The curious case of these "Curious Heaviots" Part 1

Heaviot = masculine downlown sometimes bisexual male (aka "trade" in US)

stereotypical sagging in more masculine men, metrosexuals and even butch described or identified women

In the day to day life of gay men who cruise the streets, parks and secret meeting places there are heaviots who abound and use their sometimes stunningly physical masculine attributes to bring in their prey, covertly as genuine sexual favours only to use the opportunity to rob or harm unsuspecting admirers. This is one of two such incidents as reported to us and there is some concern now about the authenticity of the men who cruise for sex are they "gay" or just using the opportunities afforded to them by unsuspecting men?

We have heard of incidents where men pose a gays to harm their targets with homophobic violence but there is new twist to these two incidents the "attackers" were in sexually comfortable positions with other men before exacting their real intentions.

Incident #1:
A former popular recreational park in St. Andrew where joggers do their morning run, was the scene of this bizarre affair, here a 29 year old middle class accountant takes a jog, not his usual morning activity but he proceeds non the less, he is distracted by a male figure that moves in nearby bushes, he ignores it and makes a lap around the dusty wooded area a second time. The figure again shakes the trees to attract his attention and beckons with an audible "pssst" the jogger continues and realises this isn't your ordinary action here. A third lap around the track he is overtaken by a female jogger who he had passed several chains before on another path, the "bush beckoner" by now comes closer to the track but still slightly concealed and beckons again this time our accountant jogger is surprised by a well toned shirtless thug masturbating and trying to attract his attention, the jogger ignores his attempts and tries to quicken his pace, the "bushman" however launches out and grabs hold of him as he passes directly in front, he whispers erotic words in his ear but something else happend that the jogger did not intend, his $30,000 gold chain around his neck become a weapon for the overpowering thug who demanded that he give it to him.

By this time the erection of the attacker had long disappeared although he was still exposed, he choked the jogger with the chain and demanded money as well and brandished a knife.

The shocked accountant by now raised alarm while a struggle ensued, the attacker retreated into the bushes and the female jogger and several other joggers who had heard the shouts for help arrived. The shocked man explained that a robbery attempt was made on him everyone dissipated after that.
Luckily it ended the way it did, the chain had left a deep imprint around his neck and there were other light bruises which were as a result of the struggle. The accountant did not report the matter to the police.

Part 2 see it HERE

Jurors asked to make sexual distinction in Peter King case

The jurors trying 25-year-old Sheldon Pusey, who is charged with the murder of 64-year-old Ambassador Peter King, were asked yesterday to make a distinction between a man making sexual approaches to the average homosexual and a similar approach to a heterosexual. Caroline Hay, deputy director of public prosecutions, during her address, asked the jury to make the distinction.


offended

Hay said the average heterosexual man would be offended if another man approached him seeking to be intimate with him, while the average homosexual man might not be offended and could regard it as a compliment.

Hay said Pusey chose to go to Kings' house with a ganja spliff, which he said he smoked while he was there. She said Pusey might have regarded it as a compliment when King approached him and would not have been offended that he was having an affaire with Ambassador Peter King, who was a "big man" in the society. Hay told the jurors that if they found that Pusey was gay, then they would have to apply that reasoning.


shorts and socks

The jurors were also asked to bear in mind that the prosecution's witnesses said that Pusey was dressed in shorts and socks when they saw him with King in the kitchen downstairs.

"He picked up himself and went into the man's bedroom and was in there watching television for one and a half hours," Hay said. She pointed out that Pusey must have been gay to do such a thing.


evidence

Hay referred to the evidence of the doctor who examined Pusey one year after the incident. She said the doctor said he had not seen any recent sexual penetration but the doctor could not to say if Pusey was gay. She asked the jury to find that from the severe injuries found on King's body, that Pusey had intended to kill him.

King was fatally stabbed and chopped at his home at 11A Waterloo Road, St Andrew, between March 19 and 20, 2006. Pusey, who is being represented by defence lawyer Berry Bryan, said in his defence, that King attempted to rape him and Pusey took a knife and stabbed him.

Male Circumcision Opposing views

Here is an interesting response to our post below on Male Circumcision Is No Silver Bullet in Combating HIV apparently we were unaware to us is an anti circumcision school of thought as well, very interesting debate to be a part of.

a member of DOCTORS OPPOSING CIRCUMCISION (D.O.C.) - Physicians for Genital Integrity commented:

"The website you mention is only really interested in promoting male circumcision is only interested in promoting male circumcision for its own sake (or anything-but-condoms), rather than in fighting AIDS.You won't find any mention of it at the website, but there are seven African countries where men are more likely to be HIV+ if they've been circumcised: Rwanda, Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Swaziland, and Tanzania.

If circumcision really worked against AIDS, this just wouldn't happen. We now have people calling circumcision a "vaccine" or "invisible condom", and viewing circumcision as an alternative to condoms.ABC (Abstinence, Being faithful, Condoms) is the way forward. Promoting genital surgery will cost African lives, not save them.It's not like we've actually tried the things that do work. In Malawi for instance, only 57% know that condoms protect against HIV/AIDS, and only 68% know that limiting sexual partners protects against HIV/AIDS.

There are people who haven't even heard of condoms. It just seems really misguided to be hailing male circumcision as the way forward. It would help if some of the aid donors didn't refuse to fund condom education, or work that involves talking to prostitutes. There are African prostitutes that sleep with 20-50 men a day, and some of them say that hardly any of the men use a condom. If anyone really cares about men, women, and children dying in Africa, surely they'd be focusing on education about safe sex rather than surgery that offers limited protection at best, and runs a high risk of risk compensatory behaviour."

Also check out http://tlctugger.com/ for foreskin regeneration info/devices and how to restore slack shaft skin explicit video.

'Homosexual has right to life' says DPP assistant

Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Caroline Hay, addressing the jury yesterday at the trial of the man accused of murdering Ambassador Peter King, said a homosexual had a right to life.

She referred to comments defence lawyer Berry Bryan had made that King, 64, was a "disgusting sodomite" and said the words used to describe King were vile because some people believe homosexuals do not have a right to life.

Hay told the 12-member jury that if a person made a particular choice (as to sexual preference), then other people could not decide if that person should live or die.

Fatally stabbed

Sheldon Pusey, 25, a waiter and carpenter, has been on trial in the Home Circuit Court since January 19 for King's murder. King was fatally stabbed and chopped between March 19 and 20 at his Waterloo Road, St Andrew, home.

Pusey said in his defence that he went to King's house about a job and King was attempted to "rape" him and he stabbed him.

Hay advised that Pusey said he was not a homosexual but "if you accept the evidence that he was in under pants with another man who was in underpants or naked downstairs in a kitchen, then the jury could come to the view that Pusey was a homosexual".

She also told the jury that if they accepted that King's semen was on a towel on which Pusey's blood was found, then "you can come to the view that Pusey was gay".

She called on the jury not to have any bias because when the Crown opened its case they were told that King was a homosexual. She said Bryan in his address told them that King was a notorious homosexual.


Two knives

She asked the jury to consider what Pusey was doing in King's bedroom watching television and why was Pusey answering questions posed to him by a doctor in relation to how he got his nails to be so shiny.

In response to Berry's comments that the prosecution had suppressed an important piece of evidence, particularly two knives which were taken from King's house, Hay said the knives were not relevant to the case. She said all exhibits and documents were available to Bryan and if he wanted, he could have put the knives in evidence.

