So fellow Lesbian blogger Alexis Jarvis has written to the Gleaner as a reponse to Peter Espeut's article on his take on rights as relating to lgbt people, she had initially responded via her blog as excerpted here:
"Mr. Espeut and fellow thinkers (including Shirley Richards) draw upon the fear of Jamaicans in furthering their (at times) baseless arguments. A church that does not condone homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexuality, transgenderism, cannot by any account be forced to admit these persons into their clergy that would be an infringement on their rights. The church is a private body governed by its own rules; the rules of the state (so long as there is separation) cannot be forced onto them. The same goes, as it regards schools employing openly LGBT persons. A private school, not funded by the government can set their own rules and chose whether to accept such persons or not. For example, if a school is operated by Seventh-day Adventists, then non-Adventists or even non-Christians will be required to abide by the rules of that school. If however, the school is funded by the government of the land then the laws of the government will also govern how such an institution is run.
“I do not believe that two consenting adults, of whatever gender, should be criminalised for having sexual intercourse with each other in the privacy of their homes”, why then Mr. Espeut should you not support even the very basic call of the removal of Sections 76, 77 and 79 of the Offences Against the Person Act? Those sections can allow persons to be targeted, dragged out of their homes and beaten, and/or jailed. “Personally, I do not think that homosexual relations are wholesome”, I partially agree with you Sir, however I must say that there are many heterosexual relationships out there that are not wholesome; no single side of the fence has completely wholesome relationships.
You say Mr. Espeut, that by including a clause of non-discrimination, it may cause “young people not yet self-actualised, who are still developing a consciousness of themselves and their sexual identity… [to believe] that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equally acceptable 'alternative lifestyles’”. I personally believe that due to music culture many young persons, experiment with sex in all forms (it has always happened), do not confuse that (experimentation) Mr. Espeut with identity/orientation. Why, Mr. Espeut would anyone chose to live a life that they have heard over and over will lead them to hell, a life that would endanger their life? Why Mr. Espeut, would I chose to live a life that has caused me to be the target of a sexual crime? No Mr. Espeut, you need to stop and think it over."
Here is the actual letter:
Lesbians Do Have Morals!
THE EDITOR, Sir:
Peter Espeut, in his column 'The right to discriminate' (April 8), began his defence against the non-inclusion of a non-discrimination clause against the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Jamaican population by drawing upon the fear of Jamaicans.
A church that does not condone homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexuality, transgenderism cannot, by any account, be forced to admit these persons into its clergy, as that would be an infringement on their rights. The church is a private body governed by its own rules; the same goes for schools employing openly LGBT persons.
Mr Espeut says that by including a clause of non-discrimination, it may cause "young people ... [to believe] that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equally acceptable 'alternative lifestyles'." Why, Mr Espeut, would anyone choose to live a life that they have heard over and over will lead them to hell, a life that would endanger their life?
anything goes
I do not know, Mr Espeut, if you are saying that "anything goes" is the characteristic of LGBT persons, or if such persons are amoral. If that is what you are saying, may I ask you how many LGBT persons have you met outside the stereotypical profile many have of LGBT people? Let me introduce you to a lesbian who has a moral compass: me. I am a lesbian, a Christian, an overcomer of a sexual crime. I am not amoral, I have values, I have a concept of right and wrong, I have moral principles.
Get it right, Mr Espeut, all heterosexuals aren't party animals and promiscuous beings, neither are all lesbians, bisexuals, gays, and transgenders.
I am, etc.,
ALEXIS JARVIS
Lesbian Christian and Human
Rights Activist
Jarvis@p2102442.pubip.peer1.net
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Friday, April 15, 2011
Uganda Ambassador ignorance to the EU: David Kato should share responsibility for his murder
In a shocking letter to the President of the European Parliament, the Ambassador of Uganda in Brussels asserts that David Kato “should share responsibility in this very unfortunate incident”. A highly-respected and recognised human rights defender in Uganda, David Kato was murdered on 26th January 2011 following his vocal stance in favour of LGBT people’s human rights.
In a shocking demonstration of ignorance and prejudice, the Ambassador of Uganda goes on to assert that unlike female prostitutes, male prostitutes “have the physical capability to defend their interests.”
Fully disregarding principles of justice and fair trial, the Ambassador further explains:
The case is in Court and due process will deliver justice. I can assure you that the culprit will get a fair trial, will be found guilty and will receive maximum sentence, which could be death at the gallows.
the letters:
Heidi Hautala MEP, Chair of the Subcommittee on Human Rights, responded on behalf of the President of the European Parliament. In her letter, she responds that expressing “a view that due to his conduct, Mr Kato should share the responsibility for his own murder reflects a categorically unsound and entirely unacceptable way of thinking.”
her response:
In February 2011, the European Parliament had adopted an urgency resolution strongly condemning the murder of David Kato.
