VICTORY - SAME SEX MARRIAGE is now legal in Bermuda.

Yes indeed, our friends in Bermuda have done it. Lord knows this is go news given the closing walls via Trump et al elsewhere a nice victory in law, fair square. 

A gay couple have won their legal challenge against the Registrar-General’s decision to reject their application to marry in Bermuda.

the loving couple

Winston Godwin and his Canadian fiancé, Greg DeRoche, took their case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Human Rights Act took primacy in Bermuda and protected their right to marry.  The Royal Gazette also featured the development.

This morning, Puisne Judge Charles Etta-Simmons delivered her ruling that stated: “On the facts, the applicants were discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation when the Registrar refused to process their notice of intended marriage.”

The judgment continues: “The applicants are entitled to an Order of Mandamus compelling the Registrar to act in accordance with the requirements of the Marriage Act and a declaration that same-sex couples are entitled to be married under the Marriage Act.”

Mr Godwin and Mr DeRoche, represented by lawyer Mark Pettingill, sought an order from the Supreme Court to compel the Registrar to post their marriage banns, in accordance with the Marriage Act. They also want a declaration that same-sex couples are entitled to be married under that law.

When the civil case was heard over three days in January and February, Mr Pettingill urged the court to write the final chapter in the protection of gay rights in Bermuda.

He said the couple’s case encapsulates “the right to happiness, the right of all people to seek love and happiness”. Mr Pettingill added: “The applicants say that religious arguments bear no relevance on civil contractual marriage. This is a matter of statutory interpretation.

“It is time for the courts fully armed with the legal protection of the Human Rights Act to write the final chapter in the protection of the rights of gay people of secular orientation and all the rights that everyone enjoys to be the same.”

But the Government’s lawyer, Deputy Solicitor-General Shakira Dill-Francois, told the court that the Registrar-General could not post marriage banns for gay couples because such unions are null and void under Bermuda’s existing laws

She said that under section 33 of the Marriage Act 1944, it was an offence for the Registrar to authorise a marriage, knowing it was void.

She added the Matrimonial Causes Act 1974, in section 15, clearly set out the grounds on which a marriage was void, including if “the parties are not respectively male and female”.

Adding that the two pieces of legislation had to be read and understood together, Ms Dill-Francois asked: “Why would the Registrar proceed to register a marriage that is, in fact, void?”

Preserve Marriage, which has campaigned to maintain marriage as between a man and a woman, and the Human Rights Commission were allowed to join the proceedings as “interveners”.

Preserve Marriage was represented by lawyer Delroy Duncan, who argued that changing the law on same-sex marriage could open the door for “multiple-partner marriages” on the island.

“We have to ask ourselves whether this legislation is permissive of such marriages or whether or not what you are being asked to do could open the door to multiple-partner marriages,” he said.

Mr Duncan maintained that Parliament must decide on the issue of same-sex marriage “through the ballot box”.

Reacting this morning, Mr Godwin told The Royal Gazette: “I feel a huge sense of relief. It’s been a long road to get to this stage for me and Greg, and for Mark and also for Bermuda.

“It has been a long time coming. This ruling, although it was in our favour ... there is still so much more to do in Bermuda.

“This is a big step in the right direction. I cannot thank my legal team and my supporters enough.”

Lawyer Rod Attride-Stirling, who acted for the Human Rights Commission during the case, said in a prepared statement: “It is a matter of great shame that the legislature did not act in this matter to put the issue beyond doubt.

“It is also a matter of great shame that the Attorney-General fought the case in the manner in which it was fought, ignoring the Bermudian cases on the proper interpretation of the human rights act. This should not have been so.

“I am glad to see that the Bermuda court has followed the courts, first of South Africa, which decided this issue in 2005, and then the United States which followed suit in 2015.

“The message of hate and exclusion has been rejected. Human rights means human rights for all humans. Equally. No one is excluded.

“Gays who want to marry can now do so.

“Bermuda owes a huge debt of gratitude to the two brave young men who brought this action, Winston Godwin and Greg DeRoche. They will always be remembered as heroes of the human rights movement.”

meanwhile more from .....

The Rainbow Alliance has declared today’s landmark gay marriage ruling a victory for all same-gender loving people in Bermuda.

Saluting Winston Godwin and Greg DeRoche for their courage in taking on the Bermuda Government at the risk of being ostracised by the community, the Alliance issued a statement saying “love always wins”.

The organisation also released a comment from Mr Godwin, a Bermudian, and his Canadian fiancé Mr DeRoche, saying they hope the result gives more people courage to speak up or come out.