Hay asked the jury to consider the evidence which the prosecution put before them and return a true verdict.

The verdict will be given next week.

by BARBARA GAYLE, Staff Reporter

Male Circumcision Is No Silver Bullet in Combating HIV

(Click here also for Original Article)

By Whitney Welshimer, Akimbo

(The author's friend was driving too quickly in Cameroun and had to do a double-take after passing the sign above, she returned to the site later to confirm that she had read the the billboard correctly.)

Three African studies in 2006 showed that male circumcision could significantly reduce a man's risk of contracting HIV from vaginal intercourse. "Significantly" in health study-speak might not mean what you think it means though. The studies, which examined nearly 8,000 men ages 18-24 in Kisumu, Kenya and Rakai, Uganda, found that male circumcision reduced men's risk of contracting HIV from vaginal intercourse by as much as 53 percent. These studies corroborated findings from an earlier study in South Africa, which reported reductions as high as 60 percent. A 50-60% reduction is not 100%. Not by a long shot.

But since these studies were published, sliced foreskins have replaced sliced bread as the next best thing. Bad puns and gory images aside, the avid support for male circumcision among public health professionals, funders, and the public alike has often failed to ask the simple question: What does this mean for women?

Circumcision itself does not offer a man's current partner(s) (female or male) any protection from contracting HIV. Many men -- newly or previously circumcised -- assume that circumcision will fully protect them from HIV, so they feel inclined to "reap the benefits" by pushing for sex without condoms, jeopardizing their own health and that of their partner(s). Moreover, after the operation, many men do not wait the requisite six weeks to let the wound heal before having sex – again, putting their lives and that of their partner at risk. Surely, there may be some indirect benefits to women. For example, expectations of the surgery may bring men into local clinics that would not otherwise visit health services, and this can provide an opportunity to educate men on safe sex and provide access to male and female condoms.

But we all need to get our facts straight. This week, the World Health Organization (WHO), the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition (AVAC), and Family Health International (FHI) launched a website -- the Clearinghouse on Male Circumcision - to do just that. Their page about the effects of adult male circumcision on women's health includes some useful resources. Also check out Straight Talk About Male Circumcision - a post by Kate Bourne, the Vice President of International Policy & Regional Programs at IWHC, to learn more about what male circumcision means for women.

Ernest Gets a Spankin ........

J-FLAG seeks clarification from PM on maintenance of buggery law

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

J-FLAG seeks clarification from PM on maintenance of buggery law
Kingston --- March 5, 2009

The Jamaica Forum of Lesbians, All-sexuals and Gays is calling upon Prime Minister Bruce Golding to further clarify his recent statements about the maintenance of the law against buggery. We wish to know precisely what the Prime Minister means by buggery "in circumstances similar to rape or grievous assault" and what the implications of that are for consensual sex between men. We are also concerned about the tone of Mr. Golding's statement and note with amazement the Prime Minister's stance that the country's ‘Christian values’ should trump individual rights.

We wish to restate our problem with the buggery law as it applies to consenting adults. It is our belief that in a democracy, the definition of crime must relate to an act that creates a victim or victims. Consensual sex between men has no victims, which means that its criminalisation serves to protect no one. This makes men who engage in anal sex into un-apprehended criminals as well as creates a hurdle for those working in the fight against HIV. If, as Mr. Golding suggests, the maintenance of the provision is consistent with our values as a Christian society, he must explain why there are no laws to proscribe a number of other practices that Christians find offensive or sinful.

We maintain that as long as there are no laws against fornication or adultery, maintenance of a law against the sexual orientation neutral buggery is an act that targets gay men. In the absence of laws criminalising sexual and other sins, the anti-buggery prohibition is prejudicial, selective and discriminatory. We believe that Jamaica is a plural democracy and not a theocracy, and that the respect accorded to the views of a religious majority should in no way become the basis for discriminating against a minority.

It is therefore our view that the principle upon which the Prime Minister has argued for the maintenance of the provision against buggery is flawed. We believe that the primary concern of a Prime Minister should be with the protection of the innocent, not the criminalisation of sin.

~30~

Contact: Jason McFarlane
Tel: (876)754-8704
Email: admin@jflag.org

More on the Anti-Gay Seminar in Uganda

IGLHRC Update: More on the Anti-Gay Seminar in Uganda The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) and Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG) have learned new details about the ongoing 3-day anti-gay conference in Uganda featuring some of the most virulent homophobes from the U.S. religious right. Here are some developments from the first day, reported by our partners who attended the event: Prior to the start of today's workshop, Stephen Langa, leader of Family Life Network (the Ugandan organization hosting the workshop) and his American guest speakers met with several members of the Ugandan parliament.

During the morning session, Stephen Langa told the group that homosexuality is a big problem in Uganda and the existing laws that criminalize gay people are not good enough. He claimed that gay rights activists recruit young people into homosexuality. Langa told the audience that he knows 2 girls at a particular boarding school who were given a lot of money by gay activists in Uganda to recruit their colleagues into lesbianism. "By the end of the year, they had managed to recruit 13 friends, all of whom were given money to recruit others," Langa alleged.

Don Schmierer, a member of the board of the American "ex-gay" organization Exodus International told participants that one of the biggest causes of homosexuality is the lack of "good upbringing" in families. He said that 56% of homosexuals experience abuse and violence in their families during their childhood. The abuse leads to pain, anger and hatred in the life of a child and this turns them into homosexuals.IGLHRC and SMUG will continue to monitor the situation and will post new updates on our blog as more information becomes available. The workshop will end on Saturday, March 7. To read the full account of today's event, please visit IGLHRC's blog: iglhrc.org/blog You can also read IGLHRC and SMUG's joint press release about this conference on our website: http://www.iglhrc.org/cgi-bin/iowa/article/pressroom/pressrelease/868.html

Peter King trial - Judge walks out of court hearing

Senior Puisne Judge Marva McIntosh walked out of court yesterday after defence lawyer Berry Bryan began shouting and screaming at her.

Bryan's outbursts resulted in the judge later granting an early adjournment in the trial of 25-year-old Sheldon Pusey, who is charged with the murder of 64-year-old Ambassador Peter King.

Bryan was addressing the jury when he proceeded to mention to them certain rulings which the judge had made in the absence of the jury.

Prosecutor Caroline Hay objected to Bryan referring to the rulings in relation to tapes which were not in evidence and how the judge had ruled in relation to evidence to be given by a certain witness.

The judge told Berry he could not do that but Berry began shouting "I say it and I will say it again." He also accused the judge of supporting Hay in her objections.


Abrupt departure

The judge then walked out of court while Berry was still shouting and screaming. She returned to the bench a few minutes later and apologised to the jurors for her abrupt departure. She then adjourned the court.

When the trial resumes today, Berry will continue to address the jury. He began addressing the jury on Tuesday shortly after the defence closed its case. Berry, in his address to the jury, accused the prosecution of suppressing evidence, in particular two knives which Superintendent McArthur Sutherland said he got from King's house and took to the government forensic laboratory.

Pusey has been on trial in the Home Circuit Court since January 19.

The Crown is alleging that Pusey chopped and stabbed King at, his house at 11A Waterloo Road, St Andrew, between March 19 and 20, 2006.

Pusey said in his defence that he went to King about a job. He said King was forcing him to be intimate with him when he took a knife from a cup on a bedside table and stabbed King.

