Plea-bargaining and the search for justice, interesting piece

Canute S. Thompson

The issue of plea-bargaining was brought into public discussion some months ago in a matter involving a local politician and a co-accused. The matter has once again been brought into the spotlight with a reported declaration by High Court Judge Martin Gayle carried in The Sunday Gleaner of April 19, to the effect that plea-bargaining would significantly reduce the backlog of cases and save judicial time. This issue is worthy of public debate.

A plea bargain is an agreement between the prosecutor and the accused in which the accused pleads guilty in exchange for a lesser sentence or a reduced charge. In practice, either side may begin negotiations over a proposed plea bargain, though obviously, both sides have to agree for it to happen.

Plea-bargaining has not yet been enacted into law here in Jamaica but was approved by the Senate and the House of Representatives in 2005 by a unanimous vote under what is called the Criminal Justice (Plea Negotiations and Agreements) Act, 2005. If enacted, the legislation would give the director of public prosecutions (DPP) legal authority to engage in discussions and make bargains with an accused. The measure was introduced here in Jamaica in order to give the State greater room to deal with organised criminal gangs.

PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The practice of plea-bargaining seems to be informed by practical considerations. I have a concern that issues of ethics seem missing from consideration. The practical considerations are:

(a) Defendants can avoid the time and cost of defending themselves at trial, the risk of harsher punishment, and the publicity a trial could involve.

(b) The prosecution saves the time and expense of a lengthy trial.

(c) Both sides are spared the uncertainty of going to trial.

(d) The court system is saved the burden of conducting a trial on every crime charged as the amount of time that would be involved in hearing all cases would be very onerous for the public.

While the practicality of these considerations cannot be overlooked, the seeming absence of a focus on the victims and the implications for the maintenance of law and order in the society as it relates to the social assessment of criminal action is unfortunate.

ISSUES OF ETHICS AND JUSTICE

The issues of ethics and justice that the practice of plea-bargaining raises includes:

(a) The charges against any accused are a matter of public information, but the bargaining is essentially a private process. Why should this be? Whose interest does a DPP serve when he/she enters the negotiations with an accused? Can a prosecutor really act in the interest of the affected party or parties when he/she is under no obligation to bargain in any one's interest or when he/she may choose to bargain in the interest of some other party, whose interest may or may not be the public's interest?

(b) Quite apart from whether there should be private bargaining is the more fundamental question of whether there should be any bargain at all. I have a deep sense that something is wrong when a person accused of a heinous crime is given the opportunity to manipulate the process by opting to offer up information on others (which is the real consideration in decision to enact the legislation) in exchange for leniency. What if an accused has layers of information needed by the State? He/she offers the first layer and lands a considerable reduction in the sentence, thereafter begins to tug at the prosecutor that he could do more for the system for an even better deal. The probable outcome is that this accused could then be out of prison sooner to enjoy the ill-gotten wealth. How does that serve the cause of justice?

(c) Plea bargains are also perceived as offering the accused a freedom of choice between a lesser and greater punishment in return for information or cooperation in further investigations against others. Does not the offering of that freedom of choice send the signal that the crime committed is not as crucial as it appeared and the capture or imprisonment of another more important than the crime committed by the one doing the bargaining?

(d) How does a prosecutor decide with whom to bargain? What are the criteria and who sets those criteria? Should there be a role for the public's input?

There is a role for leniency and mercy but the process must be transparent. Plea-bargaining is not a transparent process.

Dr Canute Thompson is assistant vice-president at the International University of the Caribbean. He may be reached at canute_thompson@hotmail.com

Sizzla show stopped in Canada

as gleamed from Norman Faria's Guyana Chronicle article 19.04.09

Last weekend, Jamaican-born reggae star Sizzla was supposed to headline a concert at the Paramount Theatre in Toronto, Canada.

He didn't even pack his bags. The Canadian Embassy in Jamaica had denied him a visa, apparently because of his songs inciting hatred and violence against homosexual people. They were quite right to do so.

Sizzla (real name Miguel Orlando Collins) was known to Canadian authorities. He and another unrepentant homophobe at the time "Elephant Man" (real name O'Neal Bryan) had another concert in another venue in the same Canadian city in October 2007 cancelled after protests from community groups. A homophobe is an irrational disliker of homosexuals.

As spokesperson for the Stop Murder Music Canada Coalition correctly noted: "This (stopping of this show) was not about censorship or artistic freedom. That stops when hate propaganda is involved." The SMMCC referred to one of the songs "Log On" which urged people to "stomp" on homosexuals (battyman/chi chi man or "gays" as they are commonly referred to).

Homosexuality (lesbianism) is a sensitive and emotional issue. The average person in liberal democratic societies like Guyana and Barbados sometimes have difficulty in understanding it. After all, being called upon to accept men and men together and women and women together, especially sexual acts, goes against the grain of all they were taught from Biblical and other holy book teachings.

It took some understanding from the average man, like myself, who felt that nothing could be more normal (and pleasurable) than man having sex with a woman. After all,it made physical sense. That was how people evolved to have children.

It took some time but the average person's essential decency and respect for other people's rights emerged.

Now, there is a growing acceptance in many countries that homosexuals have a right to live normal lives so long as their behaviour doesn't involve or encourage criminal and sexually unsafe practices. More importantly, that the behaviour of gays should be sensitive to the feelings of ordinary people about the issue. A growing understanding about gays and their place in society comes too as more scientific studies show gays to be that way because of such factors as genes rather than being a psychological disorder.

There have been deep revulsions over the violence and cruelty meted out to gays. Ten or so years ago, a 21 year old student named Mathew Shepherd was pistol-whipped by two men and tied to a wire fence in the U.S. state of Wyoming and left to die. The widespread horror shown by ordinary Americans at the hate crime against Matthew, who worshipped at the St. Mark's Episcopal Church with his parents in home-town Casper, led to moves to include crimes against gays in existing U.S. hate crime legislation. First proposed by President Clinton, it was vetoed under President Bush's watch but current President

Obama has pledged he will not veto the special amendments.

The state, whether it be in Canada or Guyana, must take some of the leadership where appropriate in properly channeling the increasing social disdain against violation of peoples' rights on the basis of sexual orientation. Aside from Canada, the European Union (EU) group of countries also has strict laws prohibiting such discrimination. Last year, Sizzla found he was denied a visa to tour Europe. In 2004 he was banned from entering the UK.

The decisions of the state in these matters are based on interpretation of laws which can deny a person entry if it is determined he/she will stir up hatred and cause disorder among peoples. Their recordings should also not be on sale.

This was the rationale last year when Guyana's Minister of Home Affairs Clement Rohee announced that the DJs Bounty Killer and Movado , whose songs have equally repugnant anti-gay and pro-violence lyrics, would not be permitted to perform in Guyana again. The Minister should be commended for this forthright action . Guyana can do without such incitement to hatred and violence and inflammatory behaviour.

The Guyanese group Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination (SASOD) had voiced their opposition to the singers' presence in Guyana as well as the recent detention in Georgetown of a group of "cross dressers" (men dressing up as women).

As I wrote to Barbadian authorities urging more control and regulation of a certain internet blog in the island which carries the most repugnant and racist postings against Guyanese nationals in Barbados , the prohibiting of airing of inflammatory and inciteful messages has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Hate mongers and racists should have no freedom of speech. We have to think of the overall good of society and its more important freedoms and rights which protect genuine freedom of speech and the well being and happiness of all, including people of sexual orientation.

Sizzla may be a creative artiste when singing about other subjects. I understand he has good social commentary in some of his songs. From working class roots, we must respect his creativity and look at his overall work.

