The US Supreme Court's Four Most Likely Moves On Gay/Lesbian Couples' Marriage Rights .............

Forgive me readers and listeners for this lengthy entry but it is a matter of grave concern I feel and we MUST follow this closely given the local parameters of a fear of gay marriage agitiation from LGBT groups if and when the buggery law is decriminalized or repealed. On Friday (November 30,2012) the US Supreme Court is expected to decide whether it will be hearing cases about the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8. Constitutional rights of same-sex couples hang in the balance.

As the news broke everyone worldwide are transfixed on this development and not to be outdone are the opposing sides locally although no definitive response have come from either the Lawyer's Christian Fellowship, LCF, The Jamaica Coalition for Healthy Families who just last Sunday opposed gay marriage and the idea of a gay family to be unhealthy and relegating gay men as doomed to getting HIV the long and short of the discussion on a Christian radio station. 

Chris Geidner of the Buzz Feed has provided an edited set of possibilities for the deliberations to follow.
"The Supreme Court’s decisions on which marriage cases to hear, expected as soon as Friday, likely will set the course of the national debate about gay and lesbian couples' marriage rights for the coming months and years.

The same-sex couples who filed the cases, some of which date to early 2009, are asking courts to rule that laws like the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8 are unconstitutional. The decision of which cases to hear — involving all three branches of government — will set up several months of action on the issue at the Supreme Court.

The portion of DOMA being challenged, known as Section 3, requires that the words “marriage” and “spouse” in all federal laws and regulations apply only to marriages between one man and one woman. In 2008, voters in California adopted Proposition 8 to amend the state’s constitution to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying. Because two different appeals courts have struck down DOMA, at least one of the several DOMA challenges is almost certain to be accepted by the court. It is less certain whether the court will hear the challenge to Proposition 8.

The court, after several false alarms, now appears to have settled on deciding this Friday which of the cases it will hear. Along with the DOMA and Proposition 8 cases, the court also will be considering a request brought by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who is asking the court to overturn a court order halting enforcement of a state law that ended same-sex couples’ domestic partner health insurance benefits while making no changes to opposite-sex couples’ health insurance benefits.

In Friday’s conference, four of the justices need to vote in favor of hearing a case for the court to accept it, a process called a writ of certiorari.

Although there are numerous possible outcomes of the justices’ Friday conference, four results look most likely:


• The court takes multiple DOMA cases and the Proposition 8 case. This outcome would be the “all in” option, and it would make clear that at least four justices want the court to resolve the legal questions surrounding these issues, from what level of scrutiny that laws classifying people based on sexual orientation should be given (see more about this here) to whether gay couples have a constitutional right to marry. (The DOMA cases also feature the unusual circumstances, in place since February 2011, of the Obama administration opposing the law's constitutionality and the House Republican leadership defending the law.)

• The court takes one DOMA case, while holding the other DOMA cases pending that decision, and takes the Proposition 8 case as well. This is not very different from the first possibility, although the choice of one DOMA case over another could be seen as narrowing the type of argument about the law that the court would like to hear. More likely though, it would simply be a sign of the justices having picked a case in which Justice Elena Kagan, who served as the top appellate lawyer in the Obama administration before joining the court and may choose to recuse herself from one or more of the DOMA cases because of that, can participate.

• The court takes a DOMA case (or multiple DOMA cases) and holds the rest of the cases, including Proposition 8, pending the outcome of the DOMA case. This prospect, advanced as a possibility by Georgetown law professor Nan Hunter, could be taken by a cautious court, wanting first to resolve some general questions — including the level of scrutiny to be applied to sexual orientation classifications — before acting on the other, more direct, question about whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry that is raised in the Proposition 8 challenge. This, as with taking the Proposition 8 case, would delay when same-sex couples in California might be able to marry.

• The court takes a DOMA case (or multiple DOMA cases), but denies certiorari in the Proposition 8 case. This option, once considered by advocates to be the most likely possibility, would lead to same-sex couples being able to marry in California within days. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling in the case did not broadly resolve the marriage question, instead holding that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional because it took back rights formerly held by Californians. As there are other cases in the legal pipeline about same-sex couples marriage rights that could make their way to the Supreme Court, the court could decide to let the narrow Ninth Circuit decision stand.

The court also will do something with the Arizona case, but — even though it is not a case about marriage rights — that outcome is likely to be linked, in one way or another, to the way the other cases are handled. If the court takes both DOMA and Proposition 8 challenges, they might hold the Arizona case or deny certiorari. If they deny certiorari in the Proposition 8 case, the justices would almost definitely deny certiorari in the Arizona case. If they accept certiorari in the Arizona case, that would be a surprise and could signal an ambitious agenda by the more conservative justices on the court to reverse the recent trend of court decisions favoring same-sex couples.

Following the conference, the court could announce which new cases it has taken as early as Friday afternoon. The latest an announcement would be expected is 9:30 a.m. Monday, when the court is expected to issue an order list, reporting its actions from the conference. If the justices deny certiorari in the Proposition 8 or Arizona cases, that decision most likely will not be announced until the order list is issued Monday morning — regardless of whether the accepted cases are announced Friday or not.

Once the court accepts a case, the petitioner — generally, the party seeking reversal of the lower court’s opinion — has 45 days to file its opening brief. (This could be slightly adjusted due to the unusual procedural circumstances of the parties in the DOMA cases.) The opposing party or parties have 30 days to respond, and the petitioner then has 30 days to reply to that. During that time, other groups and individuals will submit filings — called amicus curiae, or friend of the court, briefs — expressing their views on the case.

Then, the court will hold an oral argument on the case — in spring 2013 — and, in the following days, a conference to vote on the case. Although the justices can change their votes, the initial vote sets up the opinion-drafting process, in which one justice in the majority begins crafting the court’s tentative opinion and other justices begin crafting dissenting opinions or, later, opinions concurring in the court’s decision but using somewhat different reasoning. Drafts are circulated and, once the justices are done writing, the opinions are issued — likely in late June 2013."