The Gleaner strikes again at Smith with this Editorial - 04.03.09

We apologise for focusing intently on the newspapers but the public domain has become "sensible" for want of a better word it seems, it is heartening to see the comments and level of discourse being waged.

In the absence of leadership
These days the name Ernest Smith is likely to conjure up an image of a character with a bulbous red nose, in baggy costume, riding a unicycle. Except that Mr Smith's statements from the privileged sanctuary of Parliament are deathly serious and potentially deadly.

It is unfortunate, therefore, that Mr Smith's political leader and Jamaica's prime minister, Bruce Golding, has not yet found the will to confront him on the dangers of his incitement or to show visionary leadership on the gay debate.

Mr Golding prefers to be populist and expedient rather than standing for large principles, notwithstanding his statement - some will claim less than vigorous - in defence of the right to exist of organisations that promote gay rights.

This newspaper insists that the sexual orientation of an individual is of no concern to anyone but that person and his or her consenting adult sexual partner. And it is certainly not the business of the State, particularly one that professes to be a liberal democracy that believes in the primacy of the right of the individual as long as that person's behaviour does not impinge on the rights of others. Nor do we expect the State to employ an army of voyeurs to peep into bedrooms to pronounce on sexual behaviour or orientation.

Rampant homophobia

In that context, it is not only archaic and silly, but an assault on human rights for Jamaica to maintain as a criminal offence the act of buggery, which is the basic expression of male homosexuality. The maintenance of this law helps to feed Jamaica's rampant homophobia as well as fuel this sense of moral rectitude on the part of those who, with a sense of impunity, commit violence against gay people. They do it because the State is, by and large, compliant.

We do not believe that shifting public attitude against homosexuality, especially among males, is without difficulty, or that insistence on their right to be gay is part of a larger principle that must be upheld. But no one ever said the leadership is easy, of which we remind Mr Golding who used to take high-minded positions.

Intellectual

We can assume Mr Smith, the legislator/lawyer who has vigorously called for the proscribing of the gay-rights organisation J-FLAG and the prosecution of its members, to be an intellectual luddite who has reached an evolutionary dead end. So, despite his invitation for a trampling of the Constitution, we might as well laugh - even if we know better and are aware of the danger. Hate can be a poisonous chalice, particularly for its victim.

There is small comfort in the fact that Mr Golding, the leader of all Jamaicans, disagrees with Mr Smith on the issue of proscription. But Mr Golding remains consumed by the crowd, incapable, or afraid, on this matter to reach for the greater ideals of leadership. So, thumpingly, he equates siding with rational argument in this debate with 'yield(ing) to the pressure' for the repeal of the buggery law.

Usually, though, it is easier to be populist. And perhaps more so in difficult economic times.

Golding Clarifies Statement on Buggery

The Prime Minister Bruce Golding has sought to clarify a statement he made in Parliament yesterday about the punishment of homosexuals.

In debating the proposed changes to the Offences Against the Person Act, Mr Golding said the crime of buggery, like rape would take on a penalty of life imprisonment on conviction.

But in a release this morning the Office of the Prime Minister sought to explain the statement.

It claimed that what the Prime Minister said was that where buggery is carried out in circumstances similar to rape or grievous assault, it would attract the same penalty, which will be life imprisonment or a term not less than 15 years.

During his contribution in the House last month, South West St Ann MP, Ernest Smith, charged that the punishment for buggery, which is a maximum of seven years, was not stiff enough and that homosexuals were abusive and violent.

He later called for the director of public prosecutions to instruct the police to charge members of the Jamaica Forum for Lesbians, All-Sexuals and Gays (J-FLAG) with conspiracy to corrupt public morals.

However, Mr. Golding has distanced himself from Mr. Smith’s comments on homosexuality and the right of J-FLAG to exist.

The prime minister was himself criticised by gay-rights advocates following his statement during a BBC television interview in which he said gays would not be allowed in his cabinet.

Amdist the PM's claims here is a letter to the Gleaner editor - Gay psychology and Jamaica's homophobia

The Editor, Sir:
As a heterosexual (straight) man, I have always wondered why would another straight man hate a gay when our interests do not conflict. I have heard some psychologists attribute the basis of homosexuality to heredity and the environment. In other words, a person can be born gay or nurtured into a gay environment and both attributes must be present for a person to 'become' totally gay.

According to these psychologists, one attribute without the other, and a person could lead a quasi-normal life. Essentially, this means that a half-gay person can, and do get married and bear children. Under the mentioned circumstances, the misery of these individuals can never be discounted in the ways that they live their lives. Because: (1) they don't make good fathers because, deep down, they never wanted children; (2) they make even worst husbands, as they tend to be physically and verbally abusive; (3) they are confused and hence run from women to women trying to find themselves; and (4) they just do not like women.

Self-hate

Here is where the rubber hits the road - homophobia is an expression of self-hate. Some Jamaicans harbour serious hate for gay men because they internalise homosexuality - they imagine themselves doing the acts to other men and vice versa. Hence, they tend to feel dirty and rotten by the thoughts thus, by beating and even killing overtly gay persons, they are killing that aspect (the other half) of themselves.

It's rather interesting to hear the main reason given in Jamaica for homophobia, "the Bible says it's wrong". Yet, the very same people who quote the Bible will admit that they and those around them are not without sins - yet they are not as loathed and hated.

Trapped in straight cocoon

That should tell you, that not following all the precepts of the Bible is not the basis of the hate and homophobic behaviour that exist in Jamaica.

Put the pieces together, people. The only person who should hate a gay person is one to whom a gay person has done wrong, or one who does not want to imagine that deep down he is himself gay or not sure. In other words, he is a gay man trapped in straight cocoon, and wanting to get out.

Have you ever wondered why is it that whenever social stigma laxes, more gay people come out of the 'closet'? It is because they have always been gay, and rearing to get out (no pun intended).

Jamaica, as a society, should let its homosexual citizens be free to exercise their liberties, or the repercussion could be far-reaching. What would you rather see gay people do, marry each other or marry our daughters? If they marry each other, that's the end of the story. If they marry our daughters, they could invariably make a whole lot more little gay girls and little gay boys, walking around in straight cocoon, waiting for liberation.

As Jamaicans, let's ask ourselves, which scenario do we like best?

I am, etc.,

Everton Eastwood

everton.eastwood@bge.com

Maryland, USA

PM Bruce Golding says JLP won't liberalize buggery law (double headlines)

PM says country won't be forced to decriminalise buggery

BY ALICIA DUNKLEY Observer staff reporter dunkleya@jamaicaobserver.com

Wednesday, March 04, 2009

PRIME Minister Bruce Golding was adamant yesterday that his Government would in no way bow to pressure from individual organisations, individuals, foreign governments or groups of countries to give a free rein to buggery.

Speaking in the House of Representatives while tabling additional amendments to the proposed Sexual Offences Bill now being debated by the House, Golding made it clear that he "will never support acts or threats of violence or intimidation in any shape or form against persons because of their sexual preferences and lifestyle". However, he also said that the Government would never give legal endorsement to such practices.

"We will never start peeping in anybody's bedroom to see what they are doing in privacy... but what we are not going to do is give official or legislative endorsement that holds that up and says this is a perfectly acceptable way to live," the prime minister said. "This Government is not going to do it."

