Don't crucify gay-rights activists, Boyne pleads

Talk-show host Ian Boyne says Jamaicans should not be offended by groups that promote gay rights.

"Whatever our views on homosexuality, I think we should agree that those who hold to a homosexual lifestyle should have the right to say what they want to say.

"I could never do a 'Religious Hard Talk' (one of his two TV shows) with a group of homosexuals whose faces are not blurred, and that says something about our society," Boyne, a Sunday Gleaner columnist, said.

In a quick response, head of Power of Faith Ministries, the Reverend Delford Davis, questioned, "Is it that they (homosexuals) want to say 'permit us to not just say but live out our life and (you should) be tolerant to the point where we say nothing?"

While conceding that homo-sexuals are entitled to free speech, Davis said the Church and society must condemn values it deems "immoral" and which infringe on the right of others.

Tolerance on both sides

His colleague, the Reverend Peter Garth, while making it clear that Christians should not be violent towards gays, urged homosexuals to be tolerant as well.

Garth, president of the Associated Gospel Assemblies, also argued that it depended on people's interpretation of being "offended" by homosexuality.

"I am not going to be offended to the point where I use something to hit them ... but to talk about having a march when you know how Jamaicans are?" he said.

However, addressing the Kiwanis Club of Kingston on Tuesday, Boyne said a "bigotry index" is now being used to judge countries around the world and the fact that many Jamaicans were "very intolerant, divisive and tribalised" society could scare away foreign investors.

"If we continue to be pictured abroad (and accurately so) as a society that is very intolerant, we are not going to be able to attract the foreign capital that we need," Boyne added.

A Critical Response to Shirley Richards: Religious Freedoms Under Threat

by Corgito Ergo Sum

Human Freedoms under threat!

Shirley Richards

I refer to your article dated Sunday 13 December, 2009 by Shirley Richards. In the article, Richards voiced her concern that religious freedom was under threat by the homosexual and pro-abortion lobbyists. Richards provided anecdotal evidence to support her claim that religious freedoms were under threat and praised the efforts of both local political parties saying that they “have accepted the inclusion in the proposed Charter of Rights of robust religious freedom clauses... [and] have also accepted the submission to preserve existing laws relating to sexual offenses, obscene publications and the life of the unborn.

However, what Richards had postulated within the article is antithetical to the protection of “rights” that she is seemingly arguing for – albeit those are religious rights. Such reactionary position takes for granted the rights of other human beings. Certainly, if a person is religious, s/he must be allowed to practice his/her religion without fear of disapproval (legal or otherwise). Conversely, if a person is not religious, s/he must not be forced to live by the religious (Christian) beliefs of those who are. It would therefore seem as though the argument is more about establishing a Christian hegemony. Certainly, the religious freedom for which she is advocating says nothing about the religious freedom the Rastafarian who uses the “herb” in rituals and is criminalized for doing so.

Furthermore, the assumption that religious freedom is threatened by the two groups she chose to focus on stems from a level of paranoia that society necessarily needs to rid itself of. In this discussion we need to move away from the distinctions we seek to create by each group asking for special rights. The homosexual movement of which she spoke for example is not calling for religious freedoms to become obsolete nor is it asking for “gay rights”. On the contrary, the community believes that there is no such thing as "Gay Rights". They are commonly referred to as such because the GLBT population does not receive the same rights other sections of the population take for granted. These are the rights – the same basic rights that are afforded others, including Christians – that the homosexual community are denied.

The assumption that the existence of particular groups who hold opinions that are different from the fundamentalist Christian is a threat to religious freedom is both misguiding and irresponsible as it creates a form of misanthropy that our society can very well do without. The example of the puritans to which Richards alluded in her article should suffice. Religion flourished in that context because of power exerted by the dominant religious group, denying the right to life of others who were deemed deviant. It is quite ironic that today religion is repudiating others for denying the right to life and for being a threat to their freedom.

At one time, Americans used the Bible to denounce women. The Bible, they claimed “said” women were to be servants of men. Christians said if women were given the right to vote, it would be an abomination in the eyes of God and destroy the nation. The same was said about equality for people of colour and interracial marriages. If we allow this Hegemony that is being argued for to take root in our society, I am afraid that the freedoms of all people will be greatly compromised. We do not need any special privileges for any singular group, what we need is the maintenance of the rights that are afforded every human being regardless of sexual orientation, cultural practices or religious beliefs. 

The paranoia must stop!

Gay German MP campaigns against Jamaican music

Charles HE Campbell

Sunday, January 17, 2010

I am glad my wise colleague Clyde McKenzie has publicly joined the discussion on declining appeal for Jamaican acts overseas. Only this week, we learnt of a panel discussion organised by Kesselhaus (a location where Sizzla's performance was cancelled on November 26, 2009) to be held and broadcast on February 23, 2010 in Berlin, Germany with representatives from politics, gay lesbian associations, artiste managers, representatives from the Jamaican artiste fraternity (to be announced) and German promoters.

The topic of the discussion is 'Sustainable Measures Against Homophobia in Art', with the aim of developing lasting strategies for the handling of controversial artistes, between prohibition (or ban) and dialogue.

All this has been put in the context of the continuation of a dialogue addressing a great need for new, concrete steps to ensure that artistes who perform lyrics that are deemed in Germany to be homophobic, or that glory violence, are not allowed into the country, nor can the media promote their images, music or CDs. Some very influential people, led by Volker Beck MP, leader of the Alliance 90/Green Party in the German parliament, are attempting to step up the campaign by broadening this ban to include all Jamaican artistes by defining it all as Dancehall.

This is against the background of the Alliance 90/Green parliamentarians concluding that the Reggae Compassionate Act, signed in 2007 by several Reggae and Dancehall artistes, pledging not to make statements or perform songs that incite hatred or violence against anyone from any community, including homosexuals, has not worked.

On June 20, 2008, the Bundestag Printed Paper published a reply from the German Federal Government to the minor interpellation tabled by the members of the German Bundestag -- Volker Beck (Cologne) and others in

the Alliance 90/Green's parliamentary group. It included the following false statements which amount to a smear campaign against Jamaica and all its musical forms.

"Gay people are in a critical situation in Jamaica", "prison sentences of up to 15 years are imposed simply for holding hands". The document implies that Brian Williamson (JFLAG) and Lenford Harvey were victims of homophobic violence and that there has been a steady increase in frequency of such murders over recent years. It states further that "homophobic lyrics feature in the repertoires of many of Jamaica's Reggae and Dancehall stars, but clergymen, trade unions and the Jamaican Government, also stir up gay hate". The reply goes on to state, "conditions in Jamaica have shown us the extent of the anti-gay violence that can be agitated by the hysterical and homophobic rantings of these crazy artistes. The messages coming from the stage work people up into a frenzy and provoke them to go and beat up and kill gays. As a result, it is a regular occurrence in Kingston, and elsewhere in the Caribbean, for men who are gay or perceived to be gay, to be hounded through the streets and subjected to savage attacks which often end in death".

These are serious accusations which badly tarnish the image of Jamaica. We are being promoted as a nation of lynchers and killers. I have been reliably informed that there is an ad currently running on German radio urging people not to go to Jamaica, they slit your throat there. The question I wish to ask is, whether our diplomatic service is aware of these accusations and the campaign against our artistes and musicians. If so, then why have we not yet formally responded to set the

record straight?

To quote from Clyde McKenzie, "how often do we hear about the indiscretions of an artiste being described as a poor reflection of the industry? I often argue that this is unfair, but I know the reality. The actions of a few are used to judge the behaviour of many and this is unfortunate".

Email: che.campbell@gmail.com