ENDS

Meanwhile the paranoia of sorts that has set in regarding the feared gay marriage agitation locally is real as it comes, President of the LCF for example has repeatedly hinted to it linking the expected thrust as a part of the "gay agenda" below is a video clip I put together taken from a recent documentary she appeared in.

Shirley Richards' Paranoia on buggery/possible future gay marriage rights in Jamaica

see an old Feb 15th 2006 Gleaner article here:
'Unholy union' - Charter could sanction gay marriage in Jamaica - Christian lawyers check out the panic from Miss Shirley Richards a member of the LCF on the then Charter of Rights deliberations:

"Our concern," said Richards, "is that these words, as innocuously sounding as they are, can be interpreted to allow for adult consensual homosexual conduct in private," said Richards. She added that once homosexual acts are decriminalised, there would be no basis to bar to gay marriage. Mrs. Richards added that the concept of privacy also deals with abortion rights.

"If the government wants to decriminalise either homosexuality or abortion then it must do so squarely. Don't tell us that this will never happen under your watch and then allow for a few choice words in the charter which you know are capable of having this meaning," said Mrs. Richards.

also see: Shirley Richards support Uganda “Kill Gays Bill?”

Also see a recent news item as well where church leaders supposedly oppose gay marriage when in Jamaica it was never asked for when we can't even get passed just basic rights, recognition and freedoms granted. 

Jamaican Church says it won't support same sex unions (as if LGBT Jamaicans asked for that)

If we are to follow new antigay, anti-buggery and anti abortion group Jamaican Coalition for a Healthy Society, JCHS which aslo has LCF members in its midst then LGBT people under their system of rule (theocracy) would never see themselves having any marriage rights or family structure to include raising children, see: Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society, JCHS continued confusion of paedophilia & consenting homosexuality but if we can't get a sensible home and family life curriculum in schools so as to properly prepare youngsters to understand sex and sexuality then how are these anti gay groups in a position to be moralists about family life when they are afraid to talk about issues on such especially when homosexuality is involved? see: Urgent need to discuss Sex & sexuality nationally part 2
also see the following: 

MoBay Church Fraternity Says No To Buggery Review 

Vatican vows to fight gay marriage after gains made on sister blog GLBTQ Jamaica

Group braces for costly fight against gays

Gay Parenting (a view on the ground) (an oldie)

Gleaner - Prime Minister Golding: No to same-sex unions

No Same Sex Marriage says Prime Minister in Charter of rights  (Bruce Golding)

2008 - Brazil's President backs same-sex unions

Same-Sex Marriage A Misnomer, Fraud (Gleaner Letter) and my response to it.

Church angry, gays happy PNP on collision course with Christians ………………. but some of us are not impressed

Buggery law backlash – Blair: The church has been sleeping – Blair warns review could lead to same-sex marriages

Not Ready For Gays ……. Gay Marriage smoke screen reintroduced ……………. political dodging

Rev Al Miller says gay lobby is using the guise of tolerance to get the nation to accept the “gay lifestyle” on September 11, 2011

In a recent radio discussion one theologian Reverend Everett Allen said gay marriage is radically against the teachings of Christ while another used Genesis 2:24 to back his position and also said that's the biblical text for marriage on the premise of procreation. Another theologian the Reverend Earl Thames said "If same sex marriage becomes a normal institution of society it is the end of the human race ....in itself contains the seed of destruction" (May 11, 2012 on Morning Watch Love 101 FM) but I wonder who had all these gay children in the first place wasn't it heterosexuals in their versions of unions for guess what? Procreation!!!!!!!! some intellectuals do not think sometimes before they speak and just pontificate on absolutism. When it was suggested by the host that gay marriage be another form of relationship accorded the same rights and state benefits as heterosexual unions he responded that one can't say it's an additional as one does not know who will be involved in it. Rev Thames feared gay marriage may become the preferred union (he did not say by whom) and as for raising children it may become an issue. He also said that the Greek and Roman empires were brought to their end due to homosexuality. Civil unions however are being considered by the Rev Allen as an option for now but not marriage in its true form. Theological and physical dimensions of concerns raised by the men in the interview. 

Others surmise that the gay community is trying to use same sex marriage as a front to desire respectability for the "homosexual lifestyle" (some can't bring themselves to see it as sexual orientation so they continuously use that term) and to legitimise the protection of their beloved by the law. 

Gay marriage rights not just marriage in and of itself does in fact gives it social respectability but in my eyes it's about the equal footing of rights and state recognition with activates benefits for the parties involved such as pension, death and housing (NHT). Both men had predicted doom for Obama at the time in the US election as they claimed his support for gay marriage would have been his downfall. Rev Allen said "......it may be a significant nail in his presidential coffin......." but ironically the opposite occurred and it became the flower in the vase on the centre table instead.

After digging my archives I found a part of a presentation by Mrs Simpson Miller in 2009 (poor audio though) where she sided wholeheartedly with the then Prime Minster Bruce Golding (his speech linked) on the banning of gay marriage, gay marriage rights by the way was never asked for by the LGBT advocacy structure at that time but it was dishonestly pushed on the agenda during the Charter of Rights debate then as a smoke screen to deny us recognition in the Charter. The clause that had discrimination as an infraction then was also removed from the draft prior to this speech after successful lobbying by none other than the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship and Shirley Richards with support from none other than reparative therapy advocate Reverend Al Miller. Sadly we had little presence during those deliberations.
 
PM Miller said on October 20th 2009 in parliament - "Mr Speaker when we accepted the final report from the joint select committee that were looking at the bill we were completely satisfied with their recommendation of a provision to restrict marriage and like relationships to one man and one woman within Jamaica and that the provision should be specifically spelt out so that there could be no ambiguity ………. yes one man one woman (laughter in the house) and if you are Jamaican and go overseas the same applies ………."

also see: UNAIDS Director says the PNP offers hope for the repealing of the buggery law …… but some concerns exist

and Opposition sides with Govt on No to same sex marriage

Has Prime Minister Simpson Miller changed her mind or is evolving as President Obama did and is moving towards having the review done and will she get the needed support as per conscience vote to make the repeal possible or at best decriminalization from her members of parliament especially folks such as A.J. Nicholson? who when he was Justice minister and then leader of govt business (in opposition during the sexual offences bill deliberations) vehemently opposed same sex marriage here is a statement issued at the time: PNP 2006, No plans to Legalise Same Sex Union   

it read in part: “There is no intention whatsoever on the part of the Government or the Joint Select Committee of Parliament that any door should be opened by provisions in the proposed Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or otherwise, to decriminalise homosexuality or to pave the way for same-sex marriages to be accepted as lawful in Jamaica."