"We are not going to yield to the pressure, whether that pressure comes from individual organisations, individuals, foreign governments or groups of countries to liberalise the laws as it relates to buggery," Golding said, noting that his Government has been "harshly criticised" by gay rights groups for its stance on homosexuality.

That criticism increased last year when Golding told a BBC interviewer in London that he would not allow homosexuals in his Cabinet.

Said Golding yesterday: "I have said before that every society is shaped and defined by certain moral standards... if we start to yield, if we start to liberalise in a direction that strong, organised lobby insists that we should, then where do you draw the line?"

The prime minister, however, distanced his administration from comments made recently by South West St Ann Member of Parliament (MP) Ernest Smith, intimating that homosexuals were violent and should not be allowed to form advocacy groups.

"I speak for the Government," he said. "I disagree with the comment he made about the right of persons who advocate for the liberalisation of laws to allow persons the right of choice in their sexual practices."

Golding said gay rights groups such as J-Flag had a right to exist and articulate their views based on the Constitution of Jamaica, a right enjoyed by all citizens of the country.

He further said any act of violence committed against such persons because of their sexual preferences must be pursued, investigated, prosecuted, and dealt with, with the same force and zealousness as any other crime.

Acts of buggery are punishable in Jamaica with up to 10 years in jail at hard labour.

Since the debate on the proposed Sexual Offence Bill there have been concerns over the disparity in the treatment of rape as against that for buggery with suggestions that the new Bill should also include provisions to allow the penalty for the offence of buggery to be as stringent as that for rape and other grievous sexual offences. Under the law, statutory rape and rape carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

Golding yesterday said it has been agreed to make separate provision in the Sexual Offences Act to deal with the treatment of buggery.

Debate on the Sexual Offences Act 2008, which seeks to bring together all laws dealing with rape, incest and other sex crimes, began in the House of Representatives on January 27 this year, and is expected to continue during the next meeting of the House.


see also this Gleaner article:
Buggery laws firm - Prime Minister of Jamaica says life sentences for sex-offence breaches

Another side to Homophobic Attacks

Almost a year ago the photographed injuries were inflicted on a bisexual woman who resided in an inner city community after she was seen by another woman who lives in her area at a lesbian get together. Funny, as the woman apparently was not afraid to expose the injured victim in her community forcing her to be embarrassed and having to leave her home.

She tried to report the incident of abuse to the nearby police station but was advised by the curious officers to just leave the area and avoid any more trouble. The police in this scenario did not want to be seen as if they were taking up for a "Lesbian?"

She suffered three stab wounds to her right upper arm which have healed with keloid skin and several bruises which are somewhat visible to her back and legs as five men tried to beat her. She is a strong woman physically so they had a hard time restraining her or else the results may have been worse she told us yesterday our office - 02.03.09. She finally got the nerve to speak about the incident at the insistence of a male friend as she is still in fear since she has to do business in downtown Kingston. She fears she will be seen and pointed out again.

The point of it all is, where are we safe as gays? this woman who allegedly informed that the victim was a lesbian, what was she doing at a lesbian event in the first place?

Most LGBT events are carefully planned and invitations are usually sent out based on a "I know you" basis, this same "informant" we might add was seen dancing erotically with other women during the party and clearly having a good time which raise several questions:

1. Could it be she was afraid of being exposed by the victim so she made the first move by exposing her?


2. Was she straight and merely pretending to enjoy herself so as to observe the other woman's actions?


3. Is it that she innocently told someone who in turn told someone else hence the grapevine phenom which led to the homohobic attack by 5 men in the area?


4. Was it jealousy as we have seen in another case where a woman called a mob on another woman in a bid to "Teach her a lesson?" as the victim was dating an ex of hers.
   

Hard questions to answer by our visitor who pondered when quizzed.

The use of homophobic strategies to solve issues between LGBT persons is not that common here but there have been reports before hence our detailed questioning session(s) with clients or visitors who access our services so as to ascertain the origins of such attacks. There are instances of these scenarios getting very ugly as genuinely homophobic persons get enraged and are incited to harm persons by mere allegations that they are gay.

A Volunteer

Beenie Man's ”Battyman Fi Dead” 2006 Lyrics

All batty man fi dead! [All gays must be killed!
From you fuck batty den a coppa and lead
If you fuck ass, then you get copper and lead [bullets]
Nuh man nuh fi have a another man in a him bed
No man must have another man in his bed

Ya
Wha u nuh fi do, fuck bottom
Wha u nuh fi do, suck pum pum
Wha u nuh fi do, fuck bottom
Wha u nuh fi do, suck pum pum
Wha u nuh fi do, fuck bottom
Wha u nuh fi do, suck pum pum
wha u nuh fi do, fuck bottom

Chorus
From u fuck well a copper an lead
nuh man nuh fi have aneda man inna him bed
naaaa aaaaaa, battyman fi dead (shot up dem bloodclaat)
Tell dem aready, mi nah go tell dem again
from u suck pussy u are not my friend
naaaa aaaaaa, bowcat fi dead (smaddy pass mi lass)
Anyway
Verse 1
long time di battyman ting get fi cut out
all fish get gut out
Tink say a lie?
all dem eye we a cut out
How di man ting drop in?
an woman a get shut out
pop out mi glock an dem forhead we butt out
some gyal a lesbian, have nex gyal a suck out
u have some nasty boy have man tongue a suck out
u nuh nasty bloodclaat fi have a nex man a fuck out
battyboy head fi get pluk out

Chorus

Verse 2
pum pum fi get tear out, some man a tun queer
pum pum roun a front , wha u doin at di rear
u inna reverse my ute change yuh gear
gyal say she want cocky u a tell her u scare
some man a tun pussy inna bulla an pear
can cook panty meat(?) caw yuh teet full a hair
some man a use dem hood cotch man like a chair
fi battyboy mi have some chat from Ziare

Chorus

Eeh, if a Bob Marley tell dem say emancipate yuhself from mental slavery
a pare bumboclaat battyman dung a emancipation park
but mi nuh know a wha a gwaan a bloodclaat Jamaica u nuh
but my yute mi can tell u one bloodclaat ting

Verse 3
Serious my youth mi nah laugh
a mi glack a mek a walk a emancipation park
mi hear say battyboy down deh a tek photograph
an some head fi chop off an some life fi lock off
mi ago see if dem nah run when mi gun start bark
nuh pussy cyaa laugh when bad man a talk
unu push up unu head like some rassclaat girrafe
bus it inna two like moses staff
pick an stick a bare blood man a cough
Ya

Chorus
.

UK MPs and celebs back petition on gay asylum seekers

by Tony Grew of Pink News

More than 4,000 people have signed a petition on the Downing St website calling for an end to gay deportations.

It asks the Prime Minister to stop deporting gays and lesbians to countries where they may be imprisoned, tortured or executed because of their sexuality.

Among the signatories are actors Simon Callow and Cathy Tyson, playwright Jonathan Harvey, Labour MP Celia Barlow, Lib Dems Lorely Burt and Tom Brake and former Labour minister Stephen Twigg.

The deadline for signatures March 7th.

Green MEPs Jean Lambert and Caroline Lucas, Conservative MEP John Bowis, Labour MEPs Eluned Morgan, Claude Moraes and Glenys Kinnock and LibDem MPs Lynne Featherstone and Jo Swinson have also signed up.

The petition was initiated by the Reverend Walter Attwood.

