However, the academic institution must draw the line when that individual opinion, intentionally or not, becomes associated with the view of the institution itself.

While intellectual freedom is to be protected and encouraged, the UWI has a duty to ensure that on issues where it holds itself up as perpetuating a particular policy for the benefit of the community, the persons who are chosen to take the lead on the matter are demonstrably in accord with that policy.

I cannot think, for example, that UWI could ever appoint an academic known to be a racist, or supporting racist ideology, to head departments devoted to race studies or even history departments, or a person demonstrating that he or she believes or asserts that women are unequal and their place is in the home, to head the Gender Department!

There have been several 'scientific' studies that claim that blacks are lazy and intellectually inferior, or that women are the 'weaker sex'. Does this mean that in the name of academic freedom, the UWI should compromise its core principles of equality and allow its very integrity to be hijacked? I think not.

Professor Bain, as head of CHART, was in a fiduciary relationship, where one is placed in a position of great trust, which in turn, induces greater responsibility and duties of care. Professor Bain, and by extension, the UWI, with this testimony, violated these fiduciary duties owed to persons living with HIV, the LGBT community, and to the many who look to it for protection and guiding principle.

The bottom line is this: Having given this testimony, it would be impossible for this community, the very constituency that he is supposed to serve, ever to trust Professor Bain again. Thus, the UWI had no choice, after careful review, but to change the leadership of CHART.

Professor Rose-Marie Belle Antoine is dean of the Faculty of Law at the UWI St Augustine campus in Trinidad.

ENDS

also see from the Observer:

Jamaicans protesting at the University of the West Indies main gate against the sacking of Professor Brendan Bain on May 26.

Head hunters, Professor Bain and the gay agenda

(L-R) BAIN… treated harshly by UWI says some. QUEEN IFRICA… expressed her non-violent opinion supporting heterosexual only unions and has now been blacklisted

The LGBT community needs to be tolerant too

The latter article reflects the growing view of some that the lobby collectively has an intolerant view of intolerance and hence may not deserve any comfort or tolerance at all for that matter.

Meanwhile the PANCAP Statement released on May 28 2014 spoke to the matter:

STIGMA AND DISCRIMINATION DRIVING THE HIV EPIDEMIC IN THE CARIBBEAN

PANCAP STATEMENT

The Pan Caribbean Partnership against HIV/AIDS (PANCAP) affirms that Professor Brendan Bain's testimony in the Orozco v. A.G. Belize (2012) case is not consistent with the stated goals of PANCAP to reduce stigma and eliminate discrimination and is in dissonance with PANCAP’s ongoing work to remove discriminatory laws and affirm human rights.

PANCAP is of the view that on principle, Prof Bain’s action was not compatible with a leadership position in PANCAP, although the Partnership is inclusive and members are free to have their individual views and beliefs. In adopting an active position of opposing the decriminalization of anal sex between two consenting male adults in private, Prof. Bain has undermined the public health and human rights goals of PANCAP. This view was communicated to Professor Bain during the Fifteenth Meeting of the Priority Areas Coordinating Committee (PACC), a technical committee of the PANCAP Executive Board, which was held via teleconference on 15 January 2014. Professor Bain subsequently resigned as a member of the PACC on 14 March 2014. PANCAP recognizes Prof. Bain’s significant contribution to the HIV response in the Caribbean including treatment and training and to the work of the Partnership and its governance bodies.

