'Unnatural' sex and its naturally not so bright opponents

Thanks for reading and responding Udo...

check out his analysis of Ms Bennett's presentation in the Senate recently.

BY udo schuklenk

This thing about 'unnatural' sex has been bugging me for a long time. For those of us who are trained to think about what we mean when we say certain things the term 'unnatural' carries no normative weight. For those who think less (either because they quite naturally or culturally cannot think a great deal due to a lack of gray brain matter or lack of education) about what they mean when they say that something is 'unnatural', the 'unnatural' charge routinely leads to demands that certain behaviours or products be outlawed.

Let me look at two examples just from this week, one from Uganda, the other from Jamaica, quite naturally both examples involve Christians on a crusade against gay sex. So, here we go:

Dr. James Nsaba Buturo is the Ugandan Minister of State for Ethics and Integrity. He announced this week that any attempt by donor agencies to have the country legalise 'unnatural' sex (and homosexual sex in particular) will fail. He went on to say that the government is prepared to fortfeit any [sic!] amount of donor money if that meant accepting homosexuality. I'm a consequentialist, so when someone says something like 'no matter what', which is what Dr Buturo's 'any' implies, I know I am seeing someone not too deeply rooted in reality. For the sake of the argument: what if someone gave Uganda enough money to resolve the problem of poverty among its people for good, offered in addition free education, state-of-the-art free health care to everyone living in Uganda etc, provided that consenting adults be permitted to engage in 'unnatural' sex if they so wish. Any government minister who would be prepared to sacrifice the well-being of the people in such a case for the sake of fighting 'unnatural' sex is obviously a nutcase. Consequences be damned is very Christian, of course, but it also not very smart.

Anyhow, I digress, I really meant to write about the 'natural' and the 'unnatural', and that I will do, but let me first give you the second example. We owe it to a Christian 'Senator' in Jamaica. I don't know Jamaica too well, so I presume Senators are not overly well educated people relying on tax hand outs for a living while preaching hate. Anyhow, here we go, in her own words, Jamaican Senator Hyacinth Benneth: "For many persons that push a radical homosexual agenda it is claimed that homosexual behaviour is natural for them. That particuar [sic!] group has been quite successful in advancing their cause by using the rights based approach. I am not a psychologist or a psychiatrist but I have not seen where homosexual behaviour has been conclusively shown to be natural. In fact the dominant scientific opinion has been that no one can conclusively show that homosexuality is natural."

So, don't blame me, blame Dr Buturo and Ms Benneth for today's rant on nature.

Ms Benneth is probably unaware of the fact that there is no dominant scientific opinion on the naturalness or otherwise of homosexuality. The reason for this is that this issue is not a scientific question to begin with. It's a matter of what you mean when you call something 'natural'. In science EVERYTHING that is physically possible by necessity is considered a natural thing. Anything governed by the laws of nature is natural. So, for that reason alone there can't be a body of scientific opinion on the naturalness of homosexuality anymore than there can be a body of scientific literature on any number of other things that are happening within what the laws of nature permit (namely: everything that is physically possible).

What does this mean? Not too much. Gay activists, do not rejoice too quickly. A lot of crap happens in nature. Crocodiles eat tourists in the Australian Northern Territory just about every year. Very much a natural thing, but still it's not nice. Men (usually) rape women. Natural. People drive cars. Natural. People fly to the moon. Natural. People kill each other in genocides. Natural. People bake cakes. Natural. You get the drift, I'm sure.

CONTINUE HERE

Non-discriminatory sex offence law

The Editor, Sir:

I sympathise entirely with the letter writer 'Betrayed Wife', (posted below) who said she was a victim of deception in that her husband cheated on her with another man and then brought home an illness to the matrimonial home that affected her terribly.

In her letter of support for Senator Sandrea Falconer, however, she did not seem to take adequate note of what the letter that criticised the senator's position was saying. Nothing in Falconer's presentation in the Senate, as reported in the media, addressed betrayal by wives or women on the 'down low', a term not generally applied to women but whose concept is understood.

There will always be deceivers

Some time ago it was reported that a UHWI study found that 25 per cent of men who had obtained paternity tests for their 'children' found out that they were not the biological fathers as they had been led to believe. So between lesbians in 'normal' marital relationships and cheating wives/girlfriends, there is a lot of punishment to be meted out if Senator Falconer's law is not to be discriminatory against men.

A casual study of human nature suggests that there will always be deceivers of one kind or another, but 'Betrayed Wife', perhaps, needs also to consider another point. As long as society insists that gay people conform to a majority normative pattern of behaviour, so much more will the percentage of deceivers be high and their deception continue. If we insist - sometimes with hostility - that people conform to certain behaviours publicly, some will do so and then act on what they accept to be their true selves elsewhere. That's the problem the society must grapple with.

I am, etc.,
J .B. PETERS
Kingston

Indian High Court overturns Penal Code 377 (Delhi)

Delhi High Court judgement overturning Section 377 of India's Penal Code PDF

See Excerpt below, I wonder if our Judiciary or lawmakers for that matter will ever reach this kind of maturity to say the least.