"Given that the numbers of cases are so small and the situations which people are fleeing from so well documented, their stance is completely untenable," said gay asylum activist Paul Canning.

"It is also well-documented that homophobia exists in the Home Office so we simply do not believe their position that these cases are given 'due and fair consideration.'

"The Canadian Immigration Minister has just announced that he will consider using the services of lesbian and gay immigration groups to help bring genuine asylum seekers from Iran to his country.

"We believe that the Home Office should consider doing the same here.

"These groups are best positioned to weed out the genuine cases - those people who should be welcomed here as their cases are formally assessed.

"For the government to do otherwise would, we believe, highlight its hypocrisy when it comes to the situation of lesbians and gays overseas.

"We believe that the British people do not support the policies and actions of the Home Office.

"We believe that they recognise lesbians and gays fleeing regimes such as Iran as genuine asylum seekers of the sort this country has historically made welcome here.

"Please urge everyone you know to sign the petition so as many people as possible can send this message to Gordon Brown."

Lin Homer, chief executive of the Borders and Immigration Agency (BIA), has caused a furore amongst human rights groups last year when she said that judges should consider the "practical consequences" of sending gay asylum seekers back to their country of origin, and not that country’s social or legal views on homosexuality.

Ms Homer said that bans or conservative views on homosexuality in asylum seekers’ home countries are not reason enough to allow them to stay in Britain.

"What the court takes into account is the practical consequences for the individuals concerned," she said.

"The simple presence of either a law or a culture that frowns upon homosexuality is not of itself a reason [to grant asylum].

"I think these decisions are made carefully and thoughtfully."

Ms Homer insisted that the information used by the BIA when deciding whether to deport gay asylum seekers is thorough and accurate.

Last month the European Commission affirmed that persecution on grounds of sexual orientation is a legitimate justification for an asylum claim.

The question was prompted by an initial rejection in Cyprus of a claim by a gay Iranian asylum seeker, a rejection which was later overturned and the claim granted.

The Commission has confirmed that there is "an obligation on Member States to grant refugee status to persons who…. are found to have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of membership of a particular social group, including a group based on a common characteristic of sexual orientation."

Oh no, Mr Smith! - more letters to editor

Dear Editor,

Usually crassness and bigotry are qualities to be shunned, or at least hidden. Not so with Ernest Smith who appears to make even more of a virtue of these qualities than already prevails in Jamaica. Ernest Smith, an attorney and member of parliament, has taken these qualities to stratospheric levels with his hysterical rants about outlawing J-Flag, depriving gays of gun licences, and claims about homosexuality run amok in the Jamaican police force.

Not too long ago, Mr Smith enthusiastically promoted virginity tests for high school girls as a condition for readmission at the start of a school year.

In democracies that are governed by reason, one could comfortably dismiss Mr Smith's ravings as simply nothing more than harmless fantasies. Not so in Jamaica, given Mr Smith's prominence in a country that is, for the most part, virulently and proudly homophobic. In this respect, Prime Minister Golding himself proclaimed gays to be unfit for inclusion in his Cabinet, and his government has seen fit to ban school books that make references to gay family units. At the behest of Jamaica's religious right, both political parties have allowed themselves to be corralled into abandoning a proposed gender-neutral definition of rape for fear that this would facilitate decriminalisation of buggery. It is instructive that neither political party has denounced Mr Smith in unambiguous terms. The same appears to be true of the legal profession of which Mr Smith is a member.

The democracy called Jamaica remains wedded to a culture that is largely bereft of critical thinking, much less justice for all its citizens. In this context, Mr Smith has not only a public platform but a cultural licence to exhibit and indeed to infect further the body politic with his particular strain of ignorance, stupidity and bigotry. For most of Jamaica's citizens this might warrant little more than a verandah chat; for others, unfortunately, it might mean the difference between life and death.


O Hilaire Sobers
ohilaire@yahoo.com

Tolerance or acquiescence?

Anthony Gomes wrote this hypocritical dance between the rain drops piece.

Grandstanding and shouting into microphones are major parts of a politician's "tool box". And so it was with Mr Ernest Smith, JLP MP for South West St Ann, who delivered his impassioned intervention regarding homosexuals.

Apart from the forthright character of some remarks, he was doing what is expected of every MP, that is, to express his views on an issue of grave concern to the majority of Jamaicans. His apology to the Jamaican Constabulary Force for his disparaging remarks was timely and appropriate.

On examination, however, his positive direction was that numerous deviant pressure groups are attempting to infiltrate Jamaica's culture by asserting their lifestyles as normal practice. Besides homosexuals, these groups also include the pro-abortionists, the ganja lobby, the polygamists and polyandrous protagonists, the believers in euthanasia, the supporters of drug decriminalisation and those lobbying to legalise prostitution.

This is currently happening in parallel with the media concerning lewd and sexually explicit public expression, which has developed unfettered over the years until it has reached critical and culturally damaging proportions with the release of Rampin Shop. Only then did the authorities, through the Broadcasting Commission, take action. By then in the words of a prominent Jamaican: "Di snake out a di box, an you cyaan put it back" - that is, without strong resolution!

Smith said: "They (J-FLAG) should be outlawed. How can you legitimise an organisation that is formed for the purpose of committing criminal offences?" In response, J-FLAG referred to Section 23 (1) of the Jamaican Constitution that they claim legitimises their existence. But can the constitution be relied upon if their activities are illegitimate?

As the sodomy law is still in effect, it would appear that Smith's statement is not without foundation and any government that considers repealing that act would be committing political suicide. Prostitution that includes male prostitutes also remains illegal.

Smith maintained that: "Democracy, with all its freedoms, is not a licence for people to encourage criminality or otherwise conspire to corrupt public morals." The key issue is the corruption of public morals. As a Christian nation we must therefore consider the Christian teaching as exemplified by the world's largest Christian religion, Roman Catholicism.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church article 2357 in part states: "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered'. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life". Further, in reference to homosexuals, article 2358 states: "They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." The Catholic Church, however, opposes gay marriage. It teaches that while homosexuality is not sinful, homosexual acts are, and the sin should be condemned, but not the sinner.

In a recent speech on protecting the environment, Pope Benedict XVI warned that gender theory blurred the distinction between male and female and could thus lead to "self-destruction" of the human race. "Saving humanity from homosexual and transsexual behaviour is just as important as saving the rain forest from destruction. Rain forests deserve, yes, our protection, but the human being does not deserve less."

The Declaration on Human Rights and Sexual Orientation tabled in the United Nations in December last year, as reported by attorney at law Shirley Richards, sought to expand the existing human rights concept to include "sexual orientation". The Declaration was not supported by Jamaica. Simultaneously, a contrary proposal stated that the Declaration was an "attempt to introduce to the UN, notions that have no legal foundation in any human rights instrument". There appears to be no UN consensus on including sexual orientation and gender identity as human rights. "Obviously, the power brokers at the UN are hell-bent on imposing a new version of human rights on the rest of the unwilling world. It is an attempt to assert the moral equivalence of all forms of sexual preferences and to harm moral and sound discernment, all in the name of 'human rights'."

The clamour for "tolerance" when considering the pressure groups' postures is approximately analogous with a call for "acquiescence". Historically, the world is aware of the dangers of "acquiescence" as demonstrated in 1939 by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain on his return to London, touting a non-aggression pact signed with Adolph Hitler that launched WWII, but not worth the paper on which it was written.