Our region is at a critical point where further progress towards an AIDS-free Caribbean is premised on mobilizing a strong and coordinated multi-sectoral effort to remove the legal, social and cultural obstacles that prevent universal access to a wide range of comprehensive and high quality health services. Currently, 11 CARICOM states have laws which criminalize consensual same-sex between adults in private. The Global Commission on HIV and the Law has found that countries that criminalize same-sex sexual activity have higher HIV prevalence rates among men who have sex with men (MSM) than countries that do not; that criminalizing HIV transmission harms HIV prevention and treatment; and that guaranteeing access to reproductive health services can help reduce HIV risk.[1] Specific to the Caribbean, stigma is named as the main reason for the lack of attention to marginalised groups in the prevention efforts, and their general lack of access to HIV-related services, and stigmatising and discriminatory legal and policy measures are common in the regional legal systems.[2] A 2012 Lancet study estimates MSM prevalence in the Caribbean to be the highest in the world at 25.4%.[3] This is in comparison to 1.0% in the general population. The UNAIDS Modes of Transmission (MOT) modeling tool estimates that 32% of new cases in Jamaica and 33% in Dominican Republic occur among MSM.

Recognizing these challenges, the Caribbean Regional Strategic Framework (CRSF) 2014-2018 is premised on the understanding that ending HIV is not possible until the human rights of all people, and particularly those most vulnerable to HIV, are fully realized.

In response to the compelling epidemiological evidence that key populations continue to be vulnerable to HIV, PANCAP in collaboration with UNAIDS, is mounting a programme of activities under the theme,Justice for All. The aim of the programme is to promote activities consistent with the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which all countries are committed. More specifically, it is intended to achieve one of the goals of the United Nations High Level Meeting Political Declaration (2011) to eliminate stigma and discrimination against people living with HIV by 2015 and to uphold the human rights and dignity of all. Phase 1 of the programme involved a series of national consultations in Guyana, Grenada, Jamaica, Suriname and St Kitts & Nevis and a Caribbean Consultation on Justice for All and Human Rights Agenda involving Parliamentarians, Faith, Youth, Private Sector and Civil Society Leaders. Outcomes of the Caribbean consultation are a PANCAP Justice for All Roadmap 2014-2018 and a PANCAP Declaration: Getting to Zero Discrimination through Justice for All. The Declaration will be presented to the Heads of Government for endorsement at their Conference in July 2014. PANCAP will adopt both a bottom up and top down approach to implementing the Roadmap in collaboration with its national, regional and donor partners.

PANCAP is convinced that HIV-related stigma and discrimination which contribute to the persistence of AIDS in our Region can be reduced and eliminated through collaborative programmes, partnerships and policies supported by governments, private sectors, faith-based organisations, non-governmental orgainsations, youth and our other social, regional and international partners. In this regard PANCAP views this current situation as an opportunity for the region to engage in a dispassionate, thoughtful and holistic discussion that accommodates differing views and promotes understanding and inclusion.

PANCAP is a Caribbean regional partnership of governments, regional civil society organizations, regional institutions and organisations, bilateral and multilateral agencies and contributing donor partners which was established on 14 February 2001. PANCAP provides a structured and unified approach to the Caribbean’s response to the HIV epidemic, coordinates the response through the Caribbean Regional Strategic Framework on HIV and AIDS to maximize efficient use of resources and increase impact, mobilises resources and build capacity of partners.

ENDS

There seems no end in sight yet and I am concerned about the cementing views of intolerance and bullies in the push for rights hence the pushback from the public or sections of the religious right movement.

Gay Marriage Smoke Screen, False Dichotomies and Religious Fanatics 05.06.14 

Beyond The Headlines Steven Golding, Dr Wayne West & Prof Rosemarie-Bell Antoine on Bain Issue 

today's cartoon by Clovis ......... oh dear

Peace and tolerance

H

'Jamaicans For Justice doing church's job' — says Rev Al Miller

Restorative advocate and anti gay pastor Reverend Al Miller is at it again folks this time in a fit of jealousy it seems on the face of it he has come out to say that the goodly Jamaicans For Justice, JFJ is doing the church's job and if one reads the Jamaica observer report on the issue he sounds as if he is saying the JFJ is not fit to do it and it should be him and his church or the church in general. 


