Oh no, Mr Smith! - more letters to editor

Dear Editor,

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

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

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

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


O Hilaire Sobers
ohilaire@yahoo.com

Tolerance or acquiescence?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reading on Opportunistic Infections (OIs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protozoal Infections
Cryptosporidiosis
Isosporiasis
Microsporidiosis
Pneumocystis Pneumonia (PCP)
Toxoplasmosis

Neurological Conditions
AIDS Dementia Complex (ADC)
Peripheral Neuropathy

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

Another Gleaner Editorial - No accountability for MP Smith

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


Garth Rattray

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

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

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

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

Deleterious consequences

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

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

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

He should resign

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mustering political popularity

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

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

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

Move to incite hate and violence

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

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

No room for selective application

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

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

More Letters, More Views, good stuff for analysis

Is MP Smith 'wallowing' in ignorance?

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

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

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

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

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

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

P Delisser
pdelisser1988@yahoo.com

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

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

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

Roy Wilson
Roy.Wilson@ajasja.com

Ignorance, stupidity, bigotry

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


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

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

Unfit for his cabinet

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

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

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

I am, etc.,

O. HILAIRE SOBERS

ohilaire@yahoo.com

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

"Not a homosexual"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another round with "Tell Me Pastor"

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

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

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

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

W.S., Toronto, Canada

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

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


Spiritual deliverance

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

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

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

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

Pastor

Not so, Mr Young, Mr Smith

Letter to the Editor 19.02.09

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

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

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

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

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

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

P Delisser
pdelisser1988@yahoo.com

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


• PNP lashes Ernie Smith on stance against gays

Another Condemnation on MP Smith's Comments

Raulston Nembhard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTINUE: Public sector wage bill

Opposition, People's National Party condemns anti gay comments as dangerous precedence

The PNP issued a statement condemning the anti gay sentiments expressed by MP Ernest Smith last week, reported on a radio news item the opposition called the comments a dangerous precedence and diatribe, the MP's comments could be seen as insighting violence against homosexuals given the strong anti gay sentiments in the society, the statement was reported to have said also that the member of Parliament's utterances could expose innocent persons to grave danger and prejudice, the PNP labelled Mr. Smith's allegations that homosexuals have a propensity to commit violent acts as unfounded and inflammatory.

They lambasted the MP saying that he lacks the evidence to state the police force is overrun by gays, it called on all political leaders to refrain from excesses of language or extreme positions that may insight violence or discriminatory conduct against any minority group in Jamaica, the opposition also said this is particularly important to the homosexual community given the deep seated cultural aversion to homosexuality in Jamaica.

The physical safety and broader human rights of these citizens should not be undermined by gratuitous political grandstanding on the issue, it notes Mr. Smith's intransigence has now extended to a crusade calling for the outlawing of the association formed to promote the human rights of the homosexual community in Jamaica, JFLAG.

The PNP said it is calling on the government to state publicly that it rejects Mr. Smith's series of pronouncements, coming from a government MP, his unbalanced comments can only damage Jamaica's international reputation for respecting the human rights of all citizens.

From Schifrah......on Get it Right

Schifrah is an avid reader of our blog based on the comments made on several of our posts, here is another in response to a letter in today's Gleaner "Too many cowards in Jamaica" and is posted below named "Get it right"
Schifrah whoever and wherever you are, you are on the ball, thanks for your participation as activism and vigilance like this we need more. Peace

The Response from Schifrah
Let me respond to this letter point by point.

1. What could be more cowardly than Mr. Smith using his "parliamentary privilege" to protect himself from libel (as pointed out by LLoyd B. Smith ) JCF of being over-run by homosexuals. Needless to say he has no evidence to back his claim but a spurious sensationalized "news" story . Mr Smith is no better than the white southern racist who had the weight of the Jim Crow laws behind him in the Southern US so he could stand in the street and shout " Nigger" at every passing person of colour. Those Jim Crow laws were not justifiable and neither are the sodomy laws.

2. Buggery is against the law ...I believe that the correct term is sodomy. This does not in essence address homosexuality which is NOT against the law.In fact the dear writer might be interested to know that for many heterosexual couples, anal sex is a normal part of sex play, as is oral sex. Are we going to lock up (lets conservatively say) even 20% of our straight and gay population for consensual sodomy...or are we going to honestly address issues of sex and sexuality in the hope of saving another generation from the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Given that in this region that heterosexual transmission accounts for over 80% of the new HIV cases I think that the dialogue is urgently needed.

