Ian Boyne on Grow Up On Gay Intolerance!

So Ian Boyne erudite commentator has hit the nail on the head again in what I see as a fair commentary; others in the LGBT circles are up in arms over his criticisms of the arrogance and reverse intolerance. It is not the first time though he had sought to point it out as posted here on Gay Jamaica Watch: The Intolerant View Of Tolerance .............

now comes his latest salvo:

flag at the US Embassy on Hope Road

No Jamaican law was violated or disrespected when the United States displayed the rainbow flag of the LGBT community on its own territory in Kingston. And rather than showing disrespect to Jamaica, the act indicated its acknowledgement of the vibrancy of our civil society and of our democratic 'articulate minority'.

Jamaicans have pointed out that the Americans dared not put up a rainbow flag in a country like Saudi Arabia or other Islamic states with Shari'a law. But that is precisely the point: The Americans know we have a strong democratic tradition and that no violent action would follow, despite the vast majority of Jamaicans' strident and visceral opposition to homosexuality (which, strictly, is not criminalized; only anal sex). They knew the dominant voices in media would push back against any popular dissent and that they could, of course, count on the visa-hungry masses to hold their tongues and violent implements in hope of entering paradise!

the tweet that started it all (not included in the Gleaner excerpt)

They were right. The attorney general has never regretted any action of hers as she has those few words proclaimed on Twitter. She has been clobbered internationally and everywhere in cyberspace. But some brave soldiers of the Gospel have come to her defence, though. I admire their courage but am less impressed with their reasoning. Helene Coley-Nicholson, president of Lawyers' Christian Fellowship (LCF), says the flying of the rainbow flag "sends an overt symbol that the United States Embassy in Jamaica is aligned with those who would break our laws".

First, Helene, embodied in the first principle of diplomacy and international relations - mutual respect - is the notion of tolerance for diversity. States do not only have relations with those whose laws, customs and ideologies are compatible with theirs. Jamaica did not break off relations with the United States when it legalized gay marriage, even though we are not aligned with that at all.

TOLERANCE, RESPECT

America has relations with countries with laws that penalise adultery, alcohol, and pork consumption, homosexuality, and which practise Internet censorship and a host of authoritarian laws. This is what happens every day among states. It is not disrespectful for friends to uphold their beliefs and practices in contradistinction to others. That's what tolerance and respect really mean: That I can freely engage my expression of preferences even when they clash with yours. This is at the heart of the democratic ethos and of respectful relationships.

LCF makes the following statement, which, on the surface, seems benign but which is deeply offensive: Conceding the fact that "the embassy is considered American territory in international law," the Fellowship nevertheless goes on to say in its release that "the LCF asks US Ambassador Luis Moreno to immediately take down the flag and in so doing eliminate potential misunderstanding", and - note this -"barriers to the natural outpouring of sympathy and support for the United States and those who have suffered". This is reprehensible and deplorable. Our people's "natural outpouring of sympathy" would be constrained by the presence of that gay flag? If that is true, we should hang our heads in shame. That is not complimentary and is not something we should broadcast. That is advertising our moral and cultural backwardness.

I submit we have a deeper problem not just in Jamaica but in the world: It is a problem of a deeply illiberal, anti-democratic, anti-pluralistic spirit. It not only afflicts conservative Christians.It afflicts supposed liberals, leftists and gay activists. The issue is not primarily hate. It is an abhorrence of tolerance, a despising of opposing views, a cherishing of bigotry. It is not only among fundamentalists. Some of these gays activists are among the most arrogant, bigoted, and democracy-averse people you can find. I declare a plague on all the houses.

The Christians in Jamaica who rightly recognise that this issue of gay rights is a political one must know how to fight political battles. They must be intellectually and strategically sharper than they have been and not keep playing into the hands of those who are enemies of the Church.

The Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society, like its sister organisation which Coley-Nicholson runs, also concedes that "the US Embassy is considered to be on US soil", but goes on to say in its release that "the embassy is still a guest of the Jamaican Government and is expected to conduct its affairs in a respectful manner".


GROW UP, JAMAICA!

No, it is the Jamaican people who must grow up and start respecting people's civil liberties and right to their own way of life. We don't have to force the Americans to agree with us that homosexuality is an abomination worthy of punishment in an eternal hellfire.

They should be free to proclaim their solidarity with fellow citizens who are gay, some of whom lost their lives in the nation's biggest mass-shooting massacre. They chose to grieve by showing haters that they stand in solidarity with a community they see as oppressed and despised. We can disagree and feel those people should repent of their sinful ways. That is our right to believe that. But we can't impose that on our guests, Dr Wayne West. We must show some respect and regard to our guests.

I am a conservative Christian who follows a Bronze Age book written by nomadic tribes who deemed homosexual practice unethical. But I don't believe we have any right to impose the Kingdom of God on anyone in this age. I believe we must maintain this free, pluralistic society, and we have no right to ban non-Christian expressions.

We should strive to penetrate the society with Christian ethics and to convince people that our views are right. Lucien Jones is doing a valiant job in that regard. But we must resist the temptation to theonomy and theocracy. We must learn from the excesses of the fanatical Muslims who are a threat to civilisation everywhere. (Notice I did not say 'Muslims', but 'fanatical Muslims'.)

Pastor Al Miller, in his response, was equally flawed. He pleads in a letter in theObserver on Thursday that "diplomacy requires respect and the art of understanding the customs and beliefs of those with whom one engages. The diplomat makes every effort not to offend".