However, when a singer gets up and publicly urges the audience to go out and kill a certain segment of the population, that is a hate crime. We have to take a stand.

In 1998, US senator Edward Kennedy told a legislative hearing . "Hate crimes are a form of terrorism. They have a psychological and emotional impact which extends far beyond the victim. They threaten the entire community and undermine the ideals on which a nation was founded."

(Norman Faria is Guyana's Honorary Consul in Barbados)

Jamaican overseas comments on the San Fran boycott

Thanks to Fiyu Pikni for this comment on our post below, thought it was important to post it as the dialogue continues on the issue.

I'm somewhat ambivalent about this renewed effort to influence change for the better, by our international allies.

I made the following comment on an article which supports the boycott: http://www.boycottjamaica.org/blog/huffington-post-time-to-boycott-jamaica/

"As a gay Jamaican, I am heartened by the efforts of our international allies, who are trying to increase general awareness of Jamaica's homophobia, and what it means for queer identified individuals there. I agree with your approach, in that we need to be more proactive in our advocacy, if the Jamaican government is ever to recognize queers as citizens with inalienable rights.

That said, I am perturbed by the actions taken by boycott groups thus far, for they are exceedingly insensitive to the socio-cultural reality in Jamaica. Do not misinterpret me- doing nothing is not an option, but I hope that those who desire to boycott Jamaican products, for example, are sufficiently aware of the real challenges faced. Jamaica's most homophobic citizens are perhaps the most likely to react with belligerence to the boycott efforts. Jamaicans do not like to be told what to do, or think. Generalization, yes, but i can promise you that this is the reaction the efforts you are supporting will yield. This will in turn make people more hostile towards queer identified individuals, and less receptive to issues affecting LGBT individuals.

The task at hand should really be to have the government decry violence against people of a queer orientation, and enact legislation to guarantee protection for them. They aren't very empathetic to our cause now, and will be even less so once these boycotting efforts are in full gear.

Unless you are working directly on the ground, and with politicians, to get support for these legislative efforts, the goal of the boycotts will not be achieved. Further, whatever lofty goals one has to change the way Jamaicans perceive queers must be reevaluated. Pushing Jamaicans further into poverty will NOT make them more sympathetic of the needs of disenfranchised queers.

So I ask. In tandem with your support for the boycotts, are you also working directly with the LGBT rights advocacy group on the island to see what else can be done on the ground, with a grassroots approach. Are you encouraging people to write letters to the various members of parliament, who will ultimately have to vote on proposed legislation?

This problem will not be solved easily, because homophobic people are not rational, and so our cries will continue to fall on deaf ears, at least for a while. Clearly then, the issue must be approached in a holistic way, lest we exacerbate the dangers faced by queers, and particularly gay men and transgender individuals, in Jamaica."

With each passing day however, I am more supportive of the boycotts. Let's face it- as good a job as J-flag is doing, the Jamaican populace as a whole, and the Jamaican government, are not softening up to the idea that gays have a fundamental right to life and liberty. For many, we don't exist as an oppressed minority. They often speak of foreigners imposing their immoral beliefs on Christian Jamaicans, completely oblivious to the reality that there is a sizable queer population in Jamaica, as in every nation. People need to learn, sooner rather than later, that this is not a matter of getting them to accept homosexuality...rather, our efforts should be geared at reinforcing the ideal that all Jamaicans, regardless of sexual orientation or gender expression, possess certain inalienable rights that the government MUST protect- after all, is that not their mandate?

If only our justice system was more efficient, I would study law just so I am able to understand better the Jamaican constitution, and consider ways I could sue the government for acting in ways towards homosexuals that are unconstitutional... anyway, I digress.

I am tired of being silenced. I am tired of being Mr. sensitive nice guy, who must always accommodate the bigotries of Jamaica's ignorant populace. Perhaps this boycott, if successful, will have innumerable adverse impacts on Jamaica, but the harm inflicted upon queer Jamaicans, whether through verbal or physical violence, should be of equal concern. There is no greater evil...

I will reiterate that I do not believe boycotts will ever twist the arm of the Jamaican government sufficiently for it to decriminalize buggery, and decry discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation/ gender. Ultimately, our members of parliament will have to vote on the matter, and I am sure that there isn't very much support for our cause. Perhaps in a generation or two, but until then, what do we really have to lose?

I believe Jamaica's unapologetic stance against homosexuals is as bad as it can ever be... Surely, the boycott efforts will serve to inflame some people's homophobia, but it is not making them any less violent or intolerant than they were already prone to be.

I am somewhat unhappy with the very firm stance J-FLAG has made on the boycotts. Yes, I agree that there are other ways to go about this, and indeed the boycotts alone wont work. And yes, targeting Red Stripe was a bad move on their part.

But seriously JFLAG, seriously, wa wi fi du now? Jamaican gays literally live in fear. I LIVE IN FEAR. Last summer I was walking through town when a man shouted out behind me, "a wan a dem dat ino." I was on my own, briskly walking to my destination- I don't even care to hang out in public anymore...And my heart skipped a beat, because I wasn't sure if his next uuterance would be, "come wi brush im."

Now I know that you are fully aware of the dangers faced, and are doing what you believe is the best approach to dealing with the situation, which happens to be a diplomatic one... It is my belief however, that your approach has some limitations. Perhaps if we had more than one Queer rights groups, which had different philosophical views about the best approach to ending active discrimination, then we could be a bit farther along in our efforts. I need not mention the influence of political and social radicalism in the queer movement which began after Stonewall, in 1969 I believe.

In the absence of another organization with a more extremist temperament, the boycott efforts in the US by the various organizations, will potentially serve us some good. I guess time will tell.

Gareth speaks.....

End the call to boycott Jamaica

I think it is disingenuous of Michael Perelis and the group in San Francisco to use my release of last year to support your boycott issues of this year. I was part of the Canada based attempts at a boycott last year. We learned numerous lessons from that attempt, not least among which is the fact that the lives of LGBT persons in Jamaica are at risk. I have therefore changed my strategy and will do nothing without the inclusion of my colleagues in Jamaica .

I implore you to do the same and do not support your present efforts. The struggle to gain rights and freedoms for the LGBT community in Jamaica will never be won by groups acting independently, but through a coordinated effort of selfless persons, groups and organizations both locally and internationally.

This call for a boycott of Jamaica is outrageous and counter productive. The attack on Red Stripe is appalling and unacceptable, of all the cooperate organizations in Jamaica ; they were the ones who were willing to stand out and denounce violence against any group of persons. This self seeking effort / campaign of the group in San Francisco need to end now. JFLAG has stated they do not support the boycott and that need to be respected. If the community that you claim that this boycott will benefit is not in support what is your purpose of continuing? It is only when we work together we will make the difference

Gareth Henry Former Co-Chair and Program Manager
Jamaica Forum for Lesbians All-Sexuals and Gays

Other Points of view on The San Fran boycott 2

by Carrie -

Gender Across Borders Blog

Gay rights activists in the United States are preparing a national boycott of Jamaica, known by some as “the most homophobic place on Earth.” The boycott will officially launch on Wednesday, at New York’s Stonewall Inn, with activists dumping Myers’ Rum and Red Stripe beer (both Jamaican products) down a sewer. In addition to liquor, the boycott will target tourism — a significant aspect of Jamaica’s economy.

