Butch Voices Conference 2011

Time	Thursday, August 18 at 6:00pm - August 21 at 10:00pm
Location	Oakland Marriott City Center 1001 Broadway Oakland, CA

BUTCH Voices 2011 Conference

August 18th – 21st, 2011

Click Here to Register

http://www.butchvoices.com

/registration/

What: BUTCH Voices 2nd National Conference – Oakland, CA

When: August 18 to August 21, 2011

Early Registration: $100*

*Contribute an additional $25 for a VIP Pass

Pricing will go up June 1st — so register today!

A Word on the VIP Pass: As a thank you to those who are able to contribute a little extra to the helping BUTCH Voices Conference happen, we will offer a BUTCH Voices Appreciation t-shirt, reserved seating at events (where space permits) an invitation to our Volunteer Appreciation Party and a special VIP mixer with a few of our amazing speakers.

We are able to make this event happen thanks to your monetary contributions as well as your volunteer service.

Volunteers (VIP): Volunteers pay regular registration rates – and receive VIP perks as a thanks for your completion of service.

Where: The official host hotel where most events will be held is the Marriott City Center in fabulous and historic downtown of Oakland. Room rates are $114.00 per night.

Hotel Reservations:

Marriott City Center, 1001 Broadway, Oakland, CA 94607: 510-451-4000

Hotel Code: bhvbhva (if you are calling by phone)

Make your reservations online by clicking here.

http://www.marriott.com/ho

tels/travel/oakdt-oakland-

marriott-city-center/?toDa

te=8%2F21%2F11%2F&groupCod

e=bvhbvha&fromDate=8%2F18%

2F11&app=resvlink

Please note that the url already contains the online group code, just plug in your dates and it will automatically find the Butch Voices rate.

The Marriott City Center is located in fabulous and historic downtown Oakland. Located right across the street from the BART system, the Marriott City Center is 4 miles from Berkley, 8 miles from San Francisco and 34 miles from Napa Valley.

For more hotel information

click here: http://www.marriott.com/ho

tels/travel/oakdt-oakland-

marriott-city-center/

Click Here to Register via Facebook

http://butchvoices2011.eve

ntbrite.com/?ref=bvfacebook

Stay tuned for our call for submissions and performers, as well as our sponsor and vendor information. Details being added to the BUTCH Voices website ongoing.

The unease with the advocates

Well for some yes it was an uneasy time as last night's April 20th Open Mic Open Soul free expression session that occurred at the Oasis with several persons turning up earlier than normal as the guest for the evening was AIDSFREEWORLD Consultant and letter writing advocate Maurice Tomlinson. The session was to discuss the recently passed Charter of Rights and the missing elements relating to sexual orientation among other things plus some upcoming activities from his end and the usual poetry and expressive activities, also present was the Executive Director of Jamaica Forum for Lesbians Allsexuals and Gays, JFLAG, the brown teddy bear Mr. Dane Lewis. Well apart from their lateness and the fact we had to wait a while for the proceedings to begin a few persons were asking why was there this aloofness by the gentlemen from the rest of the audience?

Things go off to a start non the less and we were all expecting to get far better particulars of the recently passed Charter of Rights instead what we got was a shortened version of sexuality rights in Jamaica with the Charter and a direction to google the Charter and read it for ourselves and then a list of what JFLAG has done and intends to do which bored the audience with persons walking around while some remain seated at one point, in essence a PR stunt to sedate the criticisms coming from the community, this had many after the guest's part of the session ended wondering what was that all about? One upset female voiced her concerns and said she wanted to understand the Charter better as she had seen Mr. Tomlinson on television some nights before on the issue and didn't quite understand some of the nuances, she continued that as a teacher she wanted to go back to her students to have a better exchange with them on the matter, she questioned what was going to be done towards those on the streets? ironically a cry that has been championed on this and my sister blogs. It was refreshing to hear another same gender attracted female voice openly concerns for sections of the MSM community, it shows persons are thinking and want more than just the run of the mill.

There were several pronouncements which also waxed cold with some members of the audience and left many to wonder if this is the kind of forumatic activity we should expect in the near future as according to Maurice they want to engage the community further, this of course came after the prodding of the hostess the capable Stacy who voiced her opinion that all parties in their own right need to be brought together to attack the issues at hand, she also said her space is available for meetings and other activities deemed beneficial to the community. The pomp of the gentlemen not using pseudonyms in their advocacy work as if to suggest those who do are somehow of a lesser breed was not well received, I ignored it but I realized afterwards when there was a suggestion to have them return for follow up sessions, two persons in particular were vociferous in their resolve and vowed they wouldn't attend any of those sessions because of the perceived contemptuous tone.

This is the first appearance by Mr. Tomlinson at the Oasis let's hope persons who were in attendance last night do not have that negative impression of him forever as they say first impression last.

AIDSFREEWORLD and the J seemed more interested however in the Buggery Law and its decriminalization more so than any inter community issues which many felt are also to be dealt with hand in hand as we try to move forward along with the poor communication issues. Again another excuse was given that there are demands locally and internationally on JFLAG's time (this while the ED of JFLAG himself is sitting quietly which was the clue that persons used to arrive at the PR stunt position) as Mr. Tomlinson explained away, the JFLAG ED then broke his silence and commented that the Pink Report (local bloggers) were seconded to do that part but they haven't been doing so, that explanation was not accepted by some in the audience as evidenced in the unease. So it seems that there is a image repair campaign going on but it's not going down well, another clear evidence of the unfavourable feelings that persons have of the group was evidenced in the expression section of the night's activity, the poems, recitals and opinion pieces that followed the departure of the two gentlemen immediately after their presentation were deeply questioning where are we as lgbt people and the feeling of ineffectiveness, one individual in particular lamented that he was tired of the foolishness, for my part in the exchange that followed I suggested that ordinary people are going to have to make up their minds to do their part however small to move us forward and leave or ignore the establishment, it's up to us now.

Many agreed with the conclusion made by a male participant when he answered his own question of why the J doesn't have the community support? he said because they are not prepared to properly engage the community and see people as people not numbers or victims.

"They must embrace the community or forget it, mi nuh have nuh time fi waste"

More and more persons though not exposed to advocacy either as volunteers, recipients of services and interventions or through other means are seeing the glaring disconnect and elitism. Another female from the audience likened the tone and presentation of the guests as local politicians who feel they are the be all and end all and we are to just follow.