So a diplomat must show respect and honour to the custom of female circumcision, Indian caste traditions, child brides, Shari'a law? In earlier times, should respect have been shown to foot binding, duelling, etc? Should apartheid have been respected because it was law? Was Mandela immoral to defy it? Al Miller feels that the flying of the rainbow flag "can only be interpreted as a deliberate act of provocation". Provocation to what? You realise what you are saying, Rev? He says it was a "deliberate slap in the face of the Jamaican community". Well, again, we should be ashamed if that is so.

It's no slap in my face if someone wants to affirm his homosexuality or show solidarity with the gay community. As long as I am allowed to have my Stone Age belief that homosexuality is wrong and worship my Invisible Friend in the sky, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as the New Atheists would say, that's okay. Fly your gay flag anywhere but my premises and I am okay. Problem is that it is not just the Christian fundamentalists who pose a threat to liberal values. Increasingly, so-called liberal societies are free-speech terrorists.

The June 4-10 issue of The Economist has a cover story, 'Free Speech Under Attack', which makes interesting reading. In its editorial, it notes that "the idea has spread that people and groups have a right not to be offended. That may sound innocuous. But if I have a right not to be offended, that means someone must police what you say about me or about things I hold dear such as my ethnic group, my religion." Gays are principal offenders, wanting to insulate themselves against so-called hate speech and offensive language.

Some gays would just as soon shut down all opposition, citing homophobia and hate to mask their own intolerance. An illiberal, intolerant spirit is growing on all sides. It must be firmly resisted. Let a hundred flowers bloom - along with the weeds. Democracy detractors, go home!

- Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist working with the Jamaica Information Service. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and ianboyne1@yahoo.com.

also see:

Gays' Threat To Free Speech ........... veteran journalist Ian Boyne .. 2012

Intersex spokesperson speaks in the European Parliament for the first time ever today

In an historical first this afternoon, the European Parliament heard from an intersex person on the rights and needs of intersex people across Europe

Intersex people are born with bodies that do not entirely match the definition of either the male or female gender.

During a public hearing on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union in 2015, Dan Christian Ghattas, explained the situation of intersex people in Europe.

"It is estimated that around 1 in 200 people are born intersex," Ghattas explained, "and they are usually subjected to surgery and hormone treatment within the first two years of their lives in order to fulfil societal expectations about gender."

"This treatment of infants means that we do not get the opportunity to make choices about our own bodies. Most intersex people experience psychological trauma as a result.

"This is a violation of our right to self-determination, and contravenes the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.

"We are asking the European Parliament to take an active role in supporting our rights, including a European Parliament own-initiative report on the rights of intersex people and a study on how EU gender equality legislation could be used to protect our rights."

Vice President of the European Parliament's LGBTI Intergroup, Malin Björk, commented: “LGBTIQ people face a constant political battle for the right to exist. Gender norms around how male and female bodies should look lead to a violation of the right to bodily integrity of intersex people."

"This is a form of violence and we have a responsibility to fight against in our struggle for justice. Therefore, the presence of an intersex organisation in the European Parliament in a hearing on fundamental rights is politically important, and something I value and celebrate.”

Ghattas appeared in the Parliament this afternoon with the support of the European United Left / Nordic Green Left (GUE/NGL), the Organisation Intersex International Europe (OII), and the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA).

GUE/NGL Press Contact:

Nikki Sullings +32 22 83 27 60 / +32 483 03 55 75

Gay Kavanagh +32 473 84 23 20

Related MEPs

What the PM should tell Mrs Malahoo Forte (Observer)

Well the goodly folks at the Observer have come to some senses despite some previous pieces and gay baiting in times passed. The recent furore over a flag is the cause of it. 

the tweet that started it all

the flag at the Embassy at Hope Road

I am in agreement with the stance taken:

They commented 

Attorney General Mrs Marlene Malahoo Forte has unnecessarily ignited a firestorm by her ill-considered tweet Monday evening which accused the United States Embassy of disrespecting the laws of Jamaica by flying, at half-mast, the rainbow flag of the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and Transgender) community.

The embassy took the action as a mark of respect for the 102 people killed or injured in the horrific shooting incident at the Pulse gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, which was carried out in the early hours of Sunday morning by a lone gunman who was in turn shot dead by the police.

At a time when the global community is focused on unity in the overarching trans-national fight against terrorism, it is regrettable that a tweet by the attorney general should have caused this negative fall out. Her brief words could give rise to the false interpretation of being counter to the correct position of the Jamaican Government, so eloquently expressed by Prime Minister Andrew Holness in offering condolence to the US Government, family and friends of the victims of this unspeakable terrorist act.

Not surprisingly, the rapid-fire social media utilised by her to send the tweet has already relayed it globally and, as could be expected, it has been latched on to by the international media. More importantly, the US Embassy has taken note and, we are sure, would have onpassed it to the State Department.

We can only hope that the tweet does not impact the normal cordial and productive relations with our long-standing and highly valued partner, the United States.

We note that Mrs Malahoo Forte had pointed out in that unfortunate tweet that she was expressing her personal view, no doubt mindful of the need to minimise any possible negative interpretations being attributed to the Government. But that doesn’t let her off the hook.

It is clear that she was unaware that senior public officials who hold important portfolios and ministers of government ought not to express their views publicly, especially on sensitive matters, even under the cover of the view being personal.