Of course he always seems to want to grab attention to himself and the media responds by saying out of the park statements and positions at times, here I would have thought that he would have wanted to have joined the goodly folks at JFJ instead of complaining that they are doing the church's job, if this is not a theocratic thinking move on his part then I do not know what is. Similarly we saw the gentleman also in another forum recently as reported on faith based organizations where he also hinted that they are not morally qualified to be advocating for HIV/AIDS interventions etc.

As in a Gleaner story REPRESENTATIVES OF UNAIDS recently were faced with the dilemma of how to enlist the support of local faith-based organisations (FBOs) in the HIV/AIDS prevention campaign without violating the institutions' doctrinal principles. A major stumbling block, which was identified in a recent consultation between church leaders and UNAIDS officials, is the traditional association of the HIV/AIDS messaging with gay-rights issues.
The views of the clerics are summed up in the comments by churchman Major Richard Cooke: "The perception is that the homosexuals have used AIDS to push their agenda. Allow the Church to speak to the church. When we feel that our help is linked to a gay agenda we do not want to be a part of it." The Rev Al Miller echoed similar sentiments: "Perception becomes reality. Changing the face of the historical sellers of the message of HIV prevention is an important and strategic move. We will, therefore, have to identify faces that can have broader appeal in order for us to be successful."

In other words, the clerics are suggesting that the gay-rights agenda has stigmatised the HIV/AIDS prevention programme, and, consequently, has alienated the religious community.

Ironic twist

This is an ironic twist, as it is the removal of stigma and discrimination from the HIV/AIDS prevention programme that is the goal of the local and international health-advocacy agencies. In fact, that was the purpose of the recent consultation between representatives of UNAIDS and FBOs. The discussions were informed by the findings of a Ministry of Health (MOH)-commissioned study of leaders of FBOs about the level of stigma and discrimination towards the most-at-risk populations (MARPs) in their organisations, including gay men, sex workers, prisoners and people living with HIV (PLHIV).

The study, which is based on a survey of 41 FBO leaders in 35 denominations across eight parishes, found that senior clerics considered it their "responsibility to uphold moral values and hold society accountable to those values." The findings continued: "Issues of faith and belief go deep and most FBOs have defined principles to which they adhere and which they consider divine and, therefore, are not open to discussion. A related finding is the faulty association of HIV/AIDS with sexual promiscuity (which is not always the case) by some church leaders and congregations.

Al Miller points to the dilemma: "If we are going to solve the problem, we cannot create another problem in order to solve it. We have to separate the issues of stigma and acceptance of behaviour. You have to be careful that you are not selling that 'this is good, this is normal, this is an acceptable lifestyle'."


more HERE from Gay Jamaica Watch


However with the JFJ matter here is the Observer report:

OUTSPOKEN Kingston pastor Reverend Al Miller yesterday criticised the church for allowing human rights groups to outdo it in the fight against injustice in the society.

Using local human rights body Jamaicans for Justice (JFJ) as his reference, Miller said the church and not JFJ should be leading the charge

"Jamaicans for Justice are doing what the church ought to be doing. It is not their call [but] I thank God for them," the pastor told his congregants at Fellowship Tabernacle during the Easter Sunday service yesterday.

"It is us, it is us who are supposed to be out there, not Jamaicans for Justice," he argued.

Miller's remarks were made after the church offered up prayers for the family of 26-year-old Socrates Johnson who was fatally shot by the police on Clifton Road off Chisolm Avenue on Wednesday. The reverend said the family of the slain man, who are members of his church, were still trying to come to grips with his death. He said he, too, was still in shock as he had spoken with Johnson just an hour before his death.

According to reports from the Constabulary Communication Network, Johnson who is from an Upper Waltham Avenue, Kingston 11 address was fatally shot by the police at around three o'clock. The matter has been reported to the Independent Commission of Investigations (INDECOM) and is being investigated by the Bureau of Special Investigations.