I observed as best as I could the proceedings to try and get a glimpse of how persons are feeling and also not to obstruct the other voices that are starting to come through especially at this space, there are no other spaces at this time that offer this kind of cathartic activity coupled with the recognition of community development on a regular basis.

There were some good points however those on the history of the Buggery Law and some reasons for its removal, the need to used allies, the need to do proper research and documentation and reporting matters to the police were well received.

for some ........... If we are to move forward:

1) this feeling that there is a race to see who is doing it better has to go

2) this feeling that they (the advocates) are our betters and we must be relegated as subjects must go

3) we must agree to disagree

4) remove the grandstanding and self promotion and get the work done

5) allow other points of view to flow and develop

6) remove the insulation and secrecy

7) see people as people, human rights are for humans not for intellectual masturbation on paper or legal gymnastics

Those were just some of the ideas, pointers and suggestions put forward afterwards but this is not the first time we have had sections of the community voice their concerns, problem is they are not often voiced loudly enough or sent directly to the targets of the criticisms or placed as opinion pieces as I do here on this medium.

It was only some weeks ago on April 7th when the same attitude was exhibited by the Programs Manager of the J who was guest speaker at the same Open Mic event where he also tried to present JFLAG's view of how they think they are to be speaking on our behalf of course this is without any form of serious consultations or feedback from the body politic. Sadly the international community has been duped for a long time into believing that all is rosy on the representation front by the advocates in Jamaica on LGBT issues when more than 3/4 of us (my terms) are not even recognized but that is slowly being ebbed away by the coming out of more independent voices. There are young folks out there who have never heard of advocacy or JFLAG for that matter, we better recognize that.

See from the Wordpress Edition:

The More Things Change The More They Stay The Same ….. JFLAG’s Prescriptive Culture Still Exists

and from Gay Jamaica Watch

Real Advocacy or not?

I do hope that they the presenters also picked up on the mood of the audience at this session and realize that a major change in attitude, image and culture is required urgently, I go even further to suggest a total paradigm shift. I am looking for an organization with an open door policy, just as how it asks for tolerance directly or through its emissaries of the mainstream it should be tolerant of the very ever diversifying community it says it serves. We also on the outside cannot sit and wait for their transformation, we have to take matters into our own hands as well.

A special thanks to the Couture Elements team despite the ostracism and difficulties of the past in another dispensation found it needed to accommodate the J, this shows a high level of maturity and the recognition of the greater need of the community as a whole

Peace and tolerance

H

Anthony Gomes on the Discrimination debate (Sexual Orientation)

Again we see what could possibly be described as an attempt to hijack the debate on sexual orientation to sneak in all kinds of non essesntials to the mix, this notion that the United Nations is imposing some new way to human rights simply because it doesn't please some "moralists" Anthony Gomes included is sticking some folks the wrong way it seems.

So rights must be for some but not for others because they are of a different sexual orientation Mr. Gomes?

Have a read of his latest below and determine the issues for yourself as published in the Jamaica Observer:

The discrimination debate

The newspaper article, "The right to discriminate" strikes at the heart of the fundamental right to discriminate as a tenet of free will, that resulted in a flurry of recrimination by readers who considered Deacon Peter Espeut's opinion to be out of order. Democracy at work!

The first part of his article deals with a clause in the Charter of Rights which would make discrimination on the basis of language unconstitutional. He makes a strong case against any move to introduce patois as a second language. His observation includes an example of the possibility for bilingual labelling, to be used as a non-tariff barrier for the importation of foreign products. He states: "It is overkill to enshrine in the Constitution the right of non-discrimination on the grounds to achieve judicial equality for Jamaican Creole speakers who are not proficient in Standard English - a problem caused by the failure of the education system." Canada and Wales are two bilingual countries where fluency in both national languages is necessary for government employees, and public notices must be in both languages in designated areas.

The second part of Deacon Espeut's treatise deals with the thorny issue of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The British Government introduced the Sexual Orientation (Provision of Goods and Services) Regulations which are diametrically opposed to the Christian teaching dealing with homosexuality, casting the state in the role of moral transgressor. An adverse side effect of the British-proposed regulations could force Christian marriage preparation, guidance counsellors, retreat houses, conference centres and hostels to accept gay couples. Teaching that homosexuality is the moral equivalent of heterosexual marriage could also be compulsory in religious schools.
In Jamaica, could this ever come to pass at Campion College, St George's College, Immaculate Conception High School, Alpha Convent of Mercy School, Holy Childhood High School and the list of Roman Catholic schools continues... in addition to the many other Christian schools? The official Vatican newspaper reported: "The Catholic Church contests these revolutionary innovations which in the name of freedom, seek to legitimise a union regarded by the universal consciousness as going against nature." In 2000 the British Government reduced the age for permissible gay sex from 18 to 16 to provide equality under the law for homosexuals and heterosexuals.
As with the British leadership, there could be a raft of adverse side effects if the Jamaican churches clash with the state on non-discrimination against homosexuals. It should be recalled that Jamaica is considered to be a Christian country with a profonderance of Christian schools, where the characters of the young are forged on the basis of Christian principles that do not accept homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle for marriage between a man and a woman. This is the essence of Jamaican culture that precludes gay sex that is deeply unpopular as evidenced by both the Observer and Gleaner polls. Any government which attempts to displace this long-standing tradition and belief by repealing the sodomy law would be committing political suicide.

There are numerous pressure groups attempting to infiltrate Jamaica's culture by asserting their lifestyles as normal practice. Besides homosexuals, these groups include the pro-abortionists, the ganja lobby, the polygamists and the polyandrous protagonists, the believers in euthanasia, the supporters of decriminalisation of drugs and those lobbying to legalise male and female prostitution. This is happening in parallel with the media concerning lewd and sexually explicit public expression, which had developed unfettered over the years until it has reached critical and culturally damaging proportions, resulting in the recently publicised reprimand issued by the Broadcasting Commission. Any attempt to enshrine non-discrimination in the Charter of Rights on the basis of sexual orientation would be fallacious, as the male lifestyle includes illegal associations which do not conform to the national standard of natural behaviour.