3. I am a Jamaican contrary to the implication otherwise, and I live here. The "crude and nasty e-mail" forwarded to you was only "crude and nasty" in that it quoted the lyrics of Jamaican dancehall songs, in the hope that you would take the piece of lumber out your own eye before picking on a speck. Furthermore the lyrics quoted in the specific piece were misogynistic hardly homophobic.

4. What I do in my bedroom is none of your business. I don't ask what you do in yours? Frankly I'm not interested. Our sexual orientation (yours or mine) should not be anyones business. I do know that my partner is adult and we are involved in a loving relationship. We do not harm children and we are responsible tax paying citizens who are entitled to the same rights and privileges as any other human being.

5. How is espousing tolerance, acceptance and human rights lowering ones standards? The thin veneer of moral superiority that Ms. Foote and Mr E. Smith have adopted, is simply that of individuals who need to find scapegoats to blame for the ills in the society over which they have no control. We see this being done in Rwanda, where the Hutu Government blamed the Tutsi minority for the evils in the society. This led to the massacre of over 800,000 Tutsis. The Nazis did the same in Germany...over 6 million Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals were murdered.

Instead of finding scapegoats we should be addressing the real problems in Jamaica: crime; the lack of self esteem among our young men who afraid of being called "gay" don't do well at school, and continue to underachieve all because they must fit in to rigid gender roles; the present economic crises, the continued abuse of our children...those are the real problems.

What consenting adults John and Jim or Jane and Jill do in their bedroom at night(or day) is not a socio political or moral issue.

Homophobic Yet Homosocial (Repost)

Originally published in the Star 26.11.08 by Playwright and actor Paul
"Blakka" Ellis, this a popular piece so we decided to repost it, it's one of those instances where someone takes a good look at ourselves without prejudice just straight facts and reasoning.

Some Jamaican brethren love to run off mouth about how dem love woman and brag 'bout dem nuh pet man. Yes, big man, start counting the number of activities that you participate in, exclusively with other 'man friends'. Calculate the amount of time you spend with members of your own sex.

Now, compare that with your quality engagement and time spent with the opposite sex. I'll bet all the money I lost in Cash Plus that when the situations are objectively compared, many men will find that they spend more time and energy dedicated to activities with other men than with women. Isn't that funny? But, as I'm never tired of saying, we are a case study in contradiction. Is true, man! Many Jamaican men seem to be violently homophobic, yet passionately 'homosocial' at the same time. Check it, dem burn fire on men who sleep with men but di only company dat dem keep is men.

box-mi-back@hotmail.com

Some roughneck, macho men seem totally happy to spend 20 hours of one day socialising with a bag a man and then share the remaining four hours with a woman. And, those four hours are likely to involve maybe 15 minutes of talk, 45 minutes of sex and three hours of sleep. In fact, one man made it clear to me that, as far as he's concerned, the main thing to do with the opposite sex was sex.


Strip poker

When asked if he talks or plays with his lady, he said he hardly talks, he mainly sends text messages. Quoting an old joke, he said the only game he plays with his girlfriend is strip poker, with the aim being for her to strip and for him to 'poke her'. He went on to seriously assert that men, who spend a lot of time with women, are sissies. What do you think?

I think it's kind of sad. Plenty men just don't treat social, emotional or intellectual engagement with women as a central part of their life. It's like they marginalise their dealings with women to the extent that any relationship with a woman that doesn't involve sex, gets minimal time, limited space and zero value. And, the women, with whom we share conjugal relations, sometimes only get personal attention when it's time for them to ease our sexual tension.


Potential conquest

You know, there are men, who have no genuine women friends? You realise that there are men out there, who can only see women as objects of potential conquest? And, some of those same men love and idolise other men, who they describe as their 'God, dads and general'!

Some men work all day with men, spend evening chilling and talking with other men, then spend the weekend playing with men again. They eat and drink with men, 'par and link' with men, then smoke and joke with men again. That's how I see it yah and I don't care who vex. Some men do every single thing with other men - except sex - and the one deggeh-deggeh thing dem do with women is sex.