At first glance, this appears to be a worthy battle for LGBT activists to take on. Instead of constantly focusing on same-sex marriage legislation, why not consider those living in parts of the world where gays and lesbians are continually beaten and murdered because of their sexual orientations?
Well, there’s one significant issue with the boycott: Jamaica’s LGBT population is opposed to it.
According to a press release from Jamaica Forum for Lesbians Allsexuals and Gays (JFLAG), the boycott would most likely hurt, rather than help, the lives of LGBT Jamaicans. From the press release:

Jamaica’s deeply ingrained antipathy towards homosexuality and homosexuals is a social phenomenon that will not be undone by boycott campaigns or government dictate. It requires the painstaking effort of confronting the society and talking to social actors who can bring change in the way society sees LGBT people….It is important that our international allies understand the nature of our struggle and engage us in a respectful way about it.

The organizers of the boycott have heard JFLAG’s perspective — and have decided to continue with the boycott anyway, arguing that LGBT Jamaicans are not in a position to support a boycott, as it would endanger their lives.

Now, personally, I’m uncomfortable with boycotts of this nature under most circumstances. While it’s certainly true that damaging a nation’s economy is a powerful way to communicate a message to a governing body, it’s also true that such significant economic interference can negatively affect the lives of innocent civilians. In this case, damaging Jamaica’s economy will affect the lives of the country’s LGBT citizens — a community already marginalized and faced with the reality of homophobic violence.

But in this case, I think the boycott is particularly inappropriate. To ignore the years of work JFLAG has tirelessly put into creating a safe environment for LGBT Jamaicans is to undermine the very people these American activists claim to support. Disrespecting a community in the name of activism is offensive and inappropriate. And given the history of queer persecution in Jamaica, there is no evidence that the boycott would diminish the homophobic violence that plagues the nation. Though the activism behind this boycott may be well-intentioned, it is certainly misguided.

Do any of you support this boycott? If not, what alternatives, if any, are there for helping the LGBT people of Jamaica in a respectful manner?

Other Points of view on The San Fran boycott

Gay Jamaicans Voice Support for BoycottsPosted April 15th, 2009 by Michael Airhart

Some Jamaicans are speaking out in favor of efforts to boycott Jamaican goods or music until leaders take serious action to reduce antigay vigilantism.
Perhaps most prominent among music-boycott supporters is Gareth Henry, who was the co-chair of Jamaica Forum for Lesbians, All-Sexuals, and Gays until he was forced to flee the country for Canada last year. J-FLAG publicly expresses disagreement with the boycott, but according Xtra.ca, Henry says that JFLAG can’t be seen to publicly support a boycott.
“They can’t be the ones to call for the boycott,” he says. “They can’t be that voice. But the gays, lesbians and queers on the ground are supportive of a boycott.”

Henry says he’s tried talking to the government.
“We have tried numerous approaches, numerous dialogues with government officials,” he says. “They have been non-responsive to the call. We have to hit people where it’s going to hurt, where they’ll feel it. In the Jamaican context talk is cheap. After 10 years of JFLAG’s existence what else can we do?”

Meanwhile, Stop Murder Music Canada (SMMC) — which advocates a boycott of Jamaican musicians whose songs contain violently homophobic lyrics — is now calling for a boycott of Jamaica if the country’s government doesn’t take action on homophobic violence by May 12.
Xtra.ca reports that Canada’s reggae community is split on the issue.
Christian Lacoste, an openly gay Montreal reggae fan who runs the website Murder Inna Dancehall, supports both the boycott and an official immigration ban on visits by homophobic dancehall artists. But Cezar Brumeanu, who runs the Montreal International Reggae Festival and that city’s House of Reggae nightclub, opposes a boycott.

Another boycott supporter: Jamaican blogger Dave, supports BoycottJamaica.org, a newer boycott of Jamaican goods and tourism. Dave — who is forced to remain anonymous to protect his safety — says:
This could potentially devastate my country during this global recession but this is basically the only thing I can do to improve my living conditions without putting myself in physical danger. Jamaica sucks when it comes to addressing LGBT issues and I am tired of living under these stupid conditions. Obviously, LGBT issues require much more attention Worldwide, even in the US, but Jamaica just refuses to even give us any basic rights. And they NEVER speak out against violence against gays. I don’t F-ing care how long it takes, just Boycott our asses and pass the word along.

The goals of BoycottJamaica.org are modest: There is no requirement that Jamaica affirm same-sex orientation or legalize same-sex intimacy. Instead, BoycottJamaica calls for Jamaican officials to publicly commit to ending antigay violence, and for the Prime Minister to clearly and unequivocally condemn antigay violence and express regret for past violence.
But they refuse. Until Jamaican leaders declare a halt to antigay vigilantism, a boycott appears to be the only way for LGBT people in the United States, and their allies, to tell Jamaica that they will no longer subsidize Jamaicans’ war against their gay neighbors and against basic human decency in exported music.

Hat tip: Box Turtle Bulletin

JFLAG Press Release - No to Boycott in San Francisco 12.04.09

Please see letter sent to our international allies from JFLAG, friends and supporters below indicating that we do not support the boycott in San Francisco.

April 12, 2009

Dear Friends and Supporters:

We thank our international allies for their continued interest in the state of LGBT affairs in Jamaica. Your support over the years has strengthened our voice and made it possible for us to make progress where we hardly thought it possible. One of the most significant ventures in which our international allies have collaborated with us was the SMM campaign that started in 2004, and which culminated in a local debate about the appropriateness of violence and hate in Jamaican music played in public places. Despite the occasionally homophobic rant by rogue deejays, we have seen a general decline in the level of homophobia coming from new Jamaican artistes and in new music from Jamaica. We have also seen corporate sponsors withdrawing their support from music that promotes violence or discrimination against any group.

It is with this in mind that we find it unfortunate that a campaign has been launched calling for the boycott of two Jamaican products, one marketed by a company that unequivocally distanced itself from the hostility and violence typical of Jamaican music towards members of the LGBT community. In April 2008, Red Stripe took the brave and principled stance to cease sponsorship of music festivals that promoted hate and intolerance, including that against members of the LGBT community. The naming of Red Stripe, therefore, as a target of this boycott is extremely damaging to the cause of LGBT activists in Jamaica.

In the global arena in which we operate today, events in one place can and do have repercussions in another. Concomitantly, information about occurrences in different places across the globe is easily accessible everywhere. We believe that any overseas entity or organisation seeking to agitate for change in a context with which it has only passing familiarity should first do its homework to ensure that it does not do harm to its credibility and ultimately to the cause of the local community whose interest it seeks to defend.

It is unfortunate that the organisers of the current campaign to boycott Jamaica have failed in the key area of fact finding. The misguided targeting of Red Stripe does tremendous damage to a process of change that we began almost 11 years ago. The boycott call has now left us not only with our persistent day to day challenges but with a need to engage Red Stripe and attempt damage control as a result of actions that we did not take. Against this background, we would like to reiterate that while we appreciate the support given by our international allies, and understand their impatience for change, we who live in Jamaica best know and understand the dynamics of our situation. We also know that change is a slow and tedious process and those who engage in it must be patient.

Jamaica’s deeply ingrained antipathy towards homosexuality and homosexuals is a social phenomenon that will not be undone by boycott campaigns or government dictate. It requires the painstaking effort of confronting the society and talking to social actors who can bring change in the way society sees LGBT people. We have been doing this through a small but growing group of increasingly aware opinion leaders who are concerned about the damage homophobia does to our society. We need those ears to continue being open to us and we need the relative safety that some of us have been given to speak to them.

It is important that our international allies understand the nature of our struggle and engage us in a respectful way about it. Unless they are willing and able to lead the struggle in the trenches as we have done, it is important that they be guided by us. To do otherwise would be to act in a manner that destroys the space for dialogue that we have managed to create over the past decade and to set back our struggle. It is for this reason that we urge those in the international arena who seek to act in our name and on our behalf to do so not only with the utmost care and responsibility but also with due consideration for our efforts and concerns as members of the local activist community.