Read more:
Pakistan's transgender tribe of tax collectors .... a new way to get collections up
Karachi, Pakistan (CNN) -- Miss your tax deadline in the United States this weekend, and you might get a nasty letter at your door. In Karachi, Pakistan's largest city, you might get Riffee and the gang. They are "transgender" tax collectors -- whose weapons include flamboyancy, surprise -- and a little lipstick.
In a move that speaks volumes about the lengths to which Pakistan is going to tackle tax evasion, Karachi officials are using Riffee - who like many people in South Asia works under a single name - and her team as enforcers with a difference. They are sent to the businesses or houses of debtors. The aim -- in this very conservative Muslim society -- to embarrass tax debtors into paying up.
Riffee -- like her tax-collector friends Sana and Kohan -- is physically a man, but prefers to be called and dress as a woman. Their job is quite simple: each morning they turn up to work and get a list of missed payments. One by one, they make house-calls, causing trouble at each debtor's home or office, trying to get them to pay up. It's not clear how effective this tactic is, but officials insist they would not do it if it did not work.
"Their appearance causes great embarrassment amongst the people," said Sajid Hussein Bhatti, the tax superintendent who gives Riffee her orders every morning.
When Riffee was a 10-year-old boy, she decided she wanted to be a woman. Since then, she says, she's endured plenty of prejudice. "We're trying to educate society and show them how we like ourselves, but if your parents don't understand you or give you respect, how can you expect other people to?"
A Pakistani court ruling two years ago gave eunuchs -- men who have been castrated -- the right to be referred to as a "third gender." Riffee believes the same right should extend to her and her friends, although they have not been castrated.
We followed them as they visit a series of electrical appliance shops. The first debtor insists there's been a mistake and the bill's been paid. The second is less amenable, so the team threaten to come back 24 hours later, half a dozen strong -- and dance in the shop. That just may be enough to get a tax bill settled.
There is a serious side though to this theatrical tactic. Pakistan's tax take is dire: barely 1 per cent of Pakistanis pay any income tax, and the government is frantically trying to increase its income -- partially to placate the International Monetary Fund. Pakistan wants to borrow up to another $5 billion from the IMF, which insists the state improves its tax collection.
The government is seriously indebted -- and only 1.9 million people in a country of 170 million filed tax returns at all last year. By some estimates 10 million people are registered to pay taxes in Pakistan; the great majority don't pay a rupee.
In a country where many say the courts are weak and the police corruptible, Riffee and the team are a last, albeit striking, resort.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Because Bisexual Conference 2011
The BECAUSE Planning Committee is committed to creating an environment where all participants feel safe and comfortable and are able to participate. In an effort to ensure this to the best of our ability, we ask that you read and respect the statements below.
Diversity and Inclusion Statement:
The BECAUSE Planning Committee encourages conference participants to refrain from making assumptions about others’ sexual orientation, gender identity, or other cultural or social identities. Out of respect for gender diversity, we ask that conference participants use the pronouns that others prefer. If you are unsure of someone’s gender identity and preferred pronoun, for instance he, she, they, ze, or no pronoun, please ask respectfully how you should refer to that individual or use their name in place of gendered pronouns.
There will be gender neutral restrooms available and labeled as All-Gender Restrooms. Restrooms with gender markers will also be available. The location of these restrooms will be labeled on our maps.
Sex Positive Statement:
The BECAUSE Planning Committee supports sex-positive perspectives and advocates for our event to be a safer space for open dialogue.
Sex positivity refers to the notion that sex can be a positive force both in personal development and society. Consensual sexual expression should be respected regardless of the form that expression takes. It is not appropriate to judge others consensual choices regarding how to have sex, who to have sex with, and how one defines their sexual orientation and identity. It is equally important to focus on the positive aspects of sexuality, like sexual pleasure, and not just disease prevention, prevention of sexual assault and unwanted pregnancy. Sexuality is largely socially constructed, and there are few if any essential truths about sex. (Adapted Cory Silverberg)
Low-Scent Request:
Please refrain from using scented products while at the conference. People with Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS) have severe allergic reactions to many of the chemicals commonly found in scented products. Fortunately, there are numerous scent-free alternatives we can wear. We do not expect attendees to purchase new products, but we ask that you at least use the least scented products that you own and refrain from wearing perfumes and colognes while at the conference.
While we cannot guarantee a totally “scent-free” environment at this year’s conference, each of us can do a great deal in making sure everyone is comfortable during the breakout sessions and other conference events by not wearing scented products.
Photography and Flash Request:
Please ask before taking any pictures as not all participants will be comfortable with their picture being taken. In addition, if you do take pictures, please refrain from using flash as this could be problematic for people with light sensitivities.
Questions/Concerns? Contact them at:
LouAHQ@gmail.com
Book: “Helping Your Transgender Teen: A Guide for Parents”
Irwin Krieger, a Connecticut Psychotherapist and gender specialist has written a 75 page guide for parents of trans teens (2011, Genderwise Press, New Haven, CT. ISBN: 069201229X).