JFJ was among several civil organisations that mounted a peaceful protest outside the offices of the Ministry of National Security on Oxford Road about two weeks ago, to register its concerns about the increasing number of police killings across the island. Twenty-nine persons were killed by police during controversial operations last month, triggering outrage from citizens, JFJ and Amnesty International. The incidents also arrested the attention of Security Minister Peter Bunting.

In a discussion with the Jamaica Observer following the sermon yesterday, Miller registered his own infuriation.

"The ones who are charged with the responsibility for protecting us, cannot be the ones who are destroying us. Something is wrong," said Miller.

He made it clear, however, that he was not bashing the security forces for doing their job and was keen to point out that extrajudicial killing was just one area of injustice in the society.

"I am not into police bashing, because the police have a difficult task in a difficult society because of what we have allowed to develop," he said. "But at the same time, they cannot do right wrongly and we cannot encourage that."

The "we" he referred to extends to the wider society, but Miller, who headed the National Transformation Programme under the previous government, said it was the church's responsibility to fight injustice.

"The issue of justice is one of the main responsibilities of the church, because justice is one of the major pillars of society and because of our commitment to people and particularly to the poor and to the oppressed, we have to stand up and be a voice for justice [and] for truth," he told the Observer.

"We must be prepared to more than just talk about it or feel bad about it, we must be prepared to act," the reverend said.

"The churches are playing a fantastic role in many areas of society, but certainly in the area of justice, there is a lot more that needs to be done. There should be a stronger and more consistent voice against every form of injustice wherever it pushes up it's head," added Miller.

UN Human Rights Committee unsatisfied by the human rights situation in Jamaica

PDF Version

Geneva, 20 October 2011 – The United Nations Human Rights Committee today concluded its review of the third periodic report of Jamaica on the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

The review allowed the Human Rights Committee to raise questions with the Jamaica delegation on several subjects of concern related to civil and political rights. Unfortunately, the Jamaican delegation did not include any representatives from the capital, which had a very negative impact on the quality of the dialogue.  “The absence of a strong representation from the country is extremely rare and is an alarming signal sent to the United Nations on the little attention and priority paid to human rights by Jamaica”, said Patrick Mutzenberg, Director of the Centre of Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), a NGO that monitors the implementation of the ICCPR worldwide.

On this occasion, a civil society coalition led by Jamaican for Justice (JFJ) provided a full report on the implementation of the ICCPR at the national level.  “Our report shows thatdiscrimination is at the root of many human rights violations in Jamaica and needs to be urgently addressed by the Government.   We contend that the new Charter of Rights, rather than improving protection of human rights actually weakens the protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation, and discrimination against persons with disabilities or HIV / AIDS, among others”, said Dr. Carolyn Gomes, Executive Director of Jamaicans for Justice.

The very high numbers of extra-judicial killings by security forces was another subject of concern for the Human Rights Committee.  This issue was discussed at length by the UN experts who were worried that the majority of these killings remain inadequately investigated and that there have only been four convictions of police out of more than 3500 incidences in the past 20 years.  In her concluding remarks, the Chair of the Committee, Ms Zonke Majodina, said that “the lack of investigations reinforced the climate of impunity in Jamaica”.

On 4^th November 2011, the Human Rights Committee will make its recommendations public and the State will be requested to widely disseminate them at the national level. It is hoped that the State will initiate a genuine dialogue with all sectors of the society that will lead to the implementation of the recommendations.

The report can be found on the Centre for Civil and Political RIghts website .

For more information contact:

Jamaican For Justice: Susan Goffe, suegoffe@yahoo.com

Meanwhile the Gleaner carried this:

UN Committee Criticises Jamaica's Human Rights

Debbie-Ann Wright, Assistant News Editor
The Gleaner/Power 106 News Centre

Jamaica’s human rights track record has again come under scrutiny with the country being cited as lacking in its compliance with international treaties to which it has signed.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee reviewed Jamaica’s compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

While the Jamaican Government’s representative at the review, Ambassador Wayne McCook, sought to outline the gains Jamaica has made in complying with the treaty, commissioners said the country was lacking in several areas.