Sincerely,

Jason McFarlane
Programmes Manager
Jamaica Forum for Lesbians All-Sexuals and Gays - J-FLAG
Tel: (876)754-8704
Website: www.jflag.org
Blog: http://jflag.blogspot.com/
email: jflagoffice@gmail.com, admin@jflag.org

Gay rights activists clash over tackling Jamaican homophobia

By Mathew Hywel of PINK NEWS

US gay rights activists have launched a campaign encouraging the boycotting of Jamaican products and services as a protest against the island's treatment of gays and lesbians.

However, a Jamaican LGB organisation has said the campaign will damage their cause as one of the products targeted, Red Stripe beer, is openly supporting the anti-hate movement.

A campaign website, http://www.boycottjamaica.org/ was set up by former Human Rights Council Spokesman Wayne Besen, along with prominent LGB rights activists Jim Burroway and Michael Petrelis, and campaigns for Jamaica to become a pariah state until social attitudes on the island towards homosexuality change.

Jamaica is considered to be one of the most homophobic countries in the world, where gay sex between two men can carry a ten-year jail sentence or hard labour. Sex between two women is currently legal.

Mr Besen told the Huffington Post: "Why boycott [Jamaica]? Because Jamaica is on a downward spiral and suffers from collective cultural dementia on this issue. There is clearly a pathological panic and homo-hysteria that has infected this nation at its core.

"Jamaica is an island of self-righteous hypocrites. The Bible is used to rationalise brutality, and vigilante violence is justified with talk of virtues and values. But, the island is quite comfortable with ganja and gratuitous sex for heterosexuals."

The website calls for boycotting of specific of Jamaican products sold in the US, including Myers Rum and Red Stripe beer.

In an open newsletter, the Jamaica Forum for Lesbians All-Sexuals and Gays (J-FLAG) responded to the website's demands:

" … we find it unfortunate that a campaign has been launched calling for the boycott of two Jamaican products, one marketed by a company that unequivocally distanced itself from the hostility and violence typical of Jamaican music towards members of the LGBT community.

"In April 2008, Red Stripe took the brave and principled stance to cease sponsorship of music festivals that promoted hate and intolerance, including that against members of the LGBT community.

"The naming of Red Stripe, therefore, as a target of this boycott is extremely damaging to the cause of LGBT activists in Jamaica.

The letter added: "Jamaica’s deeply ingrained antipathy towards homosexuality and homosexuals is a social phenomenon that will not be undone by boycott campaigns or government dictate. It requires the painstaking effort of confronting the society and talking to social actors who can bring change in the way society sees LGBT people."

Last month, it was revealed that gay men in Jamaica were at a higher risk of contracting HIV due to discrimination.

The prime minister of Jamaica, Bruce Golding, also recapitulated his government's attitude towards homosexuality:

"We are not going to yield to the pressure, whether that pressure comes from individual organisations, individuals, whether that pressure comes from foreign governments or groups of countries, to liberalise the laws as it relates to buggery," he said.

Genetics & Homosexuality, Are people born gay,The Biological basis for sexual orientation

On a twist on homosexual twin studies, an Australian research group examined the question of whether homophobia was the result of nature or nurture.
21 Surprisingly, both familial/environmental and genetic factors seemed to play a role.

by Rich Deem

Introduction

Born Gay?
There is a common belief among liberals that people are born either gay or straight. Conservatives tend to believe that sexual orientation is actually sexual preference, which is chosen by the individual. This page represents a review of the scientific literature on the basis for homosexual orientation.

Rich Deem
Are people born gay or straight? Much of the current media sources assume the question is a solved scientific problem with all the evidence pointing toward a biological (probably genetic) basis for a homosexual orientation. Contrary to this perception, the question has been poorly studied (or studied poorly), although there is some evidence on both sides of question. In addition, many of the initial studies, which were highly flouted by the media as “proof” for a biological basis for homosexuality, have been contradicted by later, more thorough studies. This evidence falls into four basic categories:

1. Brain structure

2. Possible hormonal influences

3. Concordance of homosexuality in twins

4. Concordance of genetic markers in siblings

Why does it matter?
Until a few years ago, sexual orientation used to be called sexual preference. Obviously, the two terms denote significant differences in the the manner by which sexuality develops. A preference is something that is chosen, whereas orientation is merely something that defines us. The differences are potentially important regarding how the law applies to those who are gay. If homosexuality is not chosen, but actually is a biologically-determined characteristic over which we have no choice, then laws should not treat gays and straights differently, since homosexuality would be equivalent to one’s race, over which we have no control.

(CLICK HERE FOR THE FULL ARTICLE)

Other matters examined are:

• Sexual orientation - brain studies
• Hormonal influences
• Twin studies
• Genetic studies - the “gay gene”
• Sexual preference or orientation?
• Homosexuality and Darwinism
• Real genetic studies?

A Feminist Perspective (from a man) To Understand Male Stupidity

James Nelson: HIS BLOG

We men have experienced deprivation by our own doing and that of our forefathers. We who are male have lost touch with our vulnerability, our deepest human capacities for tenderness, our need for dependence - in short, a whole range of emotions. We simply don't feel very well. We are more alienated from our bodily existence, and our sexuality, instead of being a richly diffused sensuousness and invitation to intimacy, has taken a narrow, genital focus. We lose touch with the concrete particularity of pulsing life and instead are seduced by abstractions, confusing them with reality. We seem to live with a constant need to prove self-worth through achievement and winning. We relate competitively with other men and find it easier to have buddies than deep friendships. Predictably, we males will die younger than women - about the years at latest count. Gay men frequently break through the constrictions of hte macho mold, but they suffer more oppression than lesbians because of the dynamics of male homophobia in our society. And our social institutions are tragically distorted by the exploitative, competitive, dominance-and-submission, violent aspects of traditional masculinism.

What is the root of the problem? Why is the movement toward wholeness and equality so difficult? Why do human beings continue to live our those ancient dualisms of spirit-over-body and man-over-woman, dualisms that ocnjoined as men identified themselves with mind and spirit while labeling wome as body and emotion? Why is it all so persistent and difficult to change? Consider six possibilities...

1. There is historical inheritance and conditioning... I did grow up knowing that men had the responsibility and the destiny to rule. i did grow up konwing that men were to be in control o fhtemselves as well as in control of women and all else...

2. Related to the Christian heritage is the matter of biological misinformation. For centuries in a prescientific and patriarchal society it was believed that the male semen was the sole bearer of life. The woman was simply the ground into which the seed was planted. She provided the incubating space for life transmitted by the male. Indeed, it was not until 1827 that Western science knew anything about eggs and ovulation...

3. Another theory has to do with sexual fears... The aggression against the female partner is not so much an expression of castration anxiety as of performance anxiety... For successful intercourse to take place I must perform. I must have an erection. There is always the threat of impotence, whether I have ever experienced it or not. But this can become symbolic of life beyond the direct sexual experience. Throughout my life, I have learned to perform. The penile erection can become symbolic of a whole way of life for one conditioned in the masculine mode... The fear of failure is always lurking in teh wings. Then comes the temptation to express hostility toward those making the performance demands...

4. There is the possibility that sexism persists because of male evny of women's biological powers... men must cope with womb envy. In spite of centuries of mistaken biological information about conception, men have always recognized that in the birthing process women are much more intimately involved with the generation of new life. It is an awesome, mysterious, powerful event in terms of which males seem to have a negligible role. Hence, we men have found ways of symbolizing and acting out our own capacities to give birth... I do believe women are closer to the source and the newness of life. I do believe that women feel life more keenly and immediately, and I may well be inclined to envy and punish them for what I lack.