It is too fraught with danger because it has implications well beyond the official and is, we suggest, a course of action that is a veritable banana peel, as the attorney general must by now have recognised. It is our view that the fragile cover of an utterance being personal is to be avoided at all cost. It invariably does more harm than good, as has now happened.

Of course, Jamaica enjoys and promotes freedom of expression. But those who speak in the name of the people must be careful to avoid confusion in the minds of their audience. It is a sacrifice they make for holding public office, and they can’t eat their cake and have it too.

The risk of untold, unintended negative repercussion of ill-conceived utterances can lead to unnecessary expenditure of time, energy and resources pursuing damage control which could have been avoided with more care and attention.

The prime minister must let Mrs Malahoo Forte know, in no uncertain terms, if he has not yet done so, that it must not happen again. It is a first offence and she is inexperienced in office, but she must be expected to take a more cerebral approach to such sensitive matters.

The attorney general should not need us to warn her of the dangers of unthinking utilisation of the informal social media which has no geographical or national boundaries.

ENDS

also see:

Rainbow Flag Controversy @ US Embassy Jamaica... 

Ronnie Thwaites’ rubbish on flying rainbow flags grooms children into “particular lifestyle”

Ian Boyne on Grow Up On Gay Intolerance!

Flags, forced evictions & foolishness

Reverend Al Miller has no moral authority (yet again) to speak on flags & correctness

Rainbow flags vs Jamaicans murdered which is more important?

Attorney General Malahoo Forte condemned for comments on US Embassy's rainbow flag

Dormant anti gay feelings resurface in Florida shooting aftermath

Legal opinion on the use of flags at Embassies & suggested protocol for tweets from public officials

Guns kill people ............

Owen Blakka Ellis

In an ideal world, Christians are supposed to be completely safe and protected from potential violence, especially while attending a prayer meeting inside a church. And nobody would challenge me if I say that in a sane universe, children should be totally safe and free from harm while learning and playing in school.

Patrons watching a movie in a cinema in a civilised society should also expect that if any shooting is going to happen, it would happen exclusively on the big screen. And one would have thought that in 2016 gay, lesbian, transsexual and queer people would be safe and happy in gay night club in the United States of America. But things are not the way they should be.

Why? The answer is partly in the simple but powerful message of that 1980 tune by Eddie Fitzroy that says, "di gun, di gun, di gun it is a dangerous weapon. Di gun, di gun, di gun it is a wicked invention." Yeah man, is true. And acquiring that wicked invention in the US appears to be about as easy as getting good ganja to buy in Jamaica. The thing though, is that guns...well, simply put, guns kill people.

added in solidarity

Yes people, and what happened with guns in the hands of a sick man in Orlando over the weekend is beyond wrong. No ifs, no buts, no maybe or because. It just damn downright immoral and scary. Yuh nuh agree? I don't know any of the victims or survivors, but God knows I feel for them and their family.

hate and terror

And I join all the people of conscience in condemning the attack that has been aptly labelled by US president Barrack Obama as 'an act of hate and terror'.

I have to join the chorus. What's the point of having a voice, if I did not add my voice today, to the millions all over the world expressing sorrow, anger and outrage over the senseless loss of lives? What's the purpose of having a heart if you're not touched by the palpable pain and grief that one man inflicted on so many people who never did him any harm?

The Orlando shooter's father reportedly suggested in an interview that the murderous rampage he went on may have been triggered after seeing two men kiss in public. How that affect him? I have said this before, and I will say it again for all the self-appointed judges and arbiters of other people's sexual morality: what another consenting adult does sexually should only be your business if you intend to have sex with him or her! It should not be the basis for war. And right now, it feels like we're in the midst of a war.

suffer more

Fi real peeps, it feels like we are living in a world at war with itself. And all of us suffer the collateral consequences - although some suffer more than others. My heart goes out to all the already maligned and marginalised gay people whose sense of security is now further compromised by the tragedy in Florida. And my heart goes out to the genuine, devout Muslims who will now face more discrimination and be unfairly judged by the actions of one cowardly and deranged man who chose to dress up his ugly hate in the garment of radical religious rhetoric.

Look here nuh, I'm not about to join the bright people who are busy drawing battle lines and taking positions on either sides of the debates around homophobia versus LGBTQ rights or US gun control policies and second amendments rights, etc. But I have to wonder how a man who has been investigated by the FBI for possible links to terrorism can legally buy semi-automatic weaponry easy, easy so. If this world nuh crazy, me mad!

ENDS

I agree with Owen here but the madness that has since ensued has clouded the very thing that should be the focus.

#IstandwithOrlando

Also see from GJW:

My heart & prayers go out to the Pulse victims & their families

Gay club killing unlikely in Ja .........

Dormant anti gay feelings resurface in Florida shooting aftermath

Attorney General Malahoo Forte condemned for comments on US Embassy's rainbow flag

Rainbow flags vs Jamaicans murdered which is more important?

SCOTUS Strikes Down Abortion Clinic Regulations in Texas

download the judgement HERE

WASHINGTON (AP):

The Supreme Court struck down Texas' widely replicated regulation of abortion clinics yesterday in the court's biggest abortion case in nearly a quarter century.

The justices voted 5-3 in favour of Texas clinics that had argued the regulations were only a veiled attempt to make it harder for women to get abortions in the nation's second-most populous state.

Justice Stephen Breyer's majority opinion for the court held that the regulations are medically unnecessary and unconstitutionally limit a woman's right to an abortion.