...........THE CHALLENGE
6. The petitioner NGO has been working in the field of HIV/AIDS
Intervention and prevention. This necessarily involves interaction with such sections of society as are vulnerable to contracting HIV/AIDS and which include gay community or individuals described as “men who have sex with men” (MSM). For sake of convenient reference, they would hereinafter be referred to as “homosexuals” or “gay” persons or gay community. Homosexuals, according to the petitioner, represent a population segment that is extremely
vulnerable to HIV/AIDS infection. The petitioner claims to have been impelled to bring this litigation in public interest on the ground that HIV/AIDS prevention efforts were found
to be severely impaired by discriminatory attitudes exhibited by state agencies towards gay community, MSM or trans-gendered individuals, under the cover of enforcement of Section 377 IPC, as a result of which basic fundamental human rights of such individuals/groups (in
minority) stood denied and they were subjected to abuse, harassment, assault from public and public authorities.

7. According to the petitioner, Section 377 IPC is based upon traditional Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards, which conceive of sex in purely functional terms, i.e., for the purpose of procreation only. Any non-procreative sexual activity is thus viewed as being “against the order of nature”. The submission is that the legislation criminalising consensual oral and anal sex is outdated and has no place in modern society. In fact, studies of Section 377 IPC jurisprudence reveal that lately it has generally been employed in cases of child sexual assault and abuse. By
criminalising private, consensual same-sex conduct, Section 377 IPC serves as the weapon for police abuse; detaining and questioning, extortion, harassment, forced sex, payment of hush money; and perpetuates negative and discriminatory beliefs towards same-sex relations and
sexuality minorities; which consequently drive the activities of gay men and MSM, as well as sexuality minorities underground thereby crippling HIV/AIDS prevention efforts. Section 377 IPC thus creates a class of vulnerable people that is continually victimised and directly affected by the provision. It has been submitted that the fields of psychiatry and psychology no longer treat homosexuality a disease and regard sexual orientation to be a deeply held, core part of the identities of individuals.

8. The petitioner submits that while right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty and guaranteed to the citizens, in order to be meaningful, the pursuit of happiness encompassed within the concepts of privacy, human dignity, individual autonomy and the human need for an intimate personal sphere require that privacy – dignity claim concerning private, consensual, sexual relations are also afforded protection within the ambit of the said fundamental right to life and liberty given under Article 21. It is averred that no aspect of one’s life may be said to be more private or intimate than that of sexual relations, and since private, consensual, sexual relations or sexual preferences figure prominently within an individual’s personality and lie easily at the core of the “private space”, they are an inalienable component of the right of life. Based on this line of reasoning, a case has been made to the effect that the prohibition of certain private, consensual sexual relations (homosexual) provided by Section 377 IPC unreasonably
abridges the right of privacy and dignity within the ambit of right to life and liberty under Article 21. The petitioner argues that fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 can be abridged only for a compelling state interest which, in its submission, is amiss here. Also based on the
fundamental right to life under Article 21 is the further submission that Section 377 IPC has a damaging impact upon the lives of homosexuals inasmuch as it not only perpetuates social stigma and police/public abuse but also drives homosexual activity underground thereby jeopardizing HIV/AIDS prevention efforts and, thus, rendering gay men and MSM increasingly vulnerable to contracting HIV/AIDS.

9. Further, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that Section 377 IPC's legislative objective of penalizing “unnatural sexual acts” has no rational nexus to the classification created between procreative and nonprocreative sexual acts, and is thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Section 377's legislative objective is based upon stereotypes and misunderstanding that are outmoded and enjoys no historical or logical rationale which render it arbitrary and unreasonable. It is further the case of the petitioner that the expression “sex” as used in Article 15 cannot be read restrictive to “gender” but includes “sexual orientation” and, thus read, equality on the basis of sexual orientation is implied in the said fundamental right
against discrimination. The petitioner argues that criminalization of predominantly homosexual activity through Section 377 IPC is discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation and, therefore, violative of Article 15. It is further the case of the petitioner that the prohibition against homosexuality in Section 377 IPC curtails orinfringes the basic freedoms guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) (b) (c) & (d); in that, an individual’s ability to make personal statement about one’s sexual preferences, right of association/assembly and right to move freely so as to
engage in homosexual conduct are restricted and curtailed.

10. Broadly on the above reasoning, it has been submitted that there is a case for consensual sexual intercourse (of the kind mentioned above; i.e. homosexual) between two willing adults in privacy to be saved and excepted from the penal provision contained in Section 377 IPC.

Read the 105 page document by downloading from this link

Violence Casts a Pall on the Lives of Jamaican MSM

BY WINNIE McCROY

March 9, 2009—“Recently, a member of Parliament stated that homosexuals are known to be violent and should not be allowed to bear arms, that the security forces have been infiltrated by homosexuals….and therefore that the laws against buggery should be made harsher,” said Jamaican social justice leader Dr. Robert Carr in a recent interview with amfAR. “At the time, this was applauded by his fellow Parliamentarians.”

Several years ago, when he was executive director of Jamaica AIDS Support for Life, Dr. Carr witnessed a constant assault on the humanity of gay and bisexual people from elected officials, homophobic dance hall artists, and religious leaders who believe that gay rights are against God’s will. All too often, said Dr. Carr, this animosity “played itself out in physical violence—people end up being beaten or set on fire.”

For the past three years, Dr. Carr has worked tirelessly to address the human rights of these vulnerable populations as volunteer executive director of the Caribbean Vulnerable Communities Coalition. An amfAR MSM Initiative Community Award has allowed him to build leadership among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) movements in a region known for its virulent anti-gay biases.

“When I discovered how badly people living with HIV/AIDS were treated without a second thought, I was shocked,” recalls Dr. Carr of his start in AIDS advocacy. “The idea that people could be physically brutalized like that not only with impunity, but with the overt support of these sectors of society just shocked me. I became an advocate at a time when almost no one was talking about stigma and discrimination in the region and there was a lot of work to be done.”