Commissioner Krister Thelin called for the Government to reconsider repealing laws banning buggery, which he said was discriminatory.

Another commissioner, Gerald Neuman, criticised the Government for leaving out sexual orientation from the exclusion clause in the Charter of Rights, which was passed earlier this year.

The commissioners also articulated a concern regarding the availability of remedies for persons whose rights are violated.

Meanwhile, the Committee has expressed its disappointment with the Jamaican Government that it did not send a more qualified delegation to the review.

It said it felt Jamaica’s ambassador in Geneva, Wayne McCook, did not have the expertise or knowledge of all the subjects to be able to provide satisfactory answers to the committee.

In addition to the report from the Government, a submission was made by a group of non-government organisations (NGOs), which included Jamaicans for Justice, the Independent Jamaican Council of Human Rights and the Women's Outreach and Resource Centre.

debbie-ann.wright@gleanerjm.com
also see

REVIEW OF JAMAICA (PART I) 19 OCT 2011

Video streaming by Ustream

Video streaming by Ustream

Video streaming by Ustream

and from Gay Jamaica Watch more on the issues

Peace and tolerance

H

Gleaner In Focus: Are Jamaicans for justice? (15.08.10)

Ian Boyne, Gleaner Writer

The buzz words are 'justice' and 'human rights'. All over Jamaica there is the cry, "We want justice." Peter Tosh famously sang about "equal rights and justice". The human-rights lobby is the most vocal and trenchant of all lobbies in Jamaica, commanding a deference in the media and within the political class, far above its numerical strength.

But is the human-rights lobby taking a holistic view of human rights, and has the concept of justice been thoroughly thought through? Human-rights groups in the West have traditionally focused on what are called first-generation rights, involving civil and political liberties, leaving economic and broader social rights to be taken up by left-wing and progressive groups. But the time is long overdue for a more integrated view of human rights and justice but, happily, in the scholarly literature significant intellectual advances have been made in articulating a broader concept of human rights and justice.

The tour de force work, of course, was John Rawls' epochal book, A Theory of Justice. But, in recent years, more pointed attention has been given, more specifically, to the issue of poverty by Columbia University Political Science Professor Thomas Pogge. He has insisted that the issue of global poverty be put on the front burner of human-rights concerns. In his 2007 edited work, Freedom From Poverty as a Human Right: Who Owes What to the Very Poor, he makes an eloquent case that our present global economic and political order is inherently inimical to human rights and justice.

Primary focus

He systematically assails all the excuses given why we need only concern ourselves as a primary focus with whether states are torturing, murdering, unjustly incarcerating and violating people's right of association and freedom of movement or oppressing them because of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

Human rights have to involve more than ensuring that people have the right to elect which set of oppressors will rule them for the next few years or whether they can publish or read whatever they want. In short, human rights must involve more than civil and political liberties.

There are some persons who are involved in Western human-rights organisations, including those in Jamaica, who would be alarmed at the full implication of human rights and justice. For a coherent view of human rights could clash radically with our bourgeois conception of how this society and world ought to be organised and how its economics and politics should function.

Look at the objective facts about the world in which we live. Ask yourself, where is the justice? The world's 500 richest people have a combined income greater than the poorest 416 million in the world. Some 2.2 billion people live on less than US$2 a day, accounting for just five per cent of global income. The richest 20 per cent account for 75 per cent of the world's income. The $7 billion needed annually over the next few years to provide 2.6 billion people with access to clean water is less than what Europeans spend on perfume and less than Americans spend on elective surgery!

Lack of essentials

That $7 billion would save 4,000 lives each day. For every $1 developed countries spend on aid, they allocate, even in this post-Cold War era, $10 to military expenditure. Two billion people lack access to essential medicines; over one billion do not have adequate shelter; two billion lack electricity; nearly 800 million are illiterate and nearly 950 million are chronically undernourished.