Texas had argued that its 2013 law and subsequent regulations were needed to protect women's health. The rules required doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and forced clinics to meet hospital-like standards for outpatient surgery.

'UNDUE BURDEN'

Breyer wrote that "the surgical-centre requirement, like the admitting privileges requirement, provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions and constitutes an 'undue burden' on their constitutional right to do so."

Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined Breyer.

Ginsburg wrote a short opinion noting that laws like Texas' "that do little or nothing for health, but rather strew impediments to abortion, cannot survive judicial inspection" under the court's earlier abortion-rights decisions. She pointed specifically to Roe v. Wade in 1973 and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.

Thomas wrote that the decision "exemplifies the court's troubling tendency 'to bend the rules when any effort to limit abortion, or even to speak in opposition to abortion, is at issue.'" Thomas was quoting an earlier abortion dissent from Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February. Scalia has not yet been replaced, so only eight justices voted.

Alito, reading a summary of his dissent in court, said the clinics should have lost on technical, procedural grounds. Alito said the court was adopting a rule of, "If at first you don't succeed, sue, sue again."

Abortion providers said the rules would have cut the number of abortion clinics in Texas by three-fourths if they had been allowed to take full effect.

When then Governor Rick Perry signed the law in 2013, there were about 40 clinics throughout the state. That number dropped to under 20 and would have been cut in half again if the law had taken full effect, the clinics said.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said the law "was an effort to improve minimum safety standards and ensure capable care for Texas women. It's exceedingly unfortunate that the court has taken the ability to protect women's health out of the hands of Texas citizens and their duly elected representatives."

ENDS

I can imagine the squirming yet again by antigay groups added to the apology call from the pope just days ago Dr Wayne West and others must be fuming. Things are slowly changing towards some sensibility and real Christians ought not to be paranoid and misguided as to tolerance and choice and leave all judgement to God.

Peace & tolerance

H

Ronnie Thwaites’ rubbish on flying rainbow flags grooms children into “particular lifestyle”

Ronnie Thwaites rubbish on Rainbow Flags... 

I guess some politicians want their piece of fame from this rainbow flag fiasco and they can’t resist the urge to join in but one wonders if their motives are genuine especially those from the parliamentary opposition; owing to the fact that when they were in power they duped us all on a now farcical conscience vote on buggery. The Former education minister from the prior HFLE fiasco turned opposition spokesperson Reverend Ronnie Thwaites has displayed his poor thinking yet again. This is the same man who as Education minister was directly responsible for the removal of progressive materials in the Home & Family Life Education, HFLE manual despite his guest speaker duties at JFLAG’s International Day against Homophobia & Transphobia, IDAHOT in 2012 and the resulting increased fear-mongering and moral panic and the recently ended guidance counselors and gay students controversy. I was expecting some more enlightened narrative on just basic tolerance from the goodly Reverend but I am yet again disappointed as remarks made by Thwaites on the controversial tweet-faux pas by Attorney General Marlene Malahoo Forte had further muddied the water in some circles.

the tweet that started the ball a rollin'

Gleaner poll results on the issue

What is ironic is that many persons may have passed the flag at the US Embassy at Hope Road prior to Mrs Forte’s tweet-faux pas I bet did not know what the flag meant until this controversy, so the good that can come out of this it is a teaching moment for us LGBT voices included who know the flag is for LGBT but do not know the history of it.

In a television interview on CVM TV on June 14, 2016 when asked after a public where the Prime Minister Andrew Holness expressed support to the families impacted by the Orlando Pulse gay club shooting Thwaites said that the flying of a rainbow flag at the US Embassy is effectively grooming children into “a particular lifestyle that is different from the Judaeo Christian norm which is in fact the foundation of our constitutional order and I believe of our personal and national health...... ”

In other words polite speak for HIV is a gay disease resulting from anal sex; a ploy that is often used by antigay religious bigots such as Dr Wayne West, Betty Ann Blaine and Shirley Richards. I am not stupid as the goodly Reverend thinks some of us are and continue to pray on the public’s ignorance. So the hardened positions continue, will there ever be movement towards true tolerance anytime soon with the kind of continued paranoia and fear of openness of LGBT people and that a flag is so frightening in this round of it. Mr Thwaites of seems to forget that the very laws in Jamaica were inherited by us by default after independence in 1962 from Britain protected under a ‘savings law clause’ which preserved them until we must make the amendments and deletions when needed and this buggery law in particular needs to go. Also the UK has moved from a theocracy essentially to more civil legislative environment, as an attorney Mr Thwaites ought to be more balanced and indeed honest when making such remarks. He ought to also know that the buggery law when first promulgated was more about the smear campaign in the UK under Henry VIII to give effect to the English church reformation while extirpating the Catholic church and replacing it with the church of England which is the dominant denomination today in the UK; with subsequent re-enactments and amendments to 1967 when the forward thinking parliament decided the law should go and they were on good ground.

Then there are others in support are ascribing motive of imposing homosexuality and whether such flags are flown in US Embassy in Saudi Arabia for example and or ‘double standards’ as opposed to Jamaica and that the US would not do it; while ignoring the fact that that it is a different jurisdiction and that the death penalty under Sharia law as homosexuality is illegal but homosexuality is NOT illegal in Jamaica but buggery is despite the gender of the receptive partner(s) involved. Double standards are indeed needed in such delicate diplomatic relations especially with states like the Saudis; there are implications on world affairs that are too delicate to infuriate the fickle relationship. Some people just don’t think these days. Lest we forget who were murdered sadly in Orlando and the Attorney General in my view is saying indirectly LGBT Jamaicans dare not put up a flag to celebrate what we are about.