.........and now first time MP Lambert Brown (Dec 2011 vote) who opposed condoms in prisons saying it was homosexuality being snuck through the back door? Mr. Brown said. “Those who are promoting condoms in prison are using the back door to promote homosexuality which is illegal.” he has since been hinting his position on the issue which is definitely not in the affirmative. See: Male Rape .... nobody wants to talk about it

also see: Charter Of Rights - 'A Recipe For Discrimination'

We have to keep a close eye on this one. Here also is a very old podcast from my now defunct 2009 blogtalk radio show but I captured the clip for you:

 No to Gay Marriage in Jamaica etc .. my two cents 

Peace and tolerance

H

XXXTTRRRAA Clovis cartoon from the Observer following Obama's "evolving" position on the matter in the US, you be the judge. 



UPDATE June 26, 2013 DOMA IS DEAD:
The US Supreme Court DOMA Decision

UN makes history: First-ever condemnation of killings based on gender identity ....

NEW YORK -- An international coalition of organizations dedicated to human rights celebrated Tuesday’s historic (Nov 20) vote in the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) to pass resolutionA/C.3/67/L.36 condemning extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.

The vote reversed the events of 2010 when the same body voted to strip the resolution of reference to "sexual orientation." The UNGA also expanded upon its commitment to the universality of human rights by including "gender identity" for the first time in the resolution’s history.

The resolution, which is introduced biennially in the Third Committee, urges States to protect the right to life of all people, including by calling upon States to investigate killings based on discriminatory grounds. It was introduced by the Government of Sweden and co-sponsored by 34 states from around the world.

For the past 12 years, this resolution has urged States "to investigate promptly and thoroughly all killings, including... all killings committed for any discriminatory reason, including sexual orientation." Apart from Human Rights Council resolution 17/19, it is the only UN resolution to make specific reference to sexual orientation. This year, the term "gender identity" was added to the list of categories vulnerable to extrajudicial killings.

At last Tuesday’s session, the United Arab Emirates, speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, presented an amendment that would have stripped the resolution of reference to "sexual orientation and gender identity" and substituted "or for any other reason." The UAE proposal was rejected in a vote with 44 votes in favor, 86 against, and 31 abstentions and 32 absent. Another failed effort, led by the Holy See, would have stripped all specific references to groups at high risk for execution; however it was never formally introduced.

The Third Committee also retained language expressing "deep concern" over the continuing instances of arbitrary killing resulting from the use of capital punishment in a manner that violates international law, which some States led by Singapore attempted to have deleted. The Singapore proposal was rejected in a vote with 50 votes in favor, 78 against, and 37 abstentions and 30 absent.

The full resolution passed with 109 votes in favor, 1 against, 65 abstentions, and 18 absent. (While the voting screen showed no vote from Trinidad & Tobago, the state representative took the floor after the tally to explain their vote for the full resolution.)

Many governments, including Brazil, the United States and South Africa, among others, spoke out to condemn the proposed amendment to remove reference to sexual orientation and gender identity. The Government of Japan ended the silence that has often characterized the Asian Group’s participation on LGBT rights at the UNGA by stating, "We cannot tolerate any killings of persons because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Our delegation voted against the proposed amendment to this paragraph because we think it is meaningful to mention such killings from the perspective of protecting the rights of LGBT people."

Some governments condemned the reference to sexual orientation and gender identity, including Sudan on behalf of the Arab Group, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. Trinidad and Tobago stated that specific reference to "gender identity" presented a "particular challenge" for the country. Speaking frequently, the Government of Egypt stated that it was "gravely alarmed at the attempt to legitimate undetermined concepts like gender identity" by equating them with other forms of discrimination such as that based on race, color, sex, religion, and language. In reference to sexual orientation and gender identity, Egypt stated, "We are alarmed at the attempts to make new rights or new standards."

The vote affirms the resolution’s dramatic conclusion in 2010. At that time, the Third Committee removed the reference to "sexual orientation" by a vote of 79 in favor, 70 opposed, with 17 abstaining and 26 not voting and was silent on "gender identity." However, in a remarkable turn of events, the resolution was later introduced before the full General Assembly, which voted to reinstate the language by passing it 93 to 55, with 27 abstentions and 17 absent or not voting.

The States’ decision on Tuesday to support the inclusion of "sexual orientation" and introduce "gender identity" into the resolution is one more in a series of positive developments the UN and in regional human rights systems where there is increasingly recognition of the need for protection from discrimination regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity. The successful expansion of the resolution to include "gender identity" on Transgender Day of Remembrance, a day dedicated to those murdered as a result of their gender identity or expression, was particularly significant.

The vote


• For a full vote on the Singapore Amendment, click HERE.


• For a full vote on the United Arab Emirates Amendment to remove sexual orientation and gender identity, click HERE.


• For a full vote on the passage of the Extrajudicial, Summary and Arbitrary Executions Resolutions, click HERE.

Human rights organizations respond

Amnesty International:
"The resolution also focuses attention on another way, little explored by the UN up to now, that the death penalty as such does violence to human rights," said Amnesty International's UN representative, José Luis Díaz. "The Third Committee sent a strong message, reaffirming everyone must be protected from extrajudicial killings and keeping language Singapore and others sought to expunge, thereby upholding fundamental principles of human rights and the rule of law."

Arc International:
"More than half of the world's nations have now spoken, and we call upon the minority of countries that still oppose LGBT rights to bring their laws into conformity with international standards," said Kim Vance, co-director, of Arc International.