The biggest issue now, said Dr. Carr, is entrenched homophobia, which is defended loudly in the classroom, in the boardroom, on the streets, in the pulpit, in the media, and in Parliament. To speak up is to risk bodily harm.

“That said, we have also seen significant progress,” he continued. Key institutions such as the police, the national HIV control program, and the media have become more responsive to the issues faced by MSM, said Dr. Carr. He explained that police, concerned about extreme violence, have begun to monitor officers’ responses, and have even put themselves in the line of fire against mobs attacking men who appear effeminate, or who “look funny,” to use the island parlance.


Across the Caribbean, leaders have emerged who are willing to further this progress, said Dr. Carr, noting nascent efforts in Grenada, Antigua, Guyana, and Dominica. “The change has to come from within; it really has to be Caribbean people taking a stand against this kind of violence and abuse, and against…misinformed, emotionally based, irresponsible attempts at policy making,” he added.

Among those Caribbean countries with fledgling MSM organizations, most are unable to accomplish little more than condom distribution. In this region, MSM tend to be segregated by class, and meet others via Internet-based social and sexual networks. To reach those in need, programmers have to tap into these same networks.

The amfAR community award provided an opportunity to begin that dialogue via a three-day consultation and training for community leaders on how to undertake HIV prevention, community mobilization, and human rights advocacy despite the homophobia and hostility facing LGBTs in the Caribbean.

“The fact that the conversation is even happening is a major milestone,” said Dr. Carr. “I think there’s a lot to be hopeful for, and I think Jamaica will find its way. It’s just going to take the time, commitment, and determination…of people who have the strength and courage to differ from the majority, to stay their ground, and to do their best to make a difference.”

The work of amfAR’s MSM Initiative in the Caribbean is supported by the Elton John AIDS Foundation.

A Bretayed Wife writes about Downlow effect

Senator Falconer, my heroine

The Editor, Sir:

I am disappointed by the tone of the letter in Monday's Gleaner by Ricardo Smalling, who criticised the presentation by senators Sandrea Falconer and Hyacinth Bennett on the sexual offences bill.

I don't agree with Senator Bennett as I cannot support discrimination because of one's sexual preference. However, as a victim of the cruel deception Senator Falconer spoke of, I support her call for men who are on the 'down low' to be eligible for prosecution. There was nothing in her presentation that amounted to discrimination and to characterise her remarks as such is a gross misrepresentation.

I was forced to write this letter so Smalling can understand and develop a little sensitivity towards the plight of a woman whose husband engages in sexual activity with another man, then comes home to his wife and have sex with her.

I was one of those women. I found out about my husband's infidelity with another man when I developed a condition that eventually required a hysterectomy.

Very grateful

Senator Falconer spoke on my behalf and I was very grateful.

Smalling poured scorn on how cases would be investigated, but in many instances women do have enough evidence but no legal recourse. My husband put my life at risk. He destroyed not only me but our children. The letter writer showed a lack of understanding and sensitivity. This is not just about men who cheat but a man who sells himself as being of one sexual persuasion and on that basis enters into a relationship with a woman who would have had nothing to do with him had she known his true proclivity. The same should go for women who cheat on their men with other women.

I am happy that the senator brought it up, and perhaps if there was such a law fewer men and women would lie about their sexual proclivities.

For women like me, she is a heroine.

I am, etc.,

BETRAYED WIFE

Sexual Offences Bill Debate - Senator Hyacinth Benneth's Summary Remarks 26.06.09 Part 2

See part1 below

Ms Bennett contined by asking:

"Can you really keep buggery between consenting male adults in the bedroom? she also stressed that granting homosexual rights would cause agitation for new penalties to address offences against same rights, she went on to say that Americans are grappling with whether to impose the controversial "hate crimes" legislation which would criminalize even a minister of religion saying that homosexual conduct is immoral.

"My observations are not in the least bit discriminatory, such labels cannot help us here."

She went on to address the matter of incest briefly pointing out that she feared that groups in the name of "inclusion" may also demand rights such as a group promoting carnal knowledge if grown men with female children in high school.

"Would we craft our laws to suit them just because they demand inclusion?"

"We must again be driven by higher ideals and maintain values and standards that are in keeping with the common good. Anything else will eventually take us down the road to oral chaos where anything goes and everything will be relative except, of course, the concept of relativity itself. I think you get my point.

She then listed figures for Buggery and Rape for the years 2000 - 2008

.......although there has been a slight dip in cases of rape since 2000 from 870 to 849 in 2008 there have been increases and decreases over the period which indicate that we are not really getting rid of the problem. The total number of rapes during the period is 7,463. This is alarming.
In the case of buggery there has been a slight increase. Between 2000 and 2008, the number of cases has risen from 33 to 36 with a high of 47 in 2006, making total of 316 cases over the period.

Peter Tatchell's Response to Hyacinth Bennett's representation of his comments

please see Sexual Offences Bill Debate - Senator Hyacinth Benneth's Summary Remarks 26.06.09 for the remarks.

British gay human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell of the London-based gay group OutRage! said:

Jamaican MPs are misrepresenting my views on the causes of homosexuality.

"The scientific evidence on the cause of sexual orientation is set out in the book Born Gay. It demonstrates that genes and hormonal influences in the womb are major factors that cause people to be gay or straight. It is simply not true that people choose to be homosexual or bisexual.

