Hillary Clinton promises to fight for gay rights abroad

US secretary of state Hillary Clinton said yesterday she will fight for gay rights abroad.
Speaking prior to this month's 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots, Clinton said: "The example set by those fighting for equal rights in the United States gives hope to men and women around the world who yearn for a better future for themselves and their loved ones.

"The persecution of gays and lesbians is a violation of human rights and an affront to human decency, and it must end.
"As secretary of state, I will advance a comprehensive human rights agenda that includes the elimination of violence and discrimination against people based on sexual orientation or gender identity."

Seven countries punish homosexuality with execution. They are Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen.

Last week, it was announced that gay partners of US diplomats stationed overseas are to receive equal benefits in plans unveiled by Clinton.

Howard Berman, head of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, had asked the State Committee to ensure benefits such as medical care, transport between postings and security training were offered to same-sex partners.

In a hearing on funding for the Foreign Service, he said: "It is my expectation, based on very recent conversations, that the secretary of state will move forward with implementing all of the benefits provided in that provision in the very near future."

kill out dem battyman (gays) page on Facebook has been removed!

Since the previous post as seen below, the page has been removed thanks to your actions and concerns expressed to Facebook.

Thanks a million everyone.


Translation:
Kill all gays, battyman = gay man
interestingly lesbians have been spared the wrath

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=202194835234

Again the site has seen been removed and thank you for your vigilance.

A similar named site/blog was taken down from google some time ago.

Luv

H

Some More Opposing views to the San Fran Boycott

"Boxturtle" April 18th, 2009

- Another Gay Jamaica denouce boycott and its because he as no choice but because he talking the truth just read what he says and understand.

As a Jamaican gay activist living in Jamaica, I find the approach of these boycott organisers offensively paternalistic. Certainly it is well known that Jamaica is a violent and hostile place for gay people. But gay people here have been resisting that violence for some time. And as difficult as it is to see or as unsatisfactory as it seems to outsiders, everyday that there is one fewer homophobic attack or that we are able to speak in a forum about our challenges is a day of progress for us; everyday a group of gay men can go to a concert or play and be safe is a day or progress for us; everyday an obviously effeminate and feminised actor can go on stage unharmed and be the lead in the most popular plays in the country is progress for us. Our aim is to expand those small spaces. Some of us here prefer to frame our struggle as being about social transformation, not particularist rights.

People need to understand that we are not starting from the same place the boycotters are. This is why their context-devoid analysis is so puzzling. In one breath they castigate Red Stripe for not being strong enough in their support yet they claim that homophobia prevents gays from speaking out in the country. If homophobia has an impact on who speaks, it is more likely to be on those entities that are not specifically into the promotion of gay rights. Gay rights advocates have been speaking out, albeit, anonymously (and increasingly confidentially) but we are the gay rights activists, not Red Stripe. Red Stripe has more reason to be fearful about the repercussions of supporting gay rights than gay activists do.

Look guys, the last time we had foreigners calling for a boycott, there was a spike in homophobic violence in the island. When that happened, there were no foreigners around to help us deal with the fallout. Will the principals involved in this call be here this time around when those of us who are activists and who are becoming increasingly visible are the targets of a backlash? Will they help the gay community here when its voices are silenced?
Let me end by stating that there is a clear difference between martyrdom and victimhood. If we become martyrs in our own cause, very well. But we do not wish to be turned into victims of the excessive goodwill of others."

"It was highly questionable from the beginning for Boycott Jamaica to take one statement from one Jamaican LGBTQ activist out of context to support their action, as a trump card to the nearly-unanimous opposition to their boycott coming from Jamaican LGBTQ people, but now we know that not even that person supports the boycott.Mr. Henry raises many of the same points I’ve lain out before on Bilerico: that any boycott or action that performed on behalf of another group of people should go through them first, that the groups’ specific action is counterproductive to the goal of reducing homophobic violence in Jamaica, and that Red Stripe is a particularly poor target for this boycott because of its history as a corporate ally to Jamaica’s LGBTQ community.

I’ve asked the organizers (to no avail) repeatedly for even an argument as to why they think this boycott would reduce violence instead of handing Jamaicans in general a scapegoat (LGBTQ people) for economic woes that are likely to come anyway as the recession continues. There is a risk with any demonstration or action, and the people who will suffer if the action fails are the ones who should be able to decide, themselves, what level of risk they’re comfortable with.Furthermore, the boycott organizers are not the experts on Jamaica here.

Jamaican LGBTQ people are far more knowledgeable about their own country than almost any American is. Boycott Jamaica has repeatedly tried to ignore JFLAG’s opinion by making the dismissive argument that Jamaican LGBTQ people can’t speak on their own behalf and need generous Americans to do it for them, generally pointing to that one statement from Gareth Henry as proof of their claim.The real question here is if there was any way at all for Jamaican LGBTQ people to express their opposition to the boycott and be taken seriously by the American boycotters. I hope that Gareth Henry’s statement causes some people to at least examine their positions more closely." - strongjamaican

Gay couples 'are better at communicating'

By V King Macdona

Recent studies indicate that same-sex couples have greater levels of satisfaction in their relationships than their heterosexual counterparts due to better communication.

Researchers from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign studied couples of the same sex and opposite sexes and discovered that, contrary to the beliefs of some, the relationships are very similar.

These findings will help bridge the gap between society's generalised views regarding the longevity and strength of gay partnerships, researchers believe.

Glenn Roisman, researcher and author of the study by the University of Illinois, told The Desert Sun: “If one is basing one's world view that same-sex couples are fundamentally different than opposite-sex pairs as being of an inferior quality, one is mistaken.”

In a three-year study of civil unions taking place in Vermont, Esther Rothblum, a professor of Women's Studies at San Diego State University, discovered that same-sex couples resolved conflict better than opposite-sex couples in committed relationships.

“Compared with heterosexual married participants, both types of same-sex couples reported greater relationship quality, compatibility and intimacy and lower levels of conflict,” the study reported. Those in same-sex relationships were found to balance out the responsibilities of both partners in their work and home life.

It was also found that conflict resolution skills are of utmost importance in a long-lasting relationship, and without the gender difference of an opposite-sex couple, a gay couple's ability to resolve their disagreements may be greater. The tendency to dismiss conflicts due to fundamental differences between the sexes is not an issue, so gay couples may be able to tackle their fallings-out in a more practical way.

Nick Warner, an experienced counsellor and clinical psychologist based in Palm Springs, said: “In a gay relationship, they tend to look at each other's differences as something interesting that they want to understand more.