But, guess what happen in the process? We miss out on opportunities to learn, grow and build mutual respect with our sisters. Look nuh, I love sex, I adore women and I value the many things I can share with them. Yeah, man, that's one of the reasons why I'm a big fan of co-education. If it does nothing else, mixed-sex schooling helps boys to learn, from early, that there are many fulfilling experiences to share with girls, including, but not limited to sex!

JFLAG refers to constitution, Writer encourages legal action

The Editor, Sir:

In responding to Member of Parliament Ernest Smith, J-FLAG noted that Section 23 (1) of the Jamaican Constitution states: "No person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of peaceful assembly and association, that is to say, his right peacefully to assemble freely and associate with other persons and in particular to form or belong to trade unions or other associations for the protection of his interests."

My comments from the above: Mr Smith, in the public interest, should seek a declaration from the courts on the legality of J-Flag and its activities. Just raising it is not good enough - he should take action!

I am, etc.,
Norman Lee

Get it Right please

Another crude attempt to smear our name

This letter to the editor in today's Gleaner 18.02.09 seeks to attempt to smear our name, below find the letter,original post (Feb 5, 2009) and response to the previous letter alluded to and judge for yourself. The writer says too many cowards but conveniently left out the email contact this time around. Coward eh?

the Letter
"Too many cowards in Jamaica"
The Editor, Sir:
The one thing Jamaica has one too many of these days, is cowards. I applaud MP Ernest Smith for not being one and for commenting on something that I have wondered about myself for some time now. Buggery is against the law and yet we have people who have publicly, by their own admission, via their association (JFLAG), announced that they practice it. Imagine, publicly announcing that you have committed and will continue to commit crimes and you are not behind bars? Where is the law?

Crude and nasty email
Subsequent to my letter asking a radio station to keep lewd music off the airwaves, JFLAG forwarded a rather crude and nasty email to me, ostensibly from one of their bloggers. In fact, others of similar ilk who wrote to me (primarily foreigners who were apparently homosexual themselves), had nothing to offer but expletives and who sought to 'chide' me (I'm understating a bit) for things that I did not say.
For instance, they all did suggest that I espoused music that promoted violence against them - which I do not. I was encouraged, though, that there were many well-thinking and sane Jamaicans who responded, who were not lowering their standards at all.
I am, etc.,
M. Foote
Spanish Town

The response
See the Original post:Katy Perry Song complaint from a letter to the Gleaner
(the reposnse was also published)

from Schifrah
True! better that your daughter listen to "traditional" Jamaican lyrics that promote violence and misogyny:

example 1...Girl ah wanna push on you wit dis ting protruding, youre acting kinda shy, still i will be intruding... (Sizzla)

Example 2....Cock up yuh bumpa a likkle moreCock it up mek mi slam it like a door(Put yuh hands on di floor!!!)Yuh hear mi love it when mi talk to herSplit and spread out like manure ...(Elephant Man)

Example 3. "Oh! Rub up di fat piece a somethin on my willy Long time she tell mi seh she waan mi fi filly " (Capleton)

Um... can someone explain to me why the Kate Perry lyrics are somehow more offensive than these? Nuff said!

Letter to the Gleaner Editor - MP's views on gays backward

THE EDITOR, Sir:
I FIND IT really disgusting that a member of parliament in today's world could make such comments about J-FLAG. He should be made to apologise to the Jamaican people for his bigoted views.

A member of parliament should speak for the Jamaican People - gay or straight, black and white - no matter what, he should not condemn anyone.

Because of outdated laws, we Jamaicans are known around the world for our violent behaviour and our intolerance. It is about time our leaders showed the world that Jamaicans are not just a proud people, but as well tolerant and peaceful

We are not just mind-blowing thugs with hate for others who are different from us. I believe there may come a time when Jamaica will be respected around the world, not just for its comedy and Bob Marley, but for its motto 'Out of many, one people'.

I am, etc.,

J Windsor
henry_j_winsor@hotmail.co.uk
Luton , Bedfordshire
England

Would Lawyer MP Ernest Smith Represent Gays?

Lloyd B Smith

The story has been told about a certain member of parliament who dreamt that he was addressing his colleagues in the House only to wake up and find out that he was! Was North West St Ann MP Ernest (Ernie) Smith dreaming when he spoke in Gordon House recently, or was he for real when he addressed the issue of homosexuality?
Needless to say that his often vituperative, sometimes thought-provoking, but for the most part outlandish utterances have created an intellectual nightmare for those of us who embrace fair play and basic common sense.

