Should Jamaica repeal its buggery law to maintain British aid? .......

The Gleaner's Have Your Say Blog has posed a question (see below) on the David Cameron statement matter and the withdrawal of aid to countries who host anti gay laws. On this International Day of Tolerance this question should rest in our minds I suggest as we try to make sense of the furor after the statement by UK Prime Minister David Cameron's supposed threat to withdraw aid from commonwealth countries who have anti sodomy laws on their books. Here is the question and some answers including my response:  

Should Jamaica repeal its buggery law to maintain British aid?

Since the British prime minister, David Cameron recently stated that Britain would begin withholding aid from governments that do not reform legislation banning homosexuality; it seems that the question of whether or not Jamaica should repeal its buggery law has become an even greater source of contention.

Mr. Cameron made it clear that countries being given British aid should either “adhere to proper human rights” or face the consequences.

This has not gone down well with scores of Jamaicans who believe that this is a blatant attempt by Britain to force sovereign states to conform to a British perspective. However, others believe that it is Britain’s right to give or withhold their aid for whatever reason they deem significant.


What is your opinion? Do you think Jamaica should repeal its buggery law in order to maintain British aid? Have your say…

My answer I hope they approve and publish was:

Yes it should be repealed or at least decriminalized but with CAREFUL and INTERACTIVE unemotional discussions between all or most of the contending parties and the public, the misconceptions about male homosexual life in particular are just the tip of the iceberg that clouds the issues whilst driving homophobia that need resolving, if not the opposing sides will always be at each other without any middle ground.

Issues such as:

The CLEAR demarcation between consenting male gay/bi men versus perceived predatory behaviors towards children

The fact that most same sex pedophiles are in fact not homosexual after psychiatric evaluation but very much hetero with deep issues troubling them.

We believe homosexuality is illegal in Jamaica when it is not but in fact it is BUGGERY/ANAL sex that is which also practiced by some heterosexual couples although in the minority.

Not all same gender loving men practice anal penetration, there are some who find it unpleasureable believe it or not but these days anal sex is not as untidy as years decades gone by, some pharmacies locally have become enlightened and sell cleansing agents quite openly in some locations that assist persons who practice anal sex in cleanliness and safer sex. Please do not judge homosexuals by simply the way we have sex, there is more to us than that.

All of the above (and more but too long to list) need proper ventilating in simple language so that the ordinary man understands it then he can determine how he feels about the issues afterwards
The big stick approach however by the UK is NOT the way to go as that will only infuriate Jamaicans and we don’t like to be dictated to

Finally if we are to burrow the Irish model as is proposed by the advocacy structure then we can also include the child defilement provision so as to ease any concerns by child rights advocates and the public have have that freeing up buggery will cause increased child abuse, so as in order to protect children as well as they are of the least resistance for abusers. Homosexual acts were illegal in Ireland up until the summer of 1993 and further amendments in 2006. The Offences against the Person Act lifted the ban, and declared the age of consent to be 17, the same as that for acts between heterosexuals. I suggest we look at this example and probably tweak it to our liking.

The Irish child defilement clause is clear in the ages of consent and the punishment(s).

3.— (1) Any person who engages in a sexual act with a child who is under the age of 17 years shall be guilty of an offence and shall, subject to subsection (3), be liable on conviction on indictment—

(a) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, or

(b) if he or she is a person in authority, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.

(2) Any person who attempts to engage in a sexual act with a child who is under the age of 17 years shall be guilty of an offence and shall, subject to subsection (4) be liable on conviction on indictment—

(a) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, or

(b) if he or she is a person in authority, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 4 years.

Peace and tolerance

Mr. H

Other answers of course were as expected not in support of the issue of repealing the buggery law. For example:

Go to the site and add your voice: HAVE YOUR SAY

also hear my audio commentary concerns about how we have skewed the tolerance calls, do we really have any credibility to ask the nation for such at this time?

International Day for Tolerance 16.11.11 my concerns of our state by glbtqja3

UPDATE: November 25 I added this comment:

1. GayTimesWatcher says:

   Your comment is awaiting moderation. 
   

   November 25, 2011 at 2:25 am

   New developments, well the Brits have now said aid won’t be cut but redirected and apparently Jamaica was not included but the idea was more so for African countries seeing that they have been very active such as Uganda with the anti gay bill there and Ghana with similar actions towards LGBT people, so I guess we can stop panicking ………… Andrew Mitchell a UK Minister said the policy had been wrongly reported as a threat to cut aid.

   The government has confirmed plans to redirect aid away from overseas governments who fail to recognise human rights, but has said it will still ensure aid reaches those in need.

   Some African states reacted angrily to Secretary of State for International Development Andrew Mitchell’s comments that aid would be redirected away from governments to other bodies, believing that overall aid would be cut unless anti-gay laws were repealed.

   In October, he (Mitchell) said: “Taking money away from Governments does not mean you do not support that country. You find other mechanisms for trying to help the poorest with food, education and health care as well as building up business structures.”

   Several Commonwealth governments condemned the action as an attempt to influence domestic policy and introduce gay rights against countries’ wishes.

   Mitchell made the statement to a meeting at which Peter Tatchell, the Kaleidoscope Trust, Stonewall, Justice for Gay Africans and the International HIV/AIDS Alliance were present. Mr Mitchell also said: “We have been very clear on this – where we think Governments do not have respect for human rights, it will have a big effect on the way we carry out this funding. Taking money away from Governments does not mean you do not support that country. You find other mechanisms for trying to help the poorest with food, education and health care as well as building up business structures..

   It is not about taking money away from countries but finding other mechanisms to help them. We take a very clear line. In a number of countries in Africa that discrimination against homosexuality has concerned us. In Malawi when they kicked out the British High Commissioner we looked at the whole nature of that relationship.

   We were aware there had been some expenditure by the President. We were aware there had been some lack of human rights – the intention to criminalize lesbianism – all took a part in my decision to stop funding the government centrally.”

   Source: Pink News UK and glbtqja.wordpress.com

Peace and tolerance

H