The book provides a good “lay of the land” for parents who have little information about what it means to have a transgender child. It includes a glossary of terms, a primer on gender and sexuality, and a fairly detailed roadmap for what to expect should the teen decide to transition.
It is particularly strong in articulating the tensions that can arise between an impatient teen and a cautious parent who is trying to “come up to speed”. Other helpful areas are sample letters to extended family members explaining the situation, thoughts on what to expect when a teen transitions at school and a discussion of the typical fears a parent may have.
There are few minor points with which I took issue – namely a tendency (not just here but in a good deal of transgender literature) to paint the (FTM) female to male transgender child’s experience as somehow “easier” and Krieger’s describing a teen’s coming out as gay as often being a “transitional identity” to what may later be a “straight” identity. This may overlook the strong “queer” identity that many young people lay claim to before, during and even after transition.
These points aside, “Helping Your Transgender Teen” is sure to do just that for a good many parents who will be reassured and educated by this book.
Thoughts on Parents coping with Transgender children
Keep the long term goal in mind in all communications
The long term goal is maintaining a relationship with your child.
Allow yourself time to process your feelings.
There can be pressure for immediate acceptance.
You are entitled to all your feelings about the situation.
Your child has had much more time to think about this and accept it than you have.
Communication
Listening: Don’t interrupt, don’t tune out, and don’t plan what you will say next, make eye contact, pay attention to the speakers feelings, before you give your opinion reflect back what you are heard in a non-judgmental way so that the speaker knows they have been heard or ask for clarification if you didn’t understand something.
Speaking: If you’re too angry or upset take a 20 min. break. Try to avoid blaming, ultimatums, attacking, insults, large proclamations or hurtful speech. Say what you feel clearly, don’t assume people know. (people are not mind readers). Say what you feel rather than acting it out, ex: “I’m confused and angry…”
Say where you are, example: “I don’t completely understand it but I’m listening and working on it”
Speaking: If you’re too angry or upset take a 20 min. break. Try to avoid blaming, ultimatums, attacking, insults, large proclamations or hurtful speech. Say what you feel clearly, don’t assume people know. (people are not mind readers). Say what you feel rather than acting it out, ex: “I’m confused and angry…”
Say where you are, example: “I don’t completely understand it but I’m listening and working on it”
Don’t triangulate; focus on you and your child not other people.
Don’t shut down communications or avoid your child
This is often the largest fear.
Let it happen when you’re ready.
Let others have their own feelings and reactions about it, don’t try and dictate.
Educate yourself about transgenderism.
This is an opportunity for a more authentic relationship with your child.
Don’t shut down communications or avoid your child
Telling Other family/friends
This is often the largest fear.
Let it happen when you’re ready.
Let others have their own feelings and reactions about it, don’t try and dictate.
Understanding and reframing
Educate yourself about transgenderism.
This is an opportunity for a more authentic relationship with your child.
Gay Parenting (a view on the ground) (repost from 09) ........ International Family Day
International Day of Families, 15 May 2011
(observed 12 May 2011)
(observed 12 May 2011)
Theme: "Confronting family poverty and social exclusion"
Contrary to popular belief, there are gay parents here in Jamaica, most of them conceived or derived children during earlier heterosexual unions before going str8 gay as I call it or from marriages that end in divorce. There are lesbian parents more so than gay male parents to my knowledge as well and the children in these unions seem to be more rounded in their approach to tolerance and the sharing of responsibilities generally speaking based on my observation.
The opponents of gay parenting here who also oppose homosexuality consisting mainly the church and christian organizations who say that children must not be raised by gays because there must be a mother and father figure in the home, let's look at the so called hetero correctness where children suffer in bitter divorce battles or parents are physically present but emotionally absent hence leaving the child to seek other alternatives for development and recreation.
Str8s are doing a good job aren't they? just look at how intolerant we are as a people towards a personal decision taken based on our orientation and freedom to exercise choice ...... wow, look at how many street children or to be more religious children born out of wedlock, the alarming rise in carnal abuse, paedophilia (which is not homosexuality or committed by homosexuals as some would like others to believe), hebephilia where our teenage girls are literally watched in their growth process and targeted by men for sex (coaster bus syndrome), rape and incest. Only this week there was a disturbing news item of a girl paid by her uncle for sex.
Visible outcomes
One particular male who has three adopted boys did so out of the need for them to have a father figure as they were the product of two HIV+ parents who subsequently passed away. He is very strict with them and doesn't allow them to stray an inch, his gay lifestyle does not seem to impede his ability to father them and he has taught them that there are many types of people in the world. The boys age from the eldest 14, 12 and 10. All are attending school and are doing fairly well. They are aware of their parents' fate and are counselled by professionals who keep a close watch on them. I guess with these support systems in place it would be easier to manage these children especially in our homophobic setting where even kids often emulate what the adults do to other children who behave differently than what is expected.