Mr Smith's delivery of his message was unfortunately abrasive, insensitive and overzealous. His point, however, deserves serious recognition, particularly with regard to the potential for lifestyle deviation of Jamaican youth. The difficulties being experienced with the media which necessitated prime ministerial intervention should be a caution as to a laissez-faire approach when "the writing is already on the wall".

Reading on Opportunistic Infections (OIs)

Listed below are lessons about each of the major Opportunistic Infections (OIs) & cancers that can occur during late-stage HIV disease, along with possible treatments:

AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome) is a condition caused by a virus called HIV. This virus attacks the immune system, the body's "security force" that fights off infections. When the immune system breaks down, you lose this protection and can develop many serious, often deadly infections and cancers. These are called "opportunistic infections" (OIs) because they take advantage of the body's weakened defenses. You have heard it said that someone "died of AIDS." This is not entirely accurate, since it is the opportunistic infections that cause death. AIDS is the condition that lets them take hold.

Bacterial Infections
Bacterial Diarrhea (Salmonellosis, Campylobacteriosis, Shigellosis)
Bacterial Pneumonia
Mycobacterium Avium Complex (MAC)
Mycobacterium Kansasii
Syphilis & Neurosyphilis
Tuberculosis (TB)

Malignancies (Cancers)
Anal Dysplasia/Cancer
Cervical Dysplasia/Cancer
Kaposi's Sarcoma (KS)
Lymphomas

Viral Infections
Cytomegalovirus (CMV)
Hepatitis C
Herpes Simplex Virus (oral & genital herpes)
Herpes Zoster Virus (shingles)
Human Papilloma Virus (HPV, genital warts, anal/cervical dysplasia/cancer)
Molluscum Contagiosum
Oral Hairy Leukoplakia (OHL)
Progressive Multifocal Leukoencephalopathy (PML)

Fungal Infections
Aspergillosis
Candidiasis (thrush, yeast infection)
Coccidioidomycosis
Cryptococcal Meningitis
Histoplasmosis

Protozoal Infections
Cryptosporidiosis
Isosporiasis
Microsporidiosis
Pneumocystis Pneumonia (PCP)
Toxoplasmosis

Neurological Conditions
AIDS Dementia Complex (ADC)
Peripheral Neuropathy

Other Conditions and Complications
Aphthous Ulcers (Canker Sores)
Thrombocytopenia (low platelets)
Wasting Syndrome

Another Gleaner Editorial - No accountability for MP Smith

Just a word - It is refreshing to see a balanced approach to the comments being made in regards to MP Smith's error in Parliament recently. The newspapers as you may have noticed have been awashed with commentry, here is another one in today's Gleaner Editorial - 23.02.09


Garth Rattray

It wasn't until my wife exclaimed, "What!?" from an adjoining room that I began to believe my ears and eyes. A parliamentarian, a lawyer, a representative of the people and sworn defender of their rights was spouting some of the most uninformed, prejudiced, malicious and inciting drivel I have ever heard.

How can we criticise our ignorant and uneducated deejays who say that 'Gays fi dead' when, during a parliamentary debate on the sexual offences legislation, Ernie Smith, a highly-educated Member of Parliament (MP), openly asserted that gays were brazen, abusive and violent? He announced that he wanted the minister of national security to explain why so many of them were holders of legal firearms! He even advocated that homosexuals should be sentenced to life behind bars if they had coitus.

I began contemplating what triggered his inaccurate and hate-filled outburst when, he became intoxicated by his own magnificence and proceeded to allude to a newspaper intimation about the profligacy of homosexuality within the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) that went unchallenged. I was flabbergasted when he animatedly proclaimed that the Force was overrun by gays. His pontificating was obviously facilitated by his knowledge of parliamentary privilege (legal immunity from civil or criminal liability for actions done or statements made related to one's duties in the legislature). Unfortunately, he conveniently forgot that with this privilege comes great responsibility.

Why this disproportionate preoccupation with homosexuals anyway? Are they the root cause of our many serious and pressing economic and social problems? Will banishing them from society solve our woes? How come we don't see this level of passionate anger being unleashed on murderous criminals? Rich and powerful people take all kinds of advantage (including sexual) of their underlings, destroy lives and get away with it all the time. Where's the rant about that?

Deleterious consequences

Reckless, unfounded, unfair, inflam-matory and untrue statements from respected people (who should know better) do irreparable harm and have serious, deleterious consequences. The MP eventually apologised for some of the things that he said, but the damage was already done. Thanks to him, people will feel justified in persecuting gays and criminals now have one more reason to hate the police.

What does it say about Jamaica, when a member of our honourable house of Parliament feels free to lambaste, single out and attack a non-criminal sub-set of society and label its members as violent people - effectively painting bull's eyes on their backs? What does it tell the world about us when a parliamentarian can unfairly target, malign and endanger the entire constabulary?

Although we can't fathom the determinants of human sexual orientation, as a society, we should not prejudge others. Decrying the MP's actions has nothing to do with defending homosexuality; it has everything to do with defending the human rights of all our citizens. It wrongly portrays our entire nation as backward and insular when a public official, a member of Parliament can openly and unabashedly demonstrate intolerable prejudice and commit an egregious betrayal of trust.

He should resign

I have absolutely nothing personal against Smith, but, nearly two weeks after the fact, I am curious about the paucity of official responses to his defamatory eruption. However, what surprises me most of all is that this administration simply distanced itself from his tirade and did not condemn it. And, he has been allowed to continue serving in a public office as a representative of the people without any consequences of his actions. In any other civilised democratic society, he would have had to offer his resignation.

Garth A. Rattray is a medical doctor with a family practice. He may be reached at garthrattray@gmail.com or columns@gleanerjm.com.

Gleaner Editorial - Credit to the PNP in the face of Mr Smith's stupidity

IT IS not often that Jamaican political parties stand in defence of a larger principle at the expense of the immediately expedient. When the parties confront the dilemma of such choices, their preferred option, usually, is to remain quiet.

So, last week's break from the norm by the Opposition People's National Party (PNP) was not only right, but a refreshingly rare display of courage. It brought into sharp focus the woeful cowardice on the part of the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) and a crass permissiveness by its leader, Prime Minister Bruce Golding, in the Ernest Smith affair.

Homosexuality, and particularly the male version thereof, is highly offensive behaviour in Jamaica's popular culture. At least, that is the perceived wisdom, given the violence that is sometimes perpetrated against gay people, for no other reason than that they are what they are.

Mustering political popularity

Being anti-homosexual is an easy way, therefore, to muster political popularity, demanding no depth of thought or engagement of ideas, but only an incitement to hate. Which is precisely what we believe was exemplified by Mr Smith, the JLP member of parliament for South West St Ann when, in our view, he abused the privilege of the House of Representatives, with his recent anti-gay diatribe.

In this cheap shot at popularity, Mr Smith claimed gays to be abusive or violent and questioned their right, as against other citizens, to hold firearms and to form organisations. The ridiculous Mr Smith even suggested that the Jamaica Constabulary Force was overrun by gays and suggested that the institution was thereby contaminated. He, subsequently, offered a tepid apology to the police that did nothing to alter a parliamentary intervention that was intellectually vacuous.