“I dispute the claim that a gay gene causes homosexuality. In my view,genetic and hormonal explanations of gayness are important and significant, but they are not adequate and sufficient. Homosexuality is definitely not a conscious choice.

“A person's sexuality is largely influenced before their birth and is firmly established by the age of six. It cannot be changed by so-called treatments and cures. This opinion is supported by the world's leading biological and psychological authorities. I am dismayed the way some Jamaican MPs have misrepresented my views in defence of the country's anti-gay laws."

"The fundamental truth is that it does not matter whether people are born gay or not. Gay people are human beings and therefore we deserve

equal human rights. A person chooses their religion and politics, but that does not mean that persecuting them because of their beliefs is justified.

“It is time the heterosexual majority stopped fretting over the causes of homosexuality and ceased victimising the gay minority. Live and let live is the best policy. Love for gay people is the true Christian response, " he said.

LINK

Senatorial idiocy (Gleaner Letter to The Editor) 29.06.09

(I agree that the presentations lacked understanding) see post below

The Editor, Sir:

I often wonder if good sense is a prerequisite for serving in either House of the Jamaican parliament. The most recent example of why I would ask this question are the statements attributed to senators Sandrea Falconer and Hyacinth Bennett. These statements are in relation to the proposed sexual offences law.

Among the proposals of Senator Falconer is to have the men who engage in homosexual relationship outside of their heterosexual relationships, be specifically punished. These statements are not what would be expected from someone who is supposedly educated. I wonder how the Senator would propose we enforce this? Are the police to be expected to conduct investigations into who men who cheat are sleeping with? What about men who cheat with other women; no special punishment for them? How about women who cheat on their men with other women is that acceptable in the eyes of the senator?

Lack of understanding

The other statement by Senator Bennett, shows a complete lack of understanding of gender and sexuality. Senator Bennett would like the law only to recognise sexual intercourse as covering penis and vagina that are defined at birth. So a woman who has had gender re-assignment surgery could rape a man who has had gender reassignment surgery and it would not be classified as such under Senator Bennett's law.

Similarly, transgender women could be raped at will and would have no recourse under these laws. I would venture further and ask Senator Bennett about intersex individuals. What if neither organ is explicitly present at birth and later one is constructed, does that individual not deserve coverage under these rape laws?

The hatred of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community in Jamaica is so strong, even among the leadership that it leads to propo-sals that can only be described as occupying the 'lunatic fringe'. It is particularly telling that these two individuals are black women who 100 years ago would have had as much right as a cow, yet they seem to be oblivious to the fact that the strides that they have been able to make were because others fought for their rights to fair and equal treatment under the law, and now persist to advocate for discrimination and what would amount to inhumane treatment of many of their fellow citizens.

I am, etc.,

RICARDO SMALLING
rsmalling@sympatico.ca

Sexual Offences Bill Debate - Senator Hyacinth Bennett's Summary Remarks 26.06.09

She opened with

" .....steps are being taken to have legislation in place to address sexual offences. Clearly the reason why we are going through this process is to update our laws to make our country safer. Safer for every woman, boy and girl, regardless of age or station in life.

This bill is the people's bill.

It belongs to the Jamaican and we must always remember that.

Background:

Laws that deal with what can be viewed as the sensitive area of sex do not exist in the abstract. Sex ans sexual relations have a social and moral context. One may have to take into account the views and values of groups and sub-cultures within the general population as well as the common good of the people as a whole. However in going forward, it is very important that one adopts a wholistic and not a position that places focus on one segment or segments of the population over another. I think is very important that while we do everything to bring sex offenders to justice that their fundamental rights are protected. Some of these persons did not set out to become criminals. However for reasons that perhaps the psychologists can best explain many of these persons end up using sex as a means to hurt others or to address what they think are their own needs much to the detriment of society as a whole.

Many grown men continue to engage in carnal abuse of under aged girls. These girls should be focusing their attentions on passing their exams, preparing for their careers and starting a family when they are financially, mentally and emotionally capable of doing so.

Values and Philosophy:

Mr. President, my focus today is on certain aspects of this bill that concern morality and natural sexual relations. We know that this is the early 21st century. We know that is has become accepted in certain countries that once had colonies in this part of the world to implement new laws and incorporate new thinking that include a liberal approach to sexual relations. What was once considered unnatural has now been redefined in some places as being natural for a particular group or groups. However we are no longer a colony. We must develop our own thinking on these issues. The liberal values or ideology of one culture should not be imposed on another whether by external influence or even by importation.

The debate on aspects of this bill is more about values and philosophy than it is about the individual provisions. Liberal ideology has no difficulty with laws that for example could lead to to the overturning of our existing anti-buggery laws that criminalize, among other things, anal sex between consenting adults. Other persons with a judeo-christian worldview would however have a difficulty with that.

For many persons that push a radical homosexual agenda it is claimed that homosexual behaviour is natural for them. That particuar group has been quite successful in advancing their cause by using the rights based approach. I am not a psychologist or a psychiatrist but I have not seen where homosexual behaviour has been conclusively shown to be natural.

In fact the dominant scientific opinion has been that no one can conclusively show that homosexuality is natural. Clearly I am not here today to win popularity from certain quarters, but I have to speak the truth. The founder of the United Kingdom's homosexual lobby group outrage, Mr Peter Tatchell admitted that you will not find that anyone is born homosexual. I found this admission very revealing and whilst I am not here to bash anyone I do believe that radical homosexual elements may need to look within themselves before advancing positions that can affect the common good. Advancing causes or including thinking that can implicitly or explicitly include what we call gay rights can eventually lead to several repercussions, some of which we may not have envisaged.