I am aware of a lesbian couple who entered into a relationship some time ago with both of them having children from previous hetero unions, the kids have since been raised to be tolerant and are compatible with each other, they are told by their moms exactly what is happening and of their parents' orientation, the boy and girl ages 11 and 8 seem not to be perturbed by the arrangements and are doing well in school and socially as well. The father of the boy is active in his life and although he is upset with the mother (according to her) he speaks to both women when he visits the home to see his son making sure not to show any descent in front of them as responsible adults should behave.
There is a male couple who have been together for a while, one of the men has a son from a previous marriage but the union ended in divorce, The mother decided to share custody of the child although she was aware of her ex husband's new lifestyle and living arrangements. He has been visiting his son at her home where she now has a new spouse and the child also comes to his home as well. The growing boy, as most children do, has been asking alot of questions and both parents deliberated on how to handle the information so he would understand and the timing of it as well with confidentiality. To their surprise after they painstakingly discussed the issues with him he said openly to them that he loves them no matter what. This from an eleven year old. Kids are not fools, never underestimate children.
I think that confirms a religious phrase "And a little child shall lead them"
All in all it is clear to me that children when given the correct environment of love, support and education can become rounded individuals despite the gender and orientation of the caregivers, I don't need studies to tell me this I see it everyday by the three examples above and others which may make this post extraordinarily long so I will follow up some other time.
also see from Gay Jamaica Watch: Sexual Reproduction for Same Sex Couples?
Peace
H
Visible outcomes
One particular male who has three adopted boys did so out of the need for them to have a father figure as they were the product of two HIV+ parents who subsequently passed away. He is very strict with them and doesn't allow them to stray an inch, his gay lifestyle does not seem to impede his ability to father them and he has taught them that there are many types of people in the world. The boys age from the eldest 14, 12 and 10. All are attending school and are doing fairly well. They are aware of their parents' fate and are counselled by professionals who keep a close watch on them. I guess with these support systems in place it would be easier to manage these children especially in our homophobic setting where even kids often emulate what the adults do to other children who behave differently than what is expected.
I am aware of a lesbian couple who entered into a relationship some time ago with both of them having children from previous hetero unions, the kids have since been raised to be tolerant and are compatible with each other, they are told by their moms exactly what is happening and of their parents' orientation, the boy and girl ages 11 and 8 seem not to be perturbed by the arrangements and are doing well in school and socially as well. The father of the boy is active in his life and although he is upset with the mother (according to her) he speaks to both women when he visits the home to see his son making sure not to show any descent in front of them as responsible adults should behave.
There is a male couple who have been together for a while, one of the men has a son from a previous marriage but the union ended in divorce, The mother decided to share custody of the child although she was aware of her ex husband's new lifestyle and living arrangements. He has been visiting his son at her home where she now has a new spouse and the child also comes to his home as well. The growing boy, as most children do, has been asking alot of questions and both parents deliberated on how to handle the information so he would understand and the timing of it as well with confidentiality. To their surprise after they painstakingly discussed the issues with him he said openly to them that he loves them no matter what. This from an eleven year old. Kids are not fools, never underestimate children.
I think that confirms a religious phrase "And a little child shall lead them"
All in all it is clear to me that children when given the correct environment of love, support and education can become rounded individuals despite the gender and orientation of the caregivers, I don't need studies to tell me this I see it everyday by the three examples above and others which may make this post extraordinarily long so I will follow up some other time.
also see from Gay Jamaica Watch: Sexual Reproduction for Same Sex Couples?
Peace
H
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Re-title this letter Observer to: Miss Richard's trope on HIV ........
Really, when I saw the letter's title I was expecting another one of those anti gay apologists or adovactes blaming HIV on men who have sex with men but after reading it it was a critique of on the article headlined 'No truth repealing buggery law will help reduce HIV/AIDS' The Lawyers' Christian Fellowship is once again using the opportunity given the passing of the Charter of Rights without any protection for discrimination due to sexual orientation.
I feel compelled to comment on the article headlined 'No truth repealing buggery law will help reduce HIV/AIDS'. I can't believe that in 2011 a lawyer, and past president of the Lawyers Christian Fellowship, would make such comments.
Ms Shirley Richards was also concerned that repealing this law may result in children being taught in schools that homosexuality is OK. These comments are irresponsible, and worse, they are made amidst the discussion on the Charter of Rights which ought to be inclusive, and not exclusive.
Human beings should certainly not be discriminated against based on race, gender or sexual orientation, and these lawyers need to get with the programme and stop speaking rubbish. The law defines buggery as an act which makes homosexuality amongst men illegal. It is also strange that heterosexuals exploring these same acts in heterosexual relationships is OK.
Lesbians seem off topic, as society is far more lenient towards them. Quite frankly, neither Ms Richards nor the Government have any business defining what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. They also have no business deciding who consenting adults love.
To say there is no proof that removing this law will reduce incidents of HIV/AIDS, suggests that Ms Richards and her crew must be living under some rock. There are nearly 40 million people living with HIV around the world, and the places with the highest rates of increases are third world, developing countries.