Why is the term ‘alternate lifestyle’ still being used in modern times to describe sexual orientation or homosexuality? Thwaites cannot bring himself to speak directly to the issues openly it seems. Let us put to rest the silliness about “homosexual lifestyle” or “alternate lifestyle” once and for all; as a phrase it is pure propaganda, a gossipy generalization and completely unworthy of a Christian who, following the counsel in Proverbs seeks understanding and insight into life and people. As Christians some will have to decide if we are going to partake of divisive “party spirit” that racked the church at Corinth or follow Christ as discerning attentive principles – to that still small voice and sharpen concerns for the ostracized instead of creating more strife.

Bear in mind that there is a reference in Luke 17:34 where Jesus in a teaching on the rapture makes what appears to be a neutral non-discriminatory reference where it read (King James Version):

Grooming when last I checked is not about an external influence as remote as a flag that can just influence someone so simply; as if to say children are going to get up and have sex as a rainbow flag denotes homosexuality and they will try it out. This grooming argument is not new and I had done an entry on the subject to try to decipher the phenomenon as untrained as I am but just sheer common sense is enough. Grooming involves a more personal one on one contact with the intended victim over time usually in an unbalanced power differential situation as the groomer seeks to psychologically imprison their target. A rainbow flag could not have any serious impact to those who do not have any understanding of what it signifies; what it denotes to the US and by extension the global struggle for LGBT rights and recognition. 

See:  The Deliberate Misuse of the “Sexual Grooming” Term by Antigay Fanatics to Promote Their Hysteria
Also let me remind us all that we have had rainbow flags in public spaces before and no one has died or simply become gay on sight due to the bright colours or some hypnotic powers emanating from the symbol. The fear is palpable. 

kites such as these have been sold by men at stop lights all over the island I imagine to students as well, are we to assume by Thwaites position that such rainbow kites will also groom children in a 'particular lifestyle?"

I have to agree with Mutabaruka in a sense, in his opening shot on his Stepping Razor show on the matter where he sided with Mrs Forte in principle but is alarmed at how Christian voices are saying either the shooting was retribution by God or that it was justified; he also questioned how a God who is represented in the Bible as a kind God is being presented to uphold barbaric principles? He then in patois of course mentioned the other abominations that are contained in Leviticus and highlighted the selectivity hypocrisy and the death penalty in Sharia law alongside the suppression of women’s freedoms.

“..... If you remove the Bible what would they (antigay Christian voices) do?”

he mentioned that he was contacted by one of the antigay groups who wanted him to sign a petition to remove the flag to which he seems to have ignored; he also reiterated a point I have also said that no government is going to be bold enough at this time given the push back will chance amending the buggery law by their own recognizance. He mentioned that fact that if one left the Muslim faith one may be punished by death.

“...the Bible supposed to be the book weh a show you a way to peace and justice and love and generosity and dem ting deh; and it mek people so hard inna dem heart?” he said in part.

“Mi nuh hear nobody a seh mek wi demonstrate ‘gainst adultery, wah happen to the church, cause most a de parson dem a adulterer ...... parson a look sista Dinah .... sista Dinah I’ve been watching you for a while ......... how de church nah preach ‘gainst adulterer?” he continued “the whole a wi would a dead.”

He concluded:

“Tell me, who is without sin mek dem cast the first stone”

Peace & tolerance is really needed in these times.

H

also see:

Urgent need to discuss sex & sexuality part 1 and part 2 and 

Rainbow Flag Controversy @ US Embassy Jamaica... 

Sex-ed does not say have sex — NFPB head

finally some sense to address the fear mongering of comprehensive sex education as published in the Observer

NATIONAL Family Planning Board (NFPB) Executive Director Dr Denise Chevannes-Vogel has said that exposing adolescents to information on sexual reproductive health will not drive them to have sex if they are not already sexually active.

Speaking at an HIV forum at Knutsford Court Hotel in St Andrew on Monday, Dr Chevannes-Vogel came out in full support of Comprehensive Sexuality Education, which has come under recent scrutiny after concerns were raised about the infiltration of the philosophy into the education system.

Dr Chevannes-Vogel called for “frank conversations” which, evidenced by the loud applause, got the nod from the audience.

In May, Education Minister Ruel Reid met with representatives of the Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society to hear their concerns and made it clear that the education ministry’s philosophical position is that gender is fixed as male and female.




He said then that a recent review of the approved books used with the Health and Family Life Education curriculum indicate that their contents are in conformity with Jamaica’s philosophical position on sexuality and gender.



However, this is not the first time sex-education material has provoked the ire of the public. Related content had come under scrutiny in 2012 after an uproar about some parts of the Health and Family Life Education curriculum encouraging homosexuality. It was withdrawn and revised to be more sensitive to Jamaica’s traditional beliefs and practices.

Though the forum — which was held under the theme ‘Health for All: Putting Youth and Adolescents at the Heart of the HIV Response’ — sought to raise awareness about adolescent and youth-specific issues in the response to HIV and AIDS, Dr Chevannes-Vogel moved to broaden the theme to put youth at the centre of a comprehensive sexual reproductive health response and sustainable national development.