GATE: Global Action for Trans* Equality (GATE) :
"The inclusion of gender identity in the Resolution on Extrajudicial Executions is an historical landmark for trans* people around the world, who are commemorating today an International Day of Remembrance, honoring those killed by transphobic violence. In the context of this Resolution, language on gender identity would contribute decisively to dismantle that violence," said Mauro Cabral, co-director, GATE.

GAYa NUSANTARA, Indonesia:
"We commend the steadfastness of those governments who showed their commitment to the universality of human rights principles, and urge those who have not to do so in future resolutions," said Dédé Oetomo of GAYa NUSANTARA.

Human Rights Watch:
"The right to life, liberty and security of the person is a basic human right. It is shocking to see how often people are killed because of their sexual orientation or gender identity," said Boris Dittrich, advocacy director in the LGBT program at Human Rights Watch "With this vote the majority of states acknowledge this serious problem and seek to redress it."

International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission:
"With [Tuesday’s] UN vote, a majority of governments worldwide decisively rebutted the ideology of hate and affirmed the simple but fundamental premise that LGBT people have a right to exist," said Jessica Stern, executive director of the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC). "By some measure, this is a low bar, but progress is incremental and every step must be celebrated in advancing human rights for everyone, everywhere."

Organización de Transexuales por la Dignidad de la Diversidad (OTD), Chile:
"The passage of this resolution is the recognition that the lives and dignity of Trans people (transsexual, transgender, transvestite and intersex) and of lesbian, gay and bisexual people cannot continue to be taken with impunity. Today people are executed and/or murdered because of their sexual orientation and gender identity, which is an aberration we should be ashamed of as a society and as human beings. Today, states have spoken. They have recognized that life is a right and that they have the responsibility to protect it regardless of an individual's sexual orientation and gender identity. Today the work of civil society has paid off, and we can move forward continuing to advance rights," said Andrés Rivera Duarte, director of OTD.

RFSL: The Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights, Sweden:
"We appreciate Sweden's lead on this important resolution for the first time explicitly mentioning inclusion of those persecuted on the grounds of gender identity and are very happy with the outcome," said Ulrika Westerlund, president of RFSL, the Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights.

Sayoni, Singapore:
"As LGBT citizens of Singapore, we are applaud the government of Singapore for voting to include SOGI in the resolution to stop extra judicial killings. It sends a clear message affirming the sanctity of every human life. However, we are disappointed that the government of Singapore abstained from voting on passage of the resolution. This absence represents a missed opportunity to further protect the rights of LGBTIQ persons all over the world and shows little regard for the fate of its citizens," said Jean Chong of Sayoni.

SPECTRUM, Uganda:
"Don't legalize killings and murders based on sexual orientation and gender identity," said Moses Mulindwa, SPECTRUM.

SPoD, Social Policies, Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Studies Association, Turkey:
"SPoD welcomes UN General Assembly's decision to include both sexual orientation and gender identity within the resolution. This historic vote, including gender identity, sends a clear message to all governments that LGBT individuals should be protected from extrajudicial executions. However, we are highly disappointed to see the Turkish Government abstained from the vote on the adoption of such a crucial resolution and absent on the vote on whether or not to include protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity as within Turkey an alarming number of LGBT people are killed every year," said Onur Fidangul, International Coordinator, SPoD.

TLF Share, Philippines:
"The historic vote of the UN against extrajudicial executions sends a strong signal to the international community that collectively, we stand against the appalling execution of individuals because of their sexual orientation & gender identity. We have just shattered that wall of silence that has allowed this grave form of abuse to persist in many countries worldwide, and we hope that this would lead to an end to extrajudicial executions of LGBTs. We are disappointed, however, with the abstention of the Philippine government. It must realize that with its silence on EJE, it is condoning this reprehensible abuse against LGBTs," said Jonas Bagas, director, TLF Share.

International Day of Tolerance 2012 ............... How Can Intolerance Be Countered? & more

How Can Intolerance Be Countered?

Fighting intolerance requires law: 

Each Government is responsible for enforcing human rights laws, for banning and punishing hate crimes and discrimination against minorities, whether these are committed by State officials, private organizations or individuals. The State must also ensure equal access to courts, human rights commissioners or ombudsmen, so that people do not take justice into their own hands and resort to violence to settle their disputes.

Fighting intolerance requires education: 

Laws are necessary but not sufficient for countering intolerance in individual attitudes. Intolerance is very often rooted in ignorance and fear: fear of the unknown, of the other, other cultures, nations, religions. Intolerance is also closely linked to an exaggerated sense of self-worth and pride, whether personal, national or religious. These notions are taught and learned at an early age. Therefore, greater emphasis needs to be placed on educating more and better. Greater efforts need to be made to teach children about tolerance and human rights, about other ways of life. Children should be encouraged at home and in school to be open-minded and curious.

Education is a life-long experience and does not begin or end in school. Endeavours to build tolerance through education will not succeed unless they reach all age groups, and take place everywhere: at home, in schools, in the workplace, in law-enforcement and legal training, and not least in entertainment and on the information highways.

Fighting intolerance requires access to information: 

Intolerance is most dangerous when it is exploited to fulfil the political and territorial ambitions of an individual or groups of individuals. Hatemongers often begin by identifying the public's tolerance threshold. They then develop fallacious arguments, lie with statistics and manipulate public opinion with misinformation and prejudice. The most efficient way to limit the influence of hatemongers is to develop policies that generate and promote press freedom and press pluralism, in order to allow the public to differentiate between facts and opinions.

Fighting intolerance requires individual awareness: 

Intolerance in a society is the sum-total of the intolerance of its individual members. Bigotry, stereotyping, stigmatizing, insults and racial jokes are examples of individual expressions of intolerance to which some people are subjected daily. Intolerance breeds intolerance. It leaves its victims in pursuit of revenge. In order to fight intolerance individuals should become aware of the link between their behavior and the vicious cycle of mistrust and violence in society. Each one of us should begin by asking: am I a tolerant person? Do I stereotype people? Do I reject those who are different from me? Do I blame my problems on 'them'?