It can have negative effects on raising of children who need to have clear gender roles of males and females modeled before them. It can affect how families are defined such as whether a child can have two daddies or two mommies.

It can also affect how we should conduct our every day social relations as the holding of hands in public and even how invitations to social functions are addressed."

end of part 1

Look for more parts to this what I call a ridiculous presentation in the people's senate.

Homeless MSM in Jamaica

In a forum recently planned for Gay homeless young men organised by a concerned group many of the young men's plights were discussed and possible solutions to begin to address the problem.

In a frank and open discussion the men mostly aged in their early to mid twenties explained in detail their day to day ways of surviving the streets:

1). securing food by begging or shared purchases

2). hiding from would be predators (usually other more powerful homeless males)

3). harassment from police

4). harassment and ridicule from members of the public

5). physical attacks by security guards on nearby premises

6). homophobic attacks from other homeless boys and bikers who roam the streets at night

7). Older, more powerful and experienced bisexual and gay gangstas on the street prey on them for sexual favours, relieving them of money or gifts

Most of the MSMs were displaced because of their sexual preference becoming public knowledge hence they are chased from their homes by family or community members sometimes under threat of death if they should return.

Others lose their jobs for the same reasons and end up struggling to rebuild their lives mostly in fear of being discovered while doing so. The goals and ambitions are laudable with some already possessing skills in the arts and trades (chefs etc).

The men however support each other by way of sharing food and clothing when they receive gifts and money or just emotional kind by talking and making each other aware of their whereabouts.

Emotional development was a factor that was discussed at length which was found to be too heavy at first but it got more simplistic as the exchange continued.

It is hoped that from this first step would be the birth of a continued exercise to rescue these young men and make them into productive and confident human beings.

H

AJ Still at it

This old cartoon that appeared in the Gleaner on January 19, 2007 still rings true, looks like Senator A. J. Nicholson, former Attorney General of the previous People's National Party (PNP)Administration is intent on keeping us in the closet (see the post below) in relation to the Sexual Offences Bill 2009 being debated in the Senate.

Let's watch this one closely folks, after all it's not about forcing our lifestyle on the nation as some would like to grandstand on but securing our freedom of choice as citizens to private actions without church and state intrusion.

Plain and simple.

H

here is a flashback to a statement he made while he was Attorney General on Same Sex Unions:

There is no intention whatsoever on the part of the Government or the Joint Select Committee of Parliament that any door should be opened by provisions in the proposed Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or otherwise, to decriminalize homosexuality or to pave the way for same-sex marriages to be accepted as lawful in Jamaica.

In seeking to make submissions to the Joint Select Committee at this eleventh hour, the church representatives and the group of lawyers who complain about certain provisions of the Charter, concerning the protection of the right to privacy, need to be reminded of the history and purport of those provisions as they were developed.

First, those provisions are to the same effect as those that are contained in the recommendations of the Constitutional Commission of the early 1990s, under the chairmanship of Dr. Lloyd Barnett, in their draft Bill on the Charter

Second, the Joint Select Committee that sat for a long time to consider the Charter provisions, in the late 1990s, heard presentations from groups who take a completely opposite view to that taken by the church representatives and group of lawyers. Those entities, including J-FLAG, even though approaching the matter from the base of a different provision in the Bill, were of the view that the Charter should move away from the recommendations of the Constitutional Commission on this score and that there should be no discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation.

The Joint Select Committee did not agree that such a recommendation should be made to Parliament since it saw such a measure as opening the door to the legalization, or at least, the decriminalization of homosexuality.

Third, the Parliamentary Opposition tabled a Charter of Rights Bill in the name of its former leader, in which the provisions of which the church representatives and group of lawyers now complain are in the same terms as those recommended by the Constitutional Commission that was chaired by Dr. Barnett.

The church representatives and group of lawyers ought to be mindful of the following:

• It is not possible to have a policeman placed in every bedroom in Jamaica. So that, within the confines of a person’s home, this particular mischief cannot be prevented or punished except, of course, someone complains.

• Every provision in a law or a constitution is subject to interpretation by judges. Interpretation of laws, however narrowly or broadly drafted, is always coloured by the experience, culture and prevailing circumstances by which the interpreter is guided in coming to a conclusion. That is one of the reasons why the final interpreter of a country’s laws and constitutional provisions should be exposed to and be keenly aware of the socio-cultural imperatives that must guide his decision.

Senator A.J. Nicholson, Q.C.

ENDS

After all nobody asked for marriage equality when we cannot get passed basic tolerance and understanding.

Peace & tolerance

H

Legalising buggery provision in the Sexual Offences bill – Opposition

Source: RJR

The Opposition on Friday warned that the Government might end up legalising buggery through the back door because of a provision in the new Sexual Offences Bill.


Opposition Senator Navel Clarke who was making his contribution to debate on the bill in the Senate Friday morning, pointed to a clause in the bill which introduces into law a new crime called grievous sexual assault.


The bill sets out specific circumstances in which grievous sexual assault can be committed to include the penetration of the anus and vagina without consent.


However Senator Clarke argued that the inclusion of the phrase 'without consent' implies that buggery would be perfectly legal where there is consent.

"In my opinion, this has been a slight of hand (where) somebody seemed to have slipped in the matter which abolishes the (offence of buggery) as we know it," he said.