“When we look at the correlation between good, optimum, sexual reproductive health and sustainable national development, the linkage is clear,” she stated. “And as a matter of fact, that was part of the basis of the integration of HIV and sexual reproductive health; they share common drivers — the gender inequalities, the cultural attitudes, the poverty, the unemployment, gender-based violence, sexual violence, incest.”

The National Family Planning Board is the lead agency for the HIV response after the Government merged some aspects of the National HIV Programme with the family and population planning programmes of the NFPB.

In addition to the common drivers, Dr Chevannes-Vogel pointed out that adolescent pregnancy is very high in Jamaica.

“We have the unenviable reputation of being fourth-ranked in the Caribbean region with an adolescent fertility rate, age-specific fertility rate, of 72 per 1,000 girls age 15-19. This compares to the Caribbean average of 65 and the global average of 49,” Dr Chevannes-Vogel shared, while admitting that the data is a bit outdated but provides an indicative figure.

She insisted that, in terms of sustainable development, Jamaica will not get very far unless there is a “comprehensive approach” looking at sexual and reproductive health, in addition to HIV.

“I think we need to recognise what it (Comprehensive Sexuality Education) is and what it is not. It is not sexualising young people and adolescents,” she insisted.

“What it is, is providing, in an age-appropriate, context-specific way, information that users and adolescents need to protect their sexual reproductive health.

“By telling adolescents and young people the kind of information [they need, it] doesn’t make anyone have sex.

“If they are not already sexually active, giving them the information is not going to drive them into sex,” she stated.

Dr Chevannes-Vogel said irrespective of the name given, whether it is Comprehensive Sexuality Education, Comprehensive Sexual Health Education, or Human Sexuality Education, what happens is having that “frank conversation” to help to empower young people.

She also pointed out that sexual education must be gender-specific and must also take into account how society drives sexual health behaviours for boys and girls.

“For boys, you have to have ‘nuff gyal inna bundle’. You cannot be thought to be gay,” she explained. “For girls, the notion [is] that you need a man to validate who you are; the notion [is] that if you haven’t had a child by the time you are a certain age, you are a mule.

“All of these are the cultural attitudes that we also have to empower our young people against,” she said, while reiterating the NFPB’s support for the ‘Health For All’ initiative.

The Sick Religious Threesome indeed ..........

I am agreement with most of this from Patria in her piece that appeared in the Gleaner

She wrote:

Not just Christianity, but, seemingly, all religions, have taken particular interest in policing what goes on in people's bedrooms. I find it morbidly perverse. In my eyes, it's a pseudo threesome of the people poking and their spiritual leaders.

Why should you care what kind of sex I have and who I have it with? Why aren't you equally as concerned about the other sins in my life?

The Anglican Church has a practice I abhor. If an unwed couple has sex, and the woman gets pregnant - no matter the age of the persons involved, or for how long they have been committed to each other - the 'guilty parties' have to kneel before the congregation and publicly confess their sin of fornication. An open act of expressing contrition and regret about the act that brought their new life into the world.

I saw the confession done once when I was a teenager, and even then I thought it unnecessary. I am a child of unwed parents, and it angered me to think that my church would have wanted my mother to apologise for the way I came into this world.

Eighty per cent of Jamaicans come into this world as a result of fornication, and no amount of public shaming and Bible-beating is going to cause that to change.

I read The Sunday Gleaner's cover story about allegations that unwed mothers employed to Andrews Memorial Hospital were being required to enter the hospital through the back door. The thought of that sickened me, and I immediately likened it to blacks having to ride at the back of the bus. True or not, worse happens. There are many schools in Jamaica today that force unwed teachers to resign. I'm appalled by that and surprised that more administrators aren't taken to court for it.

This country recognises common-law marriage. A woman doesn't need a ring and a man's last name to be considered his wife. And even if she isn't his partner, even if it were one night of the hottest sex ever that resulted in her getting pregnant, who are you to administer punishment to her? That's blatant discrimination (and perhaps a bit of bad mind)!

KEEP UP APPEARANCES

If these institutions were serious about their moral high horses and wanted to truly set examples, unwed fathers-to-be would be dismissed as well. Or is the sacking only because the woman is VISIBLY pregnant, and you want to keep up appearances?

Sin should be sin. There are Ten Commandments in the Bible under which many shelter as their moral compass. Almost half of those commandments surround praising God exclusively. The other five focus on 'red eye', killing, telling lies and honouring your parents and only one around adultery. However, the Church has a seemingly disproportionate obsession with sexual sins.

I'll be overly critical of the Christian faith because this is what I have known all my life, but as I watched the horror that played out in Orlando last weekend, and heard that the killer may have been motivated by gay bigotry, I was reminded that people, in general, are obsessed with other people's sex lives.

For a man or woman to lose their life because of who they choose to sleep with is a downright shame. Especially when the judgment is cast by an unrelated, unaffected third party. How do you kill a man for having sex - and he never had sex with you?

It befuddles me. This preoccupation with who people sleep with is just plain 'faas'. Far more immoral than the sex act is those who feel the need to prescribe and execute judgment.

Stay out of people's bedrooms. As my friend, Kalilah Reynolds, said, "Why should a person's sexuality be more important than their humanity." Every other sin is between you and your God, so why are sins of the flesh between you and everyone else?

- Patria-Kaye Aarons is a television presenter and confectioner. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and findpatria@yahoo.com, or tweet @findpatria.