"Guys tend to dismiss what they disagree with. In a same-sex relationship, there wouldn't be as much of that of course because you can't dismiss someone because of their gender difference.”

Same-sex partners could be construed as having an advantage over straight couples, in that their shared gender gives them a greater understanding of each other. But whether a relationship is same or opposite-sex, according to researchers, the idea of embracing each other's differences which is the key to success.

Rothblum summed up the findings, saying: “I think the take-home message for heterosexual couples is to try and understand the gender culture of your spouse.”

Senator Lightbourne Opens Debate on Sexual Offences Bill in Senate

Debate on the Sexual Offences Act 2009 began in the Senate Friday(May 22), with Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Senator Dorothy Lightbourne, making the opening contribution.

The Bill, passed in the House of Representatives on March 31, seeks to amalgamate the various laws relating to incest and other sexual offences, and includes provision for a Sex Offender Registry and a Sex Offenders Register to be established as a means of monitoring sex offenders.

It will also repeal the Incest (Punishment) Act and several provisions of the Offences Against the Person Act.

Minister Lightbourne noted that in 1995, the Offences Against the Person (Amendment) Bill, which sought to make amendments to the law relating to rape and other sexual offences, and the Incest (Punishment) (Amendment) Bill, seeking to make amendments to the law relating to incest, were tabled in Parliament and submitted to a Joint Select Committee for consideration and report.

She said that there were matters on which the Joint Select Committee failed to reach agreement.

"In those circumstances, the Bills fell off the Order Paper on the prorogation of Parliament and remained in abeyance until they were re-tabled in Parliament in 2006," Minister Lightbourne said.

She also explained that new Joint Select Committees were named in 2006 and 2007, to consider and report on the re-tabled Bills, with the intention of arriving at a consensus on the areas of controversy.

"In light of the various changes which the Committee was minded to recommend, it decided that, instead of the enactment into law of the amending Bills with the agreed amendments to them, a new Act, the Sexual Offences Act, should be enacted," she explained.

In explaining the changes which the Sexual Offences Act will make, in relation to the various aspects of the law relating to rape, incest and other sexual offences and related matters, Senator Lightbourne noted that the offence of marital rape, which was previously exempt, will be statutorily established.

She noted further that the Incest (Punishment) Act will be repealed and incest offences between persons closely related by blood will be established, in replacement of those under the repealed Act.

Provisions will also be included in the Bill to deal with certain acts done by an adult for a sexual purpose in relation to a child under 16 years of age.

She said that the Bill upheld the view that the term 'sexual intercourse' should maintain the traditional meaning of the penetration of the female sexual organ by the male sexual organ and that the offence of rape should continue to be a gender specific offence, that is, one which can only be committed by a male against a female person.

The Bill, however, creates a new offence, that of grievous sexual assault, involving mainly various non-consensual gender neutral sexual acts, which can be performed by persons of either sex against persons of either sex and which will carry the same maximum penalty as the offence of rape.

Additionally, the offences now known as the carnal knowledge offences will be replaced by the offence of sexual grooming of a child.

Outweekly's (Jamaica) Flag Raising Press Release

OUTWEEKLY RAISES FLAG TO MARK INTERNATIONAL DAY AGAINST HOMOPHOBIA


Kingston - MAY 17, 2009.

OUTWEEKLY joins with other groups on International Day Against Homophobia (IDAHO) to make a statement that there is much work to be done to improve the quality of life for LGBT people internationally and as well here in Jamaica. As part of its celebration of IDAHO, OUTWEEKLY raised a Rainbow Flag in the capital city of Kingston as it is the world’s most recognized symbol of LGBT diversity.

The six colures represent various facets of LGBT communities: red for life, orange for healing, yellow for sunlight, green for nature, blue for art, and violet for spirituality.

OUTWEEKLY recognises the need for an end to homophobia in Jamaica because our brothers and sisters continue to be attacked and injured, forced from their communities and even murdered for being themselves. We recognise and urge the government to take a stand to curb the drivers of Homophobia. The Church and the Dancehall, with its often violent and anti-gay lyrics, have and continue to play their part in instigating violence and creating a negative image of the gay community. We believe strongly that the church in particular should concern itself with preaching love and not hate.

Jamaican Dancehall artists continue to produce and perform music that incites violence against homosexuals and this is somehow accepted.

This type of contemporary music is very influential and has helped to shape the ignorance and callous nature in people, causing them to behave violently towards homosexuals. let us come together to end homophobia in Jamaica, together we stand divided we fall.

International Day Against Homophobia (IDAHO) is celebrated May 17.

Kenneth Davis,

Chairman


Outweekly is now defunct but it shows the resolve, this is the same group who protested at the Hilton Hotel (now Wyndham) with guess what? rainbow flags again!! after one of the guards there harassed one of their members. 

On August 7, 2009 a board member of The OUTWEEKLY group, was stopped, verbally harassed and asked to leave the Hotel because he was perceived to be a homosexual. “The Hotel don’t have enough water for u fishes” (there is no space at the hotel for homosexuals), “its time we start killing out you faggots, too much of you guys now.” Say members of the security team.

Read more on Gay Jamaica Watch 

Peace and tolerance 

H

Gay men in Jamaica must lead two separate lives

Lisa Biagiotti is reporting on HIV/AIDS, sexuality and young gay men in Jamaica. Her interest in the subject began when she met Alex Brown* 18 months ago. The story below is his — of a gay Jamaican who received asylum in the U.S. because he was persecuted on the basis of his sexuality. Though Alex is free from persecution, he still wrestles with issues of secrecy and religion, and his family in Jamaica still doesn't know he’s gay.

A gay Jamaican man shares his story, but conceals his identity for fear of attacks. Photo: Lisa Biagiotti

It’s no secret that homophobia crosses class lines in Jamaica. From the inner cities to elite high schools, homosexuality is not accepted in Jamaican society. Pastors preach against the sin of homosexuality from the pulpit and dancehall lyrics glamorize gay killings.
Mob violence and attacks against gays have earned Jamaica the mark as one of the most intolerant nations for homosexuals. And the act of sodomy is still illegal, holding a 12-year prison sentence of hard labor.

Hurling stones in Jamaica
Alex Brown knew he had to leave Jamaica after back-to-back anti-gay attacks at work and home. On a Saturday evening in August 2002, two young men knocked on Alex’s cottage door in Kingston, shouting, “We know you’re a battyman (gay man — batty means buttocks) and you better pay us.”
“I don’t know what you’re talkin’ about, I’m not a battyman. No, I’m not,” he cried. The 6-foot-3-inch Alex shut the front door, cowered beneath a window of his one-room hut and watched five men hurl stones at his home, shattering windows and alarming neighbors.
“Are you going to come pick up my dead body?” Alex pleaded to the female police dispatcher. Alex feared he would end up like his gay uncle, who was beaten to death in downtown Kingston in the late 1990s.