5. A theory concerning the dynamics of male sexism speaks of "father-wounded sons."... By far the strongest identification in teh first years of life is with the mother... I am called upon to trade the seemingly unconditional love of my mother for my father's world. WHile this other world bears promises of power and privilege, it caries the threat of many wounds. Everything now is conditional. My father's approval is conditional upon my performance. This is a world where I must compete with and ultimately be judged by other males...

6. Yet another possibility is homophobia... The gay male threatens other males because he embodies the symbol of woman... The gay male threatens me with "womanization"... I know that he has the capacity to view me not primarily as a person, but rather as a sex object, a desired body. But this is how straight men have so frequently viewed women. Hence, the gay man by his very being (quite apart form overt act) reminds me of the general male objectification of women and poses a psychic threat to treat me like one of them....in a sexist society, those men who perpetuate and embrace male dominance have only men as their equals. Women are inferior.

To seek validation, love, and affection from other men, however, is a fearful thing, for men have been taught to relate to other men on a different basis: competitiveness. The gay male who expresses affection toward other males symbolizes what seems denied to the rest of us. Hence, it is the gay male who receives the response of rage and oppression for having and for symbolizing that which other men lack and cannot have. Male homophobia injects distance into the relationships of father and son, of brother and brother, of men and men. As a consequence, men lean principally upon women for their validation and affection, and in so doing resent those very women precisely because they are not men's equals, and hence cannot adequately give what they have been asked to give.

...The old story, forever new, has to do with the grace of God. It is a grace that says "You are accepted." Against all my works of the law, against all my anxious striving for achievement, control, dominance, winning, and proving my worth, there is a word of grace, a word that still becomes flesh. This kind of love casts out fear, and fear is the root of male sexism.
Of what am I afraid? Am I afraid of the awesome demands of my father and of my Father God? If so, I need to experience that gospel wherein the father runs out to meet the returning son. And I need to realize the gospel's paradox that my Father God is at the same time my Mother God who nurses humanity at her full breasts.
Am I afraid of losing in competition?...If so, there is a paradox in the gospel about losing life and finding life, and I need to hear that freshly.
Am I afraid of performance failure...? If so, I need to understand anew that central paradox of the gospel that nothing I do earns the love of God. My worth is given.
Am I afraid of my negative emotions, particularly my anger? If so there is that gospel paradox which says that it is possible to be angry without sinning or alienating.
Am I afraid of losing my power and control? If so, there is that paradoxical figure who counted equality with God not a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself. He is the one who washed the disciple's feet.
Am I afraid of losing my strong, masculine, heterosexual self-image?... If so, I need to look again at that man who wept, who embraced the beloved disciple, who called out to others in his time of need.
Am I afraid of the child within me, afraid of the need for play, spontaneity, and feeling? If so, I need to hear again freshly Jesus' reminder that unless I turn and become like a little child I will not enter the New Age.
...Both women and men suffer under sexism. Both women and men yearn for liberation... But when men and women journey into this issue together, both personally and institutionally, we will all change. THen we might learn (in Tolstoy's words) to live more magnificently in this world.

Me:
Thinking about feminism and sexism and taking it seriously is a new thing for me, and still kind of strange. But I see those fears in both of the guys I've dated, and realize them for the causes of my frustration. My ultimate desire is to be accepted for myself, and so I accept those I love for the entirety of themselves. But if this threatens their performance-focused mentality, no wonder they view it as weakness and use my love to control me, rather than returning it like I hope they will.
I am a fool if I let myself be controlled and dependent, but I refuse to fight on their grounds. I have great power, but I will not dominate another with it. I will love the entirety of him for who he is and who he can be (despite all his half-attempts to make me hate him), but that does not mean I need to depend on him for affirmation or sexuality. I do know my own power, even if I fear using it because of my aversion for controlling others.
We will talk before break (though he doesn't know it yet - I plan on calling him before I leave on Wednesday. I don't want to freak him out during finals by telling him that I want to talk after finals). I will lay out for him the basics:

I've not forgiven him yet for asking me out again when he really didn't want me, but I will.
I still hurt when I'm not in touch with the reality of who he is and how we relate. When I focus on idealized memories and wondering how it could be, of course I hurt. He does not hurt me when he is around me because it is then when I am faced with the reality that you couldn't pay me to be in a relationship with him again. It's kinda mean, but true. And he needs to know it, so that he can relate to me without fearing that he's hurting me; and I need to express it to him, so that I can affirm my love for him without needing him or idealizing him.

Lesbians Raped! ....now confirmed

An alleged rape of a lesbian couple in Kingston has been brought to our attention, according to our sources and ongoing investigations since, anecdotal evidence has unearthed that sometime in May the couple who reside in a middle class neighbourhood near to the Kingston business district were attacked by a group of men who hang out by the entrance to their avenue from the main thoroughfare.

It is alleged that the men for some time now have been making verbal remarks especially when the girls drive in and out of the community. It is also alleged that one of the girls is a licensed firearm holder and that the men were aware of this and also verbalized their intentions to take the gun from her. The girls were said to be "open" with their relationship at times much to the concern of their friends and a neighbour who advised otherwise.

On the weekday morning in question of the attack the girls were in bed on around 6am when a door to the home was kicked in after the grills were cut, 2 masked men with knives entered but spoke in muttered tones so as to disguise their voices and proceeded to "straighten out" the girls, this a common belief among homophobes here that a rape sequence or straight sex under duress will make a lesbian woman straight.

The ordeal was said to have lasted for two hours before the men left on foot, without the firearm but other items were removed from the house. The girls have since relocated with the assistance of friends and are seeking medical advice as well.

We are not sure of any action to apprehend the culprits has been undertaken by the police. The girls however were hospitalized for a short time and taken to the rape unit for examination.

We are tracking this matter very carefully and will update this post as soon as new information comes to light, as you can appreciate we cannot ask the girls to rehash the ordeal at this time as traumatic as it was for them, our sympathies and prayers go out them.

As we can see this is worldwide phenomenon to use rape to "cure" lesbians:
S.African Gangs Use Rape To `Cure` Lesbians

Awful just awful.

Not Much has changed since eh....Charter of Rights Bill Deliberations

here is an excerpt from the REPORT OF THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON ITS DELIBERATIONS ON THE BILL ENTITLED AN ACT TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTUTION OF JAMAICA TO PROVIDE FOR A CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FOR CONNECTED MATTERS - July 20, 1999.

view the full PDF report here

here we are ten years later and nothing much has changed see former Prime Minister Edward Seaga's take Charter of Rights/dynamics of development (Part 11) many others are worried about the so called loopholes in the proposed charter that would make "homosexuality" too out there.

Excerpt reading.......
Discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation

Another issue raised was whether the Constitution should also guarantee freedom from discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. This issue was raised, in written presentation and by oral address to the Committee, by a group called the Jamaican Forum for Lesbians, All-Sexuals and Gays (J. Flag). The written presentation is attached as Appendix 5. Representatives of J. Flag quoted what was said to be a statement by Professor Edwin Cameron, now a Judge of the South African Constitutional Court, at page 450 of the 1993 volume of the South African Law Times, that “sexual orientation is defined by reference to erotic attraction: in the case of heterosexuals, to members of the opposite sex; in the case of gays and lesbians, to members of the same sex”.