The Opposition Senator was backed by Leader of Opposition Business in the Senate, AJ Nicholson who argued that the bill was littered with unresolved issues because the Government had failed to follow proper procedure and had rushed the process.


"The route that has been taken has caused avoidable delays, a meandering and a troubled journey through the houses ... different days be appointed for the start of different provisions. Even after our deliberations here in the Senate, there will requirements for the House of Representatives to consider future amendments recommended in this chamber," said Senator Nicholson.


The controversial bill, which was also subject to extensive and heated debate in the Lower House, is likely to continue to stir up a firestorm of reactions among several Senators yet to make their contribution.


Charging women for raping men

In the meantime, Government Senator Dennis Meadows wants the Sexual Offences Bill to be amended to allow women to be charged for raping men.


Senator Meadows elicited giggles from some Government and Opposition Members of the Senate as he argued for the section of the bill which recognises marital rape, to be made gender neutral.


Previously, the law did not recognize that a man could rape his wife.


But the Sexual Offences Bill sets out five circumstances in which a husband can be charged for raping his spouse.


The bill now says that marital rape can only be committed where the spouses have separated under law, are seeking a divorce or trying to annul their marriage, where there is an injunction ousting the husband from the marital home or if the husband knows himself to be infected with a sexually transmitted illness.


However making his contribution to debate on the bill in the Senate Friday afternoon, Senator Meadows argued that that section of the bill should not only address husbands raping their wives but wives raping their husbands.


According to him, the change would also address date rape.


"I'm man to say that I can be raped by a woman ... I may not cry rape but it is possible. A woman who drugs a man with a date rape drug for example and has sex with him without his consent has committed rape or in this case grievous sexual assault," said Mr. Meadows.

Married women left out in the cold - Mark Golding (right)


He was not the only Senator who took issue with the section of the bill dealing with marital rape.


Opposition Senator Mark Golding argued that by restricting marital rape to only five specific circumstances, the new bill would unwittingly end up offering less protection to married women than the law now offers to unwed women.


"The unmarried woman who lives with her man in long term relation will actually now enjoy superior rights than a lawfully married wife since if her man has sex with her without her consent he would have committed rape but that is not so in the case of a lawfully wedded wife unless one of the five circumstances is also present," said Senator Golding.


The Senate will continue to debate the Sexual Offences bill next Friday.

Photography for Understanding Project Update

(SAMPLES from the US)

while Jamaican Red Stripe Beer and Rum is poured into the streets of New York and San Fransisco in support of a seemingly fledgling boycott Jamaica Campaign a resident of the Detroit area who has links to both States previously mentioned is here in Jamaica conducting a photo project to bring to bear the voices of those on the ground who have been affected by homophobic abuse.

The project as exampled above in pictures seeks to use photos with the words of the subjects to show what they want to have in their own lives. When I first heard about the intended work I was sceptical as I thought many here are afraid of being exposed through whatever medium to the world, I soon quickly learnt in enlisting participants that attitudes are changing and refreshingly so.

There has been an overwhelming response to the project I think partly because of the covering of faces in the photos and the messages that persons are allowed to convey in their own handwritten words, simple and effective.

The works may be available in the US shortly in selected galleries, I will keep you abreast and post permitted samples soon.

H

Gay Party DVD Reveller on the run

The recently publicised DVD of a gay party that was held in Jamaica in 2007 has another gay person on the run and in hiding. The 22 year old young man (we call him John for this post) has been in hiding since last year as he was "discovered" by citizens in his community in St. James.

John has since tried to seek refuge in other parts of the island but has to be in disguise wearing hats and keeping a low profile so as to avoid attacks, jumping from house to house and friend to friend to avoid getting them into trouble as well.

The first attack happened in St. James in late 2007 just after the disc went public when he was pointed out by thugs in his community who then ordered him to leave or be killed. He has sought solace by his close friend (Bob) in Kingston but was recognised and both men were attacked one evening as they ventured home. The would be victims defended themselves thus holding off their attackers but have had to resort to travelling under cover of darkness to secure clothes and food and have even slept in parks and on the road just to avoid detection.

No one can ascertain how the recording ended up in the public domain for sale however it has been sold for double and triple the price of a regular DVD in the initial release. "The Tape" as it is known is still the source of ridicule and derogatory comments by the public to this day.

Bob in question who was assisting John now finds himself in the same predicament as he cannot venture to his house as he is accused of harbouring "the boy on the DVD" and that he is a "battyman" he has been told to leave the area as well or he will be killed. His family is somewhat aloof since the incident at the home.

The matter has not been reported to the police out of fear of reprisals and the non interest in the case.

One of the problems the boys face is a lack of understanding from other GLBTQ persons as most tend to shy from helping brothas in trouble due to the negative outcomes of previous cases where persons try to intervene to help only to be harmed themselves by thugs or unruly behaviour by the persons seeking to be assisted.

How can we begin to deal with this set of issues, they have approached the FLAG but there is no available resources at this time as with many other NGOs the financial problems are plaguing as well but with their elitist and corporatist attitudes he may never get the help he really deserves.

Stay tuned for updates as I follow this case.

Luv

Cuba to resume transgender surgery

(Havana) Cuba will reinstate sex-change operations previously banned on the island, President Raul Castro’s daughter Mariela said recently.

The Health Ministry authorized the operations last year, but none has been performed since. It was unclear when the surgeries would begin.