The police were stationed two blocks away, but it took more than an hour for them to arrive. They rounded up the men at a corner store. When the men accused Alex of making a pass at them, an officer turned to Alex and said, “If we find out you’re a battyman, we’ll come over there and lock you up.”
“The police don’t protect gay people in Jamaica,” Alex said. He feared reporting other anti-gay incidents where he was punched in the face, threatened to be run over by a car, or robbed at gunpoint at Portmore Plaza. “I could not go back to the same police station that threatened to lock me up because I’m gay.”
In 2002, Alex left his 9-year-old son, the offspring of the only opposite-sex encounter he has had, and his job of 13 years as a wharf warehouse supervisor. With a fellow gay Jamaican, he headed to London to complete his bachelor’s and earn a master’s degree in business administration.
“I had to move from one place to the next,” Alex said. “I was accused of being gay. I learned my lesson.”
When he couldn’t pay his tuition bills, he was forced to return to Jamaica in June 2006. The anti-gay sentiment seemed more hostile. Alex’s best friend Emil and ex-lover Robert had been murdered earlier that year. Six months of further harassment ensued and Alex decided to board a plane to the U.S.

In 1994, former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno expanded asylum law to include immigrants who could prove government persecution based on sexual preference. Asylum applications must be filed within one year of entry into the U.S. Immigrants must prove persecution in their home country on the basis of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group — gay asylum cases fall under this category.
While gay asylees make up a small percentage of the 12,000 total asylum cases per year, the severe situation in Jamaica against homosexuals proved grounds for asylum.
Immigration Equality, a national U.S. organization that works to end immigration discrimination, handles about 100 gay asylum cases a year. They are seeing a steady stream of applications from Jamaicans, which make up about 20 percent of their caseload. Their stories always seem similar.

Living a double life, againGay Jamaicans abroad still face challenges in reconciling two parts of themselves — being gay and being Jamaican. Despite the freedom from persecution that asylum offers, they are frequently drawn into communities of other Jamaican immigrants, including the very same people that persecuted them. They find themselves see-sawing between gay isolation and keeping up appearances for the Jamaican community at home and abroad.
“You live a double live,” Alex said. “Sometimes living two or three lives; that’s how it is.”
After spending a year on a cot in a New York homeless shelter, where he shared a room with two other men, Alex now has his own subsidized apartment in the Bronx. He received his Greencard and is working on his nursing certificate.


But even with asylum and a new start, some Jamaican roots cannot be forgotten completely. So, he hasn’t told anyone about his asylum — not his 13-year-old son, his family in Jamaica or his church communities.
“When you’re gay, you’re isolated,” Alex said. “Once you interact, it opens up a gate for your own downfall.”
- Lisa Biagiotti
*Alex Brown’s name has been changed to protect his identity.
Stay tuned for Worldfocus’ signature stories on HIV/AIDS and gay stigma in Jamaica.

International Day Against Homophobia, calls for country to embrace value of tolerance

Kingston --- May 17, 2009

The Jamaica Forum for Lesbians All-sexuals and Gays joins other human rights organisations across the world in marking the International Day Against Homophobia on May 17, 2009. The theme for the day this year is “Homosexuality knows no borders”. In Jamaica, both the day and its theme are particularly relevant, given the popular local sentiment that homosexuality is unJamaican. It is this feeling, promoted by religious leaders, justified by some in media and exploited by politicians that generally feeds antigay attacks and makes it difficult for gays and lesbians in Jamaica to lead lives where their civil and human rights are respected and protected.

J-FLAG remains constant in its view that Jamaica will not become a better society until it creates a safer and more wholesome environment in which all its citizens, including lesbians and gays, can live peaceably. As members of a socially outcast group, lesbians and gays, particularly those who reside in innercity communities, where violence and hardship are normal features of daily life, must go to extremes to survive. Many hide in unfulfilling heterosexual relationships, with partners whom they cannot love the way they should; others distance themselves from families to be spared from the judgment of those they love; still others attempt to escape the ostracism through suicide or flight to foreign lands. This state of affairs needs urgent attention as part of the greater social transformation that the country seeks and so badly deserves.

We believe that the defence of antigay discourse as an integral facet of the Jamaican national character is part of the malaise that bedevils our society. Indeed, it is our view that there can be little social progress in Jamaica if the country fails to embrace the tried and proven values of tolerance and sensitivity to difference on which other societies have advanced. For this reason, social actors and opinion leaders must become more conscious that their justification of antigay attitudes and behaviours is not the defence of Jamaican culture but the buttressing of cultural values that constrain the rights of some Jamaicans to act and to be.

J-FLAG hopes for the day that there will no longer be the need to mark an International Day Against Homophobia. For this to happen in Jamaica, the country must begin to see its gay and lesbian citizens and residents as having the same basic civil and human rights as heterosexuals. It therefore is critical that political, academic, religious and business leaders repudiate the civil framework that treats rights and freedoms in an exclusionary manner. Together, we must work for the protection of the rights and freedoms of all citizens and residents as the ultimate feature of our national identity. This protection lies not in the defence of a religious definition of the Jamaican but in the establishment of a modern and truly democratic society. We reiterate our oft-expressed view that as a secular society, Jamaica’s social and political framework remains, to the detriment of its gay and other citizens, overdetermined by religion.
~30~

Jason McFarlane
Programmes Manager
Jamaica Forum for Lesbians All-Sexuals and Gays - J-FLAG
Tel: (876)978-8988
Fax: (876) 978-7876
Website: http://www.jflag.org/
Blog: http://jflag.blogspot.com/
email: admin@jflag.org

When Arrested and taken to a Police Station you have the right to:

a. Make a phone call: to a lawyer or relative or anyone

b. Ask to see a lawyer immediately: if you don’t have the money ask for a Duty Council

c. A Duty Council is a lawyer provided by the state

d. Talk to a lawyer before you talk to the police

e. Tell your lawyer if anyone hits you and identify who did so by name and number

f. Give no explanations excuses or stories: you can make your defense later in court based on what you and your lawyer decided

g. Ask the sub officer in charge of the station to grant bail once you are charged with an offence

h. Ask to be taken before a justice of The Peace immediately if the sub officer refuses you bail

i. Demand to be brought before a Resident Magistrate and have your lawyer ask the judge for bail

j. Ask that any property taken from you be listed and sealed in your presence

Cases of Assault:
An assault is an apprehension that someone is about to hit you The following may apply:

1) Call 119 or go to the station or the police arrives depending on the severity of the injuries

2) The report must be about the incident as it happened, once the report is admitted as evidence it becomes the basis for the trial

3) Critical evidence must be gathered as to the injuries received which may include a Doctor’s report of the injuries.