But Mr Smith's nonsense, it appears, has no bounds. Last week, in a total absence of shame, Mr Smith, whose day job is as an attorney-at-law, proposed the banning of the gay-rights lobby organisation Jamaica Forum for Lesbians, All-sexuals and Gays, J-FLAG, which would clearly be in contravention of Section 23 (1) of the Constitution that affords all citizens the right of "freedom of peaceful assembly and association" and to "associate with other persons and, in particular, to form or belong to trade unions or other associations for the protection of their interests".

Move to incite hate and violence

Thankfully, even as it recognised the cultural aversion in Jamaica to homosexuality, the PNP acknowledged the potential of Mr Smith's gratuitous remarks to incite hate and violence and urged political leaders to refrain from an excess of language. "The physical safety and broader human rights of these citizens should not be undermined by gratuitous grandstanding on this issue," the Opposition party said.

The PNP declared itself "committed to the principle of freedom of association that is enshrined in Jamaica's Constitution".

No room for selective application

We welcome the PNP's declaration because, in a democracy, it is not permissible for there to be a selective application of rights and freedoms. Its silence in the face of an outburst of diatribe from one of its legislators suggests that the JLP apparently does not have a view of that matter.

But what is more worrying to us is the silence of Prime Minister Golding, who, whatever his private views, has a public responsibility for the security and safety of all Jamaicans, which, we feel, was threatened by Mr Smith's display of stupidity.

More Letters, More Views, good stuff for analysis

Is MP Smith 'wallowing' in ignorance?

Dear Editor,
We should support tolerance, not hate! I am appalled whenever I read some of the articles published in the Jamaican media at how the word 'homosexuality' seems to send some people in a fit of endless rage.

One of your readers, Stewart Young, had his comments published in both major papers, which were triggered by the recent anti-gay comments made in Parliament by the MP for South West St Ann, Ernest Smith. Mr Young ironically lives in a first-world country (USA), where the cornerstone of democracy is based on human rights. Why enjoy all this and then turn around to denounce the rights of others in Jamaica?

Why would anyone consume themselves in such hate/anger when life has so much more to offer? Is it because of insecurity, or is it a lack of a more informed view? I would advise Mr Young to seriously reflect on his arguments, as there are good persons as well as bad persons in every race, from every background with varying sexual preferences! For every rich (gay) man there is 'luring' boys with their wealth, you can bet there are 10 times more rich (straight) men luring girls!

As for MP Smith, I've never heard such ignorance reported in Jamaican papers in a very long time. Sometimes it's best to remain quiet, if one has nothing of substance to contribute. Mr Smith apparently dislikes gays, which is fine as that's his personal choice, but why did he need to take this to Parliament? Does the MP even realise that these were the same type of arguments that sanctioned slavery against a race?

One would assume that for the most part our elected officials are educated, yet no one dared to challenge MP Smith. It's a sad day for Jamaica when MPs like Mr Smith are allowed to 'wallow' in this type of ignorance!

In other countries the MP would've had to resign. I firmly believe that the development of any country must start with the development of the mind. When one equates a person's sexuality with domestic violence, other crimes or even the right to hold a licensed firearm, it is downright ignorant and narrow minded. Such is the human mind, overly steeped in bigotry.

P Delisser
pdelisser1988@yahoo.com

Another Letter: Nembhard's column
Dear Editor, This is an open letter to the Rev Dr Raulston Nembhard regarding his column of February 19, "Ernest Smith's dangerous homosexual diatribe".

As a man of the cloth, you should be backing Mr Smith, not castigating him. What has come over you? The Good Book says homosexuals should be put to death. Are you therefore condemning the Bible? Speak up and let us understand where you are
coming from.

We certainly did not expect such an article from a man of God. Very disappointing. I am also disappointed in the Observer for carrying such an anti-Christian and anti-Ernie Smith's column.

Roy Wilson
Roy.Wilson@ajasja.com

Ignorance, stupidity, bigotry

The court of public opinion is abuzz with comments and opinions since MP Smith's outburst in parliament here is another view from an eminent legal mind Mr. Hilaire Sobers in a letter to the Gleaner's editor.


The Editor, Sir:
Usually crassness, bigotry and stupidity are qualities to be shunned, or at least hidden. Not so with Ernest Smith, who appears to make even more of a virtue of these qualities than already prevails in Jamaica. Ernest Smith, an attorney and member of parliament, has taken these qualities to stratospheric levels with his hysterical rants about outlawing J-FLAG, depriving gays of gun licences, and claims about homosexuality run amok in the Jamaican police force. Not too long ago, Smith enthusiastically promoted virginity tests for high-school girls as a condition for readmission at the start of a school year.

In democracies that are governed by reason, one could comfortably dismiss Smith's recent ravings as simply nothing more than the harmless fantasies of a lunatic fringe.

Unfit for his cabinet

Not so in Jamaica, given Smith's prominence in a country that is, for the most part, virulently and proudly homophobic. In this respect, Prime Minister Golding himself proclaimed gays to be unfit for inclusion in his cabinet, and his government has seen fit to ban school- books that make references to gay family units. At the behest of Jamaica's religious right, both political parties have allowed themselves to be corralled into abandoning a proposed gender-neutral definition of rape for fear that this would facilitate the decriminalisation of buggery.

It is instructive that neither poli- tical party has denounced Smith in unambiguous terms. The same appears to be true of the legal profession of which Smith is a member.

The democracy called Jamaica remains wedded to a culture that is largely bereft of critical thinking, much less justice for all its citizens. In this context, Smith has not only a public platform, but a cultural licence to exhibit and indeed, to further infect the body politic with his particular strain of ignorance, stupidity and bigotry. For most of Jamaica's citizens, this might warrant little more than a verandah chat; for others, unfortunately, it might mean the difference between life and death.

I am, etc.,

O. HILAIRE SOBERS

ohilaire@yahoo.com

Peter King's accused murderer says he is not a homosexual

"Not a homosexual"

25-year-old Sheldon Pusey, who has been on trial since January 19 in the Home Circuit Court said in his defence last week that he went to King's house on March 19, 2006. King was forcing him to be intimate with him when he took a knife from a cup on a bedside table and stabbed him. Pusey said he was not a homosexual.

Dr Marc White, who was being examined yesterday by defence lawyer Berry Bryan, said that he could not recall whether it was in 2006 or 2007 that he examined Pusey at the Half Way Tree police Station lock-up. He said the purpose of his examination was to look for signs or any evidence of anal penetration. He said the perirectal (area near the rectum) area showed no signs of scarring or any signs of bruising .

He said at the time of his examination there were no signs of recent anal penetration and there were no scars or bruises. He said the anus was not a natural orifice for sexual contact and, therefore,, any forced penetration of the anus would leave either scarring or bruising.

"If a person engages in anal sex and was lubricated would you expect to see bruising?" prosecutor Caroline Hay asked the doctor during cross-examination.

"That is not a yes or no answer," the doctor replied.

He explained that the area had to be relaxed to allow penetration, and if the area was not relaxed then several attempts would have to be made for penetration to take place. He said medically it was impossible to tell that someone was not homosexual because that was a state of mind. "You cannot tell if someone is gay or not, " the doctor added.