Removing any law that stigmatises vulnerable groups certainly won't end HIV. It will, without a doubt, help to make HIV prevention/care outreach programmes far easier and more accessible, which ultimately would impact on prevention and rates of increases.
Removing laws does not exactly remove the right to condone (if that is one's choice). It is absurd and silly to suggest that removing the law might result in teaching homosexuality as normal or abnormal in schools. The classroom cannot teach us who we will love. What must be taught instead is that we are all human beings, we all have the right to exist, and coexist, in peace and harmony within the confines of the law.
It is funny how many Jamaicans are quick to condemn homosexuality, yet these same Jamaicans rush to First World countries to visit and to live, and they adapt so easily, as they embrace their new homes, culture and new laws.
They live with, work with, and play with open gays, without any issues. We should all be concerned about saving lives and the health and well-being of our citizens. I am so tired of Christians always being so quick to judge and condemn. I am tired of the hypocrisy. How can Ms Richards even state that "transmission seems to be out of control among men who have sex with men".
HIV does not discriminate, it affects young and old, male and female, all races, classes, heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual and all others. HIV is a global issue, not a homosexual issue. Unlike places like South Africa, where the Church is an integral part in the fight against HIV/AIDS, Jamaican church leaders are naive enough to make it a homosexual issue, encouraging a climate of hate and phobia, masked by their Christianity.
Shirley Richards should practise provincial law and leave the business of framing citizens' rights and privileges to those interested in the growth and development of the society. Negativity and dogged blind loyalty to Christianity are not the end all, and she can practise her religion in her home.
J Longmore
New York City
NY, USA
longmorej@yahoo.com
I would have thought they would have been satisfied seeing they were successful in removing what little protection that existed in the original drafts of the Charter in the absence of our limp wristed JFLAG advocates the LCF claimed there would have been loop holes towards gays demanding gay marriage next if the protection was directly included and this crap that the homosexual lifestyle would have been legitimized and kids taught in school that gay is OK and by extension the procreation argument, a wonderful red herring planted when no group asked for gay marriage rights outrightly a red herring used again by the Jamaica Labour Party administration to defend overlooking us for any direct protection and recognition under the Charter which is to replace section three of the constitution.
As we read there is another survey being conducted in the MSM community by the Ministry of Health and I fear we may not see any improvements in the numbers as the last one from 2007 where the HIV rate of infection was 31%
Have a read of the letter as titled
and see if you agree:
Dear Editor,
I feel compelled to comment on the article headlined 'No truth repealing buggery law will help reduce HIV/AIDS'. I can't believe that in 2011 a lawyer, and past president of the Lawyers Christian Fellowship, would make such comments.
Ms Shirley Richards was also concerned that repealing this law may result in children being taught in schools that homosexuality is OK. These comments are irresponsible, and worse, they are made amidst the discussion on the Charter of Rights which ought to be inclusive, and not exclusive.
Human beings should certainly not be discriminated against based on race, gender or sexual orientation, and these lawyers need to get with the programme and stop speaking rubbish. The law defines buggery as an act which makes homosexuality amongst men illegal. It is also strange that heterosexuals exploring these same acts in heterosexual relationships is OK.
Lesbians seem off topic, as society is far more lenient towards them. Quite frankly, neither Ms Richards nor the Government have any business defining what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. They also have no business deciding who consenting adults love.
To say there is no proof that removing this law will reduce incidents of HIV/AIDS, suggests that Ms Richards and her crew must be living under some rock. There are nearly 40 million people living with HIV around the world, and the places with the highest rates of increases are third world, developing countries.
Removing any law that stigmatises vulnerable groups certainly won't end HIV. It will, without a doubt, help to make HIV prevention/care outreach programmes far easier and more accessible, which ultimately would impact on prevention and rates of increases.
Removing laws does not exactly remove the right to condone (if that is one's choice). It is absurd and silly to suggest that removing the law might result in teaching homosexuality as normal or abnormal in schools. The classroom cannot teach us who we will love. What must be taught instead is that we are all human beings, we all have the right to exist, and coexist, in peace and harmony within the confines of the law.
It is funny how many Jamaicans are quick to condemn homosexuality, yet these same Jamaicans rush to First World countries to visit and to live, and they adapt so easily, as they embrace their new homes, culture and new laws.
They live with, work with, and play with open gays, without any issues. We should all be concerned about saving lives and the health and well-being of our citizens. I am so tired of Christians always being so quick to judge and condemn. I am tired of the hypocrisy. How can Ms Richards even state that "transmission seems to be out of control among men who have sex with men".
HIV does not discriminate, it affects young and old, male and female, all races, classes, heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual and all others. HIV is a global issue, not a homosexual issue. Unlike places like South Africa, where the Church is an integral part in the fight against HIV/AIDS, Jamaican church leaders are naive enough to make it a homosexual issue, encouraging a climate of hate and phobia, masked by their Christianity.