4) The description must be clearly stated; describing injuries directly and identifying them clearly, show the doctor the injuries clearly upon the visit it must be able to stand up under cross examination in court.

5) Misguided evidence threatens the credibility of the witness during a trial; avoid the questioning of the witnesses credibility, the tribunal of fact must be able to rely on the witness’s word in presenting evidence

6) The court is guided by credible evidence on which it will make it’s finding of facts

7) Bolster the credibility of a case by a report from an independent disinterested party.

In Appreciation: Bea Arthur

by NM
(May 13th, 1922—April 25th, 2009)

In the final season of The Golden Girls, it is revealed that Rose’s (Betty White) husband Charlie may have slept with Blanche (Rue McClanahan). The news horrifies Rose but Blanche produces records that keep track of her ‘social’ activities to ease any fears. Rose then asks her if she didn’t sleep with all the men why is it that the books are labelled B.E.D. Blanche replies that it stands for her initials—Blanche Elizabeth Devereaux. Dorothy (Bea Arthur) who has been watching this interplay then quips a deadpan yet classic line, ‘your initials spell B.E.D?’ and gives the audience a kind of half-winking look and you can’t help but erupting with laughter.

Bea Arthur was to elicit such smart and tart-tongued dialogue over the thirty-eight years she spent doing comedy. The Golden Girls series itself was not the start of her immense relevance as a comedienne but rather a continuance. Her deep voice and imposing height had prevented her from landing the classical feminine roles on and off Broadway but were the very tools that landed her fame on television, a medium she was initially skeptical of.

In 1971, her friend and All in the Family producer Norman Lear asked her to guest-star in an episode as Maude Findlay, Edith Bunker’s (Jean Stapleton) cousin. Lear wanted the character to be the direct opposite of Archie Bunker (Carroll O’Connor), hence modern, feminist and loud in intent. Arthur, who was near fifty at the time—an age where most careers have already peaked, proved to be a smash and the following year landed her a series of her own simply called Maude.

The rest, as they say, is history but the success of the show is deserving of real analysis and not just clichés. Maude was the first real outspoken female lead character on American television. She was several-times divorced, spoke back to her husband and the intimacy of the conversations was at times shocking. Of course, Lear’s savvy as a producer was to mimic the wider popular culture and foment subtle change through the writing and his characters. Arthur fleshed out Maude as a real woman, not the stereo-types that dominated the screen in the 1950s. Maude was not the model housewife nor always had dinner waiting for Walter (Bill Macy) and would often threaten him with the catch-phrase, ‘God’ll getcha for that, Walter’. Through Maude, Arthur connected to an audience of people, mostly older women and feminists who felt due representation of their issues had finally captured real interest. It’s most definitive moment though came when Maude had television’s first abortion (November 1972), a mere two months before the landmark Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision. Arthur, in subsequent interviews, exclaimed surprise at the heated reaction of the letters she received from fans for and against the decision. It showed though that television didn’t operate in a vacuum but helped to foment a conversation among individuals. Through it all the show was a hit in the ratings and she won an Emmy for her lead performance in 1977. Watching the episodes on YouTube, one senses that Arthur was being led unwillingly into the type of celebrity that the stage hadn’t prepared her for. She hadn’t expected to have a real impact on lives but more so the reverse; drawing inspiration from the lives of others to help shape her character. Never one to overstay her welcome, Arthur left Maude in 1978 after six years, thus ending the series. She hoped to get back on stage and never expected to do another series again.

All that changed in 1985 when NBC had an idea for a series with four older women living together in Miami and the role of Dorothy Zbornak was being floated around as a ‘Bea Arthur type’. The role proved to be a pivotal one; the character being the lynchpin for everyone else. Dorothy was level-headed, harsh yet fair and good in a crisis. Her daughter-mother relationship with Sophia (the late Estelle Getty) is among the most revered in television still and her dealings with her ex-husband Stan (the late Herb Edelman) garnered many guffaws. Dorothy’s relationships with these two characters are so realistically portrayed that it allowed the series to defy the odds of success. I doubt now that the show, or Maude for that matter, could thrive in the Neilson ratings without Arthur’s presence being able to command a slight awe yet grasp on comedic timing. Her one-liners are priceless: telling Rose that her daughter moves faster than Marcus Allen after sleeping with her son (Michael) after knowing him for one day. Intimating that Blanche had landed on her back more than the American Gladiators. Telling the girls how Stan surprised her with a wedding ring in a wine glass and it turned up three days later…on the Home Shopping Network when Rose’s naiveté presses the issue. The caustic wit with which these lines are delivered and her serious expressions remain the true legacy of her work and she was honoured with another Emmy in 1988. As in the case of Maude, she left the show feeling it had explored all its avenues and couldn’t possibly top itself.

The influence of The Golden Girls is palpable enough, from the several American spin-off shows and global affiliates it spawned. It remains in syndication long after it ended and shows like Sex in the City and Desperate Housewives wouldn’t have been possible without the success of The Golden Girls and the topics discussed. The fan base of the show has expanded to more than just women over fifty but also purists of good comedic writing and gay men in particular, for whom Bea Arthur is an icon. One can see the clear correlation between Dorothy and a character such as Miranda (SITC) and Lynette (DH).

Thirty-eight years after introducing a smart, feminist type to television audiences, Bea Arthur leaves the stage knowing that her legacy has secured the continuity of such strong-willed female characters. Bea Arthur died of cancer-related illness and was eighty-six (86) years old.

Gay Killers trial continues

The two men charged with the murder of a man whose decomposing body was recently found in Havendale, St Andrew, and who are accused of killing the man because it was believed that he was gay, will have to return to court on May 8 for the case to be continued.

Dwayne Gordon, 23, and Andy Williams, are charged with murder.

Allegations are that Gordon was being interviewed by the police as a possible witness to the crime. His statement, however, turned into a confession. He reportedly told the police that on February 23, he and Williams stabbed Dane Harris several times.

It is alleged that Harris had made sexual advances towards Gordon, who told Williams about it. The two reportedly devised a plan where Gordon would agree to meet with Harris, so they both could 'beat' him.

The court was told, however, that on February 23, when all three met up, Williams reportedly began stabbing Harris. Gordon reportedly told the police that he took the knife from Williams and also inflicted injuries.