Fighting intolerance requires local solutions: 

Many people know that tomorrow's problems will be increasingly global but few realize that solutions to global problems are mainly local, even individual. When confronted with an escalation of intolerance around us, we must not wait for governments and institutions to act alone. We are all part of the solution. We should not feel powerless for we actually posses an enormous capacity to wield power. Nonviolent action is a way of using that power-the power of people. The tools of nonviolent action-putting a group together to confront a problem, to organize a grassroots network, to demonstrate solidarity with victims of intolerance, to discredit hateful propaganda-are available to all those who want to put an end to intolerance, violence and hatred.

On the day of its fiftieth anniversary, 16 November 1995, UNESCO's Member States adopted a Declaration of Principles on Tolerance. Among other things, the Declaration affirms that tolerance is neither indulgence nor indifference. It is respect and appreciation of the rich variety of our world's cultures, our forms of expression and ways of being human. Tolerance recognizes the universal human rights and fundamental freedoms of others. People are naturally diverse; only tolerance can ensure the survival of mixed communities in every region of the globe.

The Declaration qualifies tolerance not only as a moral duty, but also as a political and legal requirement for individuals, groups and States. It situates tolerance in relation to the international human rights instruments drawn up over the past fifty years and emphasizes that States should draft new legislation when necessary to ensure equality of treatment and of opportunity for all groups and individuals in society.

Along with outright injustice and violence, discrimination and marginalization are common forms of intolerance. Education for tolerance should aim at countering influences that lead to fear and exclusion of others, and should help young people develop capacities for independent judgement, critical thinking and ethical reasoning. The diversity of our world's many religions, languages, cultures and ethnicities is not a pretext for conflict, but is a treasure that enriches us all.

Recent events however have been wondering are we really seeing an increase in tolerance for LGBT people, predominantly MSMS as every time there is a major public homo-negative or homophobic incident it is as if old anti gay feelings are re-awakened and persons just return to where they were before calming down again. 

An article in the Jamaica Observer pointed to it as written by former TV presenter Janice Budd entitled 

Gay? No Way

Study shows J'cans growing more tolerant, but majority still opposed to homosexuality

It spoke to the UTECH abuse matter and the JFLAG study that supposedly suggested that Jamaicans are tolerant today towards gay persons. Also hear my take on it at that time:

However the UTECH and the HFLE matters which followed suggested we are far away from the ideal although JFLAG's strategic plan includes work to raise the tolerance levels from 17% to 50% they have not however said how exactly they intend to achieve this monumental feat. 

see also my previous post: JFLAG says new study finds LGBT persons deserve equal protection under the law

My comments may seem intolerant but some of us have grown impatient and tired of the slow pace at which the advocacy has been dragging while the frontline issues that can be spruced up to bolster our positions get ignored or are slow to be handled chief among them homelessness. However we cannot be simply making calls to the political establishment for tolerance or statements by them on tolerance when our very political climate fosters gross intolerance on views and our culture fosters impatience to difference.

Here is my two cents as a podcast:

also hear an excerpt of an interview (the only one marking the day's recognition on morning radio) with Arlene Harrison Henry of the Independent Jamaican Council for Human Rights, IJCHR who looked at the need for discrimination legislation and the charter of rights etc.

also hear my two cents on the other major public matter though seemingly distant has some connections with freedoms in a public space, that being the ban on preaching on government run buses.

Peace and tolerance

H

Here is last years commentary:

 International Day for Tolerance 16.11.11 my concerns of our state 

Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill, Clauses 1 and 2 ................

Jim Burroway from Boxturtle Butlletin provided a detailed review of the revised bill as per usual with his great analysis, here I thought I'd share it as I have been on local issues these days but it's worth watching closely. With local anti buggery/homosexual advocates seem to be in support of the bill as was hinted to by fellow blogger on Antigay Fact Check:     

SHIRLEY RICHARDS: TACITLY SUPPORTING “KILL THE GAYS BILL” IN UGANDA?

The proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2009, as published in the official Uganda Gazette on September 25, 2009. (Click to download, PDF: 847KB/16 pages.)

There is now a renewedpush by Uganda’s Parliament Speaker Rebecca Kadaga to pass the proposed Anti-Homosexuality Billbefore Parliament’s Christmas break. The bill is currently in the hands of the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee.

There has been considerable confusion over what would happen if the bill were to become law. Most of the attention has focused on the bill’s death penalty provision, but even if it were removed, the bill’s other seventeen clauses would still represent a barbaric regression for Uganda’s human rights record. In an update to a series which first appeared last February, we will examine the original text of the bill’s eighteen clauses to uncover exactly what it includes in its present form.

To get an idea of how incredibly expansive the proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill is, one need go no further than the definitions provided in Clause 1. Please review them carefully, because elsewhere in this series we will note how these definitions will greatly expand the bill’s scope:

1. Interpretation.

In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires –

“authority” means having power and control over other people because of your knowledge and official position; and shall include a person who exercises religious. political, economic or social authority;

“bisexual” means a person who is sexually attracted to both males and females;

“child” means a person below the age of 18 years:

“currency point” has the value assigned to it in the Schedule to this Act;

“disability” means a substantial limitation of daily life activities caused by physical. mental or sensory impairment and environment barriers resulting in limited participation;

“felony” means an offence which is declared by law to be a felony or if not declared to be a misdemeanor is punishable without proof of previous conviction, with death or with imprisonment for 3 years or more.;

“gay”” means a male person who engages in sexual intimacy with another person of the same sex;

“‘gender”” means male or female;

“HIV” means the Human Immunodeficiency Virus;

“homosexual”‘ means a person who engages or attempts to engage in same gender sexual activity;

“homosexuality”’ means same gender or same sex sexual acts;

“lesbian” means a female who engages in sexual intimacy with another female;

“Minister’” means the Minister responsible for ethics and integrity;

“misdemeanor” means an offence which is not a felony;

“serial offender” means a person who has previous convictions of the offence of homosexuality or related offences;

“sexual act” includes –

(a) physical sexual activity that does not necessarily culminate in intercourse and may include the touching of another’s breast, vagina, penis or anus:

(b) stimulation or penetration of a vagina or mouth or anus or any part of the body of any person, however slight by a sexual organ;

(c) the unlawful use of any object or organ by a person on another person’s sexual organ or anus or mouth;

“sexual organ” means a vagina, penis or any artificial sexual contraption;

“touching” includes touching—

(a) with any part of the body;

(b) with anything else;

(c) through anything;

and in particular includes touching amounting to penetration of any sexual organ. anus or mouth.