Earlier today, Puisne Judge Charles Etta-Simmons had delivered a ruling in favour of the couple, who had challenged the Registrar-General’s decision to reject their application to marry in Bermuda.

The Alliance said it was “overwhelmed with joy at the conclusion of today’s historic ruling”.

It continued: “We applaud the landmark decision by Justice Charles Etta-Simmons. Today, history has been made and love has won.

“This ruling is not only a victory for a brave young couple willing to fight for their love, Winston Godwin and his fiance Greg DeRoche, this ruling is a victory for all same-gender loving people in Bermuda.

“In this decision, the courts have affirmed that the love between two consenting adults is worth protecting with law, regardless of gender.

“This outcome ensures that same-gender couples can enjoy the same legal protections as heterosexual spouses do. This outcome preserves the notion that love is the greatest force of all.”

It quoted Mr Godwin and Mr DeRoche as saying: “We appreciate all the positive affirmations and support. This has been a long process, but well worth the fight.

“Hopefully this brings forward hope and courage for those who were/are afraid to speak up or come out. This is a moment we are proud of and will never forget.”

The Alliance release continued: “This outcome could not be possible if it were not for the courageous decision of Winston to take on the government of his home and risk being ostracised by his community for the sake of love.

“We applaud Winston and Greg, the legal team that supported this challenge, and the many campaigners that have over the years fought for increased human rights, dignity, and respect of LGBTQ people.

“There is so much more work to be done, but today, we celebrate that love always wins.”

Jamaica's buggery law not among the most severe in the Caribbean region .............

A letter appeared in the Gleaner earlier today on a study conducted by JFLAG on the Buggery Law in the Caribbean making comparisons to other states as to severity. Here is the letter firstly, meanwhile the antigay spin doctors try to twist the narrative that of Jamaica being mislabeled as the most homophobic place on earth. 

The letter:

THE EDITOR, Sir:

Research around the application of Jamaica's buggery law reveals it is not among the most severe in the Caribbean region. The findings, which are contained in a study conducted by J-FLAG titled 'Criminalizing Private Consensual Intimacy II', help to challenge the decades-old belief that Jamaica is the most homophobic place on earth.

The study found that when compared to similar laws in other Commonwealth Caribbean countries, Jamaica is neither the best nor the worst as it relates to the criminalisation of private, consensual same-sex conduct. Six Caribbean countries criminalise both male-to-male and female-to-female consensual sexual activity. They are Antigua & Barbuda, Barbados, Dominica, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, and Trinidad & Tobago. In Jamaica, only male-to-male consensual sexual activity is criminalised, in addition to the criminalisation of anal sex regardless of gender.

J-FLAG undertook the study to review statistics on the use of the buggery law in the justice system, explore the treatment of similar laws internationally, and compare the severity of the local buggery law to others in the Commonwealth Caribbean.

Sentences vary across the Caribbean. In Barbados, for example, the offence of buggery can attract a maximum sentence of life in prison, while in Trinidad and Tobago, a maximum sentence of 25 years. This is significantly more severe than the maximum 10 years in Jamaica.

NOT AS HARSH

The fact that Jamaica's punishment for buggery is not as harsh as some Caribbean neighbours does not mean the law must not be amended.

This is by no means an indication that the law does not affect LGBT people across the country. The buggery law continues to be a locally and internationally recognised symbol of state-sanctioned discrimination against LGBT Jamaicans. Reform of this unjust law remains urgent, since the provisions do not align with the fundamental rights to privacy and equality before the law as secured in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.

This is particularly true of Section 80 of the Offences Against the Person Act, which legalises wanton arrests of gay men and trans women. Fixing this and other laws, and creating a welcoming legal and policy environment for LGBT Jamaicans, are steps in the right direction.

DANE LEWIS

GLENROY MURRAY

J-FLAG

ENDS

 the article that got most persons in a bind

How the article was misrepresented is part and parcel of how the already existing homonegative feelings led to the deceptive narrative by ignorant religious fanatics (that make honest church fol look stupid) is why there is hardly any serious movement in changing hearts and minds. The social media firestorm is now sending a narrative that JFLAG et al were lying on Jamaica all along and further justification for no change to the buggery law, repeal or amendment.

JFLAG tried to clarify its agenda though somewhat late as the public and homophobic groups kept using the full repeal arguments instead of the change in position, the J took too long to adjust themselves in my view.

