Parliamentary Committee struggles to define sexual intercourse

MEMBERS of a Parliamentary Committee considering the proposed guidelines for a National Workplace Policy on HIV/AIDS are struggling to identify a definition for sexual intercourse in relation to the draft legislation and the potential for discrimination on HIV-positive employees.

At Wednesday's Joint Select Committee meeting, the members expressed reservations over a definition submitted by the Attorney General's Department.

Marlene Aldred, who represented the Attorney General's Department, told committee chairman Pearnel Charles that the term sexual intercourse, although defined in the discussion paper's glossary, was not used within the body of the discussion paper. 

She said given the context outlined in the glossary, there was a clear distinction between sexual activity - which involves vaginal, anal or oral penetration - and sexual intercourse, which was recognised by the (Jamaican) courts as vaginal intercourse between a man and a woman.

She said her department, while mindful of the country's buggery law that criminalises acts committed under the Offences of Persons Act, recommended the green paper's glossary be amended to read as sexual activity instead of the latter.

However, committee members Senator Norman Grant and Rudyard Spencer, who were clearly uncomfortable with the definition outlined by the AG's department, noted that the committee could not include an illegal act within the proposed legislation.

Both men, however, agreed that the proposed definition suggested by the AG's department be given further consideration with a view to revising it.

Following further revisions, a new meeting date was scheduled for Thursday, October 15 when committee members will review and sign off on the proposed guidelines before submission to Parliament.