“victim” includes a person who is involved in homosexual activities against his or her will.

These definitions may seem innocuous as they stand alone, but as we go through the bill, I want you to keep them in mind because they have the effect of broadening the bill far beyond the scope that most people would assume. To see how this works, we only have to go into the second clause which specifies “the offence of homosexuality”:

2. The offence of homosexuality.
(1) A person commits the offence of homosexuality if-

(a) he penetrates the anus or mouth of another person of the same sex with his penis or any other sexual contraption;

(b) he or she uses any object or sexual contraption to penetrate or stimulate sexual organ of a person of the same sex;

(c) he or she touches another person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality.

(2) A person who commits an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for life.

The punishment provided by this clause is the same that is already specified under § 145 of the Uganda’s Penal Code, which reads:


Any person who— (a) has carnal knowledge of any person against the order of nature; (b) has carnal knowledge of an animal; or (c) permits a male person to have carnal knowledge of him or her against the order of nature, commits an offence and is liable to imprisonment for life.

The phrase “against the order of nature” has been interpreted throughout the English-speaking world as including homosexuality. But because the British Colonial-era law which Uganda inherited doesn’t provide precise definitions, it has been common practice to require evidence of penetration (for men) or direct genital contact in order to prove an individual’s guilt under this law.

But the new definitions provided in Clauses 1 and 2 greatly open the possibility for conviction to just about anyone who has simply bumped into or brushed up against an accuser who has an axe to grind. Look again at Clause 2, 1.c.: a person, under this clause, can be sent to a Ugandan prison for life for merely “touching” someone. And Clause 1 defines ”touching” to include “any part of the body” “with anything else” (a finger? a foot? a ten foot pole?) “through anything.” All of which means that someone can “commit homosexuality” even if they are fully clothed and there is no actual skin-to-skin contact. The sole proof required is that the “touching” took place with the perceived “intention” of committing the act of homosexuality. Sounds crazy, doesn’t it? But just to make sure we’re clear that the bill intends to cast an extraordinarily wider net, go back to the definition of ”sexual act” in Clause 1: an act that “does not necessarily culminate in intercourse.”

You can see where this is going, can’t you? With the bar for conviction thus lowered, anyone can be falsely accused of being gay — one can easily imagine rival politicians, business owners and pastors falling prey to such accusations – and it will become virtually impossible for them to prove their innocence.

L-R: Pasters Solomon Male (in the blue shirt), Michael Kyazze and Martin Ssempa in court recently. (Photo via Daily Monitor)

We already know that this will have disastrous real-world consequences. In October, anti-gay pastors Martin Ssempa, Michael Kyazze, Solomon Male and others were convicted of falsely accusing a rival pastor of homosexuality. Their accusations fell apart when they were unable to prove that Pastor Robert Kayanja of the Rubaga Miracle Center Cathedral had engaged in a same-sex sexual act. But if this law had been in place, the result could have been very different. Instead of Ssempa and others being sentenced to perform community service (and milking it for publicity), Kayanja could be rotting in a Ugandan prison for the rest of his life. Or worse.

With these two clauses alone, the Anti-Homosexuality Bill already poses grave dangers for virtually anyone in Uganda who has ever acquired an enemy. Just about anyone can be accused of committing a homosexual act without actually, you know, committing anything close to a homosexual act. And to think we still have sixteen clauses to go.

Clause By Clause With Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill (Revised):
Clauses 1 and 2: Anybody Can Be Gay Under the Law

Earlier:
Clause 3: Anyone Can Be “Liable To Suffer Death”
Clause 4: Anyone Can “Attempt to Commit Homosexuality”
Clauses 5 and 6: Anyone Can Be A Victim (And Get Out Of Jail Free If You Act Fast)
Clauses 7 and 14: Anyone Can “Aid And Abet”
Clauses 8 to 10: A Handy Menu For “Victims” To Choose From
Clauses 11, 14, 16 and 17: Nowhere To Run, Nowhere To Hide
Clause 12: Till Life Imprisonment Do You Part
Clause 13: The Silencing of the Lambs
Clause 14: The Requirement Isn’t Only To Report Gay People To Police. It’s To Report Everyone.
Clauses 15 and 19: The Establishment Clauses For The Ugandan Inquisition

Also see on my sister blog GLBTQ Jamaica on blogger on Nigeria's move as well to put pressure on gays there: Nigerian Lawmakers move ahead on anti-gay bill

US Pastor Charged With Sexually Assaulting Men During Ex-Gay therpy Sessions

(photo taken from the internet)

For the persons here in Jamaica in the anti gay lobby who I know read this blog regularly and are consistently pushing ex gay therapy line these last days and other related reparative therapy suggestions especially in light of the UTECH abuse matter, just remember you may get this happening if one attempts to enact the so called ex gay cure according to this report linked below and previous cases have shown many ex gay proponents are themselves "uncured" as it were and themselves having a whale of a time with clients and escorts secretly while publicly pretending to be "cured" of homosexual urges and tendencies.

How timely this story should come as only yesterday on Love101FM our main religious radio station was a discussion on a morning show with the hosts of the recent anti buggery, anti homosexual, sexual purity march which I covered on this blog as well. Here is the audio from that discussion, at first I thought the usual suspects would be on as in Shirley Richards and or Dr Wayne West but they seem to have been taking a back seat and allowing the younger pundits to take the lead with the paranoia and fear about homosexuality and relegating the orientation to just being a lifestyle, the UTECH abuse matter also came up for mention .




source: http://www.nbc-2.com/story/20048252/pastor-accused-of-sexual-assault

In Cambridge, Minnesota crime often is something that happens someplace else.