The Declaration of Human Rights and Sexual Orientation tabled in the United Nations in 2008, as reported by Attorney-at-law Shirley Richards, sought to expand the existing human rights concept to include "sexual orientation" and gender identity as human rights. 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".

This point deserves serious recognition by the government, particularly with regard to the potential for lifestyle deviation of Jamaican youth.

A prominent columnist asserts that "homosexuality is not an unpreventable disease, it is an option. It is learned behaviour, practised by more and more people who simply disregard the limits of personal conduct as well as God-given principles and morals". Apart from being in tune with the changing times, contemporary liberalism has gone beyond the realm of propriety in its expectations. Society is replete with demands to liberalise the very constraints that are there to protect citizens from doing themselves harm.

With that said, we welcome the newly appointed Archbishop of Kingston, Charles Dufour, in anticipation of his entry into the debate on discrimnination.

Smear campaign on Hedonism III using biphobia ??

So it seems as the longstanding rift between the Gordon Butch Stewart owned Sandals Resorts versus the Issa owned Hedonism properties has once again spilled over into the public domain coincidentally the Jamaica Observer where the spillage has taken place is also owned by Gordon Butch Stewart, the rivalry between the powerful names in the hotel industry is not lost to us remember the nude wedding drama years ago that was supposed to have taken place at Hedonism III which caused a national uproar especially from the Christian right movement with the papers blaring? among other things.

The world's largest Nude Wedding. February 14th 2003 at the Hedonism III Resort in Jamaica. http://www.nakedworldrecords.com/wedd.htm

The largest nude wedding took place 2003 in Jamaica with 29 couples getting married at the same time. The wedding was held at Hedonism III in Runaway Bay, Jamaica on Valentine's Day. The couples involved people of various cultures, ethnicities, and backgrounds including a person from Russia, a Canadian, and an American Indian person from the Crow Tribe. The ceremony was conducted by Rev. Frank Cervasio of the Universal Life Church in Florida. Participants of the event were required to stay a minimum of 4 days, and arrive on February 12, two days before the marriage ceremony.

All of a sudden the Observer publishes parts of the transcript of the suit filed by the Issa camp recently, what's the intent of that? and to use such a bi-phobic line (see below) to push their agenda is disturbing indeed. To use so called moral suasion playing on society's caustic regard for anything deem gay or such while ignoring the valued privacy people are free to enjoy, so what if persons subscribe to an event to be held on private property for a fee they should be free to do so what the hell is the Observer trying to get at?

Here is the article, you decide for yourselves:

'Wild Women Vacation' promoted bisexual party at Hedonism

ON March 29, 2005, the Observer published a letter titled "Naked flights to Jamaica" criticising the promotion by a travel website on behalf of Hedonism III, operated by SuperClubs. Its chairman, John Issa, sued the newspaper for defamation in the Supreme Court, in connection with which a ruling was recently handed down. Following are excerpts from the transcript of the trial in Justice Kay Beckford's court:
Charles Piper (Observer's attorney): "...It says, in the (online) ad itself it says 'Wild Women Vacation the No 1 bisexual fantasy is now a reality'?...Is that part of the image of your hotel?"

Issa: "Well, this being advertised it is part of the image."

Piper: "And it has always been part of the image of the Hedonism brand?"

Issa: "No."

Piper: "... It advertise Threesome Week'?"

Issa: "Yes, I see that."

Piper: "Do you know what that means?"

Issa: "No."

Piper: "Well, let's read on and see if we get some understanding. It says, 'January 9 to 16, 2010, and there is no place better to fill these desires but at the place where pleasure has been perfected, Hedonism III.' Who attend this event? And here is the answer: 'Couples who already have a girlfriend seeking similar couples. Couples who want to learn how to go about starting a MFF relationship, lesbian or female bisexual couples looking to expand their experiences with others'. That was what was being sold, correct?"

Issa: "Yes."

Piper: "...Do you know what is a 'MFF Relationship'?"
Issa: "No."

Piper: "I am suggesting that it's a male female female relationship. Your answer, sir?

Issa: "Oh, what's the question? Justice Beckford: "It's a suggestion."

Piper: "...I want you to read those words again."

Issa: "Which words?"

Piper: "Couples who already have a girlfriend seeking similar couples. Couples who want to learn how to go about starting a MFF relationship, lesbians or female bisexual couples looking to expand their experiences with others."

Issa: "Yes, I see that."

Piper: "...Very well. So the person who was there placing the ad is Wild Women Vacation, correct?"

Issa: "That's what it appears to be."

Piper: "Well let's look at page 204?...I want you to look at the fourth paragraph. It says:

'The first bisexual party Sunday night at our hospitality suite is different on every trip. Sometimes it can get very active, very fast while other times virtually nothing occurs. It all depends on the women. Some women are exhibitionists who love to stir things up quickly, while (some) are voyeurs and others are only seeking an intimate one and one relationship with nobody around except maybe a husband or boyfriend. We do have an adjoining room for those who wish privacy or once you find those whom you are comfortable with, returning to your own room with your new friends is not uncommon. Husbands and boyfriends are invited to attend but can only watch. They all manage to survive.' You agree with me that that is part of the vacation package which was being offered by Wild Women Vacation."

Issa: "That's what it appears to be."

Piper: "And these women were being accommodated in Hedonism III, your hotel?"
Issa: "The people booked by Wild Woman Vacation were accommodated at Hedonism III and also some were in Las Vegas."

To be continued

Rev Clinton Chisholm on Defending Discrimination & Consensual Sex Revisited

In a letter to the Gleaner well respected Theologian Rev Clinton Chisholm challenges that the call for repulsion of the buggery law using consent is not a convincing argument, also below is one of his latest blog posts as well:

Consensual Sex Revisited

THE EDITOR, Sir:
"To be clear, our position is neither an endorsement nor rejection of homosexuality. Frankly, we do not care. How consenting adults choose to live their lives is none of our business." (Gleaner editorial, April 1, 2011)

To some, the above sentiment of the editorial is progressive, politically correct and defensible. To me, it is dangerous and disingenuous.
I say the editorial's posture is disingenuous because it seems to reflect a neutral position about homosexuality, but this veneer of neutrality is blown to pieces by the realisation that the position of the editorial is not neutrality, but indictable moral ambivalence/indifference about homosexuality summed up in the words " we do not care".
How can a responsible and prestigious media organisation - which influences public opinion - claim it is none of its business "how consenting adults choose to live their lives"?