They argued that the Constitutional Bill of Rights and Freedoms should seek to protect the inherent human identity from abuse and that what was included in human identity were those features of a person, or characteristics, that that person was born with. Sexual orientation, they said, was one of those features or characteristics of human identity, in the sense that everyone has a sexual orientation and that that sexual orientation was largely, if not entirely, outside the individual’s control. Homosexuality, they said, was, to the homosexual, as natural and unchangeable as heterosexuality was to the heterosexual.

The balance of scientific opinion, they argued, was weighted in favour of the view that sexuality, including sexual expression, was indivisible from individual identity, and was in the same category as race, gender, or brown or blue eyes. Furthermore, they said, there was no credible evidence or convincing argument that sexual orientation could be changed. On that basis, the representatives of J. Flag argued that sexual orientation should not form the basis of discrimination against, or abuse of, any human being and proposed that the best way to achieve this was to include, in the Constitution, provision for protection against discrimination on that ground. That proposal, they added, was consistent with current international trends.

The Constitution of South Africa, it is to be noted, includes sexual orientation among the grounds on which the state and persons are prohibited from unfairly discriminating directly or indirectly against anyone. The Committee is concerned, however, as to the effect which implementation of that proposal would have in relation to the Marriage Act and the institution of marriage and on parenting. The representatives of J. Flag had themselves conceded that the Marriage Act would be inconsistent with such a constitutional provision. Other matters which the Committee has taken into account include the view of some of its members that the proposal by J. Flag challenges Christian society, and that, as heterosexuality is what assures the perpetuation of the human race, homosexuality could be regarded as a challenge to the existence of the human race.

These views, of course, are not shared by the representatives of J. Flag. It is important to record that the representatives of J. Flag have stated that they regard the legislation which criminalizes buggery between persons as the essence of discrimination against homosexuals, particularly in relation to its enforcement against male homosexuals, and, therefore, that if a recommendation for the repeal of that legislation in relation to consenting adults in private is as far as the Committee would be prepared to go, they would be grateful for that concession.

The Committee urges J. Flag to carry out further research as to
(i) the Constitutions which guarantee protection against discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation;
(ii) the laws which would be inconsistent with such a constitutional provision;
(iii) scientific data as to the causes of homosexuality;
and (iv) whether there has been an increase in homosexuality following on such a liberalization of the law in other countries.

The Committee is not at present disposed, however, to include in the Charter of Rights a guarantee of protection from discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation, because of the implications which this would have, in particular, its implications in relation to the institution of marriage and questions of parenting. It would, however, bring to the attention of the Government, as a matter for consideration, the issue of the repeal of the provisions of the Offences Against the Person Act in so far as it relates to the offence of buggery between consenting adults in private.

see also the Parliamentaty submission by JFLAG HERE & HERE

Here we are thinking the San Fransican boycott issue was a done deal...

The Gleaner 06.04.09

the gleaner seems to be lagging behind these days in it's coverage of items don't you think? See the piece below from the Flair section.

So, gays plan to boycott Jamaica and they are encouraging those who love their gay friends and relatives to do the same. I had to put my frustration in writing. This is Jamaica and we are against homosexuals.
There is no if, but or maybe about it. Why are they forcing us to accept them? We do not have to. We are a Christian country and homosexuality is contrary to our practices, so why should we drop all our morals, values and religious standards just to please their forbidden choice?

Music banned

They banned our music and tried to halt the careers of our dancehall artistes. Now they want to discontinue our products? I can understand the banning of the music because of the violence, but to try and turn people against our country and trying to stop our progress is another thing. We are simply standing up for what we believe in, which is in accordance with the Bible.

Homosexuals are not above our laws. This fact they can't change.

There are other countries that gays can visit and do what they want to openly. Why not go there? Things like buggery are against our laws (Buggery, Offences Against the Person Act, Section 76.

And why should their family and friends suffer because of them? They should stay away from our tasty food, energetic music, beautiful island and beaches because we won't bow down to homosexuals?

Instead of simply attacking us and trying to force us to protect and accept you, how about accepting our laws and abiding by them? You are not changing your minds and becoming heterosexuals, and we reluctantly accept that. Likewise, we are not changing our minds, or our laws to please you, so accept this. In the end, if you want to boycott our country, we don't mind.

- Divine

Do you have something on your mind? Rant and rave about men, women, society whatever you fancy. Email what's on your mind to lifestyle@gleanerjm.com. Pieces should be no longer than 300 words.

Charter of Rights/dynamics of development (Part 11)

We weren't able to follow all of this series by Mr. Edward Seaga former Prime Minister but this installment on the Charter that he helped to put together begins to eaxmine the serious fundamentals ....... hence the post, as appearing in the Gleaner 05.04.09


Edward Seaga, Contributor
As noted in last week's article, some have argued that there should be no saving clauses which reserve power for the state, that all fundamental rights and freedoms should be absolute and inalienable, save, of course, for periods of peril and emergency.

In discussions that followed in the Constitutional Reform Commission, we agreed that the construction of the saving clause as drafted and quoted, allowed all rights to be as inalienable as possible without derogating from the need for exceptional treatment in periods of peril and emergency, or as may be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, for which ample judicial interpretation exists.

Provisions of the charter

The new draft of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms has spelled out each right and freedom individually rather than in clusters. This has enabled specific expression in clear and precise language capable of being understood at reasonable levels of literacy.

The charter is now before Parliament. It was introduced by a bill entitled an Act to Amend the Constitution of Jamaica to provide for a Charter of Fundamental Right and Freedoms after lengthy discussions in a Select Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. The protected rights and freedoms include the following 10 provisions which are not original, but in some cases are amended for clarification, followed by eight new provisions:

1. The right to life, liberty and the security of the person;

2. Freedom of thought, conscience, belief and observance of religious and political doctrine;

3. Freedom of expression;

4. The right to seek, distribute or disseminate to any other person, information, opinions and ideas through any media;

5. Freedom of peaceful assembly and association;

6. Freedom of movement;

7. The right to due process of law;

8. Freedom from discrimination, on the ground of race, social class, colour, religion, gender, place of origin or political preferences;

9. Protection of property rights;

10. The right of a person who is charged with or detained, in connection with a criminal offence to communicate with and retain an attorney-at-law;

11. The right to equality before the law;

12. The right to equitable and humane treatment by any public authority in the exercise of any function;

13. The right to protection from search of the person, respect for private and family life, privacy of home and of communication;

14. Entitlement of every child - "to such measures of protection as are required by the status of a minor or as part of the family, society and the State"; and "who is a citizen to publicly funded tuition in a public educational institution at the pre-primary and primary levels".

15. Entitlement of a person charged with a criminal offence or detained in pursuance of a provision of any enactment to communicate with and be visited by his spouse, partner or family member, religious counsellor and a medical practitioner of his choice;

16. Enjoyment of a healthy and productive environment free from threat or injury or damage from environmental abuse and degradation of the ecological heritage;

17. Entitlement of every citizen who is registered to vote, to participate and vote in free and fair elections; and

18. Entitlement of every citizen to be granted a passport and not be denied or deprived thereof except by due process of law.

Notwithstanding the broadening and deepening of human rights to which the state must commit itself in this exercise, perhaps the most significant new feature in the charter is to be found in sub section (5) of Section 3, which expands the scope of the charter to include "natural or juristic persons" under the protective covering for which constitutional remedies can be sought. The existing provisions cover only abuses by the state. The amendment will allow abuses by the act of any other person or body to be justiceable.

This makes it possible for citizens whose rights have been abused to seek redress in a court of law against not only the state and entities of the state, but any civil authority or persons, subject to "the nature of any duty imposed by the right".

This is an enormous expansion of the protective covering in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.