Mariela Castro, a sexologist and gay-rights advocate, announced the return of sex-change procedures in comments aired on state television. She runs the Center for Sex Education, which prepares transsexuals for sex-change operations and has identified 19 transsexuals it deems ready to undergo the procedure.

Castro also said she backs efforts to allow lesbians to be artificially inseminated, a procedure currently barred.

The first successful sex-change operation was performed on the island in 1988, but subsequent procedures were prohibited, Mariela Castro told an international congress on assisted reproduction meeting in Havana.

Some Cubans protested the decision last year to allow the operations, either because of general opposition to the procedure or for its high costs for a developing country with economic problems.

The government would bear the cost of the operations because Cuba has a universal health care system.
Tags: currentissues

Drag, Eve & CFW, Lawd!

American rap star Eve injected some life into the final night of what was at times a dull Caribbean Fashionweek (CFW), which ended at the National Indoor Sports Centre on Sunday. The event got off to a late start - one and a half hours after the scheduled 7 p.m. starting time. By the second presentation of designs, many persons in the audience had red, watery eyes and were yawning. There were even a few dozing during the sometimes long breaks between segments. The fact that food and drink were not allowed in the show area did not help either.

Remarkable appearance

Amid all this, when Eve stepped on to the runway, there were scores of people standing and singing along to her songs. And those who did not know them simply waved. In a little black dress and studded silver heels, she sang Who's That Girl, Let Me Blow Your Mind and Tambourine.

design by Kahnami

But before Eve, D'Angel blazed the stage with a relatively strong performance. She strutted her stuff doing First Lady and was very passionate during Stronger.

Prior to the performances, there was a bit of a shocker during Claudia Pegus' first set. Wearing a bee-like metal mask, a full-figured model made some heavy steps on to the runway wearing high wedge heels, a dress with interesting cuts, and a messy wig. The model was followed by thinner models, who walked gracefully, wearing similar masks. As the display of the collection was about to end, the first model returned and removed the mask. It was at this point that everyone realised that it was, in fact, a man.
A male model dressed as a woman wears a Claudia Pegus design at Caribbean Fashionweek at the National Indoor Sports Centre on Sunday. - photos by Winston Sill/Freelance Photographer

After the awe, and in some cases disgust, there were designs from Minka, Trefle, Pret A Porter and Rebel Clothing.

During the second set, Sushma Patel had some bright-coloured designs with sequins. A pleasant child brought a 'cute' element to the programme as she strutted gracefully.

Fifth Element provided a mix of fabrics, as well as bright and basic colours.

Male collection

Millhouse and Sandra Kennedy were on the more relaxed side of things. Millhouse, a male collection, had smooth finishes and a few edgy designs. Sandra Kennedy had white flowing outfits that were made of 100 per cent sea-island cotton.

Zadd and Eastman started with brown and khaki outfits. Then there was a big dash of colours - orange, green, aqua, blue, yellow and pink.

Moncrieffe, known for using mostly black and white, used bright and vibrant colours this year. There were also some models wearing masks.

Afterwards, there were collections from Mantsho, Simon Parchment and The Cloth.

Pegus ended CFW with a tribute to Michelle Obama. These designs were sophisticated and the bold accessories went well with the outfits. With one model lip-synching At Last, two other models waltzed, mimicking Barack and Michelle Obama at their inauguration ball after he was sworn in as the United States of America's 44th president earlier this year.

Flawed Sexual Offences Bill (Letter to The Gleaner Editor)

Editor, Sir:

Unprotected heterosexual sex is the main route to HIV/AIDS transmission in the Caribbean, with unprotected homosexual sex a critical factor.

According to a 2007 report on HIV/AIDS in Jamaica, cultural factors are fuelling the epidemic in high-risk groups (prostitutes and men who have sex with men). In addition, a 2008 study commissioned by the Ministry of Health showed that about one-third of men who have sex with men were also having sex with multiple female partners.

Shortcomings in the laws
The Ministry of Health cannot now deliver services to these high-risk groups under current laws, let alone the even more stringent laws about to be introduced under the Sexual Offences Bill. For example, under this new bill:
A man who is convicted of buggery (having consensual anal sex with a man or a woman) may now be listed as a sex offender after his 10-year prison sentence ends.

A woman who is convicted of prostitution (having consensual commercial sex) may be fined up to $500,000 and be imprisoned for up to five years. Anyone who lives with a prostitute, or is seen in her company, can be arrested and suffer the same penalties as the prostitute.

It is certainly in our interest as a society to avoid introducing laws almost guaranteed to worsen a potential epidemic.

I am, etc.,
YVONNE MCCALLA SOBERS
sobersy@yahoo.com

Speculation Over Lawyer's Death

Since the discovery of the decomposing body of attorney-at-law Berriston 'Berry' Bryan at his Stony Hill, St Andrew, home on Monday, there have been unconfirmed claims that his demise was linked to the homosexual tapes that belonged to former trade ambassador Peter King.
While the St Andrew North police, who are investigating the matter, say they have not established any link between the lawyer's murder and the tapes, sources are claiming otherwise.


leaked by someone

Information reaching THE STAR is that certain individuals believed that the content of the tapes, which was reported by the media during the murder trial, was leaked by someone, possibly Bryan, who had viewed the tapes.

"They had to shut him up because nobody was sure if or when he would begin to name persons on those tapes," the sources said.

Bryan, who represented Sheldon Pusey, the man sentenced to 15 years for the 2006 murder of King, was among the few non-state individuals who had officially viewed the tapes taken from King's house.


460 videotapes

The viewing of the 460 videotapes by Bryan was done in his preparation for Pusey's defence.