The editorial's posture is societally dangerous in that how people live their lives sexually is critical to the society's health concerns and even continued existence.

Ponder the societal consequence of universalising homosexuality as the sexual norm!
Can one be really socially responsible but ambivalent about consensual homosexual sex, consensual adultery, consensual incest, consensual sadomasochistic sex given the relational implications of such acts beyond even the health costs of dealing with AIDS and other STIs? Has the editor given thought to the social cost of pregnancies deemed unwanted by putative parents, and especially, the impact of absentee father figures on the lives of our young men?

Not enough moral justification

Let us get it clear in our minds: Consensuality, even along with privacy and age maturity, does not constitute adequate moral justification for sexual behaviour, without more, as the lawyers would say.
If we hold the view that a certain sexual behaviour is morally defensible, let's have the moral courage to be upfront and say so and not hide behind a thin veneer of neutrality. Homosexuality may indeed need to be decriminalised and the buggery law expunged, but the reasons for doing so must be more convincing than simply moral ambivalence or apathy about what consenting adults do sexually.

I am, etc.,
CLINTON CHISHOLM (Rev)

clintchis@yahoo.com

The Blog post

Defending Discrimination:

In the Jamaica Gleaner editorial of April 1, one aspect of the new proposed Constitutional Charter of Rights was given prominence; freedom from discrimination. There is much conceptual fuzziness and thus an indefensible aversion to the term discrimination.

As I argued in my 1997 book A Matter of Principle, “[discrimination] is not necessarily a bad thing. For me the essence of the wrongness of racial or gender discrimination is not that people, on the basis of ethnic stock, colour or gender are discriminated against but that they are demeaned and despised specifically on the basis of colour, ethnic stock or gender…

One does, indeed one has to discriminate in selecting a spouse, employees, lecturers, students, journalists, columnists, speakers and others.

The criteria of discrimination may vary depending on what are considered vital qualifications in the minds of those doing the selection, but we do discriminate, that is, we preferentially select or choose not to do so.

As long as the individual or group being discriminated against is not thereby demeaned or despised, discrimination seems justifiable.”(p.78)

I would now modify the sentences with “demeaned and despised’ to read demeaned, despised or [economically] deprived of what is due and deserved…”

We need conceptual clarity in public discourse. In another piece I’ll raise definitional questions on the editorial’s use of ‘sexual orientation’, ‘homophobia’ and even the term ‘homosexuality’.

ENDS

Rev. Clinton Chisholm studied at the Jamaica Theological Seminary (B.Th.), the Jamaica School of Music (L.R.S.M., A.T.C.L.), theUniversity of the West Indies (B.A.), Sheffield University, England(M.A.), the International Academy of Apologetics, Evangelism & Human Rights, France (F.C.A., Fellow in Christian Apologetics) and Biola University, USA, (M.A.) In 2005 he was awarded the honourary Doctor of Divinity degree (D.D) by the Caribbean Graduate School of Theology in Jamaica where he served as a Guest Lecturer since 1993. The Rev. Mr. Chisholm has been involved in education at home in Jamaica and abroad, having served as High School teacher, lecturer at the Jamaica Theological Seminary, guest lecturer at the Caribbean Graduate School of Theology (Jamaica), tutor in Philosophy at the University of the West Indies (Mona, Jamaica), tutor in Business Ethics at the University of Technology (Jamaica) and teaching assistant in Hebrew at Sheffield University, England. He has produced 25 educational audio cassettes, the latest being “Homosexuality: Clinical & Biblical Perspectives”, “Afrocentrism & Black Consciousness: Challenges for Christianity” and “The Church’s Impact on Western Civilization”. He is the author of the book “A Matter of Principle” and “Revelations on Ras Tafari“

Lesbians Do Have Morals! .......

So fellow Lesbian blogger Alexis Jarvis has written to the Gleaner as a reponse to Peter Espeut's article on his take on rights as relating to lgbt people, she had initially responded via her blog as excerpted here:

"Mr. Espeut and fellow thinkers (including Shirley Richards) draw upon the fear of Jamaicans in furthering their (at times) baseless arguments. A church that does not condone homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexuality, transgenderism, cannot by any account be forced to admit these persons into their clergy that would be an infringement on their rights. The church is a private body governed by its own rules; the rules of the state (so long as there is separation) cannot be forced onto them. The same goes, as it regards schools employing openly LGBT persons. A private school, not funded by the government can set their own rules and chose whether to accept such persons or not. For example, if a school is operated by Seventh-day Adventists, then non-Adventists or even non-Christians will be required to abide by the rules of that school. If however, the school is funded by the government of the land then the laws of the government will also govern how such an institution is run.

“I do not believe that two consenting adults, of whatever gender, should be criminalised for having sexual intercourse with each other in the privacy of their homes”, why then Mr. Espeut should you not support even the very basic call of the removal of Sections 76, 77 and 79 of the Offences Against the Person Act? Those sections can allow persons to be targeted, dragged out of their homes and beaten, and/or jailed. “Personally, I do not think that homosexual relations are wholesome”, I partially agree with you Sir, however I must say that there are many heterosexual relationships out there that are not wholesome; no single side of the fence has completely wholesome relationships.

You say Mr. Espeut, that by including a clause of non-discrimination, it may cause “young people not yet self-actualised, who are still developing a consciousness of themselves and their sexual identity… [to believe] that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equally acceptable 'alternative lifestyles’”. I personally believe that due to music culture many young persons, experiment with sex in all forms (it has always happened), do not confuse that (experimentation) Mr. Espeut with identity/orientation. Why, Mr. Espeut would anyone chose to live a life that they have heard over and over will lead them to hell, a life that would endanger their life? Why Mr. Espeut, would I chose to live a life that has caused me to be the target of a sexual crime? No Mr. Espeut, you need to stop and think it over."

Here is the actual letter:

Lesbians Do Have Morals!

THE EDITOR, Sir:

Peter Espeut, in his column 'The right to discriminate' (April 8), began his defence against the non-inclusion of a non-discrimination clause against the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Jamaican population by drawing upon the fear of Jamaicans.