Another round with "Tell Me Pastor"

here is a letter in today's STAR 19.02.09 and the usual response, bible quotes and hostility, I would avoid his church at all costs. - JR

Crying ga(y)me
The Letter
Dear Pastor,
Nothing is wrong with making love to someone of the same sex, and moreover, you don't have any control over who you fall in love with. So, pastor, I don't see any sense in you recommending persons who are gay or bisexual to seek counselling. I am a Christian because I believe in Christ. I believe that Christ wants me to be honest with myself and fall in love with who I want to. I have a real problem when Christians misuse of the Bible.

Pastor, you should be commending gay persons for their honesty because I know of several married men who are dating guys. They are the ones you need to counsel. They need to be told to be truthful to themselves and to the women they are fooling.

I don't have any problem being gay; I have a problem with those persons who are condemning gays yet they are secretly doing the same thing.

W.S., Toronto, Canada

The response
Dear W.S.,
Evidently you are reacting to something I have written in response to a letter someone wrote to me about homosexuality. In fact, you are probably upset because I do not support nor sanction homosexuality in any form. Nevertheless, no one can truthfully say or prove that I have condemned people who are homosexuals. I don't condemn anybody. That is not my job and it is not my approach in counselling. There are those, however, who believe that because I quote the Scriptures to prove that homosexuality is wrong, that I am condemning those who practise that form of lifestyle.

I make no apology for saying that it is abominable and immoral for a man to make love to another man; it is also abominable for two women to make love to each other. You don't think so and that is your position. You can say what you want to say and do what you want to do, but you cannot prove that I am not speaking the truth when I say that homosexual behaviour is condemned by Almighty God. And the majority of the people who have written to me do so because they feel convicted and are seeking help.


Spiritual deliverance

There are some people who, indeed, misuse the Bible, but I can assure you that on this matter of homosexuality, if any Christian says that it is wrong, he or she is, indeed, standing on the authority of God. Nowhere in the Bible is homosexuality accepted, encouraged or sanctioned. There is not even one verse that anyone can show or quote from the Bible in which Almighty God or any one of His disciples sanctioned this sort of lifestyle.

Anyone who condemns homosexuality but secretly practises it will be judged by God, whether that person is a Christian or a non-Christian. You are very angry. You are looking for an excuse for the life you live. It is my duty to pray for you and to ask God to cause you to experience a spiritual deliverance. If you were to experience the mighty working of the Holy Spirit in your life, you would come to realise that your lifestyle is not good and what you are doing is contrary to nature. And God says when anyone refuses to do what is right, and to believe in Him, He gives up that person to a reprobate mind.

Let me put it straight to you; these words are from the Bible: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections (degrading passions), for even their women did change the natural use into which is against nature: And likewise, also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burnt in their lust one toward another; men with men, working that which is unseemly and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet." (Romans 1: 26-27).

I am not condemning, I am only quoting the Bible. And I believe the Bible.

Pastor

Not so, Mr Young, Mr Smith

Letter to the Editor 19.02.09

Dear Editor,
Support tolerance, not hate! It is almost insane to read some of the articles published in the Jamaican media, where the word "homosexuality" seems to send some people into a fit of endless rage. Your reader, Stewart Young, published his comments in both major papers, triggered by the recent anti-gay comments made in Parliament by MP for SW St Ann, Ernest Smith.

Mr Young, ironically, lives in a First-World country (USA), where the cornerstone of democracy is based on human rights. Why enjoy all this, and then turn around and denounce the rights of others in Jamaica? Why would anyone consume themselves in such hate and anger, when life has so much more to offer? Is it just insecurity, or more so a lack of proper education?

I advise Mr Young to reflect seriously on his arguments. There are good and bad people in every race, every background, even sexuality! For every rich (gay) man "luring" boys with their wealth, you bet there are ten times more rich (straight) men luring girls!

As for MP Smith, I've never heard such ignorance reported in Jamaican papers in a very long time. Sometimes it's best to remain quiet, if one has nothing of substance to contribute. OK, so you dislike gays, fine, that's your personal choice, but why would you take this to Parliament? Does the MP even realise that these were the same type of arguments that sanctioned slavery against a race?

One would assume that for the most part elected officials are educated, yet no one dared to challenge Mr Smith. It's a sad day for Jamaica when MPs like Mr Smith are allowed to "wallow' in this type of ignorance! In other countries the MP would've had to resign. I firmly believe that the development of any country must start with the development of the mind.

History has shown that intolerance and hate feed into crime, resulting into fewer opportunites for development. When one can equate one's sexuality with domestic violence, other crimes or even the right to hold a licensed firearm, I have to say this is beyond bizarre. It is downright ignorant, and narrow-minded. Such is the typical mind, steeped in bigotry and hate!

P Delisser
pdelisser1988@yahoo.com

• Meanwhile here is the Gleaner article on the PNP's statement on MP Smith's comments


• PNP lashes Ernie Smith on stance against gays

Another Condemnation on MP Smith's Comments

Raulston Nembhard

To be a member of parliament and thus an elected official is not a position to be trivialised or taken for granted. It is a privilege that carries serious responsibilities by the one so elected. Election to the JamaicanParliament carries no less a responsibility for those who are privileged to make far-reaching decisions that will affect the lives of all Jamaicans.

It is in this regard that the recent diatribe against the homosexual community by Mr Ernest Smith, the MP for South West St Ann, is to be seen. Mr Smith is not a newcomer to Parliament, and even if he were a newcomer his rant against that community would be hardly forgivable. By his own words, Mr Smith expressed alarm at the growing influence of that community, their legitimacy to hold firearms and that the Jamaica Constabulary Force, from what he saw in a newspaper, is "overrun" by homosexuals.

As a lawyer, Mr Smith knows that these views so irresponsibly stated with reckless disregard for the facts, could not be spoken outside of the protective confines of Parliament. As a lawyer, he should have more than a visceral concern for truth and not allow his professional ethics to be sullied by what appear to be statements that he obviously has not investigated and on whose authority truth is emasculated.

He knows that the privilege he enjoys as a parliamentarian can allow him and others to speak all kinds of foolishness without any fear of being hauled before the courts. Indeed, the Parliament of Jamaica has been used and abused by parliamentarians to vent their personal hatred and impugn the reputation of individuals and institutions with which they have a personal peeve. Parliament is no longer seen as a medium for intelligent discourse about the nation's business.

What should be robust and vigorous debate often descends into juvenile heckling and infantile bluster. It has become a place of entertainment, but the laugh really is on the people of Jamaica.

In a homophobic society as Jamaica, Mr Smith's rant can serve to reinforce the hatred that many Jamaicans express toward this community. In fact, in some jurisdictions, his rant would be interpreted as hate speech punishable by law. But then again, Mr Smith knows that his statements in Parliament are protected by parliamentary privilege. It is time that this policy is re-examined, for no one should easily sully the reputation of any individual or institution in Jamaica and not face prosecution by the laws of the land.

Whatever one may think of homosexuals (and let me fairly disclose that I am not one and have never had any inclinations to be one), the rights of a Jamaican citizen to bear firearms, to freely assemble and form organisations should not be predicated on his or her sexual preferences.

The ability to protect oneself and property is a constitutional guarantee that should be open to any Jamaican, however "straight" or "bent" he or she may be. On sober reflection, Mr Smith may want to reconsider his position. He has given a lame apology to the police force for obvious reasons. He must now go on and do the decent thing and apologise to the homosexual community and the people of Jamaica, not only for the content of his speech but also for lowering the barof intelligent debate in the people's Parliament. But who is holding his breath on this?

CONTINUE: Public sector wage bill