Using the protective cloak of parliamentary privilege, the learned gentleman lambasted "gays", describing them as being violence-prone and should therefore not be allowed to have licensed firearms. And as if this was not enough, this esteemed lawmaker (because that is what each parliamentarian is) then went on to intimate that the Jamaica Constabulary Force was being overrun by homosexuals. In essence, a "straight" lawmaker versus "bent" law enforcers?

A soap opera in the making indeed! Mr Smith further went on to add more fuel to his already inflammatory speech by saying that because a Gleaner story purporting this to be so was not denied publicly by the JCF, then it may well be so.

SMITH... needs to rewind and come again

The eminent and astute attorney-at-law that he is, Mr Smith well knows that if he had made such a statement outside of Gordon House, he could have faced a libel suit of tremendous proportions, whether from individual members of the police force or collectively. His seeming attack may well be deemed by many as an act of cowardice. And what about the legal tenet which deals with the presumption of innocence? Why should we assume that the majority of policemen and policewomen in the JCF are homosexuals without the evidence to corroborate such a claim?

In any event, homosexuality is not a crime in Jamaica; it is buggery, the act of two persons, usually men, having anal intercourse. An archaic law which most enlightened countries have expunged from their law books. One is not aware that every police station in Jamaica is a "romping shop" of whatever kind and from my own observation, the JCF comprises many decent, Christian, morally upright men and women who have sworn to uphold the laws of the land. You see, the word homosexuality is a generic term although most people tend to think that a homosexual is automatically of the male species. And this is a very important point to make because part and parcel of the homophobic mentality in Jamaica is that lesbians are usually more tolerated than male homosexuals. In fact, many so-called heterosexual men get very turned on watching lesbian women "romping around".

And there's the rub (no pun intended)!
My question to Mr Smith and those who support his misguided posture is: How does he propose to rid the society of homosexuals, whether those in the force or otherwise? Years ago when the United States Army was faced with a similar predicament under then President Bill Clinton, a "don't ask, don't tell" policy was developed. Who in their right mind in Jamaica would willingly admit that he or she is gay?
And how does one identify a homosexual? This is risky business because even when two men are caught in the act, this does not automatically mean they are both gay. After all, it is well known that some straight men do go to bed with a homosexual counterpart for money, a job or other favours.

Contrary to the popular perception, not all homosexuals are effeminate or prissy. Some of the most macho men in our society behind closed doors are quite comfortable being on the 'down low'. On the other hand, not all men who behave or look like women are homosexuals. Some years ago, I had to counsel a male student of a prominent high school who had been ostracised, ridiculed, neglected and vilified by his father (a policeman) because he acted and spoke like a girl.

The young man was adamant that he was not gay but because he had grown up with his single mom who saw him as the apple of her eye he had somehow developed these traits. Today, that young man, thanks to my counselling and his strength of character, has graduated from university, is working and is happily leading a heterosexual lifestyle.
Unfortunately, he has not been able to forgive his father for the way he was treated by him, so they are yet to be reconciled.

Against this background, Mr Smith should have been more responsible in his remarks, lest he become, whether wittingly or unwittingly, an advocate for gay-bashing or even worse, the eradication and persecution of such people in the society, because innocent lives could forever be damaged or lost. Would he want that on his conscience? And what if someone who was so treated came to him for legal assistance, would he refuse to handle the case? In other words, in the same way a person who is deemed to be homosexual should not be given a firearm licence, should that person also be denied legal representation, assuming that no Jamaican lawyer is homosexual?

On a lighter note, perhaps the wily Mr Smith is hoping to get into a Bruce Golding reshuffled Cabinet by the back door?
After all, the Jamaica Labour Party leader had stated vehemently when asked during a BBC interview about accommodating gays in his administration: "Not in my Cabinet!" Mr Smith's unrelenting stance on the issue of homosexuality should therefore put him in good stead with Mr Golding, thus making him a most suitable candidate for the post of minister of national security! By the way, is Mr Smith aware that some, if not all European countries are averse to approving loans to other countries which openly persecute or discriminate against people of varying sexual preferences, particularly homosexuals? It is in the fine print!