A church that does not condone homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexuality, transgenderism cannot, by any account, be forced to admit these persons into its clergy, as that would be an infringement on their rights. The church is a private body governed by its own rules; the same goes for schools employing openly LGBT persons.

Mr Espeut says that by including a clause of non-discrimination, it may cause "young people ... [to believe] that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equally acceptable 'alternative lifestyles'." Why, Mr Espeut, would anyone choose to live a life that they have heard over and over will lead them to hell, a life that would endanger their life?

anything goes

I do not know, Mr Espeut, if you are saying that "anything goes" is the characteristic of LGBT persons, or if such persons are amoral. If that is what you are saying, may I ask you how many LGBT persons have you met outside the stereotypical profile many have of LGBT people? Let me introduce you to a lesbian who has a moral compass: me. I am a lesbian, a Christian, an overcomer of a sexual crime. I am not amoral, I have values, I have a concept of right and wrong, I have moral principles.

Get it right, Mr Espeut, all heterosexuals aren't party animals and promiscuous beings, neither are all lesbians, bisexuals, gays, and transgenders.

I am, etc.,

ALEXIS JARVIS

Lesbian Christian and Human

Rights Activist

Jarvis@p2102442.pubip.peer1.net

Uganda Ambassador ignorance to the EU: David Kato should share responsibility for his murder

In a shocking letter to the President of the European Parliament, the Ambassador of Uganda in Brussels asserts that David Kato “should share responsibility in this very unfortunate incident”. A highly-respected and recognised human rights defender in Uganda, David Kato was murdered on 26th January 2011 following his vocal stance in favour of LGBT people’s human rights.

In the letter reproduced in full below, Stephen T. K. Katenta-Apuli writes to “correct an impression Members of the European Parliament may have that the murder of David Kato was a result of his championing the rights of gays and lesbians in Uganda.” According to the Ambassador, “nothing could be farther from the truth.”

In a shocking demonstration of ignorance and prejudice, the Ambassador of Uganda goes on to assert that unlike female prostitutes, male prostitutes “have the physical capability to defend their interests.”

Fully disregarding principles of justice and fair trial, the Ambassador further explains:

The case is in Court and due process will deliver justice. I can assure you that the culprit will get a fair trial, will be found guilty and will receive maximum sentence, which could be death at the gallows.

the letters:

Heidi Hautala MEP, Chair of the Subcommittee on Human Rights, responded on behalf of the President of the European Parliament. In her letter, she responds that expressing “a view that due to his conduct, Mr Kato should share the responsibility for his own murder reflects a categorically unsound and entirely unacceptable way of thinking.”

her response:

In February 2011, the European Parliament had adopted an urgency resolution strongly condemning the murder of David Kato.

Read more:

• Download the letter from the Ambassador of Uganda (PDF)
• Download the response from the European Parliament (PDF)

Pakistan's transgender tribe of tax collectors .... a new way to get collections up

Karachi, Pakistan (CNN) -- Miss your tax deadline in the United States this weekend, and you might get a nasty letter at your door. In Karachi, Pakistan's largest city, you might get Riffee and the gang. They are "transgender" tax collectors -- whose weapons include flamboyancy, surprise -- and a little lipstick.

In a move that speaks volumes about the lengths to which Pakistan is going to tackle tax evasion, Karachi officials are using Riffee - who like many people in South Asia works under a single name - and her team as enforcers with a difference. They are sent to the businesses or houses of debtors. The aim -- in this very conservative Muslim society -- to embarrass tax debtors into paying up.

Riffee -- like her tax-collector friends Sana and Kohan -- is physically a man, but prefers to be called and dress as a woman. Their job is quite simple: each morning they turn up to work and get a list of missed payments. One by one, they make house-calls, causing trouble at each debtor's home or office, trying to get them to pay up. It's not clear how effective this tactic is, but officials insist they would not do it if it did not work.

"Their appearance causes great embarrassment amongst the people," said Sajid Hussein Bhatti, the tax superintendent who gives Riffee her orders every morning.

When Riffee was a 10-year-old boy, she decided she wanted to be a woman. Since then, she says, she's endured plenty of prejudice. "We're trying to educate society and show them how we like ourselves, but if your parents don't understand you or give you respect, how can you expect other people to?"
A Pakistani court ruling two years ago gave eunuchs -- men who have been castrated -- the right to be referred to as a "third gender." Riffee believes the same right should extend to her and her friends, although they have not been castrated.
We followed them as they visit a series of electrical appliance shops. The first debtor insists there's been a mistake and the bill's been paid. The second is less amenable, so the team threaten to come back 24 hours later, half a dozen strong -- and dance in the shop. That just may be enough to get a tax bill settled.

There is a serious side though to this theatrical tactic. Pakistan's tax take is dire: barely 1 per cent of Pakistanis pay any income tax, and the government is frantically trying to increase its income -- partially to placate the International Monetary Fund. Pakistan wants to borrow up to another $5 billion from the IMF, which insists the state improves its tax collection.

The government is seriously indebted -- and only 1.9 million people in a country of 170 million filed tax returns at all last year. By some estimates 10 million people are registered to pay taxes in Pakistan; the great majority don't pay a rupee.
In a country where many say the courts are weak and the police corruptible, Riffee and the team are a last, albeit striking, resort.

Because Bisexual Conference 2011

The BECAUSE Planning Committee is committed to creating an environment where all participants feel safe and comfortable and are able to participate. In an effort to ensure this to the best of our ability, we ask that you read and respect the statements below.


Diversity and Inclusion Statement:

The BECAUSE Planning Committee encourages conference participants to refrain from making assumptions about others’ sexual orientation, gender identity, or other cultural or social identities. Out of respect for gender diversity, we ask that conference participants use the pronouns that others prefer. If you are unsure of someone’s gender identity and preferred pronoun, for instance he, she, they, ze, or no pronoun, please ask respectfully how you should refer to that individual or use their name in place of gendered pronouns.

There will be gender neutral restrooms available and labeled as All-Gender Restrooms. Restrooms with gender markers will also be available. The location of these restrooms will be labeled on our maps.

Sex Positive Statement:

The BECAUSE Planning Committee supports sex-positive perspectives and advocates for our event to be a safer space for open dialogue.

