A war of words has been happening yet again since an article by the anti gay Lawyers' Christian Fellowship President Ms Shirley Richards on December 9 entitled "Wrestling With Rights" where she spoke to rights matters then came a tersely worded response from Mr Tomlinson on December 11 called "A Tragic Case of Ignorance" where lambasted the anti buggery/abortion spokesperson.
Then in turn she responded in a published piece in the Gleaner entitled: “Jamaica's buggery law no violation of human rights, international obligations.” but disturbingly she plead ignorance on certain matters, a most unethical position it seemed to me.
Now comes this:
Dear Ms. Richards,
I write with regard to your column published in today’s edition of the Jamaica Gleaner under the caption “Jamaica's buggery law no violation of human rights, international obligations.”
It is incredibly disingenuous to cite an article written by Professor Vasicannie while he was serving as Jamaica’s Deputy Solicitor General, in support of your arguments. In his capacity as government employee he was bound to support a law which he personally may have found objectionable.
Dear Ms. Richards,
I write with regard to your column published in today’s edition of the Jamaica Gleaner under the caption “Jamaica's buggery law no violation of human rights, international obligations.”
It is incredibly disingenuous to cite an article written by Professor Vasicannie while he was serving as Jamaica’s Deputy Solicitor General, in support of your arguments. In his capacity as government employee he was bound to support a law which he personally may have found objectionable.
What is needed is an unbiased assessment of the law, as could happen say in a court. But, as will be made clear below, you and your ilk have effectively blocked this very simple and elegant solution.
Be that as it may, the arguments you posited amount to a tortured interpretation of international human rights law as it relates to Jamaica's buggery law. It doesn’t take a “massive leap” of logic to conclude that our law would be violating a binding treaty we signed when a similar law was found to violate the exact same treaty.
Be that as it may, the arguments you posited amount to a tortured interpretation of international human rights law as it relates to Jamaica's buggery law. It doesn’t take a “massive leap” of logic to conclude that our law would be violating a binding treaty we signed when a similar law was found to violate the exact same treaty.
Clearly, if the Human Rights Committee was allowed to consider Jamaica's anti-buggery law as they were able to consider Australia’s law, the result would be the same. So to argue that the Toonen decision is not "binding" is just an indulgence in legalistic sleight of hand.
And as you well know, the Jamaican government has effectively taken away the option of the HRC reviewing our law. If States are permitted willy-nilly to ignore the recommendations of international human rights bodies, what then is the point of being signatories to treaties that fall under the purview of these bodies?
And as you well know, the Jamaican government has effectively taken away the option of the HRC reviewing our law. If States are permitted willy-nilly to ignore the recommendations of international human rights bodies, what then is the point of being signatories to treaties that fall under the purview of these bodies?
Thankfully, however, the Inter-American Commission will be called upon to hear this matter as two petitions have been filed before that body seeking a determination of the law’s validity in relation to the American Convention on Human Rights. This Convention is yet another binding human rights treaty that Jamaica has signed. You also know that we could have settled this matter internally if the LCF had not convinced our Parliamentarians that the law should be saved from any review by our own local courts.
The LCF website has even gone further by encouraging the government NOT to amend the anti-buggery law in any way (even to correct the gross aberration where anal rape carries a 10 year sentence while vaginal rape carries life imprisonment) as you know that would open the law up for judicial review. This would allow any court to find that criminalizing the private sexual acts of consenting adults violates basic human rights principles found in a free and democratic society.
If you are so confident about the validity of the anti-buggery law, why have you led the charge against re-enacting it in the Sexual Offences Act as well as preserving it from constitutional challenge under the Charter of Rights?
Finally, I understand you are a parent. Kindly tell me then if you are so committed to preserving the anti-buggery law that you would wish your adult child to be sentenced to 10 years at hard labour for engaging in consensual same-gender intimacy behind closed doors, as is currently provided for in the legislation?
Ms. Richards, I challenge you to a public debate on the validity of Jamaica’s anti-buggery law, at a mutually convenient time. The matter is certainly serious enough to warrant such public ventilation of the issues.
Regards,
Maurice Tomlinson
Former Human Rights Lecturer
University of Technology, Jamaica
If you are so confident about the validity of the anti-buggery law, why have you led the charge against re-enacting it in the Sexual Offences Act as well as preserving it from constitutional challenge under the Charter of Rights?
Finally, I understand you are a parent. Kindly tell me then if you are so committed to preserving the anti-buggery law that you would wish your adult child to be sentenced to 10 years at hard labour for engaging in consensual same-gender intimacy behind closed doors, as is currently provided for in the legislation?
Ms. Richards, I challenge you to a public debate on the validity of Jamaica’s anti-buggery law, at a mutually convenient time. The matter is certainly serious enough to warrant such public ventilation of the issues.
Regards,
Maurice Tomlinson
Former Human Rights Lecturer
University of Technology, Jamaica
.mkv_000108708.jpg){kind=spacer}
.mkv_000109059.jpg){kind=spacer}
.mkv_000113988.jpg){kind=spacer}
+(Light).jpg)
0 comments:
Post a Comment