Approximately 18 million die annually - 50,000 a day because of poverty-related causes such as poor drinking water and inadequate nutrition. The world was stunned by the human loss and suffering caused by the Asian tsunami a few years ago, which claimed 300,000 lives. Says the 2005 edition of the United Nations Development Programme's (UNDP's) Human Development Report:"The tsunami was a highly visible, unpredictable and largely unpreventable tragedy." But, the report notes, poignantly, "Every hour more than 1,200 children die - away from the glare of media attention. This is equivalent to three tsunamis a month, every month, hitting the world's most vulnerable citizens - its children."

Should human-rights activists be properly concerned about these matters and such gross disparities in the world's 'development'? How meaningful - or complete - are civil liberties and political rights if one is deprived of the economic and social means to fully utilise them? The traditionally jaundiced view of human rights must be challenged - and is being challenged in a most intellectually robust way. The brilliant Indian philosopher-economist and Nobel Prize winning scholar, Amartya Sen last year published his magnum opus titled The Idea of Justice, a nearly 500-page intellectual delight.

Sen notes Thomas Hobbes' famous statement of 1651 that life was "short, nasty and brutish", adding: "I am afraid it is still a good starting point for a theory of justice today, since the lives of so many people across the world have exactly those dire features, despite the substantial material progress of others." If human rights is to be more than merely "bawling on paper", as the 18th-century philosopher Jeremy Bentham wrote, it must embody economic rights.

What is very interesting and noteworthy is that this matter of economic rights is not a Johnny-come-lately concept, alien to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ratified by the United Nations as far back as 1948. An understanding of class society and Marxist critique of capitalism would explain why human-rights activists in the West have latched on to a few narrow rights in their advocacy, ignoring other equally fundamental rights.

But right there in that Universal Declaration of Human Rights we find the following words: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care (Article 25)." It also says, "Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration can be fully realised." It is abundantly clear that our present international economic and political order is distinctly injurious to the human rights of the vast majority who are consigned to poverty, marginalisation and dehumanisation.

A most grotesque recent example of this was the global financial crisis caused by the greed, recklessness and caprice of a few in the richest country in the world. This crisis significantly reduced global gross domestic product, threw hundreds of millions back into poverty and tens of million on the unemployment scrap heap.

It savaged the incomes and prospects of multiple millions in developing countries which have to disproportionately face the burdens of adjustments while the wealthy people who caused the crash were bailed out by their rich capitalist governments. It was socialism for the bankers and more poverty and degradation for the poor.

This is a legitimate concern of those in the human rights and justice movement. Thirty thousand children are dying every day because of poverty. Fifteen million children die of malnutrition every year. The gross domestic product of the United States (US) is more than $13 trillion. US government foreign aid amounts to about 0.2 per cent of the federal budget - two-tenths of one per cent!

What is the responsibility of the economically powerful nations of the world to those disadvantaged by the present global-economic structures? Absolutely none, shouts prominent human rights armchair activist and talk-show host Wilmot Perkins. Developing countries must stop talking "damn nonsense" about the deve-loped countries owing them anything and "get to work" by "creating opportunity". This is the pronouncement of one of the high priests of the human rights movement in Jamaica!

Basic freedom

It is interesting that even Franklin D. Roosevelt, former president of the United States, in his famous Four Freedoms speech of January, 1941, identified the third basic freedom as "the freedom from want which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants - everywhere in the world". That is significant, showing the long history of an integrated view of human rights. The human-rights movement in the West has become more narrow in its focus for ideological and class reasons, and hardened its position during the Cold War when, admittedly, communist repression and right-wing authoritarianism held sway in many countries.

It is time to get back to that integrated view of human rights and justice.