The body of the deceased was found on February 26. Gordon told the court that Williams was just a contractor he had met through a relative. When asked if the statement he gave to the police was false, he told the court that the police told him to sign a document and then he saw them writing.

When the matter was mentioned in the Corporate Area Resident Magistrate's Court on Thursday, the court was told that the post-mortem report was not yet ready and the case was put off. Gordon was remanded while Williams' bail was extended.

Plea-bargaining and the search for justice, interesting piece

Canute S. Thompson

The issue of plea-bargaining was brought into public discussion some months ago in a matter involving a local politician and a co-accused. The matter has once again been brought into the spotlight with a reported declaration by High Court Judge Martin Gayle carried in The Sunday Gleaner of April 19, to the effect that plea-bargaining would significantly reduce the backlog of cases and save judicial time. This issue is worthy of public debate.

A plea bargain is an agreement between the prosecutor and the accused in which the accused pleads guilty in exchange for a lesser sentence or a reduced charge. In practice, either side may begin negotiations over a proposed plea bargain, though obviously, both sides have to agree for it to happen.

Plea-bargaining has not yet been enacted into law here in Jamaica but was approved by the Senate and the House of Representatives in 2005 by a unanimous vote under what is called the Criminal Justice (Plea Negotiations and Agreements) Act, 2005. If enacted, the legislation would give the director of public prosecutions (DPP) legal authority to engage in discussions and make bargains with an accused. The measure was introduced here in Jamaica in order to give the State greater room to deal with organised criminal gangs.

PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The practice of plea-bargaining seems to be informed by practical considerations. I have a concern that issues of ethics seem missing from consideration. The practical considerations are:

(a) Defendants can avoid the time and cost of defending themselves at trial, the risk of harsher punishment, and the publicity a trial could involve.

(b) The prosecution saves the time and expense of a lengthy trial.

(c) Both sides are spared the uncertainty of going to trial.

(d) The court system is saved the burden of conducting a trial on every crime charged as the amount of time that would be involved in hearing all cases would be very onerous for the public.

While the practicality of these considerations cannot be overlooked, the seeming absence of a focus on the victims and the implications for the maintenance of law and order in the society as it relates to the social assessment of criminal action is unfortunate.

ISSUES OF ETHICS AND JUSTICE

The issues of ethics and justice that the practice of plea-bargaining raises includes:

(a) The charges against any accused are a matter of public information, but the bargaining is essentially a private process. Why should this be? Whose interest does a DPP serve when he/she enters the negotiations with an accused? Can a prosecutor really act in the interest of the affected party or parties when he/she is under no obligation to bargain in any one's interest or when he/she may choose to bargain in the interest of some other party, whose interest may or may not be the public's interest?

(b) Quite apart from whether there should be private bargaining is the more fundamental question of whether there should be any bargain at all. I have a deep sense that something is wrong when a person accused of a heinous crime is given the opportunity to manipulate the process by opting to offer up information on others (which is the real consideration in decision to enact the legislation) in exchange for leniency. What if an accused has layers of information needed by the State? He/she offers the first layer and lands a considerable reduction in the sentence, thereafter begins to tug at the prosecutor that he could do more for the system for an even better deal. The probable outcome is that this accused could then be out of prison sooner to enjoy the ill-gotten wealth. How does that serve the cause of justice?

(c) Plea bargains are also perceived as offering the accused a freedom of choice between a lesser and greater punishment in return for information or cooperation in further investigations against others. Does not the offering of that freedom of choice send the signal that the crime committed is not as crucial as it appeared and the capture or imprisonment of another more important than the crime committed by the one doing the bargaining?

(d) How does a prosecutor decide with whom to bargain? What are the criteria and who sets those criteria? Should there be a role for the public's input?

There is a role for leniency and mercy but the process must be transparent. Plea-bargaining is not a transparent process.

Dr Canute Thompson is assistant vice-president at the International University of the Caribbean. He may be reached at canute_thompson@hotmail.com

Sizzla show stopped in Canada

as gleamed from Norman Faria's Guyana Chronicle article 19.04.09

Last weekend, Jamaican-born reggae star Sizzla was supposed to headline a concert at the Paramount Theatre in Toronto, Canada.

He didn't even pack his bags. The Canadian Embassy in Jamaica had denied him a visa, apparently because of his songs inciting hatred and violence against homosexual people. They were quite right to do so.

Sizzla (real name Miguel Orlando Collins) was known to Canadian authorities. He and another unrepentant homophobe at the time "Elephant Man" (real name O'Neal Bryan) had another concert in another venue in the same Canadian city in October 2007 cancelled after protests from community groups. A homophobe is an irrational disliker of homosexuals.

As spokesperson for the Stop Murder Music Canada Coalition correctly noted: "This (stopping of this show) was not about censorship or artistic freedom. That stops when hate propaganda is involved." The SMMCC referred to one of the songs "Log On" which urged people to "stomp" on homosexuals (battyman/chi chi man or "gays" as they are commonly referred to).

Homosexuality (lesbianism) is a sensitive and emotional issue. The average person in liberal democratic societies like Guyana and Barbados sometimes have difficulty in understanding it. After all, being called upon to accept men and men together and women and women together, especially sexual acts, goes against the grain of all they were taught from Biblical and other holy book teachings.

It took some understanding from the average man, like myself, who felt that nothing could be more normal (and pleasurable) than man having sex with a woman. After all,it made physical sense. That was how people evolved to have children.

It took some time but the average person's essential decency and respect for other people's rights emerged.

Now, there is a growing acceptance in many countries that homosexuals have a right to live normal lives so long as their behaviour doesn't involve or encourage criminal and sexually unsafe practices. More importantly, that the behaviour of gays should be sensitive to the feelings of ordinary people about the issue. A growing understanding about gays and their place in society comes too as more scientific studies show gays to be that way because of such factors as genes rather than being a psychological disorder.

There have been deep revulsions over the violence and cruelty meted out to gays. Ten or so years ago, a 21 year old student named Mathew Shepherd was pistol-whipped by two men and tied to a wire fence in the U.S. state of Wyoming and left to die. The widespread horror shown by ordinary Americans at the hate crime against Matthew, who worshipped at the St. Mark's Episcopal Church with his parents in home-town Casper, led to moves to include crimes against gays in existing U.S. hate crime legislation. First proposed by President Clinton, it was vetoed under President Bush's watch but current President

Obama has pledged he will not veto the special amendments.

The state, whether it be in Canada or Guyana, must take some of the leadership where appropriate in properly channeling the increasing social disdain against violation of peoples' rights on the basis of sexual orientation. Aside from Canada, the European Union (EU) group of countries also has strict laws prohibiting such discrimination. Last year, Sizzla found he was denied a visa to tour Europe. In 2004 he was banned from entering the UK.