Also see: Is ‘The Most Homophobic Place on Earth’ Turning Around? (2015), Buggery law referendum baiting by JLP in #Javote2016 campaign and J-FLAG now advocating for decriminalisation of same-sex acts

The Star News still couldn't help themselves despite some slight forward thinking in recent years, they headlined the story, when it is the law that is being discussed and not the inherent multi-generational homophobia:

Jamaica not the most homophobic country

In the face of calls for Jamaica’s buggery laws to be repealed, one of the main organisations that supports homosexuality has discovered that Jamaica is not the most homophobic place on Earth.

Having conducted a study, titled, Criminalising Private Consensual Intimacy, J-FLAG found that in Barbados, the offence of buggery can attract a maximum sentence of life in prison. In Trinidad and Tobago, the maximum sentence for buggery is 25 years in prison, while in Jamaica the maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment.

“This is by no means an indication that the law does not affect LGBT people across the country,” Dane Lewis, J-FLAG’s executive director said.

“The buggery law continues to be a locally and internationally recognised symbol of state-sanctioned discrimination against LGBT Jamaicans. Reform of this unjust law remains urgent since the provisions do not align with the fundamental rights to privacy and equality before the law as secured in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms,” he said.

ENDS

Good to see the attempt by the goodly JFLAG to provide some figures and a more balanced comparison but the public's response despite way heightened visibility shows me we have a long road ahead.

Peace & tolerance

H 

Trans woman barred from entering Georgetown Magistrate’s Court ..............

Source

also see this previous entry: Previously denied transgender claimant in Guyanese court case allowed in court 

NICHOLAS Kissoon known as ‘Beyonce’ was slated to appear at the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court on Tuesday to answer charges of abusive language and attempted suicide, however she could not make it pass the gate.

The transgender woman was wearing a polka dot, cap-sleeved dress but was told by a police officer at the gate that she cannot enter the compound after he searched her bag. Kissoon told Guyana Chronicle that she was scheduled to appear in Court 6 and alleged that the police rank “pushed” her out.

“When I entered the court yard, the officer asked me to search my bag. I allowed him to search my bag and then he told me that I can’t come into the court and he pushed me out of the court yard,” Kissoon related.

The charges stemmed from an incident which occurred on April 27, 2017 at the Georgetown Prison, following an altercation between Kissoon and a female prison officer. On that day, Kissoon said she visited the prison to take “support” for a family member and got into an argument with the female officer at the gate.

“She cuss me first so I cuss her back and they took me to Brickdam Police Station,” Kissoon said as she noted that while at the police station, she was beaten by police ranks.

“They took me to the [Brickdam Police] station to have a seat; they beat me and start discriminating my lifestyle I live…they are finding a lot of charge because they lash me to my head and bust it,” the trans woman related.

As it relates to the issue of attempted suicide, Kissoon said that it is a “trumped-up” charge and she has no knowledge as to why the police would charge her with such an offence.

“I have no knowledge about that, that’s a false allegation made against me by the police.”

CROSS-DRESSING RULE

THE Court of Appeal in February 2017, upheld a 2013 ruling by former Chief Justice, Ian Chang that cross-dressing is not a crime, once not done for “improper purposes”.

In 2010, a group of transgender women had asked the Supreme Court to strike down laws that left them open to arrest following a police crackdown the year before on male cross-dressers. While Chang’s subsequent ruling allowed for men to dress in women’s clothing, it did not say what constituted “improper purpose”, which led to concerns about interpretation. Subsequently, an appeal was filed by members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community, seeking clarity on what constitutes “improper purpose”.

However, Chancellor of the Judiciary at the time, Carl Singh, Justice, Yvonne Cummings-Edwards, and High Court Judge, Justice Brassington Reynolds, unanimously upheld the decision made by Justice Chang in 2013. Singh reasoned that an improper purpose would be a man dressing as a woman, and using this female image to solicit services from a taxi driver, after which he robs the driver.

AMBIGUITY IN RULING

Meanwhile, when contacted by Guyana Chronicle on Tuesday for a comment on the Kissoon issue, Founder and Co-Chairperson of the Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination (SASOD) in Guyana, Joel Simpson alluded to the ambiguity in the court’s ruling on the issue of cross-dressing.

“Cross dressing is not a crime unless it’s for improper purpose. The court’s security are taking upon themselves to bar transgender persons from entering the court’s compound.

“Up to now, although a few months has passed, there has not been a written decision why the cross dressing matter was dismissed at the Appeal Court,” Simpson lamented.

With “improper purposes” not being clearly defined, the then Chancellor had explained that it is not for the court to define what improper is, since Parliament has not done so. The Summary Jurisdiction Act, which criminalised men and women presenting themselves in attire of the opposite sex, came into effect in 1893.

This means, too, that when cases related to cross-dressing arise in the court, interpretation of the word “improper” will be determined by the magistrate hearing that case.