Groups Disagree With Latest Global Tactic To End The HIV Epidemic

President of the U.N. General Assembly Mogens Lykketoft, right, listens as U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon address the opening of the General Assembly high-level meeting on ending AIDS last Wednesday

Some local civil-society groups are infuriated by a recently adopted 'Political Declaration on HIV and AIDS' that aims to end the epidemic by 2030.

The local groups charge that the declaration focuses more on practising abstinence and faithfulness instead of targeting key populations in the fight to end HIV/AIDS.

A government delegation headed by Health Minister Dr Christopher Tufton and a small contingent of civil-society groups represented Jamaica at the just-concluded United Nations General Assembly High-Level Meeting on HIV/AIDS, where the declaration was adopted.

It includes a set of targets that must be reached by 2020 to end the AIDS epidemic by 2030. These targets have been accepted by heads of government from around the world.

But the declaration, which is being touted as bold and progressive in some quarters, has been called "a globally sanctioned death warrant" by the Caribbean Vulnerable Communities Coalition (CVC).


MOVING BACKWARDS

The coalition in a release last Wednesday said while the draft declaration had some positive elements, it believes that the exclusion of key populations might help to push the global HIV epidemic backwards.

"Civil-society organisations worldwide are alarmed by its major and unacceptable deficiencies and have rejected the draft due to its glaring exclusion of key populations, such as gay men and other men who have sex with men, sex workers, people who use drugs, migrants, transgender people, and prisoners," said the CVC.

"There will be no ending AIDS by 2030 without a concerted effort to address the needs and human rights of those groups currently marginalised and stigmatised," noted the organisation, which was represented by Dr Carolyn Gomes and Ivan Cruickshank at the high-level meeting.

Executive director of the Jamaica AIDS Support for Life, Kandasi Levermore, said she, too, is very disappointed with the declaration as the language around comprehensive sexuality education is not satisfactory.

"We are kind of disappointed that here we are now, five years after 2011, and we are still talking about abstinence and being faithful strategies, and we are not talking about combination HIV prevention and looking at treatment as a true means of prevention, and focusing on the population that are most at risk for contracting HIV," said Levermore.

MORAL HIGH GROUND

"It's not that we are being immoral or anything; it is just that we are saying those strategies don't appeal to people because they are not taking the moral high ground when they are having sex.

"People are ruled by their physical attractions and emotions and we have not seen that level of maturity in people when they are making sexual decisions about needing to abstain or needing to be faithful," added Levermore.

Executive director of the Jamaica Forum for Lesbians, All-Sexuals and Gays (J-FLAG), Dane Lewis, told The Sunday Gleaner that the declaration is weak and is, therefore, unlikely to have much of an impact on the work his organisation does.

"It is disappointing that after more than three decades of research and programmes, which have provided us with unquestionable evidence about the crucial role of human rights in getting us closer to an AIDS-free generation, and the recently agreed Sustainable Development Goals agenda which speaks to leaving no one behind, that this 2016 political declaration is so weak in this regard," said Lewis.

"One would think that by now, all governments would appreciate that this is fundamental to fast-tracking the end of AIDS," added Lewis, who also attended the meeting in New York.

TUFTON'S INTERVENTIONS

Despite his disappointment, Lewis said J-FLAG was pleased that Tufton and the minister of foreign affairs, Kamina Johnson Smith, have committed to forging partnerships to ensure that the country achieves its goal of reducing the impact of HIV.

According to Lewis, he was very impressed with Tufton's interventions at the meeting.

Tufton, in his plenary statement, noted that while Jamaica has made marked progress in reducing HIV infection and eliminating the AIDS epidemic, there is a lot of work to be done.

"While we reaffirm this commitment, Jamaica emphasises that continued attention must be given to comprehensive prevention and treatment - free from discrimination," Tufton told the meeting.

Editors' note: See the full 'Political Declaration on HIV and AIDS' at:

http://www.unaids.org/en/resources/documents/2016/2016-political-declara.

Meanwhile MSMGF had a thing or two to say:

the Global Platform to Fast-Track the HIV and Human Rights Responses Among Gay and Bisexual Men and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men, the United Nations High-Level Meeting to End AIDS (HLM) opened Wednesday amidst a storm of controversy with UN member states approving a very weak political declaration to set global HIV policy priorities for the next 5 years. While the political declaration claims to commit UN member states to “fast-track targets” to end the AIDS epidemic by 2030, the document’s repeated omissions, exclusions, and misrepresentations of gay and bisexual men and other men who have sex with men, sex workers, people who use drugs, and transgender people as key populations affected by HIV worldwide, lack of commitments to key populations programming, and failure to address legal and policy frameworks that stigmatize and criminalize key populations all raise new barriers and obstacles to achieving targets to end AIDS.

As occurred in May, when a political bloc of conservative UN member state delegations, including Russia, Egypt, and Iran prevented 22 LGBT and drug user advocacy community groups from registering to attend the HLM in New York City, coverage of yesterday’s controversy was picked up by multiple global media outlets, including the Associated Press (reprinted in over 130 publications worldwide including The New York Times and ABC News), The Guardian, Deutsche Welle, and Poz Magazine, among many others.