Sex positivity refers to the notion that sex can be a positive force both in personal development and society. Consensual sexual expression should be respected regardless of the form that expression takes. It is not appropriate to judge others consensual choices regarding how to have sex, who to have sex with, and how one defines their sexual orientation and identity. It is equally important to focus on the positive aspects of sexuality, like sexual pleasure, and not just disease prevention, prevention of sexual assault and unwanted pregnancy. Sexuality is largely socially constructed, and there are few if any essential truths about sex. (Adapted Cory Silverberg)

Low-Scent Request:

Please refrain from using scented products while at the conference. People with Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS) have severe allergic reactions to many of the chemicals commonly found in scented products. Fortunately, there are numerous scent-free alternatives we can wear. We do not expect attendees to purchase new products, but we ask that you at least use the least scented products that you own and refrain from wearing perfumes and colognes while at the conference.

While we cannot guarantee a totally “scent-free” environment at this year’s conference, each of us can do a great deal in making sure everyone is comfortable during the breakout sessions and other conference events by not wearing scented products.

Photography and Flash Request:

Please ask before taking any pictures as not all participants will be comfortable with their picture being taken. In addition, if you do take pictures, please refrain from using flash as this could be problematic for people with light sensitivities.

Questions/Concerns? Contact them at:
LouAHQ@gmail.com

http://www.becauseconference.org/default.html

Book: “Helping Your Transgender Teen: A Guide for Parents”

Irwin Krieger, a Connecticut Psychotherapist and gender specialist has written a 75 page guide for parents of trans teens (2011, Genderwise Press, New Haven, CT. ISBN: 069201229X).

The book provides a good “lay of the land” for parents who have little information about what it means to have a transgender child. It includes a glossary of terms, a primer on gender and sexuality, and a fairly detailed roadmap for what to expect should the teen decide to transition.

It is particularly strong in articulating the tensions that can arise between an impatient teen and a cautious parent who is trying to “come up to speed”. Other helpful areas are sample letters to extended family members explaining the situation, thoughts on what to expect when a teen transitions at school and a discussion of the typical fears a parent may have.

There are few minor points with which I took issue – namely a tendency (not just here but in a good deal of transgender literature) to paint the (FTM) female to male transgender child’s experience as somehow “easier” and Krieger’s describing a teen’s coming out as gay as often being a “transitional identity” to what may later be a “straight” identity. This may overlook the strong “queer” identity that many young people lay claim to before, during and even after transition.

These points aside, “Helping Your Transgender Teen” is sure to do just that for a good many parents who will be reassured and educated by this book.

Also in Trans Mental Health News here are some tips on:

Thoughts on Parents coping with Transgender children

Keep the long term goal in mind in all communications

The long term goal is maintaining a relationship with your child.

Allow yourself time to process your feelings.

There can be pressure for immediate acceptance.

You are entitled to all your feelings about the situation.

Your child has had much more time to think about this and accept it than you have.

Communication

Listening: Don’t interrupt, don’t tune out, and don’t plan what you will say next, make eye contact, pay attention to the speakers feelings, before you give your opinion reflect back what you are heard in a non-judgmental way so that the speaker knows they have been heard or ask for clarification if you didn’t understand something.

Speaking: If you’re too angry or upset take a 20 min. break. Try to avoid blaming, ultimatums, attacking, insults, large proclamations or hurtful speech. Say what you feel clearly, don’t assume people know. (people are not mind readers). Say what you feel rather than acting it out, ex: “I’m confused and angry…”

Say where you are, example: “I don’t completely understand it but I’m listening and working on it”

Don’t triangulate; focus on you and your child not other people.

Don’t shut down communications or avoid your child

Telling Other family/friends

This is often the largest fear.

Let it happen when you’re ready.

Let others have their own feelings and reactions about it, don’t try and dictate.

Understanding and reframing

Educate yourself about transgenderism.

This is an opportunity for a more authentic relationship with your child.

Gay Parenting (a view on the ground) (repost from 09) ........ International Family Day

International Day of Families, 15 May 2011
(observed 12 May 2011)

Theme: "Confronting family poverty and social exclusion"

Contrary to popular belief, there are gay parents here in Jamaica, most of them conceived or derived children during earlier heterosexual unions before going str8 gay as I call it or from marriages that end in divorce. There are lesbian parents more so than gay male parents to my knowledge as well and the children in these unions seem to be more rounded in their approach to tolerance and the sharing of responsibilities generally speaking based on my observation.

The opponents of gay parenting here who also oppose homosexuality consisting mainly the church and christian organizations who say that children must not be raised by gays because there must be a mother and father figure in the home, let's look at the so called hetero correctness where children suffer in bitter divorce battles or parents are physically present but emotionally absent hence leaving the child to seek other alternatives for development and recreation.

Str8s are doing a good job aren't they? just look at how intolerant we are as a people towards a personal decision taken based on our orientation and freedom to exercise choice ...... wow, look at how many street children or to be more religious children born out of wedlock, the alarming rise in carnal abuse, paedophilia (which is not homosexuality or committed by homosexuals as some would like others to believe), hebephilia where our teenage girls are literally watched in their growth process and targeted by men for sex (coaster bus syndrome), rape and incest. Only this week there was a disturbing news item of a girl paid by her uncle for sex.

Visible outcomes
One particular male who has three adopted boys did so out of the need for them to have a father figure as they were the product of two HIV+ parents who subsequently passed away. He is very strict with them and doesn't allow them to stray an inch, his gay lifestyle does not seem to impede his ability to father them and he has taught them that there are many types of people in the world. The boys age from the eldest 14, 12 and 10. All are attending school and are doing fairly well. They are aware of their parents' fate and are counselled by professionals who keep a close watch on them. I guess with these support systems in place it would be easier to manage these children especially in our homophobic setting where even kids often emulate what the adults do to other children who behave differently than what is expected.

I am aware of a lesbian couple who entered into a relationship some time ago with both of them having children from previous hetero unions, the kids have since been raised to be tolerant and are compatible with each other, they are told by their moms exactly what is happening and of their parents' orientation, the boy and girl ages 11 and 8 seem not to be perturbed by the arrangements and are doing well in school and socially as well. The father of the boy is active in his life and although he is upset with the mother (according to her) he speaks to both women when he visits the home to see his son making sure not to show any descent in front of them as responsible adults should behave.