On Sunday night Ryan Jay Muehlhauser, the 55-year-old pastor of Lakeside Christian Church, was arrested and later charged with eight felony counts of criminal sexual conduct.

The allegations are that Pastor Muehlhauser assaulted two men at least eight times while counseling them about their sexual orientation.

"To seek comfort and advice and to help address the pain they were experiencing only to have them experience a more horrific type of pain, sadness," Isanti County Attorney Jeffrey Edblad said of the case his team will prosecute.

Investigators say Victim #1, referred to in charging documents as ABC, told police about the assaults last Friday.

The victim claimed he met Muehlhauser two years ago at an event held by Outpost Ministries.

On its website, Outpost Ministries says it works with men and women trying to break away from the gay lifestyle.

Victim #1 said in counseling sessions Muehlhauser "blessed" him by cupping his genitals outside of his clothing several times and that Muehlhauser asked the victim to arouse himself in front of him and called it, the victim said, "spiritual strength."

The victim also reported that Muehlhauser would have him strip naked for more "spiritual guidance" and have him masturbate while Muehlhauser prayed over him.

These allegations span more than two years time, a fact not lost on Edblad.

"You have a defendant who spends a significant amount of time working with and grooming victims, these are often cases that take place over a period of months and years. They don't happen in a vacuum," Edblad said.

Victim #2, referred to as XYZ in court papers, reported similar activities and said that Muehlhauser told him if people found out about any of it they would "lose everything."

Muehlhauser is not in custody and did not wish to comment on the allegations.

ENDS

Meanwhile earlier this year an undercover/hidden camera investigation by In The Life Media showed the following:

John Becker is an activist who investigates anti-gay religious extremists. IN THE LIFE follows Becker into the Bachmann clinic in Minnesota where he discovers the ongoing practice of debunked reparative therapies.

Hope we learn from all this.

Peace and tolerance

H

The UTECH Student abuse ...............

Certainly as more developments happen this post will be updated so recheck.

Physical violence is always close to verbal abuse as has been proven ever so often and here in Jamaica when the repeated messages of "bun out battyman" or remove all gays and the other nine yards have been the norm for several decades incidents like this are not surprising to me anymore hence my analysis goes further than the typical of calling for the guards to be removed and other sanctions for the students to be reached by some outreach activities all commendable. Imagine my surprise when I got a string of phone calls on the matter as it unfolded while I sat in a men's health workshop.

However the University of Technology formerly the College of Arts Science and Technology, CAST is not new to lavatory sex as is strongly alleged in this instance or wooded area shenanigans with either heterosexual or homosexual couples or persons as in groups, hookups and gay cruising for that matter is a feature on nearly every campus even the most religious of them in the world. It is definitely not the first time incidents of persons caught in a compromising position has happened at UTECH or for that matter the more elite University of the West Indies, UWI, in 2006 cops had to rescue a man just from simple profiling him as gay, then there was the student who had to leave due to a video clip that was circulated of him in a compromising position. The leadership of these institutions need to address these matters or at best some sort of psycho sexual outreach with the populations.

also see: Keeping Men Safe at UWI and Barbarous bloodlust at UWI  which read in part:

AS REPUGNANT as aggressive and unwelcomed sexual approaches might be, whether homosexual or heterosexual, the response of the students at the University of the West Indies to an alleged homosexual proposition was barbarous. We are at a loss to understand how university students, the beneficiaries of a tertiary education and the future leaders of the nation, could spontaneously partake in such an unthinking and savage response to the situation without any due process or proof of the allegations.

What happened was not a reasoned protest against what they consider deviant homosexual behaviour, but rather so violent an overreaction that the police in riot gear had difficulty controlling the mob. Shots had to be fired in the air while some students reportedly hurled missiles at the police. It seems clear that if there had not been strong and timely intervention by the police, the alleged homosexual would probably have been beaten to death.

Many in the society will no doubt see this as appropriate righteous indignation, failing to see that this is but another example of barbarous stupidity.

This brings to mind an even more ugly incident at the University of Technology a few years ago, when an alleged car thief was chased by a mob of students and forced to take refuge in a storm drain. The students lit a grass fire in a circle around the drain, and even when the man raised his hands in surrender, they continued to stone him until he drowned in the fetid water. What is common to both outbursts of violence is the total lack of awareness that vigilante killings are morally wrong and no different from the lynching of black persons in the American South during the height of segregation.

Regardless of one's personal judgement about the morality of homosexual behaviour, the principle of human rights remains a paramount consideration in any nation which calls itself civilised. That there should have been such a student outburst of bloodlust is abhorrent. The university authorities need to establish protocols on human rights and take steps to ensure that the student population knows what is and is not acceptable behaviour on campus. The frenzied mob behaviour displayed at the UWI was an appalling descent into anarchy.

Northern Caribbean University a Seventh Day Adventist institution has seen its share of attacks as well towards alleged gay students as occurred in 2001 as was carried on my sister blog on GLBTQ Jamaica on Wordpress: 

Jamaican Students Beaten at Northern Caribbean University

Also even one of the heads of the university there Dr Herbert Thompson in 2011 was himself victim of his person and reputation attacked by vicious rumours of his own sexuality or suspected homosexuality. He managed to overcome the issue in time however. Several other smaller skirmishes have occurred with students being profiled and verbally abused.

Now with this case shows up outdoor sex and the consequences that can follow, rent a room I say, yes the guards are wrong especially the one who landed the blows on camera and the students who cheered but also if one can avoid a thing then do so. We all know the consequences that can come if and when caught although there have been successful hookups in bath stalls and around wooded areas if truth be told. the guards who were implicated in this awful affair have been removed from frontline duty according to reports. 

Also what needs to be properly cleared up is whether it was an abandoned bathroom or not that the men were seen carrying on as it were and if they were engaged in oral sex and not penetrative anal sex as is alleged.

Here is the video sequence I put together for this post as gleamed from other sources.