Shirley Richards should practise provincial law and leave the business of framing citizens' rights and privileges to those interested in the growth and development of the society. Negativity and dogged blind loyalty to Christianity are not the end all, and she can practise her religion in her home.
J Longmore
New York City
NY, USA
longmorej@yahoo.com
also see: Keep the Law out of Gay's Bedrooms from Gay Jamaica Watch 2009
Lawyer's Christian Fellowship hypocrisy from Shirley Richards: "Charter Of Rights And The Moral Divide" (read carefully)
Below is an excerpted address by Shirley Richards, attorney-at-law and immediate past president of the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship, to the Lions Club of Kingston last Wednesday April 7th
Like it or not, the Charter of Rights, having been passed by both Houses of Parliament, is expected to become law shortly. I think, maybe, that you may be interested in knowing a few of the expected changes which will come to our society as a consequence of the charter. Here are a few of the changes:
Philosophical change in the approach to rights: In what will shortly become the previous document, rights are stated but circumscribed by limitations. In this document, it is fair to say that except for those specific limitations which have been saved, the only limitations which will be recognised will be such as are demonstrably 'justified in a free and democratic society'.
The document has both vertical and horizontal effects, meaning that we now have rights against the Government and also against each other. Expect the society then to become more litigious.
The major new rights are the right of a child to publicly funded tuition at the pre-primary and primary levels (Section 13 (k)). The right to enjoy a healthy and productive environment (Section 13 (l)). This should mean, therefore, that we will be able to sue persons who drive defective vehicles on the road as well as companies whose plants emit poisonous fumes.
civic intervention
Civic organisations can now intervene on behalf of individuals whose rights have been contravened or are likely to be contravened (Section 19 (2)).
Care has been taken to preserve the death penalty [Section 13 (7)], legislation that deals with sexual offences, offences that pertain to the life of the unborn, and laws that pertain to obscene publications [Section 13 (12)]. It remains to be seen how the courts will deal with these laws which have been retained.
Marriage has also been defined [Section 18 (2)] as follows:
No form of marriage … other than the voluntary union of one man and one woman may be contracted or legally recognised in Jamaica.
Thanks to our intervention, provisions relating to religious liberties have also been included at Section 17, basically repeating provisions of Section 21 of the past document.
Why did the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship intervene in the passage of the charter? In brief, we saw a document whose philosophy was the supreme autonomy of the individual. The philosophical flaw in the document then, and still is so in the current document, but to a lesser extent, is a failure to face the fact that we are all selfish by nature and that, further, we live in a community where, like it or not, our private actions do impact the life of the community. Frankly, some of us are concerned that the concept of human rights is being used to erase the distinction between right and wrong, and that human rights, in itself, have now become the new religious dogma.
After examining the document, we became very concerned about the destination of the proposed journey. When we intervened in 2006, we realised then that all our laws and any limitations on perceived rights would now be subject to what obtains in a 'free and democratic society'.
what's the destination?
The concept of us as a nation setting out on a journey in the pursuit of freedom and liberty of the individual sounded exhilarating, exciting even, but did we have any idea as to our destination? Is it good governance to lead a nation to a possible and even likely destination without their informed consent? The philosophy of the document, as it was, would certainly have allowed for a striking down of the laws relating to buggery, abortion and obscene publications. Not only that, we were concerned that the robust language of Section 21 of the soon-to-be-replaced Chapter III of the Constitution was not repeated in the proposed document.
Section 21 deals with freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, and preserves a certain amount of autonomy for religious bodies. All that was given was a right to freedom of thought, conscience, belief and observance of religious and political doctrines. Knowing what was happening in so-called free and democratic countries, e.g. Canada, where consistently, the rights of homosexuals trumped rights to conscience, and where it has been declared that women have the right to take the lives of their unborn children, ought we to have sat by just getting on with our daily routine without, at the very least, warning the nation?
We could do no less than sound a warning. This we did, and thankfully, we received a favourable hearing.
It took some courage to be able to include clauses in the current charter which have now saved laws relating to sexual offences, the life of the unborn, and obscene publications, and have preserved our religious liberties. Moreover, as said before, the document now defines marriage in the way that I dare say most Jamaicans now define that institution - being that of one man to one woman.
In this regard, I want to urge our society to give more than lip service to marriage. I want to urge our society to view the institution as an honourable one, one which provides the best environment in which to raise our children.
A mutually faithful heterosexual relationship is not merely one private option among many, but has serious implications for the public good and the health of the nation.
changing laws
Our Parliament is still there to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Jamaica (Section 48). Our judges are there to interpret and apply these laws. If we want laws changed, let us do so upfront, with the full knowledge of the society. Let the Parliament not abdicate its responsibility of making laws.
Having included these sections in the charter, I want to say to the Government that we expect that if at any time there is a court decision which goes contrary to the intentions clearly expressed on behalf of the electorate that you expressed in this charter, that we do expect that you will honour the Jamaican people by taking such legislative action as may be necessary to rectify any faulty wording which may become apparent.