There is a male couple who have been together for a while, one of the men has a son from a previous marriage but the union ended in divorce, The mother decided to share custody of the child although she was aware of her ex husband's new lifestyle and living arrangements. He has been visiting his son at her home where she now has a new spouse and the child also comes to his home as well. The growing boy, as most children do, has been asking alot of questions and both parents deliberated on how to handle the information so he would understand and the timing of it as well with confidentiality. To their surprise after they painstakingly discussed the issues with him he said openly to them that he loves them no matter what. This from an eleven year old. Kids are not fools, never underestimate children.

I think that confirms a religious phrase "And a little child shall lead them"

All in all it is clear to me that children when given the correct environment of love, support and education can become rounded individuals despite the gender and orientation of the caregivers, I don't need studies to tell me this I see it everyday by the three examples above and others which may make this post extraordinarily long so I will follow up some other time.

also see from Gay Jamaica Watch: Sexual Reproduction for Same Sex Couples?

Peace

H

Re-title this letter Observer to: Miss Richard's trope on HIV ........

Really, when I saw the letter's title I was expecting another one of those anti gay apologists or adovactes blaming HIV on men who have sex with men but after reading it it was a critique of on the article headlined 'No truth repealing buggery law will help reduce HIV/AIDS' The Lawyers' Christian Fellowship is once again using the opportunity given the passing of the Charter of Rights without any protection for discrimination due to sexual orientation.

I would have thought they would have been satisfied seeing they were successful in removing what little protection that existed in the original drafts of the Charter in the absence of our limp wristed JFLAG advocates the LCF claimed there would have been loop holes towards gays demanding gay marriage next if the protection was directly included and this crap that the homosexual lifestyle would have been legitimized and kids taught in school that gay is OK and by extension the procreation argument, a wonderful red herring planted when no group asked for gay marriage rights outrightly a red herring used again by the Jamaica Labour Party administration to defend overlooking us for any direct protection and recognition under the Charter which is to replace section three of the constitution.

As we read there is another survey being conducted in the MSM community by the Ministry of Health and I fear we may not see any improvements in the numbers as the last one from 2007 where the HIV rate of infection was 31%

Have a read of the letter as titled

Removing law won't help end HIV

and see if you agree:

Dear Editor,

I feel compelled to comment on the article headlined 'No truth repealing buggery law will help reduce HIV/AIDS'. I can't believe that in 2011 a lawyer, and past president of the Lawyers Christian Fellowship, would make such comments.

Ms Shirley Richards was also concerned that repealing this law may result in children being taught in schools that homosexuality is OK. These comments are irresponsible, and worse, they are made amidst the discussion on the Charter of Rights which ought to be inclusive, and not exclusive.

Human beings should certainly not be discriminated against based on race, gender or sexual orientation, and these lawyers need to get with the programme and stop speaking rubbish. The law defines buggery as an act which makes homosexuality amongst men illegal. It is also strange that heterosexuals exploring these same acts in heterosexual relationships is OK.

Lesbians seem off topic, as society is far more lenient towards them. Quite frankly, neither Ms Richards nor the Government have any business defining what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. They also have no business deciding who consenting adults love.

To say there is no proof that removing this law will reduce incidents of HIV/AIDS, suggests that Ms Richards and her crew must be living under some rock. There are nearly 40 million people living with HIV around the world, and the places with the highest rates of increases are third world, developing countries.

Removing any law that stigmatises vulnerable groups certainly won't end HIV. It will, without a doubt, help to make HIV prevention/care outreach programmes far easier and more accessible, which ultimately would impact on prevention and rates of increases.
Removing laws does not exactly remove the right to condone (if that is one's choice). It is absurd and silly to suggest that removing the law might result in teaching homosexuality as normal or abnormal in schools. The classroom cannot teach us who we will love. What must be taught instead is that we are all human beings, we all have the right to exist, and coexist, in peace and harmony within the confines of the law.
It is funny how many Jamaicans are quick to condemn homosexuality, yet these same Jamaicans rush to First World countries to visit and to live, and they adapt so easily, as they embrace their new homes, culture and new laws.

They live with, work with, and play with open gays, without any issues. We should all be concerned about saving lives and the health and well-being of our citizens. I am so tired of Christians always being so quick to judge and condemn. I am tired of the hypocrisy. How can Ms Richards even state that "transmission seems to be out of control among men who have sex with men".

HIV does not discriminate, it affects young and old, male and female, all races, classes, heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual and all others. HIV is a global issue, not a homosexual issue. Unlike places like South Africa, where the Church is an integral part in the fight against HIV/AIDS, Jamaican church leaders are naive enough to make it a homosexual issue, encouraging a climate of hate and phobia, masked by their Christianity.

Shirley Richards should practise provincial law and leave the business of framing citizens' rights and privileges to those interested in the growth and development of the society. Negativity and dogged blind loyalty to Christianity are not the end all, and she can practise her religion in her home.

J Longmore
New York City
NY, USA
longmorej@yahoo.com

also see: Keep the Law out of Gay's Bedrooms from Gay Jamaica Watch 2009

Lawyer's Christian Fellowship hypocrisy from Shirley Richards: "Charter Of Rights And The Moral Divide" (read carefully)

Below is an excerpted address by Shirley Richards, attorney-at-law and immediate past president of the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship, to the Lions Club of Kingston last Wednesday April 7th

Like it or not, the Charter of Rights, having been passed by both Houses of Parliament, is expected to become law shortly. I think, maybe, that you may be interested in knowing a few of the expected changes which will come to our society as a consequence of the charter. Here are a few of the changes:

Philosophical change in the approach to rights: In what will shortly become the previous document, rights are stated but circumscribed by limitations. In this document, it is fair to say that except for those specific limitations which have been saved, the only limitations which will be recognised will be such as are demonstrably 'justified in a free and democratic society'.

The document has both vertical and horizontal effects, meaning that we now have rights against the Government and also against each other. Expect the society then to become more litigious.