The decisions of the state in these matters are based on interpretation of laws which can deny a person entry if it is determined he/she will stir up hatred and cause disorder among peoples. Their recordings should also not be on sale.

This was the rationale last year when Guyana's Minister of Home Affairs Clement Rohee announced that the DJs Bounty Killer and Movado , whose songs have equally repugnant anti-gay and pro-violence lyrics, would not be permitted to perform in Guyana again. The Minister should be commended for this forthright action . Guyana can do without such incitement to hatred and violence and inflammatory behaviour.

The Guyanese group Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination (SASOD) had voiced their opposition to the singers' presence in Guyana as well as the recent detention in Georgetown of a group of "cross dressers" (men dressing up as women).

As I wrote to Barbadian authorities urging more control and regulation of a certain internet blog in the island which carries the most repugnant and racist postings against Guyanese nationals in Barbados , the prohibiting of airing of inflammatory and inciteful messages has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Hate mongers and racists should have no freedom of speech. We have to think of the overall good of society and its more important freedoms and rights which protect genuine freedom of speech and the well being and happiness of all, including people of sexual orientation.

Sizzla may be a creative artiste when singing about other subjects. I understand he has good social commentary in some of his songs. From working class roots, we must respect his creativity and look at his overall work.

However, when a singer gets up and publicly urges the audience to go out and kill a certain segment of the population, that is a hate crime. We have to take a stand.

In 1998, US senator Edward Kennedy told a legislative hearing . "Hate crimes are a form of terrorism. They have a psychological and emotional impact which extends far beyond the victim. They threaten the entire community and undermine the ideals on which a nation was founded."

(Norman Faria is Guyana's Honorary Consul in Barbados)

Jamaican overseas comments on the San Fran boycott

Thanks to Fiyu Pikni for this comment on our post below, thought it was important to post it as the dialogue continues on the issue.

I'm somewhat ambivalent about this renewed effort to influence change for the better, by our international allies.

I made the following comment on an article which supports the boycott: http://www.boycottjamaica.org/blog/huffington-post-time-to-boycott-jamaica/

"As a gay Jamaican, I am heartened by the efforts of our international allies, who are trying to increase general awareness of Jamaica's homophobia, and what it means for queer identified individuals there. I agree with your approach, in that we need to be more proactive in our advocacy, if the Jamaican government is ever to recognize queers as citizens with inalienable rights.

That said, I am perturbed by the actions taken by boycott groups thus far, for they are exceedingly insensitive to the socio-cultural reality in Jamaica. Do not misinterpret me- doing nothing is not an option, but I hope that those who desire to boycott Jamaican products, for example, are sufficiently aware of the real challenges faced. Jamaica's most homophobic citizens are perhaps the most likely to react with belligerence to the boycott efforts. Jamaicans do not like to be told what to do, or think. Generalization, yes, but i can promise you that this is the reaction the efforts you are supporting will yield. This will in turn make people more hostile towards queer identified individuals, and less receptive to issues affecting LGBT individuals.

The task at hand should really be to have the government decry violence against people of a queer orientation, and enact legislation to guarantee protection for them. They aren't very empathetic to our cause now, and will be even less so once these boycotting efforts are in full gear.

Unless you are working directly on the ground, and with politicians, to get support for these legislative efforts, the goal of the boycotts will not be achieved. Further, whatever lofty goals one has to change the way Jamaicans perceive queers must be reevaluated. Pushing Jamaicans further into poverty will NOT make them more sympathetic of the needs of disenfranchised queers.

So I ask. In tandem with your support for the boycotts, are you also working directly with the LGBT rights advocacy group on the island to see what else can be done on the ground, with a grassroots approach. Are you encouraging people to write letters to the various members of parliament, who will ultimately have to vote on proposed legislation?

This problem will not be solved easily, because homophobic people are not rational, and so our cries will continue to fall on deaf ears, at least for a while. Clearly then, the issue must be approached in a holistic way, lest we exacerbate the dangers faced by queers, and particularly gay men and transgender individuals, in Jamaica."

With each passing day however, I am more supportive of the boycotts. Let's face it- as good a job as J-flag is doing, the Jamaican populace as a whole, and the Jamaican government, are not softening up to the idea that gays have a fundamental right to life and liberty. For many, we don't exist as an oppressed minority. They often speak of foreigners imposing their immoral beliefs on Christian Jamaicans, completely oblivious to the reality that there is a sizable queer population in Jamaica, as in every nation. People need to learn, sooner rather than later, that this is not a matter of getting them to accept homosexuality...rather, our efforts should be geared at reinforcing the ideal that all Jamaicans, regardless of sexual orientation or gender expression, possess certain inalienable rights that the government MUST protect- after all, is that not their mandate?

If only our justice system was more efficient, I would study law just so I am able to understand better the Jamaican constitution, and consider ways I could sue the government for acting in ways towards homosexuals that are unconstitutional... anyway, I digress.

I am tired of being silenced. I am tired of being Mr. sensitive nice guy, who must always accommodate the bigotries of Jamaica's ignorant populace. Perhaps this boycott, if successful, will have innumerable adverse impacts on Jamaica, but the harm inflicted upon queer Jamaicans, whether through verbal or physical violence, should be of equal concern. There is no greater evil...

I will reiterate that I do not believe boycotts will ever twist the arm of the Jamaican government sufficiently for it to decriminalize buggery, and decry discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation/ gender. Ultimately, our members of parliament will have to vote on the matter, and I am sure that there isn't very much support for our cause. Perhaps in a generation or two, but until then, what do we really have to lose?

I believe Jamaica's unapologetic stance against homosexuals is as bad as it can ever be... Surely, the boycott efforts will serve to inflame some people's homophobia, but it is not making them any less violent or intolerant than they were already prone to be.

I am somewhat unhappy with the very firm stance J-FLAG has made on the boycotts. Yes, I agree that there are other ways to go about this, and indeed the boycotts alone wont work. And yes, targeting Red Stripe was a bad move on their part.

But seriously JFLAG, seriously, wa wi fi du now? Jamaican gays literally live in fear. I LIVE IN FEAR. Last summer I was walking through town when a man shouted out behind me, "a wan a dem dat ino." I was on my own, briskly walking to my destination- I don't even care to hang out in public anymore...And my heart skipped a beat, because I wasn't sure if his next uuterance would be, "come wi brush im."