The bottom line is that we need to create a kinder, gentler and more tolerant society. Homosexuals ought not to flaunt their wares, so to speak, on John Public, but the fact that a person is thus sexually challenged should not mean that he or she is less of a human being. Not all homosexual men prey on young boys, and there are latent homosexuals who never get involved with men as well as some gays who do not engage in buggery. If one is to go by Mr Smith's theory, though, then we would have to adopt the Animal Farm philosophy that all men are created equal but some are more equal than others. Is this in line with the JLP espoused tenet of equal rights and justice for all?

It has been said that it is better to keep one's mouth shut and be deemed misguided than to open it and remove all doubt. Mr Smith needs to rewind and come again. In the meantime, all well-thinking citizens should say to our good friend, "Moutamassi Ernie, kibba yuh mout!"

lloydbsmith@hotmail.com

Interesting Letter to the Gleaner's Editor - Gays in the Church

The Editor, Sir:

It is ridiculous how much time the Jamaican society spends debating the gay issue when there are so many others in the society and the Church, as a whole, to be addressed.

Why are the churches shunning them? Are they not entitled to hear the word of God? If so, why aren't the adulterers, liars and thieves thrown out? We know there are many of these types of people in the Church who go every week and pretend to be Christians only to go home and continue their sinful behaviour.

The church has no right to try and force change on anyone. It won't work. If a person desires change and looks to God for it and believes God is powerful enough to grant his or her desire, it will happen. No pastor can counsel it to happen; the individual must come to that decision himself or herself.

Reconditioning not simple

I do not feel you can 'recondition' gay people. I'd like to ask these so-called Christians if they would be able to just switch their heterosexual desires to homosexual ones if counselled enough to do so? To believe that homosexuality is a choice is ludicrous. Why would someone choose to be a target for violence in such a homophobic society, to be shunned from churches, disowned by family, lose jobs and lose friends?

God preached compassion towards all sinners. All the people trying to keep gays out of the Church because they believe it is sinful should be pushed out the Church themselves. Since everyone is a sinner, the churches should be empty.

People do not have to accept homosexuality but everyone has the right to live and choose to live how he or she wants, especially if they are not bringing harm to others.

I am, etc.,

STEPHANIE
stephynegril@yahoo.com
Altamonte Springs
Florida

Outlaw J-Flag Smith MP says it could inspire wave of illegal groups

ERNEST SMITH, the member of parliament (MP) for South West St Ann, is resolute in his stance against local gay-advocate group, Jamaica Forum for Lesbians, All-sexuals and Gays (J-FLAG).
Smith told The Gleaner yesterday that the group's continued existence, which he argued was illegal, could lead to other persons forming similar illegal organisations, such as paedophiles and ganja smokers' associations.

"They should be outlawed! How can you legitimise an organisation that is formed for the purpose of committing criminal offences?" Smith declared.

J-FLAG was founded in December 1998 to provide a voice and community for sex minorities. Last week, Smith, a government backbencher, called on the director of public prosecutions (DPP) to instruct the police to investigate J-FLAG, with a view to having its members criminally charged.

However, DPP Paula Llewellyn has said she was not going to comment on Smith's request.

Protection of interests

In responding to Smith last night, J-FLAG noted that Section 23 (1) of the Jamaican Constitution states: "No person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of peaceful assembly and association, that is to say, his right peacefully to assemble freely and associate with other persons and in particular to form or belong to trade unions or other associations for the protection of his interests."

The group said: "J-FLAG has been able to operate successfully under this provision in the legislation for the past 10 years. J-FLAG agitates for legal and social change and we believe that there is always provision for any group to agitate for laws to be changed."

Since his statement in Parliament last Tuesday, Smith has been lambasted by sections of the society for making undemocratic utterances. However, the MP, who is also an attorney-at-law, was unrepentant.

"A lot of people, for their own selfish underhanded purposes, seek to misconstrue the principles of democracy," he said.

"Democracy, with all its freedoms, is not a licence for persons to encourage criminality or otherwise conspire to corrupt public morals."

In his presentation to Parliament last week, Smith argued that the proper sentence for buggery should be life imprisonment, as in the case of grievous sexual assault.

Smith has, however, apologised for controversial comments he made about the police force during the same presentation in Gordon House last week. At that time, he described the police force as "overrun" by homosexuals.

The Jamaica Labour Party, in a statement issued on the weekend, distanced itself from Smith's comments and urged the police not to be "distracted by (Smith's) unfortunate remarks".