Departure from the traditional group of human rights to include constitutional remedies against persons or bodies not connected to the state has opened another door, according to Earl Witter, public defender, to seek redress against offenders who abuse by non-feasance, that is, non-performance of something for which responsibility exists, or mal-feasance, a responsibility which is not carried out. Most of the abuses of human rights fall into these two categories which deprive the citizen of an entitlement and should be included in the charter in the same manner as the entitlement of a child to be schooled and to be shielded from abuse have been listed.

More than any other single factor, the performance of a government in enhancing public administration, could be lifted to exemplary levels through expansion of the charter to include these two entitlements to performance as areas in which serious grievances could be opened to constitutional remedies.

The eight new articles of the charter prohibit a range of notorious abuses and gross neglect by committing the State to provide:


equality before the law for all;

equitable and humane treatment by any public authority;

protection from search of the person, respect for family life and privacy of the home;

free tuition for children from pre-primary through to primary level;

entitlement of every child to protection as part of the family, society and the State;

enjoyment of a healthy and productive environment ... free from environmental abuse;

entitlement of every person charged with a criminal offence to communicate with and be visited by his spouse, family member, religious counsellor and medical practitioner of his choice;

the right to vote and the right to free and fair elections.
State of emergency

When the reforms are approved, no longer will it be possible to sustain a state of emergency for longer than two weeks without approval of the Opposition, nor can any extension of the period exceed three months at a time. Additionally, the basis on which an emergency is declared can be challenged in a court of law. Further, any person detained would have a right of review within six weeks, not six months, and the hearings would be by a tribunal whose findings must be accepted by the authorities.

Many will contend, and with some justification, that even the most comprehensive and far reaching Charter of Rights and Freedoms are in large part empty but well-meaning declarations, if they cannot be enforced on behalf of the poor and disadvantaged who are mostly defenceless against abuses of their fundamental rights and freedoms.

With the power to enforce sanctions, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms could become an effective tool to foster the development of a dynamic society. Without an effective public defender to enforce sanctions against abuse, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms would become another useless document destined for a dark corner of a dusty cupboard.

Not only must remedies for the shortcomings of the act establishing the public defender be urgently enacted, but funding must be guaranteed to enable prosecutions to be provided through the new constitutional provision to guarantee legal aid for all entitled persons. I have seen other bodies which are noble in intent, such as the Police Public Complaints Authority, launched with fanfare, but deprived of resources to function.

The Charter of Rights when enacted and funded and the public defender when fully empowered and funded, together represent the sublime hope for justice for the poor who historically have been unable to find justice for themselves.

House passes sexual offences bill

source: Gojamaica

The Sexual Offences Act 2009 has been passed in the House of Representatives.

The Act is an amalgamation of various laws relating to rape, incest and other sexual offences.

It will repeal the Incest (Punishment) Act and several provisions of the Offences Against the Person Act.

The Bill also provides for the establishment of a Sex Offenders Registry, which will maintain a register of sex offenders.

Prime Minister Bruce Golding told Parliamentarians yesterday that the Bill will be introduced in the Senate on Friday by Justice Minister and Attorney General, Senator Dorothy Lightbourne.

The prime minister had previously sought leave of Parliament to withdraw the Bill, because of the significant number of amendments that had to be made.

However, he said after discussions with Opposition Leader, Portia Simpson Miller, he decided to have it debated in the House yesterday.

The introduction of the bill in the senate on Friday will allow for it to be debated immediately after the new session of Parliament convenes next week.

Peter King Case - Sentence

A 12 member jury had found Sheldon Pusey the man accused of killing former Trade Ambassador Peter King guilty of manslaughter two weeks ago. He will serve 15 years for the crime.

Mr. Pusey was charged in 2007 with the March 20, 2006 murder of Mr. King. The former Ambassador was found with 32 stab wounds at his home in Waterloo, St. Andrew. Pusey in his defense told the jury that he stabbed Mr. King after he went to Mr. King's apartment in search of a job and the ambassador gave him liquor and then tried to have sex with him.

Pusey said during a struggle he used a paper cutter to stab Mr. King

Berry Bryan, the attorney for Pusey has said he will be appealing against the conviction because there were allegations of suppression of evidence

There was no eyewitness to the murder and the Crown represented by Deputy Director of Public Prosecution Caroline Hay and Crown Counsel Dahlia Findlay relied on circumstantial evidence to prove its case.

Experimental stage or what?

Teen accused of molesting 11-y-o

Police have confirmed that a woman and her son have moved out of a community after the boy was alleged molested by a teen.

Police have also confirmed that they have taken the teen into custody for molesting the woman's 11 year-old son. The incident reportedly occurred in St Catherine recently.

The 15-year-old boy was set upon by residents before he was taken into custody. He was accused of sexually molesting the boy.

Police reports are that about 2 p.m., they responded to a call and was just in time to rescue the teenager from an angry mob.

He was placed into custody as a juvenile in need of care and protection.

The Old Harbour police said that the juvenile is scheduled to face the Children's Court in St Catherine on April 24.

There was no word about the whereabouts of the mother and her 11-year-old son.

The police told the Star that acts of sexual impropriety among teenagers in the parish is uncomfortably high among juveniles.

To this end, they said that more intervention from support groups is needed at this time to address the issue.

A few gay men for Bruce's Cabinet (REPOST)

A few gay men for Bruce's Cabinet
published: Tuesday June 17, 2008

The Editor, Sir:
After only nine months in office, the Jamaica Labour Party government, led by the self-righteous paragon of virtue Bruce Golding, is trailing the People's National Party in the latest polls. This, after a narrow victory in the 2007 elections.

There are many reasons put forward for this short-lived popularity, including the failure to show the Jamaican people that it has got things under control. And his Cabinet of 'straight' men can't seem to find solutions for the myriad of problems that are racking this country of 'Christians'. Not that a PNP administration would do better, and I don't think they can. So, Sister P, I am not in your corner, either. Gay men needed What Bruce Golding needs in his Cabinet to make it effective are a few gay men. We are brilliant, industrious, creative in our thoughts, dedicated to our craft, result-oriented, and very important, sensitive to people's needs. And we don't go around being proud for being a bigot.

Look around, Bruce, and see the organisations and institutions that are run by gays in this country and you will see what I am talking about. But you prefer to let hatred blind your eyes to people who have the potential to take this country out of the doldrums in which we are.

You are the driver, but you don't seem to know where you are going in your vortex of discrimination, failure and confusion. But while the country suffers, gays are prospering, so exclude us at your own peril.

Mr Prime Minister, your Cabinet is full of old and impotent 'straight' men. You need a few good men, gay men, to spruce it up, and put the country on a path of prosperity, and not depravity.

And what about GAP? The Gay Action Party? I think it's a brilliant idea!

I am, etc.,
MY OPINYON
myopinyon@gmail.com

Are Gay Men Here Lesbophobes? (REPOST)

Hmmm, in a recent discussion I was involved in I expressed my thought that it's time gay men and lesbians in Jamaica come together ideologically and work towards understanding each other. I agree that both sectors of the LGBT community have their share of issues and idiosyncrasies but why for example our lesbian sisters just want to be by themselves?


Even at our bi weekly Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Community (GLABCOM) meetings in Kingston and reportedly at the other three chapters it is evident that the ladies are not interested or so it seems, as the meetings are predominantly attended by men.


Gay men here have been accused of being too overbearing and intolerant of lesbian views and issues and that we (men) don't listen, many lesbians have expressed displeasure at these meetings where the males tend to out speak the them while they are trying to make a point, even at the local level socially, at regular parties the difference is clear, save and except for some gatherings.