To the charge that the charter ignored the rights of homosexuals, I ask, where do rights originate? And if there is no transcendent moral law, what gives anyone any rights, and what prevents mere power from prevailing? If it is true that repeal of the buggery law will assist with reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS, then why is it that the November 2010 edition of Lancet Infectious Diseases reported that "despite an overall decline in HIV incidence in France, transmission seems to be out of control among men who have sex with men?" Lancet is a highly reputable medical publication. Note that buggery was decriminalised in France since the time of the French Revolution in 1791. Other reputable sources (e.g., Eurosurveillance) report similar trends for HIV incidence among MSMs in many developed Western nations.
If the buggery law is repealed, what will prevent our children being taught in school that the homosexual lifestyle is a good and acceptable one?
Let me tell you about the case of Eunice and Owen Johns, a Jamaican couple who currently reside in England. They had fostered children 15 times before. Their application to foster children in 2007 was not approved by the Derby Council because, in answering questions posed by the social worker, they had made it clear that they could not and would not be willing to tell a child that homosexuality is a good thing. The High Court on February 28, 2011, sided with the council. According to the BBC report of the case, the court said that if children were placed with caregivers who objected to homosexuality, "there may well be a conflict with the local authority's duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of looked-after children".
Basically, what that decision meant is that objection to homosexuality is not in the interest of the welfare of children. To put it another way, if you do not agree with homosexual conduct, you cannot foster children in the UK! Out goes many Christian-minded people and also many Jamaican couples living in the UK! Talk about discrimination! If objection to the homosexual lifestyle makes you an unsafe parent, how long will it be before one's natural children are removed by the State for their 'safety'?
rejoice only briefly
To those persons who are like-minded - especially to the churchfolk - don't get lost in your rejoicing. Let your rejoicing be brief, for the battle has only just begun. Now as never before in our history, churches are going to have to unite to fight a common battle. Weapons will have to be carefully chosen. This battle is not one to be fought with weapons of war as in the Middle East. Instead, we will have to fight back cultural imperialism with a moral revolution!
And so I call for a moral revolution in this country; one in which we live right; one in which we speak the truth without having to be pressured at commissions of enquiry; one in which we can dialogue and cross-examine without being crass; one in which we choose to have our children within the context of stable marital unions; a society in which fathers support their children; a society in which we value our children from conception; one in which we support our mothers; one in which we jealously value and cultivate the healthy and mutually faithful man-woman relationship; and a society in which we eschew the use of violence as a means of solving our problems.
I have borrowed a thought from the words of Norman Manley uttered in Parliament on the occasion of the coming into force of the 1962 Constitution. This is the paraphrase:
Let no one imagine that we have secured our future forever. It is only the spirit and vigilance of the people which will preserve those good things that are in the Charter of Rights.
Like it or not, the Charter of Rights, having been passed by both Houses of Parliament, is expected to become law shortly. I think, maybe, that you may be interested in knowing a few of the expected changes which will come to our society as a consequence of the charter. Here are a few of the changes:
Philosophical change in the approach to rights: In what will shortly become the previous document, rights are stated but circumscribed by limitations. In this document, it is fair to say that except for those specific limitations which have been saved, the only limitations which will be recognised will be such as are demonstrably 'justified in a free and democratic society'.
The document has both vertical and horizontal effects, meaning that we now have rights against the Government and also against each other. Expect the society then to become more litigious.
The major new rights are the right of a child to publicly funded tuition at the pre-primary and primary levels (Section 13 (k)). The right to enjoy a healthy and productive environment (Section 13 (l)). This should mean, therefore, that we will be able to sue persons who drive defective vehicles on the road as well as companies whose plants emit poisonous fumes.
civic intervention
Civic organisations can now intervene on behalf of individuals whose rights have been contravened or are likely to be contravened (Section 19 (2)).
Care has been taken to preserve the death penalty [Section 13 (7)], legislation that deals with sexual offences, offences that pertain to the life of the unborn, and laws that pertain to obscene publications [Section 13 (12)]. It remains to be seen how the courts will deal with these laws which have been retained.
Marriage has also been defined [Section 18 (2)] as follows:
No form of marriage … other than the voluntary union of one man and one woman may be contracted or legally recognised in Jamaica.
Thanks to our intervention, provisions relating to religious liberties have also been included at Section 17, basically repeating provisions of Section 21 of the past document.
Why did the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship intervene in the passage of the charter? In brief, we saw a document whose philosophy was the supreme autonomy of the individual. The philosophical flaw in the document then, and still is so in the current document, but to a lesser extent, is a failure to face the fact that we are all selfish by nature and that, further, we live in a community where, like it or not, our private actions do impact the life of the community. Frankly, some of us are concerned that the concept of human rights is being used to erase the distinction between right and wrong, and that human rights, in itself, have now become the new religious dogma.