They allegedly depicted persons from all sectors of Jamaican society carrying out homosexual activities. Since word of the tapes got out, there have been widespread speculations about the persons featured on it.

Bryan's body was found with multiple stab wounds and appeared to have been beaten with a blunt instrument.

OTHER BLOG POST

Remembering Brian Williamson - September 4 1945 - June 9, 2004

a special post outside of the October History month but relevant non the less

the good days with his dog Tessa at home

Brian Williamson (September 4 1945 - June 9, 2004) was a Jamaican Gay rights activist and co-founder of the Jamaican forum for lesbians and gays, J-Flag. He was known for personally housing and looking after gay people in Jamaica.

members of the public then were cheering his demise at some instances and singing anti gay songs as police process the crime scene then and his body was removed by the undertakers

He was murdered with a machete, suffering multiple stab wounds to neck and face.Williamson's confessed murderer, Dwight Hayden, was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after fifteen years

Other posts and articles on Brian:

Remembering Brian Williamson

http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20040620/focus/focus4.html

More related posts that named Brian: HERE

More from Gay Jamaica Watch: HERE

More from GLOBALGAYZ: HERE

Sadly missed

Peace

Musings: Re-ordering society by treaty

6/7/2009

By Jeff Cumberbatch

WHETHER owed to our Judaeo-Christian background; our colonial status, which engendered a sometime legislative dependency on Britain; the popular will or, maybe, a combination of these, all sexual acts between males are criminalised under our law. Indeed, in 1992, when we enacted a new sexual offences statute, not only did we reiterate this illegality, but we also criminalised, perhaps inadvertently, identical acts between males and females, even if they are married, even if the acts are consensual, and even if they are committed in private. This anomaly remains.

Not that this is a universal position. England, from whom we would have taken our original legislation, has long ago changed its law to decriminalise sexual acts between males, provided the participants are above the age of consent, the act occurs in private and is consensual. And in the State of Texas, the US Supreme Court has struck down a statute which made it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle, on the twin bases of the entitlement of such persons to respect for their privacy – “…it is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter…”; and their right to equal protection under the law – “…moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate governmental interest under the Equal Protection clause because legal classifications must not be drawn for the purpose of disadvantaging the group burdened by the law…”

Indeed, several of our regional neighbours, who are similarly situated to us societally, have departed from our current stance. In the case of the Bahamas, by virtue of statute, intimate homosexual acts are only outlawed if one adult male has sexual intercourse with another male who is a minor or has sexual intercourse in a public place with another male whether with or without the consent of that other male. And in the British Overseas Territories, specifically Anguilla, the Cayman Islands, Montserrat, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the British Virgin Islands, the Caribbean Territories (Criminal Law) Order 2000 issued by Her Majesty provides that notwithstanding any statutory or common law provision in Force in the Territory to the contrary, a homosexual act (defined as buggery or gross indecency between two males) in private shall not be an offence “provided that the parties consent thereto and have attained the age of eighteen years”.

Of course, these positions are not binding on Barbados and, as a sovereign jurisdiction, we are free to follow our own democratic sentiments in this regard; free, that is, to the extent that, in the exercise of that sovereignty, we have not bound ourselves by treaty to act in a prescribed manner. In recent times, we have encountered more than a few instances in which the local populist or statutory view clashes with the spirit or letter of our treaty obligations of one kind or another – the death penalty itself, its mandatory nature, the corporal punishment of prisoners, the corporal punishment of children, the provision of imprisonment for certain strikes under the Better Security Act – and unless we are prepared to withdraw from the specific treaty and the community of nations which endorse it, then we may be forced to change our laws in order to conform.

In this regard, Barbados ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) on March 23, 1976. This covenant provides, inter alia, for protection from discrimination on a variety of grounds; protection which Barbados, as a state party to the treaty, undertook to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territories and subject to its jurisdiction. Now one of these grounds is sex, which ordinarily relates to distinction between male and female but, in 1994, the Human Rights Committee, charged with the interpretation of the Covenant, considered that the criminalisation of private sexual activity between consenting same-sex adults violated the anti-discrimination Articles of the Covenant, including that of discrimination on the basis of sex.

In a March 2007 report prepared by Global Rights and the International Human Rights Advocacy Seminar at the University of Virginia School of Law, which only recently became available online (http://www.globalrights.org/site/DocServer/Shadow_Report_Barbados.pdf?docID=9863) and which is provocatively entitled “Violation of the Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Persons in Barbados”, this country is excoriated for its non-compliance with the Articles of the ICCPR with respect to these individuals. There has not been, to put it mildly, an abundance of public comment on it, but this does not surprise.

The entire document repays reading, but what is intriguing to this writer is its position on same sex marriages and the law in Barbados. Conceding that the right to same-sex marriage is not officially recognised under the ICCPR, it nevertheless refers to the decision in Young v. Australia where the Human Rights Committee held that a failure of the state to grant de facto same-sex couples benefits available to de facto couples of opposite sexes violates Article 26 of the Treaty which guarantees to all persons equality and equal protection of the law without discrimination.

Given that under our Family Law Act, so called “common-law” unions, but only between a man and a woman, are recognised as “unions other than marriage” for certain purposes, the report argues that Barbados thereby provides against equal benefits for unmarried same-sex and heterosexual couples. In other words, we discriminate against same-sex unmarried couples by according different treatment to them from that accorded to heterosexual unmarried couples, based solely on their sex.

This argument appears irrefutable.