Does anyone notice the jubilee from the commenting students? as if he is weak and cannot defend himself (given the reality of a large crowd against one) but the mob dominance rules in the given moment. While some female students commenting suggested he not be let out in fear of his life (at 2:13 onwards in the video) a male voice clearly was up in arms and throw a projectile that broke the glass window of the holding area, showing the mixed reactions to this latest episode of homo-negativity and homophobic abuse.

UTECH officials are said to be in damage control in subsequent newscasts and Jamaicans for Justice is said to be disturbed by the incident. Mrs Suzanne Goffe has said the incident is "disturbing to us at JFJ,"she continued "we see another example of how violence can solve situation, the leadership at the UTECH should deal with this that it is unacceptable."

Other such cases of persons caught in compromising positions in public go unnoticed by those calling for justice here, such as some three weeks ago two alleged handcart men were caught allegedly involved in partnered masturbation in a wooded area in Kingston the men that time around made good their escape but to the annoyance of the crowd that descended to exact their brand of justice. Other cruising community issues as well abound. 

A petition has been launched by some persons:

go HERE to sign 

Let us see how this one plays out knowing how poorly the crisis communication has been handled in previous cases such as this where what little credibility has been eroded in the struggle, the real pointers are often overlooked and just the call for justice is stressed while important as they are.

The Star News also carried the story:

UTECH STUDENT BEATEN - Angry mob accuses him of being gay

Yvonne McCalla Sobers of Families Against State Terrorism issued this on November 2, 2012:

"I had a quick response from UTECH about what the video showed of the beating of the young man by security guards in the presence of a mob. Here is my understanding of what I was told:

1. UTECH authorities will issue a statement on the matter today.

2. The security guards involved were removed from duty immediately and the company is instigating disciplinary action against them.

3. Other security guards had put their lives on the line to protect the young man from a mob of 300 students.

4. The security guards beat the young man because they believed him to be a car thief (no attempt it made to justify this) but not because of his sexual orientation. The removal from duty would have taken place no matter the nature of the unprofessional behaviour.

5. The UTECH security services are committed to not presiding "over any environment where the laws of the land and common decency are ignored . The job and mandate here is to provide protection for ALL regardless of colour creed or orientation and we will continue to do it to the best of our ability."

UTECH has the chance to set an example of tolerance with no room for those who breach the rights of anyone, and with fairness to all concerned. We need to keep a close watch on this."

UPDATES

The guards have since been arrested and to face an ID parade with followup action, also other students maybe arrested, listen here:

Here is another clip I pulled on the loaded discourse nationally on talkshows, I recorded this from NewstalkFM's Jerry Small show who has been surprisingly very balanced with his show on the issue as he engaged callers


Earl Moxam of RJR also discussed the issue recently:

Reactions to the beating continued ........

In a previous audio post/podcast I had done I had hinted that the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship did not respond to the UTECH abuse matter I checked their website and found a short press release they placed there but one wonders if it is genuine given their recent posturings on homosexuality and maintaining the buggery law and if this so called concern and condemnation is just to appease the irritated gay lobby/community?

DOWNLOAD IT HERE

also more anti gay responses on radio in recent times as the matter is still alive in the public domain

More related readings

Freedom And Restraint

Sex In A Bathroom

UTech: Let's Pray?

UTech to punish students involved in chase of 'gay' colleagues

The case came for mention on November 22 2012 at the Half Way Tree RM court but the complainant was absent so it has been put off until Feb 13th 2013 while a subpoena has been issued for the complainant to appear on the next mention date, I can appreciate his unwillingness to come forward given the very public nature of this case and the fact that an "in camera" session seems not on the cards as would happen in a rape case or where an under-aged person was the victim.

also
The following statement on the incident came from a network of business organizations representing more than 300,000 Micro, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises of which the university's vice president is president, and lists her university affiliation

PRESS RELEASE
TIMELINE: November 5, 2012

The MSME Alliance Condemns Mob Violence Against UTech Student

The MSME Alliance is deeply disturbed about the growing trend of mob violence in Jamaica as an acceptable response to behaviours and events that meet the disapproval individuals and groups. The most recent incident on the Papine Campus of the University of Technology, Jamaica (UTech) is particularly disturbing as it involves hundreds of young Jamaicans pursuing tertiary education who are likely to be future leaders of our country.

We strongly condemn all acts of mob violence against individuals, including individuals who are members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. We also strongly denounce the violent actions of the security guards employed to protect UTech students.

We urge all Jamaicans, especially those in business community, to loudly condemn these acts of violence and hatred in an effort to curtail this very disturbing trend. According to Prof. Rosalea Hamilton, President, The MSME Alliance, and Vice President, University of Technology, Jamaica (UTech) “These acts of violence, bigotry and hate are unacceptable and should be rooted out of our society as a matter of urgency.”

also

November 5, 2012, STATEMENT FROM UTASU
The University of Technology Academic Staff Union (UTASU) is appalled by the violent behaviour exhibited by security guards and some students on the Papine campus on November 1, 2012, when individuals alleged to be homosexuals were caught in a purported compromising situation.

The incident which occurred on November 1, 2012 where a student was assaulted by a member of a University service provider, is unacceptable and inexcusable. UTASU supports the University's move to immediately investigate the matter. We also urge the University to put in place measures to mitigate against these kinds of violent acts.

We are deeply saddened as this recent incident, as it represents a retrograde step in our journey towards working and operating in a diverse society, for which we are preparing our students. Such acts of violence are not in keeping with the standards or expected disposition of our past or current students.

Whilst we will not condone public displays of sexual conducts amongst
homosexuals, heterosexuals or even bisexuals, we will not accept any form of violent behaviour on our campuses. We expect and demand respect for all.

Olubusola Akinladejo
President
University of Technology, Jamaica Academic Staff Union
237 Old Hope Road
Kingston 6
Tel: 977-3819
Email : utasu02@yahoo.com

a recent questionable protest in NY some 20 days after the fact even though the case is in court and the complainant is reportedly getting counselling ......

What was the purpose of this protest if not to get in some other points? ........ aaahhhh yes the buggery review 

Peace and tolerance

H