Now I know that you are fully aware of the dangers faced, and are doing what you believe is the best approach to dealing with the situation, which happens to be a diplomatic one... It is my belief however, that your approach has some limitations. Perhaps if we had more than one Queer rights groups, which had different philosophical views about the best approach to ending active discrimination, then we could be a bit farther along in our efforts. I need not mention the influence of political and social radicalism in the queer movement which began after Stonewall, in 1969 I believe.

In the absence of another organization with a more extremist temperament, the boycott efforts in the US by the various organizations, will potentially serve us some good. I guess time will tell.

Gareth speaks.....

End the call to boycott Jamaica

I think it is disingenuous of Michael Perelis and the group in San Francisco to use my release of last year to support your boycott issues of this year. I was part of the Canada based attempts at a boycott last year. We learned numerous lessons from that attempt, not least among which is the fact that the lives of LGBT persons in Jamaica are at risk. I have therefore changed my strategy and will do nothing without the inclusion of my colleagues in Jamaica .

I implore you to do the same and do not support your present efforts. The struggle to gain rights and freedoms for the LGBT community in Jamaica will never be won by groups acting independently, but through a coordinated effort of selfless persons, groups and organizations both locally and internationally.

This call for a boycott of Jamaica is outrageous and counter productive. The attack on Red Stripe is appalling and unacceptable, of all the cooperate organizations in Jamaica ; they were the ones who were willing to stand out and denounce violence against any group of persons. This self seeking effort / campaign of the group in San Francisco need to end now. JFLAG has stated they do not support the boycott and that need to be respected. If the community that you claim that this boycott will benefit is not in support what is your purpose of continuing? It is only when we work together we will make the difference

Gareth Henry Former Co-Chair and Program Manager
Jamaica Forum for Lesbians All-Sexuals and Gays

Other Points of view on The San Fran boycott 2

by Carrie -

Gender Across Borders Blog

Gay rights activists in the United States are preparing a national boycott of Jamaica, known by some as “the most homophobic place on Earth.” The boycott will officially launch on Wednesday, at New York’s Stonewall Inn, with activists dumping Myers’ Rum and Red Stripe beer (both Jamaican products) down a sewer. In addition to liquor, the boycott will target tourism — a significant aspect of Jamaica’s economy.

At first glance, this appears to be a worthy battle for LGBT activists to take on. Instead of constantly focusing on same-sex marriage legislation, why not consider those living in parts of the world where gays and lesbians are continually beaten and murdered because of their sexual orientations?
Well, there’s one significant issue with the boycott: Jamaica’s LGBT population is opposed to it.
According to a press release from Jamaica Forum for Lesbians Allsexuals and Gays (JFLAG), the boycott would most likely hurt, rather than help, the lives of LGBT Jamaicans. From the press release:

Jamaica’s deeply ingrained antipathy towards homosexuality and homosexuals is a social phenomenon that will not be undone by boycott campaigns or government dictate. It requires the painstaking effort of confronting the society and talking to social actors who can bring change in the way society sees LGBT people….It is important that our international allies understand the nature of our struggle and engage us in a respectful way about it.

The organizers of the boycott have heard JFLAG’s perspective — and have decided to continue with the boycott anyway, arguing that LGBT Jamaicans are not in a position to support a boycott, as it would endanger their lives.

Now, personally, I’m uncomfortable with boycotts of this nature under most circumstances. While it’s certainly true that damaging a nation’s economy is a powerful way to communicate a message to a governing body, it’s also true that such significant economic interference can negatively affect the lives of innocent civilians. In this case, damaging Jamaica’s economy will affect the lives of the country’s LGBT citizens — a community already marginalized and faced with the reality of homophobic violence.

But in this case, I think the boycott is particularly inappropriate. To ignore the years of work JFLAG has tirelessly put into creating a safe environment for LGBT Jamaicans is to undermine the very people these American activists claim to support. Disrespecting a community in the name of activism is offensive and inappropriate. And given the history of queer persecution in Jamaica, there is no evidence that the boycott would diminish the homophobic violence that plagues the nation. Though the activism behind this boycott may be well-intentioned, it is certainly misguided.

Do any of you support this boycott? If not, what alternatives, if any, are there for helping the LGBT people of Jamaica in a respectful manner?

Other Points of view on The San Fran boycott

Gay Jamaicans Voice Support for BoycottsPosted April 15th, 2009 by Michael Airhart

Some Jamaicans are speaking out in favor of efforts to boycott Jamaican goods or music until leaders take serious action to reduce antigay vigilantism.
Perhaps most prominent among music-boycott supporters is Gareth Henry, who was the co-chair of Jamaica Forum for Lesbians, All-Sexuals, and Gays until he was forced to flee the country for Canada last year. J-FLAG publicly expresses disagreement with the boycott, but according Xtra.ca, Henry says that JFLAG can’t be seen to publicly support a boycott.
“They can’t be the ones to call for the boycott,” he says. “They can’t be that voice. But the gays, lesbians and queers on the ground are supportive of a boycott.”

Henry says he’s tried talking to the government.
“We have tried numerous approaches, numerous dialogues with government officials,” he says. “They have been non-responsive to the call. We have to hit people where it’s going to hurt, where they’ll feel it. In the Jamaican context talk is cheap. After 10 years of JFLAG’s existence what else can we do?”

Meanwhile, Stop Murder Music Canada (SMMC) — which advocates a boycott of Jamaican musicians whose songs contain violently homophobic lyrics — is now calling for a boycott of Jamaica if the country’s government doesn’t take action on homophobic violence by May 12.
Xtra.ca reports that Canada’s reggae community is split on the issue.
Christian Lacoste, an openly gay Montreal reggae fan who runs the website Murder Inna Dancehall, supports both the boycott and an official immigration ban on visits by homophobic dancehall artists. But Cezar Brumeanu, who runs the Montreal International Reggae Festival and that city’s House of Reggae nightclub, opposes a boycott.

Another boycott supporter: Jamaican blogger Dave, supports BoycottJamaica.org, a newer boycott of Jamaican goods and tourism. Dave — who is forced to remain anonymous to protect his safety — says:
This could potentially devastate my country during this global recession but this is basically the only thing I can do to improve my living conditions without putting myself in physical danger. Jamaica sucks when it comes to addressing LGBT issues and I am tired of living under these stupid conditions. Obviously, LGBT issues require much more attention Worldwide, even in the US, but Jamaica just refuses to even give us any basic rights. And they NEVER speak out against violence against gays. I don’t F-ing care how long it takes, just Boycott our asses and pass the word along.

