I agree that in a court of law, persons in the dock should be able to hear the evidence against them in a language they can understand. It would be a travesty of justice for a Jamaican to be on trial in Jamaica and not be able to understand what is going on because the proceedings were conducted in Jamaican Creole, with which he was not fully familiar, or in standard English, for that matter. That is one thing.
But if two persons appeared at an interview for a teaching job, say to teach chemistry, and both were equally proficient in chemistry, but one was not very proficient in standard English, if our Constitution contained a clause preventing discrimination on the grounds of language, I would be prevented from preferring the speaker of better English for the post (for that reason), and I would be open to prosecution and a lawsuit on a charge of discrimination if I did so. What a non-discrimination clause on the grounds of language means is that all languages are put on equal par, and no language is considered better than another for any purpose. Possibly, a Creole speaker would be able to sue the manufacturers of canned mackerel or grapefruit juice if the labelling were solely in standard English; non-discrimination would mean bilingual labelling.
If the intention is to guarantee justice in the courtroom, then make it a requirement for court proceedings to take place in the language of the accused person, or for an interpreter to be provided; but it is overkill to enshrine in the Constitution a right to non-discrimination on the grounds of language to achieve judicial equity for Jamaican Creole speakers who are not proficient in standard English - a problem caused by the failure of the education system. If the intention is to have Jamaica be declared bilingual - with two official languages, and everything done bilingually - that is quite another matter; all application forms would have to be in both languages (like immigration and customs forms), and schools would have to have two classes in every subject (like chemistry), one in English and one in Jamaican Creole. Think it through.
no support for gay clause
The same goes for sexual orientation. I do not support including in the Charter of Rights a clause prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, because it would prevent anyone from refusing a job to someone because he or she is gay. The Church could be hauled before the courts if it refuses to admit gays into the clergy, and schools could be forced to hire openly homosexual men or women as guidance counsellors.
I do not believe that two consenting adults, of whatever gender, should be criminalised for having sexual intercourse with each other in the privacy of their homes. Personally, I do not think that homosexual relations are wholesome, but that does not mean that gays should be dragged out of their homes and beaten, or brought before the courts charged with inserting their body parts into inappropriate places. I believe that hate crimes against lesbians, all-sexuals and gays should be criminalised, and that persons guilty of what has come to be called 'homophobia' (that word is of doubtful etymology) should be required to undergo counselling and treatment for personality disorder.
But I do not want the impression to be given - especially to young people not yet self-actualised, who are still developing a consciousness of themselves and their sexual identity - that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equally acceptable 'alternative lifestyles'. Putting a clause into the Jamaican Constitution guaranteeing non-discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation will force the police force, the military and the correctional services to hire lesbians, all-sexuals and gays, possibly using a policy of affirmative action.
A ban on discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation will criminalise any person or organisation which chooses or hires heterosexuals in preference to persons who make out with animals (all-sexuals). We can decriminalise homosexuality and stigmatise homophobia without making the lesbian, all-sexual and gay lifestyle the norm.
Modernist, neoliberal people reject even the idea of having norms and values - and anything goes. They are amoral, rather than immoral. Let us have a robust debate about what moral principles we wish to encourage in Jamaica, but let us not abandon the concept of right and wrong altogether.
Peter Espeut is a and a Roman Catholic deacon.
ENDS
In a subsequent response from a former lgbt advocate in the Gleaner's letter to the editor section published 11.4.11 the following was said by Brian Paul Welsh:
Peter Espeut's column on Friday, April 8, titled 'The right to discriminate', was a success in so far as revealing his own latent prejudices as a clergyman, and the danger of a narrow theocratic system of governance to those most in need of state protection.
The glaring failure was his apparent inability to critically analyse the impact of the inclusion of constitutionally entrenched protection of individuals on the grounds of sexual orientation. His religious beliefs apparently preclude him from engaging with such matters lest he be smitten by a deity.
That is seemingly the only explanation for his hellish extremism in describing the twilight zone Jamaica would enter should sexual orientation be included as grounds for discrimination. Paraphrasing, he says he has no problem with those whose sexuality does not conform to the binary prescription of the majority, but that if you give them rights, they're going to continue asking for them until they are equal!
In Espeut's mind, the sodomites can remain on the periphery, do our nails and our make-up and entertain us on stage, and sometimes bless our communions, but they better not get too uppity!
Next thing, they're going to ask the police to protect them when the righteous mobs try to bless their hides with their sacred rods of correction!
Bless you, Peter Espeut. You have certainly illuminated the minds of those, like me, who were unaware of the meaning of true Christian love.
I am, etc.,
BRIAN-PAUL N. WELSH
brianpaul.welsh@gmail.com
Kingston
Also See: Stop The Hypocrisy and Trust the Clergy? Hell No!! another two responses to Mr. Espeut's article. Here is an interesting quote from the latter: "....Personally, I would much prefer to see my son under the guidance of an openly gay counsellor in a monitored and transparent environment, rather than under the 'spiritual' control of a Catholic priest hidden within what can only be termed a 'secret society'. That one is no-brainer."
.mkv_000108708.jpg){kind=spacer}
.mkv_000109059.jpg){kind=spacer}
.mkv_000113988.jpg){kind=spacer}
+(Light).jpg)
0 comments:
Post a Comment