Some of the lawyers and other human-rights activists who focus narrowly on civil liberties do so because a broader focus would threaten their class interests. Besides, there is no political groundswell here for this broader focus as the two parties are sold on neoliberal capitalism.

Enforcing economic rights is, of course, problematic. Economic rights assume those who hold duties with respect to those rights. So you run into what scholars call "the feasibility issue". This was a major reason Bentham was sceptical about the concept of human rights centuries ago. Rights must have legal force and who should be held responsible for the many people who are poor? What about those poor through their own carelessness and folly - do they still have a 'right' to food, proper shelter etc? The issues are not unproblematic - but that's no reason we must not pursue them rigorously.

Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist who may be reached at ianboyne1@yahoo.com or columns@gleanerjm.com .

Justice Denied & Hope dies ... Miss Milly passes .... An Inspiration to ALL

Millicent Forbes (left) with Jamaicans for Justice Director Carolyn Gomes

Miss Milly sadly passes, she has become a symbol of perseverance as she vigorously pursued the case of the shooting of her daughter by a police officer all the way to the highest appeal court of the land, The Privy Council.

She was truly an inspiration to all in showing us how to seek justice and Stick-to-itifness vowing to find a way to bring the perpetrator to face the charge. Even in the face of intimidation, threats and bribes offered multiple times over she pressed on.

See the Gleaner and Jamaica Observer stories excerpted below on this pioneer in a sense of individual activism.

Rest in Peace Miss Milly.

As hopes of justice die, so does mother

Howard Campbell, Gleaner Writer

Millicent Forbes, whose daughter Janice Allen was controversially killed by a police constable eight years ago, died on Sunday June 20th 2010 at the University Hospital of the West Indies.

She was 53.

Forbes' daughter Ann-Marie Allen did not give a cause of death but told The Gleaner her mother was admitted to hospital last Thursday evening after experiencing stomach pains. She said Forbes had suffered from stomach ailments for some time.

Human-rights group Jamaicans for Justice (JFJ) helped bring the Janice Allen story to national attention, calling for strong action against Constable Rohan Allen, the policeman who shot the 13-year-old as she stood at her gate in Arnett Gardens in April 2000.

JFJ lauded Forbes in a statement yesterday, saying she was a "true Jamaican hero" who "withstood death threats, harassment, attempted bribery and repeated disappointments but she refused to give up".

Born in Manchester, Forbes was the mother of seven children. Ann-Marie Allen, the fourth of those siblings, said her mother was an ancillary worker for most of her life.

Long legal battle

Initially, police said Janice, the sixth of Forbes' children, was killed during a gunfight with criminals in Arnett Gardens. Constable Allen (no relation to the deceased) was eventually charged with murder but was freed in March 2004 when a jury was directed to return a formal verdict of not guilty.

In May last year, Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Paula Llewellyn ruled that having examined all the material in the case, the Crown was not in a position to establish a case against Constable Allen.

The Supreme Court upheld Llewellyn's ruling in April. Judge Patrick Brooks dismissed Forbes' challenge to the DPP on the grounds that it had no reasonable prospect of success.

Forbes is survived by six children and 13 grandchildren.

Paul Henry
Millicent Forbes fought for justice until her death
"It is with great shock and sadness that we learn of the death of Millicent Forbes," JFJ said in a news release. "We at JFJ extend our heartfelt condolences, prayers, thoughts and sympathies to her children... and the family and friends that she has left behind."

Forbes' long road for justice, a process which is currently ongoing, began with the death of Janice Allen, her 13-year-old daughter who was shot dead at her gate in Trench Town, Kingston on April 18, 2000. The police reported that she was killed during a shoot-out with gunmen.

A police constable, Rohan Allen (no relation), was charged with murder for the teen's death, but was freed in March 2004 after then Chief Justice Lensley Wolfe directed a jury to return a formal verdict of not guilty in the trial that was transferred from Kingston to the Portland Circuit Court.