The goals of BoycottJamaica.org are modest: There is no requirement that Jamaica affirm same-sex orientation or legalize same-sex intimacy. Instead, BoycottJamaica calls for Jamaican officials to publicly commit to ending antigay violence, and for the Prime Minister to clearly and unequivocally condemn antigay violence and express regret for past violence.
But they refuse. Until Jamaican leaders declare a halt to antigay vigilantism, a boycott appears to be the only way for LGBT people in the United States, and their allies, to tell Jamaica that they will no longer subsidize Jamaicans’ war against their gay neighbors and against basic human decency in exported music.

Hat tip: Box Turtle Bulletin

JFLAG Press Release - No to Boycott in San Francisco 12.04.09

Please see letter sent to our international allies from JFLAG, friends and supporters below indicating that we do not support the boycott in San Francisco.

April 12, 2009

Dear Friends and Supporters:

We thank our international allies for their continued interest in the state of LGBT affairs in Jamaica. Your support over the years has strengthened our voice and made it possible for us to make progress where we hardly thought it possible. One of the most significant ventures in which our international allies have collaborated with us was the SMM campaign that started in 2004, and which culminated in a local debate about the appropriateness of violence and hate in Jamaican music played in public places. Despite the occasionally homophobic rant by rogue deejays, we have seen a general decline in the level of homophobia coming from new Jamaican artistes and in new music from Jamaica. We have also seen corporate sponsors withdrawing their support from music that promotes violence or discrimination against any group.

It is with this in mind that we find it unfortunate that a campaign has been launched calling for the boycott of two Jamaican products, one marketed by a company that unequivocally distanced itself from the hostility and violence typical of Jamaican music towards members of the LGBT community. In April 2008, Red Stripe took the brave and principled stance to cease sponsorship of music festivals that promoted hate and intolerance, including that against members of the LGBT community. The naming of Red Stripe, therefore, as a target of this boycott is extremely damaging to the cause of LGBT activists in Jamaica.

In the global arena in which we operate today, events in one place can and do have repercussions in another. Concomitantly, information about occurrences in different places across the globe is easily accessible everywhere. We believe that any overseas entity or organisation seeking to agitate for change in a context with which it has only passing familiarity should first do its homework to ensure that it does not do harm to its credibility and ultimately to the cause of the local community whose interest it seeks to defend.

It is unfortunate that the organisers of the current campaign to boycott Jamaica have failed in the key area of fact finding. The misguided targeting of Red Stripe does tremendous damage to a process of change that we began almost 11 years ago. The boycott call has now left us not only with our persistent day to day challenges but with a need to engage Red Stripe and attempt damage control as a result of actions that we did not take. Against this background, we would like to reiterate that while we appreciate the support given by our international allies, and understand their impatience for change, we who live in Jamaica best know and understand the dynamics of our situation. We also know that change is a slow and tedious process and those who engage in it must be patient.

Jamaica’s deeply ingrained antipathy towards homosexuality and homosexuals is a social phenomenon that will not be undone by boycott campaigns or government dictate. It requires the painstaking effort of confronting the society and talking to social actors who can bring change in the way society sees LGBT people. We have been doing this through a small but growing group of increasingly aware opinion leaders who are concerned about the damage homophobia does to our society. We need those ears to continue being open to us and we need the relative safety that some of us have been given to speak to them.

It is important that our international allies understand the nature of our struggle and engage us in a respectful way about it. Unless they are willing and able to lead the struggle in the trenches as we have done, it is important that they be guided by us. To do otherwise would be to act in a manner that destroys the space for dialogue that we have managed to create over the past decade and to set back our struggle. It is for this reason that we urge those in the international arena who seek to act in our name and on our behalf to do so not only with the utmost care and responsibility but also with due consideration for our efforts and concerns as members of the local activist community.

Sincerely,

Jason McFarlane
Programmes Manager
Jamaica Forum for Lesbians All-Sexuals and Gays - J-FLAG
Tel: (876)754-8704
Website: www.jflag.org
Blog: http://jflag.blogspot.com/
email: jflagoffice@gmail.com, admin@jflag.org

Gay rights activists clash over tackling Jamaican homophobia

By Mathew Hywel of PINK NEWS

US gay rights activists have launched a campaign encouraging the boycotting of Jamaican products and services as a protest against the island's treatment of gays and lesbians.

However, a Jamaican LGB organisation has said the campaign will damage their cause as one of the products targeted, Red Stripe beer, is openly supporting the anti-hate movement.

A campaign website, http://www.boycottjamaica.org/ was set up by former Human Rights Council Spokesman Wayne Besen, along with prominent LGB rights activists Jim Burroway and Michael Petrelis, and campaigns for Jamaica to become a pariah state until social attitudes on the island towards homosexuality change.

Jamaica is considered to be one of the most homophobic countries in the world, where gay sex between two men can carry a ten-year jail sentence or hard labour. Sex between two women is currently legal.

Mr Besen told the Huffington Post: "Why boycott [Jamaica]? Because Jamaica is on a downward spiral and suffers from collective cultural dementia on this issue. There is clearly a pathological panic and homo-hysteria that has infected this nation at its core.

"Jamaica is an island of self-righteous hypocrites. The Bible is used to rationalise brutality, and vigilante violence is justified with talk of virtues and values. But, the island is quite comfortable with ganja and gratuitous sex for heterosexuals."

The website calls for boycotting of specific of Jamaican products sold in the US, including Myers Rum and Red Stripe beer.

In an open newsletter, the Jamaica Forum for Lesbians All-Sexuals and Gays (J-FLAG) responded to the website's demands:

" … we find it unfortunate that a campaign has been launched calling for the boycott of two Jamaican products, one marketed by a company that unequivocally distanced itself from the hostility and violence typical of Jamaican music towards members of the LGBT community.

"In April 2008, Red Stripe took the brave and principled stance to cease sponsorship of music festivals that promoted hate and intolerance, including that against members of the LGBT community.

"The naming of Red Stripe, therefore, as a target of this boycott is extremely damaging to the cause of LGBT activists in Jamaica.

The letter added: "Jamaica’s deeply ingrained antipathy towards homosexuality and homosexuals is a social phenomenon that will not be undone by boycott campaigns or government dictate. It requires the painstaking effort of confronting the society and talking to social actors who can bring change in the way society sees LGBT people."

Last month, it was revealed that gay men in Jamaica were at a higher risk of contracting HIV due to discrimination.

The prime minister of Jamaica, Bruce Golding, also recapitulated his government's attitude towards homosexuality:

"We are not going to yield to the pressure, whether that pressure comes from individual organisations, individuals, whether that pressure comes from foreign governments or groups of countries, to liberalise the laws as it relates to buggery," he said.