The major new rights are the right of a child to publicly funded tuition at the pre-primary and primary levels (Section 13 (k)). The right to enjoy a healthy and productive environment (Section 13 (l)). This should mean, therefore, that we will be able to sue persons who drive defective vehicles on the road as well as companies whose plants emit poisonous fumes.

civic intervention

Civic organisations can now intervene on behalf of individuals whose rights have been contravened or are likely to be contravened (Section 19 (2)).

Care has been taken to preserve the death penalty [Section 13 (7)], legislation that deals with sexual offences, offences that pertain to the life of the unborn, and laws that pertain to obscene publications [Section 13 (12)]. It remains to be seen how the courts will deal with these laws which have been retained.

Marriage has also been defined [Section 18 (2)] as follows:

No form of marriage … other than the voluntary union of one man and one woman may be contracted or legally recognised in Jamaica.

Thanks to our intervention, provisions relating to religious liberties have also been included at Section 17, basically repeating provisions of Section 21 of the past document.

Why did the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship intervene in the passage of the charter? In brief, we saw a document whose philosophy was the supreme autonomy of the individual. The philosophical flaw in the document then, and still is so in the current document, but to a lesser extent, is a failure to face the fact that we are all selfish by nature and that, further, we live in a community where, like it or not, our private actions do impact the life of the community. Frankly, some of us are concerned that the concept of human rights is being used to erase the distinction between right and wrong, and that human rights, in itself, have now become the new religious dogma.

After examining the document, we became very concerned about the destination of the proposed journey. When we intervened in 2006, we realised then that all our laws and any limitations on perceived rights would now be subject to what obtains in a 'free and democratic society'.

what's the destination?

The concept of us as a nation setting out on a journey in the pursuit of freedom and liberty of the individual sounded exhilarating, exciting even, but did we have any idea as to our destination? Is it good governance to lead a nation to a possible and even likely destination without their informed consent? The philosophy of the document, as it was, would certainly have allowed for a striking down of the laws relating to buggery, abortion and obscene publications. Not only that, we were concerned that the robust language of Section 21 of the soon-to-be-replaced Chapter III of the Constitution was not repeated in the proposed document.

Section 21 deals with freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, and preserves a certain amount of autonomy for religious bodies. All that was given was a right to freedom of thought, conscience, belief and observance of religious and political doctrines. Knowing what was happening in so-called free and democratic countries, e.g. Canada, where consistently, the rights of homosexuals trumped rights to conscience, and where it has been declared that women have the right to take the lives of their unborn children, ought we to have sat by just getting on with our daily routine without, at the very least, warning the nation?

We could do no less than sound a warning. This we did, and thankfully, we received a favourable hearing.

It took some courage to be able to include clauses in the current charter which have now saved laws relating to sexual offences, the life of the unborn, and obscene publications, and have preserved our religious liberties. Moreover, as said before, the document now defines marriage in the way that I dare say most Jamaicans now define that institution - being that of one man to one woman.

In this regard, I want to urge our society to give more than lip service to marriage. I want to urge our society to view the institution as an honourable one, one which provides the best environment in which to raise our children.

A mutually faithful heterosexual relationship is not merely one private option among many, but has serious implications for the public good and the health of the nation.

changing laws

Our Parliament is still there to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Jamaica (Section 48). Our judges are there to interpret and apply these laws. If we want laws changed, let us do so upfront, with the full knowledge of the society. Let the Parliament not abdicate its responsibility of making laws.

Having included these sections in the charter, I want to say to the Government that we expect that if at any time there is a court decision which goes contrary to the intentions clearly expressed on behalf of the electorate that you expressed in this charter, that we do expect that you will honour the Jamaican people by taking such legislative action as may be necessary to rectify any faulty wording which may become apparent.

To the charge that the charter ignored the rights of homosexuals, I ask, where do rights originate? And if there is no transcendent moral law, what gives anyone any rights, and what prevents mere power from prevailing? If it is true that repeal of the buggery law will assist with reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS, then why is it that the November 2010 edition of Lancet Infectious Diseases reported that "despite an overall decline in HIV incidence in France, transmission seems to be out of control among men who have sex with men?" Lancet is a highly reputable medical publication. Note that buggery was decriminalised in France since the time of the French Revolution in 1791. Other reputable sources (e.g., Eurosurveillance) report similar trends for HIV incidence among MSMs in many developed Western nations.

If the buggery law is repealed, what will prevent our children being taught in school that the homosexual lifestyle is a good and acceptable one?

Let me tell you about the case of Eunice and Owen Johns, a Jamaican couple who currently reside in England. They had fostered children 15 times before. Their application to foster children in 2007 was not approved by the Derby Council because, in answering questions posed by the social worker, they had made it clear that they could not and would not be willing to tell a child that homosexuality is a good thing. The High Court on February 28, 2011, sided with the council. According to the BBC report of the case, the court said that if children were placed with caregivers who objected to homosexuality, "there may well be a conflict with the local authority's duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of looked-after children".

Basically, what that decision meant is that objection to homosexuality is not in the interest of the welfare of children. To put it another way, if you do not agree with homosexual conduct, you cannot foster children in the UK! Out goes many Christian-minded people and also many Jamaican couples living in the UK! Talk about discrimination! If objection to the homosexual lifestyle makes you an unsafe parent, how long will it be before one's natural children are removed by the State for their 'safety'?

rejoice only briefly

To those persons who are like-minded - especially to the churchfolk - don't get lost in your rejoicing. Let your rejoicing be brief, for the battle has only just begun. Now as never before in our history, churches are going to have to unite to fight a common battle. Weapons will have to be carefully chosen. This battle is not one to be fought with weapons of war as in the Middle East. Instead, we will have to fight back cultural imperialism with a moral revolution!

And so I call for a moral revolution in this country; one in which we live right; one in which we speak the truth without having to be pressured at commissions of enquiry; one in which we can dialogue and cross-examine without being crass; one in which we choose to have our children within the context of stable marital unions; a society in which fathers support their children; a society in which we value our children from conception; one in which we support our mothers; one in which we jealously value and cultivate the healthy and mutually faithful man-woman relationship; and a society in which we eschew the use of violence as a means of solving our problems.

I have borrowed a thought from the words of Norman Manley uttered in Parliament on the occasion of the coming into force of the 1962 Constitution. This is the paraphrase:

Let no one imagine that we have secured our future forever. It is only the spirit and vigilance of the people which will preserve those good things that are in the Charter of Rights.