Backed by the JFJ, Forbes took the case to the London-based Privy Council, which serves as Jamaica's final court of appeal, after the local courts rejected her application for the verdict to be set aside.

The Privy Council, however, upheld the decision of the local courts, but recommended that Director of Public Prosecutions Paula Llewellyn consider if the policeman should be retried, a decision legal minds say will be cited in legal circles for years to come.

Following a lengthy review of the evidence in the case, Llewellyn decided last year May not to re-indict the cop, citing a lack of evidence on which a conviction could be secured.

However, the resilient Forbes pressed on and in July 2009 secured Judicial Review of Llewellyn's decision.

Forbes in subsequent interviews said she would not give up her fight until the cop responsible for her daughter's death was brought to justice.

But this drive suffered a setback earlier this year following a successful application by Llewellyn to strike out the decision to grant Forbes Judicial Review.

Never the quitter, Forbes appealed the decision. A judgement is now pending in the Court of Appeal.

The State had recently decided to compensate Janice Allen's estate over the death.

Ann-Marie Allen yesterday remembered her mother as a kind person who had many friends. She said also that the family would continue their mother's fight for justice for their slain sibling.
CONTINUE HERE

JFJ Press Release: Policing cowboy style - round em up and lock em up, JFJ Press Release

June 17, 2008 – Kingston, Jamaica -- Last weekend’s cowboy-style round-up that saw the arbitrary detention of a reported 107 young men must be a timely warning to policy makers who have recently called for legislation that will enlarge police powers and make it legal to detain persons for six weeks without charge. Whilst the details of the event are sketchy, we understand that only one person has been charged in connection with breaching the terms of his bail. All others have been released.
Superintendent Harry Daley’s account in a radio interview is that he was at the dance where the events occurred and there he was confronted by army personnel. He was in uniform and declared his rank and his identity. When he demanded to know who was in charge, an army major drew his 9mm pistol and stuck it in his face with words to the effect that ‘the 9mm’ was ‘in charge’. These events raise serious questions, among them:
1. What intelligence led to the raid that excluded the police commander in charge of the area in which the operation was staged?
2. What operational orders did the army personnel have, that would have emboldened the commanding major to draw his weapon on a uniformed police superintendent who declared that he was the commander in charge of St. Catherine North?
3. Why was the army running an operation that properly ought to have been a police matter?

Outside of the operation’s legitimacy, the ugly and embarrassing fall-out over protocol, power and chain of command between the police and the army begs for public caution.

These questions and many more take on even more serious implications in the context of proposed legislation to legitimize the detention of persons for up to six weeks without charge.

In every instance in the past that Jamaican citizens have been called upon to surrender civil liberties, their lot has worsened not improved. The strategy of asking for citizens to surrender their civil liberties in the interest of fighting crime has been tried ad nauseum since the state of emergency in 1976. It has not resulted in a decrease in violent crime; in fact this tactic has had the opposite effect. Jamaicans for Justice (JFJ) acknowledges that crime in Jamaica is an extraordinary challenge but believes that the country’s success in defeating crime is not to be found in extraordinary police powers. It is to be found in extraordinary police men and women providing exemplary leadership and service and acting to uphold the law and the constitution.

We call upon the Prime Minister not to enhance the police powers of detention and the encroachment of individual civil liberties but instead to:
a) Enhance the police capabilities to solve crime;
b) Enhance the Criminal Justice System’s capabilities to rely on scientific evidence and to deal with matters expeditiously and justly;
c) Heighten its social intervention in economically depressed communities;
d) Heighten its school programs that emphasize civic responsibility, family values and respect for authority;
e) Punish corruption and mediocrity. Reward honesty and excellence; and
f) Hold everyone to account.

JFJ urgesthe Prime Minister to view last weekend’s regrettable events as a caution against this latest call for civil liberties to be surrendered, ostensibly to fight crime. We succeed or fail in any struggle by the quality of our decisions not the quality of our conditions.