A Weak Declaration, With a Few Minor Positive Points

While the overall political declaration fails to make adequate commitments on key populations, the final text does include several paragraphs that can be used by advocates to push for stronger programming and inclusion of key populations in HIV epidemic responses. None of these paragraphs are ideally phrased, and advocates will in many cases need to work hard to ensure that policymakers apply these points in a comprehensive and meaningful, rather than tokenistic and insufficient manner. These include:

Paragraph 42, which defines men who have sex with men, sex workers, people who inject drugs, transgender people, and prisoners as key populations globally affected by HIV;

Paragraphs 62a and b, which call for a focus on evidence-based and non-discriminatory access to HIV information and prevention services;

Paragraph 62e, which states the need to “promote the development of and access to tailored HIV comprehensive prevention services” for key populations; and

Paragraph 62j, which commits to “eliminate barriers, including stigma and discrimination in health-care settings” and “to ensure universal access to comprehensive HIV diagnostic, prevention, treatment, care and support.”

Read more 

Treating transgenderism ..............

I would have preferred a different title from the Observer but for what it is worth

Dr Derrick Aarons

WITH increased evidence over the past 20 years pointing to the biological underpinnings of gender identity, a paradigm shift is occurring in the health care offered to transgender individuals in some countries.

In some settings, transgender medicine is a fully fledged subspecialty, and treats transgenderism as a medical and biological issue, rather than as a psychological matter.

At a recent Endocrine Society Hormones & Health: Science Writers Conference at the Boston University School of Medicine in Massachusetts, USA, the director of endocrinology education reported that gender identity is a durable biological phenomenon that, even from birth, we cannot change. In that setting, the best treatment option involved treating transgenderism medically, and this was reportedly very successful.

BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR GENDER IDENTITY

In the past, numerous attempts were made by the medical community to manipulate gender identity to align with the sex organs that were perceived at birth. For example, a research study conducted at Johns Hopkins University in the USA and published in the

New England Journal of Medicine, examined 16 children born with ‘XY’ chromosomes but with ambiguous genitalia (uncertainty in appearance, whether male or female) who underwent surgery to create female genitalia. They were all subsequently raised as girls, with the exception of two individuals whose parents raised them as boys.

When these children reached the age of puberty (around age 10-11 years), eight of them felt like boys despite being raised as girls, and the two that were raised as boys identified with being male, despite them all having female genitalia.

Other biological evidence comes from research studies dating back to the 1990s in which researchers attempted to locate brain structures that correlate with gender identity. In one classic study, published in the journal

Nature, an area of the brain (the bed nucleus of stria terminalis) was thought to correspond to gender identity, and to be involved in homosexuality. At autopsy, however, slices of this area of the brain were stained to match gender identity, and revealed instead that the area was actually smaller in women and in male-to-female transgender women, compared to that in heterosexual men.

Further, in contrast to those so reared during early childhood, a Dutch study published in the journal

Archives of Sexual Behaviour revealed that of 1,285 individuals who voluntarily changed their genders hormonally and/or surgically to match their own perceived gender identity, 99 per cent of them were satisfied with their decision.

GUIDELINES FOR CARE

Consequently, in 2009, the US Endocrine Society recognised the issue and published formal guidelines on the medical care of transgender patients. The specific treatment follows three basic steps. First, the onset of puberty is postponed by using a gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue (a chemical which acts like the hormone), the effects of which are reversible. These analogues delay the development of the permanent, secondary sexual characteristics until a child is secure in his or her gender identity and is ready to start hormone therapy.

This approach is necessary as hormonal therapy can cause potentially irreversible changes. Patients transitioning from female to male will receive testosterone, while male-to-female individuals will receive androgen (male hormone) blockers and be given oestrogen hormone.

The specialists recognise that some young children who present as transgender may not be so as adults, and as a consequence, these professionals would not want to effect permanent changes at that first stage of puberty.

The final step may include surgery, if so desired. For female-to-male individuals, mastectomy (surgical removal of the breasts) is done to create a ‘male’ chest. In male-to-female transitions, surgery includes removal of the testicles, breast augmentation if desired, and feminisation of the face. The creation of a penis (phalloplasty) or removal of the penis and the creation of a vagina (vaginoplasty) will occur last.

LIFELONG CARE

After surgery, patients will require lifelong hormonal therapy for the health of their bones, as the latter is normally dependent on the sex steroids. Transgender women will continue to need oestrogen, and transgender men will need natural levels of testosterone.

However, we know that long-term use of steroids may carry risks, which could include blood clot (thrombosis) with the use of oestrogen, and a possible slightly increased risk for cardiovascular disease with the use of testosterone. Testosterone may also have unknown effects on tumour formation.

An example of this research was reported in the Medscape Medical News, where 3,240 women were examined over a course of 13 years, with the finding that women with high levels of testosterone at midlife were 1.33 times more likely to develop uterine fibroids, compared with women with low levels of testosterone. However, despite such occurrences, when all considerations are made, hormone therapy in humans is considered relatively safe even with the concern regarding the risk of clotting with oestrogen use. The occurrence of the latter is very uncommon.

The way forward

Evidence-based research has been greatly beneficial, but in some societies access to transgender treatment still hinges on legal and social issues, and around moral issues and religious beliefs. All these issues notwithstanding, this matter should go deeper to that of our common humanity and one’s basic right to self-expression, self-actualisation and self-fulfilment.

Derrick Aarons MD, PhD is a consultant bioethicist/family physician, a specialist in ethical issues in medicine, the life sciences and research, and is the ethicist at the Caribbean Public Health Agency – CARPHA. (The views expressed here are not written on behalf of CARPHA)