After examining the document, we became very concerned about the destination of the proposed journey. When we intervened in 2006, we realised then that all our laws and any limitations on perceived rights would now be subject to what obtains in a 'free and democratic society'.
what's the destination?
The concept of us as a nation setting out on a journey in the pursuit of freedom and liberty of the individual sounded exhilarating, exciting even, but did we have any idea as to our destination? Is it good governance to lead a nation to a possible and even likely destination without their informed consent? The philosophy of the document, as it was, would certainly have allowed for a striking down of the laws relating to buggery, abortion and obscene publications. Not only that, we were concerned that the robust language of Section 21 of the soon-to-be-replaced Chapter III of the Constitution was not repeated in the proposed document.
Section 21 deals with freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, and preserves a certain amount of autonomy for religious bodies. All that was given was a right to freedom of thought, conscience, belief and observance of religious and political doctrines. Knowing what was happening in so-called free and democratic countries, e.g. Canada, where consistently, the rights of homosexuals trumped rights to conscience, and where it has been declared that women have the right to take the lives of their unborn children, ought we to have sat by just getting on with our daily routine without, at the very least, warning the nation?
We could do no less than sound a warning. This we did, and thankfully, we received a favourable hearing.
It took some courage to be able to include clauses in the current charter which have now saved laws relating to sexual offences, the life of the unborn, and obscene publications, and have preserved our religious liberties. Moreover, as said before, the document now defines marriage in the way that I dare say most Jamaicans now define that institution - being that of one man to one woman.
In this regard, I want to urge our society to give more than lip service to marriage. I want to urge our society to view the institution as an honourable one, one which provides the best environment in which to raise our children.
A mutually faithful heterosexual relationship is not merely one private option among many, but has serious implications for the public good and the health of the nation.
changing laws
Our Parliament is still there to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Jamaica (Section 48). Our judges are there to interpret and apply these laws. If we want laws changed, let us do so upfront, with the full knowledge of the society. Let the Parliament not abdicate its responsibility of making laws.
Having included these sections in the charter, I want to say to the Government that we expect that if at any time there is a court decision which goes contrary to the intentions clearly expressed on behalf of the electorate that you expressed in this charter, that we do expect that you will honour the Jamaican people by taking such legislative action as may be necessary to rectify any faulty wording which may become apparent.
To the charge that the charter ignored the rights of homosexuals, I ask, where do rights originate? And if there is no transcendent moral law, what gives anyone any rights, and what prevents mere power from prevailing? If it is true that repeal of the buggery law will assist with reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS, then why is it that the November 2010 edition of Lancet Infectious Diseases reported that "despite an overall decline in HIV incidence in France, transmission seems to be out of control among men who have sex with men?" Lancet is a highly reputable medical publication. Note that buggery was decriminalised in France since the time of the French Revolution in 1791. Other reputable sources (e.g., Eurosurveillance) report similar trends for HIV incidence among MSMs in many developed Western nations.
If the buggery law is repealed, what will prevent our children being taught in school that the homosexual lifestyle is a good and acceptable one?
Let me tell you about the case of Eunice and Owen Johns, a Jamaican couple who currently reside in England. They had fostered children 15 times before. Their application to foster children in 2007 was not approved by the Derby Council because, in answering questions posed by the social worker, they had made it clear that they could not and would not be willing to tell a child that homosexuality is a good thing. The High Court on February 28, 2011, sided with the council. According to the BBC report of the case, the court said that if children were placed with caregivers who objected to homosexuality, "there may well be a conflict with the local authority's duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of looked-after children".
Basically, what that decision meant is that objection to homosexuality is not in the interest of the welfare of children. To put it another way, if you do not agree with homosexual conduct, you cannot foster children in the UK! Out goes many Christian-minded people and also many Jamaican couples living in the UK! Talk about discrimination! If objection to the homosexual lifestyle makes you an unsafe parent, how long will it be before one's natural children are removed by the State for their 'safety'?
rejoice only briefly
To those persons who are like-minded - especially to the churchfolk - don't get lost in your rejoicing. Let your rejoicing be brief, for the battle has only just begun. Now as never before in our history, churches are going to have to unite to fight a common battle. Weapons will have to be carefully chosen. This battle is not one to be fought with weapons of war as in the Middle East. Instead, we will have to fight back cultural imperialism with a moral revolution!
And so I call for a moral revolution in this country; one in which we live right; one in which we speak the truth without having to be pressured at commissions of enquiry; one in which we can dialogue and cross-examine without being crass; one in which we choose to have our children within the context of stable marital unions; a society in which fathers support their children; a society in which we value our children from conception; one in which we support our mothers; one in which we jealously value and cultivate the healthy and mutually faithful man-woman relationship; and a society in which we eschew the use of violence as a means of solving our problems.
I have borrowed a thought from the words of Norman Manley uttered in Parliament on the occasion of the coming into force of the 1962 Constitution. This is the paraphrase:
Let no one imagine that we have secured our future forever. It is only the spirit and vigilance of the people which will preserve those good things that are in the Charter of Rights.