My lesbian counterpart in the discussion said many lesbians are expressing their displeasure at the behaviour of some of our brothas and rightly so, but to then criticise the effeminacy or "realness" is just too much for me as some gay men are just that, REAL and cannot express themselves no other way.


However on the matter of my brothas being overbearing, in all fairness that's true to a certain extent and I have heard gay men also expressing their dislike for associating with lesbians.
What is this? Lesbophobia, we nuh like dem, dem nuh like we? eh eh,
(english: we don't like them, they don't like us? wow).
Is it a lack of understanding of each other's lifestyles or are we so busy being "Gay" in our own gender box that everything else seems irrelevant?
.
Another strange observation I have found is that many gay men like myself seem to have more "straight" female friends than lesbian ones and the reverse is true of lesbians in the Jamaican context.


For example a so called thug/shotta (male) will hang with a "butch" female and take her as one of the boys as opposed to socializing with an effeminate male, we see it publicly, lesbian females dressed in men's baggy jeans and smoking weed and being all "thuggy" on the corner and very few oppose it.


Strange bed-fellows in our so called homophobic environment. Personally I have many lesbian friends and in fact many of my gay brothas wonder how come I get along so easily with lesbians.


How can we begin to build the bridge between us and how can we sustain it?.


What do you think?


Peace and tolerance


H

Stigmatization on Effeminacy in Gay Jamaican Culture (REPOST)

Many gay men epsecially those on the downlow, bisexuals and progressors seem to have a problem with effeminate men as it "shows' them up, if and when they appear in public together, however there are some masculine men who like their cream with a little "sugar" on top.

Most Jamaican GB men including those who publicly "bun out chi chi" (pretend to be homophobic) will tell you behind closed doors that an effeminate man can be who they are ("real") in a private setting but when in public they must be masculine acting.
This unwritten rule applies to most African descented gay cultures especially African American where gay, bisexual and progressive men feel that somehow their manhood would be threatened or depleted when seen with a "queen", in Jamaica their person may be threatened by others and they may loose respect from the thugs or other males.

To be even identified as "Gay" is a problem as many attach the stereo typical "queen acting" male who has on tight fitting designer outfits, outrages drag and wigs and carrying a designer handbag image, hence shy away or refute the description/word being applied to them.

We just seem to be hooked on this idea of a hyper macsuline homo thug image somehow.

Jamaica is a unique place as far gay culture is concerned, if we are to really examine the underground scene right here on the rock it would be amazing as Bob Marley says "if night turns to day" then we would really see the other side of things. While we have rampant homophobia, we also have rampant homosexuality and bisexuality too, of course this is based on my experiences. Lots are men especially from the inner city will get down for the right price, if there is a reward to be had and if you really look good too. I think though we have more bisexuals than any other Caribbean territory as the common thread in justifying gay sex is that they are just stealing it on the side.
While the stigmatization of "queens" publicly occurs by masculine bisexuals gays, for sexual purposes some of these same masculine men don't have a problem having an effeminate man as a substitute for his absent or predisposed girlfriend for a night yet this is the same man who when attending a dance party, stage show or club event and the DJ plays an anti gay tune and asked for audience support, will have his hand/rag or cigarette lighter (as is customary) in the air in solidarity.
Interesting how we can switch personalities and attitudes with the greatest of ease to match the environment we are in.

Personally, I have had my run-ins with this "thug type" or heaviots as we call them here derived from the word "heavy" to mean deeply masculine or a gangsta, they are very protective of their identity and image and would do anything including vilify and bash another gay man so as not to be identified.
I have seen it oh too many times,they pass you on the street and if you should say hi that could lead to problems, worse if you are effeminate looking or acting.

The stigmatization is also used by the homophobic mainstream to justify attacks on alleged gay persons and the regular outcry after an attack would be "Is because he act funny/like a girl, serves him/them right, is him/them cause it on themselves."

I can appreciate the "buy in" by gay and bisexual men using as a form of protection when you play the masculine part in order not to be identified, verbally or physically abused in public.

Don't be fooled by the dancehall industry's seemingly homophobic stance, well at least I am not, I think they do it for two main reasons
1). to make money off the homophobic sentiments the public carries in the majority - one of the easiest ways for a struggling artist to make a come-back or a current artist to stay current is to voice an anti gay track
2). To cover their tracks left from behind the scenes liaisons and affairs - it is alleged and known that many in the fraternity engage in homosexual activities but try to put a str8 face to it.

Judge Dread

Peace

Gays in US 'Boycott Jamaica' - Gleaner Story 01.04.09

Sonia Mitchell, Gleaner Writer

A gay-rights lobby last week launched a Boycott Jamaica campaign in the United States city of San Francisco, discouraging patronage of the island's exports - particularly Red Stripe - to put pressure on government and private-sector interests to rein in a perceived rise in attacks on sex minorities.

The move was launched in the Harvey Milk Plaza - named after a gay-rights activist whose characterisation won Sean Penn the Best Actor Oscar in February.

Michael Petrelis, campaign organiser, told The Gleaner Monday that the catalyst for the campaign was a US State Department report, published in February, citing an escalation of violent attacks against homosexuals in Jamaica

Petrelis said neither the Govern-ment of Jamaica nor the police had exhibited a commitment to protect gays or encourage tolerance of sex minorities.

Aims to spread message Though not providing specific figures on the size of its movement, Petrelis said the group aimed to spread its message in other US cities such as New York and Chicago.

The boycott has targeted Red Stripe beer, mainly because of the product's international prominence, Petrelis said. The group is bidding to cut sales of Red Stripe beer in gay bars and restaurants in San Francisco within 30 days. Twelve such establishments have assented to the boycott, Petrelis said. The Gleaner could not immediately verify if Red Stripe products had indeed been pulled.

Petrelis said his group would also dissuade Americans from holidaying in Jamaica. Tourism is one of the island's foreign-exchange gold mines.

A meeting between the lobbyists and Dr Newton Gordon, honorary consul of Jamaica for San Francisco, has been scheduled for next Tuesday.

J-flag deplores boycott

However, Jason McFarlane, programmes manager at the Jamaica Forum for Lesbians, All-sexuals, and Gays (J-FLAG), said it deplored the boycott, particularly because Red Stripe had withdrawn support from entertainers - particularly of the dancehall genre - who promoted violence against gays.

"We had spoken to them not to go ahead with the boycott when they first contacted us last week, but they went ahead despite our response," McFarlane told The Gleaner.

Meanwhile, Maxine Whittingham- Osborne, head of corporate relations at Red Stripe, said the company was surprised by the gay advocates' apparent random targeting

"Over the years, by our actions and our policies, we have demonstrated that we do not advocate any bias or prejudice against any individual or group(s)," she said yesterday.

Whittingham-Osborne said Red Stripe had not had any consultations with the group, but did not rule out engaging them in discussions. She declined comment on whether the company was considering legal proceedings against the boycotters.

Prime Minister Bruce Golding earlier this year said his government would not repeal its buggery laws. Attempts yesterday to contact local police about whether attacks on gays had increased were unsuccessful.

A Word on San Fransican Gays Launch ‘Boycott Jamaica’ Campaign Over Rising Violence

by Howie

Over the weekend, Saturday to be precise a small group of LGBT persons launched a public demonstration against Jamaica's human rights abuses against its gay citizens. The "Rum Dump" as it also named was successful as outlined on
boycottjamaica's site and http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com/

While I appreciate the support in the cause for justice and tolerance towards everyone here despite their sexual orientation, groups planning or who have planned these events must be mindful of the repercussions such actions may have on an already marginalized grouping as we are here.

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

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

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

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

One Love

H